Lords Sitting of 1 February 1983

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

Redundant Farm Buildings: Circular 22/80
Lord Sandys: 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 how successful the directions to local authorities in Circular 22/80 have been in allowing farmers to let redundant farm buildings for other uses
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, Circular 22/80 gives advice to local authorities on how the Government expect them to handle planning applications. It asks local authorities to look sympathetically at applications for the reuse of redundant buildings, including farm buildings, by small-scale businesses. It is our understanding in general that local authorities are reponding positively to this advice. In cases where this does not appear to he so, there is of course, the right of appeal.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him to advise the House whether the Development Commission is able to make grants in aid of suitable projects to CoSIRA and other bodies?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. The Development Commission has a redundant farm buildings scheme under which CoSIRA will, in worse off rural areas, provide grants of up to 35 per cent. of the cost of conversion for craft and light industrial use, but I am afraid that I must tell the House that take-up so far has been disappointing.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of the people who come and look at these buildings have rather short-term ideas, which leaves a problem on the rating side if a farmer applies for change of use? Does the noble Lord have any ideas for some sort of short-term, rating system which would help because, from my experience of this matter, there is a lot of short-term use of these buidings?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government would accept what the noble Lord says—that there is a certain amount of short-term use of this sort of building-but I am afraid I can give him no answer on what alleviation in the rates for these purposes we might consider. So far as I know, this is a problem which has not been considered up to now, but I certainly take the noble Lord's point.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, would my noble friend give the date of the circular he mentioned? Is he aware
676
that there are still local authorities which would rather see some of these buildings fall down than that they should be converted into workshops or living space?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the answer to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary is 28th November 1980. May I ask him to repeat the second part?
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is he aware that there are still district councils which would rather see buildings fall down than that they should be converted into useful workshops or accommodation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was not aware of that; and if it is true, I would regard it as most deplorable.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, would the Minister care to say the purpose to which disused cowsheds might be put? Is he aware that I frequently slept in used cowsheds in France in 1915 and that I can assure him that they are most desirable for any other purpose?
Lord Skelmersdale: The Government are not responsible for the tabling of Questions, my Lords, only for answering them.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, would my noble friend be kind enough to tell me whether the farms of the Ministry of Defence and their buildings are included in this?
Lord Skelmersdale: I am afraid I have no idea, my Lords, but I will find out and write to my noble friend.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the trouble usually is the quite arbitrary refusal of planning permission by planning committees and planning boards, as in the case I referred to his department from the Lake District some time ago, in which case, I am glad to say, the Minister reversed the decision of the planning board? Would he look at this matter to see whether he could persuade planning boards to be rather more flexible in allowing planning permission for the change of use of farm buildings?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, and that is exactly the purpose of the circular we are discussing. As for the question of reversal, it is, of course, within the applicant's rights to apply to the Secretary of State, first, if the planning permission has not been decided within eight weeks and, secondly, if it is turned down.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, would my noble friend assure the House that the Government will give further thought to publicity for the Development Commission's scheme of grants in view of the low take-up to which he referred?
Lord Skelmerdale: Yes, my Lords.

Local Authority Nuclear-Free Zones
2.42 p.m.
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 how many local authorities have established so-called nuclear-free zones.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, the Government have received representations on this from about 70 local authorities.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Has he any information that some councils are declaring their areas nuclear-free on the assumption that defence against nuclear arms is useless anyway and therefore they can economise on the expense of civil defence?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that the reason why local authorities do this is unnecessary, because of course the Government are elected with a responsibility for maintaining national security. So far as civil defence is concerned, the Government indeed appreciate the work done in civil defence and give all encouragement to the excellent work that it does for the civil population in any emergency.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is rapidly growing concern among many people on matters of nuclear warfare? He might ponder on whether listening to a few million voices on the topic would be more productive than would be lecturing through a million pounds worth of propaganda.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, indeed the Government are aware of, and share, the disgust at nuclear weapons, but as the noble Lord is equally aware, we do not take the path of unilateral disarmament, but rather that of multilateral disarmament. So far as the last part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, I would refer him to the responses yesterday of my noble friend Lord Belstead.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can the noble Earl the Minister say whether an up-to-date list of these local authorities is being conveyed to the Soviet leadership, so that they can take full account of it in their targeting?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, an up-to-date list of those who have informed the Government is kept at the Ministry of Defence. Its circulation I am not aware of.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us whether the CND has arranged with its sponsors that the nuclear-powered Sputnik that is about to descend upon the earth will not arrive in one of the so-called nuclear-free areas? Secondly, if it were to arrive in a part of the United Kingdom, perhaps it
678
should land in Devon, where we at least have a certain body of volunteers—much criticised and attacked by the CND—who are trained to monitor such arrangements.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to tell the noble Lord that the sea seems to cover more of the earth's surface than does the land, and fortunately these objects have a habit of falling into the sea. I should like to pay tribute to the civil defence in the noble Lord's area and to wish it all good fortune.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, if I heard correctly, the Minister said that 70 authorities had reported to the Government. Is he aware that the actual number is 138? Will he confirm that they represent four-fifths of the population of Britain, including not only Greater London, but the whole of Wales, and is not that fact significant in terms of the opinion of the people of this country?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the actual number which have informed the Government is, I believe, 73. I know that there is press speculation on the total, varying between 138 and 140, who have portrayed this to the press. The noble Lord exaggerated when he suggested that the figure represented four-fifths of the population. Normally local authorities are elected by less than half of the population of their areas, and these particular edicts represent the views of only a percentage of those who have voted. The noble Lord might like to look at some recent opinion polls which show that the unilateralist cause has slightly subsided.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that it is extremely sad that so many people should be so deluded into thinking that this declaration of a nuclear-free zone can have any benefit for them or anybody else?
The Earl of Avon: Indeed, my Lords; my noble friend has a very good point there.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I understand that in the area of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, the Devon County Council, under Conservative control, is banning the CND from using accommodation? Does he think that that is one way of answering some of the genuine fears that people have?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this is a free country, and if that is the county council's wish, it should do so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the statistics to which reference has just been made are not representative of any view on this specific issue?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I said in my opening remarks, the Government are elected with a responsibility for maintaining national security, and it is upon them that responsibility rests.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government are elected by only a minority of the population, and equally is it not very undesirable

679
for central Government to seek to force their views on elected local authorities? Is it not particularly undesirable for a non-elected House to seek to enforce its views on elected members of local authorities?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, central Government have for a long time had responsibility for defence. That has applied not only to the present Government but to previous Governments, and I should like to remind the House that a previous Government supported an independent deterrent, as do we.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that local authorities are normally elected by a minority of the electorate?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I tried to bring out that point in an earlier reply.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, as the noble Earl has just told us that this is a free country—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, I should like to suggest that we hear the question of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and then, in view of the fact that we have had quite a long run on this Question, move on to the next one.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I just want to follow what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said. He said that this is a free country, so what I want to ask is, if this is a free country, can we all pick our nuclear-free zones—every one of us?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, we all indeed can. We respect it, but will the enemy?

Divorce Law
2.49 p.m.
Lord Milverton: 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 satisfied with the position in the current law of divorce of a person who does not consent to divorce because of his or her belief in the indissolubility of marriage.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the present law is based on the legislation of 1969, as consolidated in 1973. The ground for dissolution is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, and thus excludes the religious beliefs of the respondent. Irretrievable breakdown is proved by first establishing one of five states of fact. The first three are based on the fault of the respondent, and therefore can hardly be dependent on his religious beliefs. The fourth is conditional on consent. Only the fifth remains, and that is conditional on five years' separation. Parliament in effect decided on a free vote that in these circumstances it would be wrong to deny
680
either party the right to remarry after decree. Neither party is bound to do so. It is customary for these questions to be decided on a free vote of each House.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his useful reply. May I ask whether it is not right that we should try to bring back to marriage all the moral and spiritual incentives so that the health of mind and body of our children and also of us men and women is restored and we are saved from the great sadness, wretchedness and unhappiness which we know exists and which people like myself come across so often? Is there not a probability that in the next decade, if things go on as they are, there could be five million children of one-parent families rather than the present one million? Is it right that the present system contributes to the maintenance of that situation?
The Lord Chancellor: My, Lords, personally—but I speak, of course, from this place as a member of the Government—I respect the sanctity of marriage as much as my noble friend, but I think that he should ask himself one or two simple questions. We live in a society in which there are Moslems who have an establishment of four wives—and they can divorce any one of them by talaq—of Jews who, if they enter into a religious marriage, have one wife—and who can dissolve the marriage by gett—of atheists, who may not believe any of the things which the noble Lord and I believe, and also of people who have, one, two, three, four or five successive marriages, dissolved, all of them, by divorce.
One has to ask oneself what Parliament can do in legislation of this kind. It cannot depend solely on the religious views held by the Church of which both my noble friend and I are members.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, was not the legislation passed in 1969 the outcome of prolonged parliamentary discussion in both Houses and, as the noble and learned Lord has said, was not the ultimate outcome the result of a free vote? On the whole, has this not provided satisfaction to the community and is it not the case that there are many second marriages—thereby not confirming the observation of Dr. Johnson that a second marriage is a triumph of hope over experience?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his contribution. I try to stick to facts. What he says about the legislation is entirely correct. I think it is true—indeed, I know it is true—that second marriages are not infrequently more happy than first marriages. Having said that, I would also agree with him that you cannot go on tinkering with the law of marriage and divorce every 10 years. Marriage, whatever its values and whatever doctrine apples to it, is not something with which one ought to tinker from time to time; it ought to have a certain degree of durability. It is bad for the law to be messing about with fundamental institutions. I agree with all these propositions. As the noble and learned Lord will probably remember, I have referred various questions to the Law Commission and made public speeches to the Family Division and to family lawyers on the

681
subject; and there is before the other place a Private Member's Bill which has Government support.
May I say that I am much obliged to my noble friend Lord Milverton for his reference to children? This is uppermost in the minds of every decent man and woman who approaches this rather painful subject. Of course, the number of children involved is increasing and will do so until the level of divorce reaches a plateau. The courts—and really I can answer only for the courts and for the Government—have laid it down for a very long time—since, I think 1925—that, in handling questions in relation to children, the welfare and the interest of the children are the first and paramount considerations.

Cashless Pay
2.55 p.m.
Lord Kennet: 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 what effect they expect "non-cash pay", which they favour, to have on the mutual disclosure of their incomes between husband and wife, and on the arrangements between them about housekeeping money.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, as cashless pay would always be accompanied by a payslip, it is difficult to see how it would have any appreciable bearing on the matters to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that in common sense a man is more likely to share his weekly pay packet with his wife if he has pound notes in his pocket than if he does not have pound notes in his pocket? Before going further with the proposal of cashless pay, will the Government make sure that they have up-to-date statistical knowledge of the number of wives in the country who do not know what their husbands earn, wish that they did and fear that things might be worse if cashless pay were introduced generally?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, a variety of views have been expressed on this subject. Some people take the view, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, does, that the fact that the husband will no longer bring home every Friday a pay packet containing his wages in pound notes and coin of the realm, will prejudice the wife's position. There are other people who take the view that because the husband will always have a pay slip and, in addition, the bank will render a monthly statement showing in that statement the amount of pay he has received, the wife's position will be improved. These are all matters of speculation. I think that, as Terence said, "Tot homines, quot sententiae".
Lord Derwent: My Lords, can my noble friend say what on earth this Question has to do with Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Cockfield: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend raises an important point. Her Majesty's Government are in favour of cashless pay, which, in the sense that it would avoid the handling by employers and employees of large amounts of cash, would represent a significant improvement in respect both of the work involved and of the security risks. It would also encourage the spread of banking. Indeed, the number of working people with bank accounts has increased dramatically in the last 10 years. Apparently about 71 per cent. of all people at work now have bank accounts. The matter was discussed at the last meeting of the National Economic Development Council. It was supported on all sides not only by the Government but also by the TUC.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it would still be possible for a man to be paid in cash if he so wished?
Lord Cockfield: Yes, my Lords, we have taken the view that this is a matter for negotiation between employers and employees.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I press the Secretary of State for an answer to part of my earlier supplementary question? Is it the Government's intention to arm themselves with proper statistical information about the opinion of wives on this matter?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the issue has been discussed at great length in public. Very few views of the kind that the noble Lord has expressed have been put forward. In fact, the tendency is for people to stress the opposite point of view; namely, that with the pay paid through a bank it will be more possible for the wife to see what the husband is receiving, if, in fact, the husband is prepared to make that information available.
Lord Spens: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government going to abolish the Truck Acts in order to do this? If so, when?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it is not necessary to abolish the Truck Acts if this is done by way of voluntary agreement, which is what we have in mind. The general question of the future of the Truck Acts is one of the numerous matters which are under careful consideration.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Bellwin will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the industrial situation in the water industry.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available this evening and, as is now usual on a Tuesday, it will be between 7.30 and 8.30 p.m. The Report stage of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment, the Report stage of the Merchant Shipping Bill, together with

683
three Northern Ireland orders—Financial Provisions, Milk and Quarries, respectively—will be taken.

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]
3.1 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Support financing of community services in Scotland]:
Lord Lyellmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 33, after ("district") insert ("or islands").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment corrects a drafting error. In Scotland, the local authorities empowered for the purposes of Part VII of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 to provide housing accommodation are, in terms of Section 1 of that Act, islands and district councils. It is therefore intended that the proposed new Section 16A of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 should enable health boards to make support finance payments to both islands and district councils as housing authorities to assist them in providing accommodation to meet the special needs of the elderly, disabled and infirm. As drafted, the proposed new Section 16A(1)(c) refers only to district councils; this amendment would insert a reference to the three islands councils as well. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I see no reason why we should not support this particular amendment; it is an obvious one. But I take this opportunity to register a very strong protest at the large number of amendments tabled by the Government at this Report stage. Of 117 amendments, nearly 90 are Government amendments. In addition, there are four new clauses and two new schedules, which were tabled last Tuesday and were not available to noble Lords until Thursday. Since then, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has done me the courtesy of sending me a very large number of papers, Notes on Clauses. One amendment about voluntary bodies promised me by the noble Lord in his letter of 9th January has not even been put down.
I protest on behalf of the House in this sense. Here we are faced with very complicated amendments and new clauses. We are on Report stage and, as noble Lords know full well, on Report stage, except for the mover of an amendment, one can speak only once. Therefore we have been robbed of the detailed examination that takes place on the Committee stage. When I state categorically that the bulk of these large amendments were put down last Tuesday, noble Lords will recall that that was the day on which the Report stage should have taken place. But it was postponed because of certain situations arising which naturally engaged the attention of the House, and indeed the country.
Therefore I make this protest, not from this Box but on behalf of the whole House, that the House is not being treated properly by the department. I am not
684
going to involve the Minister too much, but he has to carry the can, as we know full well. This is a scandalous way in which to treat the House. One cannot pass much comment at this stage on the individual large amendments. It can only mean that, unfortunately, on Third Reading there is the possibility of there being a large number of amendments. My attitude is that on Committee stage we should consider as much as possible of the detail on amendments. On Report stage we should deal with only those where at least there is a faint hope that the Government might agree, or someone feels so strongly about an amendment that they wish to take the matter to a Division. On Third Reading we should be as moderate as possible. That is the general spirit of co-operation that one extends in this Chamber. On this occasion, unfortunately, the situation is different.
Those of us w ho work in Opposition from these Benches know full well that we are not surrounded with advisers writing our speeches. We have to paddle our own canoe, and it is not easy. Noble Lords opposite, when they are on this side, know this, although perhaps their central office is more generous than my particular organisation, they having far greater resources in terms of money than we ever get. However, that is beside the point. I protest; not from this Box, but on behalf of the whole House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I do not propose to speak on the substance of this amendment with which my noble friend Lord Lyell is concerned. I take what the noble Lord says in the spirit that it is meant. It is true that some of these amendments were tabled at rather a late stage, for which I apologise. I offer a general reason, which may not necessarily apply in each and every case. The reason is that we have been very busy consulting on some of the proposals which have been put forward, not only by the Government but by noble Lords opposite and by other Members of the House. It is often not possible until a late stage to table amendments which reflect the results of such consultation. The noble Lord complained that certain amendments which I had foreshadowed in a letter to him had not been tabled. I am happy to say that the noble Lord is not correct. The ones he refers to are Nos. 25 and 28 on the Marshalled List, which I hope he will find satisfactory when he sees them.
The Government have tried very hard to approach this Report stage—and I speak for myself, at least—in a constructive frame of mind, as the noble Lord will discover. Later today, I intend to accept at least one of the proposals put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and one or two proposals that come from other quarters of the House. So I feel that my record in that respect is well capable of examination.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord; certainly the amendment is down and it is one of the late ones. But instead of being on Clause 1, he has put it down under Schedule 5. He has led me up the garden.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Jegermoved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 3 insert the following new clause:
(" . Where a child is in the voluntary care of a local authority any denial of parental rights, including rights of access, must be referred to a juvenile court at which either parent shall have the right to be heard and represented.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that where a child is in the voluntary care—and I emphasise "in the voluntary care"—of a local authority, any denial of parental rights, denial of access, must be put before a juvenile court at which either parent shall have the right to be heard and to be represented. There are all sorts of reasons why a parent asks for a child to be taken into care. It could be a mother's illness or death; it could be homelessness—and I must tell your Lordships that these cases, sadly, are increasing. There might be a marital breakdown of such severity that neither parent can care for the child. There are many complex reasons. But I must emphasise that we are not talking about children who are neglected or abused or taken into care for their own protection. I understand there are about 40,000 children in voluntary care today, so we are not talking about a small minority.
I realise that if this amendment were accepted there would have to be amendment of the Child Care Act 1980 and possibly of other legislation. But it seemed to us that the occasion of this present Bill should not pass without your Lordships setting some changes in the context of this Bill: otherwise it might appear that your Lordships are quiescent, self-satisfied and passive about the present situation, and I do not think that is true.
This matter was discussed at Committee stage on 9th December on a proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, to amend Section 3 of the Child Care Act 1980. The noble Lord's amendment was defeated by 84 votes to 65, although it had the support of Members from all parts of the House. It may be argued that at present a parent has the right to object at a juvenile court—a right to object within 28 days of the parental rights order being made. This puts the onus on the parent of going to court within the given period. This amendment would make referral to the court statutory so that the writ of the social services committee could not run without the confirmation of the juvenile court.
It might be maintained that this amendment is unnecessary because the parent can oppose a resolution by the service of a counter-notice upon the authority. But how is a parent to know this, and how would they cope with it, or even know what a counter-notice is?—especially as in these cases parents are very often distressed, disadvantaged, lacking confidence and lacking support. It is said by some who oppose this amendment that the parent should get that support from the social worker. That is very difficult for the parent to accept because it is the social worker who would have moved the order in the social services committee; it is very hard for a parent in this situation to look for help in opposing the social services committee when that social worker will have been responsible for recommending that parental rights be assumed by the local authority. The mother or father might well presume that the social worker would be supporting the authority in court. It would certainly
686
put the social worker in a very difficult position if he or she were to support the parent in court, in defiance of his or her own authority.
Under the present law, once the social services committee has passed a resolution assuming parental rights, a formal notice must be sent to the parent and must inform him or her of the right to object within 28 days. But 28 days seems to me to be very little time. I am not sure whether the parent would have received the letter. The parent might have moved or might have been transferred from one hospital to another. Parents might even have a language difficulty in many cases in understanding an official document, and even those who do not have a language difficulty may well find some problems in understanding those documents.
We are talking in the main about people who are often the least articulate, with the least initiative, in this very difficult situation. In this amendment we are endeavouring to do something to help them other than just sending a letter telling them they have 28 days in which to appeal to a court. I must emphasise to your Lordships that at present I understand there are no absolute rights to legal aid, which might well be a disadvantage to some of the poorest people involved.
Some professional social workers may well feel that in the interests of the children they should be able to protect them from irresponsible or, in some cases, dangerous parents. But surely the juvenile court would be equally sensitive to these problems and in such cases their judgment would be in support of the local authority. This procedure would protect social workers from harassment by parents or other relatives who feel they have been harshly dealt with. I have discussed this with some social workers who feel they would gain added confidence from knowing that the court had upheld their judgment, that their decisions were not invidious and therefore, if the court had decided against them, that must be accepted without their taking responsibility for decisions which might well be opposed by families later on.
I also think that parents who have lost their case might well be sad but they would find a judgment of the court at which they could appear and be represented to be more acceptable than the decision of a local authority committee at which they were not present. I believe we are naturally a law-abiding community and, by and large, people would prefer to feel that the law had made its judgment on their case rather than a committee of unseen bureaucrats in the town hall in their absence.
These changes have the support of the Magistrates' Association, the National Association of Probation Officers, the National Council for One-Parent Families and the Family Sub-Comittee of the British Association of Social Workers—but not yet the council of the association, I must make clear. That council will be meeting later this year.
I am sure the House would want to express its appreciation of the heavy burden borne by our social workers—often with too heavy a case load, a problem which seems likely to increase under present policies. They are having to deal with desperately difficult and sensitive situations, but I know of no social worker—and I know many—who would claim total infallibility. None of them should see this amendment

687
as an attack on their profession; it is an attack on the system.
On 9th December, in col. 303, the noble Minister said that consideration was being given to these problems to find out whether any changes were needed. I quote:
"We may conclude that changes or further safeguards are necessary. If that is our conclusion I have no doubt we shall want to use the opportunity of this Bill to bring forward proposals in another place".
That was said on 9th December. It is now 1st February, so I do not think it is unfair to ask the noble Minister whether he has had time to come to any further conclusion about these proposals. I beg to move.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, this amendment is of very great importance and I hope that every Member of this House who is or has been a parent will envisage the situation of the parent. Suppose that your wife is taken ill and you are left at home with one or two children with whom you cannot cope. Your first reaction is that you are very glad that there is a local authority place or some kind of place where your child can be in residence during this crisis at home. Then comes next week and you think you will go and see the child, but you find that you are denied access to your own child. Imagine this, and imagine yourself in that situation when you have young children at home. Your immediate reaction to that would be, "They have no right to do this", and by that you mean that only a court of law can have a right to do it. This amendment would make it obligatory that denial of any access to the child should be subject to the approval of a court of law.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. The noble Baroness reminded the House that at the Committee stage I moved an amendment which would have prevented a denial of parental rights to parents of a child in voluntary care without recourse to the courts. It would no longer have been possible for that to be done by administrative means through a parental rights resolution. As the noble Baroness said, there was wide support for that amendment in all parts of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that the present procedures were not ideal, and also said that the Government had not ruled out the possibility of change, although he opposed the amendment itself.
He spoke of possible amendments when the Bill reached another place, and he referred to consultations about the possible establishment of a code of practice. A code of practice would undoubtedly be an advance, although, of course, that was not what the amendment proposed, which went much beyond that. I felt that on that occasion during the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, had not made any firm commitment to take action and had not, therefore, met the point of the amendment. So we divided, and the amendment was lost by the comparatively narrow margin to which the noble Baroness referred.
As I understand it, this amendment, although much more loosely drawn, would produce a similar result and, for that reason, I support it. I hope that the noble
688
Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will be able to commit the Government firmly to the introduction of amendments in another place. The British Association of Social Workers, to whom the noble Baroness referred, have told me that they would prefer no change in the law until family courts have been introduced. That is an understandable point of view. I, too, support the establishment of family courts, and I urge the Government to set them up. But I do not feel that we can leave the matter with which this amendment is concerned to be dealt with at some unspecified date in the future, and it would be very encouraging if the Government would say that there will be definite proposals for amendment when the Bill reaches another place.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, while understanding the feelings of the two noble Baronesses and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I am not at all clear about the law in relation to this amendment. If a child is accepted into care under Section 1 of the Children Act, that means that the child is accepted into care at the request and demand of the parents. At any point in time the child can be withdrawn from care, and no local authority can stop that. If a child is in care under Section 1 at the request of the parents, and if a local authority refuses either to allow the parents access or to allow letters to pass, the parents can withdraw the child at a moment's notice. That is under Section 1 of the Children Act.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, had to do with the assumption of parental rights under Section 2 of the Act. I am not sure whether in this amendment we are talking about Section 1 or Section 2 of the Children Act, but if it is Section 1, which means voluntary care, then it does not really apply. Under Section 1, if parents want to withdraw their child they can do so, and they sometimes go to a voluntary organisation and ask for help.
Secondly, I am also somewhat confused about this amendment, because if a parent is ill, or if there is a death in the family, and the parents ask for the child to be accepted into care, it will be a terrible shock to find themselves in court. That would be something which they had never foreseen or envisaged when their child was accepted, but not taken into care, and when there was no question of Section 2 rights, as was the case with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I am afraid that I find it quite impossible to accept this amendment legally, although I understand the feelings of the noble Baroness who moved it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I say a brief word in opposition to this amendment? The approach must surely be what is in the best interests of the welfare of the child, and not how we can best protect parental rights. It was not my initention to speak on this matter, but as I was engaged in a case involving the Lewisham Borough Council which went to your Lordships' Appellate Committee, which was presided over by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and where these issues which are under discussion arose for decision, may I be excused for saying this brief word?
I have not looked it up for many months, but that was a case where the child was put by the mother into

689
voluntary care and the mother, having put it into voluntary care, was on any showing irresponsible and an improper person to have further custody of the child. Indeed, handing it over to the mother would have endangered the child. The Court of Appeal held that the local authority had to hand that child over to the mother; so we took out wardship proceedings in the High Court, went to your Lordships' Appellate Committee and your Lordships overruled the Court of Appeal. That still stands as authority.
Like my noble friend Lady Faithfull I am concerned about this matter, and I am not seeking in any way to be obstructive. But I am not convinced as to the use of putting what is called the onus on the local authority, which I suppose would mean that you would, perhaps, add to the drafting that after the denial of parental rights the local authority shall forthwith refer to the juvenile court.
I do not know about your Lordships, but I am not happy with the use of the word "parent". There might be a grandmother or someone who had care of the child but who was not a parent. But points of drafting are not particularly attractive. I merely mention them because they could lead to wider points of principle. What seems to me to be the point of principle at stake is that, by and large, since the Lewisham Borough Council case the law is reasonably satisfactory to protect the welfare of children. There is no sufficient case made out for this amendment, and it would perhaps he preferable to wait until the establishment of the family courts. For those reasons, as at present advised, and subject to anything further that I hear in your Lordships' debate, I would be disposed to oppose the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, very often in your Lordships' House the intervention of lawyers is an annoyance. But sometimes I think we find that their experience, and the way in which they can point to that experience, does help the House. I hope this is such an occasion, because we have drifted from principle to some sort of examination of the legal position, and whether that is satisfactory. As always, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for giving us the benefit of his experience.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, talked about whether this amendment applied to Section 1. If it applies to Section 1 that is the very case that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was talking about; namely, a parent voluntarily giving a child into the care of the local authority. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, then went on to say that that was a case which he thought was sufficiently cared for at the moment by the law, and he took us through the various stages of the case that reached your Lordships' Appellate Committee. It is to just that sort of case that my noble friend is referring.
It is the case of a child being handed over in certain circumstances—be it illness, be it death, be it some tragedy of some kind—to a local authority. The sole question for the House indeed, for the lawyers in the House, too is whether one leaves the extraordinary case, as it may be, of refusal of access—the normal human right of a parent in relation to a child and a very essential human right—to a committee, to a local
690
authority, to an officer's recommendation to a local authority. When one is dealing with such a fundamental refusal which, quite apart from the liberty of the subject, can produce such emotional reactions from both parent and child, should not a juvenile court look at such an extraordinary case and deal with the matter judicially? Is there any doubt in your Lordships' minds that a juvenile court would not have, as a prime consideration, the welfare of the child, but would at the same time ally with it the right of the parent? Is this not a judicial and completely independent decision that ought to be taken away from the local authority that is already involved in the decision; namely, that this fundamental right should be withdrawn?
My Lords, if I may say so, I regarded the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, as so helpful because I think it answered the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, by saying that this is just the case, under Section 1, however rare it might be, where a court decision ought to be applicable and not that of a committee of a local authority, well advised or otherwise by an official.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful, first, to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, for clarifying what she seeks to achieve by virtue of this amendment. The matters which she and others who have spoken have raised are of the greatest importance, and, as I shall explain, are under urgent consideration by the Government.
Before I go on to that I should perhaps say that the drafting of the amendment presents certain problems. It is far from perfect, I fear, but I should not seek to argue against the principle of the amendment just on the basis of its drafting because that can be put right either at a later stage or in the other place. Despite the drafting, I can give an assurance to your Lordships that we are very well aware of the concern felt in this House, and indeed outside it, about some aspects of provision for children in care. The question of the law and procedures regarding parental rights resolutions was debated at some length by your Lordships on 9th December, when I endeavoured to explain to your Lordships the Government's considered view.
We are by no means satisfied that the present system is entirely satisfactory. Nor are we convinced that the law should be changed to bring before the courts every case where a local authority feels it needs parental rights over a child in care, regardless of whether there is any conflict between the authority and the parent over the matter. We believe that the practice needs to be improved so that the procedures are operated in a way that ensures that parents' rights do not go by default or are not lost for want of the right advice at the right time. I gave your Lordships an undertaking on 9th December that we would be exploring the possibility of drawing up guidance on good practice. Work on this is now in hand and has the support of the local authority associations and the Association of Directors of Social Services. We are also considering whether we need to bring forward in another place one or two small changes to the legislation.
I turn now to the question of access to children in care. We have this matter very much in mind at the moment, and I am grateful for the views of your

691
Lordships. I am certainly concerned about the difficulties which I know can face parents who find themselves at irreconcilable odds with a local authority about access to a child in care. It is important and reassuring to remember that in most cases the question of access will be agreed without serious problems between the authority and the parent. In most cases, indeed, the local authority will be anxious to encourage access between a parent and a child, which is so important if their family is to be reunited. Further, I am sure that we would all wish to recognise the very difficult job and heavy responsibility which a local authority is expected to take on when a child is placed in its care. I am sure that where arrangements can be made by agreement and any difficulties resolved by negotiation this must be the best way forward for the family as a whole.
Again, we shall be considering carefully whether guidance from my department can help to ensure good practice in this field. I would not wish to see these matters referred routinely to the courts. Having said that. I certainly sympathise with those of your Lordships who feel that, when all attempts to agree have failed, parents should have the right to seek redress through the courts. It would be my hope that this would be a final resort rather than in the first instance, and we are urgently considering whether there is any measure which we can bring forward in the other place to achieve this without putting unreasonable burdens upon the local authorities and the courts.
The law relating to children in care is very complicated and fragmented, and, partly for historical reasons, there are inconsistencies; but the law generally provides that where a child is in the care of a local authority then that authority has a responsibility for the child's upbringing as long as he remains in its care—and a very heavy responsibility and a very difficult task that can often be. The law gives the authority the necessary powers to make decisions about the child's upbringing. These decisions must be made within the framework of legislation which provides, most importantly, that a local authority should give first consideration to the need to safeguard and promote the child's welfare throughout his childhood.
The law provides that, in special circumstances, the courts may issue directions about decisions affecting a child in care; for example where a child is made a ward of court. But in the majority of cases where the local authority stands in the role of the parent it has the responsibility for making the decisions as a parent would. If the natural parent believes it is no longer right or necessary that an authority should have the care of a child, the parent has a right to ask the court to bring the care order or the parents' parental rights resolution to an end. That is very broadly the position which is now being challenged.
I have some sympathy with the arguments put forward, especially those in relation to the question of access. We believe that the position of parents who are denied access to their children needs further consideration. but the implications of a more general change in favour of the referral of the decision to the court also need careful consideration. I very much
692
doubt whether at present there is any consensus of opinion that the courts and the adversarial nature of proceedings in the courts provide the best forum for effectively planning a child's upbringing and future.
I said at the earlier stage of the Bill that we were considering whether we could bring forward further proposals, perhaps during consideration of this measure in another place. I suppose it might have been possible, by speeding up that consideration but, worst of all, by truncating the consultation process, to act more quickly, but again that would have incurred the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany. Had we done that, it would have necessitated putting down more amendments quite recently. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has already pointed out that we have put down quite a number. I hope your Lordships will agree and accept that the Government take this matter very seriously indeed and that we hope to bring forward further proposals in the other place.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. May I say straight away to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who has such experience of these matters that I tried to anticipate her criticism of its legality by saying that there would have to be subsequent amendments of the Child Care Act 1980 and that these would take on board her problem about which section of the legislation was being referred to. I cannot agree with the noble Baroness's reference to the strain that this would put upon parents of having to go to the juvenile court. This seems to be an argument for the abolition of the juvenile courts. Parents often have to go to the juvenile courts. I am not sure that the strain of a court appearance in a juvenile court where the issue can be discussed is as much of a strain as a parent receiving a letter saying that a committee has passed a resolution denying his right of access to his own child. To be told this by people with whom you may not have come face to face, by means of an official, bureaucratic document, seems to me to be the most traumatic experience of all.
I appreciate the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, as did my noble friend Lord Mishcon. However, I take issue with him on one point. He referred to the fact that a parent might be denied parental rights because a social worker thought that that parent was irresponsible. I doubt whether there are many parents in this House who can claim that they have never been irresponsible. It is a very subjective judgment of the kind which parents deeply resent. It is especially resented when a slightly older woman is in the care of a younger social worker. Not so long ago I had such a woman come to me and say, "Who is that bit of a girl? She's never had a baby in her life—not that she admits to, anyway. Now she's telling me that I'm irresponsible". These are delicate and difficult matters, but I should have thought that to go through the courts is one way of reducing to a minimum these subjective judgments.
I would remind the House that 3,000 of these parental rights resolutions go through local authorities every year. This means that we are talking about 3,000 children. It is not good enough for noble Lords to think that if it is under Section 1 the parent can get his child

693
back. Once a resolution has been passed, the whole situation changes. There have been cases where children have not even been allowed to receive presents from their parents because a resolution of denial has been passed.
I appreciate all that the noble Lord the Minister has said and I am glad that the Government are giving urgent consideration to the matter. Nevertheless, I do not feel able to withdraw the amendment, defective though it is legalistically, for which I apologise. The noble Lord the Minister made one statement which seems to contradict the intention. He said that he would not wish matters to be automatically referred to the courts. The purpose of the amendment is that they shall be referred automatically to the courts so that there will be no invidious decisions about one case going to court and another case not going to court. It would be a difficult decision to make. I am not sure who would make the decision as to which cases went to court and which did not. If it is for the parent to take the initiative in going to court, that contradicts the intention of the amendment, which is to save the parent the onus of initiating proceedings. I am sorry if I have failed to persuade the Minister that these parents are often the least confident and the least able to initiate proceedings. We are seeking to make it obligatory so that neither side has to take the initiative.
For these reasons, with all my thanks to the noble Lord the Minister for the crumbs of comfort and good hope which he has given us this afternoon, I am afraid that I do not feel able to withdraw the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 119.

