Lords Sitting of 22 November 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Transport: London and Metropolitan Counties
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is scope for greater efficiency in the transport undertakings in London and the metropolitan counties.
The Earl of Avon: Yes, my Lords; containing costs, getting value for money, modernising working practices and adjusting to what the customer really needs are all high priorities. The Government's Transport Bill, currently in another place, aims to encourage this.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. I have two supplementary questions. First, can he give us information about the total subsidies provided to the transport authorities both in London and in the metropolitan counties? Secondly, is he aware that many users of London transport are more anxious about the availability of transport than what they may have to pay?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the transport support grant, we believe, remains at a reasonable level. There are, we believe, a number of things that London Transport could do to improve its efficiency. There is, I believe, an acknowledged scope for curbing restrictive practices, tailoring services to demand, the rationalisation of the bus network and more one-man operations, and the introduction of automatic fares collection.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl three questions? First, would he not agree that there is as much concern for efficiency among those who are operating public transport as in any other section of our community? Secondly, did not the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report very favourably on the West Midlands PTE, and have not both the Tyne and Wear and the West Yorkshire councils themselves made arrangements for consultants to review their particular transport undertakings? Thirdly, would he not agree also that efficiency involves not only the quality of service but, as the noble Lord rightly said, the frequency of routes and the maximum number of routes, which depend on both capital and revenue support?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I acknowledge what the noble Lord has said and I would agree that the reports found much to commend and appeciated the level of efficiency and service which the operators have managed to achieve. I believe, however, that there is scope under those reports for increased efficiency and the provision of a better service. I look forward, when the Transport Bill comes to your Lordships' House, to debating this with the noble Lord.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would not the admirable objectives which my noble friend put forward for transport in London be greatly assisted by removing London Transport from the control of the GLC?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, that is a question we have heard before in this House and, as before, I would say that this is under consideration.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that during the application of the "Fares fair" policy the number of passengers of London Transport increased by 25 per cent., as did the amount of revenue? There was also a marked reduction of traffic on London's roads. Would it not therefore be sensible to acknowledge that the "Fares fair" policy was a huge success for all concerned and the Government ought to have it reintroduced?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, while I appreciate the theme behind the noble Lord's question, I cannot lend any advice to his adjectives such as "huge", because the "Fares fair" policy happened for such a very short period of time and the lessons learned must therefore be, as it were, under some cloud. However, the lessons learned are there and we are waiting to find out whether the ratepayers agree with them.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, has my noble friend discovered a method of persuading London bus drivers and conductors not to "bunch" in very large numbers? Is it not a fact that most people who use these buses are very disturbed at wasting an immense amount of exhausting time by standing for 40 or 50 minutes, and then finding that perhaps five No. 137s will come along bumper to bumper—or seven No. 11s, as I counted on one occasion? Is this a way to operate a good and efficient service?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, on Saturday I watched three No. 12s in close convoy passing me. I do not feel in point of fact that this is what ought to exercise this noble House, but it should really be a subject for London Transport to look at.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that three No. 10s would have been even more disturbing?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, no doubt the noble and learned Lord is good at housey-housey and will know whether 30 is better than 36.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House when the automation of ticket issue and collection of London Underground will be completed from its far-from-completed position now? Can my noble friend also say how many personnel will be saved when it is completed?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have not got the figures handy to answer my noble friend's question, but I will happily write to him with the information.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, may I say with regard to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing about "bunching" (or "staircasing" which was the term that was used) that this is not usually the fault of the driver or the conductor but is due to conditions of the traffic involved. Once we get the traffic situation properly dealt with, that will be all right.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I acknowledge my noble friend's great interest in this subject and I know that when we in this House have debated the state of London traffic my noble friend has contributed excellently.

Human Fertilisation Inquiry
2.43 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will urge the committee set up to inquire into human fertilisation to report before 1984.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, while recognising the concern that many feel about this subject, the Government believe it is essential that proper consideration be given to the extremely important matters which this inquiry was set up to examine. Evidence has been sought from well over 200 organisations and, in our opinion, it would be unrealistic to expect the inquiry to consider this volume of evidence and prepare a full report in less than 18 months.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. In view of the fact that the matter is of some considerable urgency, would the Government consider making additional resources and staff available to the committee to enable them possibly to report earlier? Secondly, in view of the fact that the press release announcing the setting up of the committee stated, quite clearly, that religious viewpoints would be represented on that committee, would the Government agree either that the composition of the committee is unsatisfactory, or that the press release was misleading?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I doubt whether increased secretarial resources would enable the committee to give more thorough consideration to this
712
matter more quickly, as the noble Lady suggests. As for the representation of the various religious faiths on the committee, it is not the intention that individual members of the committee should represent any particular religious persuasion. However, there are members of the Moslem faith, of the Church of England, of the Jewish faith, of the Church of Scotland and of the Roman Catholic faith; and there is, indeed, the wife of a right reverend Prelate of your Lordships' House on the committee. So I do not think that that particular viewpoint will go by default.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough to explain this Question to me. I do not understand what it means and I should be very glad if he would explain. It is the first time that I have come across such a Question with regard to men and women—or men.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, without wishing to be flippant in reply—this is, of course, a very serious subject—perhaps I can best help the noble Baroness by saying that the main thrust of the work which the inquiry is concerned with relates to achieving viable pregnancies in women who would otherwise not be able to do so.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, in view of the Orwellian 1984 perspectives raised by this Question, would my noble friend agree that there is an urgency about getting an informed basis for public debate? Would he consider the possibility that the committee might be invited to issue some sort of preliminary report, because, at present, debates and newspaper articles are pretty wild and pretty frightening?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that a preliminary report could be achieved only by skimping over the evidence that has been received, and by hastily reaching conclusions on it, which I do not think would be the right way to proceed in this matter. As I said in the first Answer, we have asked a large number of groups to give us their views. We have asked for those views by the end of next March, and clearly, the committee cannot be expected to consider all the evidence in detail before then. I do not think that the time we envisage after next March for them to consider the evidence and produce the report is unreasonable, and I do not think it could be properly hastened.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, the period of gestation of this committee being double the length of time for the gestation of the individuals into whom it is inquiring, is it not acceptable that they should be split up into couples and take evidence in parallel? That is the way of accelerating the work of the committee—not more secretariat.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said, the evidence will come from a wide range of different groups, and the various members of the panel who are considering this evidence will, I think, want to consider all the evidence and not just some of it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I note that all religious persuasions seem to be represented on this committee, except the Free Churches of this country. Why is that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said earlier, no religious persuasion is represented on the committee, but I was asked about the viewpoints of various members who are on the committee and I gave the answer. The fact is, of course, that all the Churches will be asked to give evidence to the committee. I have a list in front of me of no fewer than 39 various religious bodies, including all the Free Churches, and they will be asked to give evidence in due course.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: But, my Lords, if the Anglicans, the Catholics, the Mohammedans—
The Earl of Lauderdale: The Church of Scotland.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: —and the Jewish community are represented, why are the Free Churches not represented on this committee; or, even if not represented, why is there no Free Churchman on the committee?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said, no member of the committe is particularly representing the Church of which he happens to be a member. The members are there because of their particular expertise in these matters, which may not particularly be a religious expertise. But the views of all the Churches will certainly be taken into account.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has said, can he tell us if, meanwhile, the Church is giving us any lead on these matters?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I suspect that that is not a question for me.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, since I hope that this committee will investigate not only what some noble Lords have said, but also genetic engineering and experiments on foetuses, would the Government find it possible to suggest to the medical profession that, pending the report of the committee, they should call a halt in experimentation in the meantime?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said just now in answer to another question, the main purpose of these inquiries relates to the promotion of viable pregnancies in women who could not otherwise achieve them. This surely is thoroughly laudable and something which should be encouraged and assisted by all possible means. I recognise that there is some anxiety about research going beyond that. Your Lordships may have seen the guidelines put out last week by the Medical Research Council which will greatly assist in these matters.

Exports and Trading Discrimination
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are concerned about discrimination against British exports by a number of our trading partners.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield):My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are indeed concerned at the inequitable market access offered by some of our trading partners and are intensifying their efforts to ameliorate this unsatisfactory situation.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Would I be right to assume that he is well aware of the one-sided kind of arrangement whereby the tariff on British cars to Spain is 4 per cent. whereas the tariff imposed by Spain is 37 per cent? Would Her Majesty's Government be prepared to raise this matter at the next meeting of GATT in Geneva?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. The problem, however, is that this unequal treatment arises under a treaty which was signed in 1970 between Spain and the European Community and we inherited the obligations under that treaty when we joined the Community in 1973. We have been making strong representations on the matter through the European Community.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that Japan in particular is being very onesided in its pursuit of free trade, that there are various areas in which Japan could give concessions to us which at the moment it does not, and that this might be encouraged in the GATT discussions which are shortly to take place?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. This year the probability is that the deficit on our trade with Japan will amount to £2 billion. Other countries in the world, notably the United States, also have substantial deficits with Japan. This, therefore, is a worldwide problem and it is one of the matters to which the GATT ministerial meeting will be addressing its mind.

Children's Hospitals
2.53 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on Tadworth Children's Hospital in Surrey and the Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the board of governors of the Hospitals for Sick Children has recommended the closure of Tadworth Court Hospital and the transfer of its services to Queen Mary's Hospital, Carshalton, a few miles away. My honourable friend the Minister for Health is considering this proposal carefully, will be receiving representations, and will visit both hospitals before a final decision is made.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful for that Answer, which seems to indicate that there may be hope for both of these famous hospitals. Is the noble

715
Lord aware that throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom the only people who agree with the doing away of Tadworth Hospital are the governors and that the governors ought to be done away with, not the hospital? Is the noble Lord further aware of the perturbation revealed last week in this House, and throughout the country over the weekend, because of this threatened closure? Would the noble Lord be prepared to consider making strong representations to the Secretary of State on behalf of this House and on behalf of the many people who feel that we may possibly be about to commit an abominable crime against sick children? Will the Government stop it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think the noble Lord slightly exaggerates the position, but I will certainly undertake that the views of the noble Lord, and of your Lordships, are conveyed to my right honourable and honourable friends. However, the decision confronting my right honourable and honourable friends is a difficult one, and not quite so simple as perhaps the noble Lord imagines.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, while appreciating the difficulties, is it not a fact that if these children are moved to Queen Mary's Hospital there will have to be an extension at Queen Mary's and that the money which is now being spent at Tadworth will have to be spent at Queen Mary's? Surely the very close liaison between Great Ormond Street and Tadworth is very important. Secondly, may I ask the Minister to look again at the funding of a very special hospital like Great Ormond Street? It was in my constituency. I knew it well. Children went there from all over the country and, indeed, from all over the world. To try to fund it on a regional budget is not fair to the governors or to anybody else.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there is unused capacity at Queen Mary's, Carshalton. I have visited the hospital and seen some of the facilities there. As for the wider point which the noble Baroness makes about funding the operation of hospitals, which sometimes take their patients from all over the world, the Government are thinking about this problem.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware and will he say categorically to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that the governors of the Great Ormond Street Hospital have the interests of that hospital very greatly at heart and that it is not of their choice that they are being forced into the position of closing Tadworth Hospital?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Baroness is of course quite right. The governors are very responsible people. They have reached this decision in the face of what are undoubtedly great difficulties. The Government have to have their interests at heart, too.
Lotd Strabolgi: My Lords, if it is a question of money, are the Government aware that many people would be prepared to forgo tax cuts so that hospitals like this, and the Royal Marsden Hospital, could be kept in being?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there are very many demands upon the taxpayer. I am afraid that this is only one of them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could clear up one point. The people in charge of Tadworth, we are told, whose views have to be taken fully into account are the governors. It is the governors who are making this recommendation to the Minister. I am of the opinion that—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord Molloy: Is the Minister aware that both I and thousands of other people are of the opinion that this matter would not have come to the Minister had this not been a recommendation of the governors? So the issue is their recommendation. There is no evidence of their fighting it.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to think that the recommendation of the governors is totally without merit. I can assure him that that is not the case. There are many arguments in favour of what the governors propose. My right honourable and honourable friends will have to take all these matters into consideration.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to take into consideration the fact that very valuable medical training takes place at postgraduate hospitals? Medical education is most important and spreads all over the country.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite correct. I believe she is thinking of the Royal Marsden Hospital about which she asked me the other day—and possibly of St. Mark's, of which she is also aware. I told the noble Baroness the other day about the position at the Royal Marsden. I think it was another of my noble friends who asked me about St. Mark's. There is a rumour abroad about St. Mark's being closed, but I know of no foundation for that rumour.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Community steel discussions. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the sale of Britoil shares.
With the leave of the House, I should like to inform your Lordships that an Unstarred Question by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, on the Scotch whisky industry for this Thursday was inadvertently omitted from the Order Paper when it was reprinted last Thursday. The Unstarred Question will be tabled today and will in the normal way be available in print tomorrow.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I was under the impression that the Unstarred Question was put down for this Wednesday.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I thought I said "this Wednesday", but I had a nasty feeling after I had spoken that I had said "Thursday" by mistake. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for putting me right.

Writers to the Signet Dependants' Annuity Fund Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Privileges: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lord, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, in accordance with Standing Order 72, a Select Committee for Privileges be appointed; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords, together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal, be named of the Committee:—

Adeane, L.

Aylestone, L.

Beswick, L.

Byers, L.

Campbell, of Alloway, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Denham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Glenamara, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

St. Aldwyn,

Shackleton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Young, B. (L. Privy Seal)—(Lord Aberdare.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses: Select Committee
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed for the general supervision of arrangements relating to leave of absence and the reimbursement of Lords' expenses; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Denham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Kennet, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wigoder, L.—(Lord Aberdare.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Summer Time Order 1982
3.1 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1982 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 14th October.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on 19th October and they have no comments. This draft order extends to 1983, 1984 and 1985 the present arrangements for determining the starting and ending dates for summer time. This means that summer time will begin on the last Sunday in March and end on the Sunday after the fourth Saturday in October, as at present.
Your Lordships may recall that the Summer Time Act 1972 provides for summer time to begin on the Sunday after the third Saturday in March and to end on the Sunday after the fourth Saturday in October. However, Section 2 provides that in relation to any year Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the period of summer time shall instead be such period as may be specified. In 1980, following discussions with our European Community partners, it was agreed that summer time should begin on the same day throughout the Community. In order to achieve this, other member states brought forward their starting date by one week while we postponed ours by one week. The new arrangements were given effect by the Summer Time Order 1980 for an initial period of two years. These arrangements appear to have worked well, and the purpose of the present order is to extend them, for a further three years, to 1983, 1984 and 1985.
Turning to the ending date for summer time, your Lordships may recall that during the debate on the Summer Time Order 1980, my noble friend Lord Belstead explained the difficulty about changing our existing arrangements. At present, summer time in this country ends on the day after the fourth Saturday in October whereas in other member states it finishes at the end of September. The Government do not believe that the British people would wish the finishing date to be brought forward in line with our Community partners. Our experience is that people prefer to have the light evenings to enjoy sporting and other leisure activities.
Various possible compromise solutions have been examined, but it has not been possible to reach agreement on a common finishing date for summer time. Member states have accepted therefore that, for the time being, each country should retain its present finishing date. Your Lordships may be intrigued to learn that, for this purpose, the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are for the next three years to be regarded nominally as a maritime zone for this purpose and that other member states are to be regarded as a continental zone.
I do not wish to take up more of your Lordships' time than necessary, but it may be helpful if I comment briefly on the text of the draft order. Article 1(2) provides that it shall have effect in the United Kingdom and the Bailiwick of Guernsey. Jersey and

719
the Isle of Man propose to follow suit, but they are not provided for in this order because they have their own legislation on the subject. Articles 2, 3 and 4 provide for the proposed starting dates of 27th March 1983, 25th March 1984 and 31st March 1985. The finishing dates provided for in each article are those which would occur through the ordinary operation of the 1972 Act. The change-over time of 1 a.m. in the Summer Time Order 1980 is retained. This is to ensure that summer time starts at the same time throughout the European Community. The draft order does no more than continue existing arrangements for a further three years. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1982 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 14th October.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his introduction of this timely measure. In debating a Summer Time Order we should recognise that there are dangers of being misunderstood if we use such terms as may apply to other measures which come before your Lordships' House, such as "putting the clock back", which I am sure does not apply in this case; in fact, with the concessions we have, I suppose we can say that time is on our side. In the meantime, we shall have to take care.
The noble Lord has made mention of the EEC's views on this and clearly the time has come for the Community to adopt a uniform summer time arrangement on a permanent basis. There has been what has been called a reasonable compromise between the preferences of certain member states which involve marginal adjustments to their present positions. As the noble Lord has said, this order is an extension of the Summer Time Order 1980 and we must be pleased that the arrangement will continue for a further three years.
I note that the subject of summer time was a topic of detailed examination by the Select Committee of the European Communities Third Report of the Session 1981–82, and I am sure your Lordships are indebted to the Select Committee for the careful consideration they gave to the evidence submitted. With increasing travel and communications between member states there are advantages in uniformity of timing and dates, especially for transport, and for air transport in particular, in terms of cost and convenience. These matters are of consequence to many interests including road safety, communications, travel, agriculture and leisure and it would be helpful to your Lordships, I am sure, if we could know what consultations have taken place with the various interests concerned. There are of course great merits in everyone knowing well in advance what arrangements there are for the years ahead and this order will help us in that particular respect.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, for his welcome to this order. So far as consultations which have taken place are concerned, these are set out in the Review of British
720
Standard Time, which is Cmnd. 4512 issued in October 1970. The consultations which took place were very wide indeed and the result is that we have been able to achieve a compromise at least on the starting date. I hope that in due course it will be possible to achieve something on the finishing date, but it will be some time before we are able to achieve that. The Government are fully aware that transport undertakings in particular are very much affected by the various time differences, and all we are doing is in many ways designed to mitigate the problems which they might produce.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
Lord Trefgame: My Lords, I beg to move that the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill be now read a second time. This Bill marks another important step forward in the continued development of policies which we believe will improve the health and welfare of the population. It contains provisions on health, personal social services and social security adjudication matters and thus expands the whole range of issues for which I and my right honourable and honourable friends at the Department of Health and Social Security, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office are responsible. May I briefly remind your Lordships of the main elements of the policies which this Government have vigorously promoted. They have been the subject of debate in your Lordships' House on many occasions. Those which are reflected in this Bill and which are central to our purpose today are, first, to encourage care in the community rather than in institutions for the elderly, mentally ill, mentally handicapped and disabled people; secondly, to provide the best possible services for children, particularly by strengthening arrangements for the protection of those who are most vulnerable; thirdly, to streamline administration, reduce bureaucracy and make all services for which we are reaponsible as efficient and, therefore, as effective as possible.
I turn to the Bill before your Lordships. Part I of the Bill clarifies and extends provisions for health authorities in England and Wales to make payments to local authorities and other statutory bodies and voluntary organisations, and makes comparable provisions for Scotland. The purpose of this Part is to promote care in the community. It is widely accepted that those in need of care should be helped to keep in touch with family and friends and normal life and should have to stay in hospital only if they require a level of constant nursing and medical care which it would be impracticable to provide anywhere else. This is generally what they themselves want and what those responsible for their care believe to be best for them. Similar policies are being pursued in Wales and Scotland.
In recent years local authorities have made considerable progress in building up community care services, but they are finding it increasingly difficult to

