AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES (Hansard, 11 May 1970)

§ Mr. Marcus Worsley (Chelsea)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is an attempt to write into the Bill a little more of the new approach which the Seebohm Committee recommended and which we endorse. The Bill is still as dry as dust and very much a machinery Measure. We feel that it would be better if it contained more of the new spirit which we are seeking to infuse into local authorities.
For the citizen, it is not the machinery that we set up which counts. It is a building and a person in it whom that citizen sees. Paragraph 83 of the Seebohm Report draws attention to the fact that the social work facilities of local authorities very often are inaccessible. People are confused and do not know where to find the services that they want. The Report also points out that this ignorance of what is available and where to find it is not limited to the ordinary citizen, who is the potential client. It extends to the professionals for instance, to some doctors.
The purpose of this Clause is not to encourage everyone to run to a social services department whenever he gets into difficulty. We feel that such a department should be as accessible as a doctor's surgery. It should be known to everyone where he can get help. The parallel with disease is an exact one because, if this is done, many troubles can be dealt with early, and they can be put 943 right with less expense of time and money. The purpose of pressing an Amendment about accessibility is to make sure that, where trouble arises, it can be dealt with quickly and everyone knows where to go.
In paragraphs 583 to 594, the Seebohm Committee discussed in great detail how this should be done. If the Bill is to be implemented successfully, it cannot be simply a putting together under an administrative umbrella of the existing services. It must also be a true fusion of the services into a new department, under a new chief officer, and that fusion is little reflected in the provisions of the Bill.
In the arrangements to which we seek to refer by the Clause, the first characteristic should be flexibility. The pattern in different local authorities and sometimes even in the same local authority should vary. There is nothing in the Clause which seeks in any way to establish a regular pattern. I hope that that is clear.
Secondly, the committee suggested that there was a great need for experimentation, especially in the arrangements whereby, for example, health services might be contained in an adjacent or the same building. The committee might have added that we should also look at the cash services of the other departments in this category. So, first, flexibility and, second, experimentation.
The third characteristic, to which we have referred in the second subsection, is likely very often to be a division of local authority areas into smaller areas for the purpose of exercising their functions under the Act, as it will be. We have been careful not to place an obligation on local authorities to do this unless they think it right to do so. Equally, we thought it worth putting into the new Clause because, in the majority of cases, some form of subdivision into areas will be necessary. We, therefore, believe that the Bill should put this clearly before local authorities in its actual wording.
This is the purpose of the Clause. I put it forward as a genuine attempt to improve the Bill and to bring into it something more of the recommendations of the Seebohm Report in reference to organisation on the local level.

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Shirley Williams)
The substance of what the new Clause is trying to do is something with which the Government have every sympathy, but the way that the Opposition are trying to do it they regard as very much beside the point.
The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) suggested that it was his intention—I fully sympathise with that intention—to make the Bill more than a machinery Bill and to reflect in it some of the spirit of Seebohm.
The Bill, is, and we have always presented it as being, fundamentally a machinery Bill. Just as a marriage certificate does not fully reflect the romance which went into the making of the marriage, so the hon. Gentleman must not expect the Bill to reflect the full spirit and intention of those responsible for the Seebohm Report and those who will be responsible for carrying it out.
I should like to respond to what the hon. Gentleman said, but the Government must advise the House not to accept the Clause. The proposal is, first, that social service departments should locate the offices from which they undertake their functions in accessible places. The Government have full sympathy with this proposal. The second suggestion is that there should be a division into districts. I take it that I should be right in assuming that this is partly with a view to creating teams working in those districts so that there can be the greatest possible integration of the social services.
Both these proposals have the backing of the Government. They will be supported in the advice that we offer to local authorities. We fully share the Opposition's feeling that much of the spirit of the Seebohm Report will depend upon these two proposals being carried out. However, we must object that in the end it would make bad law to put them into the Bill.
I have two reasons for saying that. First, that, as the Opposition recognise and as the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say, the Clause would not impose a mandatory duty on local authorities. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman recognises that it could not do so because these 945 functions are very much matters for local authority judgment.
Secondly, in so far as they give powers to local authorities to do so, these powers already exist. So the Opposition are attempting to give local authorities an intention to use the powers that they have when the opinion of the Government is that the great bulk of local authorities have that intention.
I repeat, it is very much in the Government's mind to advise and guide local authorities in this direction. In view of that, and as we fully accept that the functions will be crucially determined by the access of the public to them and that the area groups will determine the extent to which these services will be integrated, as the Seebohm Report suggests in paragraphs 586 to 594, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the Clause, because its spirit will be carried out in the advice and guidance offered by the Government.
As an earnest of this, the White Paper on the Reform of Local Government in England indicates that the Government would support the establishing of district committees, which would be in line with what is proposed in the new Clause, under unitary authorities.
In view of that and on the assurance that it is our intention to guide and to suggest to local authorities along those lines, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel obliged to press the Clause.

§ Mr. Martin Maddan (Hove)
Before we leave the Clause I think that we should compliment my hon. Friend on bringing it forward. It has elicited from the Minister a clear statement which is extremely important and welcome. As the hon. Lady hinted in her closing remarks, her guidance, or that of her successors, will have to be well thought out and clear to bridge this difficult stage before local government reform comes in, whatever form it takes. A great deal of the implementation of Seebohm will be frustrated unless somebody in need of social help can get it effectively wherever he goes. That is the importance of this proposal, and the justification for my hon. Friend raising the matter.

§ Mr. Worsley
When the hon. Lady argues she is always a formidable opponent, and when she produces charming arguments about matrimony she is 946 even more difficult as an opponent. I am willing to respond to what the hon. Lady said, particularly because she has fully met the spirit of what I was trying to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.