DIVISION NO 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Amherst, E.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Amulree, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ardwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Auckland, L.

Glenamara, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Balogh, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Banks, L.

Grey, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hale, L.

Beswick, L.

Hampton, L.

Birk, B.

Hanworth, V.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Blease, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Blyton, L.

Hayter, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hunt, L.

Brockway, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jacques, L.

Chitnis, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Collison, L.

Kagan, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Kaldor, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kennet, L.

Denington, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Diamond, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Donaldson of

Kirkhill, L.

Kingsbridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

694

Lee of Newton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of

Savile, L.

Hastoe, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Serota, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Shinwell, L.

Longford, E.

Simon, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stamp, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stedman, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Macleod of Fuinary, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

McNair, L.

Stone, L.

Mais, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strauss, L.

Mayhew, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Northfield, L.

Underhill, L.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Peart, L.

Walston, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Plant, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Whaddon, L.

Porritt, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Winstanley, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Rochester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hailsham of Saint

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Marylebone, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Allerton, L.

Harvington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Henley, L.

Avon, E.

Hill-Norton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hives, L.

Bellwin, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beloff, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Belstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bessborough, E.

Ilchester, E.

Blake, L.

Kilmany, L.

Boyd Carpenter, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Burton, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Caccia, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lovat, L.

Cathcart, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clancarty, E.

Lyell, L.

Clitheroe, L.

McFadzean of

Cockfield, L.

Kelvinside, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Macpherson of

Crathorne, L.

Drumochter, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mansfield, E.

Daventry, V.

Margadale, L.

Davidson, V.

Marley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Derwent, L.

Mills, V.

Digby, L.

Milverton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Mountgarreot, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Faithfull, B.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fortescue, E.

Reilly, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renton, L.

Gainford, L.

Rochdale, V.

Garner, L.

Romney, E.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Rugby, L.

Gisborough, L.

St. Aldwyn, L.

Glasgow, E.

St. Davids, V.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Just, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gray, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Greenway, L.

Sandys, L.

Gridley, L.

Seebohm, L.

695

Shaughnessy, L.

Tranmire, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Soames, L.

Trumpington, B.

Somers, L.

Ullswater, V.

Spens, L.

Vickers, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Ward of Witley, V.

Terrington, L.

Westbury, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Water Industry Dispute
3.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I beg leave to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the industrial action in the water industry.
"Since my Statement last Monday there has been some increase in the number of people advised to boil water, as a precaution. This figure is now approximately 5½ million. About 20,000 properties are without their mains water supply, but arrangements have been or are being made to provide supplies from standpipes or tankers. Some properties that had lost supplies have been reconnected.
"The quality of effluent from some sewage treatment works has deteriorated, but so far without serious effects on rivers. No significant pollution incidents have been reported. I am glad to tell the House that so far it has been possible to avoid or avert risks to public health.
"In my previous Statement, I expressed the hope that agreement would be reached that day at a meeting of the Water Industry National Joint Industrial Council. I would remind the House that both parties to the dispute had already agreed a procedure with ACAS for reaching a settlement, involving negotiations under an independent chairman, mediation by the chairman and, in the last resort, arbitration.
"An independent mediator was appointed by ACAS. He made a number of specific recommendations, which were subsequently accepted by the employers. They therefore made a further offer, reflecting his recommendations.
"They offered an increase of 7·3 per cent. to run for 16 months from 5th December 1982 together with an increase in the service supplement for manual employees with more than five years' service. The mediator, in paragraph 8 of his report, suggested further talks about increased earnings opportunities through bonus schemes and greater efficiency. I have placed in the Library copies of the agreed procedure, together with the mediator's report.
"Although the unions specifically requested mediation and agreed the mediator's terms of
696
reference, they rejected the employers' offer based on his recommendations. On Saturday, they announced the continuation of strike action, without any reference to the agreed procedure for the resolution of this dispute, which, as a last resort, provides for arbitration. ACAS met the employers' side yesterday. There have been further discussions today. I understand that ACAS is seeing the unions this evening.
"Mr. Speaker, the whole House will hope that the efforts of ACAS will enable this damaging dispute to be brought to the earliest possible conclusion. In the meantime, I know that the House will also be anxious to see that the emergency cover continues to be provided and that hardship and distress are not caused. Whatever the dispute, there cannot be any justification for actions which hurt those least able to help themselves.
"There are clearly two main options to achieve an end to the dispute and an immediate return to work. Either the recommendation of the mediator is further pursued of urgent discussions on the various ways in which the earnings opportunities of water workers can be improved, or, if this course is unacceptable, then the terms of the national agreement regarding arbitration should be followed. The way is there. It must be taken.—
That is the end of the Statement, my Lords.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement which was made in another place. I understand that ACAS met the employers' side yesterday and that certain options were put forward. Perhaps two of the most important options were the rapid implementation of ways of improving earnings and of extending, improving and developing the industry's productivity scheme. We hope that those options will be discussed by ACAS with the unions this evening.
It would be wrong of me to enlarge very much on the Statement, because the last thing one wants to do in a crucial dispute of this description is to cause recrimination on either side. But I think it is important to draw to the attention of the Minister that there does seem to be some feeling in some circles that perhaps consultation is not fully taking place, that there are what we might call off-the-cuff meetings with certain waterworks chairmen. If that is the case, we hope the Minister will see that it does not continue, because obviously any conflict makes the job of the negotiator much more difficult.
I think it is important to remember that the trade unions in the dispute took their decision on a secret ballot in which 81 per cent. of the members participated; with the decision to proceed with the national strike by a majority of four to one. They as a union are as concerned as anybody else that people are being deprived of their water supplies, that there is a danger of pollution, though I think it must go on record that the guidelines laid down by the trade union are being fully carried out by the workers in the industry. If they were not perhaps there would be greater public anxiety than exists at the moment. I do understand that there is public concern. I think what is

697
important is that we should recognise, or perhaps the Minister should recognise, that there appears to be some kind of Government intervention in the arbitration. Those of us who watched television at the week-end saw Sir William Dugdale on a programme; I think I took down what he said, to the effect that the employers were reliant upon Ministers for the strategic decisions in the dispute. However one interprets that, one would feel that for Sir William Dugdale to make that statement shows there is some kind of pressure from some source in government. Any statement of that description obviously leads to the belief that an improved offer could be made by the arbitrators if only the Government gave their blessing.
Therefore, one would agree with the Minister that there are two main options open. One would hope that these workers in the industry, unaccustomed to militancy, will be able through the arbitration service to get a satisfactory negotiated settlement. One recognises the problems, the difficulties and perhaps health hazards that may arise if the dispute goes on for a very long time. What is important is that the settlement is one agreed on honourable terms and that the consumers have a restoration of a pure water supply at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for having repeated this Statement. Before now I have made it plain that we cannot subscribe to the Government's policies, or, in our view, lack of policies, in the field of pay determination. For my part, as dispute follows dispute in one public service after another, I feel more and more confirmed in the view that there is an urgent need, in place of the present series of ad hoc arrangements applying in turn to particular public services, at least to seek agreed long-term procedures for pay determination over the widest practicable area in these services.
However, it is the current dispute on which we must express our view today, and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, I am most anxious to say nothing which could in any way hinder the obviously needed urgent settlement of the dispute. As the Statement says, the ACAS formula to which both the National Water Council and the unions recently subscribed, provided that in the last resort there should be arbitration. In the field of industrial relations at least, is it not of the essence of arbitration, as opposed to conciliation or mediation, that its outcome should be accepted by both sides in a dispute? In the light of the hardship which is being suffered by an increasing number of people, and with the serious damage to industry that is drawing ever nearer, are we not rapidly approaching that position of last resort?
4.6 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it is interesting, is it not, that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, complained that she was concerned that there was too much Government intervention, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was concerned that there was not enough Government intervention. I think we will have to get the two acts together.
May I say on the points raised, first of all, that in the main the guidelines for emergencies are being
698
followed, but there are, especially in Wales, situations where that is not so. But in the main I would accept what the noble Baroness says; I think that is right. On the extent to which there is Government intervention in arbitration and the comments made by Sir William Dugdale on television, which I also saw, I do not think anything can be drawn from that; I think he was expressing the generality of what has always pertained in this type of situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, said that if the Government would give the go-ahead the arbitrator could see that more money be given. The whole point of arbitration is that the arbitrator must decide on his or her own. What the Government are saying is that agreements clearly laid down, signed by all sides, are that the matter should go to arbitration, and we are still saying that that is the position. We have had the situation where a mediator called in and approved by both sides gave his ruling; the employers decided to accept it but the trade unions would not do so. Now we are saying that arbitration is an agreed procedure and that that should be the next step, and hopefully that is what will come about if there is no settlement.
Like both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, I, too, have no wish to say anything to exacerbate the situation. I said negotiations are taking place this very day, and to add to that could not be helpful. Clearly, everybody in your Lordships' House wishes to see a speedy end to this situation. It is always those who are on the receiving end who are worst affected, and there is no one in your Lordships' House who does not want to see them quickly put into the position where they are not having to boil water, or whatever it may be.

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Clause 3 [Abolition of regional plans for accommodation for children.]
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 8, line 11, at end insert ("and, without prejudice to section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972, may do so jointly with one or more other local authorities")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 76 together. These amendments make clear, through a permissive power, that it will still be open to local authorities to combine in groupings to plan and provide residential facilities for children in their care. Your Lordships will recall that at an earlier stage my noble friend Lady Faithfull tabled amendments to provide for the continuation of children's regional planning in those regions where a majoirty of local authorities so wished, but then withdrew them pending discussions with me.
As I said then, I can appreciate my noble friend's concern, although there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent collaboration. However, the matter is put beyond doubt by these amendments. We believe that the concept of planning has often proved most valuable in the past, and it is our intention merely to

699
remove the statutory obligation for it and not to otherwise discourage it. We have therefore taken this opportunity to make a small amendment to the Local Government Act 1972 also to enable authorities to pay the expenses of any committee that may be set up for the purpose of collaborative planning. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Jacques): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 3A I should point out that there is a misprint in the first line. The word "and" should be deleted and the word "shall" should be substituted, so that it would read:
"Handicapped and mentally impaired children shall".
Baroness Masham of Iltonmoved Amendment No. 3A:
Page 8, line 36, at end insert—
("(6) Handicapped and mentally impaired children shall as far as possible and practicable remain in their own home area whether in a children's home or foster home.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank the Deputy Speaker for bringing this error to the notice of your Lordships. In moving this amendment, I bring to the notice of your Lordships the sad problem that so many of our children have to go into care for social reasons. It may be for short periods but sometimes it has to be for long periods. A percentage of these children will be handicapped in some way. They may have a physical or mental defect. Very often the fate of these children is that they are placed in large impersonal hospitals. Sadly, there are still children who, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, knows, are residing in such institutions. I know he feels that they should not be there, as the noble Lord has stressed this point in your Lordships' House on several occasions.
It is good practice to try to keep all children, especially handicapped ones, as close as possible to their home environment and attending the schools where they are known and understood. Good social work practice, I am told, is to try to find suitable foster homes or, failing that, residential homes where they will be understood and can still be part of the community. It would be very interesting to know from the Minister approximately how many handicapped children have to be found homes by the social services departments each year. I bring this amendment to Your Lordships' notice in this Bill as, with the Warnock Committee behind us, many people are now aware that integration, rather than segregation, of all children who are handicapped is what the aim should be. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I warmly support this amendment. The noble Baroness has gone into a great deal of detail and I think she will agree with me that this is quite an emotive subject. Let us face the fact that the great majority of handicapped and mentally impaired children are possibly, at least in my opinion, the most loved children. I think that no one would dispute that. Therefore, it is only humane, reasonable and decent that, so far as possible, they should be placed in homes or establishments near their homes. This means that there is greater opportunity
700
for their parents and brothers and sisters to visit them and to keep in touch. I do not think that any noble Lord will disagree with that. I hope that the House will give the amendment the fullest support. I cannot see how the Minister can disagree with the point made by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I also support the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. Of course, this clause does refer to children in care. I would be grateful if the Minister could help us because, for instance, on the figures produced by the Department of Health and Social Security, there are, in fact, 20 children in the North who are being cared for in mental hospitals when there are vacancies in homes that could care for them. I know that discussions arc going on at the moment, but this is one of the reasons why the noble Baroness and I felt it was important that this should be discussed in your Lordships' House. Not only do we believe in the principle of it, but we are also worried about how, in practice, it works out. I therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I also strongly support the amendment. In the country districts it is sometimes difficult to find housing accommodation for the children who are described in the amendment. On the other hand, speaking from experience, I had considerable success in getting people with a cottage, perhaps a husband and wife living in a rural area who had some training and knew how to do it, to look after these children in small groups. It is not necessary for children to go into a big home or, indeed, even into a hospital if one can make a local arrangement whereby there is a smaller house or cottage in which to put, say, half a dozen children with two people who are either husband and wife or two social workers to look after them. I believe that it is perfectly possible to bring that about. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment, because it is very important and will be most useful in all conditions.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I want to say at the outset that the intention behind the amendment is wholly admirable, but I am afraid I have to say that the Government think it would be inappropriate to include it in legislation. The amendment embodies a principle of good child practice to which I am certain all social services departments subscribe. But it is not easy to legislate for good professional practice and my noble friend recognises this because she has included the qualification "as far as possible and practicable". Incidentally, I am not quite certain that if ever the courts came to look at that particular clause they would find it easy to interpret.
The principles of good child care practice are disseminated in a number of ways, not least by the officers of my department's social work service who work in the various regions of the country and are in direct touch with the social services departments. The amendment could not effectively improve the position for handicapped and mentally impaired children.
I add two further points. First, the new Section 31 of the Child Care Act, to which it is proposed the amendment should be added, is concerned essentially with abolishing the present requirement for statutory

701
regional planning for children's accommodation and transferring the function, together with matters related to the management of community homes, to local authorities. In that context, the proposed subsection would in any case be inappropriate.
The second relevant point is that, as drafted, the amendment seems to suggest that handicapped and mentally impaired children should not live in their own homes but elsewhere in their home area. I am certain that that was not the intention of the noble Baroness.
I was asked one or two questions by the various noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken. I shall, if I may, write to my noble friend Lady Faithfull in answer to the particular point that she raised in so far as it is one for my department. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, also asked me about the numbers of children who might be involved in these arrangements. Again I do not have the precise figures in front of me, but I remember that there are at present about 2,000 mentally handicapped children of every kind—that is to say, not those particularly who are subject to a care order—who are still in institutions of one kind or another. It is most certainly the Government's policy that that situation should be brought to an end just as soon as possible.
My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood referred to the desirability of smaller units for these particular children. I must say that I could not agree with her more. I have in recent months visited a great number of those facilities and I am to visit more in the weeks to come. I certainly agree with her that, so far as mentally handicapped children are concerned, those types of units involving, for example, six or eight children are infinitely the best and the Government are doing what we can to support their creation. As I say, the large institutions in which some children unfortunately still find themselves are no place for those children to grow up in and the Government are doing everything we can to bring that situation to an end.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord the Minister can claim that he has made a case out against this particular amendment. If he has done anything at all, it is to damn it with faint praise. He began by commending a good deal that was in the amendment and said that most of what is proposed is being done at present. If that is so, why can it not be embodied in the Bill? I should like to get from him, if it is possible, one concrete reason why the Government should not accept the amendment, because everything that the noble Lord has said has really supported it, and it has been dismissed, if I may say so, without any just cause. I know that the noble Lord has reservations about the interpretation of "possible and practicable" but I think we all know what we mean by those words. If the amendment is as good as I think the noble Lord would claim it is, and if he has any reservation in his mind as to the meaning of those two words in this particular Bill, could he not take the amendment away and come back with some suggestion at Third Reading as to how this particular amendment could be met?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I have your Lordships' permission to speak again, I should like to say that there is more than one concrete objection to this amendment as I endeavoured to point out in my remarks just now. First, there is the difficulty to which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred—namely, the interpretation of the words:
"as far as possible and practicable".
Those are not words which are known to the law in the normal sense, but, as the noble Lord says, doubtless they could be changed in some way.
The other objection to which I drew attention in my remarks was that the amendment actually seems to say that handicapped and mentally impaired children should live not in their own homes but elsewhere in their home area. I am certain that that was not the intention of the noble Baroness but it is, I fear, the meaning of the words as she has tabled them. I say again that the principles behind the noble Baroness's amendment are wholly unexceptionable. but I am convinced that this is not an appropriate way to put the practice into legislation. In general, good practice is not enshrined into legislation and I do not think that it would be desirable to do so on this occasion. However, as I have said, the thoughts behind the amendment are certainly very good and valid ones and I would be quite willing to take the matter away and consider it further with a view possibly to bringing something forward at the next stage. I would not want to be committed to do that but I shall certainly commit myself to reconsidering the matter between now and Third Reading.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken. because they have so much experience. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. because he has got from the Minister what I wanted him to say. This amendment was drafted in rather a hurry. Last Thursday I visited a large mental hospital which was bigger than your Lordships' House. It looked very threatening and very frightening even to somebody like myself who is very used to visiting hospitals, and one wonders what it must have seemed like to a child going there, because there was a children's ward in that hospital.
I know that the Minister feels exactly the same way as I do about these children. I am very grateful that he has said that he will go back and look at the matter again and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and I would be satisfied with that. It was certainly the intention that the children were those children who were in the care of the local authority. With those comments I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Children and Young Persons]:
4.25 p.m.
Lord Lyellmoved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
Page 23, line 5, leave out ("repeal") and insert ("repeals—
(a)")
Page 23 line 7, leave out ("is") and insert ("and
(b) of sections 34(4) and (5) and 34A(6A) and (6B) of that Act by the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978.
are").

703
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if I were to speak to a considerable number of amendments together with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I should like, with your Lordships' leave, to speak to Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 13 and also four right at the end—Amendments Nos. 94, 95, 98 and 100. All these amendments are related and their effect is to tidy up the references to custody in the adoption law of England and Wales and of Scotland respectively, and to restate more effectively some related provisions which go, as we say, across the border between England and Wales and Scotland.
Let us consider first Amendment No. 13, which is on page 4 of the Marshalled List before us today. Your Lordships will see that it corrects several misleading references in the adoption law of England and Wales by changing them to "actual custody" which is what is meant. The amendment also inserts a definition of "actual custody" in the Adoption Act 1958. The person with "actual custody" of a child is the person with whom the child has his, or indeed her, home, and the term usually applies to the prospective adopters during the period while the adoption hearing is pending.
A court in England and Wales can order a child to be returned if he has been unlawfully removed from someone's actual custody. Amendment No. 8 extends this power to cover the case of a child removed in contravention of Scottish adoption law, where the unlawful removal has occurred in England or Wales. Amendment No. 9 makes two consequential amendments to statutory definitions, and Amendments Nos. 8, 94, 95 and 98 effect various consequential repeals.
The equivalent amendments to Scottish adoption law are made by Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 10 and 100, in this case substituting where appropriate "care and possession" for references to "custody" which we have had up to now. All these amendments hang together. I hope that your Lordships will have seen your way through the complicated list of amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 23, leave out lines 20 to 27 and insert ("paragraph—
"(b) by a parent or guardian of the child in relation to whom no resolution under section 16 of this Act is in effect with respect to the child and who has given the local authority not less than 28 days' notice in writing of his intention to do it.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6 and I hope that it will be for your Lordships' convenience if I speak also to Amendment No. 11, as these amendments modify parallel provisions in Scotland and England and Wales respectively. I am advised that it is possible for a child who has a legal guardian to be made the subject of a parental rights resolution by the local authority and that this is not adequately taken into account in the drafting of paragraphs 3 and 34 of Schedule 1. The amendments that we propose remedy this deficiency by making it clear that the arrangement by which a guardian can give 28 days' written notice of removal of
704
a child from a local authority's care, where the child has been in care on a voluntary basis for the preceding six months, applies only to those guardians in respect of whom no resolution is in force. These amendments are, therefore, of a technical nature and do not affect the existing right of parents over children in care. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 23, line 35, at end insert—
("5A. In section 42 of that Act (application from reporter to sheriff for findings)—
(a) in subsection (6) at the beginning there shall he inserted the words "Subject to subsection (6A) of this section,";
(b) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(6A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2)(c) of this section, where, in the course of the proceedings before the sheriff, the child and his parent accept any of the grounds in respect of which the application has been made, the sheriff may dispense with the hearing of evidence relating to that ground unless he is satisfied that in all the circumstances such evidence should be heard, and deem that ground to have been established for the purposes of this section."; and
(c) in subsection (7) at the end there shall be added the words—"except that where any of the grounds for the referral are accepted by the child's parent, whether or not accepted by the child, then, notwithstanding subsection (6A) of this section, the sheriff may dispense with the hearing of evidence relating to that ground if he is satisfied that in all the circumstances it would be reasonable to do so." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments relate to Scotland, where sheriffs are obliged to hear evidence in every case referred to them from a children's hearing. The amendments would relieve them of that obligation in certain circumstances, and stem from a Court of Session decision in 1981.
The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 sets out a list of grounds on which a child may be deemed in need of compulsory measures of care. These grounds range from the commission of an offence by the child to truancy, lack of parental care, falling into bad associations or other circumstances which indicate that he or she may be at risk. Such a child may be referred to a reporter to a children's panel; and if he considers that the child should receive compulsory measures of care, he will refer the child to a children's hearing.
The 1968 Act provides that, if a child or his parents do not accept the grounds on which the reporter has referred the child to a hearing, or if the child is too young or is otherwise unable to understand the grounds for referral or an explanation of them given by the hearing, the case is to be referred to the sheriff for a finding on whether the grounds are established. The Court of Session has recently held that the sheriff is required to hear evidence in every case regarding the particular grounds on which the case was referred to him before he can be satisfied that the grounds have been established.
This may in certain circumstances be unnecessary and result in a waste of time and resources in two ways: first, where a child or his parents, having objected to the grounds initially, change their minds when they appear before the sheriff and inform him that they are ready to accept the grounds; secondly, in certain instances where the case has been brought to the sheriff because the child cannot understand the grounds of

705
referral or an explanation of them. There will, however, be cases where, for example, the ground of referral is parental ill-treatment of a very young child. The child's ability to understand the ground may not have any bearing on the matter, and acceptance by the parents of the ground would in itself be sufficient.
The changes relating to Section 42(6) proposed by the amendment would enable the sheriff to dispense with the hearing of evidence relating to a ground of referral, in cases of acceptance of the ground subsequent to the application to the sheriff, unless he is otherwise satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case evidence should be led in respect of that ground.
The changes relating to Section 42(7) proposed by the amendment would enable the sheriff to dispense with the hearing of evidence relating to the ground of referral where, notwithstanding a child's inability to comprehend the ground, or an explanation of it, the sheriff is satisfied that in all the circumstances it would be reasonable to do so. Again, if he is not satisfied, then evidence would require to be led.
Neither of the amendments would require the sheriff to dispense with the hearing of evidence, but they will enable him to do so if he is satisfied that it would be appropriate in the circumstances of the particular case. The bodies representing sheriffs-principal, sheriffs and reporters to children's panels have been consulted about the proposed amendments, and they are all in favour of them. I beg to move.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, very briefly, we Scots Lords are more used to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on these occasions and we welcome the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, with joy to the northern part of our island—it will do him nothing but good. I merely wondered, if I heard the noble Lord correctly, what he meant by "falling into bad associations". It may be that this is some legal matter which is already well-established. I shall keep talking until such time as the succour arrives. "Bad associations" might mean all kinds of things. It may well be that this is some sort of particular legal phraseology which we Scots, and especially those among us who are sheriffs, understand perfectly well. But "bad associations" seems to be an imprecise term. If it has specific legal significance, of course, its imprecision would be removed and my doubts, such as they are, would be dealt with; and I see that they will be very rapidly dealt with, due to the exigencies of Whitehall. Can I be enlightened on this?—because I seek only information and nothing else.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, assuming that no other noble Lord wishes to intervene at this point and that I am, therefore, winding up this short debate on the amendment, I would point out that the words which the noble Lord does not like very much originally appeared in Section 32 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. I have in front of me Section 32(2) and in paragraph (b) of that subsection we find the words:
"he is falling into bad associations or is exposed to moral danger".
The noble Lord, in fact, raises a serious point, and I suspect that these days tragically very often the phrase "bad associations" refers to those who are associated with others concerned, for example, with
706
the sale and distribution of drugs, which I am certain the noble Lord would regard as a proper reason for action under the provisions that we are now considering. But, of course, in the event, these things are interpreted by the courts. Having said that, I think that the noble Lord has raised a serious point. I hope that I have given him at least one example that he would regard as appropriate, and that your Lordships will agree these amendments.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I do not expect the noble Lord the Minister to reply to this point, so he need not think the procedure of the House is being upset. However, I have waited for some other Peer who is much more concerned with this matter than I to speak, and in the absence of any speaker I would enter this caveat. I find it rather disturbing that we are now at the Report stage of the Bill and have just been given these quite important amendments. I am amazed that, for example, we are asked to amend Scottish law. My experience in this House has taught me that the Scots prefer amendments to Scottish law to be made through Scottish Acts of Parliament, but perhaps this was embodied in the original Act.
The Minister has given a very reasonable explanation. but here you are cutting out a process which has been in use, and must have had some particular value; and I do not think it is a good enough reason, when you are concerned with children, to say that it will save time and money. I have not had time to study this. I would simply enter this caveat, that I do not like the way in which, nowadays, we are constantly being given quite important amendments at the Report stage of a Bill.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, answer, answer!
Lord Lyellmoved Amendments Nos. 8 to 11:
Page 27, line 18, at end insert—
("26A. Subsections (4) and (5) of section 27 and (8) and (9) of section 28 of that Act (restrictions on removal of child) shall cease to have effect.
26B. In section 29 of that Act (return of child taken away) after "28", in each place where it occurs in subsections (1) and (2), there shall be inserted ", or section 27 or 28 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978".")
Page 27 line 44, at end insert—
("28A. In section 72(1) of that Act—

(a) in the definition of "adoption order", after "21" there shall be inserted ", 27 and 28"; and

(b) at the end of the definition of "order freeing a child for adoption" there shall be added "and, in section 27(2) includes an order under section 18 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (order freeing a child for adoption made in Scotland)".")

Page 28, line 17, at end insert—
("32A. Subsections (4) and (5) of section 27 and (8) and (9) of section 28 of that Act (restrictions on removal of child) shall cease to have effect.
32B. In subsections (1) and (2) of sections 27 and 28 and in section 29 of that Act (restrictions on removal of child) for the word "custody" wherever it occurs there shall be substituted the words "care and possession".
32C. In section 29 of that Act (return of child taken away) after "28", in each place where it occurs in subsections (1) and (2), there shall be inserted ", or section 27 or 28 of the Adoption Act 1976".
32D. In section 65(1) of that Act—

(a) in the definition of "adoption order", after "20" there shall be inserted ", 27 and 28"; and

707

(b) at the end of the definition of "order freeing a child for adoption" there shall be added "and, in section 27(2) includes an order under section 18 of the Adoption Act 1976 (order freeing a child for adoption made in England and Wales)".")

