HL Deb 23 April 1968 vol 291 cc471-90

2.48 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 [Local authorities for the administration of the Act]:

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, after subsection (3) to insert: () The functions under this Act which prior to its passing were exercisable by the council of any large burgh shall, on such date or dates to be appointed by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 97 of this Act for the coming into operation of this Act for the purposes of any of those functions, be transferred to and vested in the council of the county within which that burgh is situated.

The noble Marquess said: My Lords, to a large extent this Amendment is consequential on the removal from the Bill of the large burghs, to which your Lordships agreed on the Committee stage. I think it is right that the necessary transfer functions which this will involve, namely, from the burghs to the relevant county councils, should take place on the day or on the dates which the Secretary of State appoints for the coming into force of the various parts of the Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 5, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [The social work committee]:

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to add a reference to Section 10 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act 1958. There is already a reference to Section 12, and as Section 10 makes similar provisions it is felt appropriate to quote that also. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 27, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 10 and").—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after subsection (2)(d), to insert: () Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948". The noble Lord said: My Lords, since last we discussed this Bill the Health Services and Public Health Bill has been laid before this House. Part II of that Bill substantially amends Part III of the National Assistance Act. This Bill, in Schedule 7, repeals for Scotland most of Part III of that Act, but leaves in operation certain parts of Part III of the National Assistance Act—for example Section 22, except subsection (1), which relates to charges to be made for residential accommodation and which is referred to in Clause 86 of this Bill; Section 26 which deals with local authority payments for accommodation provided by voluntary organisations; and Section 28 which relates to Exchequer contributions to local authorities. Could the noble Lord tell us whether all these three sections could not with advantage be incorporated in this Bill? Then there is Section 25 of the National Assistance Act, which in urgent cases enables the Minister of Social Security to require local authorities to provide accommodation for individuals. I imagine that that would properly remain part of the social security legislation.

One of the puzzling features of the repeals is that Section 26 is to be amended by Clause 44 of the Health Services and Public Health Bill (which we are to discuss later to-day) which relates in turn to Section 21 of the National Assistance Act, and that is one of the sections which is repealed by this Bill. I find all this extremely confusing. I had understood that the welfare of old people was covered by this Bill. Clause 49 of the Health Services and Public Health Bill makes provision for the promotion by local authorities of the welfare of old people, and together with Clause 64 covers the powers of the local authority under Section 31, which was amended by the 1962 National Assistance Act, and that deals with the provision of meals and recreation for old people. I understand that that Bill will also repeal Section 31 for Scotland.

The noble Lord will agree that all this is rather perplexing, and I wonder whether the Government intend to introduce further Amendments to this Bill in another place once the Health Services and Public Health Bill has been passed by this House. Is it not intended that one of the functions of the social work committees shall be the welfare of old people? If so, ought not the requirement in the Third Schedule to the National Assistance Act, placing a duty on local authorities to establish a committee for the discharge of their functions under Part III of that Act, to be repealed? Should not those responsibilities be transferred to the social work committees? Should not also the functions of local authorities under Part II of the Health Services and Public Health Bill be included in this list of functions and be entrusted to social work committees? I feel that this would be a great convenience if only because it will be found, when we come to consider the Health Services and Public Health Bill, that almost every clause in that Bill has a Scottish application. If we could take out a good many of those clauses and put them instead into this Bill, it would make for great simplification for those who have to administer the law in Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 30, at end insert— () Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948".—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the Amendment as it stands is unnecessary because the reference in Clause 2(2) relates to the functions of the local authority. In fact, the local authority will have no functions remaining under Part III of the National Assistance Act, so we should be making a reference to functions which do not exist. However, there are provisions of Part III which will remain in relation to the calculations of certain payments, and so on. I must admit that there is some attraction in the noble Lord's suggestion of a rewriting of the provisions which will remain and of incorporating them together. However, it is a most complicated operation to undertake. Although the noble Lord touched on this matter at Committee stage, I am afraid that it has not proved possible to see a way through. But I certainly undertake that if it should prove to be possible for this matter to be done in a tidier way, and a way which would make it easier for those who have to work the Act, the Government will seek to pursue it in another place. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will accept that we are anxious to make this as simple as possible, but we feel that the present Amendment would not go towards accomplishing his object.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. Having tried to find my way through this, I certainly realise some of the difficulties. However, I should be grateful if he could answer the major questions which I have put to him, which were as follows. Is it in fact intended that under this Bill the old people shall be the responsibility of the social work committee? This is a point of real substance on which we should like to receive an answer. Secondly, there are undoubtedly parts of the National Assistance Act which will remain part of the functions of the local authorities, although I gather that the removal of subsection (1) of Section 22 removes that as a substantive provision and makes it merely a sort of machinery provision. I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer these points and also say whether is intended that, since the Health Services and Public Health Bill is certain pass through this House before this Bill gets through another place, it will be possible to make Amendments in this Bill in another place, incorporating what is appropriate.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question about old people is, "Yes". The situation in regard to the Health Services and Public Health Bill is undoubtedly complicated at the moment, but when the Bill becomes law the procedure thereafter will be much simpler—I think almost certainly using the method indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I cannot help saying that I think this is an odd way of legislating, but I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.0 p.m.