721
take on extra commitments within their current resources. If responsibility for the care of many long-stay hospital patients is to be transferred to local authorities, a matching transfer of resources is needed so that the local authorities and the voluntary sector, which has a lot to offer, can provide alternative facilities.
But there are obstacles. In July 1981 the DHSS published a consultative document, Care in the Community, which sought views on a number of ways of overcoming these obstacles. A similar document was published by the Welsh Office. In July this year my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Wales announced the Government's decisions. In some cases action can and will be taken administratively. Health authorities will be able to make continuing annual payments for as long as necessary for people moving into community care, and joint finance will be available for extended periods. The joint finance allocation is being increased by £6 million next year to help promote this initiative. Guidance to authorities will be issued shortly.
Other obstacles can be removed only by legislation. The response to the consultative document showed strong support for extending the joint finance arrangements to education for disabled people and to housing. But at present there is statutory provisions for this. The principal object of Part I of the Bill therefore is to enable health authorities to support housing and education expenditure. The other provisions of Part I largely repeat existing provisions for transferring funds but make them more flexible.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland hopes to consult health boards and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on means of securing more effective collaboration between the various agencies involved in community care. Meanwhile in this Bill he is seeking legislative power to make comparable extensions to the scope of the existing support finance scheme in Scotland.
For Wales only, this Part of the Bill provides parallel powers for the Secretary of State to make payments for the development of community care. These will enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to act directly where this would be the most effective and efficient means of promoting community care in a situation where he controls, through the Welsh block vote, the expendituere of the range of bodies involved, and where, therefore, he can order priorities within agreed public expenditure totals.
Still on the theme of improving community care, I turn to Part IV of the Bill, which follows on logically, if not serially, from Part I. This part contains provisions for improvements in England and Wales concerning the arrangements for voluntary and privately run homes for elderly people, disabled people and the mentally disordered, and for nursing homes. These provisions arise from consultation earlier this year on the registration system for residential homes. Three hundred sets of comments were received on the consultation document, A Good Home, and there was general agreement on what was proposed. Here I wish to thank all those who sent us their views. They were all most helpful.
722
Voluntary and private homes have a valuable part to play in the Government's policy for community care, as part of the partnership between public services and those provided by others. Indeed, there are areas such as the South Coast where some of the statutory health and social services would be swamped if these homes did not exist. It is most important, therefore, that these homes should provide an acceptable standard of care and service. The consultation confirmed that changes are needed in the law governing the registration of residential homes, and these are in Part IV of the Bill. They include a clearer definition of the establishments to be registered; improved arrangements for appeals against decisions of the registration authority; and provisions for increased fees—on a banded scale—which will offset the registration authorities' costs arising from registration and inspection. Regulations will specify the minimum frequency of inspection, which we intend should be at least once a year. Another important new provision is that nursing homes will no longer be precluded from registering also as residential homes, and this should allow greater flexibility of care within a single establishment.
We believe that a code of practice, which is to be drawn up by a Working Party from the Centre for Policy on Ageing, and the legislative changes, will bring authorities into closer relationship with the private and voluntary sector, and should in many cases result in an improved standard of service. This should, in turn, encourage authorities to make better use of the resources available to them in the private and voluntary sectors.
I will now turn to the family practitioner services, which form the front line of our health service. Part V of the Bill fulfils our commitment to make family practitioner committees fully responsible for their own administrative arrangements. The Government announced their decision in another place in November 1981 and we reaffirmed our intentions in July of this year. The Bill requires the Secretaries of State to establish new family practitioner committees in England and Wales to replace those which are, at present, established by district health authorities. At present DHAs appoint FPC staff, determine and pay their management costs, and provide them with accommodation and equipment. But, at the same time, the committees are directly accountable to the Secretaries of State for arrangements for family practitioner services.
These complicated arrangements were intended to create opportunities for bringing hospital and family practitioner services together within an integrated health service. However, although collaboration has developed satisfactorily in many parts of the country, the administrative dependence of FPCs on DHAs has caused problems of delegation and accountability, and has led to the creation of an unnecessarily complex bureaucracy. Last year, therefore, we sought views about possible changes in the arrangements for FPCs. A majority of those we consulted favoured the decision which we ultimately took, to seek legislation to enable FPCs to manage their own affairs. This Bill sets out a number of measures to this end.
In order to establish the lines of responsibility, the Secretaries of State will establish the committees and

723
appoint their chairmen, vice-chairmen and other members. We intend to consult on nominations and to preserve the traditional balance of membership within the committees. To promote collaboration, there will be cross-membership with DHAs, which will continue to be responsible for producing comprehensive local health plans. At least one member of the FPC will be a nurse with community experience, and we propose that there shall be both formal and informal local arrangements to ensure appropriate communications between the FPC and DHAs. FPCs will also be formally represented on the existing joint consultative committees which involve local authorities in the planning of health and personal social services.
We intend that the provisions governing public admission to meetings shall extend to FPCs, and that Community Health Councils should be informed of appropriate matters relating to FPC issues. FPCs will appoint their own staff and be responsible for their own administrative arrangements and management costs. Cash limits on administrative costs will continue to apply to FPCs, as they do to health authorities, and, like health authorities, FPCs will be called to account.
I come now to Part III which concerns the stream-lining of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. Like Part V which deals with family practitioner committees, this provision relates to two of our main policy objectives—the development of community care and the streamlining of administration. The provisions in Part III are designed to enable the council to operate more efficiently in meeting the demands which are placed on it.
This council has important functions throughout the United Kingdom for the training of staff who work, or intend to work, in the local authority and voluntary social services, the probation service and the education welfare service. The council was established in 1962 and since its creation it has made a significant contribution to the rationalisation of training in the social services and the other services within its remit. Much is owed to the work and dedication of its chairman, members and staff. But since it was established it has grown, through successive restructurings, from 32 to 64 members. Originally Ministers appointed 21 members; now they appoint only eight, with the remainder appointed by a variety of bodies—34 in all—with an interest in the council's work.
Consultation in 1980 with a considerable number of interested bodies showed that a large majority thought the council had become too big. We have, therefore, concluded that the council's membership, excluding its chairman, should be a maximum of 25. This is the most important change provided in this part. But there are four other related changes—appointment of members by Ministers after appropriate consultation; powers for the Secretary of State to dismiss chairmen and members in certain circumstances; more flexible powers for the establishment of committees; and powers to make grants to students, currently made by Government departments.
I hope that your Lordships will see these changes as likely to provide the council with a more efficient and flexible structure through which to carry out its
724
important work. Next I will deal with improvements to children and young persons' legislation. The most significant change we wish to see concerns the 12 regional planning committees set up by the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 to plan a comprehensive system of community homes for children in care. Originally these committees were crucial for this purpose but the need for formal planning machinery is now much less. We therefore agreed, with the local authority associations, that a mandatory procedure was no longer appropriate. We still believe that co-operation between authorities is essential to ensure access to as wide a range of facilities as possible. In future, authorities will be able to provide community homes or use those of others, but without the need for a statutory regional plan.
The existing valuable arrangements for co-operation between authorities and the voluntary sector in providing homes are being safeguarded, but provision is made for local authorities to withdraw from these arrangements under conditions similar to those already available to voluntary organisations. Opportunity has also been taken to widen the use to which community homes may be put—for example, as intermediate treatment facilities.
There are a number of other important individual improvements to children's legislation which I am sure your Lordships will welcome. They include clarification of the requirement to give notice before a child can be removed from care and the introduction of statutory powers of entry where this has been denied to the supervisor of a child believed to be at risk of abuse.
Part VII of the Bill makes the legislative changes required to implement recommendations of a working group of central and local government representatives which reported in 1980 on charges for the personal social services. These legislative changes have been agreed with the relevant local authority associations. The aim of these changes is to eliminate inconsistencies in existing legislation, to reduce the administrative burden of assessing and collecting charges and to give greater freedom to individual authorities in determining their own charging policies.
Clause 12 brings consistency to the various powers under which authorities in England and Wales may charge for services such as home helps, aids and adaptations to houses, or places in day centres. The terms of all these powers are brought into line with those already in Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977. They enable authorities to make such charges, if any, as they consider reasonable, having regard to the means of the persons availing themselves of the services. No new charges are being introduced, but authorities will be able to take more account of what those using the services can afford. Few would disagree that this is right. The Scottish powers in this clause relate also to contributions in respect of children in care.
Clause 13 gives effect to the group's recommendations in relation to parental contributions for children in care, and contributions by 16-year-olds and over in care. The change now proposed will enable local authorities in England and Wales to fix a flat rate contribution with freedom to waive or reduce the contribution in the light of the parents' or the child's circumstances. The clause also implements the group's

725
recommendation that, in the same way as 16-year-olds who are earning while in care are required to contribute towards their keep, those receiving social security benefits and certain training allowances should also be required to do so.
Clauses 14 to 18 are concerned with local authority charges for residential accommodation. The intention is, first, to reduce the administrative burden on authorities of assessing and collecting charges and, second, to reduce the financial burden on ratepayers of contributing excessively and inappropriately to the cost of accommodation.
Clause 19 and Schedule 8 to the Bill will streamline and strengthen the adjudication arrangements for determining the right to benefits under social security legislation. The Council on Tribunals has welcomed, in principle, the three main changes, which are, first, a single tribunal—the social security appeal tribunal—which will replace the present national insurance local tribunals and supplementary benefit appeal tribunals. Members of the new tribunal will be drawn from panels of people with local knowledge or experience. Secondly, there will be appointments of a president, regional chairmen and some full-time chairmen of social security appeal tribunals and of medical appeal tribunals. All will be legally qualified. These appointments will improve the quality and enhance the independence of second-tier adjudication. Thirdly, the three present adjudicating authorities of first instance—insurance officers, benefit officers and supplement officers—will be replaced by a single independent authority called simply adjudication officers. The Bill provides for a new post of chief adjudication officer who will be responsible for advising the new officers and for keeping the system under review. He replaces the three present chief officers whose posts have no statutory backing. This change will simplify adjudication at first instance and emphasise the independence of the system from ministerial influence. The proposed changes in social security adjudication constitute, I believe, a substantial improvement and I hope that your Lordships will welcome them.
Turning now to quangos, we see no need to preserve these non-departmental public bodies which have outlived their original purpose. Clause 20 of the Bill provides for the abolition of three such bodies: the Advisory Council on Child Care, the Food Hygiene Advisory Council, and the Advisory Committee to the National Radiological Protection Board. This is the first opportunity we have had to seek the necessary legislative powers to implement decisions which were taken and announced some time ago. The three bodies concerned have effectively ceased to exist.
I should, however, like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have in the past devoted time and energy to the work of these bodies. We are most grateful for their efforts. As well as introducing new arrangements for family practitioner committees, Part V of the Bill repeals the provisions whereby health authorities in England and Wales which were designated as having special responsibility for medical or dental teaching included the word "Teaching" in their names. This Bill represents the first opportunity we have had to honour the commitment given, following consultation on the restructuring of the NHS, to introduce the necessary repeal.
726
Another NHS matter is contained in Part VI of the BIll, which concerns sick pay for doctors suspended from the medical register because of ill health. A recent legal action has suggested indirectly that an NHS doctor suspended by the General Medical Council on health grounds cannot receive the same financial benefits as a doctor whose illness is not a concern of the General Medical Council. This would be contrary to the recommendations of the Merrison Committee of Inquiry into the Regulation of the Medical Profession and the intention of the 1978 Medical Act. The purpose of this part is, therefore, to ensure that sick doctors within the NHS receive the same benefits and entitlements whether or not they are suspended by the GMC. I should however emphasise that the amendment specifically states that a practitioner suspended from registration will remain precluded from carrying out duties in the National Health Service as a medical practitioner, and the interests of patients therefore continue to be safeguarded. I hope that this House will accept this part as necessary to allow the few doctors who may be suspended by the General Medical Council on health grounds to be treated fairly, while in no way reducing the protection to patients that is provided by the General Medical Council.
I must say that I look forward to hearing your Lordships' views this afternoon on the general principles of the Bill and we shall be glad to hear your Lordships' views on the details during Committee. As an aid to informed discussion during Committee your Lordships may find it helpful to have a copy of the Notes on Clauses which the Government have prepared. These notes set out details of the background to and the provisions of the various clauses of and schedules to the Bill. Copies will be available as is customary from the Printed Paper Office tomorrow.
As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the measures in this Bill are diverse and wide-ranging. They seek to provide better services for the population as a whole. Whether this means enabling a mentally handicapped person to leave hospital and live a fuller life in the community; or protecting the interests of children at risk from abuse; or cutting away unnecessary institutions or bureaucracy; in the end, it is the user who will benefit. On this basis I commend the Bill to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
3.32 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, my first pleasant duty is to thank the noble Minister for his detailed statement on the provisions of the Bill—it certainly was detailed. However, I must admit that I felt that his claims for the Bill in his early remarks were somewhat exaggerated. On 4th November last, during a debate on the gracious Speech, I drew attention to the fact that a measure would be introduced to improve the health and social services. I said that I had feared the worst but I was reassured by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Then, unheralded and unforeseen, the Government have produced with

727
speed this ragbag of a Bill which, like the curate's egg, is good in parts—and that, of course, is putting it in my accustomed polite manner.
We have had so many health and social security Bills in the life of this Parliament that we shall soon need some consolidation measures. In general I would support the provisions of Part I, except that I cannot understand why subsection (4) of Clause 1 is written into the Bill. As I understand it, a joint consultative committee is virtually a veto on payments by a constituent authority. The Bill states that no payment shall be made by any authority unless it is recommended by a joint consultative committee of which the authority is a member. In my view that is an entirely negative and restrictive approach. Situations may vary in authority areas. Some authorities might be progressive and others not so forward looking, and therefore a lot could depend on the composition of the consultative committee. The system indicated in the Bill seems to be somewhat clumsy and complicated.
Voluntary agencies are very much involved in the Bill's provisions, but the Government's consultative documents proposal for voluntary organisations to receive direct funding from the DHSS is not included. Voluntary agencies, housing and education authorities should be represented on joint consultative committees.
As regards child care, Clause 3 will allow individual local authorities to withdraw from constructive regional planning arrangements even if a majority of the authorities wish to continue. In my view, that is not in the interests of efficient local administration and if a majority of authorities wish to continue present arrangements they should be allowed to do so.
As far as residential homes and nursing homes are concerned, I agree with the statement made by the Minister that private and voluntary homes do play an important part in the care of the elderly and handicapped, among others. I welcome with some degree of reservation the proposals to license and inspect such homes. It would appear that the licence when granted will be subject to a fee and possibly an annual payment. No mention is made, however, regarding renewal of the licence. Would it not be better to tighten up control by having the licence renewable periodically—say every three years or so? I agree that inspection should be carried out every 12 months and I welcome the Minister's statement to that effect. But I must agree that inspection must not be cursory: it must be thorough and tight in its effect.
Charges made not only by private homes but also authority-owned homes can in many cases be excessive. For instance, a friend of mine, a bachelor in lodgings and an old-age pensioner with a private pension, was charged some time ago £86 per week for temporary accommodation in a local authority home during his landlady's holiday. Private homes are much more expensive and beyond the means of the majority of people needing such facilities. I am not necessarily referring to places run by charities, but there is no doubt that in many other cases charges are far too excessive and call for investigation and control.
Age Concern in a press release today states:
"At its best the private sector home is very good but at its worst it represents a scandalous exploitation of elderly people, who may be dumped by uncaring relatives with no questions asked for as long as the money lasts".
728
That is a sweeping generalised statement, but to be quite honest it must be admitted that it is not unjustified. There is certainly a need for stricter and tighter control of private nursing homes, particularly in the provision of nursing care, and for a comprehensive code of conduct legally binding. I welcome the fact that there will be such a code of conduct.
As regards family practitioner committees, Clause 10 repeals the designation of certain health authorities as teaching authorities and indicates some move, I assume, to reduce the number of teaching hospitals. It is true that today over 1,000 doctors are unemployed, but it is also true that a number of hospitals are still seriously short of medical staff due to expenditure cuts. One with which I am very familiar has two consultants operating but the regional health authority say that it can have three. There is a need for three, but unfortunately they also add that there is no money to provide the necessary doctor and, therefore, waiting lists will still rise. The increase in the powers of the family practitioner committees no doubt will be welcomed by the medical profession. It is their victory, indeed, against the advice of all other bodies. But the provision in the Bill setting up joint committees could hamper progress. In addition, this would weaken the powers of the district health authorities and, indeed, the new family practitioner committees.
Primary health care services are vital in the prevention of ill health and keeping people in the community, especially the very elderly, the mentally and physically handicapped and the mentally ill. The setting up of family practitioner committees, as envisaged in the Bill, will seriously hinder the planning of primary care services. The Royal Commission on the National Health Service recommended the abolition of family practitioner committees in England and Wales and the assumption of their functions by health authorities as a step towards integration. The Government have taken a completely opposite step. The machinery of liaison, the joint consultative committee, is cumbersome, particularly bearing in mind the fact that a family practitioner committee will cover a number of district health authority areas and quite easily a conflict of interest and need is bound to arise.
The loss of co-terminosity between health and social service authorities has already led to difficulties in establishing joint consultative committees and has seriously weakened health and social services.
I have had experience in serving on a joint consultative committee covering an AHA and local authorities. Quite frankly, from my experience they have proved to be vague talking-shops with frequent conflicts of views and interests between representatives of local authorities. They are certainly not vehicles of positive approach and are weakest in the field of co-ordination.
The operation of the provisions of Schedule 5 regarding the satisfying of family practitioner committees that applicants for inclusion in lists have:
"that knowledge of English which is necessary, etc.",
is understandable, but will have to be operated with care and discretion to avoid charges of racialism. Regard will also have to be had to the extent of the multiracial nature of a specific area. This proposal could, in some cases, lead to serious discrimination. I

729
fully appreciate the point that the Government are making and do not wish to be unduly critical, but this is certainly a matter to be closely watched.
I now come to deal with charges for local authority services. In Part VII we have inserted, naked and unashamed, the means test, not only on recovery from and designation of income, but provision to deduct from assets already passed over to relatives and also from interest in land. When I read that in the Bill, my mind boggled at the thought of old people, the handicapped, et cetera, on low incomes being included in the category of landed classes. It seems to me quite ridiculous to bring that in.
To be fair, it is true that local authorities have always been able to levy a contribution from parents towards the maintenance of children under the age of 16 who are in their care and, in the case of children over 16 years in full-time work, from such an individual. Contributions have also been claimed for or from some adults. In the past, recovery has been on the basis of:
"such charges as may be reasonable",
and this has given rise to a varied pattern from one district to another. The inclusion of the words "having regard to his means" will not get rid of anomalies or variations of the point of recovery. I would ask, is there to be a set formula to provide for a test of means, or will local authorities, in their wisdom or otherwise, make their own decisions? Will there be provided a standard form to be completed by the involved person? If so, it must be borne in mind that in some cases people will not be in a fit state to complete it. Elderly and handicapped people are notoriously independent and sensitive, and as a result may not receive their just rights.
Cases have arisen during the past of elderly people in care worried over financial charges, wanting and pressing for transfer to another area, maybe where they were born or resident at one time, in order to avoid high charges. Indeed, I have had to handle one or two such cases. Charges levied by local authorities in many cases have proved to be arbitrary and discriminatory. I can see nothing in the Bill's proposals to avoid such a situation continuing.
A set standard must be laid down in order to ensure, among other things, that charges are levied not only on a fair, uniform basis, but, even more important, that the person involved is left with an adequate disposable income. This is a very vital matter indeed when we are dealing with the elderly, the handicapped and the mentally ill. In their efforts to effect improvements in this field, the Government have only touched the fringe of a complex human problem, and I would remind the House that we are dealing with people and not statistics, and must always be mindful of that fact.
Finally, we have yet another move to abolish quangos. Quite frankly—and I speak personally here—I cannot understand why the Government want to get rid of the Advisory Council on Child Care. It would appear that the Government do not consider it essential, probably for financial reasons. But there are many problems in that field still to be solved. Surely, with so much needing to be done in this field of child care, such a body is still needed. Similarly regarding the Advisory Committee on Radiation Hazards, et cetera, surely modern technical developments call for
730
its continued work.
As I said in my opening remarks, this Bill is a veritable bag of allsorts, and I look forward to the day when the Government will introduce their Bill to improve the health and social services. When they do, I am sure that the general election will not be far away. In the meantime, I give this assurance to the Government, that we shall all—and I include all sections of this House—give this Bill the closest possible scrutiny in Committee and during other stages.