Page 28.line 33, leave out from beginning to ("notice.";") in line 41 and insert—
(" "(a) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) by a parent or guardian of the child in relation to whom no resolution under section 3 of this Act is in force with respect to the child and who has given the local authority not less than 28 days' notice in writing of his intention to do it."." ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I move Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10, which were consequential upon Amendment No. 4—to which I spoke earlier—together with Amendment No. 11, which was spoken to by my noble friend. With leave, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 en bloc.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 29, line 27, after ("child)") insert ("—

(a) at the beginning of the said paragraph (i) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (1A) below,"; and

(b) ")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, perhaps I may speak to this amendment and to Amendment No. 45 as well. Your Lordships will recall that I agreed in Committee to reconsider the charging arrangements for the parents of children in care in the light of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Discussions have now been held with the local authority associations, and as a result the Government have decided that some amendment to this Bill would be desirable. We hope that these amendments will be welcomed by your Lordships, including, of course, the noble Lord himself.
Amendment No. 12 is consequential upon Amendment No. 45, which has the effect of exempting the father and mother of a child in care from liability to make contributions in respect of his maintenance where they are in receipt of supplementary benefit of family income supplement. These benefits, when paid to parents of children in care, do not include any component towards the upkeep of the child, and it is therefore reasonable to exempt these parents from any liability. It is indeed sensible to exempt such parents, who can readily verify their receipt of benefit, from liability to contribute. To do so will simplify the job of local authorities in deciding whether contributions are required, and free the parents concerned from any worry in this matter.
It may be asked why we are not extending exemption to those parents who are in receipt of housing benefits. We have considered this aspect, but have concluded that housing benefits are a much less reliable guide to the ability to pay contributions because of the variety of circumstances which can lead to receipt of housing benefit, and the different levels of income that may be involved. Those householders on
708
very low income would be likely to be in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement already, and if so would automatically be exempted under this amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, naturally I am very pleased with the noble Lord, and I sincerely trust that he is not suffering a hangover from earlier exchanges. I am a very generous person, and accordingly thank him very much indeed.
Lord Lyellmoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 30, line 7, at end insert—
("Interpretation
42A. The word "actual" shall be inserted before the word "custody", wherever it occurs in—

(a) sections 34(1) and (2) and 34A(1) and (2) of the Adoption Act 1958;

(b) sections 30(1) and (2), 41(1) and (2) and 42(1) and (2) of the Children Act 1975; and

(c) sections 27(1) and (2), 28(1) and (2), 29(l) and (2) and 30(1)(a) and (b) of the Adoption Act 1976.

42B. In section 57(2) of the Adoption Act 1958, for the words "care or possession", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "actual custody".
42C. The following section shall be inserted after section 57 of the Adoption Act 1958—
"Actual custody.
57A.—(1) While a person not having legal custody of a child has actual custody of the child he has the like duties under this Act in relation to the child as if he had legal custody.
(2) The following, namely—

(a) any reference in this Act to the person with whom a child has his home; and

(b) the reference to legal custody in subsection (1) above,

are to be construed in accordance with Part IV of the Children Act 1975.
(3) This section does not extend to Scotland.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on the main amendment, to which I spoke in connection with Amendment No. 4 earlier. I beg to move.
Clause 6 [The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work]:
Baroness Faithfullmoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 10, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) Grants for the training of social workers shall be mandatory and funded either by local education authorities or from central funds.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment, as your Lordships know, states:
"Grants for the training of social workers shall be mandatory and funded either by local education authorities or from central funds."
I spoke at some length on this subject at Committee stage. May I therefore briefly cover the ground I covered then in order to get the arguments straight? First of all, let us look at the residential sector. In this country only 14 per cent. of the residential social workers working with children in care in children's homes are trained, and only 3 per cent. of those working in homes for the handicapped and the elderly are trained.
I would submit that in our society the children are the most vulnerable. A well-known member of the

709
Parole Board, when we were discussing questions of parole which had nothing to do with this Bill, happened to mention to me that a great number of the cases that he dealt with on the Parole Board were of men and women in prison who had in their childhood been in children's homes. I would say that those who work in children's homes and in community schools for education do a magnificent job of work. I have to say, too, that in my experience as a director of social services I was fortunate in having a number of well qualified university staff on my staff. If we were to look at the figures we should see that very few of the children who were cared for by well trained, experienced people, who could work in partnership with the field child-care staff, later went into approved schools, borstals, or prisons. I cannot say too strongly how important it is that the needs of the handicapped and the elderly should also be taken into account, and the fact that there should be only 3 per cent. of these staff trained is a sad indictment of our society.
What is the present position with regard to training? There are three methods whereby social workers, whether field staff or residential staff, can be trained. Method 1 is that central Government grants are available through the Department of Health and Social Security for those attending postgraduate social work courses. Until recently everyone who was accepted for a recognised training course and who applied to the Department of Health and Social Security was given a grant. Last year, because of current expenditure restrictions, some who applied were not successful in obtaining a grant.
Method 2 is by means of non-graduate courses of two years' duration which are found in both universities and the higher education sector. Students successful in obtaining a place on such a course can apply for a local authority discretionary award. The number and availability of awards varies enormously from one authority to another, and it is an inefficient way of ensuring the best candidates for this type of social work. May I slightly elaborate? The position is that a local authority which is cutting back its expenditure to some considerable degree is sometimes—not always—the authority in the very area where there is much need and where there are great difficulties. Those authorities are often the ones who do not send or second social workers on courses, and yet they are the very authorities that need social workers. Likewise, a number of people have talked about the quality of social workers. Under this method of accepting only those people wishing to train who are seconded from local authorities there may be many good potential students excluded from obtaining a grant and secondment.
Method 3, as it stands today, concerns a minority of students who are currently seconded for training by their employing authorities on salary, normally with the condition that they will give two years' service to the authority on completing their training. This means that the local authority is therefore paying somebody to do the work while at the same time paying the students on their course. If there were to be mandatory grants they would not be paying twice for each student who is seconded. It would therefore considerably save public resources.
710
The Minister will say that residential social workers have the opportunity of having what is called the Council for Social Services qualification, which is in-service training, and that is true. That training is very good and I support it, and it was a great step forward when that training was set up. However, I would add that in our residential establishments we need both types of trained workers, those with the CCETSW and those with the certificate awarded by the Council for Training and Education in Social Work.
Let us now look at the university position. To train as a social worker, from the point of view of the universities and colleges of higher education, is expensive. The reason why it is more expensive than training ordinary students is that during the holidays social work students are given practical placements in local authorities with voluntary organisations in offices. They must be supervised and the supervisor from the university who visits them must consult with them and with the authority as to the work they are doing, how they are doing it and whether they are getting satisfactory training. Therefore it is expensive, more expensive than the training for most students.
However, something alarming is happening. It is that when students are seconded from a local authority a number of them have been told that after all, come the summer, they cannot be seconded. I have been to see, and written to, several universities about that. One university with a course for 40 students tells me that at least six and possibly eight students dropped out too late for them to take on students for the following session. It is very important that we keep the good courses going at the universities and colleges of higher education. If students are going to drop out and it is too late to replace them, and if it is very expensive, with costs being cut, we must be careful to look forward to see that we do not lose those colleges of further education and university courses. In Committee on 9th December my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, the Minister, said:
"In principle the Government would not oppose the designation of courses of professional and vocational training for mandatory awards".—[Official Report, 9/12/1982; col. 314.]
However, he added that the £8 million required was too much to merit inclusion in the Education (No. 2) Bill. So let us consider the question of costs. I understand from the social services directors that they have worked out a formula according to which it would be unlikely to cost more than £2·8 million. That is an over-estimate. By the same token, I have also consulted other professional bodies, who disagree with the Association of Directors of Social Services and maintain that it would cost less. There are in Britain between 250 and 300 vacancies for training. Each training costs roughly £3,000 per year per student. On that calculation, it would not cost much above £1½ million. Those, therefore, are the two estimates, one for something over £2 million and one for about £1½ million.
Another argument which is given, and may be given again, is that if mandatory awards were given to social workers other people would ask the Government for mandatory awards. It is, therefore, a question of where the priorities lie. In my view, there are very few priorities which stand higher than that of caring for the most vulnerable children in our society, bearing in

711
mind the cost of a failed child at a later stage in life. In humanitarian terms, it is appalling to think of: in business terms, it is far better to spend money looking after children at an early stage than at a later stage, when they are in trouble. I hope the Government will feel able to reconsider the matter. I am the first to support my party on its fiscal policies. But when it comes to such a small amount which means so much to the children of the country, the handicapped and the elderly, this is money well spent. I beg to move.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I strongly support everything my noble friend Lady Faithfull said. Oddly enough, I have had a long association with the training of social workers. Indeed, it was in 1929 when Dame Eileen Younger, as she became, and I started to get training for social workers. That was originally in connection with youth leaders, but it went on to involve the training of all the other types as described by Lady Faithfull.
It took a very long time to persuade the social work departments of universities—they did not even exist then in a great many universities—that this was the type of course which should be given; one which would be of great value to the social work of the nation, and indeed to all those whom my noble friend mentioned. from the old to the mentally handicapped and younger children. It took a long time, as I say, but in the end we succeeded. When I say "we", I do not mean we alone, because there were a great many keen people in universities. It began in the London School of Economics and spread to other universities all over the country.
Now there is no question but that training is available for all those who want to be part of the social work departments of local authorities and voluntary organisations. This has made a tremendous difference to the way in which children and elderly people are cared for. It is improving all the time because we are learning the different needs of these people and how they can be catered for in the training syllabuses.
I feel strongly that we are discussing a vital matter. Nobody would consider employing other professional people—be they nurses. teachers or whoever—who were not trained. Indeed, such people would not even get jobs and, of course, they would not be able to do the job. Yet for many years people went into the social work world simply because they thought they had a gift for it or were keen to do that sort of work. Nobody provided them with the training they needed.
That training is now available and it has taken a very long time to come right through to all the university courses and be regarded as something of tremendous importance. That it is so important today is based on the fact that far more responsibility is put on social workers in departments of local authorities and elsewhere than was the case 20 or 30 years ago.
Social workers have tremendous responsibility. One sometimes reads in local newspapers of certain social workers who have failed to do what was expected of them. As your Lordships know, bad news is always news for newspapers, and so we always hear of the failures rather than of the successes. The number of failures today is very small compared with the
712
enormous number of successes, following training of social workers.
I feel tremendously strongly that what is proposed in the amendment is something that we should do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has said, the amount of money involved would possibly be £2.8 million, or less. All of that amount could be recovered if it were possible to prevent children or elderly people from having to go into institutions, or otherwise having to be cared for throughout the rest of their lives, the cost being met by public funds.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred to the delinquency aspect. It is a well-known fact that very often what happens to a child early in its life leads it on to become a delinquent and to get into the criminal world. I beg the Government to accept the amendment. It would do enormous good not only for the Government, but also for the whole community, coming within the ambit of social work. I very much hope that the noble Lord will accept the amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I found the concluding passages of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, very compelling, the more so since, as an engineer, I am not on the whole terribly sympathetic towards social work. None the less, she said things which seemed to me sensible and worth listening to, and I believe that part of her speech alone should make the Government think very carefully about the nature of her amendment. I would go a little further than that; and I speak here from a basis of almost abysmal ignorance and as one who seeks information rather than anything else. I understood that at one point in her remarks the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, suggested that the present arrangements led to things being paid for more than once—in fact, twice. That cannot be terribly sensible. Even an engineer can see that paying for things twice over is not a very good idea.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is correct—and I am sure that she is—that argument itself, quite apart from the compelling humanitarian argument with which she ended her speech, should lead the Government to take the closest possible heed of her amendment. If her argument is that her proposal is good in itself, and that it would also prevent something being paid for twice, I am sure that the Government must be interested in some way. I am, and I am sure the Government must be, too.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister a question. Is he aware that nowadays many people leaving universities and polytechnics, having read English, history, or a similar subject, have no chance of getting a job? Would it not be wise to train some of these people, who are very bright, in social work and community care? "Community care" is now becoming a bad term because people are beginning to ask, "Where is the care?" I think I am right in saying that in this country there are more children in care than there are in any other European country, and perhaps in any other country in the world. I know from my health work that the problems of the elderly are becoming really acute, too. If our social workers were trained, they would be much more efficient and would be able to effect

713
savings rather than make so many mistakes. Therefore I would support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like again to support my noble friend, Lady Faithfull, as I did in Committee. She has mentioned the remarks reported in column 314 of the Official Report of 9th December, and I should like to quote briefly from my own speech at the time. I said:
"I would suggest to my noble friend that although that may appear to be an added expense, it may in fact be an economy in the long run, because trained people can do more work than untrained people".
In answering me, my noble friend—and I hope that he will forgive me for making the point—referred to the remarks of mv noble friend Lady Faithfull, and went on to say:
"I am sorry to say to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that [the figure] was estimated as an additional £8 million a year in 1980…".
My noble friend the Minister was talking about that aspect, and, if I may say so, did not really respond to my point that trained people are more economical in the long run. That I believe is a basic fact which any of us who are involved in training, or in employing trained and untrained people, would be able to quote as part of ordinary, practical experience. So I hope that this time my noble friend will reply to that question.
I now turn to another point. My noble friend the Minister referred to a figure of £8 million as being the factor against the proposal, but from what my noble friend has said, we now know that the figure is nearer £2·8 million. I understand that the figure was arrived at by the directors of social services after consultation with my noble friend's department; so it is not entirely out of the air, as it were. In terms of present-day finance it is a figure which I should have thought was manageable, the more especially because it may in the long run lead to savings—savings in the numbers of people who will need to be employed, if there are more who are fully trained, and savings in the outcome, in that there will be less trouble from people who are in care and are being looked after. Indeed those kind of savings could be far in excess of a figure such as £2·8 million, when judged over a period of a few years.
So once again I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give much more sympathetic consideration to the amendment. The amendment has received support from both sides of the House, and I should have thought that it would justify my noble friend testing the feeling of your Lordships if my noble friend the Minister cannot give her the satisfaction that she seeks on this proposal.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lady Faithfull and her amendment. I do not speak as an expert on the subject of the amendment, but I can give some account of what I have seen from my own observation. Generally speaking—I think that this is a criticism that is fairly widespread—people believe that social workers in general are fairly useless and do not really perform a valuable duty. I think that that observation applies only to those social workers who are not trained. I have seen a social worker appear with a
714
delinquent child before a school headmaster. The social worker argued in such a fashion as to criticise, in front of the pupil, the headmaster's whole position in regard to exercising his duties. The social worker was trying to get the pupil back into the school. I think that that kind of example is widespread in certain circumstances, and therefore I would support my noble friend Lady Faithfull in all that she has said today. If she does not receive a constructive and conciliatory reply from my noble friend on the Front Bench, and so has to divide the House on the issue, I should be inclined to go into the Lobby in support of her amendment.
Lord Banks: My Lords, very briefly I should like to say once again, as I said at the Committee stage, that we on these Benches support the amendment that has been put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. In the couse of her remarks she presented what I considered was an unanswerable case for mandatory grants for the training of social workers. When we discussed the question in Committee it was clear—and the point has been quoted again today—that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was not opposed, and said that the Government were not opposed, to the concept of mandatory grants. The question is one of pure expense. So far as I can see, that is the only problem, the only reason why the Government have up to now been disinclined to accept the proposal. But if the figure that we have heard mentioned today—£2.8 million, or even less—is correct, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that it is a very manageable figure. After all, we do not spend a very great deal on the personal social services—about £2 billion, as compared with £30 million on social security, £114 billion altogether. Even in this field, the whole scale of expenditure is not large. This would be a small addition to a total which is not great at the present time.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as my noble friend has reminded your Lordships, she moved a similar amendment during Committee. Since then, she and I have met to discuss the matter, she has discussed it with my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Education and Science, Dr. Rhodes Boyson, and she has also discussed some of the technical details with my officials. I applaud her tenacity, but I am afraid that—despite the account she has given your Lordships—nothing has emerged from these discussions which makes it possible for the Government to support her amendment.
I shall come in a moment to some of the particular points raised by my noble friend and others, but first it may help if I recap some of the background. Local education authorities make awards under Section 1 of the Education Act 1962, which specifies the categories of courses which may be designated for mandatory awards. As a result, some students undergoing social work training receive mandatory awards—those reading for a first degree, for example. I think that this was in the mind of my noble friend Lady Masham when she said that all those students learning English or something else and who could not get jobs should be given mandatory awards to read some social services

715
subject instead. The answer is that they already receive mandatory awards. But the majority of students—and I recognise this—are on non-graduate or post-graduate courses and do not qualify for this form of support. Instead, they are supported either by discretionary awards from the local education authority—and, incidentally, I understand that local authorities have been giving quite a number of these discretionary awards lately—or by secondment from their employer; or, if they are post-graduate students, by central Government, chiefly my department. Incidentally, I understand that last year my department in giving grants to students undertaking basic training in social work, that is the CQSW, did so to no less than 90 per cent. of those who applied to us.
The types of training which should attract mandatory awards were fully debated in Parliament during the passage in 1980 of what was then the Education (No. 2) Bill. The Government's position then and now is that in principle we support the designation of professional and vocational training courses but that the practical obstacle, at a time when we are pledged to contain public expenditure, is the cost. And it is not simply the cost in respect of social work training which the Government has to keep in mind. Social work is my noble friend's burning concern; and it is all we are concerned with in Clause 6. But the Government have to take a wider view. It has been explained to my noble friend that there are currently other contenders for mandatory awards and that the DES could not single out social work training.
Even if we leave aside the difficult questions of the relative merits of different contenders for mandatory award status. the plain fact remains that we could not afford the additional cost that would arise. My noble friend has argued that in the discussion she has recently had with the central council concerned with these matters. it has been proposed that the additional cost would be small. The assumption is that even if social work students had mandatory awards and, as a result. the demand for places on social work courses rose, the central council would nevertheless restrain the growth in courses because of its responsibility to regulate supply and demand and to uphold the quality of training. The estimate of £3 million which my noble friend quoted is presumably based on that assumption, but I have to emphasise that it is only an assumption that growth in courses could in practice be restrained to a very low level. But for this assumption, my noble friend invites the Government to take on a potentially open-ended financial commitment.
The fact is that if the demand for social work is as great as my noble friend suggests, the pressures upon the central council to allow the growth in the courses that I have referred to would be very great. I must say in plain terms that I do not believe that the central council could contain the growth of courses as the figure implicit in my noble friend's speech suggests.
My noble friend said during the Committee stage that the allocation of money to mandatory awards for social work training was a question of relative priorities. She repeated that point today. I agree with her. But priorities are not easy. The money allocated by DHSS to the training of social workers might
716
otherwise go direct to health authorities for the care of patients, and a difficult balance has to be struck. The same question of priorities arises within the social work training field itself, which makes me doubt whether my noble friend's amendment is right in principle, even if we could overcome the practical difficulty of cost.
Mandatory awards would benefit students undertaking training leading to the CQSW qualification. This is generally recognised as the basic qualification for field social workers, and it is also important that there should be CQSW-qualified staff in the day and residential services. But in the day and residential services, employing authorities also attach considerable importance to staff gaining the Certificate in Social Services—CSS—and rightly so because it provides a valuable combination of theoretical and practical in-service training. directed towards particular tasks in social care and jointly managed by employing authorities and the colleges in their areas. People on CSS courses are supported entirely by secondment from their employing authorities, and mandatory awards would not be appropriate. Another priority is specialised post-qualifying training, undertaken by people after they have attained CQSW or CSS level. This very important class of training qualifies people to act as special sources of knowledge and skill within social services departments, but it would be difficult to cover the diverse range of courses by a system of mandatory grants.
In 1981 some 3,361 students received the basic social work qualification, the CQSW. and 593 the CSS qualification. In that year my department spent £4·1 million on the support of students—more than ever before. We expect the final 1982 figures to show a slight increase in people receiving the CQSW award and a large increase for the CSS award. I do not pretend that this represents an ideal situation, but neither is it a situation of dire emergency. If more money were available to spend on social work training. my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has all the necessary powers in Section 63 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 to make payments to students, employers, or training establishments, outside the system of mandatory awards controlled by the DES. If more money were available, it is by no means certain that mandatory awards would represent the best or the most discriminating use of it. The simple fact is that the money is not available for this purpose. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not see tit to press her amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he answer one question? He intimated that the amendment of the noble Baroness would lead to an open-ended commitment and he also intimated that his department's activities had led to a rise of some £4 million in grants to students. Perhaps I am wrong in my recollection there. Can he tell me whether he has made any estimate of the additional cost to the department representd by acceptance of the amendment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may have permission to speak again, I should like to say this. The additional cost that would flow from my noble friend's

717
amendment would fall upon the Department of Education, not my department. But the amount of that additional cost would depend upon the number of students who came forward to claim their mandatory awards. My noble friend has suggested that the central council responsible for these matters would restrict the number of students coming on to these courses for reasons about which I am not entirely clear. At another point in her speech she explained what a shortage there was of people of this type. If our estimates of the numbers who will come forward for these courses attracting mandatory awards are correct, and if, as we fear, the central council is not able to constrain the growth of these courses as they say they will, then the additional cost at today's prices would be something in the order of £13 million or £14 million.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate? Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who asked whether there is duplication, that what I meant by duplication is that if a local authority seconds somebody to a course then they pay for the secondment; they pay for the course. But at the same time they have to pay for the person who has taken their place. That is the duplication.
I should like to make one point that I did not make before. We have in the House two noble Lords who are doctors. I am told by my medical friends how much they value working with qualified social workers in the hospitals and outside in the community.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, on that point, may I confirm that doctors greatly value the help, assistance and guidance that they get from qualified and trained social workers. Perhaps I may add that they do not so much value the help that they sometimes get from social workers who have not been trained.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for his intervention. Taking the various points that my noble friend the Minister has made, it is the cost that he is most worried about. We all vary in our estimates as to how much it would cost. There are between 250 and 300 vacancies on courses in this country. It is quite true, therefore, that if the awards were mandatory those places would probably be filled. That is one point. The second is that if it were mandatory they would be filled by the best students, because at the moment the discretionary awards do not necessarily go to the best students, they go only to the students which the local authorities are prepared to second.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I wonder whether the House would allow me to intervene yet again? Is not my noble friend turning logic on its head in that particular proposal? Is it not the case that discretionary awards do go to the best applicants? Surely, if grants are mandatory, as my noble friend seeks, the local education authority has no alternative but to give grants to all who meet the qualifications, regardless of whether or not they are the best students.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am sorry but I cannot agree with my noble friend the Minister, because the decision as to who should take the course
718
does not lie with the local authority; it then lies with the training establishment, which will only accept the best students. As it is at the moment, the courses must accept those students who apply on discretionary awards, and in a local authority there may be a number of very good students who would like to apply but whose authority will not give them a discretionary award. I think the noble Baroness, Lady David, wishes to speak.
Baroness David: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made exactly the point that I was going to make. The giving of discretionary grants varies very much in different parts of the country, so that the best may not necessarily get the awards.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, one of the strong points which my noble friend the Minister made was that this would open the doors to an enormous number of people wanting to train. But it is not an open-ended affair. If there are only a certain number of courses and only a certain number of places, then it is not open-ended. One can only have the number of students who apply. One cannot have an open—ended situation. I would suggest at the moment—rather sadly, I have to say—that I would not want there to be more courses because there are not enough good tutors and good lecturers at the moment. We have some very good ones and we have some excellent courses. But our profession is growing. We must grow slowly but surely, and with the best people. We cannot mushroom and grow simply because there are going to be mandatory awards.
The final point is cost. My noble friend the Minister and I disagree on what it would cost the country. I still suggest that it would not cost more than £2.8 million at the outside. Other people who have done their sums slightly differently have said that it would cost less. But in fairness to the Minister, I think that one must stick to the £2.8 million, which is the higher figure of the two. Again, it is a matter of opinion as to what are our priorities. I end as I did my first speech, by saying that I consider that children, and the wellbeing of vulnerable children, are a very high priority. I am afraid that I must divide the House.
5.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 78.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Amherst, E.

Brain, L.

Ardwick, L.

Brockway, L.

Aylestone, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Balogh, L.

Chitnis, L.

Banks, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Barrington, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Collison, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

David, B.

Beswick, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Birk, B.

Diamond, L.

Bishopston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Blease, L.

Dowding, L.

Blyton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

719

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mishcon, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Molloy, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Mottistone, L. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Nathan, L.

Faithfull, B. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Northfield, L.

George-Brown, L.

Oram, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Peart, L.

Glasgow, E.

Phillips, B.

Glenamara, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gregson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gridley, L.

Rea, L.

Hale, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Halsbury, E.

Rochester, L.

Hampton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hanworth, V.

Saltoun, Ly.

Hayter, L.

Seear, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seebohm, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Somers, L.

Ilchester, E.

Stamp, L.

Jacques, L.

Stedman, B.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stone, L.

Kagan, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kaldor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kennet, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Underhill, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Vickers, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B.

Walston, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Whaddon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wigoder, L.

McNair, L.

Winstanley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kimberley, E.

Allerton, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Avon, E.

Long, V.

Bellwin, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McFadzean, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Burton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mansfield, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Margadale, L.

Cockfield, L.

Marley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mersey, V.

Craigavon, V.

Milverton, L.

Daventry, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Davidson, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mountgarret, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elles, B.

Onslow, E.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

pender, L.

Fortescue, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rochdale, V.

Gisborough, L.

Rugby, L.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Sandys, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Savile, L.

Marylebone, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Harvington, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Swansea, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Terrington, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Teynham, L.

Kilmany, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

720

Tranmire, L.

Westbury, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Young, B.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Schedule 2 [The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work]:
5.36 p.m.
Lord Rentonmoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 29, line 19, at end insert ("and shall in any event consult the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15 but I must point out that at the beginning of my amendment as it appears on the Marshalled List there is a printing error, for which I may or may not be responsible. It should read "page 29" and not "page 30". So I beg to move, on page 29, line 19, at end insert:
("and shall in any event consult the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults").
I should disclose that I am president of that body. The third paragraph of Part I of the Second Schedule says:
"Before appointing a member other than the chairman the Secretary of State shall consult any body that appears to him to be appropriate."
It needs no argument of mine to convince your Lordships that those words are of no effect whatever, because he has only to say that it did not appear to him to he necessary and he is excused from consulting anyone in particular or anyone at all.
At the Committee stage, I said that I hoped the Royal Society would be consulted, and my noble friend Lord Trefgarne gracefully and immediately gave an undertaking that that would be done. Since then it has occurred to me that this is a matter of such importance that one should consider making it mandatory. if I may borrow a phrase that was used on the last amendment. I suggest that we might very well have the words "and shall in any event"—there is no option there—
"consult the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults."
The reason why we wish to be consulted is that we have been very worried by the lack of specialised training of teachers of the mentally handicapped on the part of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work since it was established. We feel that it is very important, especially since the passing of the excellent Education Act 1981, that there should be enough teachers for training the mentally handicapped.
Of course, this is not a matter on which I would wish to divide the House, but I say this to my noble friend. I hope that he will advise your Lordships to accept the amendment, but if he is not in that mood I hope that he will firmly repeat the undertaking that the Royal Society will be consulted. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the existing wording of the Bill obliges the Secretary of State to consult any body appearing to him appropriate before appointing members, other than the chairman, to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.

721
Inevitably, over time, the nature of society's problems will change and so will those bodies best placed to advise Ministers on the composition of the central council's membership. It would, therefore, be wrong to specify such bodies in the Bill.
In any case, and without detracting one jot from the Royal Society's admirable work under my noble friend's distinguished presidency, its focus in terms of social work generally is relatively specific. It would be neither sensible nor politic to oblige Ministers to consult the Royal Society, without doing the same for a number of equally august bodies with an interest in the field of social work—a field which, as 1 have already said. is constantly changing. I hope my noble friends will agree with me that the important principle, that Ministers should consult appropriately before appointing council members, has been established and that the existing wording of this subsection is the most sensible.
Your Lordships may recall from our Committee stage in December that my noble friend Lord Renton sought from me an assurance, which I was happy to give, that the Secretary of State would consult the Royal Society before appointing council members. I gladly repeat that assurance to my noble friend, which is already recorded in the Official Report of 9th December, and I hope that having listened to the points that I have made, and to the assurance which I have repeated, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he will remember that at the last stage of this Bill I moved an amendment that the council, which numbers only 25, should be composed simply and solely of professional people from both the statutory and the voluntary sectors. I recommended that then because there were so many people from both the voluntary and the statutory sectors, including my noble friend's organisation, and because with only 25 places, and several of those places having to go to the local authority associations, a number of organisations would necessarily have to be left out. It will be remembered that I recommended that it should be a professional body consulting with the local authorities. Furthermore, will the noble Lord also say whether, when consulting with the organisation of my noble friend Lord Renton, he will also consult with the other statutory and voluntary organisations as well?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I have your Lordships' permission to speak again, I would say with respect to my noble friend that I do not think the first point she made really arises on this amendment. As for the second point, I will consider that matter and write to her.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of the firm assurance which my noble friend has given about consulting the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 16:
After Schedule 2, insert the following new Schedule:—

PART 1
RESIDENTIAL CARE HOMES
Requirement of registration
1.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, registration under this Part of this Schedule is required in respect of any establishment which provides or is intended to provide. whether for reward or not, residential accommodation with both board and personal care for persons in need or personal care by reason of old age, disablement or past or present mental disorder.
(2) Such an establishment is referred to in this Part of this Schedule as a "residential care home".
(3) Registration under this Part of this Schedule does not affect any requirment to register under the Nursing Homes Act 1975.
(4) Registration under this Part of this Schedule is not required in respect of an establishment which provides or is intended to provide residential accommodation with both board and personal care for fewer than 4 persons. excluding persons carrying on or intending to carry on the home or employed or intended to he employed there and their relatives.
(5) Registration under this Part of this Schedule is not required in respect of any of the following—

(a) any establishment which is used, or is intended to he used, solely as a nursing home or mental nursing home, as defined in sections I and 2 of the Nursing Homes Act 1975:

(b) any hospital as defined in section 128 of the National Health Service Act 1977 which is maintained in pursuance of an Act of Parliament:

(c) any hospital as defined in section 147(1) of the Mental Health Act 1959:

(d) any voluntary home or community home within the meaning of the Child Care Act 1980;

(e) any children's home to which the Children's Homes Act 1982 applies;

(f) subject to sub-paragraph (6) below, any school, as defined in section 114 of the Education Act 1944;

(g) subject to sub-paragraph (7) below, any establishment to which the Secretary of State has made a payment of maintenance grant under regulations made by virtue of section 100(1)(b) of the Education Act 1944:

(h) any university or university college or college, school or hall of a university:

(i) any establishment managed or provided by a government department or local authority or by any authority or body constituted by an Act of Parliament or incorporated by Royal Charter.

(6) An independent school within the meaning of the Education Act 1944 is not excluded by sub-paragraph (5) above if the school provides accommodation for 50 or less children under the age of 18 years and is not for the time being approved by the Secretary of State under section 1l(3)(a) of the Education Act 1981.
(7) An establishment to which the Secretary of State has made a payment of maintenance grant under regulations made by virtue of section 100(1)(b) of the Education Act 1944 is only excluded by sub-paragraph (5) above until the end of the period of 12 months from the date on which the Secretary of State made the payment.
General interpretation
2.—(1) In this Part of this Schedule—
"disablement", in relation to persons, means that they are blind, deaf or dumb or substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury or congenital deformity or any other disability prescribed by the Secretary of State;
"mental disorder" means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder, and any other disorder or disability of mind;
"personal care" means care which includes assistance with bodily functions where such assistance is required; "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations under this
Part of this Schedule;
"psychopathic disorder" means a persistent disorder or disability of mind which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the

723
person concerned, and requires or is susceptible to medical treatment:
"registered", except where the context otherwise requires, means registered under this Part of this Schedule and cognate expressions have a corresponding meaning;
"registration authority", in relation to a residential care home, means, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, any council which for the purposes of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 is the local authority for the area in which the home is situated: and
"standard scale" means the standard scale as defined in section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.
(2) The Council of the Isles of Scilly is the registration authority in relation to a residential care home in the Isles.
Meaning of "relative"
3.—(1) In this Part of this Schedule "relative" means any of the following—

(a) husband or wife;

(b) son or daughter;

(c) father or mother'

(d) brother or sister;

(e) grand-parent or other ascendant;

(f) grandchild or other descendant;

(g) uncle or aunt;

(h) nephew or niece.

(2) In deducing any relationship for the purposes of subparagraph (1) above—

(a) any relationship by affinity shall be treated as a relationship by consanguinity, any relationship of the half-blood as a relationship of the whole blood, and the stepchild of any person as his child, and

(b) an illegitimate person shall be treated as the legitimate child of his mother and reputed father.