LORD FERRIER moved, after subsection (3), to insert: () Each social work committee shall as far as possible include persons of experience belonging to the principal Churches or faiths in the area.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I would express the hope that the Government will find it acceptable. My noble friend Lord Balerno, whose name is also on the Marshalled List, would have been here to speak to this Amendment, but he occupies an important position in the World Council of Churches, which is meeting in Newcastle to-day, and consequently is unable to be here. Your Lordships will recall that his Amendment was withdrawn during the Committee stage. This Amendment, which I have of course discussed with him, is on different lines; otherwise, I should not have put it forward and taken up your Lordships' time. But this Amendment has been put forward not only after studying what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said in Committee, but after consultation with other noble Lords of different persuasions. I was not altogether convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, and I took an opportunity which presented itself of discussing the matter with important and responsible officials of the Church of Scotland on the social work side. Indeed, without their strong support I should not have put this Amendment forward for your Lordships' consideration.

The Amendment speaks for itself, so I need not add much more, except to say that I personally feel that too many people are unaware of the extent of the social work which is done by the various Churches. Further, it is done so unostentatiously that their experience, their skills, and their organisations are not fully appreciated by the public in general. For that reason a provision of this nature should appear in this Bill. I repeat the point which I made in Committee: that the presence on one of these committees of a churchman or a churchwoman (because in this Amendment I do not mean only ordained ministers) would be of great advantage. It would put at the disposal of such a committee not only the Churches' wide organisation, which is in touch with every facet of the life of a community—hence the last three words of the Amendment—but also an organisation with intimate local knowledge, and people of dedication and ready-made skills. I trust that this Amendment will prove acceptable. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ferrier.)

LORD WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I do not know what my noble friend Lord Hughes is proposing to do about this Amendment, and I hesitate to oppose the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and his noble friend Lord Balerno, because I know of the intense interest which both of them have in this Bill, particularly in relation to the future position of the probation service in Scotland. But I feel that it will be unfortunate if this Amendment is pressed.

I should like to remind your Lordships of a point which I tried to make at an earlier stage. Under this Bill we are going to be committed to two-thirds of the members of the social work committee being members of the local authority. This means that only one-third of the social work committee will be recruited from outside the local authority. With the greatest respect, I think there are far too many interests which need to be represented on the social work committees for us to run the risk of filling them by members of the various religious denominations, because we know (we have experienced this in social work in England and Wales) that immediately provision is made for the inclusion of a member of one particular denomination, then, not unnaturally, and quite rightly, all other denominations want to be brought in. I speak as an active member of the Anglican Church in England and I am not opposed to that. But what I am primarily concerned about is that we bring on to the social work committee people who can serve it from the widest possible field of representation.