Steel: Community Discussions
3.47 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I shall now intervene to repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry in another place about the European Community discussions on steel. The Statement is as follows:
"Since my Statement on 22nd October, I have had talks on steel individually with my German and French colleagues, and further talks with the Commission Vice-Presidents Davignon and Ortoli; and on Thursday I attended the informal meeting of Community Industry Ministers in Denmark. These meetings have taken place at a time of deepening crisis in the steel industries in this country, in the rest of the European Community and indeed in the whole of the industrialised world.
"At the informal meeting in Denmark, the Commission stressed the seriousness of the forecast in their document, General Objectives for Steel, 1985, that the surplus steel-making capacity in the Community, already evident in 1980, will be even greater in 1985, with capacity for finished steel products exceeding forecast demand by nearly 50 million tonnes per year.
"I stressed to my community colleagues that the United Kingdom had done and was doing its part to reduce excess capacity and become competitive. I said that I could not and would not defend a situation where our capacity cuts were not matched by other member states. If the Community's steel industries were to be restored to health, all Governments must pull together, and be seen to be doing so. This position was fully shared by eight of our nine partners; however, the Italian Minister expressed misgivings. I made it clear to the Commission that there must be no certificates of exemption in their administration of the state aids decision of August 1981.
"I also drew attention once again to the increasing instability of steel prices in the Community and to the widespread allegations of abuse or evasion of the rules. I called for more effective policing of the price and quota rules; member states should be ready to assist the Commission in this task.
"I am pleased to say that Vice-President Davignon outlined a battery of measures which the Commission are considering urgently in order to try to restore price stability and to improve the enforcement of the rules throughout the Community. It is the intention that formal Commission proposals on these matters will be made in the next few days.

731
These are important moves which will, I hope, tackle the problem of unfairly low priced imports from other member states.
"As far as imports from third countries are concerned, I repeated the Government's calls for a toughening of the voluntary restraint arrangements to be renegotiated for 1983, as regards both overall quantities and provisions to avoid disruptive surges in imports. The negotiating mandate has today been agreed at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels in a way that meets our principal concerns.
"I also stressed the Government's concern about the level of United Kingdom imports from other member states of high speed and tool steels, which has particularly affected the Sheffield-based industry.
"I have drawn the attention of all my Community colleagues to the need for action to deal with these problems. Vice-President Davignon's response was helpful in that he asked all member states to examine the technical issues urgently. An essential first step is to extend the list of products covered by the Treaty of Paris.
"Finally, I expressed concern about the recently announced decision of the President of the United States to open proceedings under Section 201 of the Trade Act against imports of certain special steels from the European Community. I stressed the importance of seeking to resolve this issue speedily. Vice-President Davignon agreed that a Community position was urgently required.
"The meeting in Denmark made useful progress in tackling the problems faced by the steel industry and should help to improve the outlook for British steel producers, both in the public and the private sector. In particular, the effectiveness of the Community steel policy will be an essential element in the discussions I am having with the chairman of the British Steel Corporation about the future strategy of BSC.
"This is not the occasion, Mr. Speaker, to discuss BSC's future in detail, if only because I have little to add to what I said on this subject on 9th November. My purpose, and that of the BSC, is to reach sensible decisions aimed at putting the corporation back on to the path to profitability while at the same time ensuring that it retains the capacity to respond readily to the likely level of demand from customers over the next few years. I still hope that I will be able to report to the House before Christmas."
My Lords, that is the Statement.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place, which Statement indeed is one of the utmost gravity. We are very pleased indeed to note that a further report will be made to the House, and presumably to another place, before Christmas. I put it to the noble Lord that, although these matters are resolved through the usual channels, we on this side of the House regard it as of the utmost importance that a full, public and informed debate takes place on the questions that have been raised by this Statement.
732
Since 22nd October, and indeed during the last week, in the United Kingdom there have been closures near Motherwell and also near Dudley which total some 1,700 job losses. During the year 1981–82 there were losses in the United Kingdom amounting to 14·1 per cent., in West Germany to 5·1 per cent., in France to 2·1 per cent., and in Italy to 2·6 per cent. Over the last three years, if the noble Lord will reinforce himself by reports appearing in The Times last week, of 110,000 job losses in the steel industry over the last two-and-a-half to three years 100,000 have been lost in the United Kingdom and 10,000 in the remainder of the Community. In other words, we have borne 10 times the amount of redundancy that has been borne in the remainder of Europe.
The first thing that I have to ask the noble Lord, particularly in the light of his statement that,
"The meeting in Denmark made useful progress in tackling the problems faced by the steel industry and should help to improve the outlook for British steel producers, both in the public and the private sector,"
is whether he will give the House the assurance that there will be no further redundancies in the steel industry, or that there will be no further closures. I would take it that "improve" in common parlance means much less closure and much less redundancy than has occurred in the past. "Improve" means what it says.
The House will note from the noble Lord's Statement that his right honourable friend's expressions of discontent with the current position were agreed to largely by eight of the nine partners, but that the Italian Minister expressed misgivings. Can the House be given an assurance that in the negotiations that take place, whether they be at COREPER level or at the Council of Ministers, the unanimity rule will still apply? The noble Lord will recall that it is only a few months since the unanimity rule resulting from the Luxembourg convention was breached. What happens in the current circumstance if Italy should dissent from any measures that the Commission proposes be taken? Is it the noble Lord's position that he will seek to obtain from his colleagues approval for the veto being overridden? Could we have some assurance on that point?
The Statement said that the noble Lord's right honourable friend would not defend a situation where our capacity cuts were not matched by other member states. Will the noble Lord agree that the term "would not defend" is a rather passive expression of Government resolve in these matters? Would it not have been far better for the Government to say that they themselves would attack if measures unjust to the United Kingdom were proposed and agreed upon by other member states? In the light of the record of which I have acquainted your Lordships, this is surely not a situation in which we can afford to be on the defensive much longer.
Will the noble Lord say whether, in the course of the discussions that are to take place, attention will be drawn to the fact that in so far as imports of steel products into the United Kingdom are concerned no less than two-thirds of the imports of the United Kingdom come from within the Community itself? Notwithstanding the sentiments of his noble friend Lord Cockfield in favour of the overriding nature of market forces, is the noble Lord prepared to give an

733
undertaking that the Government will seek means of protection for the British steel industry from unduly large imports from the remainder of the European Community?
Will the noble Lord also give an undertaking that his right honourable friend will consult with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer over some means of changing the Government's high exchange rate policies and its policies of artificially increasing the energy prices paid by the English steel industry, which have in all probability contributed greatly to the situation in which the steel industry finds itself? Finally, will the noble Lord give the House an indication as to whether the new package as seen by him and by his department is likely to prove any more effective than the old one which, in the event, has had such disastrous consequences?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we, too, thank the Minister for repeating that Statement and, speaking personally, I have some sympathy with the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, to the effect that we should have a debate before Christmas on the very grave situation in which the steel industry finds itself, when we would have an opportunity of saying how far we agree with the efforts of the Government to put it right or how far we do not.
However optimistic one may be by nature, like myself, it is difficult not to be depressed by the statement that the Community's capacity for finished steel products is likely in 1985 to exceed demand by no less than 50 million tonnes. May I ask the noble Lord to say how much steel, on that assumption or estimate, is likely to be produced in that year in the United Kingdom? Indeed, if the slump goes on in 1985, it looks as if those people may be right who say that this was the first country to industrialise 200 years ago and will be the first country to de-industrialise—in other words, to have practically no heavy industry at all; and what the effect of that will be nobody can say, but it is unlikely to be extremely pleasant, to say the least.
The only other question I would ask is whether the Government would agree that the prospects for our steel industry, grim though they are, would be even grimmer if we were not able to negotiate with the United States as a member of the Community, and additionally that the efforts of the Commission, and notably those of Vice-President Davignon—the efforts of the Commission which have been so often criticised in this country—have been particularly worthy of praise on this particular occasion.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords for their reception to my Statement, although the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, had a good number of points to raise and I shall deal with as many of them as I can. He asked whether there could be a debate in your Lordships' House on these important matters. As he knows, that is not a matter on which I could give him an assurance. It will, of course, be discussed through the usual channels, and I should certainly be happy to take part in any such debate, should one be arranged.
He referred to a recent report about job losses in the European Community steel industry and in this country. I would ask him to treat that report with
734
caution. I saw it myself and my preliminary advice—I have not yet had a chance to look at it in detail—is that they are not comparing like with like and that the position is nothing like as bad as the article suggests.
He asked if I could give him an assurance that there would be no further redundancies in British Steel. I cannot, I fear, give him that assurance. These matters are now being actively pursued by the British Steel Corporation in close consultation with my right honourable friend and, as the Statement says, my right honourable friend will wish to come forward, if he can, with a further announcement before Christmas.
The noble Lord also asked me about Italy and the prospects of unanimity in the Council on this matter. The British position on the Luxembourg compromise is well known to the noble Lord. The Italian position with regard to their steel industry is, they claim, different from everyone else's because they consume so much more steel within their own economy. Be that as it may, there is clearly a need for a united European decision on this matter, which should apply to all members of the Community, and the Government certainly hope that that can be achieved.
The noble Lord went on to ask about the wording of the Statement when we refer to defending the need for justice—if I can put it that way; or equality of misery—throughout the Community, and he referred to the words in the Statement when my right honourable friend said:
"I said that I could not and would not defend a situation where our capacity cuts were not matched by other member states".
The reputation of the Government in defending—if I may use that word again—British interests in the Community is one of which we can be proud. We have achieved a great deal in the time we have been responsible for these matters, not by dictating to our partners in the Community—which is not possible in an organisation such as that—but in active discussion and debate, and pointing to the justice of our case. We shall continue to do that, but we shall not be able to do it by hectoring the other members of the Community, which I am certain would be counter-productive.
The noble Lord went on to ask about United Kingdom imports from the Community. That is a matter which has been giving rise to considerable concern lately and we were very anxious indeed to achieve better policing of the existing quota arrangements and the existing price control mechanism in the Community. Vice-President Davignon agreed with us on that, and we understand that proposals are to come forward very shortly for that purpose.
He then asked me some other matters about exchange rates and energy prices, which I hope he will forgive me for not pursuing with him now, matters which perhaps do not precisely arise from the Statement I have repeated, and I do not think I should be able to tell the noble Lord anything particularly new on that, anyway.
Turning to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, he asked me about production in 1985. I can tell him that the installed capacity of the British Steel Corporation at this moment is 21 million tonnes, that they are manned to produce about 14 million tonnes—these figures are on an annual basis—and that they are actually producing now about 10 million tonnes. What the figure will be when we reach 1985 it

735
is difficult for me to forecast, but we certainly hope that the capacity and demand of the European Community steel industry generally will be much nearer in balance at that time; and we note, of course, the figures which the European Community propose if proper steps are not taken between now and then.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, the Minister has done as well as could be expected in the unfortunate situation in which we are, but the problem is that of the world recession, which is making this sort of trouble happen in most industries and in most parts of the world. What is needed is some concerted attempt to get the world out of this recession. It has been said that we should have a debate in this House about the future of the steel industry. It would, however, be a very unhelpful debate, as we have no idea at present what the outlook will be. The Minister said at the end of the Statement that,
"the corporation . . . is hoping to respond . . . to the likely level of demand from customers over the next few years".
However, it will not have the faintest idea what that will be without some notion of whether the Government or other Governments have any ideas in their heads at all about getting the world out of the present recession.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to say that the world is in great recession at the present time, and I suppose that that lies at the very heart of the problems not only of the British Steel Corporation but of all the steel manufacturing companies of the European Community. The first step so far as we are concerned in restoring the world economy to health is to get our own economy into a healthy position, and that is what our policies are aimed to achieve.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, is my noble friend aware how much we welcome the tough stance being taken by his right honourable friend in resisting the disproportionate cuts in steel production capacity that have been suffered by the United Kingdom against our European partners? Will he urge his right honourable friend to take account of the impact these steel cuts are having on industry both upstream and downstream of the main steel producers—and here I should perhaps declare an interest—and ask his right honourable friend to take account of the points made from both sides of this House on the impact of energy costs on these essential basic industries?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, certainly I shall convey the thoughts of my noble friend to my right honourable friend. As for the impact of energy costs upon the problems of the Steel Corporation, this is a point that was raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and I skated over it somewhat. As I said the other day in answer to a different question from a noble Lord opposite, of course the raising of energy prices to a competitive level—which is what has been happening in recent years—is not imposing a special burden on the British steel industry, or on any other industry, but is lifting from them the prospect of any form of assistance with energy costs, and that is a very different matter. We have chosen a policy of restoring
736
the energy costs to a level competitive with other sources of energy, and I am certain that that was the right way to proceed.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the next Statement is not yet cleared from another place. and so perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, would be good enough to speak on the Second Reading.

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]
4.11 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, you must excuse me for relaxing and leaning back. I was under the impression that the second Statement would be presented to us before it was my turn to continue the debate on the new proposed Bill. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for introducing the Bill so clearly and for pointing out to us what the Government are attempting to do. I shall turn to one or two aspects of the Bill, and not necessarily go through all its various clauses.
First, I should like to address myself to the question of care in the community—Part I of the Bill. I wish to say how greatly I welcome the extension of powers given to health authorities to make payments, as well as the extension of the period of time during which such payments may be made, as well as the fact that expenditure on housing and education is now to be included. I welcome the proposal because I think it is the right way in which to deal with joint financing if we are to achieve improvement in our care in the community programme. I welcome the proposal as a means of achieving the objective, but, until such time as there is more money in the fund, very little improvement will in fact take place. When we consider the problem that faces us, the announced £6 million increase next year in the funds available is only a drop in the ocean.
Some time ago, the Government themselves ascertained that there are in institutions at least 17,000 who could be living in the community if suitable conditions existed for them so to do. The amount of money available is nowhere near sufficient to move towards returning these people into the community. In view of the financial stringency and indeed the economic climate within which both local authorities and health authorities have to work, the danger in regard to the extension of time is that most of the money available to JCCs will be used to extend the time for payment in respect of projects already in existence. Personally, I should wish—and I think most people would wish—that the increased amount of money be used as pump-priming for new initiatives, and I am very concerned that that might not happen.
I believe that in society there are many misconceptions about the problems of getting people back into the community. First, it is not cheap. Many have assumed that it is a cheaper way and a better way of looking after people. I believe that it is a better way, but it is not a cheaper way. It is always assumed that, if this method relieves district health authorities of the

737
responsibility of looking after people in institutions, there will be revenue savings to those authorities which can be transferred to the new accommodation created through joint financing. However, there would be very little revenue saving to the district health authorities, because, first, we should want to improve the staffing in the present institutions, and, secondly, a degree of high dependency would remain.
The other difficulty regarding the proposals in Part I of the Bill arises from the statement that money earmarked for joint financing can be used or controlled only by the JCC on which the district health authority is represented. That seems fair. But, if one considers the large psychiatric institutions in and around London, it would be necessary for joint financing money to be used in another district and in the area of another local authority. That is because one cannot expect the local authority in the area of which big psychiatric units are situated to take care of all the people who might be discharged. So, in my view, the DHAs would have to be represented on a large number of authorities, so as to enable people to go back into the community. The use of joint financing money is being somewhat restricted here.
While I was a regional chairman, I applied to the Department of Health and Social Security for permission to use some joint financing money in another region, because people who were to be released from a psychiatric unit were former residents of the region. There was a fairly noncommittal reply, but not a refusal, and my anxiety is that under the Bill it would not be possible for money to be used in that way, which could be beneficial to the authority that was proposing so to use it.
We on these Benches very much welcome the proposed legislation on the registration of private and voluntary homes. This has been long overdue, and can be only of great benefit. But I am a little concerned. First of all, I agree that inspection should be conducted on at least an annual basis, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for assuring us that that will be so. However, I should like to ask some questions on what kind of register will be kept. Personally, I should prefer a national register. This is a very important point because it is possible that, after a home has lost its registration through mismanagement and has been closed down, the perhaps undesirable people who had been running it might move to another part of the country where they would apply for, and be granted, a new registration. On the other hand, I believe that, if there were a national register of all registered homes, plus a register of the people who had had their registration withdrawn, that would be valuable. I shall be grateful for an answer as to whether a national register is envisaged under the Bill. So far as I can understand it, it does not seem that it is envisaged.
The other aspect of the Bill that we also welcome very much is the single system of adjudication. This seems to me the right way to move, that there should be only one body to which people would have to appeal. I also welcome the fact that the chairmen will be legally-qualified people; but it would be of great interest, I believe, to be told something of the Government's thinking on how many full-time chairmen there are going to be, because anyone at all aware of the problems that are going to face this appeal tribunal, with a mass of legislation which is constantly
738
changing, will know how important it is that we have the maximum number of full-time chairmen, for I believe this is too complicated an issue for a large number of part-time chairmen, however eminent and however willing they are to work.
Another point I should like to make is that if there is any saving in the cost of administration coming from the amalgamation of these bodies, one would like to appeal to the Secretary of State to use that saving for training new members of the panel. The members of the panel are going to be part-time, and they will need an enormous amount of training, I believe, in order to deal with the very difficult questions that are going to be put in front of them.
I am also disturbed about the fact that the clerk to the tribunal should be provided by the DHSS, because it could appear to applicants in front of the tribunal that the clerk from the DHSS was really part of the system he was appealing against. Furthermore, if the clerk to a tribunal is going to be really useful to that tribunal, he will have to do more than just take notes. He should be a person similar to a clerk to a magistrates' court, who, on a point of law, could advise the panel. I do not think he will be able to do that if he is an employee of the DHSS, and I should prefer to see an independent person who is not connected with the DHSS itself. I hope that that point can be considered.
Then, this month the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act comes into force, under which there is no appeal, only a review. It seems to me that the new body, when it is set up, should be able to look at appeals under that Act as well. The last point on this issue about which I wanted to ask the noble Lord is whether he would explain why it is not possible for an appellant to appeal not only on a point of law but also on a question of fact.
I now want to come to the establishment of independent special health authorities for the family practitioner committees. I have always been in agreement with the Royal Commission's recommendation that FPCs should be properly integrated into the NHS. I always found when I was a regional chairman that there was a lack of communication and difficulties created in planning, in particular of primary care, because there was not a close enough relationship between the FPCs and the district health authorities. To me, it appears that planning is going to be even more difficult now, because it is going to mean willing co-operation between three different independent statutory bodies. There are going to be the FPCs, the DHAs and the Social Services Department; and the regional health authorities, who are responsible for the strategic long-term planning of their regions, are completely excluded, because the FPCs are directly responsible and have no obligation to report to the regional health authorities. I find this a tragedy, because I believe we made a mistake in 1974. We had the chance to put it right in the recent reorganisation, and I was hoping that this Bill would have put into effect what we all wish to see.
When it comes to the membership of the FPCs I have another great concern, and that is that on reading the schedule I see that there will be four DHA members on each FCP. I have no idea what the locality of the FPC is going to be, but one would assume that the Government are not going to go in for