(3) In this paragraph "husband" and "wife" include a person who is living with a person carrying on or intending to carry on a residential care home as that person's husband or wife, as the case may be, and who has been so living for a period of not less than 6 months.
(4) A person, other than a relative, with whom a person carrying on or intending to cam, on a residential care home ordinarily resides, and with whom that person has been ordinarily residing for a period of not less than 5 years shall be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule as if he were a relative.
Penalty for carrying on home without registration
4. If any person carries on a residential care home without being registered in respect of it, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
Registration of managers etc. and persons in control
5. Where the manager or intended manager of a residential care home is not in control of it (whether as owner or otherwise) both the manager or intended manager and the person in control are to be treated as carrying on or intending to carry on the home and accordingly as requiring to be registered.
Optional registration
6.—(1) A person who—

(a) is registered under the Nursing Homes Act 1975 in respect of any premises: and

(b) would be required to be registered in respect of them under this Part of this Schedule but for paragraph 1(4) above,

may apply to be registered under this Part of this Schedule in respect of those premises.
(2) If he does so apply, this Part of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to him as if he required to be registered under this Part of this Schedule in respect of those premises.
Registration
7.—(1) An application for registration shall be made to the registration authority and shall be accompanied by a registration fee of such amount as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.
(2) Subject to paragraphs 11, 14 and 15 below, on receipt of an application for registration and of the registration fee the registration authority shall register the applicant in respect of the home named in the application and issue to him a certificate of registration.
(3) It shall be a condition of the registration of any person in respect of a residential care home that the number of persons for whom residential accommodation with both board and personal
724
care is provided in the home at any one time (excluding persons carrying on or employed at the home and their relatives) does not exceed such number as may be specified in the certificate of registration: and the registration may also be subject to such other conditions (to be specified in the certificate) as the registration authority consider appropriate for regulating the age, sex or category of persons who may be received in the home.
(4) The registration authority,' may from time to time—

(a) vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of a home by virtue of this part of this Schedule: or

(b) impose an additional condition, either on the application of a person registered in respect of it or without such an application.

(5) If any condition for the time being in force in respect of a home by virtue of this Part of this Schedule is not complied with, any person registered in respect of the home shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(6) The certificate of registration issued in respect of any home shall he kept affixed in a conspicuous place in the home: and if default is made in complying with this sub-paragraph, any person registered in respect of the home shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale and to a further fine not exceeding £2 for each day on which the offence continues after conviction.
Death of only person registered in respect of home
8. Where—

(a) one person only is registered in respect of a residential care home: and

(b) that person dies.

his personal representatives or his widow or any other relative of his may for a period not exceeding 4 weeks from his death. or such longer period as the registration authority may sanction, carry on the home without being registered in respect of it.
Inspection of registers
9. The registers kept by a registration authority for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule shall be available for inspection at all reasonable times, and any person inspecting any such register shall be entitled to make copies of entries in the register on payment of such reasonable fee as the registration authority' may determine.
Annual fee for registration
10. The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) require persons registered in respect of residential care homes to pay an annual fee of such amount as the regulations may specify: and

(b) specify when the fee is to be paid.

Refusal of registration
11. The registration authority may refuse to register an applicant for registration in respect of a residential care home if they are satisfied—

(a) that he or any other person concerned or intended to be concerned in carrying on the home is not a fit person to be concerned in carrying on a residential care home:

(b) that for reasons connected with their situation, construction, state of repair, accommodation, staffing or equipment, the premises used or intended to be used for the purposes of the home, or any other premises used or intended to be used in connection with it are not fit to be so used: or

(c) that the way in which it is intended to carry' on the home is such as not to provide services or facilities reasonably required.

Cancellation of registration
12. The registration authority may cancel the registration of a person in respect of a residential care home

(a) on any ground which would entitle them to refuse an application for his registration in respect of it:

(b) on the ground that the annual fee in respect of the home has not been paid on or before the due date; or

(c) on the ground—

(i) that he has been convicted of an offence under this Part of this Schedule or any regulations made under it in respect of that or any other residential care home:

(ii) that any other person has been convicted of such an offence in respect of that home: or

(iii) that any condition for the time being in force in respect of the home by virtue of this Part of this Schedule has not been complied with.

Urgent procedure for cancellation of registration etc.
13.—(1) If—

(a) the registration authority apply to a justice of the peace for an order—

(i) cancelling the registration of a person in respect of a residential care home;

(ii) varying any condition for the time being in force in respect of a home by virtue of this Part of this Schedule; or

(iii) imposing an additional condition; and

(b) it appears to the justice of the peace that there will be a serious risk to the life, health or well-being of the residents in the home unless the order is made,

he may make the order, and the cancellation, variation or imposition shall have effect from the date on which the order is made.
(2) An application under sub-paragraph (1) above may be made ex parte and shall be supported by a written statement of the registration authority's reasons for making the application.
(3) An order under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be in writing.
(4) Where such an order is made, the registration authority shall serve on any person registered in respect of the home, as soon as is practicable after the making of the order,—

(a) notice of the making of the order and of its terms; and

(b) a copy of the statement of the authority's reasons which supported their application for the order.

Procedure—general
14.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, where—

(a) a person applies for registration; and

(b) the registration authority propose to grant his application, the authority shall give him written notice of their proposal and of the conditions subject to which they propose to grant his application.

(2) The registration authority need not give notice of such a proposal if they propose to grant the application subject only to conditions which—

(a) the applicant specified in the application; or

(b) the authority and the applicant have subsequently agreed.

(3) The registration authority shall give an applicant notice of a proposal to refuse his application.
(4) Except where they make an application under paragraph 13 above, the registration authority shall give any person registered in respect of a residential care home notice of a proposal—

(a) to cancel the registration;

(b) to vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of the home by virtue of this Part of this Schedule; or

(c) to impose any additionl condition.

(5) A notice under this paragraph shall give the registration authority's reasons for their proposal.
Right to make representations
15.—(1) A notice under paragraph 14 above shall state that within 14 days of service of the notice any person on whom it is served may in writing require the registration authority to give him an opportunity to make representations to them concerning the matter.
(2) Where a notice has been served under paragraph 14 above, the registration authority shall not determine the matter until either—

(a) any person on whom the notice was served has made representations concerning the matter; or

(b) the period during which any such person could have required them to give him an opportunity to make representations has elapsed without their being required to give such an opportunity; or

(c) the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (3) below are satisfied.

(3) The conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above are—

(a) that a person on whom the notice was served has required the registration authority to give him an opportunity to make representations to them concerning the matter;

(b) that the registration authority have allowed him a reasonable period to make his representations; and

(c) that he has failed to make them within that period.

(4) Representations may be made, at the option of the person making them, either in writing or orally.
(5) If he informs the registration authority that he desires to make oral representations, they shall give him an opportunity of
726
appearing before and of being heard by a committee or subcommittee of the registration authority.
16.—(1) If the registration authority decide to adopt the proposal, they shall serve notice in writing of their decision on any person on whom they were required to serve notice of their proposal.
(2) A notice under this paragraph shall he accompanied by a note explaining the right of appeal conferred by paragraph 17 below.
(3) A decision of a registration authority, other than a decision to grant an application for registration subject only to such conditions as are mentioned in paragraph 14(2) above or to refuse an application for registration. shall not take effect—

(a) if no appeal is brought, until the expiration of the period of 28 days referred to in paragraph 17(3) below; and

(b) if an appeal is brought, until it is determined or abandoned.

Appeals
17.—(1) An appeal against—

(a) a decision of a registration authority; or

(b) an order made by a justice of the peace under paragraph 13 above.

shall lie to a Registered Homes Tribunal.
(2) An appeal shall be brought by notice in writing given to the registration authority.
(3) No appeal against a decision or order may be brought by a person more than 28 days after service on him of notice of the decision or order.
(4) On an appeal against a decision of a registration authority the Tribunal may confirm the decision or direct that it shall not have effect.
(5) On an appeal against an order made by a justice of the peace the Tribunal may confirm the order or direct that it shall cease to have effect.
(6) A Tribunal shall also have power on an appeal against a decision or order—

(a) to vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of the home to which the appeal relates by virtue of this Part of this Schedule:

(b) to direct that any such condition shall cease to have effect: or

(c) to direct that any such condition as it thinks fit shall have effect in respect of the home.

(7) A registration authority shall comply with any directions given by a Tribunal under this paragraph.
Service of documents
18.—(1) Any notice or other document required under this Part of this Schedule to be served on a person carrying on, or intending to carry on, a residential care home may be served on him by being delivered personally to him, or being sent by post to him in a registered letter or by the recorded delivery service.
(2) For the purposes of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (which defines "service by post") a letter to a person carrying on a residential care home enclosing a notice or other document under this Part of this Schedule shall be deemed to be properly addressed if it is addressed to him at the home.
(3) Any such notice or other document required to be served on a body corporate or a firm shall be duly served if it is served on the secretary or clerk of that body or a partner of that firm.
(4) For the purposes of this section, and of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 in its application to this section without prejudice to subsection (2) above the proper address of a person, in the case of a secretary or clerk of a body corporate, shall be that of the registered or principal office of that body, in the case of a partner of a firm shall be that of the principal office of the firm, and in any other case shall be the last known address of the person to he served.
Conduct of residential care homes
19.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the conduct of residential care homes, and in particular—

(a) as to the facilities and services to be provided in such homes:

(b) as to the records to be kept and notices to be given in respect of persons received into such homes;

(c) as to the notification of events occurring in such homes;

(d) making provision for children under the age of 18 years who are resident in such homes to receive a religious upbringing appropriate to the religious persuasion to which they belong;

727

(e) as to the form of registers to be kept by registration authorties for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule and the particulars to be contained in them; and

(f) as to the information to be supplied on an application for registration.

(2) Regulations under this paragraph may provide that a contravention of or failure to comply with any specified provision of the regulations shall be an offence against the regulations; and any person guilty of an offence against the regulations shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
Inspection of Homes
20.—(1) Any person authorised in that behalf by the Secretary of State may at all times enter and inspect any premises which are used, or which that person has reasonable cause to believe to be used, for the purposes of a residential care home.
(2) Any person authorised in that behalf by a registration authority may at all times enter and inspect any premises in the area of the authority which are used, or which that person has reasonable cause to believe to be used, for those purposes.
(3) the powers of inspection conferred by, sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall include power to inspect any records required to be kept in accordance with regulations under this Schedule.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations require that residential care homes shall be inspected on such occasions or at such intervals as the regulations may prescribe.
(5) A person who proposes to exercise any power of entry or inspection conferred by this paragraph shall if so required produce some duly authenticated document showing his authority to exercise the power.
(6) Any person who obstructs the exercise of any such power shall he liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
Prosecutions etc
21. Where an offence under this Part of this Schedule or any regulations under it committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
22.—(1) In any proceedings for an offence under this Part of this Schedule, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove—

(a) that the commission of the offence was due to a mistake or to reliance on information supplied to him or to the act or default of another person, an accident or some other cause beyond his control: and

(b) that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or any person under his control.

(2) If in any such case the defence provided by sub-paragraph (1) above involves the allegation that the commission of the offence was due to the act or default of another person or to reliance on information supplied by another person, the person charged shall not. without leave of the court, be entitled to rely on that defence unless. within a period ending 7 clear days before the hearing, he has served on the prosecutor a notice in writing giving such information identifying or assisting in the identification of that other person as was then in his possession.
Regulations
23.—(1) Any power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this Part of this Schedule shall be exercisable by statutory instrument: and any statutory instrument containing regulations under this Part of this Schedule shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(2) Any such power may be exercised—

(a) either in relation to all cases to which the power extends or in relation to all those cases subject to specified exceptions, or in relation to any specified cases or classes of case: and

(b) so as to make, as respects the cases in relation to which the power is exercised—

(i) the same provision for all cases in relation to which it is exercised, or different provision for different cases or different classes of case or different provision as respects the same class or classes of case for different purposes:

728

(ii) any such provision either unconditionally or subject to any specified condition:

and includes power to make such incidental or supplemental provision in the regulations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
PART II
AMENDMENTS OF ACTS RELATING TO REGISTERED HOMES
Nursing Homes Act 1975
24. The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (I) of section 3 of the Nursing Homes Act 1975—
"(1A) Registration under this Act does not affect any requirement to register under Part 1 of Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 (registration of residential care homes).".
25. The following section shall be inserted after that section—
"Prohibition of holding out premises as nursing home. matermity home or mental nursing home.
3A.—(1) A person who, with intent to deceive any person.—

(a) applies any name to premises in England or Wales: or

(b) in any way so describes such premises or holds such premises out,

as to indicate, or reasonably be understood to indicate, that the premises are a nursing home or maternity home. shall be guilty of an offence, unless registration has been effected under this Act in respect of the premises as such a home.
(2) A person who, with intent to deceive any person,—

(a) applies any name to premises in England or Wales: or

(b) in any way so describes such premises or holds such premises out,

as to indicate, or reasonably he understood to indicate, that the premises are a mental nursing home, shall be guilty of an offence. unless registration has been effected under this Act in respect of the premises as such a home.
26. The following paragraphs shall be inserted after section 6(c) of that Act—
"(ca) requiring persons registered under this Act to pay an annual fee of such amount as the regulations may specify; (cb) specifying when the fee is to be paid;".
27. In paragrah (c) of section 7 of that Act for the words "imposed by section 8(1) and (2) below" there shall be substituted the words "for the time being in force in respect of the home by virtue of this Act".
28. The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (d) of that section—
"(e) on the ground that the annual fee in respect of the home has not been paid on or before the due date.".
29. The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (2A) of section 8 of that Act—
"(2A) The Secretary of State may make regulations—

(a) as to the variation of any condition for the time being in force in respect of a nursing home or mental nursing home by virtue of this Act: and

(b) as to the imposition of additional conditions.".

30. The following sections shall be inserted after that section—
"Urgent procedure for cancellation of registration etc.
8A.—(1) If—

(a) the Secretary of State applies to a justice of the peace for an order—

(i) cancelling the registration of a person in respect of a nursing home or mental nursing home:

(ii) varying any condition for the time being in force in respect of a home by virtue of this Act; or

(iii) imposing an additional condition: and

(b) it appears to the justice of the peace that there will be a serious risk to the life, health or well-being of the patients in the home unless the order is made, he may make the order, and the cancellation, variation or imposition shall have effect from the date on which the order is made.

(2) An application under subsection (1) above may be made ex parte and shall be supported by a written statement of the Secretary of State's reasons for making the application.
(3) An order under subsection (1) above shall be in writing.
(4) Where such an order is made, the Secretary of State shall serve on any person registered in respect of the home, as soon as practicable after the making of the order,—

(a) notice of the making of the order and of its terms; and

(b) a copy of the statement of the Secretary of State's reasons which supported his application for the order.

Ordinary procedure.
8B.—(1) Where—

(a) a person applies for registration in respect of a nursing home or mental nursing home; and

(b) the Secretary of State proposes to grant his application,

the Secretary of State shall give him written notice of his proposal and of the conditions subject to which he proposes to grant his application.
(2) The Secretary of State shall give an applicant notice of a proposal to refuse his application.
(3) Except where he makes an application under section 8A above, the Secretary of State shall give any person registered in respect of a nursing home or mental nursing home notice of a proposal—

(a) to cancel the registration;

(b) to vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of the home by virtue of this Act; or

(c) to impose any additional condition.

(4) A notice under this section shall give the Secretary of State's reasons for his proposal.
Right to make representations.
8C.—(1) A notice under section 8B above shall state that within 14 days of service of the notice any person on whom it is served may in writing require the Secretary of State to give him an opportunity to make representations to him concerning any matter which that person wishes to dispute.
(2) Where a notice has been served under section 8B above. the Secretary of State shall not determine any matter in dispute until either—

(a) any person on whom the notice was served has made representations to him concerning the matter; or

(b) the period during which any such person could have required the Secretary of State to give him an opportunity to make representations has elapsed without the Secretary of State being required to give such an opportunity: or

(c) the conditions specified in subsection (3) below are satisfied.

(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) above are—

(a) that a person on whom the notice was served has required the Secretary of State to give him an opportunity to make representations to him concerning the matter;

(b) that the Secretary of State has allowed him a reasonable period to make his representations; and

(c) that he has failed to make them within that period.

(4) The representations may he made, at the option of the person making them, either in writing or orally.
(5) If he informs the Secretary of State that he desires to make oral representations, the Secretary of State shall give him an opportunity of appearing before and of being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State.
Decision of Secretary of State.
8D.—(1) If the Secretary of State decides to adopt the proposal, he shall serve notice in writing of his decision on any person on whom he was required to serve notice of the proposal.
(2) A notice under this section shall be accompanied by a note explaining the right of appeal conferred by section 8E below.
(3) A decision of the Secretary of State, other than a decision to grant an application for registration subject only to conditions agreed between the applicant and the Secretary of State or to refuse an application for registration, shall not take effect—

(a) if no appeal is brought, until the expiration of the period of 28 days referred to in section 8E(3) below; and

730

(b) if an appeal is brought, until it is determined or abandoned.

Appeals.
8E.—(1) An appeal against—

(a) a decision of the Secretary of State under this Act; or

(b) an order made by a justice of the peace under section 8A above.

shall lie to a Registered Homes Tribunal.
(2) An appeal shall he brought by notice in writing given to the Secretary of State.
(3) No appeal against a decision or order may be brought by a person more than 28 days after service on him of notice of the decision or order.
(4) On an appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State the Tribunal may confirm the decision or direct that it shall not have effect.
(5) On an appeal against an order made by a justice of the peace the Tribunal may confirm the order or direct that it shall cease to have effect.
(6) A Tribunal shall also have power on an appeal against a decision or order—

(a) to vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of the home to which the appeal relates by virtue of this Act;

(b) to direct that any such condition shall cease to have effect; or

(c) to direct that any such condition as it thinks fit shall have effect in respect of the home.

(7) The Secretary of State shall comply with any directions of a Tribunal given under this section.".
31. The following section shall he inserted after section 10 of that Act—
"Service of documents.
10A.—(1) Any notice or other document required under this Act to be served on a person carrying on. or intending to carry on, a nursing home or mental nursing home may be served on him by being delivered personally to him, or being sent by post to him in a registered letter or by the recorded delivery service.
(2) For the purposes of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (which defines "service by post") a letter to a person carrying on a nursing home or mental nursing home enclosing a notice or other document under this Act shall be deemed to be properly addressed if it is addressed to him at the home.
(3) Any such notice or other document required to be served on a body corporate or a firm shall he duly served if it is served on the secretary or clerk of that body or a partner of that firm.
(4) For the purposes of this section. and of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 in its application to this section, without prejudice to subsection (2) above the proper address of a person, in the case of a secretary or clerk of a body corporate, shall he that of the registered or principal office of that body, in the case of a partner of a firm shall be that of the principal office of the firm, and in any other case shall he the last known address of the person to be served.".
32. The following paragraph shall be substituted for subsection (1)(a) of section 13 of that Act (fines for failure to affix certificate of registration)—
"(a) to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale as defined in section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982; and".
33. The following section shall be inserted after that section—
"Contravention section of section 3A.
13A. A person guilty of an offence under section 3A above shall he liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale as defined in section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.".
34. The following section shall be substituted for section 17 of that Act—
17. Where an offence under this Act which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall he liable to he proceeded against and punished accordingly.".

731
35. In section 23(2) of that Act for the words "the provisions of this Act relating to mental nursing homes" there shall be substituted the words "this Act".
Child Care Act 1980
36. In section 56 of the Child Care Act 1980 (definition of voluntary home) for the words from "mental" to the end of the section there shall be substituted the words "nursing home or mental nursing home within the meaning of the Nursing Homes Act 1975 or a residential care home within the meaning of Part I of Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983".
37. In section 57 of that Act—
(a) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (3) to (5)—
"(3) On an application duly made under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State may either grant or refuse the application, as he thinks fit, or may grant the application subject to such conditions as he considers appropriate.
(3A) The Secretary of State may from time to time—

(a) vary any condition for time being in force in respect of a voluntary home by virtue of this Part of this Act: or

(b) impose an additional condition, either on the application of the person carrying on the home or without such an application.

(4) Where at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that the conduct of any voluntary home is not in accordance with regulations made or directions given under section 60 of this Act or is otherwise unsatisfactory, he may cancel the registration of the home and remove it from the register.
(5) Any person who carries on a voluntary home in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) above or of a condition to which the registration of the home is for the time being subject by virtue of this Part of this Act shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, as defined in section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.":
(b) in subsection (6)—
(i) for the words from the beginning of the subsection to the end of paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words—
"Where—

(a) a voluntary home is carried on in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) above or of a condition to which the registration of the home is for the time being subject by virtue of this Part of this Act, or

(b) notice of a proposal to cancel the registration of a voluntary home is given under section 57A below,": and

(ii) for "58" there shall be substituted "57D":
(c) in subsection (7), for the words "removes a home from the register" there shall be substituted the words "cancels the registration of a home": and
(d) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (8)—
"(8) Any notice or other document required under this Part of this Act to be served by the Secretary of State on a person carrying on, or intending to carry on, a voluntary home may be served on him by being delivered personally to him, or being sent by post to him in a registered letter or by the recorded delivery service.
(9) For the purposes of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (which defines "service by post") a letter to a person carrying on a voluntary home enclosing a notice or other document under this Part of this Act shall be deemed to be properly addressed if it is addressed to him at the home.
(10) Any such notice or other document required to be served on a body corporate or a firm shall be duly served if it is served on the secretary or clerk of that body or a partner of that firm.
(11) For the purposes of this section, and of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 in its application to this section, without prejudice to subsection (9) above the proper address of a person, in the case of a secretary or clerk of a body corporate, shall be that of the registered or principal office of that body, in the case of a partner
732
of a firm shall be that of the principal office of the firm, and in any other case shall be the last-known address of the person to be served.".
38. The following sections shall be inserted after that section—
"Procedure.
57A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where—

(a) a person applies for registration of a voluntary home; and

(b) the Secretary of State proposes to grant his application
the Secretary of State shall give him written notice of his proposal and of the conditions subject to which he proposes to grant his application.
(2) The Secretary of state need not give notice of such a proposal if he proposes to grant the application subject only to conditions which—

(a) the applicant specified in the application: or

(b) the Secretary of State and the applicant have subsequently agreed.

(3) The Secretary of State shall give an applicant for registration of a voluntary home notice of a proposal to refuse his application.
(4) The Secretary of State shall give any person carrying on a voluntary home notice of a proposal—

(a) to cancel the registration of the home:

(b) to vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of the home by virtue of this Part of this Act: or

(c) to impose any additional condition.

(5) A notice under this section shall give the Secretary of State's reasons for his proposal.
Right to make representations.
57B.—(1) A notice under section 57A above shall state that within 14 days of service of the notice any person on whom it is served may in writing require the Secretary of State to give him an opportunity to make representations to him concerning the matter.
(2) Where a notice has been served under section 57A above, the Secretary of State shall not determine the matter until either—

(a) any person on whom the notice was served has made representations to him concerning the matter; or

(b) the period during which any such person could have required the Secretary of State to give him an opportunity to make representations has elapsed without the Secretary of State being required to give such an opportunity: or

(c) the conditions specified in subsection (3) below are satisfied.

(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) above are—

(a) that a person on whom the notice was served has required the Secretary of State to give him an opportunity to make representations to him concerning the matter;

(b) that the Secretary of State has allowed him a reasonable period to make his representations: and

(c) that he has failed to make them within that period.

(4) The representations may be made, at the option of the person making them, either in writing or orally.
(5) If he informs the Secretary of State that he desires to make oral representations, the Secretary of State shall give him an opportunity of appearing before and of being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State.
Decision of Secretary of State.
57C.—(1) If the Secretary of State decides to adopt the proposal, he shall serve notice in writing of his decision on any person on whom he was required to serve notice of his proposal.
(2) A notice under this section shall be accompanied by a note explaining the right of appeal conferred by section 57D below.
(3) A decision of the Secretary of State, other than a decision to grant an application for registration subject only to such conditions as are mentioned in section 57A(2) above or to refuse an application for registration, shall not take effect—

(a) if no appeal is brought. until the expiration of the period of 28 days referred to in section 57D(3) below: and

733

(b) if an appeal is brought, until it is determined or abandoned.

Appeals.
57D.—(1) An appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State under this Part of this Act shall lie to a Registered Homes Tribunal.
(2) An appeal shall he brought by notice in writing given to the Secretary of State.
(3) No appeal may be brought by a person more than 28 days after service on him of notice of the decision.
(4) On an appeal the Tribunal may confirm the Secretary of State's decision or direct that it shall not have effect.
(5) A Tribunal shall also have power on an appeal—

(a) to vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of the home to which the appeal relates by virtue of this Part of this Act:

(b) to direct that any such condition shall cease to have effect: or

(c) to direct that any such condition as it thinks fit shall have effect in respect of the home.

(6) The Secretary of State shall comply with any directions given by a Tribunal under this section.".
39. In subsection (4) of section 76 of that Act (inquiries) for the words from "mental" to the end of the subsection there shall he substituted the words "nursing home or mental nursing home within the meaning of the Nursing Homes Act 1975 or a residential care home within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983".
Children's Homes Act 1982
40. In paragraph (c) of section 1(2) of the Children's Homes Act 1982 (institutions excluded from application of Act) for the words "the Residential Homes Act 1980" there shall be substituted the words "Part I of Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983".—
41. In section 4 of that Act—
(a) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (2)—
"(2) A local authority may from time to time—

(a) vary any condition for the time being in this Act: in respect of a home by virtue of force this or

(b) impose an additional condition, either on the application of the person carrying on the home or without such an application.; and

(b) in subsection (3), after the word "impose" there shall he inserted the words "or varied".
42. The following sections shall be inserted after section 6 of that Act—
"Procedure.
6A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where—

(a) a person applies for the registration of a children's home: and

(b) the local authority propose to grant his application, the local authority shall give him written notice of their proposal and of the conditions subject to which they propose to grant his application.

(2) The local authority need not give notice of such a proposal if they propose to grant the application subject only to conditions which—

(a) the applicant specified in the application; or

(b) the authority and the applicant have subsequently agreed.

(3) The local authority shall give an applicant notice of a proposal to refuse his application.
(4) The local authority shall give any person carrying on a registered home notice of a proposal—

(a) to cancel the registration;

(b) to vary any condition for the time being in force in respect of the home by virtue of this Act: or

(c) to impose any additional condition.

(5) A notice under this section shall give the local authority's reasons for their proposal.
6B.—(1) A notice under section 6A above shall state that within 14 days of service of the notice any person on whom it is served may in writing require the local authority to give him an opportunity to make representation to them concerning the matter.
(2) Where a notice has been served under section 6A above, the local authority shall not determine the matter until either—
734

(a) any person on whom the notice was served has made representations to them concerning the matter: or

(b) the period during which any such person could have required the local authority to give him an opportunity to make representations has elapsed without their being required to give such an opportunity: or

(c) the conditions specified in subsection (3) below are satisfied.

(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) above are—

(a) that a person on whom the notice was served has required the local authority to give him an opportunity to make representations to them concerning the matter;

(b) that the local authority have allowed him a reasonable period to make his representations; and

(c) that he has failed to make them within that period.

(4) The representations may be made, at the option of the person making them, either in writing or orally.
(5) If he informs the local authority that he desires to make oral representations, the local authority shall give him an opportunity of appearing before and of being heard by a committee or sub-committee of the local authority.
Decision of Local authority.
6C.—(1) If the local authority decide to adopt the proposal, they shall serve notice in writing of their decision on any person on whom they were required to serve notice of their proposal.
(2) A notice under this section shall be accompanied by a note explaining the right of appeal conferred by section 6D below.
(3) A decision of a local authority, other than a decision to grant an application for registration subject only to such conditions as are mentioned in section 6A(2) above or to refuse an application for registration, shall not take effect—

(a) if no appeal is brought, until the expiration of the period of 28 days referred to in section 6D(3) below; and

(b) if an appeal is brought, until it is determined or abandoned.

Appeals.
6D.—(1) An appeal against a decision of a local authority under this Act shall lie to a Registered Homes Tribunal.
(2) An appeal shall be brought by notice in writing given to the local authority.
(3) No appeal may be brought by a person more than 28 days after service on him of notice of the decision.
(4) On an appeal the Tribunal may confirm the local authority's decision or direct that it shall not have effect.
(5) A Tribunal shall have power on an appeal—

(a) to vary condition for the time being in force in respect of the home to which the appeal relates by virtue of this Act;

(b) to direct that any such condition shall cease to have effect: or

(c) to direct that any such condition as it thinks fit shall have effect in respect of the home.

(6) A local authority shall comply with any direction given by a Tribunal under this section.
Prohibition of further application.
6E.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where an application for the registration of a home is refused, no further application for the registration of the home may be made within the period of six months beginning with the date when the applicant is notified of the refusal.
(2) Subsection (1) above shall have effect. where an appeal against the refusal of an application is determined or abandoned, as if the reference to the date when the applicant is notified of the refusal were a reference to the date on which the appeal is determined or abandoned.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, where the registration of a home is cancelled, no application for the registration of the home shall be made within the period of six months beginning with the date of cancellation.
(4) Subsection (3) above shall have effect, where an appeal against the cancellation of the registration of a home is determined or abandoned, as if the reference to the date of cancellation were a reference to the date on which the appeal is determined or abandoned.".

735
43. The following subsections shall be added at the end of section 16 of that Act—
"(4) This Act shall, in its application to the Isles of Scilly, have effect subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as the Secretary of State may by Order made by statutory instrument prescribe.
(5) A statutory instrument made in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (4) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".
PART
REGISTERED HOMES TRIBUNALS
Preliminary.
44. The following arc relevant enactments for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule—

(a) the Nursing Homes Act 1975;

(b) the Child Care Act 1980:

(c) the Children's Homes Act 1982; and

(d) Part I of this Schedule.

Constitution of panels for chairmen and members
45.—(1) For the purpose of enabling a tribunal to hear an appeal under a relevant enactment to he constituted as occasion may require there shall be—

(a) a panel appointed by the Lord Chancellor (in this Part of this Schedule referred to as "the legal panel") of persons available to act as chairmen of any such tribunals; and

(b) a panel appointed by the Lord President of the Council (in this part of this Schedule referred to as "the panel of experts") of persons available to act as members.

(2) Tribunals constituted under this Part of this Schedule are to he known as Registered Homes Tribunals.
(3) No person shall he qualified to he appointed to the legal panel unless he possesses such legal qualifications as the Lord Chancellor considers suitable.
(4) No person shall be qualified to he appointed to the panel of experts unless he has had experience in welfare work, medicine. nursing or midwifery or such other experience as the Lord President of the Council considers suitable.
(5) No officer of a government department may be appointed to either panel.
(6) A person appointed to a panel shall hold office subject to such conditions as to the period of his membership and otherwise as may be determined by the person appointing him.
Constitution of Tribunals—general
46.—(1) A Registered Homes Tribunal shall consist of a chairman and two other members.
(2) The chairman shall be a member of the legal panel appointed to the tribunal by the Lord Chancellor.
(3) The other two members shall be members of the panel of experts appointed to the tribunal by the Lord President of the Council.
Tribunals for appeals relating to nursing homes (including maternity homes) and mental nursing homes
47.—(1) A Registered Homes Tribunal to hear an appeal relating solely to registration under the Nursing Homes Act 1975 shall include a registered medical practitioner.
(2) Such a tribunal shall also include—

(a) if the appeal relates to registration of a maternity home, a qualified midwife: and

(b) in any other case, a qualified nurse.