The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and his noble friend Lord Balerno know my concern in the same way as I know their concern. This is an entirely new field, and we want to have on the social work committee men and women who can lend themselves to the whole question of selection and training, in-service training and further training, so that a really comprehensive and effective social work organisation can be created, even though some of us are unhappy about its being under the local authority. If we are to have the best possible social work organisation under the control of the local authority, we must have on the local social work committee people who can bring a vast experience and wealth of knowledge from other social work activities in the area and in the community, who are going to concern themselves with standards, with attitudes, with selection, with training, with further training, with in-service training and so on.

I would go so far as to say that the one-third of the social work committee which will be recruited from outside is probably not going to be large enough to do that. Therefore, I should not want to tie the social work committee down, because of the probability that in that event the majority of the one-third to be recruited from outside might come from one particular field of interest. It is because of that that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, may agree not to press this Amendment.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, perhaps some other noble Lord will want to speak; but on a technical point, the noble Lord who has just sat down mentioned persuasions. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Amendment is very widely worded. It does not mention any particular persuasion; indeed, it does not say that the party concerned should necessarily be of the Christian church. It is not intended that there should be any picking out of the Church of Scotland in this matter.

LORD WELLS-PESTELL

I do not want to continue this discussion because of the pressure of time, but the Amendment does say, shall … include persons of experience belonging to the principal Churches". So I envisage—although I may be quite wrong—that there may be three, four or five people.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

My Lords, I very much hope that the Amendment may receive favourable consideration from Her Majesty's Government. It enshrines a principle which exists in my own county. I cannot believe that in this matter there would be any difference between an English local authority and a Scottish local authority. It is our practice, when we set up case committees in Devonshire, to seek, so far as possible, and so far as is reasonably convenient, to include representatives of the principal religious interests involved. I do not mean that we insist on every single religious body being represented. There is never any trouble over that. But these denominational representatives have served a double purpose. In the first place, they have been able to represent to the committee the point of view of the religious body to which they belong; and, secondly—and this is equally important—they have been able to represent to their religious authorities the point of view of the committee, to give their religious authorities the facts of the case, which to my own knowledge has prevented friction on various occasions.

I am perfectly certain that if I were free to give your Lordships examples, your Lordships would realise that there is great value in this widely drawn, permissive Amendment. I take a very strong view on the confidential character of case work, and I find it difficult to give your Lordships any definite instances. I merely ask you to accept that I am speaking from experience; and I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for his Amendment.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, I also am an Elder of the Church of Scotland and can very much appreciate the motives which lie behind the moving of this Amendment. I was glad that in moving his Amendment the noble Lord made it quite clear that it did not refer exclusively to clergymen, but referred to churchmen and churchwomen. It helps me to adhere to the point of view which I expressed at Committee stage, that the Government cannot accept this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, are two excellent examples in your Lordships' House of the point of view of a Church being capable of being represented, and very adequately represented, among a variety of other interests put forward by the noble Lords concerned.

We attach importance to having on these committees people of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has in mind, but we do not think that it is necessary to specify that there should be certain representatives, or persons of experience belonging to the principal Churches or faiths in the area", to ensure that. I do not know what is the position South of the Border, but it would certainly be virtually impossible in Scotland for the members of the local authority not to include at least some people who were active in one or other of the principal religions in the area. So I think the omission of these words by no means implies that the Churches' point of view would go by default.

Our real difficulty about accepting the Amendment is the one which my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell has put forward: that it would create difficulties, in view of the limited number of places which may be available to co-opted members. My noble friend spoke as if every committee was in fact going to include co-opted members to the extent of one-third of its number. In fact, the provision is that it "may" include one-third; and in some cases the local authority might co-opt fewer than one-third of the committee, which would make the position even more difficult. The position in which Her Majesty's Government find themselves in this matter is that there are so many voluntary and professional organisation which could be so very helpful in carrying out the work of the committee that it is virtually impossible to lay down which of the very many interests which could properly be co-opted are the ones which in every case would be the best. The position must inevitably vary from one local authority to another.