739
an enormous reorganisation of the size and shape of the FPCs, and that they are liable to be of the size of an area health authority. With four DHA members on them, there being some former area health authorities, localities which have many more than four districts within them, it means that if there are six or seven district health authorities only some of them will be able to be represented on the FPC. I find that upsetting.
Then, when it comes to planning, it is often forgotten that there are districts in this country which can be called deprived districts from the point of view of not having a sufficient number of general practitioners within their area. The influence that the DHAs will have to improve that position is going to be minimal under this new organisation; and when there is an insufficient coverage of general practitioners in a district, an enormous additional cost is handed over to the hospital services because the clinics in the hospitals have to take care of what should be done by the general practitioners. My Lords, I sincerely hope that some of these things can be put right at Committee stage. There are the beginnings of some very good things in this Bill, and I sincerely hope your Lordships will be able to make it an even better Bill at Committee stage.

Britoil: Sale of Shares
4.28 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy about the outcome of the offer of shares in Britoil. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the outcome of the offer of shares in Britoil.
"The lists opened and closed at 10.00 am last Friday.
"Valid applications were received in respect of just under 70 million shares. They have been accepted in full at the minimum tender price of 215 pence per share. The balance of the underwritten portion of the Offer for Sale, some 185 million shares, will be taken up at the same price by the underwriters and sub-underwriters, who comprise some 500 pension funds, life offices and other investing institutions, who will hold the shares on behalf of their members, policyholders and shareholders.
"Ninety-nine per cent. of all applications came from small investors and employees. There were a little over 35,000 applications for 2,000 shares or less, 90 per cent. of them being striking price applications. These will be eligible for the small shareholder bonus subject to the terms and conditions set out in the prospectus.
"Under the special arrangements made by the Government for employees of Britoil, 92 per cent. of eligible employees will hold a total of some half million shares between them. I will circulate a more detailed breakdown of the applications in the Official Report.
"Dealings in Britoil shares will open tomorrow. Following the sale, the Government will be left with approximately 49 per cent. of the share capital of
740
Britoil. The total share issue will raise a gross sum of £548 million. In addition, Britoil will shortly repay, with interest, a debenture of £88 million. Total gross proceeds will be approximately £640 million.
"The latest estimate of the costs to be borne by my Department since preparations began in January up to the end of the current financial year is £11½ million, exclusive of VAT. This sum includes expenses incurred in connection with the scheme transferring assets to Britoil, as well as costs of the sale itself. Parliamentary approval to expenditure in connection with the main expenses of the Britoil sale will be sought in a Winter Supplementary Estimate. Pending that approval, the necessary expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.
"In all, the total net proceeds from the disposal of Britoil are estimated to be in excess of £625 million.
"Mr. Speaker, Britoil has now been successfully privatised on eminently fair terms for the taxpayer. I am sure all sides of the House will want to wish this important new British company every success in the years ahead".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, the House will thank the noble Lord for reading the Statement which was given in another place. However, does he really think that the Statement is a little more sober and more realistic than some of the Secretary of State's rather bouncy comments made in a broadcast of yesterday, when he talked about the "great success of this flotation"? He referred then to the success of the issue. This is hardly the kind of comment which is made by responsible and experienced financiers and others in the City. The Secretary of State has now presided over two disastrous incursions into privatisation. The House will recall Amersham International, where the speculators made a killing, and now Britoil, where only a small percentage of the shares have been sold, showing a great lack of confidence in the issue.
Why did the Secretary of State and the Government ignore the warnings about the timing of this sale? As I said on the Statement on 10th November, the Secretary of State seemed determined to sell in November, whatever the consequences; and now we know the effect upon these great public assets. Does he recognise that the public have little or no confidence in this investment and will he urge the Government to reconsider not only this privatisation but also any future policies of privatisation they may have?
Also, can the noble Lord say what percentage of the 255 million shares will be held by small investors? Can he say what special considerations there were for employees to hold these shares? Does he classify shareholdings of up to 2,000 shares as being held by small investors? As the Secretary of State anticipates that some 185 million shares will be taken up by—and I quote the Statement—
"underwriters and sub-underwriters, who comprise some 500 pension funds, life offices and other investing institutions, who will hold shares on behalf of their members, policy holders and shareholders",
does he classify these as small investors and can he say to what extent the shareholders who will be

741
represented in these block shareholdings will have been consulted directly, in view of the uncertain investment with which they may be concerned? Is the sale of only 30 per cent.—the figure seems to have been between 25 and 30 per cent. of the shares—and the fact that underwriters were left holding considerable numbers of unsold shares really what the Secretary of State has in mind when he talks about "success"? He said he wanted—and I quote—
"the people of Britain to take a direct personal stake in the North Sea".
I think he has the answer. Will he urge his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make another early statement on this so-called "sale of the century" which, instead of being seen as a success, will be seen as the flop of the century? Will he stop playing with the vital assets which are represented in the North Sea in order to give the industry the kind of stability and the kind of certain future it would have and would continue to have under public control?
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, we are grateful, from these Benches, that the noble Lord has repeated the Statement made in another place. The question that I would like to put is this. I wonder how the statement would have read if the issue had been a success. I think this is the best they can do in the circumstances, and for the term "success" to be used probably means that it has got into the Guinness Book of Records. From information I have received I believe that no new issue put forward on the Stock Exchange either in this country or elsewhere has met with such devasting non-success, though in this way it may have a claim to fame.
I am also worried that, as the noble Lord will recall, a suggestion was made from these Benches that perhaps in order to make amends for the Amersham issue Her Majesty's Government might consider a deliberate failure in order to maximise the number of shares left with the underwriters. That suggestion was made and I wonder whether perhaps it was taken a little too seriously by the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Energy, who made a personal contribution by his intervention in the market, insisting that the shares be placed at £2·15 per share rather than taking the advice given that the price should be £1·80 per share. Perhaps the noble Lord can comment on that.
I should like to take up a point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston; that, this sale was intended to benefit the small investor and the employees. This aspect was welcomed from these Benches and I think it is very unfortunate and most unfair that the small investor, when he looks at his shares tomorrow at 10 a.m., may find that the amount of money he has put forward has been lost by something like 20 per cent. With the amount of advice and the number of warnings given from not only these Benches but all parts of the House that the timing of this issue was all wrong, I think that the small investor has some complaints to make to the Government for going ahead when all the auspices were wrong, on City advice.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, if he could, to confirm that the expenses to the taxpayer of underwriting this issue will amount to more than £8 million. It is very difficult perhaps to find the parlia-
742
mentary phrase for describing Her Majesty's Government's efforts over this issue. I therefore use an unparliamentary phrase. I think that "a right Horlicks" has been made of this issue from the very start to the finish. There is some concern that Her Majesty's Government, who claim support from business and City interests, have managed to get so out of touch with them in order to make two very serious miscalculations, in terms of the City, in its two most recent issues on the road to privatisation.
The question I ask the noble Lord is: before any further privatisation issue occurs, will Her Majesty's Government take further advice from the City and actually listen to it, rather than take the advice of their civil servants who have no experience whatsoever, and have proved this to be so. Furthermore, would the noble Lord perhaps consider that it is time to have a whole debate on the issue of privatisation itself and the methods of it, in order to be reassured in this House that the Government in fact know what they are doing and are listening to the people who have been giving support until now, although they may have serious reconsiderations about it in the future.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before I answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, which is obviously coming, perhaps I may respond to the first two speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. Obviously, I am grateful for their introductory personal comments which were perhaps predictable. But I am not in the least surprised by the subsequent comments which I reckon were also fairly predictable. Indeed, anywhere else but in this Chamber I might have made reference to an element of crowing, but, of course, we will not do that sort of thing, will we?
There was an element of déja vu—of "I told you so"—in the remarks by both noble Lords. But I suggest to your Lordships that they were remarkable only for what was not said. Have we heard the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, for example, say again that it was a waste of money to have the shares underwritten? Have we heard of the effects of the Indonesian statement that she had reduced her oil price by 47 cents a barrel on 12th November? Have we heard of the effects of the Saudi Arabian statement on Thursday last that they were willing to consider an oil price cut? Naturally not, but I have been asked various questions.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, asked me whether the Statement was not a little more sober than my right honourable friend's comments on yesterday's "World at One". Naturally, my Lords, it was a little more sober. He is reporting on something to Parliament and, indeed, I have repeated his words in exactly the same way. I am glad that the noble Lord noticed that they were sober. That does not necessarily mean that any subsequent remarks made from either Dispatch Box in either House will be quite as sober.
The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, referred to two "disastrous excursions"; and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, quantified these by referring to this current disposal of assets and by comparing it with the one for Amersham. He asked: did we take too seriously the suggestion from the Liberal Benches that we had overreacted on Amersham, and have we

743
overreacted in the other way on the sale of Britoil? The two have no connection whatever. Not only was Amersham something like one-fifteenth of the size of the total value of Britoil, but, naturally, when these exercises are undertaken one wants to learn from mistakes, both real and apparent. I would say that we have almost certainly swung from one extreme to the other, but I do not think that that is necessarily a bad thing, and I would not draw that conclusion. Why ignore the warnings? The warnings have been frequent. Some have been irrational; they certainly have not been consistent. We have had one warning one day and another warning another day, so one does not know which warning to listen to at any time.
It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bishop-ston, that there was little or no confidence in the City. What nonsense, my Lords! We had the shares underwritten at a price that we told Parliament we would. There is no doubt about it that this was a successful outcome, because, quite obviously, some small section of the City did not agree with the major bulk of the City who put a different value on the shares. The Government received the higher value.
I was asked about the percentage of shares held by small investors. Approximately one-third of the shares applied for were applications from small shareholders. This amounts to some 9 per cent. of all the shares on offer. There were special rates for employees. I do not have these arrangements to hand, but they were well identified in the prospectus in, I think, three different places. As I remember it, there was a long-term holding arrangement which applied to all small investors and which was a one-for-10 bonus issue for those shares which were held after three years; there was a topping-up arrangement where there were free shares being given to match the purchased shares, and there were also free shares on their own account. But, for the details, the noble Lord will have to refer to the prospectus.
The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, also asked what I found to be a totally amazing question. He asked whether the 500 investors referred to in the Statement are to be described as small investors. No, quite evidently they are not. They may be made up of small investors, in that some of the underwriters and sub-underwriters were pension funds, assurance societies and the like and, naturally, there was no direct reference to the individual participant in those various schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, commented that the Secretary of State was advised by the City that 180p would be appropriate as the value of the shares, whereas he stuck out for 215p a share, if I may paraphrase the noble Lord in rather inelegant language. This is pure unsubstantiated rumour. The point is that the higher value has been achieved by the Government, as I have already pointed out. I was asked: before further privatisations, will the Government learn lessons from these two exercises? Naturally, we shall. I think I have already shown that we have learned quite a good lesson from the Amersham one, and I believe we shall learn another lesson from this one. But that does not mean to say that I am not expecting further privatisation exercises.
The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, referred to the
744
flop of the century. To my mind, this occurred when the last Government had to go to the IMF because of constant previous unsound economic practices. Is that what puts the "great" in Great Britain? Is it a flop when the Government, with the advice of some City institutions, sells shares at a price which the City generally thinks is too high? Of course, it is not. I am glad that the noble Lord did not use the word "fiasco", because I have a lot more on that. But I have probably said enough.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not hypocritical for Members on the other side of your Lordships' House to complain that small investors get a bonanza when they make a profit on Amersham, and then to complain that they have been diddled because they have not got enough from the profit on the sale of Britoil? Is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government have placed Britoil on the market at X numbers of pounds and they have got the money which they asked for, and should we not all be very pleased that they have been able to get the money that they asked for? If I may be so bold as to suggest it, I find the hypocrisy on the other side, wailing about the poor merchant banks and the poor City being left with large hunks of issued capital which they have not been able to sell to the investors, slightly startling, considering the views which were expressed on the Amersham flotation only a few months ago.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I do not think it is a wise procedure to butter toasts on both sides.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, I have rather more sympathy with the Government than the two previous speakers. On the last occasion when we discussed this subject, the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, who probably knows more about it than anyone else in your Lordships' House, said how impossible it is to make a correct judgment and I think that the combination of this and Amersham shows how right he was. The Government had advice from six merchant banks and they could hardly have gone any further than that. They also had the good sense to have it underwritten. So I do not think it was such an unfortunate affair as all that.
The party on whose Benches I sit takes the view that it is very unfortunate that we have to have a succession of nationalisation and privatisation, which reduces all the hopes of good management. It is also most unfortunate that the Labour Party and the Conservative Party are bent on going first in one direction, and then in the other. If we must have nationalised industries—there is a case for them—we ought to try to get them—
Lord Denham: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would put his remarks in the form of a question.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. There is one question that I want to ask. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister could tell us if the proceeds of this operation will go to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement, and, if not, what will they go for?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the yo-yo of industrial politics in this respect is not good for anybody, but if the other side did not have such an idealistic approach to all these matters there would be no need for it. The noble Lord also asked where the proceeds are going. As with all other privatisation exercises, they will go into general Treasury funds and the Government will make such use of them as they see fit at a particular time to meet a particular contingency.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for his kindly manner and for his Statement. Is the noble Lord aware, however, that the financial columns of all the weekend papers and the others—no matter what political point of view they take—are beginning to say that we are going too far with this kind of privatisation? It is a dark cloud, no bigger than one's hand. However, the scions of the Tory Party, although they may accuse this side of déja vu, lack what the French call esprit de l'escalier: being able to answer back. In other words, privatisation is a complete failure. The country must pull together, whatever the politics of its people, because we are running it down. Is the noble Lord aware that we shall soon be reaching Bernard Shaw's acme of a non-industrial Britain in one of the introductions to his plays? We shall be a nation encouraging tourism and exporting chocolate and nothing else.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, the Government do not agree with the main thrust of the noble Lord's argument. His reading of the papers over the weekend must have been a tiny bit selective because, if you include Monday, I managed to obtain a copy of today's Daily Telegraph, which takes quite the opposite view. I do not think that the papers have yet got to grips with the fact that we are talking about a completely different thing from that which we were talking about in the last Conservative Government. Then it was a question of nationalisation or denationalisation. Now we are seeking to introduce private money while retaining a substantial Government holding. I personally feel that this is the right attitude to be taking.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords—
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, I have been waiting all afternoon to ask the Minister a question.
Lord Denham: My Lords, certainly we shall be interested in the noble Baroness's question before we finish, but it is usual to take questions from different parts of the House.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister agree that it is not quite true to say that it is impossible to make a correct decision in instances of this kind? It is merely very difficult. The difficulty arises from the fact that in arrangements of this sort which take a good deal of time to conclude there must of necessity be quite a long interval between the time when they are announced and the time when they are completed. It may be a week; it may be more. During that interval, all sorts of extraneous events can occur which invalidate the judgment which has been
746
reached. Such was the case in this instance. Such was the case also in the Amersham instance. There was egg on the faces of those who tried to reach a just conclusion. I am afraid that in City terms this particular offer was a flop. But it is true to say that the Government got their money from the underwriters.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, with his vast experience of City matters—far more than I can ever hope to achieve. I agree with everything which he has said. While I am on my feet, may I respond to a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, about the costs of this exercise? As we said in the Statement, details will appear when the winter supplementary estimate is laid before Parliament. The major proportion of these—some £8·5 million—are attributable to underwriting.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, would it not be true to say that what has happened about privatisation is a real slap in the face for the whole exercise? It seems to have been done by amateurs. Nobody consulted the City. It seems to me to be a complete fiasco and a justification for going against privatisation in the future.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid that I must tell your Lordships that I rather resent the remark of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, who called my colleagues "amateurs". The Secretary of State was a leading financial journalist and one of his junior Ministers was a leading merchant banker. I could not agree less with the noble Baroness.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord to say that the whole of this money—£635 million, I believe, will be the net proceeds—together with all other monies realised by the sale of public assets will go to the Treasury to be used as they see fit? Has there not been an undertaking that some of the money will go back into the industries concerned? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord if he can give us an estimate of the cost of this 10 per cent. bonus to investors with 2,000 shares and less?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord did hear me correctly. I said that the money would go to the Treasury. That was a slight euphemism, because the money goes, of course, into the national exchequer. As far as I know—but if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord—there has been no commitment to spend this money in any particular direction. The other question which the noble Lord asked me was about the total cost, was it not?
Lord Beswick: The 10 per cent. bonus my Lords.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the free shares were held up, so in effect there is no cost. I do not understand the point which the noble Lord is making.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, there will be an issue of 10 per cent. of the 2,000 holding in three years' time to those investors who then hold the shares. Those shares will have a value. What will be the value of those shares?
Lord Skelmersdale: Those shares, my Lords, will of course have a value but they will not have a cost. That is the distinction. I have no idea what will be the value of Britoil shares on the London Stock Exchange in three years' time.
Lord Beswick: But—
Lord Denham: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has been trying to get up for some time. We have now been 29 minutes on the Statement. I wonder whether your Lordships agree that once the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has asked his question and my noble friend has answered it we should then proceed with the debate.
Lord Balogh: My Lords, this is the last episode in the tragi-comedy of British relations with the oil industry. We first gave them conditions which were far too favourable. The licensing system broke down completely. We then tried to get a solution to the same problem in an indirect way.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would put his remarks in the form of a question.
Lord Balogh: I thought I put it at the beginning in the form of a question. After that we tried, when I was responsible, to establish through the British National Oil Corporation an organ which could supervise and counterbalance the enormous might of the American oil companies. That has been destroyed, and now the institution has been endorsed. What is very funny is that the City did not like it any more than we did.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the last episode in the transient relations of the Government with the oil industry. By no means is it the last episode in the transient relations of the Government with the oil industry, because BNOC, as a separate corporation, will continue to trade in participation oil. There will therefore be constant relations with the oil industry for, I hope, a considerable time to come.