(3) A tribunal which is constituted to hear both an appeal relating to registration under the Nursing Homes Act 1975 and an appeal relating to registration under Part I of this Schedule shall include a person selected in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) above.
(4) In this Part of this Schedule—
"nursing home" and "maternity home" have the meanings assigned to them by section 1 of the Nursing Home Act 1975:
"mental nursing home" has the meaning assigned to it by section 2 of that Act:
"qualified midwife" means a person who is for the time being certified under the Midwives Act 1951 or registered under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979; and "qualified nurse" means—

(a) a person who is for the time being registered under section 2(1) of the Nurses Act 1957: or

(b) a person who—

(i) is for the time being registered under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979: and

736

(ii) would have been qualified to he registered under section 2(1) of the Nurses Act 1957

Procedure of tribunals
48—(1) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make rules as to the practice and procedure to be followed with respect to the constitution of Registered Homes Tribunals, and as to proceedings before such tribunals and matters incidental to or consequential on such proceedings; and without prejudice to the generality of this paragraph such rules may make provision—

(a) requiring particulars to be supplied of matters relevant to the determination of an appeal;

(b) enabling two or more appeals to be heard together; and

(c) as to representations before a tribunal. by counsel or a solicitor or otherwise.

(2) Rules under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
49. The Arbitration Act 1950 shall not apply to any proceedings before Registered Homes Tribunals except so far as any provision of that Act may be applied to such tribunals with or without modifications by rules made under paragraph 48 above.
Staff for tribunals
50. The Secretary of State shall assign such staff as may from time to time be required for Registered Homes Tribunals.
Fees, allowances and expenses
51. The Secretary of State may—

(a) pay to members of Registered Homes Tribunals such fees and allowances as he may, with the consent of the Treasury. determine: and

(b) defray the expenses of such tribunals up to such amount as he may with the like consent determine.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 16. I was tempted to say that this is merely a drafting amendment and then resume my seat, but I suspect that your Lordships would find that puzzling. With permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 16 to 19 inclusive, 22 and 23, 68. 70 to 72 inclusive, 79, 82. 88, 101 and 102 and 104 to 107 inclusive.
I am glad to be able to say that this group of amendments is far less formidable than it seems. While heroic in number and volume, they are modest in their aspirations. In drafting terms, they represent a tidier way of achieving the intentions of the Bill concerning the registration of homes, and replace two clauses and two schedules with one clause and one schedule.
Schedule 3 to the Bill, as published, reproduced in an amended form five of the seven sections of the Residential Homes Act 1980. We have since decided that it would be better if all the registration provisions in that Act, as amended by this Bill, were reproduced in the Bill. This will he more helpful to those who have to operate this legislation: and that was a point made in Committee by my noble friend Lord Renton. This leaves only one remaining provision in the 1980 Act concerned not with registration. but with the provision of meals and recreation for elderly people. I will describe in a moment how a linked amendment later in the Marshalled List enables us to consolidate that provision in this Bill and to repeal the 1980 Act in its entirety.
As I have said, the new Schedule 2A, and the various consequential amendments, provide in the Bill a comprehensive statement of the law concerning the registration of residential care homes and the new appeal system and, just as in the published Bill, the new schedule also makes certain related changes in the legislation affecting nursing homes and residential homes for children. In addition to these drafting

737
changes, there are a number of minor changes of substance between the provisions of the published Bill and the new schedule.
Chief among these are a restatement and clarification of the procedure to be followed when a registration authority is considering an application for registration, or is proposing to cancel or to vary a registration, and clarification that homes registered under the Nursing Homes Act 1975 will not need to be registered as residential care homes, provided that they are used solely as nursing homes. Other homes will be registrable under both registration systems, if they fulfil the criteria for registration under both. This requires a consequential amendment to the definition of "personal care" and, as part of this general clarification, we have taken advantage of the helpful proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, in Amendment No. 20 on the Marshalled List.
Thirdly, a right of appeal is provided to the Registered Homes Tribunal, being set up under Part 111 of Schedule 2A, against an order given by a justice of the peace in relation to a nursing home or residential care home. Finally, it is made an offence for anyone, with intent to deceive, to describe an establishment as a nursing home, maternity home or mental nursing home if an appropriate registration has not been obtained under the Nursing Homes Act 1975.
To assist your Lordships, we have revised the notes on clauses for the registration provisions of the Bill, and I have sent copies of these to noble Lords who spoke on the subject and have placed other copies in the Printed Paper Office. I hope that that comparatively short description of what is certainly a formidable list of amendments will be of assistance to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 16, Amendment No. 16A:
After paragraph 13 insert—
("List of persons whose registrations hare been cancelled
13A. The Secretary of State shall keep a list of all persons who have had their registrations in respect of residential care homes cancelled.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak to Amendment No. 16A and Amendment No. 16B because they deal with exactly the same matter and the necessity to put them in this form is governed by the way the new Bill has been presented to us, if I may call it the new Bill. These amendments are in very similar terms to the one moved by my noble friend Lord Banks at the Committee stage on 9th December. In the debate on that amendment we on these Benches came to the conclusion that we accepted the Government's argument that to keep a national register of all nursing homes or residential homes may have been an administratively cumbersome method. Therefore, in accepting that a register should be kept by the local authorities as it is done at present, it became to us obvious that it is even more important now that we should have a national register of those persons who have had their licences withdrawn, because of the danger, which was mentioned in the last debate on my noble friend's amendment, that people will move from one end of
738
the country to another and be granted a licence, when in actual fact they have fallen down in their duties in another part of England.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to this list as a black list. Of course, it is a black list of some kind, but do we not have a duty to protect people, particularly the kind of people who live in residential homes or nursing homes, who are so unable to look after themselves? Thus, the maximum information about people who fall down in their duties of care should be available to a registering authority so that no mistakes are repeated. I believe it is not an uncommon thing in society for what the noble Lord called a black list to be kept. Professional bodies do so. It is essential to protect society and to protect the people who occupy these residential homes that we have the maximum information available to the registering authority.
It was also said that it would be unfair if a person loses his licence because of some local problem which was not necessarily the fault of the licensee. That should also exist on the register. Nobody envisages a register existing without the reasons why a person has lost his licence, so there would be no hardship from that point of view.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, finished up replying to my noble friend Lord Banks by saying that in his view—he had been informed—it would he possible without legislation to have a register of this kind if, after consultation, it was thought to be necessary. I am one of those people who prefer to have what I feel is necessary embodied in a Bill and not leave it to merely the possibility of such a register being made. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it may be of convenience to your Lordships if I reply to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, now and we can then move to the discussion of the main amendment. When this question was raised during the Committee stage I said that we were examining just such a possibility as is proposed in these amendments. I confirm that and can tell your Lordships that we shall soon be consulting the various interests affected, including representatives of both the registration authorities and those carrying on the homes. Among other things, we shall be consulting on the form in which the list could be most effectively kept. As I said before, and the noble Baroness recognised, this is not a matter which requires legislation, but we shall keep Parliament informed of our intentions and I hope that the assurance will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I am rather disappointed that between 9th December and today, from what I have heard him say, consultations have not started. I sincerely hope that we shall have further information on the results of the consultation at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, now we can get back to the formidable list of amendments that the

739
noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to. Quite frankly, in view of the short time given to us for their reasonable and careful consideration, modest though the noble Lord might claim them to be, I do not intend to deal with them at length now but give notice that I and my colleagues will examine the amendments with great care and come back on Third Reading. Later on, with some of the amendments, we shall find ourselves in a Fred Karno situation where I have tabled amendments to a schedule, for instance, and below that there is another amendment from the Government to delete that schedule. How we will cope with that, I do not know, but this is due to the procrastination of the department in dealing with these amendments. Do not forget, these were put in last Tuesday when we should have been dealing with the Report stage, and we did not see them until Thursday. If the noble Lord thinks I shall spend all my weekend wading through his volumes of paperwork, when there is the chance to get out into the garden to get hack to sanity, he has another think coming to him. So far as I am concerned, I shall not say any more about these amendments except that when we come to my own amendments I shall want reasonable time to consider them.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords. in addition to the unfortunate results that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has pointed out of the very late arrival of these amendments, including this massive, mammoth amendment, there has been another unfortunate result—I am simply trying to be helpful to the noble Lord—in terms of drafting which seems to be faulty. I simply point out—and the draftsman may like to take account of it—that on page 27 of the Marshalled List, Section 41(2)(a) the two lines there are complete gobbledegook. They read:
"(a) vary any condition for the time being in Act in respect of a home by virtue of force this or".
I submit that that does not represent the draftsmen's intention and perhaps they would like to have another look at it before it is reprinted for the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in Schedules 3 and 4 to the Bill, as it was originally put before your Lordships, there was an appalling amount of difficult cross-reference to previous legislation. My attention was drawn to a very large number of minor mistakes in drafting. That was why at first I simply tabled to leave out Schedule 3 in order to draw attention to the fact that there was this appalling amount of cross-reference and a good many mistakes.
Although we have had rather short notice, I feel that we should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and to the draftsmen and those advising them. This schedule is in principle a very great improvement. It means that those who are going to establish residential homes and those who are going to be responsible for supervising them will find practically the whole of the law in one place. That is much better. It may well be that there are some details still to be corrected. However, I do not know. Like the noble Lord. Lord Wallace of Coslany, I have not had time to get down to it in great detail. But let us
740
acknowledge that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne has set a good example, for which we should be grateful, in putting before us a body of law which is all in one place. Other Ministers might well follow his example with advantage. Therefore, I should like to congratulate and thank my noble friend.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, after a rough calculation, it seems that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has just moved an amendment which, together with the various other amendments to which he has spoken, add up to 32 pages of amendments to a Bill which itself runs to only 74 pages. I venture to say that this almost justifies another Second Reading debate.
I should like to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said. My study of the amendments leads me and, I hope, my noble friends on these Benches to believe that most of the amendments which the noble Lord has brought forward are wholly satisfactory and greatly improve the Bill. Nevertheless, it appears to us that our proceedings have been somewhat truncated. We have suddenly been presented with these 30-odd pages at Report stage, which gives us no chance to scrutinise them with the kind of care with which in your Lordships' House we normally scrutinise amendments. While, therefore, I think that the noble Lord has made substantial improvements to the Bill by means of these amendments which he has brought forward, he must not be altogether surprised if he finds that the Third Reading stage of the Bill is somewhat more elongated than is usually the case.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, gets too pleased with himself, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said, may I ask him why, although I welcome the amendments as improvements to the Bill, we could not have had them, if they are so essential. at the Committee stage, since that would have been the proper stage at which to discuss them in detail?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the amendment which I have just moved includes at one point at least the essence of a recommendation which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, at the Committee stage. Naturally it was not possible to do that until today.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I am very grateful for that, but the noble Lord should not use it as an excuse to get away with murder.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I come to the Dispatch Box always ready to listen to the advice of noble Lords from all quarters of the House, in particular those noble Lords with experience both in Parliament and in relation to these matters, some of whom sit on the Benches opposite. I am grateful for the welcome which has been given to these amendments by my noble friend Lord Renton and other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, drew my attention to what I understand was a printing error in the original Marshalled List. This error has since been corrected. My noble friend Lord Renton also said that there were a number of errors of reference in Schedule 3.
Lord Renton: In the previous schedule.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I was not quite clear whether those errors remained. I am glad to hear they do not. If they had remained, I should have wished them to be put right. I am grateful for your Lordships' reception of these amendments. Nothing further need, I think, be said. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Is the noble Baroness not moving No. 16B?
[Amendment No. 16B not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 16 agreed to.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19:
Before Clause 7 insert the following new clause:
("Registration of homes.
6A.—(1) Part I of Schedule 2A to this Act shall have effect in place of the provisions of the Residential Homes Act 1980 other than those relating to meals and recreation for old people.
(2) The amendments to the Nursing Homes Act 1975, the Chid Care Act 1980 and the Children's Homes Act 1982 specified in Part II of that Schedule shall have effect.
(3) Part III of that Schedule shall have effect in relation to tribunals to hear appeals concerning the registration of homes.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make such transitional provisions as he considers necessary or expedient in connection with this section.
(5) Regulations under subsection (4) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
Clause 7 [General amendments of law relating to residential homes, nursing homes and mental nursing homes]:
Leave out Clause 7.
Clause 8 [Appeals etc. relating to registration in respect of homes]:
Leave out Clause 8.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Residential homes and nursing homes]:
Lord Wallace of Coslanymoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 33, line 8, after ("with") insert ("both").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is at the beginning of the Fred Karno saga. Immediately after I have spoken and the noble Lord has replied the noble Lord will move the deletion of Schedule 3, aided and abetted by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. May I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to the fact that my Amendment No. 21 has been put down simply because of the impression I received from him during the Committee stage that nursing homes should be inspected at least twice annually. I put down Amendment No. 20 in the hope of getting a little clarification from the Minister. If he is able to give me the right information, he may leave out Schedule 3 with my permission.
One of the most important aspects of the Bill relates to the parts dealing with the registration and control of residential care homes. It is essential that the present
742
confused situation should be rectified. There is a large number of private sector homes, many of which are quite unknown to local authorities. It is vital to clarify the exact status of small group homes which may be operating in the voluntary sector. Group homes must remain exempt from the remit of the Bill. My understanding of the wording of the schedule referring to "board and personal care" is that it is designed to ensure that only where homes are offering both full board and personal care will there he a requirement to register under the new Act. My amendment is specifically geared to making absolutely certain that there is no confusion in the minds of local authorities; namely, by the insertion of the word "both". I believe that this will clarify the position. A number of voluntary organisations at local level will have group homes on their books, although they will not be providing board and personal care as defined in the Bill.
It cannot he stressed too strongly that so far as former psychiatric patients, for example, are concerned, group homes are no different in kind from any small group of individuals living together as a household. I have visited some of these homes and had tea with the residents. No residential staff and no meals will be provided by others. There will be only limited external social support in the form of good neighbourliness. The aim of that support. such as it is, is to encourage independence, like everyone else, in ordinary living. In this context, I should be very grateful if the Minister could clarify that such small group homes are not to be included in the Bill and that they are excluded by the formula "board and personal care". All I ask for is clarification of the issue. With all my generosity, and so on, the noble Lord can then proceed to leave out Schedule 3.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I explained to your Lordships when moving Amendment No. 16, the new Schedule 2A supersedes Schedule 3. Amendment No. 22, with your Lordships' agreement, seeks to delete Schedule 3. I am happy to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, may be prepared, if I give him the right answer now, to agree to the deletion of Schedule 3. I am further happy to say that group homes are indeed excluded from the provisions of the Bill. In the light of my assurance, I hope the noble Lord will not press this or the next amendment, and will agree to the subsequent one.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I am ever willing to help. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendments Nos. 22 and 23:
Leave out Schedule 3.
Schedule 4 [Appeals relating to registration]:
Leave out Schedule 4.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Family Practitioner Committees]:
6.10 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnockmoved Amendment No. 24:
Page 45, line 22, leave out from ("locality") to end of line 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Schedule 5 provides in paragraph 2 that Section 15 of the National Health Service Act 1977 shall be rewritten to describe the duties of the family practitioner committees. We read that these duties are:

"(a) to administer the arrangements made in pursuance of this Act for the provision of general medical services, general dental services, general ophthalmic services and pharmaceutical services for their locality, and

(b) to perform such other functions relating to those services as may he prescribed."

The object of this amendment is to delete paragraph (b) on the grounds that the wording is too vague and too wide. Although it follows existing legislation, some health authorities are extremely concerned that in the new circumstances it might be used to extend the functions of family practitioner committees to include, for example, the administration of health centres or the employment of staff in the community services.
I want to be fair about this, and I understand that the noble Lord's department, the DHSS, objects to this amendment on the grounds that the removal of these lines could prevent FPCs from carrying out certain of their functions in relation to training and study leave for GPs. It will help me very much to decide whether or not to press this amendment if the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, can give me an assurance that there is no intention to use the schedule as drafted to extend the jurisdiction of family practitioner committees in the way feared by many authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe I can cut short discussion on this amendment to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, by saying that I am willing to give the assurance for which he has asked.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that happy outcome, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyellmoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 46. leave out line 14 and insert ("bodies")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment, and as your Lordships will see it contains the word "bodies", but there is nothing sinister in this. The word "bodies" is used earlier in the sentence concerned and for the sake of consistency we believe that it should be repeated in place of the word "authorities", which occurs later. It is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question. amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28 en bloc:
Page 46, line 14, at end insert—
("(4A) It is the Secretary of State's duty by order to secure as respects each committee that it includes additional members appointed in a manner specified in the order by voluntary organisations.").
744
Page 47, line 34, leave out ("not") and insert ("neither").
Page 47, line 35, at end insert ("nor appointed by virtue of an order under subsection (4A) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and others, including my noble friend Lady Faithfull, pressed me to agree to the inclusion of additional members appointed by voluntary organisations to the joint consultative committee. I am happy to accept that advice, and it is for that purpose that I bring forward these three amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I just thank my noble friend the Minister.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnockmoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 54, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage I moved an amendment to abolish family practitioner committees and replace them with primary care committees within the district health authorities, with a view to the better integration of primary care with the other branches of the National Health Service. My party, as I explained then. is deeply committed to the promotion of health and the prevention of disease, and in our view these objectives can be achieved only by having an overall strategy for the NHS. I said at Committee stage, and repeat this evening, that the Government's decision to promote family practitioner committees to the status of fully independent health authorities seems to us to be likely to increase fragmentation rather than integration. However, I do not propose to pursue that argument any further during the course of this Bill.
My party's policy on this matter is in the process of formulation, and we shall take it to the country when the time comes. In the meantime, I am concerned merely to improve the Bill as it stands and to give the family practitioner committees a chance of working somewhat better within the framework the Government have designed for them. That is the main object of the few amendments I am moving this evening.
Amendment No. 29 seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to appoint directly the vice-chairmen of family practitioner committees. We do not oppose his appointment of the chairmen, as the new free-standing family practitioner committees will be directly accountable to him. But we can see no good reason why the Secretary of State should need to appoint the vice-chairmen as well. This may seem a small matter hut, in the first place, it is an undesirable extension of his patronage; in the second, it does not even follow—and this is an important point—the practice of the regional health authorities and district health authorities, whose members appoint their own vice-chairmen. It is therefore not consistent with what happens in other health authorities.
The noble Lord may argue that this sub-paragraph is necessary in order to maintain a balance between lay and medical appointments, but it is not necessary to rely upon legislation to achieve this balance. If the Secretary of State appoints a contractor chairman, there is no reason why the family practitioner committee should not appoint a non-contractor vice-

745
chairman, and vice versa. Indeed, the family practitioner committees themselves have maintained just such a balance since they were established in 1974.
In case it should he felt that I am going out on a limb on this question, I should like to add that this amendment has the support not only of the National Association of Health Authorities in England and Wales (which might he thought of as an interested party) but also of the British Medical Association. I have in my hand a letter I have just received from the chairman of the association's general medical services committee, Dr. John Ball, who writes:
"We accept that the chairman of the newly-constituted FPCs will be appointed by the Secretary of State. However, all other health authorities are able to appoint their own vice-chairmen and therefore the FPCs will he treated differently in this respect. The general medical services committee can see no justification for this.".
As I said at the outset, I am striving to he helpful to the noble Lord the Minister this evening and to see that the framework the Government want to set up will work as smoothly as possible. As I have said, this amendment has the support of the two main professional bodies and will in my view remove an undesirable and quite unnecessary extension of the Secretary of State's powers. I hope that the amendment will command wide support in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I should like briefly to support this amendment. We have discussed this matter before, and I have been told that the reason why this provision is in the Bill is that a vice-chairman might one day become chairman, and therefore it is important that the Minister should have that prospective patronage. But surely if the vice-chairman is good enough to become chairman and it happens that he is appointed in a different way and not by the Minister, the question provides its own answer. The case has been very well put by the noble Lord. Lord Kilmarnock, and I wish to register our support for it.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, from these Benches in respect of this particular amendment. This does not necessarily mean that I agree with every single word the noble Lord said when making his preliminary remarks about the new situation of the family practitioner committees under this Bill. This is a matter that will be discussed by my noble friends on these Benches and by the noble Lord with his noble friends on other Benches: but on this particular amendment we are entirely at one.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is entirely right in saying that the Bill as it now stands would make an exception in the case of family practitioner committees. It is true that the present position is that FPCs appoint their own chairmen and their own deputy chairmen. That is the present situation. In this new situation, in which the FPCs are being changed, of course it would seem quite proper that the Secretary of State should appoint the chairman, and he does in fact appoint the chairmen of other health authorities, but other health authorities nevertheless still appoint their own deputy chairmen. Therefore, the FPCs are being singled out in this Bill for totally different treatment, having both their chairmen and deputy chairmen appointed by the Secretary of State.
746
As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, perfectly correctly, ever since these bodies were established in 1974 the system has worked entirely satisfactorily; these committees have always managed to make sure that the chairman has been a professional, perhaps a doctor, and the deputy chairman not a doctor, or vice versa. I think we can go back before 1974, to the precursors of these bodies, the executive councils—I served on one—when the same policy existed: always there was a duality, the chairman was one and the deputy chairman was the opposite. In other words, on a voluntary basis this kind of system that everyone is anxious to secure has always worked entirely satisfactorily.
The noble Lord said that the British Medical Association supported the amendment. The body that he quoted, the General Medical Services Committee, in strict BMA terms is what is known as an autonomous committee and represents all doctors, all general practitioners who work in the National Health Service. Therefore, its view can be taken to be the view of the Medical Practitioners Union, the Federation of Women Practitioners and all the bodies that are represented on the General Medical Services Committee, not only the BMA. So it is right to say that there is very substantial professional support for the noble Lord on this particular amendment, and to the best of my knowledge the support of all the lay elements of all the family practitioner committees that I know of; they believe they should still retain the right to appoint their own deputy chairman, even if the Secretary of State appoints the chairman.
Lord Rea: My Lords, even though I could he said to be speaking from a professional position, I would support this amendment from the point of view of some other people I have spoken to since this Bill was first published. These are secretaries and members of community health councils, and others who are concerned with the smooth running, the effective and fair running of the National Health Service. They feel that the proposals for family practitioner committees embodied in this Bill are retrograde, and they report to me the fact that even now family practitioner committees are not all that easy to communicate with, that it is difficult sometimes to achieve co-operation with them with regard to local issues, plans and developments, such as improved practice premises when required, better siting of surgeries for the needs of the people in the area and involvement of general practitioners in community activities of a preventive nature.
Such successes as have occurred have been despite the system rather than because of it, in co-operation, in setting up local arrangements which benefit local populations. By increasing the influence of the central Government in FPCs by the appointment of both the chairman and the vice-chairman, the Bill further removes the family practitioner committees from involvement in improving the services in the locality they serve, the needs for more integration with local plans and needs in co-operation with the district health authorities and the community health councils. I think the result of this Bill as it stands would be instead to tend towards more remote control from the centre and less co-operation on local issues.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, listening to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, a certain apprehension crossed my brow to hear that there was some disagreement between him and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. There will, I suspect, be no disagreement, however, between him and his noble friend, if that is what I am to call them, on the opening words of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, when he said his party was deeply committed to health and prevention of disease. I suspect that all political parties are committed to that admirable sentiment; certainly mine is, I am happy to hear that his is, and no doubt also are the other parties represented in your Lordships' House.
My Lords, there are two factors that we took into account when deciding that it would be right for the Secretary of State to appoint the vice-chairman, as well as the chairman, although he does not do so in respect of health authorities. The first stems from the long established practice of maintaining a balance between contractor and non-contractor membership of the committees. It is well known, of course, that general practitioners are contractors to the National Health Service. Of course there is no such feature in health authority membership. It is our intention that in all the new FPCs the vice-chirman should not be drawn from the same group of members as that of the chairman. Thus, a contractor chairman would have a non-contractor vice-chairman and vice versa. Of course, sometimes the chairman of the FPC will be a contractor and sometimes a non-contractor, and clearly it is right that the vice-chairman should be from a different caste, if that is the right word.
Secondly—and this was the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger—there will be instances when we identify a potential chairman, whom we would wish to appoint when he had acquired more experience of the work of the committee. It might well be that we would feel that the experience could be best gained by a spell as vice-chairman, and we need to be able to ensure that such experience could be made available. A similar amendment was moved in Committee but was withdrawn after I had explained the reasons behind the Government's proposal. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will now be persuaded of the merit of what we propose and will see fit not to press this amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I, as a former vice-chairman of a family practitioner committee, say that I entirely agree with every word that the noble Lord has just said.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. The Minister has given no real reason for this different approach to the FPCs from the approach to the health authorities. The question of balance has been spoken to already by other speakers. In fact, the FPCs have always preserved that balance, although they now elect both their chairman and vice-chairman. You do not need the Secretary of State in order to get balance. As for the point about potential chairmen, that, I think, is really the wrong way of using the appointment of a vice-chairman. Far from being a strong point for agreeing to this, it is a very
748
strong point for opposing it. If you want a potential chairman, put him on the committee, let him develop with the committee, let him get au courant the committee; do not put him there automatically giving him status. Therefore, I would say that on both the grounds put forward by the Minister the amendment is preferable to the proposal in the Bill.
I would also want to add this. What the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, is of great importance: the profession feels strongly about it. I hope the Government will take that into account. I gather that on most of the issues in relation to FPCs with which the Bill is concerned there has been general agreement between the department and the profession. But I know from the letters that I have received that the profession feels strongly against the suggestion that the Minister should appoint the vice-chairman of the FPC. Since the Government are not prepared to accept what is a strong desire on the part of the profession, I hope your Lordships will, by passing this amendment, change what is in the Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I wish to support the Minister, although I am quite surprised to find myself in agreement with him. On the last occasion I spoke on this point I made many of the points that have been made this evening. Even then I plumped for the non-appointment of both chairman and vice-chairman. I still think that that is the way it should be, and that neither of these people should be appointed. They should be elected from the committees as in the previous way, which is a method that has worked so well. If, however, the Secretary of State intends to appoint the chairman, the way that the Minister has put forward is perfectly logical, and that he should appoint the vice-chairman. Reluctantly, therefore, I feel I have to support the Minister on this, in a way that is quite contrary to my previous views. If I could persuade him to have both the chairman and vice-chairman elected from within the committee traditionally, in the way that has existed, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, since long before 1974. and certainly since the days when I served on a executive council, I would still wish to press him for that, but I do not like this amendment which just goes for a vice-chairman who is not appointed.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to make it clear that when I withdrew the amendment in Committee I did not do so because I had found the noble Lord's answer convincing. In fact, I said that I did not find it altogether convincing but I did not want to divide the house at that time. I confess that I still do not find the answer altogether convincing.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I have your Lordships' permission to speak again, I have advanced certain reasons why this amendment is not appropriate and I am grateful for the support of my noble friends who sit behind me, qualified though it was in one respect. However, I must say that I think that, in the light of what has been said, perhaps it would be wise if I took this matter away and had another look at it. I am not giving your Lordships an undertaking to change what is proposed because we have already given this matter considerable thought and the product of that thought is contained in the provisions of the Bill. Nevertheless,

749
I recognise that a number of distinguished noble Lords with a particular interest in this matter feel otherwise, and therefore perhaps it would be wise for me to take the proposals away, or at least undertake to consider the matter between now and the next stage, and write to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I confess I have always had great admiration for the skill of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, at the Dispatch Box, but I did not think that he put up a tremendously good case. The question of the contractor and non-contractor balance has already been settled very satisfactorily by the BMA, which said that this had been satisfactorily preserved over a number of years. The noble Lord's case was also further torpedoed by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt.
My own objection is what I consider to be the creeping power of the Secretary of State. I have always understood that the Prime Minister was against the nanny state, but it now appears that all Secretaries of State in this Government are becoming universal nannies.
There has been strong support all round the House for the amendment. The noble Lord said that he is prepared to consider it in view of the strong support, both lay and professional, that the amendment has received. However, before I decide whether to withdraw the amendment I should like to ask the noble Lord if, rather than simply writing, he would consider having a meeting with those of us who are particularly interested in this amendment to see whether we can arrive at a formula for the next stage of the Bill. Otherwise, we shall go into the next stage of the Bill and not know the Government's position and whether or not we need to table another amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell me whether he is prepared to do that.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I still have your Lordships' permission to speak again, I am naturally happy to receive the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, at any time. I am not sure that my room in the department is big enough to receive all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, but certainly if he wishes to bring other noble Lords with him. I would not for a moment object. Perhaps we can therefore proceed on that basis.
Lord Kilmarnock: In view of the noble Lord's assurance, I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage; but if we cannot come to a satisfactory agreement between now and Third Reading, I shall table an amendment in similar terms at the Third Reading of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnockmoved Amendment No. 30:
Page 55, line 20, at end insert ("; such consultations shall include any District Health Authority whose district wholly or partly includes the locality of the Family Practitioner Committee and none of whose nominees have been appointed to the Family Practitioner Committee under paragraph 6A(1)(g)").
750
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think the object of this amendment is pretty clear. Schedule 5, Part II, paragraph 6A(1) (g) provides that four members of a family practitioner committee shall be appointed from persons nominated by district health authorities,
"any part of whose district is in the locality of the Family Practitioner Committee".
In some cases, as your Lordships will be aware, more than four district health authorities are linked in this way to one and the same family practitioner committee. It seems quite improper where this occurs that one or more of them should be excluded. My amendment simply seeks to secure that where this occurs the excluded authority, or authorities, must he consulted under (h) concerning the final seven unspecified nominations in the Secretary of State's gift, with the clear implication that authorities unrepresented on the FPC under (g) should achieve representation under (h). I find it very hard to see how the Government could dispute the reasonableness of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, paragraph 6A(1)(g) provides for four appointments to a family practitioner committee to be made from persons nominated by district health authorities in the locality of that committee. Although DHA nominations need not be confined to authority members, the general intention in making these appointments will be to secure cross-membership between the FPC and the DHAs. Where more than four DHAs are involved, the Secretary of State will naturally wish to consider the nominations of those not represented under (g) when making the appointments under head (h). There need, therefore, be no DHA without a nominee on the FPC. Since all DHAs will have been consulted under the nomination arrangements proposed. I see no advantage in having a second round of consultation, which in all probability would produce no new names.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will therefore be persuaded that the difficulty that he foresaw will not, in fact, arise in practice, and that he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am afraid that I must tell the noble Lord that I am not quite satisfied with that. There is nothing in (h) which statutorily covers the position of the excluded DHAs. Item (h) reads:
"7 shall be appointed after such consultations with such bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate".
My amendment would merely add that along with these bodies the district health authorities not already represented should also be consulted. The noble Lord said that the Secretary of State would naturally consult, but there is absolutely nothing in the Bill to oblige him to do so. Therefore I find the answer unsatisfactory. The amendment is extremely reasonable and completely fair, and I think that I must test the opinion of the House.
6.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65: Not-Contents, 94.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Amherst, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Banks, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Beswick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blease, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Chitnis, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Collison, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

David, B.

Peart, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Diamond, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rea, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

George-Brown, L.

Segal, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hooson, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jacques, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kagan, L.

White, B.

Kaldor, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kennet, L.

Willis, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Winstanley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Henley, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hives, L.

Allerton, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Avon, E.

Hunter of Newington,L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bellwin, L.

Inglewood, L.

Beloff, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Belstead, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bessborough, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Bethell, L.

Lawrence, L.

Burton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Caccia, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

McFadzean, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cathcart, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mansfield, E.

Colwyn, L.

Margadale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mersey, V.

Davidson, V.