What the Government feel is that, while giving the strongest possible support to the principle of co-option, we must leave it to each individual local authority to co-opt in any particular case the individuals who are most likely to be helpful in carrying out the work of that committee; and that help must obviously take the direction of supplementing the knowledge and experience which is going to come from those who are on the committee as elected members. In some cases it may well be quite clear that there should be a representative of the Church of Scotland, or a representative of the Episcopal Church in Scotland or a representative of the Roman Catholic Church, but in other cases it might well be that the appropriate person to co-opt is somebody who has had first-class experience in probation work or who has done a great deal of work in relation to children in one or other of the voluntary organisations.

I think that in his Amendment the noble Lord is not really going further than to express a preference—he has been very fair; he has included the words "as far as possible", so he is really just expressing a preference. But as soon as you express a preference in a Bill for one particular type of co-opted representative you make it a little more difficult, at least by inference, for others to be appointed. I know that this would not be in the noble Lord's mind, and I therefore hope that he will agree with me that, things being as they are in Scotland, the Churches are more likely to be represented by people who are appointed in other capacities than perhaps some of the other organisations are, and that we are not really treading on dangerous ground in deciding to leave this to the wisdom of each local authority in its own particular area. I hope that with this general expression of agreement from Her Majesty's Government with the objects which lie behind the Amendment, the noble Lord will find it possible not to press it.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

My Lords, may I ask one question? Would it be possible for a member of a local authority who was very active in one of the religions or faiths to be co-opted on to the committee?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, it would not strictly be necessary for him to be co-opted. If the local authority particularly wished that man to be a member, he would be an appointed member of the committee.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the conciliatory way in which he has approached this Amendment, and also to thank other noble Lords for what they have said. I am also obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for drawing attention to the words "as far as possible" as they occur in the Amendment. Of course, the debate has so far mentioned only the Christian faith. The word "faiths" also occurs in the Amendment, which is intended to cover people of, say, the Jewish faith. Wide as it is, my Lords, with the words "as far as possible", and "Churches or faiths", I personally feel that the Bill would be improved if a provision such as this was inserted. But, dogged as this Bill has been at every stage by pressure for time, I do not propose to press the Amendment, and I am going to beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw it. But it is for your Lordships to say. If your Lordships do not grant me permission to withdraw the Amendment, then I shall certainly press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 [The director of social work]:

3.19 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, this is an Amendment which I had down at the Committee stage, but we agreed that consideration of it should be deferred until we had considered an almost identical Amendment to Clause 35. The noble Lord was good enough to accept that Amendment, and I hope he will now accept this one. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 19, at end insert— (" and if he considers none of the applicants to be qualified for the appointment he shall require the local authority to re-advertise the vacancy, and the local authority shall comply with the requirement with or without any change in the terms and conditions of service offered.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 23, after ("person") insert ("from among those").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HUGHES moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following clause: 12A. Where, by virtue of the last foregoing section, a local authority make arrangements or provide or secure the provision of facilities for the engagement of persons in need (whether under a contract of service or otherwise) in suitable work, that local authority may assist such persons in disposing of the produce of their work.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to ensure that local authorities, in securing the provision of work for handicapped persons, con- tinue to have explicit powers to make arrangements for payment for that work and to assist in the disposal of its produce. Most of the existing powers, contained in Section 29(4) of the National Assistance Act 1948, are comprehended by the wide powers given to local authorities by Clause 12 to provide assistance to persons in need, which of course includes the provision of suitable work for persons who are blind and otherwise handicapped and suitable facilities to enable them to carry out that work. The new clause makes clear that the arrangements for payment in respect of such work may be under a contract of service or otherwise and that the other arrangements for providing work may include arrangements for the handicapped persons concerned to dispose of their produce. The importation of the term "contract of service" allows regular payments (and not simply emergency cost payments) to be made.