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]
5 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I join with others in thanking my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for explaining to us the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill. I will, if I may, address myself in the main to Parts I to IV of the Bill. All members of my profession in the social services will be grateful to my noble friend the Minister and his right honourable friend for issuing discussion documents such as, Care in the Community and, A Good Home in order that there can be broad discussions before this Bill is passed. In passing, I should perhaps say that representation has been made to me that in respect of Part VIII of the Bill concerning
748
social security adjudication there was not, as I understand it, full discussion concerning that sphere of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, commended care in the community and then asked where the money is to come from in the health service. I also commend care in the community not, as the noble Baroness said, because it is cheaper but because by and large it is happier. That is not to say that there is no need for some residential or custodial care, because there is—and we must not get this out of balance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, asked about resources from the health service and I want to ask about resources from the social services. While there is the transfer of patients or those in custodial care from residential care to the community, there are double costs. There is the cost of running a department and the cost of transferring the patient or person from custodial care. I am well aware, and congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the fact, that there has been an increase from £33 million in 1978–79 to £85 million in 1982–83 for joint financing. On 8th November my noble friend's right honourable friend said in another place (I have with me a copy of Hansard containing this quote) that there was to be a grant of £2 million to the social services for intermediate treatment. Nevertheless, having said all that, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he is really quite happy that there are the resources in the social services for good care in the community? Are there going to be extra resources or will local authority social services departments have to draw off their present budgets and perhaps put aside other things on which they might have spent the money? That is my first question, which is very much the same as that asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, except that it is from the social services point of view.
My second question is, what are the mechanics of community care in relation to the voluntary sector? If a local authority social services department does not have the resources to fund, for example, a case, is it not likely that it will leave the patient in hospital rather than arranging for the patient to be cared for in the community? I have known this to happen. As your Lordships know, I serve Barnados, and, for instance, in the Yorkshire area skilled care and vacancies are available for mentally handicapped children who are now in hospitals. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, will know this because she has visited one of these very good places in Yorkshire. But what are the mechanics of a child transferring from a mental hospital into very good community accommodation? Which authority applies? Who pays? Who takes the first step? I wonder how the mechanics of this are going to work.
The British Association of Social Workers in their reply to the consultative document which I have studied are so worried over the position of resourcing care in the community that they would prefer an annual payment or lump sum for community care. While I understand the association's concern, I am bound to say that care in the community is also a shared responsibility as between doctors, health visitors and social workers—and this should never be forgotten. My last point on this part of the Bill is to ask

749
my noble friend the Minister whether there is to be a monitoring system on the effectiveness, speed and commitment of the work of the joint consultative councils? Too often we pass Acts of Parliament in this House and years later find that they have not been implemented. I would ask whether there is to be monitoring of the work of the joint consultative councils.
I now come on to Part II, which concerns the abolition of regional planning committees for accommodation for children. I have two questions to ask my noble friend the Minister. From my own experience I am sure it is wise and right that regional planning committees should now cease to exist. They have served their purpose and have done some good work, but I believe there is now no call for them. But there are exceptions. For instance, London is one place where I wonder whether we would be wise to abolish regional planning committees. Last week and the week before I visited two community homes for education run by Hillingdon Borough Council. They give a very good service. When I asked to look at their registers I saw that there were at those homes children from different boroughs of London. I believe it would be very unwise not to have a regional planning committee in, for instance, London and that it would be unwise to do away with the London boroughs' regional planning committee.
I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister what is the position with regard to the voluntary sector, which I think works very closely and happily in partnership with the statutory sector. A number of voluntary organisations run children's homes to meet the special needs of special types of children. Almost inevitably, local authorities are going to keep open their own homes and not use the homes of voluntary organisations even though it would serve a child far better and meet his needs if that child could go to a voluntary sector home. This is something which is very worrying as a number of good voluntary homes have had to close because local authorities are not using them, preferring to keep open their own homes. This is very understandable and natural, but at the same time they are not really meeting the needs of their children, because not every local authority can offer a wide spectrum of homes to meet the needs of many different types of children.
I now pass to Part III, which concerns the Central Council for Training and Education in Social Work. Rather inevitably to me as a social worker, this part of the Bill relating to the training of social workers is central to the social services of this country—both its statutory and voluntary sectors and also to the self-help groups. The council and particularly the staff have had since 1970 a difficult, demanding and almost impossible assignment.
The staff have worked hard against fearful odds. First of all, it has not always been easy for the council to attract staff with long and wide experience because the salary scales have not been commensurate with those of senior staff in local authority and voluntary organisations. Under the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 many duties were by legislation laid upon social services departments. To meet this challenge there were not enough trained social workers, and those who were experienced were moved
750
to managerial posts. This also was experienced, I think, in the health field, and in some cases in the field of education. Therefore, there has been an explosion of training courses up and down the country.
There are on the council 64 members. When the council was set up this may have been advisable. I do not, however, think that it is a practicable possibility for 64 members all to work out a policy in detail; there are too many diverse views. I therefore applaud the clause in the Bill reducing the number to 25. There are varying views concerning the composition of the new council. After 1971, when the Council for Education and Training in Social Work was established, the method of appointment was altered and the majority of members of the council had been appointed directly by the organisations listed in the schedule to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.
I believe that the smaller council of 25 members should be a strictly professional body drawn from social services and education, and chosen for their calibre and relevant experience. Some have said that the employers' associations should be represented, as they have been in the past. I certainly think that their advice should be sought and that they should be consulted. Other professions do not have a wide range of representation of employers: the General Medical Council, the councils responsible for the training of architects, accountants and teachers, all of whom work in local government. Those serving on the council should surely be those nearest to the day to day work and the educationists responsible for the teaching of social work and work in the social services.
My Lords, I may be straying slightly from the Bill, but has the time not come to set up a working party to review the training of social workers and those in the social services, and, most important, the financing of that training? The quality of training courses for social workers, partly because of the explosion to which I referred earlier, is uneven throughout the country and there is a lack of consistency as between the courses. Some courses give a first class training, and their tutors and staff are of a high calibre with practical experience. But, my Lords, it falls to me to say that there are other courses which fall short of the standards set by the courses which produce the good social workers.
The tendency of some of these courses is to concentrate on ideologies and structures of society to the detriment of social work practice. Many disabled people—and I look at the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox—have told me of social workers' lack of knowledge of resources. Judges and magistrates have been concerned about social workers who have not known the relevant law or court procedures. In the Mental Health Act it was necessary to make provision for approved social workers. Some social workers have not acquired the knowledge and depth of understanding of the dynamics of emotional tension in homes. Of course social workers must be involved in the structure of society, but I contend that this interest should stem from their experience, sensitivity and awareness of the needs of the most vulnerable with whom they work. The structure of society is not in itself and by itself the sole role of social workers.
My Lords, the residential day care services are to be commended for the service which they give and their sensitivity and care and kindness to those in their care, but there is a massive training backlog. There is an

751
imaginative scheme, called the Gatesby Project, which could make a substantial contribution. One of the reasons why I ask whether the new council should set up a working party to look not only at the training of social workers but also the funding of social work, is that the present funding is certainly not satisfactory; it depends on the various different local authorities. Some local authorities support training; others do not. Why does the social work world have to be funded in a different way from any other of the departments of the local authority? I would wish very much that a new concept, a new way of funding the training of social workers, could be looked at, could be considered and discussed. What I would say is that if we are going to have care in the community, if Her Majesty's Government are going to give money for this care, it cannot be adequately done without social workers who are committed and who are trained.
Therefore, my Lords, I support the smaller council. I support the council appointed by the Minister, of people of calibre and experience, and I very much hope that, whatever else this Bill does, it will make a contribution to a better social service in this country.
5.17 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the Minister for the care with which he presented this Bill to the House. From this bench we see Parts I to III and VI to VIII more as tidying up measures which were expected and are probably based on many of the earlier consultations that have gone on. We have some reservations and some suggestions t; put forward on Parts I and IV, which I will deal with first; and we have rather more serious reservations on Part V, which I shall come to later.
My Lords, Part I of the Bill provides for the joint funding of the community services. It has its origin in the departmental document Care in the Community, which invited proposals for transferring long-stay patients from institutional care into community care. We welcome the proposals for extending the joint financial arrangements to include housing and education authorities, in addition to local authority and voluntary social services. But we regret that no provision is made in the Bill for voluntary agencies or housing or education authorities to be represented on the joint consultative committee which will play such an important part in the allocation and transfer of resources. My noble friend Lord Kilmarnock regrets that he is unable to be here this afternoon, and I am sure that he may want to refer to this again at Committee stage.
My Lords, the extension of the joint finance towards district councils and local education authorities is accepted in principle by the Association of County Councils. But the danger is that with limited growth of joint finance in total, anything allocated to those other services will reduce the amount available to the personal social services, for whom, as you know, joint finance really has been a lifeline in recent years. In general, we on these Benches feel that community care has to be viewed rather more as a social goal in its own right than as just an opportunity to cut costs. Supplying a wide range of services to meet the individual needs of hundreds of thousands of elderly
752
people is not likely to be cheap. Evidence to the Social Services Committee of another place earlier this year indicated quite clearly that additional funds will be needed. We shall want to monitor these new and more flexible arrangements very carefully once they are in operation.
Again, the Association of County Councils has misgivings about the way in which the Government propose to implement the powers in Part I. It thinks that it is vital that the transfer of resources should be related to places rather than to patients. It is very desirable that people in hospitals who do not need to be there should be moved out into the community. It is just as important that people who do not need to go into hospital in the first place should never have to go there, but should be cared for in the community from the outset of their need. As we understand the Government's present proposals, this point has not yet been met.
We believe that there is a need for more co-ordination between the health and the personal social services. This could be done if more financial incentives were provided and if the health authorities could be encouraged to place contracts for community and other services with local authorities. In those cases where the cost of such care is less than the cost in National Health Service institutional care, local authorities could also be encouraged to place contracts for services with voluntary bodies where such bodies can perhaps provide a more effective service. Any controversy over the Green Paper Care in the Community, recommending the transfer of patients from hospital to community care, is not over the mechanism dealt with in the Bill but over the Government's refusal to acknowledge that additional resources are required. The local authorities are anxious for speedier procedure by which they can initiate the closure of an unneeded controlled or assisted community home. Even in this Bill that process is not exactly quick.
As regards Part IV, we welcome the proposals strengthening legislation governing the registration of the private and voluntary homes. However, we believe that the legislation would be stronger and that items which may be included in a code of practice need to have legislative backing. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, we are convinced that the interests of residents and staff in residental homes would be served by a national registration agency. We regret that no such provision has as yet been made in the Bill. There is much that a national agency could do. It could take the responsibility for the registration of all the homes, thereby removing the residential/nursing home division. It could maintain a register of all the registered homes, of all the owners and managers who have had their registration cancelled or refused. It could provide inspectors and advisers. It could act as a forum for information and discussion, and perhaps for the training of inspectors and the staff of homes. It could also provide specialist advice to appeals tribunals and help to plan and co-ordinate the overall residential accommodation in an area.
The arrangements for tightening up registration and deregistration of private old people's homes are badly needed, but—here I am on one of my regular hobby horses—why does the Secretary of State have to

753
prescribe the fee that local authorities can charge for this service? Is that not something which could be left to local authorities?
The attempt to define a residential care home is welcomed, but the definition is still not very precise. Old age, for example, is not defined. Does it include all those people requiring such accommodation who are above the minimum state pension age? An attempt to define personal care is made in Schedule 3, but between "assistance with bodily functions" specified in the schedule and full nursing care there is a whole range of requirements, particularly for the elderly, mentally infirm residents, which requires further clarification.
The Bill proposes to abolish the exclusion from registration of homes already registered under the Nursing Homes Act 1975 and providing residential care other than nursing care. This, too, is welcomed. But clarification is required on the legality of the residential homes which also provide nursing care. We believe that legislation should provide that residents should be issued with a detailed brochure setting out the terms of residence, charges, the special facilities available and a list of regulations which residents choose to disregard at their own risk. Legislation should also include a formal complaints procedure, details of which could be issued to residents and staff. A record of formal complaints, and how they are resolved, ought to be kept by the home for inspection by the registration authority.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power, by regulation, to prescribe the frequency of inspections in the homes. We believe that the legislation should provide for the yearly inspection, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, but with at least one other annual visit, without notice, as a statutory minimum. The registration authorities should also be legally obliged to set out their criteria for judging premises or staff as being fit or unfit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has referred to some of the fears of the British Association of Social Workers. Has the Minister seen the proposals from that association for mandatory grants for residential and day care social service staff for training? Does he support the proposals? Will he also be willing to look at the association's comments on an advisory body to be concerned with the general aspects of child care? These are two important suggestions which ought to be taken seriously.
Finally, I come to Part V. The establishment of separate family practitioner committees is unwelcome. We believe that the family practitioners should be managed by the district health authorities. Clause 9 and Schedule 5 contain proposals to make family practitioner committees into special health authorities separate from the district health authority. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, on these Benches we think that is a retrograde step which will not assist the National Health Service in planning or providing integrated primary care services. These committees have tended to be dominated by their professional members—doctors, dentists, pharmacists and opticians—and they have become remote and somewhat inward-looking bodies. There is an urgent need to redirect and reshape the primary care services, of which the family practitioner service is a key element, and to take account of the current problems
754
of today's National Health Service. The NHS is still far too fragmented, and boundary disputes between hospital and community care are all too prevalent. The real need today is for integration, not fragmentation.
The Royal Commission on the National Health Service argued forcibly that family practitioner committees should be abolished. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, they do not exist and the functions carried out by the family practitioner committees are handled by committees of the health authority. This arrangement could be adopted in England and Wales, too. The vested interests of the professions and the family practitioner committees are strong and it looks very much as if they might have won and persuaded the Secretary of State to give in and allow them to keep their independent kingdoms. But this is no way to put primary care and community care in a suitable position to tackle the very real problems. It confuses professional interest with public interest and, in the National Health Service, we must be very careful to afford public interest its correct priority.
In Committee we will be seeking to reverse the provisions of Clause 9 or, failing that, to introduce amendments that will make the family practitioner's involvement in planning and co-operation with health authorities a meaningful reality. We believe that the provisions for co-operation with joint consultative committees are too weak to ensure operational collaboration. We will also seek to ensure that the family practitioner committees are obliged to consult openly and widely on their own activities regarding primary care services. I look forward to the Minister's reply to this debate and to the further discussions in Committee, when I hope that my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock will be here to lead from these Benches.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I too should like to add my congratulations to the Minister, and also to congratulate him on the delicate degree of unanimity which he attached to several of the proposals. The reorganisation of the health service and rhetoric about the optimum mix of the public and private sectors has diverted attention from the fundamental problem of finding ways in which to control or moderate costs and services and make the optimum use of resources.
The Minister of Health has said recently that he wants to take forward Government initiatives to improve the management of the resources available to the health service. In Part V, which deals with the family practitioner committees, we have before us proposals to change the status and constitution of those committees and grant what has been called in a distinguished journal the "GP's charter". The Government are convinced that this is a suitable base for forward planning. Previous speakers have made reference to the functions of the Bill and to these joint consultative committees which are to be set up. The family practitioner committees will be responsible to the Secretary of State, who will also appoint the chairmen and the members. So the Secretary of State will oversee family practice in this way, the responsibility for which, under the 1973 Act, was at least in part vested in the area health authority.

755
Again, as has been said by previous speakers, Recommendation 110 of the Royal Commission on the Health Service recommended that family practitioner committees should be abolished and their functions assumed by health authorities as a step towards integration. I believe that the Royal Commission thought that this would produce a more effective service and would also conserve resources.
Is the proposal before us the best arrangement to get effective medical care, to plan for the future and to conserve resources? While recognising that this arrangement may be highly satisfactory from the point of view of the present generation of family doctors, is it really the best arrangement on which future changes can be based? For example, it looks as though attempts to integrate practice closely with the hospital service are being made more difficult, if not abandoned. It also seems certain that any administration will be done by the doctors themselves and they will be entirely responsible for the expenditure of resources. So with the exception perhaps of extreme prescribing excess, a range of expenditure can be incurred without question. Moreover, attempts to create new primary care teams involving other professions will depend on these doctors, and if other professional people are to be included in the team they will have to accept the system of how family practice works.
The system will surely result in a continued isolation of family doctors from hospital practice, from which most new technology comes. General practitioners who will continue to serve on the district management teams may think that the effort is not worth while and not really connected with their every day problems. Such people anyhow do not represent their colleagues or their authority in any way. They are in the curious position of being financially penalised for attending because, of course, they are private contractors with the health service.
Prior to 1973 there was increasing contact between doctors in practice and local authority medical services, in particular the personal medical services. The key figure in all this was the medical officer of health, who also promoted contracts with the hospital service. He was often a man of authority and great influence with his local authority and he conducted the orchestra on the local front and was, of course, in almost daily contact with the Department of Health. He had an important management role and a responsibility for the expenditure of resources.
When the National Health Service Act was introduced in 1946 certain local government functions were transferred to the National Health Service, but the Minister of Health remained responsible for all health and many other local government functions. In April 1974 the National Health Service and the local government reorganisations transferred local authority personal services and the School Health Service to the National Health Service and the statutory post of medical officer of health was abandoned. Some of the environmental responsibilities of the medical officer of health were given to a new officer—the chief environmental health officer. Medical advice was to be provided to the local authorities by the area medical officer's staff. No longer did the local authority have a single doctor who
756
was the focal point of responsibility for the medical aspects of all its services including industrial ones, and the link with the Department of Health was broken. Experiences since have not been very satisfactory. Wider health responsibilities, both locally and centrally, have become more and more diffused.
Since 1974 communicable disease immunisation and the like have been dealt with by the area authorities—now, presumably, the district authorities. Outbreaks of food poisoning and communicable diseases, so important to the general practitioner, have generally been well handled by the environmental health officer.
One cannot but have serious reservations about the proposals before your Lordships, although they may be the best that can be achieved in the present climate as it exists between the family doctors and the Government. My anxieties are the following. First, that family doctors will continue to be peripheral to the health service which will be focused on the hospital service. Secondly, are consultative committees between the family practitioner committee, the health service and the local authority of any use? Thirdly, the grave deficiencies arising from the lack of the medical officer of health continue to exist. Fourthly, will developments of new methods of primary care, involving collaboration with other professions and new technology, be made any easier? Fifthly, general practitioners will more than ever feel that the district management team is not relevant to their problems. Sixthly, many aspects of medicine in the community are, I am sorry to say, in danger of being neglected. Finally, the lack of effective, tightly controlled personal and local health services—substantially those parts of the health service outside the hospitals—is continuing to guarantee a less effective use of resources, including manpower.
5.39 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, the provisions which the Government are seeking to introduce in the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill were described by my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and I am very glad to contribute to this debate. It is so good to note that the main intention of the legislation is to develop methods for caring within the community, rather than in hospital, for people who are physically or mentally handicapped. I believe that your Lordships are agreed that, generally speaking, disabled and handicapped people are better able, so far as it possible, to lead a full, useful and active life if living among families and friends. So it is good that the extension of the joint financing arrangements in Part I of the Bill should encourage further progress in the great work already taking place in that direction.
From the number of policy statements on community care issued by the present Government, your Lordships can hardly have been unaware of their commitment to this principle. Those statements have been followed up by positive action, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull has said. Since 1979 moneys available for joint finance have been increased by 35 per cent. and the Government have just announced a further £6 million to be added, be this a small beginning.