Milverton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliotof Harwood, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Onslow, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orkney, E.

Fortescue, E.

Pender, L.

Fraser of kilmorack, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gainford, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gowrie,E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hailsham of Saint

St. Just, L.

Marlyebone, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

752

Sandford, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Sandys, L.

Tranmire, L.

Savile, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Shannon, E.

Trumpington, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Stamp, L.

Vickers, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wakefield, of Kendal, L.

Swansea, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Swinfen, L.

Young, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnockmoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 56, line 6, after ("locality") insert ("and any District Health Authority whose district partly or wholly includes the locality of the family Practitioner Committee").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 31. Schedule 5, Part II paragraph 7(1) gives the Secretary of State power to vary the composition and the size of a family practitioner committee as set out in paragraph 6A. Under paragraph 7(2) he is first obliged to consult the family practitioner committee for the locality concerned if he proposes to vary its size or composition. But, as we have seen under paragraph 6A(1)(g), some district health authorities might well be excluded from representation on the family practitioner committee. Even if the substance of my Amendment No. 30 were to be secured, their representation as of right under (h) would not be there; it would merely require the Secretary of State to consult them. So there still remains the possibility that a district health authority, whose district is partly or wholly included in the locality of the family practitioner committee, might be unrepresented on that family practitioner committee.
The amendment seeks to provide that, where the Secretary of State wants to vary the size and composition of the family practitioner committee, he must consult not only that family practitioner committee, but also all those district health authorities whose districts are partly or wholly included in the locality of the family practitioner committee, whether they are represented on that committee or not.
The intention is that he should consult district health authorities, not only in their capacity as family practitioner committee members, on which they would in any case be a small minority, but also separately and distinctly as organs of the National Health Service, in order to obtain their independent views on a matter that could be of very considerable concern to them. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, this is a thoroughly good idea. I accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 56, line 13, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 14 and insert—
("31. The following sub-paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraph 2(d) to (g) of Schedule 7 (additional provisions as to Community,' Health Councils)—
(d) the consultation of Councils by District Health Authorities or relevant Family Practitioner Committees with respect to such matters, and on such occasions, as may be prescribed:

753
(e) the furnishing of information to Councils by such Authorities and Committees, and the right of members of Councils to enter and inspect premises controlled by such Authorities;
(f) the consideration by Councils of matters relating to the operation of the health service within their districts, and the giving of advice by Councils to such Authorities and Committees on such matters;
(g) the preparation and publication of reports by Councils on such matters, and the furnishing and publication by such Authorities or Committees of comments on the reports; and".
32. In paragraph 3(d) of that Schedule,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, perhaps with this amendment I can speak to Amendments Nos. 33 and 103. The Government accepted the principle of an amendment moved in Committee that there should be statutory links between CHCs and FPCs, and agreed to move an amendment on Report to that effect. These are those amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 56, line 16, at end insert—
("33. The following paragraph shall be added at the end of that Schedule—
"8. A Family Practitioner Committee is a relevant Family Practitioner Committee in relation to a Council's district if any part of the Committee's locality is in that district, but is only a relevant Committee in relation to that Council to the extent that the Council performs its functions in relation to that Part.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.53 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Iltonmoved Amendment No. 34:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Funding of national hospital facilities.
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall have power by order to designate hospitals or specialised hospital units as national hospital facilities.
(2) Before the beginning of each financial year the Secretary of State shall specify, in respect of each national hospital facility, the sum of money which in his opinion will be required to meet the costs of that national hospital facility during that financial year.
The Secretary of State may subsequently increase, but may not decrease, sums specified under this subsection.
(3) The sums to be paid by the Secretary of State to Health Authorities under section 97(1)(a) of the National Health Service Act 1977 in each financial year shall include. in the case of a Health Authority providing a national hospital facility, the sum specified under subsection (2) above in respect of that national hospital facility.
(4) It shall be the duty of a Health Authority receiving money in respect of a national hospital facility under subsection (3) above to ensure. as far as practicable, that the money is spent for the purposes of that national hospital facility.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, once more I bring to your Lordships' notice an amendment which is concerned with the very important matter of funding national hospital facilities. Unlike the corresponding amendment, which I tabled for the Committee stage, this amendment does not provide for central funding of national hospital facilities. What it does is to try to protect such hospitals from competition for funds with other local hospitals. It does this by making it the duty of the Secretary of State to specify each year the sum of money which, in his opinion, will be required to meet the costs of that hospital, and this can be found in subsection (2). He must then pay that sum to the health authority
754
concerned, which is to be found in subsection (3). In turn, as far as practicable, they must spend it for the purposes of the hospital, which is subsection (4).
The funding of the National Health Service is very complicated indeed. I was pleased when the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said at the Committee stage that the Government had accepted the principle that services which draw patients from an area much wider than that of their own region should not have to compete directly for funds with services which the same authority has to provide for its own district. The Government have also said that they are setting up a forum to advise on which services should be covered by the new arrangements and the level of funding.
I must say here that I am pleased that spinal units, paediatric haemodialysis, chorioncarcinoma and the National Poisons Information Service have already been included in this category, which will be determined centrally and identified separately. Having had this assurance from the Minister about these four supra-regional specialties, I think it would be wrong if I did not seek assurance from the Government for other supra-regional specialties which also give lifesaving expertise, which the patients who attend them could not otherwise receive.
I know, more than ever now, that we have to be cost-conscious and aware of the need to justify the work done in all departments of the National Health Service. These very specialised units, which are of national interest, attract patients and act as national referral centres for particular difficult medical and surgical problems. They promote the development of special skills and high standards of practice in all departments. They attract staff with particular interest who otherwise might go abroad. They promote research and specialist post-graduate training.
It is vital that we do not restrict our medical choice of freedom; that patients, when their doctors feel it necessary, can cross districts and regions; and that a fair, just and simple way of funding is found. The recent reorganisation of the National Health Service has left some special supra-regional hospitals under the administration of the district in which they happen to be. I would ask the Minister to look at the Killinbeck hospital, which is in Leeds East district, as an example of what I mean.
This hospital has an international reputation as a major centre for heart surgery and investigation. Last week the healine in the Yorkshire Post newspaper was:
"Authority spends £1 million on patients not in its district. Outsiders face ban at cash hit hospital.".
This is because 80 per cent. of the cardiac patients come from outside Leeds. Many of the other districts in rural Yorkshire do not have any special facilities at all. They depend on hospitals like this for specialised treatment. As this hospital is in my region, I am confident that, as long as funds are available, a satisfactory solution will be arrived at in view of the searching endeavours of my colleagues and the officers currently involved in this difficult matter.
But what of those patients who come from outside the region? There are patients from other regions who need the expertise of this hospital as well. Killinbeck is just one of the specialising hospitals throughout the country, nationwide, which must be under stress and

755
at risk. We need to rebuild the confidence of the public in the health service and in its entirety, and thereby ensure the continuance of the facilities currently available. I await with interest the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in rising to support this amendment and in agreeing with what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has said, I would point out that in the debate on 9th December my noble friend Lord Trefgarne stated, when he replied to a similar amendment to the one we are discussing today, that agreement had been reached with regional health authorities on proposals for earmarking funds for services which fall into the supra-regional category. He said that they would be discussing these proposals with the medical profession in January. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us the result of those discussions.
I believe that my noble friend the Minister is sympathetic to the problems caused to regional health authorities concerning the financing of specialised departments in training hospitals and hospitals specialising in one field, such as Papworth. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne mentioned four services which he hoped would receive a new form of funding arrangement this year, but they do not include a great many major specialist departments which play a national and international role. What are these departments meant to do during the period when they are excluded from any new financial arrangements? There is, of course, the fact that any income from aboard must be taken into account in assessing the cost of such units to the National Health Service. However, by their very excellence these units will attract extra patients which will further increase costs to the new funding arrangements and give rise to greater burdens on district budgets. I await my noble friend's reply with great interest.
7 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, may I say something about this as a former regional health authority chairman. The problem of funding specialist hospitals is one that has been concerning the NHS for years. I have been party in the past to many meetings at the department when we have discussed what can be done. Within a region itself the regional specialties are funded off the top before the rest of the regional money is distributed. But that is not enough in itself, because the regions are short of money.
I agree that there are some specialties which are so outstanding that maybe only one is needed in the whole of the country, but if you fund off the top all it means is that the regions are getting less for standard services. This is one of the problems that exist in the NHS. We have some specialist hospitals, the postgraduate hospitals, which are special health authorities now, and they receive direct funding from the Department of Health. I believe that there is scope for a greater number with that kind of funding, but I would plead with the Government that in the present economic climate that has to be done without taking any money off the regional funding, because otherwise we just depress the services that the average person in this country uses.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the new clause before the House. I would agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who has had great experience in the regional health authority field that this has been a continuing problem for years and has caused extreme difficulty. I hope that the Government can come forward with something positive on this. Certainly from these Benches we support this amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in this amendment. There are a few points that have been raised on which I should like to comment. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, commented on the number of special health authorities that have been set up. It is quite true that this Government have created seven special health authorities which are all post-graduate teaching hospitals and very much on a national basis. By so doing this Government have surely recognised that there are national needs, and provided facilities for them.
I see that this amendment refers to hospitals, but even more particularly I would speak in favour of specialised hospital units because this is where the funding raises the greatest difficulty. If we look at the London picture we certainly have major teaching hospitals, under-graduate teaching hospitals, already within normal district health authority control. Therefore, there is no way that we could take them all out and make them special. After all, the whole Health Service was reorganised to put them in with all other health facilities, and it would be defeating the whole purpose. But within these hospitals there might be one with a specialisation in a bone marrow transplant, and another specialising in some other field. I know that if the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, were here she would tell us again of the wonderful one that does the work on the lung and chest conditions.
The point that has to be appreciated is the extreme rapidity of change in medical treatment now. I am pleased to have the right to serve at the moment as a member of the National Heart Board of Governors. That is one of the seven special health authorities. In the last two years alone the number of cases of cystic fibrosis has much more than doubled. Again the treatment for cancer, the oncology treatment, has gone up and up. There is the great technology that is now constantly before us in terms of pacemakers and nuclear cardiology. All these things create a vast demand for intensely specialised work and intensely specialised expenditure.
Although the National Heart Group has its own independence of management, of course it never has adequate funds. There is no way that the Health Service will ever have all the funds that they need for the advanced treatment we should like to give. We therefore have to look carefully at how best to spend our money. I speak from quite a different point of view from the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. She has been on a regional hospital authority, and I have been on an area health authority, which now would be closer to the current district health authority. The constant battle as a member of a small health authority is in trying to get more money from the region. The region

757
has a totally different view as to how it will allocate it within the areas. Whatever area you are on, or district now, you believe that that is the district which is not getting enough money.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, may I interrupt for just a second? It is true that most regions in this country allocate money to the special regional specialties before they allocate to the region. They send the money to the area to spend, but there is a special amount of money for the regional specialties in every allocation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, for those comments. When one is sitting as an ordinary member of a district health authority one is constantly told that, whatever happens to be the little specialty within your area, it is the one that you should not go on financing because you are financing that for patients who do not live in your area and are not ratepayers in your area. This battle goes on all the time.
I served as a local authority member, and our one concern as local authority members was to see that our ratepayers in that area were getting the facilities and treatment they needed. Although we should have liked to have additional facilities and specialised units we were not really willing to sacrifice local needs. This is why this amendment is so good, because it asks for a definite earmarking of particular funds, so that when the funds went to the district health authority they would be specifically for that purpose.
I found the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, very interesting because she implied that that was already done, but I never saw that in operation at all on the health authority on which I served. However, if it has been done in some areas and regions so much the better. It is certainly what this amendment asks. Just to quote another example, in the last year the open-heart surgery in the Brompton Hospital increased by 27 per cent.—in one year. This shows how the demand for the specialised units and the specialised treatment is growing. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on this amendment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I believe that the House should take full cognisance of the contributions of the three noble Baronesses because we have been listening to three ladies with enormous experience.
Baroness Trumpington: Four.
Lord Molloy: Four. I am of the opinion that unless something drastic is done we are going to strangle the financial and administrative aspects of our National Health Service by this incredible miniature over-bureaucracy at regional level. I think it fair to say that if the Ministry of Defence ran their business in the same way as the DHSS runs the National Health Service we should find great difficulty in making an assault across the Round Pond in Kensington. This has to be taken seriously.
I could give numerous examples, but I believe that the speeches that we have had from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the other noble Baronesses in support have more than adumbrated the
758
seriousness of the situation and indeed almost the stupidity of the situation. I should like to add one more dimension. I have known numerous cases where people outside a boundary laid down by some civil servants are a couple of hundred yards away from a particular specialist hospital, but they cannot go to it. If the Minister wants details I can given them. It is not half a mile, it is not a quarter of a mile; it is a couple of hundred yards. They cannot go to that one, but instead must go to one in their region, which is perhaps three or four miles away.
If I am told, "That is annoying to ordinary people, but it is difficult for them to understand the administration", then we have the process the wrong way round. We must make the administration fit the demands, requirements and desires of the people it serves. If, when the Minister replies, he will comment on the various points that noble Lords have made in this debate, I am sure that will help us to move forward to rectify some of the irritations about which I spoke last week.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, in intervening at this stage I must admit to not being knowledgeable or an expert in the health and social services of the country, but I was interested to see the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Masham. I read an interesting editorial in the Yorkshire Post (a newspaper which probably not many noble Lords read, although it is a staunch supporter of the Government) commenting on the amendment and the idea in it, and it said:
"Provided that such a scheme would not entail a blank cheque from the Government and so long as it is understood that central funding necessarily involves centralised management, the idea has much to commend it".
As there is obviously strong feeling about the idea, perhaps the right course would be for the Government to look at the whole issue again. I know they are not all that happy about it, but if they agreed to look into it again my noble friend might not press the amendment, as the issue could be discussed further.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, urged me to consider that we should reduce bureaucracy in the NHS and improve its efficiency, and that is a sentiment with which I entirely agree. Indeed, in the nearly four years we have had responsibility for these matters we have moved a long way in that direction. We have removed one whole layer of bureaucracy from the NHS; and we have taken particular care to see that the regions and districts now operate at the best level of efficiency they can attain. We have regional reviews with each region, conducted on an annual basis; and we have all sorts of other matters which we press on regions and districts, to which they are responding admirably.
It is certainly the case that the total sum of money we can make available to the NHS must, I am afraid, be a finite sum, and I am certain therefore that it is incumbent on Ministers, as it is on those managing and working in the NHS, to secure the very best value for money that we can. Those are some general observations, and I now move specifically to the amendment.
In my reply to her similar amendment in

759
Committee, I described the new arrangements for funding supra-regional services which we intend to introduce in the coming financial year. These arrangements do not require legislation, as the powers contained in the present legislation are adequate for the purpose. If the House will bear with me, I will recall briefly the main features of those arrangements. Under them, the financial allocations to certain important services which need to be planned on a national, rather than a regional, scale will be determined centrally and identified separately from the normal allocations of the health authorities concerned.
We are also setting up a forum, whose members will be drawn from health authorities and the medical profession, to advise us on the claims of particular services for supra-regional funding and the level of funding they should receive. In the first place, the arrangements will apply to four services already recognised as performing a supra-regional function: namely, paediatric renal dialysis and transplantation, spinal services, the management of chorioncarcinoma and the National Poisons Information Service—and the noble Baroness referred to that in her speech. The new forum will be able to advise on the claims of additional services, and my honourable friend the Minister for Health confirmed in a Written Answer on 21st January to Mr. Morris, that the first one we shall be asking it to consider will be bone marrow transplantation, in the light of the recent report on this subject by Sir Douglas Black's working party.
I can bring the story up to date by saying that our proposals were discussed with the medical profession at a meeting between the department and the Joint Consultants Committee on 25th January, and are now agreed with the profession as well as with regional health authorities. Nominations have been invited from both health authorities and the profession for membership of the forum, and we hope that this can start work as quickly as possible. One noble Lord asked what progress we had made since the Committee stage, and that is it.
The present amendment goes further than the one moved by the noble Baroness in Committee in imposing specific obligations on the Secretary of State and on health authorities, and in defining a mechanism by which funds would be channelled through health authorities' allocations to the units in question. There is little I could disagree with in the spirit of the amendment. But it remains our view that legislation on this subject is neither necessary nor desirable, and I shall explain why we believe that.
The legislation on which the National Health Service is based has always been broadly framed in comparison to the health service legislation of some other countries. This has given a welcome flexibility in the operation of the service, within the constraints of parliamentary accountability, and has enabled it to work to the maximum extent by consensus and agreement, and to the minimum extent by direction. Generally speaking, Government have not sought powers in legislation unless they are absolutely necessary to enable something to be done. That, in my view, is a very sound principle, and one from which I should be sorry to see us depart.
760
In the case of national or supra-regional services, the need for special funding is agreed between all the parties—the Government, the health authorities and the medical profession—and we should have the new arrangements in operation very soon. I do not feel that any purpose would be served by defining in legislation something which the parties concerned are not only willing and able to do but are already doing. With respect, the amendment also omits any reference to something we regard as a key point in our proposals; namely, the mechanism for ensuring, through the new forum, that the claims of supra-regional specialties are properly balanced against those of local district services.
As to the proposed subsection (4), I am sure that a legal sanction is not necessary to ensure that health authorities use supra-regional funds for the purposes for which they are allocated. The amounts will have been agreed nationally at the highest level and will be known to the staff of the units and everybody else. I feel that this represents a quite sufficient sanction without having it spelt out in legislation.
There is one other specific point on which I must register my disagreement. The proposed subsection (2) would make it impossible to reduce the sums allocated to national hospital facilities. I have already made clear our view that supra-regional services should not be insulated from judgments about relative priorities. Duplication and over-provision can occur in them, just as in local services, and where this happens it can be harmful to patient care—because services are not provided in the centres best equipped for the job—as well as wasteful of resources. We see it as one of the objects of supra-regional funding to achieve rationalisation where it is desirable, and this is a point on which the medical profession have been in full agreement. I am sorry that I must sound a slightly discordant note when there is so little difference between myself and the noble Baroness on the spirit of what she proposes, but I hope that with the explanations and assurances I have given, she will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Before I sit down perhaps I may refer to the question of Killingbeck Hospital, which the noble Baroness specifically mentioned in her opening remarks. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is not an occasion on which to run through the long list of hospitals which may be in the minds of some of your Lordships, but, if I may, I should like to respond to the noble Baroness on this particular point because it is a matter of special interest to her, and she raised it in her opening speech. There is, I understand, no question of babies requiring urgent cardiac care being refused admission to Killingbeck Hospital. Despite what was stated in some newspaper reports, both before Christmas and more recently, emergency operations are not being cancelled and urgent cases are dealt with as and when the need arises. As with other specialties, there is of course a waiting list for non-urgent cases, and I have no doubt that that waiting list lengthened somewhat during the recent industrial dispute.
Following the recent district review meetings in the Yorkshire region, the regional health authority, of which the noble Baroness is a distinguished member, has agreed to explore the possibility of finding an alternative mechanism for funding developments in

761
regional specialties. The characteristics of the cases being treated at Killingbeck have changed because recently developed techniques in cardiac surgery mean that babies can now be operated on at a very much younger age, and that in turn means that additional demands have been placed on nursing resources for intensive post-operative care. However, as I say, the regional health authority is fully seized of the problem, and I have been able to give the assurance that no babies requiring urgent cardiac care are being refused admission to the hospital.
I hope that I have been able to allay the noble Baroness's anxiety about both the specific case that she raised and the wider issue inherent in her amendment, and that she will see fit not to press it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him about a point that I raised, which I do not think he has answered. He has listed some new things which will come into the new formula. What happens to the others? There will still be a situation in which other hospitals in an area will feel that the money is being creamed off their allowance for the specialties that are not included in the list of the new set-up. The hospitals will feel that they are suffering because of the hospital with its specialty, which is creaming off "goodies" from them.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I have your Lordships' permission to speak again, I would say that I am sorry that I did not cover the point that my noble friend raised. I fear it is the case that there will be a very large number of hospitals which think that they ought to be included in the new special arrangements to which I have referred. I have no doubt that many of them will have a very powerful case for inclusion. However, the fact of the matter is that if overnight we included all these hospitals in the special arrangement to which I have referred, the benefit of that special arrangement would disappear at the same time, because by its very nature it needs to be selective.
Therefore I am sorry to say that some hospitals which no doubt think that they are doing a job which justifies their inclusion in the special category, as indeed they may be, will not in the short term, or even medium term, be able to be included. However, we have now fully seized ourselves of the problem. We have moved to include four specialties already. A fifth specialty is now to be urgently considered, and others will no doubt be urgently considered just as soon as the forum can be created. So I hope my noble friend will agree that we are moving as fast as we reasonably can in this matter, and I hope, too, that like, I trust, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, she will not wish to press the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken, I also wish to thank the noble Lord the Minister for his full reply. But one thing that he has said has really worried me. It is about the allocation to regions for specific hospitals—the RAWP allocation. I think that the instance I have in mind occurred before the noble Lord the Minister went to the DHSS, and I shall now tell your Lordships what happened. RAWP money was sent to the Oxford region for Stoke
762
Mandeville Hospital, but it was not spent on that hospital. In fact I know—and I heard this from the DHSS—that that part of Buckinghamshire was starved of the funds which should have gone to it. That kind of situation is a worry.
I was pleased that the noble Lord the Minister quite liked the amendment. He was worried about the funds, in case too much money was allocated to one hospital; but, after all, the allocation takes place each year and not much can be overspent in one year. Indeed, I should be very surprised if too much money was ever overspent in the National Health Service.
I want to raise the morale of the National Health Service and those who work in the specialised hospitals. We have before us another stage of this Bill, in which the Government could improve on the amendment. In that case I should like to divide the House to try to make those who are working in hospitals feel that people at Westminster really do care for them. That is the reason why I now divide the House.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, am I allowed to speak again?
Several noble Lords: No.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Hayter): The Question is, That Amendment No. 34 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"? To the contrary, "Not-Content"? I think the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the bar.
My Lords, the tellers for the Contents have not been appointed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50, and the Division therefore cannot take place. I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that this is probably a convenient moment to "have the gap". The consideration of the Report stage of this Bill will not be resumed until a quarter past eight. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1982
7.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 be approved. This is the latest in a series of such orders which have been presented at intervals of approximately two years to deal with miscellaneous matters of a financial nature. The last order in the series was the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1980. The main purpose of these orders is to increase as necessary limits imposed by Northern

763
Ireland legislation on certain financial transactions and to deal with other fairly routine matters with a financial content. The orders do not deal with appropriation of resources for public services. I shall deal briefly with the substance of the main Articles.
Article 3 deals with two items in respect of which statutorily limited issues may be made from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The first item relates to issues made to the Agricultural Loans Fund for on-lending to farmers. The present limit is £18 million and it is proposed to increase it to £20 million. The Agricultural Loans Fund is being phased out and the new limit should be sufficient to meet commitments until it is finally abolished. The second item relates to issues made for capital expenditure by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The present limit of £950 million is to be increased to £1,300 million to accommodate estimated expenditure until about March 1985.
Article 4 deals with another statutory limit and proposes an increase from £15 million to £25 million in the aggregate amount of loans and grants which may be made to harbour authorities by the Departments of Economic Development and Agriculture for harbour works. The present limit is exhausted and the new limit should cover expenditure until March 1985. Article 5 again deals with a statutory limit, in this case imposed on the aggregate amount of principal which may be guaranteed by the Department of Finance and Personnel in respect of borrowing by health and social services boards for the purpose of making loans to general medical practitioners for the provision of practice premises. The present limit of £600,000 was set in 1967 and the proposed new limit is £1,200,000.
Article 6 has the effect of abolishing the Capital Purposes Fund. This fund has outlived its usefulness. It was devised in 1950 to enable money voted for capital expenditure to be carried forward from one fiscal year to another at a time when it was particularly difficult to forecast expenditure because of such factors as shortages of building supplies. Articles 7 to 15 provide for certain loans to be made from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The loans, which are described in Schedule 1, are currently made from the Government Loans Fund and these articles re-enact those provisions of the Government Loans Act (Northern Ireland) 1957 necessary to enable the lending functions to transfer to the Consolidated Fund. The 1957 Act is repealed by Schedule 4.
Article 16 provides for the prolongation of the term of an issue of Ulster savings certificates to be achieved by means of direction of the Department of Finance and Personnel. Currently changes of this nature have to be made by means of subordinate legislation. The new provision will bring Northern Ireland practice into line with that operating in Great Britain (to whose analogous issues the Ulster savings certificate issues are tied) and will significantly alleviate administrative inconvenience in the responsible department. I would remind the House that throughout all this we are not voting any new funds, and I commend this order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House
764
on 14th December be approved—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining this order, and in general we give it our support and approval. I believe the noble Earl said that the Agricultural Loans Fund was to be phased out. I must confess that I had not ascertained that from the order. Perhaps he would explain where it is mentioned in the order. The provisons for agriculture, harbours, health and personnel purposes are welcomed as is that for the Housing Executive. May I ask the noble Earl whether the increase, which I gather from him will carry through requirements until March 1985, reflect just possible inflation price increases or will it represent increased activity? Will it help to relieve the housing problems in Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that from figures which I saw the other day I understand that in the construction industry in Northern Ireland there are as many unemployed as there are in employment; and there are many problems to be relieved.
The other question I would ask as to the abolition of the Capital Purchase Fund, which seems a commonsense procedure, is this. In the conditions laid down in Part III and Schedule 1 regarding the Government Loans Fund—and to check this would require a lot of research on other orders—are there any notable changes to which the noble Earl should draw our attention; or are the changes in conformity with what has happened previously? The change in the Ulster savings certificates again seems a very reasonable provision.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I should like to indicate first my support for the remarks of my noble friend on the Front Bench. The part of the order to which I wish to draw attention and which concerns me is Article 16 which deals with Ulster savings certificates. Whatever may be the arguments for or against Ulster savings certificates as being an obsolete or expensive way for Governments to undertake borrowing, I believe that the Ulster savings certificates have the support of the Northern Ireland people. Since they were first introduced some 60 years ago the Ulster savings certificates have provided an easy, useful and attractive method for savings by Northern Ireland people of limited means. I understand that there are some 140,000 registered certificate holders who have currently about £350 million invested in Ulster savings certificates.
I am convinced that there are considerable amounts still to be attracted to the Ulster savings certificate form of investment. As we know, there is at present great and vigorous competition for this personal-savings type of finance, from trustee savings banks, the Post Office, national savings, building societies and other areas.
However, what I should like to see is a more aggressive marketing of Ulster savings certificates in Northern Ireland, coupled with much more easily and readily available up-to-date information, particularly about the interest earning potential of the earlier issues of the Ulster savings certificates. I think that the current issue is the 25th one. Details about the

765
earnings potential adds considerable attraction to the present issues, especially if there is confidence and information readily available about past issues. I should be grateful to the noble Earl if he would kindly undertake to examine this point. I have not given notice of it and I do not expect a reply this evening.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords on the Benches opposite. I share the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for the work regarding Ulster savings certificates. I have been to see the people concerned on site and I have addressed them in the course of my duties in Northern Ireland. The point that he made is not strictly appropriate to this order. However, I shall have a look at the general point that he made.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that this is not simply a matter of making adjustments in the light of inflation or in the light of need. This is a mechanism in respect of moving money about, if I may put it that way. Any new monies determined by inflation or need would have to he voted accordingly. Articles in this draft order which fix financial limits simply enable issues to be made from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund for the services concerned. It enables you to get the money out, so to speak.
Nothing I have said tonight or which I am seeking to move in your Lordships' House prescribes the amounts which are allocated to any of these concerns in any given financial year. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me about the Housing Executive. What happens is that this Housing Executive borrows from the Consolidated Fund to finance its capital expenditure on new building, rehabilitation, improvement, land acquisition, home loans, office accommodation and the like. The revised borrowing limit has been framed having regard to the agreed physical programme and approved resource allocations. That approval is sought separately.
On the question of the Agricultural Loans Fund, to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred, he may be aware that in recent years there has been a significant reduction in the level of demand for loans and, following consultation with representatives of farming interests in the Province, it was decided that the lending facilities should be terminated. No loan applications have been accepted since November 1979. Therefore the Agricultural Loans Fund is being phased out in any case. It is not being phased out by this order which is why the noble Lord could not find it, but this order makes consequential changes. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Milk (Northern Ireland) Order 1982
7.44 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the Milk (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th October 1982, be approved. The order consolidates the Milk Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 and the Milk (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 1963. It was considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills on 8th December 1982 and the committee was
766
satisfied that it is a purely consolidating measure. It therefore makes no changes of substance in the existing law, but brings it together in one order. I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Quarries (Northern Ireland) Order 1982
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the Quarries (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th October 1982, be approved. This order consolidates the Quarries Act (Northern Ireland) 1927 and the enactments amending that Act. It was considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills on 8th December 1982 and the committee was satisfied that it is a purely consolidating measure, and that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. It therefore makes no changes of substance in the existing law, but brings it together in one order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.46 p.m. and resumed at 8.15 p.m.]