Amendment moved— After Clause 12, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. Many of us will be familiar with the arrangements made under the National Assistance Act. This clause seems, in some respects, to be rather less wide. It enables the local authorities to assist such persons in disposing of the produce of their work. That would imply, presumably, that they are selling the work on their own account, even though they may have been under a contract of service. I am not certain how far this goes. The brackets seems to have been added in some way afterwards and do not seem to go with the rest of the clause. Perhaps the noble Lord would have another look at it.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I think that the clause as it stands includes everything which the local authority would need to do, but I should be quite happy to have another look to see whether any amplification or extension of it is necessary. Of course, that would have to be done in another place. Perhaps the noble Lord would have another discussion with me afterwards on what he has in mind, so that I may pass it on to my right honourable friend.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13 [Domestic help and laundry facilities]:

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 30, after ("adequate") insert ("of").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, it may well happen that arrangements will have to be made for somebody to be looked after at home and that it will not be possible for that person to be looked after unless provision is made for domestic help. As the clause stands at present, it is only if the person is actually present in the home that such arrangements can be made. I am told by experts in this matter (so I take it there is a basis for it) that this has caused difficulty in the past. My Amendment would help alleviate that difficulty and allow arrangements to be made in advance. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 32, after ("presence") insert ("or the imminent or proposed presence").(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I have come to the conclusion that the insertion of these words is desirable. I am therefore happy to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, this is simply to draw attention to a difference in drafting between a subsection of the Health Services and Public Health Bill and a subsection of this Bill which are otherwise identical. I do not know the effect of this difference; but, as I read this Bill, a charge for services by the local authority to those who are able to pay the full charge could not be greater than the full charge; whereas, as drafted in the other Bill, a charge greater than the full charge could be made. I do not know whether it is ever the practice to make a charge greater than the full charge; but as both Bills apply to Scotland for the time being I draw attention to this difference. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 41, leave out from beginning to ("those").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, having regard to the meticulous way in which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has gone through the Bill it is not unreasonable that he should draw attention to this apparent anomaly. The fact is that the Health Services and Public Health Bill is a United Kingdom Bill, and to the extent to which it is making amendments to the National Health Service Act 1946 and to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, it is following a particular pattern. In this case it is following the pattern of the 1946 Act. But I would remind your Lordships that in the case of the 1946 and 1947 Acts, the later Scottish Act differed from the earlier English Act in the insertion of a provision that in fixing their charges local authorities in Scotland (in addition to taking account of the means of the person using the service) are under an obligation to take into account the cost of the service to the local authority.

In producing this Bill applicable to Scotland we have elected to follow the pattern which has worked in Scotland, without complaint so far as I am aware, for some twenty years. The effect of this will be that when in due course this Bill becomes law it will reinstate the position in Scotland as it will have been from the passing of the Act in 1947 until the passing of the Health Services and Public Health Bill. Undoubtedly it is the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, that if these words were taken out it would, in theory, change the position—but only in theory. We are not aware of any local authority in Scotland which has decided to make a profit out of some of the users of the service in order to help it recoup its losses in relation to others. I admit it is theoretically possible for somebody to charge more than the actual cost; but in practice I think it is unlikely to happen. I hope the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw his Amendment.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whether he could help some of us on this matter? In reading this Bill and in reading the Health Services and Public Health Bill that we are about to discuss, one finds provisions which one might say overlap but which are expressed differently. I quite agree that the Health Services and Public Health Bill is a United Kingdom Bill; but there are certain parts which it is stated do not apply to Scotland. If we are to have differences such as have been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, we shall either have to change the Scottish Bill or include words in the United Kingdom Bill indicating that this will not apply to Scotland. Otherwise we shall get into a hopeless muddle.