757
My noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State referred to last July's announcement by the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Wales on the Government's decisions, following consultations on the document, Care in the Community. He spoke of administrative action already taken to develop the financial arrangements which, incidentally, are being further improved by provisions in this Bill.
There are some improvements which do not depend on the Bill, but nevertheless I very much hope that they will be introduced soon. These may meet some of the points of anxiety raised by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. For instance, I shall give three; payments for extended periods to cover projects for moving people out of hospital; increased maximum periods during which such payments can be made; and centrally financed pilot projects in community care. All developments of this kind boost the progress in this work, and I feel sure that your Lordships will join me in encouraging my noble friend and colleagues along this road, making all speed in implementing the necessary legislative changes introduced by this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, expressed concern that proposals in Part VII—Clause 12—of the Bill may operate to the disadvantage of the users of important services—services such as home helps, meals-on-wheels and/or aids to daily living. The noble Lord appeared to fear that this would place intolerable burdens on some people. My hope and belief is that he may perhaps have overreacted a little. As I understand it, provisions in Clause 12 are in no way intended to place new burdens on users of the services. The trouble is that, with such technical provision, it is not always easy to disentangle the precise impact of amendments to already complex provisions. But I am sure that my noble friend can clarify in this case.
Certainly Clause 12 aims to ensure that, if charges are made, they shall not be more than a person can afford. At present some authorities can make charges for these services; some do and some do not. The scene and practice varies from one authority to another. Where they do charge, at present there is no duty on the local authority to take account of a person's available income in making that charge. Clause 12 imposes just such a duty and, as such, I believe that it will be a welcome improvement. I think that there should be a recognised level for the assessment, fixed at a very reasonable rate. It so happens that when, some years ago, my home authority made adaptations to my flat—widening the door into my kitchen and making it and the bathroom accessible for my wheelchair—an assessment was made of my income. This struck me as a fair way of getting me essential help for which I could not otherwise have paid without assistance. Here I salute the resolve to get the greatest help to the greatest need. It is easy to tell heart-rending stories. What is needed is action to direct assistance to those who are worst off. Where at the moment charges are not made by local authorities, it does not seem to me that the situation will change. This is at their discretion, as always, for I cannot see that that is in any way affected by the provisions of the Bill.
Before I close, I would ask my noble friend the
758
Minister whether Part V—Clause 10—gives any hope that those great centres of excellence, the teaching hospitals, may be rescued from the effects of regional financing based on population. The trouble is that, where population in the region is declining, growing numbers of patients who wish to be treated reside outside the region. As the whole future of medicine in this country depends so much for its thrust and brilliance on the ability of our teaching hospitals to scrape through the present extraordinary circumstances, may I hope that this brief reference to them is designed to help them to solve their problems? Perhaps my noble friend will be good enough to explain that point.
5.46 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Minister for his introduction, even though it is now rather blurred by steel and oil. If I were not a canny Scot now living among proud, independent Yorkshire people, I might not be speaking on the debate in your Lordships' House today. There are parts of this Bill which I should be grateful if the Government would explain further. I am curious to hear why some aspects have been changed in the Bill. There are many people who think that the priorities of the health service are for those people who work in it and not for those whom it is meant to serve. In the Bill there is protection for the salaries of general practitioners, but there is penny-pinching means testing for some of the most disadvantaged members of our society—those people who are unfortunate to be blind, deaf or crippled.
Last year I was given an honorary fellowship of the Royal College of General Practitioners, an honour that I greatly appreciate. It is an excellent college and they encourage good standards in medical care. They are an independent body with an excellent lobby. Today I speak for those people—the sick and disabled—who cannot go on strike, who cannot rid themselves of their handicaps and who cannot withdraw their services. They are at the mercy of Parliament and society. Unless some safeguards are put into Clause 12 of the Bill, there is a risk that some families will be degraded and humiliated.
I should like to ask the Government why there has been a change of wording to:
"having regard to his means",
in Clause 12(1). The Bill proposes a different definition from the one in subsection (5) of Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948. It is still permissive and does not require the local authority to charge, but there is this new introduction of the right to means testing of all services provided by a local authority. We know that local authorities differ throughout the country in the way in which they treat disabled people. Some have very poor records.
Where there is severe disability in a family, there is always extra stress, strain and expense. Surely the criteria for aids and adaptations to houses should be based on need. There should not be waste. The correct need should be professionally assessed and the families guided, advised and shown how to use a device correctly. If a means test is applied, the administration of it may cost more than the supplying of an aid.

759
Very often people who have served the community well, such as a nurse, teacher or secretary, who have never married, never used state benefits such as free education, and always paid taxes, may get some cruel disease such as multiple sclerosis in middle age. Such persons will have lived carefully and saved a little money. These are the people whom the means test will hit most. Also, the poorer people feel humiliated and put off coming forward for help as they do not like to be singled out and identified. Even though many people are poor they like to preserve their dignity and do not want to be seen to go begging to the social services.
Some people feel highly embarrassed if they have a bladder and bowel problem. They need practical inducement to come forward, and kind, thoughtful advice and help to be given. The supply of a stair lift or bath aid may make the difference between a family coping and keeping their disabled member in the community or their backs giving out and having to place the disabled person in residential care.
The giving out of aids in this country has never really been efficiently run. Some aids come from appliance centres, some from social service departments, and some from health authorities. Often these departments are not co-terminous. There has been waste as the wrong aid has sometimes been given out by an untrained social worker. The aids sometimes are not serviced, and are never monitored and recalled when there is no longer a need for them. They are wasted. There should be joint funded regional centres with local depots. Occupational therapists and physiotherapists should be involved. This has been a sore point with physiotherapists, who sometimes know more about a mobility aid than anyone else. A civilised country like Canada has found that it costs more to administer the means test than it does to provide the service. It does not have means testing of its disabled people.
Like many other people, I welcome the Government's initiative on joint funding in Clauses 1 and 2. Disability and handicap merge over all the departments of health, employment, residential care, social services, education and housing. I should be grateful if the Minister would give us some details of how this will be organised. Will joint funding also mean joint consolidation all the way through and joint running? I hope it will not mean that the health authority has to hand over money and then lose any say in the running. It would be wrong if it meant an increase of paperwork. This has reached crisis point. But it should mean working together to get the services running well with the correct support and advice.
There has been difficulty in getting some medical people working together. It is necessary for doctors to co-operate—such as the paediatrician, the community doctor (school doctor) and the general practitioner. There have been some recent reports by these bodies. They have spoken a different language on integration, with different recommendations. Integration of child health services is very important. Will the Government be putting out some national guidelines? Clause 15, Part VII of the Bill, appears to introduce measures to prevent the disposal of assets by a person availing himself of Part III accommodation before entry to accommodation with a view to his not making any
760
contribution, which he is at present required to do on an existing means test. It would be interesting to know how much evidence of this abuse is available, and how the Government are going to implement this clause.
With the pressure of the elderly who need care I hope that the Government will do all they can to see that all residential homes are kept up to a decent and acceptable standard. Homes, like everything else, vary considerably. Elderly people in need of care are a very vulnerable group. How often, and by whom, will residential, licensed homes be inspected? I hope that there will be spot checks. The aim for more care in the community is an admirable one, but the expertise and funds must go with them, as stated so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. It is a pity that the voluntary organisations which have so much knowledge of the needs have not been included in this Bill as far as joint funding is concerned.
I hope that the Government will look very carefully into this. What is worth doing, is worth doing well. I ask the Government whether they do not think that, in making general practitioners responsible to the Secretary of State, with DHSS funding, they are not divorcing them from the local scene. What will be the position of the regional health authorities? We must preserve the best of our hospitals. Teaching facilities must not be run down. For years many of us have tried to get the Government and the DHSS to see the merits of national funding for specialised hospitals such as the spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, and St. Mark's Hospital in the City Road, where patients come from all over the country and from the armed forces. This makes sense to me, but I shall listen carefully to what the Government say about the general practitioner service.
I conclude by saying that the Government could have tried to solve the problem of the millions of pounds which have gathered in the bank accounts of mentally handicapped people who have been given the mobility allowance and cannot use it. When they die this money goes to some undeserving relative. I say "undeserving" because they have not looked after the handicapped relative in the community. Surely this needs solving. It gives great concern to many community health councils. Perhaps it is not too late to do something about it in this Bill.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I think that my name would have appeared on the speakers' list as the first speaker below the line rather than the last speaker above it had I not feared that another engagement on other public business would have compelled me to be absent for the opening speeches. My fears proved well grounded and I was not able to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in explanation of this Bill. I am quite sure that he explained it in his usual lucid and clear manner, and I would merely assure him that I shall read his words with great care; but I should like to apologise to him in advance if I ask him any questions that he has already answered. Nor did I hear the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and I apologise to him also and assure him that I shall read his words, too.
I heard the second half of the speech of my noble friend Lady Robson of Kiddington. I did not hear the first half, but I do not think there is much risk that I

761
shall say anything that is in sharp contradiction to anything she said in her earlier remarks. After all, in this matter I could say that the noble Baroness had a long period of highly professional and very able service as a distinguished chairman of a regional health authority, in which she acquired immense professional expertise in these matters. In the lower echelons of the health service I worked first as a surgeon and then, for more than 30 years, as a general practitioner in the health service in which I, too, I think, acquired a certain professional knowledge of the service, so we take the same point of view in that sense. However, sitting on these Benches I think I should be right in saying that we both believe that the interests of the patient in this matter are absolutely paramount. Therefore, I am sure that we speak with one voice.
Having offered those words of professionalism, perhaps I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that as a general practitioner it never occurred to me that the health service existed for my benefit. Nor, frankly, did it seem to my patients that it existed for my benefit. I want to make it absolutely clear that they thought, as I thought, that the health service existed for them. So it did and so, I hope, it always will do.
I shall try to be brief—speaking above the line rather than below it—and I come first to that part of the Bill which, as other noble Lords have said, is at the heart of the measure; namely, Part I and those clauses which seek to do something to spread the financial burden of domiciliary health care between local authorities and central Government. This is a long-standing problem, one about which I made speeches from 5th July 1948, when the health service first started—speeches to doctors, health service administrators and politicians and never did I find any disagreement with the general view that there had to be some kind of integration as between the health service, the hospital service and the domiciliary services.
The problem in those days was more acute than it now is because a larger proportion of the resources of local authorities came from rates and a smaller proportion from rate support grant. It automatically meant in those days that the enlightened, forward-looking local authority which took the trouble to provide good domiciliary care—in the form of residential homes, day care centres, health visitors and so on—saved a lot of money for the hospitals (because people could be discharged home instead of being kept in hospital and others could remain at home instead of being sent to hospital) but of course they were kept and cared for at home at the cost of the ratepayer and local authority, and there was no provision in those days for any transfer of funds.
That situation was somewhat exacerbated in the early 'sixties when, some noble Lords will recollect, Mr. Enoch Powell, as Minister of Health, published his 10-year hospital building plan for Britain, a plan which, at a stroke, as it were, transferred the responsibility for many things which hospitals had been doing automatically, and almost overnight, to the local authorities. Rightly, more patients with mental illnesses of one kind or another were to be cared for in the community instead of in hospital, but cared for in the community by local authorities at the expense of the ratepayer. More patients—orthopaedic cases were
762
quoted—would go to local treatment centres for physiotherapy and treatment of that kind, treatment centres which, in those days, it was envisaged would be set up by the local authorties and therefore would save the hospital authority money in providing extra beds, and those patients would be taken to and from those centres by ambulances which, in those days, were provided by the local authority and paid for by the ratepayers.
Since those days we have had a gradual understanding of the need to do something about the problem, and it is right to say from these Benches that Governments of both complexions and colours have taken steps in that direction. Mr. David Ennals, as Secretary of State, did a great deal with joint funding arrangements between local authorities and hospital authorities and with the Ministry and voluntary bodies. The present Government, especially under a comparatively junior Minister who appeared to have considerable responsibility for financial matters at that time, Sir George Young, took great strides and took a lead in the department which has led to some of the things which we now see in the Bill because he was clear that we needed to move in some of these directions. I am saying, therefore, that while the intention to do such things is clear in the Bill, perhaps the means and detail are not entirely clear.
Lord Davies of Leek: I too apologise because I also arrived late, my Lords, and am anxious to make a point about my experience of the Department of Health and Social Security in regard to the British Legion and the relationship of the public health services to our wounded, who are growing older, who need artificial limbs and so on. Something more should be done in that matter, but there is nothing in the Bill to indicate such toleration and understanding.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that point and perhaps we can return to the question of the voluntary bodies shortly. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said my noble friend Lady Robson had said that what was being proposed was a good thing to do because it was cheaper.
Baroness Faithfull: I did not say that.
Lord Winstanley: I think the noble Baroness said it would save money.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I certainly did not mean that, if I said it, because in fact it is not cheaper.
Lord Winstanley: Very well, my Lords. My noble friend actually said that some people said it was cheaper. I am one of those who say it is cheaper. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, says it is better. I am one of those who say it is better as well, so I say it is both better and cheaper. So far as cheaper is concerned, perhaps at this point I might give a brief example of something that is going on here and now; and in giving this example I must stray to the area of the family practitioner committees, to which I had intended to refer in any event.
I wish to speak briefly about a present method of saving money which is actually costing money to the public purse. Hospital authorities are, very properly,

763
trying to save money and are looking at all their costings with great care. They look at their drug bill to see what they can do to cut down the cost of drugs within the hospital. It is right that they should do that, and it is right that we should all look at the drug bill; perhaps much money is wasted in terms of the drug bill, and while I do not want to go into detail on that, it is the case, and that is not a criticism of the pharmaceutical industry, but there is scope for saving.
The hospitals have decided that they should cut down their costs. One of the methods by which they are now doing that, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will know, is that hospital authorities are telling consultants not to prescribe for out-patients. Perhaps he is a consultant with a continuing clinical responsibility for an out-patient; say, a cardiologist or haematologist who is seeing a patient for regular adjustments to his dosage of an anti-coagulant drug, or perhaps a consultant psychiatrist who is having constantly to modify different drugs being given to a certain patient over a very long period of time, and the patient is attending regularly. The consultant is being told by the hospital authorities in many areas, indeed in most areas, not to prescribe for out-patients. Consultants are being told, "When the patient comes, merely give him two tablets and tell him to go along to see his general practitioner and get a prescription".
The patient does exactly that. He goes to see his general practitioner, who first of all has not had a letter from the consultant and therefore does not know what the drugs are. Then he telephones to try to find out and he has great difficulty in getting the consultant. Meanwhile, the patient must pay another visit to the general practitioner, an unnecessary visit, and in the end the general practitioner gives the patient a prescription for the drugs, which he then gets under the provisions approved by the family practitioner committees, who, noble Lords will know, are responsible for the general medical services, the general dental services, the pharmacy services, the optical services and so on. It is a fact, however, that the cost to the public purse of dispensing a prescription through the family practitioner committee services is much greater than dispensing the same drug in the hospital by the hospital dispensary.
Occasionally I have put Questions, oral and written, to the Government asking them to tell me the relative cost of an identical prescription, first being dispensed by the hospital pharmacy and, secondly, under the family practitioner committee arrangements. I am told that the Government regret that that information is not available in the form in which I have requested it. It is high time that information was available because the Government will find that certainly the hospitals are saving money by doing this, but in saving money for themselves they are actually costing money to the public purse by inflating the drug bill so far as the family practitioner committee arrangements are concerned. I am sorry to have digressed with a somewhat lengthy example, but it serves to illustrate the fact that we need to look jointly at the financing of these things, rather than be looking at them as entirely separate pockets in different pairs of trousers. It is all the same pocket in the same pair of trousers, and these
764
are matters I shall want to look at further when I come to later parts of the Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, suggested, we need to hear rather more about the arrangements for the financial support of voluntary bodies of one kind or another, bodies which do so much to maintain the domiciliary services. I refer to bodies like the Spastics Society, the Richmond Fellowship, MIND, Mencap and many others who do an enormous amount to provide day care and residential care which itself saves the community a great deal of money. Although there are mentions, I should like to hear a little more about the financing of the voluntary bodies, who will be responsible on a continuing basis, and I should like to hear a little more about the role of the voluntary bodies and voluntary societies in the planning of the various services in which they are so deeply involved.
I now wish very briefly to say a few words about Clauses 12 to 18 of the Bill, regarding charges levied for certain services—matters referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton—and in particular Clause 15, which concerns the recovery of money from elderly and other patients in residential homes. These are people who have disposed of assets by means of gifts or otherwise. It might be entirely right that steps should be taken to claw back (if that is the appropriate phrase), or to do something about an elderly person who has deliberately reduced his or her means in order to qualify for a free place, rather than have to pay. But I am just a little uneasy about the way in which it will actually be implemented. I accept wholly that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, would operate such a procedure in an entirely sensitive, sympathetic and understanding kind of way. But we have seen examples in which—I do not use the term in too pejorative a sense—bureaucrats at a level of society very much lower than that of the noble Lord sometimes wield such powers without quite the same degree of sensitivity.
Let us take another parallel example of the capital cut-off rule in relation to supplementary benefit. I know that I am wandering from the point, but I think that it is relevant here. We know that there are now many people—the long-term unemployed—who after 12 months suddenly cease to be entitled to unemployment pay and have to fall back on supplementary benefit. They receive the supplementary benefit only if their total savings do not exceed the figure of £2,000. Now we have people lower down the line looking at an insurance policy, which a careful, prudent, and thrifty person has paid for years, finding out the surrender value and more or less compelling the individual to sell the policy at a giveaway price in order to qualify for any kind of support when unemployed. All right, I accept that that is a digression, but it is an illustration of the way in which a well-intentioned rule of this kind, as outlined in Clause 15 of the Bill, could perhaps be applied without the necessary degree of sensitivity; and if that were to happen, it would be a matter for regret.
I should like briefly to say a few words about the new arrangements for the family practitioner committees, which apparently are about to become area health authorities in their own right. Again, that might be correct in principle, but in practice at the later stages