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]
Report stage resumed.
Schedule 6 [Medical practitioners, etc.]:
Lord Lyellmoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 57, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert—
("(7) Regulations may provide that this Act and any regulations made under it shall apply in relation—

(a) to the making of arrangements for the temporary provision of general medical services; and

(b) to the provision of general medical services in pursuance of any such arrangements,

subject to such modifications as may be").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments No. 35 and 37 together although, as your Lordships are aware, I shall be able to move only No. 35 at this stage. The two amendments are both statutory provisions which are to apply to temporary arrangements for general medical services as well as to normal arrangements. These include some which bear on the provision of services; for example, the terms of service of general practitioners and also the service committee regulations. Section 29(7) of the National Health Service Act 1977, as inserted by paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 6 to the Bill before us, therefore needs to refer not only, as at present drafted, to the making of arrangements for the addition of names to the list, but also to the provision of services under those arrangements. The same considerations apply to Section 19(6) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, as

767
inserted by paragraph 2(b) of Schedule 7 to this Bill. These are two slightly complicted amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 35.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyellmoved Amendment No. 36:
Page 58, line 41, at end insert—
(" Transitional
5. Until the commencement of section 9 and Schedule 5 of this Act—

(a) the references in sections 29(2)(f) and 29(6) of the National Health Service Act 1977 to "locality" shall have effect as references to "district or combined district"; and

(b) paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 5 to that Act shall have effect as if after the word "authority", in the first place where it occurs, there were inserted the words "(other than a Family Practitioner Committee)".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we expect Schedule 6 to the Bill to come into effect before the main FPC provisions in Section 9 and Schedule 5. However, the provisions of Schedule 6 which affect FPCs anticipate the new status of those committees provided for in Section 9 and Schedule 5. It is therefore necessary to make transitional modifications to those provisions of Schedule 6 so that they apply to FPCs only in so far as is appropriate to the present status of these committees—that is, until such time as Section 9 and Schedule 5 are introduced. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am not sure whether this is the appropriate place at which to raise this point, but it certainly comes under Schedule 6. Whether or not it relates to this particular amendment, perhaps the noble Minister will tell me. I am concerned that what is said about suspension of registration is appropriate only to doctors and not to dentists. I would ask the Minister to ensure that eventually dentists are also included at an appropriate point. I wondered whether this current amendment covered the point.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I would reply, albeit briefly, to my noble friend. I am advised by my noble friend the Minister that he has this very day written a letter on this point to my noble friend Lady Gardner. I hope that will cover her query; but if there is something which still troubles her on the amendments I have raised, or indeed concerning Schedule 6, I have no doubt we shall be in touch after this evening.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Amendment of National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978]:
Lord Lyellmoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 59, leave out lines 21 to 24 and insert—
("(6) Regulations may provide that this Act and any regulations made under it shall apply in relation—

(a) to the making of arrangements for the temporary provision of general medical services; and

(b) to the provision of general medical services in pursuance of any such arrangements,

subject to such modifications as may be")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential and I spoke to it with amendment No. 35. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyellmoved Amendment No. 38:
Page 59, line 45, leave out paragraph 3.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a brief and technical amendment. It is consequential upon Amendment No. 37, but perhaps I may detain your Lordships for a matter of seconds. Amendment No. 37 enabled regulations to modify the provisions of the 1978 Act when applied to the making of arrangements for the temporary provision of general medical services. It is. therefore, unnecessary to retain paragraph 3 of Schedule 7, since the modifications that it would have made in the 1978 Act may now be made by regulations. My Lords, I beg to move
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Charges for various social services provided by local authorities]:
8.21 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslanymoved Amendment No. 39:
Page 14, line 25, at end insert—
("Provided always that—

(a) such charges (if any) take account of the extra costs of disability: and

(b) no charge is levied in respect of any person whose income is equal to or less than is or would be calculated on his long-term supplementary benefits requirements: and

(c) the general basis for calculating charges (if any) is published by the local authority concerned.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this case I have received a letter dated 9th January from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. In that letter he referred to an amendment to Clause 1, which was eventually to Schedule 5. But I will let that pass. The noble Lord indicated that discussions are going on. I should like to take this opportunity, much to the noble Lord's surprise, to thank him for his letter, in which he indicated that useful discussions were taking place with the ACC and the AMA, and that there was expectation of possible amendments to meet the points that I made at Committee stage, and will make now, regarding the exemption from charges of people on low incomes and with small capital resources.
Naturally, I accept the Government's sympathetic and constructive approach and I may not press my amendments, because I am looking forward to something happening in another place in due course. But in stating that, I should particularly like to draw the Minister's attention to sub-paragraph (c) of the amendment, because it is absolutely essential that people who are likely to face such charges, and, even more important, those who help and advise them on their rights, should be aware of the basis on which such charges are calculated. I trust that the Minister will find himself in a position to take the point on board during the discussions in another place, before reaching the possibility of putting down amendments. Also it is very important indeed to take into account the extra costs of disability, because, as I think he will readily understand, there are indeed extra costs.
I am dealing with all of the amendments from No. 39 to No. 43. Amendments Nos. 41 and 42—this will no doubt please the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—are simply designed to extend to Scotland a similar provision to that provided by the successful

769
amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, at the Committee stage deleting the means test. We on this side feel that what is good enough for England is good enough for Scotland, and I hope we can be told that that will be deleted.
As I said, I have had that very satisfactory and reasonable letter from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and, if he will reply to me on the point about local authorities publishing the charges, so as to give guidance, and will give some degree of assurance on disability charges, I shall be very grateful indeed and, after that, I shall be quite willing to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to take up this point about publishing charges and to put the other case. I do not really support the amendment about a general basis for calculating charges being published by local authorities, as it may have exactly the reverse effect to that hoped for by the noble Lord. I fear that publishing how charges are calculated, which would certainly not be a simple or easily understood document, would rather deter people from applying, because they might misinterpret the listing as set out by the local authority and think, "It isn't worth my while applying, because I will not get help".
I would refer the noble Lord to the part of the Bill which states that an authority,
"may recover from him such charges (if any)…as they consider reasonable".
I speak remembering my time as chairman of social services at Westminster Council, and there was a time when we had a scale of fees and charges for home helps. But it was then decided that it was far better to assess the need for a home help, and so on, purely on the condition of the persons and not in any way on his ability to pay. There is no reason for saying that the publication of any general list in those cases would have helped people. The whole policy was reviewed by the council. Every charge that was made, whether for meals-on-wheels, home helps or any other local authority service was an extremely complicated calculation, both in regard to costs and in regard to the way in which a client's possibility of paying was assessed. Many local authorities have come to the conclusion that the need for the service is more important than the need to assess its costing.
I should also like to put to the Minister the reverse side of the coin. It has always distressed me that old people, who have been careful, thrifty and, perhaps, fortunate and who have managed to put aside small savings, often feel obliged to divest themselves of every penny of those funds in order to go into an old people's home and not be charged. That is a very common practice. I have heard Members of another party in this Chamber saying that they felt that those people should be stopped from giving their money away to their relations. I cannot agree with that view, because I feel that they are entitled to spend their money in any way they wish. But this whole matter of charges is extremely complex. There is no simple, easy or inexpensive way of publishing a list which clients could look at and decide very easily whether or not they are eligible for something. It would be better to have them apply to the council, and then be told by
770
some qualified person who was sympathetic to their case what possiblity they had of receiving attention.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I would give general support to this amendment, although there is a good deal of weight in what the noble Baroness has just said. With regard to sub-paragraph (c), we should certainly take that very much into consideration, and I am fully in support of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). It is vitally important in all matters which are in any way connected with social security to take into account the extra costs of disability. Indeed, we have from time to time pressed the Government to embark on a certain amount of research with regard to that and such research is much needed. Of course, it seems perfectly reasonable that people who are on or below the supplementary benefit level should not be required to contribute towards these services. So in general, and with that one reservation, I am in support of the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has moved. I am glad that he has had a satisfactory letter from the Minister dealing with this matter, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to this short discussion.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, before the Minister replies may I say in support of my noble friend, and partly in answer to the noble Baroness, that it would not be a new principle. Local authorities have set tables for application for rent rebates and rate rebates: to apply for family income supplement the details are set out and generally available. Therefore, it is not a new principle. It would give some guidance to potential applicants and make the situation known to the people in the area, which I think is perfectly right. The ad hoc individual decision can be just fortuitous and not always easily explained or understood. I hope the Minister will help us. If in any way we can co-operate and look at this again, of course we will.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 39, 40, 41 and 42 which deal specifically with the Scottish dimension, and Amendment No. 43. In part these amendments are similar in intention to the amendments which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness moved to this clause in Committee. I leave aside the Scottish amendments because that is not so in regard to them. At that stage they were seeking to relieve people on low incomes and with small capital resources from local authority charges for the services that they need. Subsection (b) of the present amendment, using a different formula, has the same intention. Subsection (a) seeks to add another factor to those which local authorities must seek to take into account when assessing charges; namely the costs which may occur as a result of being disabled.
As I said when we debated the amendments in Committee on 13th December, the Government are in complete sympathy with the principle of not charging those who are living at supplementary benefit level or who would suffer real hardship if they were required to pay charges. We did not feel able to accept the amendments proposed in Committee, as there are practical difficulties in the operation of an exclusion formula of this kind on which we thought it best to

771
consult the local authority associations. I undertook to look into the matter with the associations and, if possible, to introduce an amendment at Report stage. On this basis the noble Lord agreed to withdraw his amendment.
I can now report to your Lordships that my officials have had useful discussions with the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on these points, but have not yet been able to agree a formula. The discussions highlighted a number of practical difficulties and the need for further work to ascertain the full effects of the amendment which the associations have agreed to undertake. I regret that I am not able, therefore, to propose a Government amendment at this stage, but I hope to be able to reach conclusions on proposals which will move in the direction desired before the Bill is discussed in Committee in another place. Our discussions with the associations will also cover factors which should be taken into account when assessing charges including the costs of disability referred to in subsection (a) of the amendment.
As far as subsection (c) is concerned, this is a new suggestion. Again, I feel it is important to seek the views of the local authority associations before imposing a statutory requirement upon individual local authorities. In view of the need for further consultation which I have outlined, I hope the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will not wish to press their amendment.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, no; I do not intend to press the amendment. I have received quite satisfactory assurances from the noble Lord. I hope the negotiations will be successful and something very practical can be moved in another place. However, what about Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 which deal with Scotland? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Lord Wallace of Coslanymoved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42:
Page 15, line 6, leave out ("whether generally or")
Page 15, line 6, leave out ("means of the person from whom they are to recover them, in").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will deal with amendments Nos. 41 and 42 which relate to Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, these two amendments deal with a rather different point, but I am afraid that the Government do not accept that they are desirable. Indeed, Amendment No. 41 would be contrary to the intention to simplify procedures and charging policy, would increase the administrative costs to Scottish local authorities and reduce the flexibility which seems both sensible and appropriate, given the scope of services covered by Section 87(1) of 1968 Act.
Clause 12(3) covers the whole range of services provided under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, including residential services and services for children in care. Under Clause 12(3) authorities have some
772
discretion to make an individual assessment which takes account of the means of the person concerned. They may also waive or reduce any charge or contribution if circumstances demand. The effect of the amendment would be to remove the existing power of social work authorities in Scotland to set an appropriate standard charge for a service and to set the standard contribution in respect of children in care. These would apply unless the person concerned could not afford the standard rate. In which case he would be assessed and pay according to his needs, or not at all if the charge or contribution were waived. This amendment would mean that Scottish authorities were not empowered to set a standard contribution for children in care, whereas the amendment in Clause 13 to Section 46 of the Child Care Act 1980 clarifies that English and Welsh authorities do have such a power.
I have already explained to your Lordships that, as a result of previous debates in Committee, we are discussing with the local authority associations in England and Wales the desirability of certain amendments to Clauses 12 and 13 and the scope for central guidelines on the operation of authorities' charging policy and in particular the question of assessment. I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is similarly consulting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. In the light of these consultations such amendments as seem appropriate to Clauses 12 and 13, including the Scottish provisions, will be looked at again in another place. In the light of that assurance I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I am satisfied with the fact that Scotland will be treated equally. I beg leave to withdraw amendments Nos. 41 and 42
Amendments, by leave,withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.].
8.37 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslanymoved Amendment No. 44:
Page 15, line 8, at end insert—
("(4) Recovery of charges by local authorities shall be subject to a code of practice prepared by the Secretary of State and submitted to Parliament.
Such code of practice shall be subject to periodical review.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is quite an important issue. One of the main problems of local authority charges is the wide variation in application between areas; in other words, a person in one area can be more favourably treated compared with another person in similar circumstances in another area. There is not doubt about it that a state of unfairness exists. There is an obvious need for an agreed standard on which charges should be based.
Whilst I agree entirely that there are difficulties in reaching agreement with the local authority associations in recent consultations that have taken place, any question of unnecessary disparity must be resolved. From the information I have received, I do not think that there is any possibility of agreement being reached with the local authorities. I may be

773
wrong, of course. Therefore, I agree that local authorities should not be subjected to too much interference from Whitehall. But there is a clear case here to remove an injustice. The Minister must have power to take action. Submission to Parliament, as mentioned in the amendment, does not necessarily mean "subject to parliamentary approval" and all that that entails. The schedule, if submitted to Parliament, will be available to Member of both Houses and to the public. That is all I ask in moving Amendment No. 44.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I have already said, we are currently discussing the implementation of the proposals on charging in the Bill with the local authority associations. I have also explained that similar consultations are being held between the Scottish Office and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Both sets of consultations include the question of guidance to local authorities on the recovery of charges for their day and domiciliary services. I still think it would be preferable if such guidance were prepared by the local authority associations themselves rather than by the respective Secretaries of State, and I would not want to prevent such a development by agreeing to this amendment before the outcome of the consultations was clear. Should the associations conclude that they cannot provide guidance, it may be necessary to prepare such guidance centrally.
Codes of practice do not have the force of law in any strict sense. They are essentially for the purpose of giving guidance. It is not clear from the amendment whether what is intended is that the code should be laid before Parliament for information or that it should be subject to parliamentary approval—as, for example, in the case of regulations. The drafting therefore leaves a little to be desired. There will of course be no objection to laying any code before Parliament for information but I would be opposed to giving such guidance, which would necessarily be complex, the force of a regulation. Such a procedure would make the guidance impossibly difficult and, I fear, costly to administer. It is also not clear which local authority charges are to be covered by the proposed code. Clause 12(3) embraces both charges and contributions in respect of children in care.
In the light of these difficulties but, more importantly, in the light of the consultation to which I have referred—which I hear is not going so badly as the noble Lord may have heard—
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I may have been misled on that point.
Lord Trefgarne: And so may I, for all that. However, I hear that the consultation is at least continuing, and while it is continuing there is certainly hope that it will be satisfactorily concluded. In the light of that consultation and in the light of the admittedly minor difficulties to which I have referred, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. When I inserted the words "submitted to Parliament", I have to tell the noble Lord that nobody guided me. It was my own effort. I meant "laid before Parliament". I agree with the noble Lord that it would
774
be very difficult to try to introduce this by regulation. I take some heart from the fact that the noble Lord hopes that the negotiations will be successful. If they are not successful, there is always the possibility of the Government making up their own mind. I thank the noble Lord for what he has said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Contributions in respect of children in care]:
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 45:
Page 15, line 11, at end insert—
("(1A) The following subsection shall be inserted after section 45(1) of that Act—
"(1A) A person shall not be liable under subsection (1)(i) above to make any contribution during any period when he is—

(a) in receipt of benefits under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976; or

(b) in receipt of a family income supplement under the Family Income Supplements Act 1970.".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 46:
Page 15, line 21, leave out ("or") and insert ("and agreed by him or, in default of agreement,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I beg to move Amendment No. 46 and to speak to Amendment No. 47. The effect of Amendment No. 46 is to reintroduce the requirement currently contained in the Child Care Act 1980 for the local authority to seek the agreement of the contributor on the amount of the contribution. Amendment No. 47 provides that where agreement is not reached within the one month period, or where agreement is reached but the contributor subsequently defaults in payment of two or more contributions, the local authority is empowered to bring the matter before the magistrates' court. I remember that we had a discussion on this issue, or a related one, during the preceding stage of the Bill. I hope that these two amendments now meet with the agreement of your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 47:
Page 16, leave out lines 8 to 12 and insert—
("(i) has not, within the period of one month beginning with the day on which the notice was served agreed with the local authority on the amount of his contribution, or
(ii) has defaulted in making two or more contributions of an amount which has been agreed with the local authority at any time,".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Recovery of sums due to local authority where persons in residential accommodation have disposed of assets]:
Lord Wallace of Coslanymoved Amendment No. 49:
Page 17, line 4, at end insert ("knowingly and with the intention of avoiding charges for the accommodation").

775
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 49. With your Lordships' permission, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 50 and 52. Clause 15 had a very difficult passage during the Committee stage, with the Minister frequently referring to the need to prevent people wilfully disposing of assets in order to avoid charges. But there was obvious confusion about what exactly constituted an asset. There is obviously the possibility of some people conspiring to avoid charges deliberately, with intent to avoid, as distinct from elderly persons handing over treasured possessions to those who have been kind and helpful to them. Such persons should not be subject to the possibility of penal action being taken against them. Deliberate intent to avoid must be proved. That is the purpose of the amendment.
A point which has occurred to me since the Committee stage is that even if Clause 15 is not amended, as it should be, there is nothing to stop conspiring relatives—who do exist—or so-called friends from indulging in pressure tactics to persuade an elderly person to part with assets before the six-month period stated in the Bill is over, because they know that the elderly person concerned is failing fast and is almost certain to go into a home in a few months' time. This is not a desirable clause but, having failed to delete it, it should be amended on the lines I have suggested, which I believe constitute an improvement. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as always, I find myself lost in admiration for the advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany. I am happy to accept Amendment No. 49 but not, I fear, the others to which he spoke.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I am almost overcome. I included the word "wilfully" because I thought that by doing so I would please the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. However, I willingly agree not to move Amendment No. 50. As for Amendment No. 49 being accepted, that has made my day. I shall be very generous from now on. I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
8.50 p.m.
Baroness Jegermoved Amendment No. 51:
Page 17, line 22, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I intend to anticipate any criticism by the noble Lord the Minister of my drafting failures by saying straight away that I have put down this amendment in a search for information. Amendment No. 51, which I beg to move, seeks to leave out subsection (2), which refers to Section 22 of the National Assistance Act 1948 and to cash and any other asset which falls to be taken into account when assessment is made under it.
I have experienced a great deal of difficulty with this, and felt that I should ask for the help of the noble Lord
776
the Minister because the people who have to implement this provision may also be puzzled. It seems to me that Section 22 of the National Assistance Act 1948 was subsumed by paragraph 20 of Schedule 6 to the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966, and so I turn to that Act having checked the references with the Library, because I do not have enough lawyer friends to do these things for me. I find that that Act says,
"If person has deprived himself of any resources for the purpose of securing benefit or increasing the amount thereof those resources may be taken into account as if they were still his.".
That is different from the present Bill, which does not say that the resources "may" be taken into account but that they "shall" be taken into account. Therefore, we should not cross-reference to Section 22 of the National Assistance Act 1948, which has been subsumed by the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966, when that Act uses the word "may" and not the word "shall". Paragraph 29 of Schedule 2 to the 1966 Act states quite clearly:
"a person shall be deemed for the purposes of this schedule to own an asset if he is absolutely entitled in possession to the whole beneficial interests therein …".
I really do not know what this means.
At Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, and I were particularly anxious to find out what was the definition of "assets" or of "resources". We were given no definition. We had a very interesting debate about the value of the noble Baroness's beautiful ring and of my old motor car. We secured no clear answer to either example. The noble Lord the Minister who replied, Lord Lyell, made clear that he thought this would refer only to substantial assets. As we read in the Official Report for 13th December (col. 401), he said that local authorities operating this clause will have to go through two hoops:
"first, that there is considerable value.".
What legal authority did the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, have for saying that? I have gone through all the statutes and references and can find nowhere a statement that there has to be "considerable value". To the contrary, the only definition given is that the person is
"absolutely entitled in possession".
That raises doubts in the minds of people as to what is meant by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in his reference to "considerable value"; or whether there is to be a check list of possessions which a local authority may take into account, and whether they can demand to know what has happened to them. We raised the question of whether people could give away possessions which they would like to keep in the family, or whether all the items we were in possession of six months before entering a home counted.
There is another dangerous aspect to this provision. It could be that an elderly person might dispose of assets, perhaps pressed by the family, more than six months before he or she goes into a home, so this does not apply. Then, come the date when it was expected that the elderly person would go into a home, there may not be a place for him or her and this person would then be left without assets or a home. That is another area of confusion for some of the people who are working in this area.

777
My noble friend has referred to the phrase, "the deliberate abandonment of assets", and we accept that this phrase is taken from previous legislation—first entering parliamentary parlance, as the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out, in the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, in Schedule 1 to that Act. But paragraph 28 of Schedule 1 states only that,
"those resources may be taken into account …".
If the noble Lord the Minister is resting his case on the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, why is that not the cross-reference in this Bill?
I am not seeking to pick a quarrel with the noble Lord, but I cannot understand why the cross-reference is to the National Assistance Act 1948. If the unfortunate people who have to implement the provisions of this Bill are referred to the National Assistance Act 1948, they will then have to pursue their studies by referring to the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966, and then they will find themselves led on through a jungle of legislation to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976. Should the cross-reference not be to more recent and relevant Acts? I am sure there is a good reason why my confusion is misplaced, but if that point can be explained it will help many people besides myself. Surely there must be a clearer way of informing people of the Government's intentions, even if one agreed with the intentions, which I do not. Surely there could be some clarity, even if unwelcome clarity.
In the Official Report for 13th December (col. 398) the noble Lord the Minister made it clear that this section applied only to persons who deliberately deprived themselves of assets; but the word "deliberately" does not appear in the clause. That is another puzzle to some of us. This amendment calls into question the whole position, but I know that I must limit myself to the specific content of the amendment. I have tried to clarify the position, but I am unable to do so, and that is why I need help. I wondered whether there was any information which prompted the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. For example, I cannot help wondering whether there would be an orgy of grandmothers all queueing up at Christie's and Sotheby's selling their tiaras before they moved into old people's homes. On 22nd December (col. 1157) I asked a Question for Written Answer. I asked:
"How may prosecutions have been brought to the last convenient date against persons deliberately abandoning assets prior to claiming social security benefits …".
The noble Lord replied:
"None; the deliberate abandonment of assets for the purpose of securing supplementary benefit or reducing the charge for local authority accommodation … is not a criminal offence".
I do not know what were the powers of enforcement in Section 22 of the National Assistance Act. I had to ask the noble Lord again on 17th January—
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting, but this is rather an important point. Will the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, be good enough to read out the subsequent sentence in the Written Answer I gave to her Question?
Baroness Jeger: I will read it all—I was only trying to save the time of your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, stated:
778
"None: the deliberate abandonment of assets for the purpose of securing supplementary benefit or reducing the charge for local authority residential accommodation provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 is not a criminal offence."
Full stop: end of Written Answer. But now we are cross-referencing to the National Assistance Act in this present clause as if it were an offence and as if there were going to be possible prosecutions. In fact, during the course of the previous debate the noble Lord said that it would be for the courts to decide on this issue, when local authorities felt that this rule had been breached. If it is a matter for the courts, presumably we are now making a criminal offence of something which was not a criminal offence under Section 22 of the National Assistance Act.
So, eager for knowledge—the noble Lord will be glad to know this is my last point—I put down another Question for Written Answer on 17th January 1983 (col. 1272) to ask:
"In view of the fact that the deliberate abandonment of assets…is not at present a criminal offence, what sanctions are applied to persons believed to have deliberately abandonded assets for the above purpose?"
I will read the whole of the noble Lord's Answer:
"The sanction against a person who deliberately abandons his assets is that he may be treated as still possessing them. For supplementary benefit claimants that could mean loss of benefit, but for Part III residents it might result in an accumulating debt of unpaid charges. Although there is no centrally-held information, I understand that the powers to take into account abandoned assets are used only rarely."
If this is happening only rarely, why are we to have these changes; why cannot we leave these things as they are?
I am not condoning deliberate abandonment of assets or cheating in any way. I just do not understand why the change is being made at a time when the Minister admits that powers to take into account abandoned assets are used only rarely, and why we are now proposing to make an offence which could come before the courts that which was not an offence in the legislation to which there is cross-reference in subsection (2) of Clause 15. I apologise if I have produced some confusion, but how much more confused will those people be who will not have had the pleasure of listening to the noble Minister? I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to follow up the speech made by the noble Baroness. I questioned earlier, and I now question again, under this amendment of hers, the need for this subsection at all. I think the whole issue of abandonment of assets has come up due to pettiness and jealousies that have arisen. The person who goes in and has no funds of any sort does not have to meet any charge: the person who has ample funds meets the charge. In my experience, those who have been found to divest themselves of assets are those who have had a small amount of savings and who have felt that they would like to give them to someone—either a relation to help them in their life or to some other person. It seems to me there is a whole lot of jealousy and envy that has created the pressures that have brought the Government to bring this forward on what is really a very minor matter.

779
I also think that those persons who have saved small assets often feel quite bitter, because they have all their lives paid their rates in full to the local authority and they feel that this is some return they are entitled to at the end; whereas those who are paying no charges probably also had a complete rate rebate, possibly a rent rebate, and have had the benefit all their lives. Perhaps it is unfortunate that they were in a position to require those benefits; but it seems to me that the situation arises that the thrifty persons who have small assets will possibly be penalised, and their families.
In Australia at the moment all the old-age pensioners are creating the greatest boon for the travel industry, because they are all trying to spend all their money on travel while they can, and enjoy it. This line is being promoted. We will have the same thing here. All the people who think they are getting to the point of going into any sort of Part III accommodation will be out living it up—and perhaps that will not be a bad thing for them.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, your Lordships will forgive me if I do not follow my noble friend half across the world to Australia to discuss the benefits to the travel industry of the arrangements that operate in that country. As I have said previously, during Committee stage and again today, subsection (2) was introduced to ensure that the definition of assets for the purposes of these recovery provisions was the same as in the statutory provisions which govern local authorities charging procedures. In other words, the provisions of this clause can operate only where a local authority has decided, in the course of making an assessment of charges, that the resident concerned has deliberately divested himself of a relevant asset. Without the limitations of this subsection the recovery provisions of this clause could operate on any asset of which a resident may have deprived himself, whether or not that asset had been taken into account by the authority when assessing his ability to pay for the accommodation. I should like to underline the point, therefore, that we are narrowing the range of assets that could be taken into account for this purpose.
The present charging procedures rest for their interpretation of scope upon the regulations which govern claimants under the supplementary benefits scheme. But we intend to make separate regulations later this year under the provisions of Section 22(5) of the National Assistance Act 1948, which, contrary to what the noble Baroness suggested—and I do not pretend that following these matters is at all easy—has now been amended by the Social Security Act 1980. There has of course been a whole list of measures since 1948 relating to these matters, and I do not complain that the noble Baroness does not quite get it right when she refers to the latest amending legislation. Indeed, I am not even 100 per cent. certain that I have got it right, but so I am advised. The regulations which are to be made later this year will express the requirements specifically in relation to charges for Part III accommodation. Subsection (2) will link those regulations with the powers of recovery in this clause.
During Committee stage several noble Baronesses, and I think one or two noble Lords, wanted to know
780
whether personal possessions such as jewellery were regarded as assessable capital. Subject to certain exceptions, such possessions are, I understand, disregarded. The exceptions include recent acquisitions which are in the nature of an investment, but this detail will be re-stated when we make the new regulations, which will put the matter beyond any doubt.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, also asked about the confusion over "may" on the one hand in the supplementary benfit legislation and "shall" in the Bill. The reference to the National Assistance Act is, as I said, Section 22(5). That is, of course, the power under which the regulations will be made. Section 22(5) itself does not, therefore, specify the detail. The detail comes in the regulations and, as I said, new regulations are to be made later this year. I assure the noble Baroness that the exchanges that have occurred tonight and during the earlier stages on this Bill will be taken fully into account in framing the regulations.
The noble Baroness also asked about the criminal aspects of this matter. These are not criminal matters, of course, and the provisions do not provide for any criminal liability. The local authority is empowered to take account of the assets abandoned and to assess the resident accordingly. If the charge is not paid the resident will be liable under civil law, so it becomes a civil matter not a criminal one. The noble Baroness asked about the sanction in the Written Answer to which she referred. The essential sanction is the loss of benefit or the need to pay charges, but occasionally a situation can arise where the matter becomes one for the civil law. In general, that is not so, and I hope that in the light of this explanation—
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, can he tell the House whether the inquiries which his department must have made into this whole matter before framing this legislation have given the noble Lord the kind of information which will enable him to tell the House anything about the frequency with which he thinks this power may be required? I ask that question because my experience as a general practitioner dealing with old people is that the country s not full of old people with a compelling desire to give everything away. Indeed, my experience is to the contrary. Can the noble Lord say how often he thinks this power will be required?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I told the noble Baroness in the earlier Written Answer to which she referred that we have no record of the power being used, certainly not recently. I think the power may well have a deterrent effect. That does not refer to the old people themselves, because I readily accept that 99.99 per cent. of old people are not concerned with divesting themselves of assets for this improper purpose. What I fear is the case of an old person, perhaps confused and, sadly, on the point of going into a home, being leaned upon by an unscrupulous relative or close friends to divest himself of assets, perhaps to the friends or relative themselves. That is what we are seeking to prevent and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that these measures should proceed.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the kindly way in which he has dealt with my insufficiencies, but I still think that there will be some difficulties for people who try to understand this Bill. I just leave two problems with the noble Lord. He assures us that Section 22 of the National Assistance Act 1948 is the basic Act containing the powers under which regulations will be made. Would it not be helpful to have something in the Bill to that effect so that the assessment of assets will be made under regulations to be prepared and laid by the Secretary of State? There is nothing in the Bill as it stands which refers to regulations for assessing assets.
Moreover, I hope the noble Lord can look again at the definition of "assets". I believe he said that jewellery did not count. I do not know what statutory authority exists for saying that jewellery does not count. Would I be all right if, instead of disposing of my old motorcar, I bought a piece of jewellery, which I do not normally bother with? Would that be all right? These arc practical questions. I cannot find any reference anywhere which excludes jewellery. I hope that before the Bill passes into law some guidance will be given to people as to what is regarded as an asset or as a resouce, because existing legislation says that something is an asset if the person "is absolutely entitled in possession". That could mean anything. All I am asking is for some clarification. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendments Nos. 53 and 54:
Page 18, line 3, leave out ("section") and insert ("Part of this Act")
Page 18, line 5, leave out ("section") and insert ("Part of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I should like to move these amendments together. These are drafting amendments which pave the way for references to Part III in Clauses 16 and 17 in place of specific references to the relevant statutes in each case. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 16 [Arrears of contributions charged on land]:
9.14 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslanyhad given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 55:
Leave out Clause 16.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, here we are back with Fred Karno again. Here am I, poor little me—intending to move that we leave out Clause 16 in order to raise some very complicated issue on Clause 16, and right at the last minute a starred amendment is tabled by the Government deleting Clause 16 and giving me another complicated clause. The issue that I wanted to raise was complicated enough, but this has certainly put me in some difficulty. God knows! I should have been in difficulties trying to explain my question originally but under these ridiculous circumstances, with the Government causing us so much inconvenience, I do not intend to debate this matter or
782
to raise my point, because I must relate it to the new clause which has so suddenly appeared on the Marshalled List with a star against it. Therefore, under some degree of protest I shall not move the amendment at this stage, but will raise it again on Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 56:
Leave out Clause 16 and insert the following new clause—
>"Arrears of contributions charged an interests in land in England and Wales.
(16.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where a person who avails himself of Part III accommodation provided by a local authority in England, Wales or Scotland—

(a) fails to pay any sum assessed as due to be paid by him for the accommodation; and

(b) has an interest in land in England or Wales,

the amount of the debt in respect of the sum assessed as due to be paid shall be a charge on his interest in the land.
(2) In the case of a person who has interests in more than one parcel of land the charge under subsection (1) above shall be upon his interest in such one of the parcels as the local authority may determine.
(3) Any charge under this section on an interest in land shall vest in the local authority who provided the Part III accommodation of which the owner of the interest availed himself.
(4) Any such charge shall in the case of unregistered land he a land charge of Class B within the meaning of section 2 of the Land Charges Act 1972 and in the case of registered land be a registrable charge taking effect as a charge by way of legal mortgage.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, must have realised when he saw our amendment on the Marshalled List that we were seeking only to be of assistance to the noble Lord in not only tabling an amendment which included the very proper suggestion that he raised, that we should leave out Clause 16, but that in addition we should add a new and enhanced and improved Clause 16, and I shall explain that to your Lordships now.
The substitute Clause 16 which the Government are now seeking to incorporate has, I am afraid to say, the same intention as the existing clause. I shall draw your Lordships' attention only to the small drafting changes that the new clause contains.
The charge under the existing Clause 16 is a local land charge registrable in the local land charges register kept by the local authority in whose area the land affected by the charge is situated. The main change is that the substitute clause will—instead of a local land charge—provide for the imposition of a land charge registrable in the register of land charges kept by Her Majesty's Land Registry. The substance of this amendment therefore is to substitute one charge for another. The reason for this change is that the existing clause would have introduced a new concept into the operation of the Local Land Charges Act 1975—namely, the attachment to a property of a debt not directly related to that property. The substitute clause will enable a charge to be imposed on a person's interest in the land, not on the land itself, thereby ensuring that the reversioner of the land is not affected by the charge when the debtor's interest has expired. The charge will be vacated once the outstanding sum is paid to the local authority.
The second change is in subsection (2) which ensures that, where a person has more than one interest in land, the local authority will he able to