LORD HUGHES

No, my Lords; there will not in fact be any difficulty. The only difficulty is the purely temporary one, that a Bill coming before your Lordships' House later this afternoon, the Health Services and Public Health Bill, will become law before the Social Work (Scotland) Bill. There will be a period when the United Kingdom provisions in these matters will be the law of Scotland, but when the Social Work (Scotland) Bill eventually passes through Parliament what will apply in Scotland will be what is in that Bill. So the anomaly is a purely temporary one.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. If I understand his meaning, it is as good as saying that he expects that when the Social Work (Scotland) Bill goes to another place an additional Amendment to disapply Clause 13 will be introduced, and that the intervening period will be the period between the time when the Social Work (Scotland) Bill comes into operation and the earlier time when the Health Services and Public Health Bill comes into operation. If that is so, I accept the position. I think that the words in the Scottish legislation are superior. I did not move this Amendment in order to have them moved out, but to draw attention to the position. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.33 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment raises very much the same points as was dealt with in the last Amendment. Here we have in two separate Bills two Clauses—both, oddly enough, Clause 13—which are virtually identical. The subsection which my Amendments seeks to leave out says: It shall not be a requirement that any matter relating to the discharge of their func- tions under this section by a local authority shall stand referred to their social work committee. Already, under the National Assistance Act (I think in Section 31), we have in being a provision of this kind. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to comment on this.

I do not think it desirable that there should be two committees dealing with the same matter, on the one hand domestic help for the sick, and, on the other, domestic help for the aged and others in need. I am sure that that is not the intention, and I think that here is provided a good opportunity for the noble Lord to say that the whole thing will be drawn together under one committee, whatever that committee may be —in some cases it may be the health committee, and in others the social work committee—and that this provision merely leaves the matter to the choice of the local authority. If that is so, I willingly accept it; but I want to make certain that there is no possibility of two committees handling the quest on of domestic help.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for putting down what I think I am correct in saying is essentially a probing Amendment to elicit the position which will exist. As I think most noble Lords will be aware, at the present time it is as a health function that the local authorities can furnish the assistance given by these domestic helps. As such, it has been organised very successfully by the medical officer of health, and generally it will come under the auspices of the health committee. For the first time, we are specifically importing into the duties of the local authorities the need to give this assistance not oily on health grounds but also on social grounds.

As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made clear, it would be a disaster if we were to legislate for the creation of two separate systems of domestic help. It would be equally disastrous if we made the mistake of starting off by disrupting a service which has been very successfully organised under the medical officer of health by insisting on its transfer to the social work committee. We think that it may well be—and I think in the interests of tidiness it will be—desirable if in due course this responsibility becomes a function of the social work committee. But that will be a matter for a local authority to decide, in the course of time and in the light of its own experience. At any rate in the beginning, it seems to the Government desirable that the organisation should continue in its present form with the social work committee making perfectly clear to the health side, if that were necessary (though one would not imagine that it would be), the opportunities and obligations to give assistance on social grounds.

We think this is a case where, instead of saying that the responsibility shall go here or there, we should leave it to local authorities to make certain that what is working well at the present time shall continue to work well. If it is felt that it can be made better by putting responsibility on to the social work committee, rather than on to the health committee, I have no doubt that the local authority will do so. But, equally, if they felt that it would be better left with the health committee I have no reason to believe that it would not work in that way also. I am quite certain that no local authority would commit what would be the undoubted folly of setting up two services under two separate committees.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will realise that this will be a difficult point to deal with. During the Second Reading debate I said that I was certain that however much one tried to organise services under one particular department, there was bound to be a great deal of difficulty on what might be called the frontier. After what the noble Lord has said I am still doubtful whether he means that if the medical officer of health is in charge now, he will be supported if he declares it his right to go on supplying those services. And, of course, we shall get into the sphere of the home-help and the rest of it.