765
of the Bill, I should want to explore a little further the way in which the members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State. Surely the representatives of the doctors, opticians, or others ought to be elected by those whom they represent, rather than be appointed by the Secretary of State. I should like to hear a little more, too, about the lay element on the newly-established committees, the role of the community health councils, and so on. Further, I should like to explore a little more the dangers of a separation of the domiciliary services under the family practitioner committees from the area health authorities and from the hospital authorities in general. I believe that there are dangers along that route that we shall need to look at with care.
Finally, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will read carefully the words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, regarding the disappearance of that well-known functionary of the past, the medical officer of health. I consider that in this matter the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, speaks with great experience, and, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, would benefit from studying his remarks very carefuly. With that, we welcome the Bill at the moment, and will gladly give it a Second Reading, but we shall look very carefully at certain parts of it during later stages.
6.14 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for the skilful way in which he presented the Bill and for his courtesy in promising to place in the Printed Paper Office Notes on Clauses. We shall certainly need them! Seldom have I seen such a mixed-up gallimaufry—
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Jeger: G-a-l-l-i-m-a-u-f-r-y of a Bill before your Lordships' House. I propose to be very brief tonight because we shall have to come back at Committee stage to many of the things that concern us, and most of what I have to say will be in the form of questions to the noble Lord the Minister. I do not expect all of them to be answered tonight, but if he could perhaps refer in correspondence to some of my queries, that would help us in framing the amendments which we must put down for the Committee stage.
My first anxiety arises from what is stated on page iv of the Bill under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill". It is stated:
"There will be no additional public expenditure".
What are we talking about if we are to have this great leap forward into community care, this integration of services, while in the Financial Memorandum of the Bill it is stated,
"There will be no additional . . . expenditure"?
We have heard about some pilot schemes that are to be financed by the Government, but as an old civil servant I go by what is in the Bill; and in the Bill it is stated that
"There will be no additional public expenditure".
I believe that that gives the whole Bill a terrible setback from the start, because it is the absence of funding in some of the vital spheres that we have been talking
766
about that causes so much unhappiness and poverty in our community. So I hope that if not tonight, at a later stage, we shall be told that perhaps that statement on page iv was an error, and that it does not in fact represent the Government's intentions.
I was very concerned, as were many other people, about the provisions relating to the family practitioner committees' present setup being ended and changed. The Royal Commission wanted them to be more integrated, but I feel that they are being disintegrated because they are being separated from the local authority and the personal health services. I should like to repeat the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. What control are they to have over their own expenditure? What about the other professions in primary care? How are they to get closer to the hospital services?—because that is one of the most important dichotomies in the National Health Service at present.
I must also ask what kind of territoriality is to be given to the committees?—because in line 30, at the foot of page 12, it is stated:
"An order under subsection (3) above shall be an order specifying a locality for which the Committee are to act".
Does that mean that a locality of the family practitioner committee could be different from that of the area health authority, or the district health authority, or whatever it is? This is something that has very much hit my locality—if I may use the word used in the Bill. In Camden we are going through the most absurd territorial separation whereby our borough has been divided between two hospital authorities, which means that everything has to happen twice. When there has to be any communication two hospital authorities have to write to the borough council. Surely there should be some meeting up of boundaries between the family planning—sorry, that is Freudian—the family practitioner committees and the other authorities concerned.
With regard to Part VII, I am very worried, as are other noble Lords, about the charges. In Clause 12, on page 15, there is the phrase:
". . . having regard to the means of the person from whom they are to recover them, in the circumstances of any particular case".
We need something more than that to go on. Judging the means of a person involves a very subjective decision. People have different standards, different desires, different wishes. People want to live in different ways. Some want to spend their money on cigarettes, others on something else. Some people are more concerned about other aspects of their life in general. Does the phrase mean that any local authority can quite arbitrarily pick a figure out of a hat and say, "That is what that person can afford, that is what we consider his means allow him to pay"?
I wonder whether the Minister has it in mind to give some guidance on this matter; otherwise, we could have local variations going from one extreme to another. I do not think that Lambeth and Bournemouth, for instance, would take the same view of what was within a person's means; or even Camden, I am glad to say. I am much more concerned to know what the Minister is going to do about grants to local authorities, which would help them to decide what charges they will have to make.

767
Then I want to ask the noble Lord about the registration of homes for the disabled and elderly. Here I support noble Lords who have suggested that there should be a national register, because people can go from one area to another. Having run an unsatisfactory home in one area, it seems to me that, as the Bill stands, they could just "up stumps", go somewhere else and do exactly the same thing. On the question of the adjudication officers—these are now important people under this Bill—I recognise that there is a need to try to streamline these services, but, again, I have some anxieties, and I put it no further than that. We understand that the chairmen are to be legally qualified and that the clerks as well as the chairmen are to be appointed. Unless I have misread the Bill, it looks to me as if trade union representatives are to be dropped from appeal committees. I think it might well be—the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to this—that applicants coming before these appeal tribunals might well feel that both the chaiman and the clerk are Establishment figures and they have not (as it were) a prisoner's friend at court because of this change. Excellently though these officers will, I am sure, do their work, it is very helpful for someone who has been working on a factory floor all his life, perhaps, to feel that he can take along with him a shop steward or someone who knows what it is like—what the noise has been like in that particular factory, what the strains and stresses are, and so on—and that he is not just confronting two appointed officials. It may be that the Minister has an answer for me on that point, but I hope that in any case he will be sympathetic to it.
I also query the amendment in Part V which will repeal the designation "teaching hospital". I merely ask why we are doing this. I know that many of my friends in the teaching hospitals have the most sinister ideas as to the Government's motives, and feel that they are trying to stop their special recognition—and, of course, I know that this is at the heart of the problems of the National Health Service in the financing of hospitals. That is because of that terrible thing that I think a previous Government introduced called RAOR—regional allocation of resources—which was an attempt to spread the money around the country. That, in theory, was a very good thing, but what was not taken into account was the fact that patients from around the country tend to come to the special areas, to places like Great Ormond Street and the Royal Marsden, and to the teaching hospitals in London. That has now put a terrible burden on those hospitals in caring for those people for whom they could say, if they were logical about the regional allocation idea, they had no responsibility.
That leads me to another query to the Minister. When we are engaged in this great enterprise of getting people out of hospital, especially long-stay mental hospitals, and into the community, which we all want to do, are they supposed to go back to the areas from which they came, to be the responsibility of those local authorities, or are they all supposed to come out of the gate of the hospital and be the responsibility of the area in which that hospital happens to be situated? Because, again, this makes for a very unfair burden, especially as some of our long-stay mental hospitals are so enormous in size that one district is perhaps going to
768
have an enormous number of patients coming out, whereas the next-door area will have none at all just because the hospital does not happen to be that side of the boundary. I very much hope that there will be some consideration given to this, so that in trying to allocate these funds as between health and social security we will take on board this difficult problem of the districts and the geographical accident of where a hospital happens to be.
I must ask the noble Lord the Minister whether I am right in finding no right of appeal as regards housing benefits in this Bill. We have been through that very complicated Bill about the changes in housing benefits and the resultant changes in social security claims, but I cannot find anywhere a reference to a right of appeal. I share the concern of other noble Lords about Clause 15 and the rather harsh references to people's resources, including the possibility of selling their houses, and so on. I hope this will be administered with great kindness, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will be issuing regulations for serious consideration wherever possible.
The trouble in respect of this clause is that many people may not want to go into Part III accommodation permanently. To have to go through all this business of whether they should sell their houses, whether they should sell their life policies to make sure that they have not got £2,500 in the bank, and so on, could be very cruel to someone who was hopeful of coming out of Part III accommodation—and there is nothing more destructive than robbing people of hope in this sort of situation.
Then a quick word about children, Clause 13. Again, I cannot quite see how the parental contributions are to be assessed. It seems to me that this Bill does away with the present arrangement whereby there is a period of a month in which the parents are allowed to consider and agree the charge with the local authority. May I ask the Minister for an answer to this question, if not tonight then perhaps at some other time? Will the parents who have children in care and who are themselves on supplementary benefit or in receipt of family incomes supplement be exempt from making payments for their children in care, or has the Minister in mind some sliding scale that might involve even these people in making payments?
Then about young people in care—16-plus young men and women who might be on a YOP scheme or on other courses. What disposable income will be left to them if they are still in care while they are on a course, or will they be exempt from payments if they are on an approved course? Because since November 1980 young people over 16 in care have been able to claim supplementary benefit; and I hope we can clear up that point.
My last point—I apologise for it, but I feel that if the Minister can give us some further guidance it will help at the Committee stage—is that I understand there are about 2,000 children in long-stay hospitals at the present time. We are supposed to be getting them out, but my information is that we are still putting them in. Only two regions have really taken any effective steps positively to stop or reduce admissions; and in most parts of the country—it may be because this Bill is awaited—there has not been a firm decision taken

769
locally not to admit any more children. Of course, one cannot lay down rules about this because there are about 8,000 admissions to these hospitals every year, and some of them may be desperately urgent and important. However, I very much hope that, even while this Bill is going through the House, the authorities concerned will be encouraged at least to start their plans and at least to begin to stop taking people in as well as trying to start getting them out. I apologise to the Minister for asking so many questions, but this is a very important Bill and I can assure him that we shall be coming back with plenty more problems.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, may I first take the opportunity to thank all your Lordships who have contributed to the debate today. If I may say so, it is very helpful to Ministers at this early stage in a Bill's progress to hear the reactions of noble Lords and to have suggestions as to how the provisions of the Bill might be strengthened or improved. I have listened very carefully to the points raised this afternoon. Some of them I will attempt to answer in a moment; others may require more time to think and work out, and I promise to write to the speakers concerned as soon as I have had a chance to consider with care the issues that have been raised.
I now turn to the points put forward and shall deal with as many of them as I can. First, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, referred to a number of points. In particular he asked me whether subsection (4) of Clause 1, which provides that a payment must be recommended by the joint consultative committee, was not a rather negative procedure, as I think he felt it to be. He felt that not all authorities were as forward-looking as he would wish, and I think he was disappointed that provision for direct funding of voluntary organisations was not included and that those organisations should have been represented on the JCCs.
The main purpose of the joint finance scheme is, of course, to promote collaboration and joint planning between health and local authorities. That is why all payments have to be recommended by the statutory body which is charged with furthering such collaboration, namely the joint consultative committee. I do not think it would be appropriate to appoint voluntary organisations to those committees. Subsection (4) of Clause 1, of course, repeats a provision under the existing Section 28A(3). Voluntary organisations can be supported from joint finance when they are providing services similar to those of the social service committees of local authorities and are taking part in collaborative schemes. It is therefore appropriate that the JCC should make representations on payments to them also. In many circumstances voluntary organisations are already closely involved with the statutory authorities in providing community services. We wish to encourage that and we are considering ways of involving the voluntary organisations as fully as possible, particularly in the "Care in the Community" initiative.
I know that this matter was also in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, who wondered about the financial support for voluntary organisations. Of
770
course we accept that they have a vital role to play in this context, and indeed I hope that the statutory authorities will involve them to the full in the planning of services and that voluntary organisations may be able to put forward constructive and imaginative proposals for projects. Indeed, a good many of those proposals come across my desk and I am happy to be able to authorise them and indeed provide financial assistance for them in appropriate cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, also suggested in connection with the registration of homes provisions that the homes should be registered for only a finite period of, say, three years. We decided that with the steps being taken to tighten up the inspection arrangements it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and a burden both on the proprietors of homes and indeed on the registration authorities to move to a system of registration for a limited period. However, we certainly agree, as I said in my opening remarks, that the homes should be regularly visited at least once a year on what I imagine will be a comparatively formal basis. Also I have no doubt that there will be other informal visits, including possibly lightning visits, as somebody suggested, without a great deal of prior warning.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, also asked me about children's regional planning. This was certainly a subject which was in the mind of my noble friend Ladv Faithfull. The noble Lord thought it would not be in the interests of efficient administration for local authorities to withdraw from children's regional planning committees where they still had a job to do. I think that thought was also in the mind of my noble friend, Lady Faithfull. It is not obligatory for local authorities to wind up these regional planning committees if they do indeed still have a job to do. They can continue if the constituent local authorities so choose; but the point is that there is no longer an obligation for these planning committees to continue, and I think that that would be acceptable to my noble friend.
Turning now to the question of family practitioner committees, the FPCs, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, suggested that this was a victory, I think, against the advice of all other bodies, for the medical profession. I referred in my opening remarks to the wide consultations which the Government undertook last year on their proposals for the change in the status of these family practitioner committees. A clear majority of those whom we consulted favoured the solution we eventually adopted, and the support for our proposals was by no means confined to the professions to which the noble Lord referred.
The noble Lord also referred to the difficulties which might arise from lack of co-terminosity, as it is called, between the FPCs and the DHA boundaries. It is the case that there is to be no requirement for the territorial areas of the new FPCs to be co-terminous with one or more of the DHAs, but in practice most will be, and we do not see this as likely to give rise to any problems. Where a DHA or a group of DHAs has a different boundary from its AHA predecessor, the FPC will still be administering the original area under agency arrangements. Most, if not all, of these committees are likely to be given formal responsibility for the areas they are actually administering.

771
The noble Lord also referred to the provision in Clause 10 which will remove the word "teaching" from the names of the designated health authorities. This was in the mind of my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox as well. It is a purely technical provision, which in no way indicates that we intend to reduce the number of teaching hospitals. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was mistaken if that is what he thought; but perhaps it was because I did not explain it properly. My honourable and right honourable friends and I are fully aware of the valuable contribution which these teaching hospitals make to the National Health Service, and I can assure your Lordships that this role will continue. However, some of them, as my noble friend, Lady Lane-Fox, said, also provide for certain regional speciality services and that also will continue.
Perhaps I may touch at this moment on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, when she referred to the difficulty which I have been asked about at Question Time almost every day for the last week or so—that is, the problems of certain hospitals which take patients from all over the country and sometimes from even wider than that. The famous RAWP formula, to which the noble Baroness referred, in fact provides for what are called "cross-boundary flows". I have to say that the RAWP instrument is a somewhat unsophisticated one. It is complicated enough, in all conscience. It would no doubt be possible to refine it further—for example, by making special provision for the kind of problem to which the noble Baroness referred. This is something that we keep under fairly continuous review; but, evey time you think of a good idea for refining RAWP, you find that the proposal produces as many anomalies as solutions, and so the way forward is not always immediately obvious, and in a time of financial stringency, proposals which call for additional resources always present a special difficulty.
I turn now to the question of charges, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. If I am dealing at particular length with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that is because, to be fair to him, he touched on a number of points which have interested other noble Lords and Baronesses as well. So, if I deal with the noble Lord's speech at some length, I shall cover many of the points that others have raised.
The noble Lord criticised what he described as the introduction of a means test and, at the same time, the variability of local authorities' charging arrangements, which I think was very much in the mind of my noble friend Lady Masham and several others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. At present, there is a variety of powers under which local authorities may make charges, some taking means into account; others only on the cost of the service provided. The purpose of introducing a standard formula requiring authorities to have regard to means is in order to make for greater consistency. It does not oblige local authorities to make charges where they wish to waive them, but it does mean that any charges which are made cannot disregard a person's ability to pay.
The legislative and administrative package which was agreed with the local authority associations in 1980 included advice by the associations to their member authorities about assessing people's ability to
772
pay for day and domiciliary services. We are discussing this approach with the local authority associations. Therefore, I say in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, who raised a point about what regulations or guidelines would be provided, that the answer is that we are discussing this matter with the local authority associations and I think they will certainly be issuing guidance to their member authorities.
Returning to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who felt, also, that the abolition of the Advisory Council on Child Care and of the Advisory Committee to the National Radiological Protection Board would leave serious gaps in the provision of advice to Government in these important areas, I would say that the abolition of both bodies stems from the more critical attitude towards the creation and continuation of quangos, following the review by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in 1979–80. The Advisory Council for Child Care was allowed to go into abeyance when the Personal Social Services Council came to an end in 1980, because we saw no need to retain such a body. Since the Advisory Council was established in 1948, there have been enormous advances in child care. There are now a considerable number of bodies, many with widely representative membership, concerned with the interests of children—for example, the National Children's Bureau, the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering and the Pre-School Playgroups Association. We maintain close links with these bodies and receive valuable advice from them. We consider that a permanently constituted council reporting to the Government can no longer be justified.
The functions of the Advisory Committee to the National Radiological Protection Board were to bring to the notice of the board the practical aspects of applying in the United Kingdom current knowledge and methods of dealing with radiation hazards. It also advised the board about international agreements and standards on radiation hazards and informed it of matters where research by the board, or the advice of the board, was needed. After consultation with the board and other interested bodies, we concluded that its functions could be carried out more effectively by the board itself and by its direct consultation with the relevant interested parties and the public. The board's expertise has, therefore, been widened by appointing additional members with experience of the environmental sciences, economics, radiation, biology and trade union matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and many others, including my noble friend Lady Masham, referred to the problem of charges for residential accommodation and the provisions made in this Bill in respect of them. I have noted the views expressed by the noble Lord and by my noble friend about those clauses, particularly Clauses 15 to 18, which are concerned with local authority charges for this accommodation. Perhaps now is not the time to go into this subject in detail, but I certainly hope that during the later stages of the Bill I shall be able to allay some of the fears that have been expressed.
Turning to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, she referred to the danger in extending the periods of joint financing, so that most of the available funds would then go towards extending the joint