783
charge only one of his interests. The third change is that Clause 16 will extend to Scotland. This will enable a local authority which provides accommodation in Scotland to a person with an interest in land in England or Wales to impose a charge on that land in respect of any debts which arise from unpaid charges. The geographical location of the land will therefore determine whether a local authority seeks security for the debt under this clause or under Clause 17 which, in the tabled Amendment No. 57 makes corresponding provision for authorities in England and Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, all that I will say about it is that the noble Lord read his brief beautifully, and in so doing blinded me with science. Therefore, I must defer comment on the matter until we get to Third Reading, because the new clause is even more mystifying than the original one.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Arrears of contributions charged over interest in land in Scotland]:
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 57:
Leave out Clause 17 and insert the following new clauses
("Arrears of contributions secured over interest in land in Scotland.
17.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where a person (hereinafter referred to as the debtor) who avails himself of Part III accommodation provided by a local authority in Scotland, England or Wales—

(a) fails to pay any sum (hereinafter referred to as the debt) assessed as due to be paid by him for the accommodation; and

(b) has an interest in land in Scotland (as defined in section 9(8) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970),

the local authority may make in their favour and record in the General Register of Sasines or, as appropriate, register in accordance with the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 an order (hereinafter referred to as a charging order) over that interest in land in respect of the amount of that debt.
(2) In the case of a debtor who has more than one interest in land a charging order shall be over such one of those interests as the local authority may determine.
(3) On being so recorded or, as the case may be, registered, a charging order over an interest in land shall create a right which shall be deemed to have been granted by the debtor in favour of the local authority over that interest for the purpose of securing any debt due or to become due by him to the local authority in respect of the provision of the Part III accommodation referred to in subsection (1) above, together with interest thereon as specified in section 18 of this Act, and the local authority shall intimate to the debtor in writing that they have made and recorded or registered the order and inform him of its effect.
(4) Where the charging order is over an interest in land in which the debtor is uninfeft it shall be as valid as if he were infeft in that interest.
(5) Charging orders and the discharge thereof shall be in such form or forms as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe and he may also by order make provision for ascertaining the amount due under the charging order at any time.
(6) The provisions of Part II of the said Act of 1970 shall apply to a charging order under this section as if it were a standard security in a form prescribed in Schedule 2 to that Act to such extent and with such modifications as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.
(7) The power to make an order under subsections (5) and (6) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I referred to this amendment a moment ago. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Interest on sums charged on land or over interest in land]:
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 58:
Page 19, line 27, leave out ("land or") and insert ("or secured").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarnemoved amendment No. 59:
Page 19, line 28, leave out ("section 16 or 17") and insert ("this Part").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, this is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Social security adjudications]:
9.20 p.m.
Baroness Jegermoved Amendment No. 60:
Page 62, line 17, at end insert ("or is otherwise legally qualified").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships will he glad to hear that this amendment is less complicated than the last one with which I bored your Lordships. The intention of the amendment is, at page 62, line 17, at the end to insert:
"or is otherwise legally qualified".
I have proposed this because the clause refers only to barristers and solicitors and we thought that that was very restrictive. In moving this amendment, I was particularly persuaded on hearing from the Dean of the Faculty of Law in Cardiff, who has been chairman of tribunals for many years but who, with his legal knowledge and experience, apparently, under the clause as it now stands, would be excluded from continuing as a chairman. This seems rather absurd in view of the fact that his former students can go on to take chairmanships under this clause but the professor of law, who taught them the law that they are supposed to understand, is to be excluded. If I am wrong, I am sure that the Minister will correct me.
However, this raises the whole question whether we need to limit the chairmanships so narrowly. I must add very quickly that I have also received representations—as I believe have other noble Lords—from the chairmen of supplementary benefit appeal tribunals, who have asked that we should take the whole question of legal qualification away, because they maintain that many of them are working from their wisdom and their experience, and not apparently failing badly in their chairmanships. However, we recognise that that is a wider question and it might well be examined at a later stage. Today we are only asking that the words:
"or is otherwise legally qualified"
should follow "barrister, advocate or solicitor". I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is the Government's policy in relation to tribunals of the nature of social security appeal tribunals that only individuals with appropriate professional legal qualifications who have a certain standing should be appointed as chairmen. At present, with one exception—and I fancy that that is the one who wrote to the noble Baroness—all chairmen of national insurance local tribunals are barristers, advocates or solicitors and, following a recommendation by Professor Bell, qualified lawyers are appointed as chairmen of supplementary benefit appeal tribunals wherever possible. The case for having legally qualified chairmen to consider supplementary benefit appeals has also been strengthened by the change to a regulated scheme. We have consulted the Lord Chancellor's departments about what qualifications to require for social security appeal tribunal chairmen, and we think that the professional legal qualifications specified in the Bill are an appropriate minimum.
However—and I believe that this will be of some comfort to the noble Baroness—powers are being taken in the Bill to make transitional regulations allowing existing chairmen who are not barristers, advocates or solicitors to be appointed as chairmen of the new tribunals for a transitional period from the commencement of the legislation. That will allow existing chairmen to he retained for such period as may be specified. We are currently thinking in terms of five years, but this may be affected by how quickly we can find suitably qualified lawyers for these posts.
I hope that that explanation will satisfy the noble Baroness and that she will not wish to press her amendment. But in any event I understand that there is a small technical deficiency to it in that it would negate the preceding words which require chairmen to be lawyers of five years' standing. However, I never seek to argue against amendments simply on mere drafting or technical grounds. I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied with the transitional arrangements to which I referred.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, and, yes, I am satisfied. But I want to ask just one question. Let us suppose that a qualified barrister or solicitor who has been in practice then turns, as I know people have done, to the academic world and becomes a professor of law. Is he then disqualified or does the fact that some years before he was in practice as a barrister or solicitor cover him even if he has gone into academic work in a faculty of law?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may speak again on this matter, I suspect that the five years that he served as a practising barrister before he went into academic life would enable him to be qualified for these appointments. I speak off the top of my head, and it may be wrong, but if it is wrong I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyellmoved Amendment No. 61:
Page 63, line 17, after second ("and") insert ("other").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 61, 78, 80, 90 and 96 together. These are technical amendments to the provisions which concern social security adjudication. Briefly to go through them for your Lordships, Amendment No. 61 clarifies the position as far as regional chairmen are concerned, and makes it clear that they will also be full-time appointments. Amendment No. 78 clarifies which posts are to be covered by the House of Commons Disqualification Act, but it does not alter the coverage specified in the existing provision.
Amendment No. 80 is a consequential drafting amendment to take account of the fact that subsection (3) of Section 20 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 is being repealed. Amendment No. 90 omits a repeal that is now otiose. It is inappropriate to repeal the old Section 6(1) since a new section is being substituted for it. Finally, Amendment 96 is a consequential drafting amendment to take account of the fact that Section 15 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 is being repealed. I beg to move Amendment No. 61
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 63, line 30, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraphs (4A) to (4E) below,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, essentially this amendment is to meet a point put to us by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, during the earlier consideration of this Bill relating to the upper age limit for holders of these posts. I shall not go into the details unless noble Lords wish me to do so. We are, in essence, accepting the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I beg to move.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I have no wish to protract the proceedings further beyond saying that I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has done.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 63:
Page 63, line 32, at end insert—
("(4A) Subject to sub-paragraphs (4B) and (4C) below, a person appointed to such an office shall vacate his office at the end of the completed year of service in which he attains the age of 72.
(4B) Where the Lord Chancellor considers it desirable in the public interest to retain such a person in office after the time at which he would be required by sub-paragraph (4A) above to vacate it, the Lord Chancellor may from time to time authorise the continuance of that person in office until any date not later than that on which that person attains the age of 75.
(4C) A person appointed to an office under this paragraph may be removed from office by the Lord Chancellor on the ground of misbehaviour or incapacity.
(4D) No person appointed to an office under this paragraph shall either directly or indirectly practice as a barrister, advocate or solicitor or as an agent for a solicitor.
(4E) Where the Lord Chancellor proposes to exercise a power conferred on him by sub-paragraph (4B) or (4C) above, it shall be his duty to consult the Lord Advocate with respect to the proposal.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 64:
Page 66, line 21, at end insert—

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]

  (PART VA MEDICAL BOARDS
  Amendments of Social Security Act 1975
  18A.—(1) The following subsection shall be substituted for section 108(2) of the Social Security Act 1975—
  "(2) Subject to and in accordance with regulations, the disablement questions shall be referred to and determined by an adjudicating medical practitioner or by two or more adjudicating medical practitioners or by a medical appeal tribunal.".
  (2) In subsection (3) of that section, for the words "medical hoards" there shall be substituted the words "adjudicating medical practitioners".
  (3) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (4) of that section—
  "(4) Where the case of a claimant for disablement benefit has been referred by the insurance officer to one or more adjudicating medical practitioners for determination of the disablement questions and, on that or any other subsequent reference, the extent of the disablement is provisionally assessed, the case shall again be referred under this section, to one or more adjudicating medical practitioners as regulations may provide for the purposes of such subsequent references, not later than the end of the period taken into account by the provisional assessment.
  (5) In the following provisions of this Act "adjudicating medical practitioner" means, in relation to any case, one such practitioner, unless regulations applicable to cases of that description provide for references to more than one.".
  18B. In section 109 of that Act—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the words "a medical board" there shall be substituted the words "an adjudicating medical practitioner";

  (b) in subsection (2)—

  (i) for the words "medical board" there shall be substituted the words "adjudicating medical practitioner"; and

  (ii) the proviso shall cease to have effect; and

  (c) in subsection (3), for the words "medical board" there shall be substituted the words "adjudicating medical practitioner".

  18C. In section 110 of that Act—

  (a) in subsection (1) for the words "a medical board" there shall be substituted the words "an adjudicating medical practitioner":

  (b) in subsection (2), for the words "medical hoard if the board are" there shall be substituted the words "and adjudicating medical practitioner if he is";

  (c) in subsection (6)—

  (i) for the words "a medical board" there shall be substituted the words "an adjudicating medical practitioner";

  (ii) for the word "they" there shall be substituted the word "he"; and

  (iii) for the word "them" there shall be substituted the word "him"; and

  (d) in subsection (7), for the words "a medical board" there shall be substituted the words "an adjudicating medical practitioner".

  18D. In section 113—
  (a) the following paragraph shall be substituted for subsection (2)(a)—
  "(a) for the appointment of specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioners and the appointment of medical officers for the purposes of the regulations (which shall be taken to include, in the case of specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioners, the purposes for which adjudicating medical practitioners are appointed and medical appeal tribunals are established):":
  (b) in subsection (2)(b), for the words "any such board or" there shall be substituted the words "specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioners or any such";
  (c) in subsection (3)—

  (i) for the words from "member", in the first place where it occurs, to "established" there shall be substituted the words "specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioner appointed";

  788

  (ii) for the word "member" in the second place where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "practitioner": and

  (iii) for the words "any such board or with the work" there shall be substituted the words "the work under this section of any such medical practitioner or".

  18E. In section 115(2) of that Act, for the words "a medical board or a single medical practitioner acting in place of a medical board" there shall be substituted the words "or an adjudicating medical practitioner".
  18F. In section 117 of that Act the words "an adjudicating medical practitioner or a" shall be substituted for the words "a medical hoard or" in subsections (3) and (4).
  18G. In Schedule 12 to that Act—
  (a) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 1—
  "1. Adjudicating medical practitioners shall be appointed by the Secretary of State."; and
  (b) the following paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraphs 3 to 6—
  "3. Subject to the foregoing paragraphs, the appointment of adjudicating medical practitioners and the constitution of medical appeal tribunals shall be determined by regulations.
  4. The Secretary of State may pay to adjudicating medical practitioners and chairman and other members of medical appeal tribunals such remuneration and such travelling and other allowances, as he may determine.
  5. The Secretary of State may pay to persons required to attend on the consideration of a case before an adjudicating medical practitioner or a medical appeal tribunal such travelling and other allowances as he may determine.
  6. The Secretary of State may pay such other expenses as he may determine, being expenses incurred in connection with the work of adjudicating medical practitioners and medical appeal tribunals".
  18H. In Schedule 20 to that Act the following definition shall be inserted at the appropriate point—

  " "Adjudicating medical practitioner."

  Construe in accordance with section 108(5).".

  Supplementary
  18J. Any enactment passed before the coming into force of this paragraph and not amended by the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Schedule and any instrument made before the coming into force of this paragraph shall have effect, so far as may be necessary in consequence of the changes made by this Part of this Schedule, as if—

  (a) for any reference to a medical board constituted under the Social Security Act 1975 there were substituted a reference to an adjudicating medical practitioner; and

  (b) for any reference to a special medical board established by virtue of regulations under section 113 of that Act there were substituted a reference to a specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioner.

  18K. Documents and forms printed or duplicated for use in connection with medical hoards and special medical boards may be used notwithstanding that they contain references to such boards and those references shall be construed respectively as references to adjudicating medical practitioners and specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioners.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission perhaps I could speak to Amendments Nos. 64 and 93 together. These amendments serve two purposes. First, they provide for the removal of the present restriction on a claimant's rights of appeal to a medical appeal tribunal against some of the decisions of the adjudicating medical authority on the disablement questions. The claimant rights will be absolutely unfettered. Second, they provide for regulations to be made for the disablement questions to be determined in the first instance by one adjudicating medical practitioner where this is considered appropriate. Taken together, these provisions will considerably simplify and streamline the adjudication processes,

  789
  will strengthen the position of claimants and will lead to substantial savings in administration costs. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Fees for certificates relating to notifiable diseases and food poisoning]:
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 20, line 27, at end insert—
  ("(2) The following section shall be inserted after section 71 of that Act—
  "Fees for certificates relating to notifiable diseases and food poisoning.
  71A.—(1). Subject to any exceptions which he may specify, the Secretary of State may direct that a Health Board shall pay to a medical practitioner a fee of such amount as the direction may specify for each certificate duly sent by him under—

  (a) section 3(1) of the Infectious Diseases (Notification( ) Act 1889 (notifications of infectious diseases);

  (b) regulations made under section 1 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1945 (power to make regulation with a view to preventing the spread of certain diseases);

  (c) section 22(1) of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956 (notification of cases of food poisoning).

  (2) The Secretary of State may direct that different fees shall be paid under this section in relation to different circumstances.
  (3) A direction under this section may make provision in relation to fees payable after a date specified in the direction.
  (4) The date may be before or after the date of the direction but may not he before if it would be to the detriment of medical practitioners.
  (5) Before giving a direction as to a fee under this section the Secretary of State shall consult any body accepted by him as a proper body for negotiating fees for medical practitioners.
  (6) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the fact that a medical practitioner who gives any such certificate as is referred to in subsection (1) above holds the office to whose holder the certificate is required to be sent does not disentitle him to payment of the fee (if any) payable for the certificate.
  (7) This section applies to Scotland only.".").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this subsection has various purposes, but it is applicable to Scotland only. As in England and Wales, a fee is already payable for the notification of infectious diseases and food poisoning. The fee is, however, prescribed in regulations and can be varied only by statutory instrument. Subsection (1) of the new clause directs health boards to pay the fee to medical practitioners in accordance with a direction by the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) enables different fees to be payable in relation to different circumstances. While there has, since 1968, been only one level of fee, this flexibility is required—as in England and Wales—against the possibility that, for example, more information might at some future date be needed in respect of one disease than another, with the result that a higher fee for notifying that disease might in all the circumstances be appropriate. Subsections (3) and (4) enable, with an appropriate safeguard, the fee to be varied with retrospective effect. Subsection (5) provides that, before giving a direction as to a fee, the Secretary of State shall consult any body accepted by him as a proper body for negotiating fees for medical practitioners. The "proper body" in this context is the Joint Negotiating Body for Doctors in Community
  790
  Medicine and the Community Health Service, under the aegis of which a number of other fees for broadly related work are already negotiated. I hope that explanation is reasonably clear, and I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 23 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 66:
  Page 21, line 7, after ("in") insert ("Part I of").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 67 and 84. As your Lordships are aware, the main provisions in the Residential Homes Act 1980 relating to the registration, conduct and inspection of homes are being re-enacted and amended in Clause 6A and Schedule 2A to the Bill. This leaves the provisions under Sections 8 and 9 of the Residential Homes Act 1980 relating to the provisions of meals and recreation for old people by district councils. We consider that it is preferable to re-enact these provisions in the present Bill rather than to leave them as the sole remaining part of a then inappropriately titled Act. I hope your Lordships will agree, and I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 67:
  Page 21, line 10, at end insert—
  ("(2) Part II of that Schedule shall have effect in place of the provisions of the Residential Homes Act 1980 relating to meals and recreation for old people").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 68:
  Page 67, line 19, at end insert—
  ("MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS").
  The noble Lord said: This is consequential, my Lords. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Trefgarnemoved Amendment No. 69:
  Page 67, line 34, at end insert—
  ("National Assistance Act 1948 (c. 29).
  2A. The following section shall be inserted after section 30 of the National Assistance Act 1948—
  "Research.
  30A. Without prejudice to any powers conferred on them by any other Act,—

  (a) the Secretary of State may promote research into any matter relating to the functions of local authorities under this Part of this Act, and, in particular, may participate with or assist other persons in conducting such research; and

  (b) a local authority may conduct or assist other persons in conducting research into any matter relating to the functions of local authorities under this Part of this Act.".").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 81, 87, 92 and 99. Together, these amendments represent a minor piece of consolidation to prevent a solitary fragment of the Health Visitors and Social Work Training Act 1962 remaining loose on the statute book, a wholly undesirable arrangement. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  9.35 p.m.
  Lord Lyellmoved Amendments Nos. 70 to 72:
  Page 67, line 34, at end insert—
  ("2A. In section 41(2)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948 (registration of charities for disabled persons) for the words "the Residential Homes Act 1980" there shall be substituted the words "Part I of Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983".")
  Page 68, line 19, at end insert—
  ("Mental Health Act 1959 (c. 72)
  6A. In section 128(1)(b) of the Mental Health Act 1959 (sexual intercourse with patients) for the words from "home" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "care home within the meaning of Part I of Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983".") Page 69, line 4, at end insert—
  ("Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (c. 7)
  10A. At the end of Schedule 1 to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (which specifies the enactments conferring functions assigned to the social services committee of a local authority) there shall be inserted the following entry—

  "Health and Social Services

  Registration of residential care

  and Social Security Adjudi-

  homes.".")

  >cations Act 1983 (c.)

  Part I of Schedule 2A.

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72 are all consequential upon Amendment No. 16, on which my noble friend spoke so eloquently earlier on. In his name I beg to move Amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72 together.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 73 to 75:
  Page 69, line 5, at end insert—
  ("10A. The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971—

  "Children's Homes Registration.

  4. Registered HomesTrihunals constituted under Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983.".")

  Page 69,line 7, leave out ("Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971") and insert ("that Schedule")
  Page 69,line 10, at end insert—
  ("11A. The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 21 of that Schedule—

  "Nursing Homes and Mental Nursing Homes Registration.

  21A. Registered Homes Tribunals constituted under Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983."

  11B. The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 28 of that Schedule—

  "Residential Care Homes Registration.

  28A. Registered Homes Tribunals constituted under Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983."

  11C. In paragraph 30(A)(a) of that Schedule for the word "Local" there shall be substituted the words "Social security appeal".")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 73, 74 and 75 together, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if, at the same time, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 91 and 97, which are associated with the three earlier amendments. All these amendments are consequential upon the provisions in new Clause 6A, new Schedule 2A, Clause 19, and Schedule 8 for the establishment of registered homes tribunals and social security appeal tribunals. All these amendments insert
  792
  references to the new tribunals in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 76:
  Page 69, line 10, at end insert—
  ("Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70)
  11A. In subsection (1) of section 102 of the Local Government Act 1972 (appointment of committees) after the word "above" there shall be inserted the words "or section 31 of the Child Care Act 1980".")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 3, which we took earlier this afternoon. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 77:
  Page 69, line 10, at end insert—
  ("Guardianship Act 1973 (c. 29)
  11B. In subsection (4)(d) of section 4 of the Guardianship Act 1973 (provisions as to order committing care of minor to local authority) for the word "or" there shall be substituted the word "and".")
  .The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on paragraph 38 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, so as to maintain consistency of wording between the Guardianship Act 1973 and the Child Care Act 1980. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 78 to 82:
  Page 69, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert—
  (" "A member of a panel appointed under section 7 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 of persons to act as chairmen of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals.
  The President of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals.
  A regional or other full-time Chairman of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals." ")
  Page 69, line 26, at end insert—
  ("Adoption Act 1976 (c. 36)
  12A. In section 32(3) of the Adoption Act 1976 (meaning of "protected child") the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (b)—
  "(b) he is—

  (i) suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1959: and

  (ii) resident in a residential care home, within the meaning of Part I of Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983;".")

  at end insert—
  ("Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 (c. 71)
  In section 20(5) of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 for the words "Subsections (2) and (3)" there shall be substituted the words "Subsection (2)".")
  Page 69, line 39, at end insert—
  ("14A. At the end of Schedule 8 to that Act (local social services authorities) there shall be added—
  "Research
  4. Without prejudice to any powers conferred on them by any other Act, a local social services authority may conduct or assist other persons in conducting research into matters relating to the functions of local social services authorities under this Schedule." ")
  Page 70, line 16, at end insert—
  ("Foster Children Act 1980 (c. 6)
  18. In subsection (5) of section 2 of the Foster Children Act 1980 (exceptions to meaning of foster child for purposes of Act) for the words from "home" to the end of the section there shall be substituted the words "care home within the meaning of Part I of Schedule 2A to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983".")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to move Amendments Nos. 78, 79 and 80. These are all consequential. Amendments Nos. 78 and 80 are consequential on Amendment No, 61, to which I spoke earlier. Amendment No. 16 was the main starter amendment for Amendment No. 79. My noble friend tells me that Amendment No. 81 is also consequential, as is Amendment No. 82. Amendment No. 16 was the paving amendment for Amendment No. 82. So, with your Lordships' permission, I shall move Amendments Nos. 78 to 82 en bloc. They are all consequential.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 83:
  Page 70, line 16, at end insert—
  ("Reserve Forces Act 1980 (c.9)
  18. The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Reserve Forces Act 1980 (army and air force pensioners and other former soldiers not liable to be recalled for service)—
  "2. A person who is receiving treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient in any establishment in the United Kingdom and is under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner.".")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to paragraph 2 of Schedule 2. This makes a reference to an area health authority. I fear that these bodies have now ceased to exist. The amendment corrects the anomaly and also, with the agreement of the Ministry of Defence, extends the provisions for the exemption from recall in to the Army and Air Force to include all mentally ill people who are receiving in-patient treatment under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner in a hospital or nursing home. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 84:
  Page 70, line 16, at end insert—
  ("PART II
  MEALS AND RECREATION FOR OLD PEOPLE
  1. A district council shall have power to make such arrangements as they may from time to time determine for providing meals and recreation for old people in their homes or elsewhere, and may employ as their agent for the purpose of this paragraph am voluntary organisation whose activities consist in or include the provision of meals or recreation for old people.
  2. A district council may recover from persons availing themselves of any service provided under paragraph 1 above such charges (if any) as they consider reasonable, having regard to the means of the person from whom they are to recover them.
  3. A district council may assist any such organisation as is referred to in paragraph 1 above to provide meals or recreation for old people—

  (a) by contributing to the funds of the organisation;

  (b) by permitting them to use premises belonging to the council on such terms as may be agreed; and

  (c) by making available furniture, vehicles or equipment (whether by way of gift or loan or otherwise) and the services of any staff who are employed by the council in connection with the premises or other things which they permit the organisation to use.

  4.—(1) District councils shall exercise their functions under this Part of this Schedule (including any discretion conferred on them under it) in accordance with the provisions of any regulations of the Secretary of State made for the purposes of this paragraph; and without prejudice to the generality of this paragraph, regulations under this paragraph—

  (a) may provide for conferring on officers of the Secretary of State authorised under the regulations such powers of
  794
  inspection as may be prescribed in relation to the exercise of functions under this Part of this Schedule by or by arrangement with or on behalf of district councils; and

  (b) may make provision with respect to the qualifications of officers employed by district councils for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule or by voluntary organisations acting under arrangements with or on behalf of district councils for those purposes.

  (2) The power to make regulations under this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  5. In this Part of this Schedule—
  "functions" includes powers and duties; and
  "voluntary organisation" means a body the activities of which are carried on otherwise than for profit, but does not include any public or local authority.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential upon Amendment No. 66. I beg to move
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Repeals and revocation]:
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 85:
  Page 21, line 16, at end insert—
  ("(3) The following, namely—

  (a) Subsection (3) of section 8 of the Mental Health Act 1959 (which provides that subsection (2) of that section shall not affect the operation of the provisions of Part IV of the National Assistance Act 1948, relating to charities for disabled persons); and

  (b) Schedule 1 to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (which specifies the enactments conferring functions assigned to the social services committee of a local authority),

  shall continue to have effect as amended by paragraphs 2(1) and 4(1) respectively of Schedule 1 to the Residential Homes Act 1980, notwithstanding the repeal of that Act by subsection (1) above.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 16, to which we spoke much earlier today. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 86:
  After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
  ("Power to repeal or amend local Acts.
  .—(1) The Secretary of State may by order—

  (a) repeal any provision of a local Act passed before or in the same Session as this Act if it appears to him that the provision is inconsistent with or has become unnecessary in consequence of any enactment contained in this Act or of regulations made under any such enactment;

  (b) amend any provision of such an Act if it appears to him that the provision requires amendment in consequence of any enactment contained in this Act or of regulations made under any such enactment or of any repeal made by virtue of the preceding paragraph;

  and an order made in pursuance of this subsection may include such incidental or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State considers are appropriate in connection with the order.
  (2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, before he makes an order in pursuance of subsection (1) above amending or repealing any provision of a local Act, to consult each local authority which he considers would be affected by the amendment or repeal of that provision.
  (3) The power to make orders conferred by subsection (1) above shall he exercisable by statutory instrument; and any statutory instrument made in the exercise of that power shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this amendment is to give the Secretary of State power to repeal by order any local Acts which are inconsistent with, or made unnecessary by, any provisions in the Bill or regulations made under the Bill. The Bill also imposes a duty to consult the local authorities affected. We know that there is some existing local legislation which will need to be repealed when this Bill is enacted. We shall be consulting local authorities to find out whether there are any local Acts of which we are not aware centrally. We aim to lay an order before your Lordships' House and in another place as soon as possible after Royal Assent. I understand that there are at least two precedents for this procedure. They are to be found in the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 10 [Repeals and Revocation]:
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell Moved Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 89:
  Page 70, column 3, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert—

  >

  ("The whole Act.")

  Page 70,line 38, at end insert—

  ("1966 c. 42.

  Local Government Act 1966.

  In Part II of Schedule 3, paragraph 31.")

  Page 71, line 3, column 3, at end insert—
  ("In section 78(1)(b) the words "and is engaged in remunerative employment".").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 87,88 and 89 en bloc. They are all consequential upon Amendments Nos. 69, 16 and 61.
  On Question amendments agreed to.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 90 to 99:
  Page 71, leave out line 15, column 3.
  Page 71,line 19, at end insert—

  ("1971 c. 62.

  Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971.

  In Schedule 1, Paragraph 30B.")

  Page 71,line 20, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 23, paragaraph 12")

  Page 71,line 23 at end insert—

  ("1975 c. 14

  Social Security Act 1975.

  In section 109(2), the proviso. Section 111. In section 117(4), the second paragraph. In section 155(d)(iii), the words "medical board or ".")

  Page 71,line 40, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Section 27(4) and (5). Section 28(8) and (9).")

  Page 71,line 45, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 3, paragraphs 29 and 30.")

  Page 71,line 46, column 3, at beginning insert—

  (" In section 12(4) the words from "and" onwards.")

  Page 71,line 54, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 7, paragraph 22(b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.")

  Page 71,line 54, at end insert—

  ("1977 c. 45.

  Criminal Law Act 1977.

  In Schedule 12, paragraph 1 of the entry relating to the Adoption Act 1976.")

  Page 72, line 57, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 15, paragraph 35. ")

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 61. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment Nos. 100 to 107:
  Page 73, line 2, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Section 27(4) and (5).

  Section 28(8) and (9).")

  leave out line 29.
  column 3, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert—

  ("The whole Act.")

  Page 74, line 30, after ("79,") insert ("paragraph 82(2) and (3)")
  Page 74, line 32, after ("3") insert (", in subsection ")
  Page 74, line 34, at end insert ("and subsections (6) and (8)")
  Page 74, line 35, at end insert ("and (5)")
  Page 74, line 35, at end insert—

  ("Section 7.

  Section 12.")

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 100 to 107 en bloc. They are all consequential.
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): I should draw the attention of the House to a misprint in the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 107 should read—
  Page 74, line 35, at end insert—".
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Commencement]:
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment 108:
  Page 21, line 17, leave out ("Part VI of Schedule 8 to this Act") and insert ("This section and sections 26 and 27 below")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 108, 110 and 111. The combined effect of these amendments is to remove the present very complex commencement clause and substitute a simple order-making power to enable different provisions to be brought into operation on different days. In doing so, I hope to anticipate points on Amendment No. 109 which I believe my noble friend Lord Renton might have raised had he been here. Having said that, and in the absence of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 108.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 110 and 111:
  Page 21, line 19, leave out ("The following") and insert ("Subject to subsection (1) above, the")
  leave out from beginning of line 24 to end of the clause.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 are consequential to Amendment No. 108, to which my noble friend has just spoken. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 26 [Extent]:
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell Moved Amendment No. 112:
  Page 22, leave out line 20.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment upon the provisions (which have been amended) of Clause 16(1). This now extends the provision of Clause 16 itself to Scotland. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 113, 114 and 115:
  Page 22, line 20, at end insert—
  ("(1A) The following provisions of this Act—

  (a) section 5 and paragraphs 11 and 12 of Schedule 1;

  (b) Part III and Schedule 2;

  (c) section 11(1) (except paragraphs (b) and (c)) and paragraph 1 of Schedule 6;

  (d) section 19(2) and paragraph 19(6) of Schedule 8;

  (e) section 21 (except paragraphs (a) and (c)),
  extend to Northern Ireland.")

  Page 22, line 21, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3) below,")
  Page 22,line 24, at end insert—
  ("(3) Where the Act makes—

  (a) an amendment of an enactment contained in an Act which makes special provision for extending or applying enactments contained in it to the Isles of Scilly; or

  (b) an addition to such an Act,

  the provision for extending or applying enactments shall authorise the extension or application of the amended enactment or addition to the Isles.
  (4) Subsection (3) above applies to an amended enactment whether or not the enactment was extended or applied to the Isles before it was amended.
  (5) Subject to subsections (2) to (4) above, this Act shall, in its application to the Isles, have effect subject to such extensions, adaptions and modifications as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument prescribe.
  (6) Any statutory instrument made in exercise of the power conferred by subsection (5) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 113, 114 and 115 en bloc. These are technical amendments and provide for the application of the relevant sections of the Bill to Northern Ireland and to the Isles of Scilly. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 27 [Short title]:
  [Amendment No.116 not moved.]
  In the Title:
  Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 117:
  Line 17, after ("adjudication") insert ("to make further provision for fees for medical practitioners' certificates relating to notifiable diseases and food poisoning")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this last amendment is a consequential amendment to the
  798
  Long Title of the Bill. At an earlier stage the Committee agreed to include a new clause in the Bill dealing with the fees paid to medical practitioners for the notification of infectious diseases. We find this now as Clause 20. The Long Title needs to be amended to provide for the new clause. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.

  Procedure of the House
  First report from the Select Committee made, and ordered to be printed.
  House adjourned at fourteen minutes before ten o'clock.