Having read this Bill and the next Bill, which will make things even more difficult for us, I think we should like to know what is to be the decision about which department is to carry out this work. I know that it seems extraordinarily stupid when looked at from the outside, and that people will say, "What does it really matter? So long as the work is going on, why bother?" But among the various departments of a local authority there is a sense of pride and interest. Members of various departments may feel that something is being taken away from them, and that leads to friction. Above all, we want to stop that friction, and the idea of the social work department was to stop friction. But unless something is clearly laid down, both in this Bill and in the Bill which is to follow, we shall have a great deal of friction. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can make clear that if at the present time the medical officer of health is in charge of these services he is to be permitted to continue that responsibility.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, proposes to answer that question.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I should be very willing to answer, but under the terms of the procedure in your Lordships' House I am not permitted to speak.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, the noble Lord can do so by leave.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, if your Lordships wish, I shall be delighted to do so. I am conscious that we are working to a timetable, and I do not want to appear to be jumping up at every opportunity. I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrough. The most important thing is to avoid the creation of friction. I also agree with her that normally the best way to avoid friction is to place responsibility firmly on the shoulders of one body or committee. But this is a case where I think it is better to leave it to the movement of time to accomplish this rather than attempt to do it at one operation by transferring it straight over to the social work committee. This is a field where local authorities will fairly soon see whether it is to be an advantage to make this the responsibility of the social work committee, and it is not without the bounds of possibility that this could be done with the willing co-operation of the medical officers of health. The noble Baroness almost shakes her head, and perhaps both she and I are thinking of particular medical officers of health, but we ought not to legislate for the exceptional individual. We must leave it to the good sense of the local authorities. I find it difficult to disagree with what the noble Baroness said, yet I think it would be a mistake to attempt to force the pace a little too hard.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I am sure that it is right not to force the pace, but I also think that my noble friend is right in saying that we should indicate what the object is. I have no doubt in my own mind, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that in the end, as we are dealing with people in need and this includes medical need, it will be for those responsible for health to see what domestic help is required, and for those responsible for need to supply it. In other words, undoubtedly it would be the social work committee that would supply this. I merely express my own view, but I suspect that this is also the view of the noble Lord, had he felt able at this stage to express it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 [Duty of local authority to provide for orphans, deserted children, etc.]:

3.43 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, at the beginning of subsection (3), to insert: If, at the time when a child is received into the care of a local authority under this section, the whereabouts of any parent or guardian of his is unknown, it shall be the duty of the local authority to take all reasonable steps to discover them, and".

The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment is an attempt to find an acceptable form of words to cover a point which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn raised on Committee. I think it is reasonable and just that a local authority should have an obligation to take reasonable steps to discover the whereabouts of parents and guardians who cannot be immediately found. So much of this Bill depends on the co-operation of parents that it seems extremely important that every effort should be made to bring them into its operation. I have no doubt that most local authorities do everything they can to find missing parents and guardians, but I feel that it would be useful to have this provision in the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 28, at the beginning insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment strongly. I have had great experience of the difficulties of tracing the parents of some children who come into care. It requires a lot of patience and time and the co-operation of many authorities, and sometimes ever, this is not sufficient. It has always been a mystery to me how people can [...]terally disappear and be untraceable, although the local authorities, the police, probation officers and child care officers are all searching for them. I suppose that they change their names and disappear into limbo. It adds to the complications of dealing with children and doing the best one can for them if one cannot trace a parent who can give authority for taking certain steps; and I think that this is a wise provision to put in the Bill. It is important that the committees should be encouraged to take this trouble, however long it takes and expensive it is, because it is vital to the well-being and future of children coming into care.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I should have been delighted to be able to assure the noble Baroness that she had persuaded me to accept this Amendment. Unfortunately I have already indicated in correspondence to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that I was prepared to accept it, so it would be quite wrong to leave the noble Baroness with the impression that she was responsible for my conversion.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.