AMENDMENT OF HEALTH VISITING AND SOCIAL WORK (TRAINING) ACT 1962

HC Deb 11 May 1970 vol 801 cc972-7

Mrs. Shirley Williams

I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 8, line 30, leave out subsection (1) and insert: (1) The two Councils constituted under the Health Visiting and Social Work (Training) Act 1962 shall be re-named respectively the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and, accordingly, for the words Council for the Training of Health Visitors ' and 'Council for Training in Social Work ', wherever they occur in that Act, there shall be substituted respectively the words ' Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors' and ' Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work '. The effect of this Amendment is to add the words " Education and " to the titles of the respective councils for training, namely the Council for the Training of Health Visitors and the Council for Training in Social Work. Originally, the Bill referred specifically to training. We would like to recommend that the House might agree with this Amendment. The reason for it is simply because we would not wish to limit the powers and functions of the training councils in any specified way. It might be assumed that they were limited to powers under the Industrial Training Acts.

Secondly, it has been represented to us by university and college reports that the words " Education and " would more appropriately describe some of the courses they intend to mount. Since I am sure that the House will agree that it would want the understanding of the social services to be as deep as possible and to encompass all ancillary subjects, I suggest that this is acceptable. It might also ease the situation in which, as I told the Committee, it is intended that these councils should deal with the training of voluntary workers as well as statutory workers, so that this would give us still greater flexibility in encompassing all possible groups.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan

I do not think that anyone on this side of the House would wish to quarrel with the intentions of the Clause or the advantages of the word " Education ", especially in the light of what the hon. Lady has said. What consultations, if any, were made with the reports of the social workers and health visitors? As she knows, we raised this in Committee and expressed some of the slight misgivings that had been put to us by various members of the professions concerned as to the degree of consultation, particularly over the constitution of the training councils.

We pointed out, and this is relevant to the Amendment, that under the new Local Authority Social Services Bill generally, and changes proposed in health care, community care, as opposed to institutional care, demanded a great deal more from domicilary care, from nursing and other forms of welfare in the home. This required a considerable recasting of the training and education ideas in this area.

When we reached this point in the argument the hon. Lady referred to the difficulties of defining constitutions of any central council, saying that the discussions were continuing with those concerned. I noted that one of the arguments she put forward was that the scope of this provision went beyond the scope of the rest of the Bill—an argument used against a new Clause earlier. She said that this was wider than the normal scope of the Bill and she was having consultations and would therefore find it difficult to be precise about the constitution of a central council. Could the hon. Lady say what is happening to these consultations and why they did not include the professions concerned with this change?

10.45 p.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams

I assure the hon. Member that they did and that one or two of the professional groups concerned themselves suggested that we should include these words after reference was made by me in Committee. There has, therefore, been consultation. Indeed, this has been directly suggested subsequent to that reference in Committee by several of the groups of social workers concerned. This is, of course, a change in the title. I do not think that anybody believed that it would be limited under the previous arrangements, but this simply clears up the possibility of any misunderstanding about the breadth of the training council's functions.

The hon. Member asked how the consultations about the training council were going. I understand that they are still continuing. As the hon. Member will realise from the Bill, a good deal was left to the professions in respect of the membership and arrangement of the ways in which the powers would be carried out. I cannot, therefore, yet report to the House the outcome of those negotiations.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Worsley

I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 8, line 45, at end insert— (3) For the purposes of the said Act of 1962 the term health visitor " shall include any person concerned in nursing in the community. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the training council for health visitors—now the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors—to be expanded to include district nurses. I do not intend an obligation to be laid instantly on that training council to start courses for district nurses. I am advised that the wording, which might be thought to have that effect, would not do so and that it would be possible for the council to include district nurses as and when it wanted to do so.

I am not trying to anticipate a decision in this respect. I am rather trying to write into the Bill the possibility, at a future date, for district nurses to be included, as health visitors are, under the training council. It may ease the Minister of State's mind to know that my Amendment No. 37 makes my intentions much clearer. That Amendment, however, has not been selected. Because of the difficulty about the wording, of which the hon. Lady is obviously aware, I do not intend to press the Amendment. I ask the Government to consider it, however, with a view to themselves putting down an Amendment in another place to meet this important point.

It is worth having on the Statute Book machinery which could be used to make a change which people involved in this work in general terms want. As the hon. Lady will know, the Royal College of Nursing has come out quite firmly in favour of the change which I am suggesting, and I understand that the district nurses want to make this change. It is, therefore, a great pity, when legislating in this subject, not to enable the change to be made after the consultations which the Government are having have been completed.

It may be necessary, although I hope not, to wait until the conclusion of the Briggs Report. Even if that is so, surely it is only sensible, when we are discussing these matters and making change on the social workers' side of this legislation, to provide for a change on the health visitors' side in case we want to make it. My case is as narrow as that; but because it is narrow, it is not unimportant.

In all our discussions on the Bill, we have been talking about more treatment in the community. This is just as important on the health side as on the social service side, which we have specifically discussed. So that it is critically important to see that the health visitor and the district nurse are encouraged and well trained.

With all this work going on to consolidate the social work side, there is a real danger that we may leave out the community nurse, and there is without doubt a feeling among the dedicated people in this sphere that they are not at present receiving the attention they feel they need. I suggest that this relatively modest change would enable the 1962 Act, which we are to amend subsequently, to do what it cannot do now, which is to train all the nurses in the community whether they be health visitors or district nurses. We are likely to want to have this power in due course, so why not take this present opportunity to enable that change to be made when we want to make it?

Mrs. Shirley Williams

The hon. Gentleman has, as he often does, mobilised the arguments I had intended to use, and has carefully knocked them down one by one, which puts me in a slightly weak position. But he has had the fairness to recognise that there are some difficulties in doing what he proposes, and I can tell him now that we propose to meet him halfway. We cannot meet him the whole way because of the very recent establishment of a committee under the chairmanship of Professor Asa Briggs specifically to look into the question of nurses.

The terms of reference specifically include nurses in the community, and it would be most improper to prejudge the conclusions of a report which cannot be expected forthwith as the committee has only been set up in the last few months. The committee will consider education as well as training.

At the moment, as the House knows, the training of district nurses is under a panel of assessors, which reports to my right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Social Services and which, I think, laid down new training examination requirements only as recently as 1967. But we fully recognise that there is a great deal of sense in what the hon. Gentleman says. It would be our intention during the next few years to bring the panel of assessors and the training coming under it as closely as possible in touch with the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work with a view to seeing what steps should be taken in the light of the Report of the Briggs Committee.

I therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that while we feel that this Amendment would be inappropriate before the Briggs Committee has had a chance of considering what is in its terms of reference, we also feel that it is essential for the two bodies to be brought as closely together as they can in the intervening period, and for us then to consider what steps should be taken. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will not feel obliged to press his Amendment, which with the greatest regret, I do not think I could accept without disrespect to a committee which has been so recently set up by one of my colleagues.

Mr. Worsley

With respect, the hon. Lady has not met me halfway but rather a quarter of the way. As I have said, I do not wish to press the Amendment, but I believe that to take this power now would not be to prejudge the recommendations of the Briggs Committee in any way. It would merely enable us to act as necessary if fusion is recommended, which is generally expected. Rather similar provisions were written into the 1962 legislation with regard to social workers, and we now find that the broadening of the work that was there provided for can take place.

Would it not be sense, and I leave this thought with the Government, now that we are passing this legislation, just to take the precaution so that if, as many of us expect, the Briggs Committee so reports we can, without new legislation, which in this work is often extremely difficult to get without long delay, bring the recommendations into effect? Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.