773
financing of existing schemes. It is our intention that the extended proposals for joint financing will apply only to new projects for enabling people to move out of hospital. Both the existing legislation and Clause 1 provide powers to lay down conditions governing these arrangements.
The noble Baroness again raised the question of the registration of homes and proposed a national register of homes to avoid undesirable people, having lost their registration, moving to a new area and opening up there. This was in the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, as well. We think it is right that local authorities who have experience of running homes themselves, and whom we want to enter into partnership with voluntary and private homes, using places in those homes where appropriate, should inspect and register the homes in their area. But we are aware of the point raised by the noble Baronesses and we are considering proposals, in conjunction with the local authority associations, on how best to keep a record of the sort of undesirable people who have been mentioned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, also raised the difficulty, as she saw it, of the situation where an FPC has more than four district health authorities within its boundaries and may not therefore, have all the districts represented on the committee. We certainly intend that the new FPCs should have as their localities the former health authority areas, and it is the case that this will mean that some FPCs will have examples of more than four districts within their localities. But, in that case, the Secretary of State will have power, under the wider powers that he has, to appoint additional members so that all the DHAs will, indeed, be represented.
The noble Baroness was also worried about the tact that the clerks to the social security adjudication bodies, which we were discussing, would be DHSS employees. Social security appeal tribunals are intended to be informal, not adversarial. The role of the clerk would be purely administrative, and he would certainly not be providing advice. The presidential system will help to clarify the clerks' role and to ensure their independence. The president will be consulted on the appointment of clerks and may make representations for example, requesting their removal.
The noble Baroness also asked how many full-time chairmen there would be. The intention is to appoint a president and six regional chairmen. The number of additional full-time chairmen to be appointed has not yet been decided, but is under consideration at the present time. But there will certainly be at least six, plus the president.
The question of housing benefit appeals was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and indeed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. There is a right of review on housing benefit to a review board in each local authority. Since local authorities are running the housing benefit scheme and local councillors are responsible for it, it seemed appropriate that councillors should be involved in a review of decisions taken by their officials.
I turn now to the remarks of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, who was anxious that social services departments should have the necessary funds to provide good community care. The aim is to enable
774
health authorities to transfer matching resources with the patients. Joint finance, including the announced increase which was referred to, will help with the transitional costs. My noble friend also referred to her concern that local authorities are withdrawing from the use of voluntary homes in order to maintain occupancy of their local authority homes. I share my noble friend's concern if there are, indeed, local authorities who are withdrawing from the use of specialised and highly valued voluntary facilities in order to maintain occupancy of their own homes. But, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, it is now generally recognised that residential care may no longer be the solution to the social problems of children and their families which was once thought to be the case. This must inevitably mean that there will be some reduction in local authority use of voluntary homes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was concerned about the position of voluntary organisations. I dealt earlier with that difficulty. The noble Baroness also referred to the absence in Scotland and Northern Ireland of family practitioner committees. It is, I understand, the case that in Scotland the family practitioner services are administered directly by the health boards. This has been so since 1974, when they discontinued the executive councils. It is also true that in Scotland they have no regional health authorities, either. The explanation is one of scale. In the rural areas, the relative sparseness of the population would mean that unless committees were impossibly remote from the population they served they would be too small in terms of staff numbers to constitute a viable separate unit. In such a situation, integrated administrative arrangements may well be the best solution, but it would be unwise to attempt to draw conclusions in respect of England, with its much larger numbers of patients and practitioners and generally higher population densities.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, complained that some of our FPC proposals are contrary to the Royal Commission recommendations. It is the case that the Royal Commission on the Health Service favoured integration of the functions performed by FPCs with those of district health authorities, but, as the noble Lord will have gathered, this was not a recommendation which the Government felt able to accept. This is a specialised area of administration of contracts of self-employed practitioners, which, since the inception of the National Health Service, has been a function separate from that of the service. It is right that it should remain so. The practitioners themselves attach great importance to this, and it has served all of those concerned pretty well. Successful collaboration rests not so much on administrative structures as on people and organisations with mutual interests working freely together in a constructive way.
I have dealt, I think, with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, about means testing, although I doubt whether I have heard the last of it. The noble Baroness also raised a technical point on the wording of Clause 12. Perhaps she will forgive me if I do not go into it now, but again I shall be happy to look at the point with her at the Committee stage.
Finally, may I touch on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, about the financial

775
memorandum: that there will be no additional expenditure as a result of the Bill. We have made it clear from the outset that the changes we are proposing have to be achieved within planned resources. What we are seeking to achieve is a change in the way that the resources are used. Transfer of patients from hospital to community care needs to be accompanied by a matching transfer or resources from health to local authorities. Care in the community is about making the best use of the resources we have to provide the most appropriate form of care for each patient.
The noble Baroness referred to children in long-term care, particularly mentally handicapped children. I can assure the noble Baroness that the Government take this matter very seriously indeed. I have been pressing health authorities, district health authorities and others very strongly indeed on this matter. We are determined that children should go into long-term care only in the most exceptional circumstances and that, generally speaking, they should be more appropriately accommodated in the community.
I hope that I have answered, or undertaken to provide answers to all the questions which have been raised this evening. In conclusion, I find it encouraging that this debate has not highlighted the vast areas of controversy about the Bill's provisions but rather has served to identify significant middle ground where most noble Lords share similar objectives. There are always minor differences of opinion. We shall try to iron out many of these differences as we debate the provisions in detail in Committee.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Business of the House
Lord Denham: My Lords, before the next business is called I should like, with the leave of the House, to make a short business statement. Your Lordships may recall that last Thursday some doubt was expressed on the Floor of the House as to whether the short debate rules would allow enough time for tomorrow's important debate on cable expansion, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. After discussions with the usual channels it has been agreed that, in view of the number of speakers, my noble friend's debate should not have the short debate time limit imposed upon it. My noble friend Lord Rochdale has in turn been kind enough to agree that his own debate on young people in industry which follows it should now take place on an Unstarred Question and not on a Motion. These changes will be reflected in tomorrow's Order Paper. My noble friend the Leader of the House will table a Business of the House Motion to this effect. However, I thought it right to take the first opportunity to inform the House of this change in tomorrow's business.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for making that business statement and for acquainting the House with the changed arrangements for tomorrow. I am quite sure
776
that it was right to enable there to be sufficient time to debate this very important Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing.

Merchant Shipping (Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 1982
6.57 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th October be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the background to these regulations and the origin of their main provisions is the International Convention on the Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. This convention was the main result of an international conference of the International Maritime Organisation which met in London in the summer of 1978.
The human factor we rightly regard as an essential ingredient of maritime safety and the avoidance of one terrible scourge; namely, marine pollution. This convention represents a vital element in the framework of international instruments which are directed towards the improvement of safety and the prevention of pollution. It provides for the first time internationally agreed basic principles for safe watchkeeping on ships and mandatory minimum standards for the competence of ships' officers in terms of their training and qualifications. While the primary responsibility for the enforcement of the convention requirements rests with flag states, there is provision for port states to check that the standards are being observed, for deficiencies to be reported to the flag state and for detention of ships where deficiencies are found.
In the interests of safer ships and cleaner oceans the early entry into force of this convention is highly desirable. The conditions for entry into force are met when at least 25 states representing at least 50 per cent. of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant fleet have ratified. Twenty-three states, including the United Kingdom, have already ratified and the tonnage threshold has already been reached. Entry into force will follow 12 months after the 25th ratification. It may therefore be expected to take place late in 1983 or early in 1984.
The main requirements of the convention for the training and qualifications of deck and engineer officers on seagoing merchant ships have already been anticipated in this country by the introduction of the new certificate structures which came into force on 1st September 1981 under the Merchant Shipping (Certification of Deck Officers) Regulations 1980 and the Merchant Shipping (Certification of Marine Engineer Officers) Regulations 1980.
The present regulations which are to be made under the powers in Sections 43 and 50 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 and also under Sections 21 and 22 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 give effect to part of our obligations under the convention. They require the approval of each House of Parliament in accordance with Section 49(3) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 because certain regulations apply to foreign as well as to United Kingdom ships in United Kingdom

777
ports, and because the convention was not laid before Parliament until after the passing of the 1979 Act. Their main purpose is to implement convention requirements for safe watchkeeping at sea and in port, and to enable the inspection and control procedures provided for in the convention to be enforced. Provision is also made for the issue of certificates of service in accordance with the convention. The statutory requirements for consultation on the regulations have been followed and various minor changes incorporated in response to representations from the shipping industry. I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I indicate briefly the purpose and content of each regulation.
Regulation 1 provides that all the regulations, with the exception of Regulation 9, shall come into force with the convention. I will explain in due course the reasons for earlier entry into force of Regulation 9, which concerns the issue of certificates of service. Regulation 2 contains definitions which largely follow normal practice, but I should mention the modification of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 which would be brought about by Regulation 2(2). This amendment is intended to ensure that the application of the regulations to foreign ships in United Kingdom ports or waters, as provided for in Regulation 3, is effective for all foreign ships and not just for foreign ships carrying passengers from or between places in the United Kingdom. Regulation 3 follows Articles III and X(1) of the convention in limiting the application of the regulations to seagoing merchant ships.
Regulation 4 emphasises the master's responsibility for overall command of the ship and for laying down particularly the requirements relating to navigational watches specified in Schedule 1. The international conference of 1978 which adopted the convention also adopted various resolutions amplifying certain aspects of convention requirements. These resolutions, unlike the convention, have advisory status and are not therefore appropriate for a statutory instrument. Resolution 1 contains the "operational guidance" referred to in this regulation and it is intended to promulgate the substance of the resolution in a Merchant Shipping Notice.
Regulation 5 and with it Schedule 2 specify the responsibilities of chief engineer officers for the supervision and organisation of safe watchkeeping in machinery spaces on board ship. The operational guidance referred to in the regulation likewise reflects a conference resolution and will be issued in the form of an M Notice; a Merchant Shipping Notice. Regulation 6 states the overall responsibility of the master for safe watchkeeping in all departments when a ship is in port. The "operational guidance" relating to the deck side has been issued as M Notice 1016 (a copy of which I have should any noble Lord require further guidance), which incorporates the substance of conference Resolution 3. A corresponding M Notice dealing with the engine department and incorporating the substance of Resolution 4 is in preparation. Sub-paragraph (2) of this regulation has been introduced in response to concern by the shipping industry that convention requirements for watchkeeping in port were unduly onerous and impracticable in relation to many small coastal and harbour craft. The effect of the
778
sub-paragraph is to exempt the majority of small vessels operating within specified areas, including passenger vessels, tugs, dredgers, harbour craft and the like from the requirements, as they have been exempted from the certification regulations. Details of the exemptions have been published in Merchant Shipping Notice M979.
Regulation 7 defines the responsibilities of masters for the operation of additional safety precautions on ships in port which carry dangerous cargoes either in bulk or otherwise. The operational guidance will be given in the M Notices foreshadowed in Regulation 6. Regulation 8 lays on the employer of the master the duty of ensuring that a ship carries sufficient qualified officers to perform the watchkeeping tasks of the regulations, and "qualified" is defined as an officer holding either a valid certificate of competency, a certificate of service or an exemption which in practice means a dispensation.
Regulation 9 provides for the issue of certificates of service which is allowed for in the convention in the case of officers who have not less than three years' service in capacity in the seven years preceding entry into force of the convention. The convention was not intended to deprive of their employment officers who have proved themselves competent by experience but who lack the formal qualifications required by the convention. Certificates of service are the approved means of allowing officers qualified by experience to continue to serve in their existing employment. The issue of certificates of service will avoid the need for short-term dispensations, the use of which is frowned on in the convention. The existing powers for the issue of certificates of service do not cover all the categories of officers for whom such certificates may be appropriate. The new powers will remedy this little deficiency. The process of issuing certificates of service is a lengthy one and it is desirable that the officers eligible should be in possession of them by the date the convention enters into force. It is therefore proposed that this regulation, unlike the others before us tonight, should apply from 1st January 1983.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instrument has considered the Instrument and asked for a memorandum clarifying various points in the regulations. It drew the attention of your Lordships' House to a particular point which related to Regulation 9(3). The joint committee was concerned about the degree of discretion allowed to the Secretary of State to refuse a certificate of service to an applicant otherwise qualified in all relevant respects. The department accept that in such circumstances, which are likely to arise only rarely, an applicant should have the right to make representations to the Secretary of State, and we have no objection to an explicit statutory provision for that purpose. I can therefore confirm the undertaking given in another place by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State that an appropriate amendment will be made to this and other sets of regulations at the first opportunity.
Regulations 10, 11 and 12 enact the convention procedures for enforcement of certification and watchkeeping standards on all ships in United Kingdom ports. These paragraphs, which parallel those for enforcement of other international safety conventions, are important to ensuring that the new

779
and higher standards of the convention are applied worldwide. In this respect they will reinforce the department's existing powers to give effect to United Kingdom commitments under the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on port state control, which is intended to provide for the harmonised and co-ordinated enforcement of this and other international maritime conventions by the 14 West European signatory states.
I hope that my remarks will have served to indicate that these regulations are a necessary and important part of the action required to prepare for the entry into force of this significant convention, which represents a major advance in raising the standards of safety at sea. I therefore commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th October be approved.—(Lord Lyell).
7.9 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for explaining these very complex regulations in such a lucid way. As the noble Lord has said, these regulations have been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which decided to draw the special attention of both Houses to the above instrument on the ground that it makes unexpected use of the powers conferred by statute under which it is made. Of course, in making that observation—in fact, the report of the joint committee is slightly complex to read—the committee was specifically referring to the situation in which there is to be an effective rubber stamp of the qualifications of those who have served in particular areas in which they operate for a long period. I shall be glad if the noble Lord would confirm that this is a once-and-for-all application of those principles.
The noble Lord went through the regulations in detail. One wonders in looking at Regulation 6, for example, when a ship is in port and the master is absent for a period of time. One assumes that there will be specific authority designated to somebody else on board the ship in the absence of the master to see that the arrangements indicated there are adhered to. If one looks at Schedule 2, paragraph 4, "Fitness for duty", one will see that there is a particular requirement that:
"Duties shall be so organised by the chief engineer officer that the first watch at the commencement of a voyage and the subsequent relieving watches are sufficiently rested and otherwise fit for duty".
Therefore, there will have to be an officer of responsibility when the ship is in port to ensure that duties are being performed by those who are not impaired by fatigue, as this particular paragraph makes clear. No doubt the noble Lord will be able to assure your Lordships on this matter as well.
I think the important thing about these regulations really is when in fact they will come into force. As the noble Lord pointed out, the convention was ratified by Her Majesty's Government on 28th November 1980, and now requires but two further acceptances before commencement of the 12 months' waiting time for entry into force. The noble Lord indicated that he hoped, bearing in mind the 12-month waiting period, that these regulations will in fact come into force during the latter part of 1983 or early 1984. This would mean that the convention will have to be
780
ratified by two more counties during the next six weeks or so to bring us up to the 25 signatories to the convention required before it can come into force. That is a very short period of time for the noble Lord's projection of it coming into force in 1983 to be fulfilled. I wonder whether the noble Lord could inform your Lordships as to any suppositions he may care to make as to which two countries are likely to ratify who have not ratified the convention. I believe that Panama, for one, a fairly large owner of shipping, has not yet ratified. I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell your Lordships of any information he may be able to give in this particular respect. With those comments, we support the laying of these particular regulations.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships' House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his customary detailed scrutiny of the regulations which are before your Lordships this evening. Anyone who studies these regulations will find that they are complex. They are also interesting, but I think probably we may discuss the more fascinating details in another place, perhaps over the teacups, but not in your Lordships' House at this hour of the evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me a number of questions. He asked about the overall responsibility for the safety of a ship in port. At all times the master has overall responsibility for the safety of his ship. If the master for any reason is absent from the ship, or if he is resting, it is his overall responsibility to see that adequate arrangements are made for the safety of the ship, and indeed of the port in case of hazardous cargoes in bulk or otherwise; that at all times the ship is safe and the safety of the port is also ensured in so far as his own ship is concerned.
The noble Lord also drew your Lordships' attention to Schedule 2, paragraph 4. It is interesting that the noble Lord has drawn attention to the fitness for duty. I am afraid I am not able to give the noble Lord or the House special references to Schedule 2, since if the noble Lord cares to glance at page 10, he will see at the top it says "Principles of Watchkeeping Arrangements for Engine Room Watch". I do not have what I may perhaps call the code of exactly what an engineer officer should do, but certainly the details are laid out in paragraph 4. I think the noble Lord and the House will be interested to see in the second sentence of paragraph 2, the precise way in which the regulations are to be carried out:
"Duties shall be so organised [by the chief engineer officer] that the first watch at the commencement of a voyage and the subsequent relieving watches are sufficiently rested and otherwise fit for duty".
So it is there the chief engineer officer who has to set out his watchkeeping roster and see that all the other officers on the watch, in this particular aspect, are fit for their duties. I have no reason to think that their fitness will be anything different from that concerning other duties.
If I may digress I have an M notice, M756. This is a notice to shipping companies and others who have an interest in such matters, and it refers to keeping a safe navigational watch. I have no doubt that the same basic principles would apply to watch in the engine room spaces or mechanical spaces. In M756 there are

781
most interesting details, including appendices, and also watch arrangements and fitness for duty. The fitness for duty paragraph in M756—and this refers to navigational officers—is broadly the same as in Schedule 2, paragraph 4. M756 goes on to give operational guidance for officers in charge of a navigational watch. Paragraph 8 in the operational guidance refers to taking over a watch and it states:
"The officer of the watch should not hand over the watch to the relieving officer if he"—
that is, the officer handing over—
"has any reason to believe that the relieving officer is apparently under any disability which would preclude him from carrying out his duties effectively."
If in doubt the officer of the watch should inform the master accordingly. Paragraph 9 states:
"The relieving officer should not take over the watch until his vision is fully adjusted to the light conditions and he has personally satisfied himself . . ."
regarding about 10 particular points.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will see that this little digression into M756, as far as navigational watch is concerned, is amplified and carried out by similar merchant shipping notices in respect of engineer officers, and that the parameters which a relieving officer should look for, and indeed the handing over officer should agree, are fairly specifically laid down. We believe that these parameters do lead to the considerable reputation that the British shipping industry possesses and deserves for safety both in port and at sea as far as the navigational safety of the ship is concerned, and indeed as far as the mechanical safety of the ship is concerned.
The noble Lord asked one more question. He was quite right to point out that 23 states have ratified the convention. He was also very precise in pointing out that the United Kingdom had ratified—I believe he mentioned 23rd November 1980. May I tell the noble Lord and the House that the most recent signatories to the convention are Argentina and Tanzania. I understand that they recently accepted the convention—a matter of weeks ago rather than months. Therefore, we have hopes that two other major states will accept the convention and, indeed, ratify it before the end of this year or early next year. I hope that the final coming into force of the convention will not be far out from the date I suggested in my remarks; that is, early 1984.
I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, that Liberia is among the 23 nations, but Panama is not. I hope that my honourable friend in another place will forgive me for saying that, because he was asked in another place whether Liberia and Panama had ratified and he indicated that both had. I understand that only Liberia has done so and we are still waiting on Panama. We shall have to wait and see whether it is the next state to ratify or not. I hope that I have covered the regulations, in not too much detail, but if your Lordships are happy with them I beg to commend them to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Bill
The Examiner's Certificate that certain standing orders should apply to the Bill and have been complied with was ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past seven o'clock.