Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.] (Hansard, 18 January 1983)

HL Deb 18 January 1983 vol 437 cc1305-47 1305

§ 4.6 p.m.

§ House again in Committee on Clause 1.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 5:

§ Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert— ("( ) After subsection (4) of section 2 of the principal Act there shall be inserted— (4A) In making his recommendation pursuant to subsection (4) of this section the Secretary of State shall have a duty to ensure that there are sufficient Commissioners for The Mental Welfare Commission to exercise their functions in accordance with section 4 of this Act and that the Commissioners are sufficiently representative of all bodies including relevant Voluntary Agencies as appears to him to be concerned.".")

§ The noble Lord said: I have already made some reference to this amendment, perhaps slightly out of order, but although I have had some assurances from the Minister in connection with the composition of the commission I should like once more to emphasise that in the past the commission has tended to be largely representative of professional people involved in this area, to the neglect or oversight of representation of the people who are affected by the treatment they receive under mental care.

§ Therefore, I suggested in a previous amendment that not only should the Mental Welfare Commission be strengthened by numbers, but that it should also be strengthened by way of the breadth of representation which should be on the commission, and particularly by representation of the patient who, in the last analysis, receives the care and treatment from the service and who might be considered as a possible member of the commission. It is fairly common now in the case of all commissions to represent the consumer interest, and perhaps it might commend itself to the Minister that in selecting the members of the commission he should pay attention to that particular source.

§ I beg to move my amendment.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
I had hoped that I had given a fairly reasonable undertaking to the Committee in relation to my amendment, Amendment No. 4, which is in fact an alternative to the noble Lord's amendment but which, if I may say so, is a much more acceptable one. We realise and accept that there will perhaps have to be wider consultation than there has been in the past. As I said, there has been a good deal of informal consultation, and that takes place with a variety of bodies. It has not extended to the major voluntary organisations, and I think that in future it will have to do so.
I think we must ensure that they are consulted; and I have no doubt that, being aggressive—and I do not say that in an offensive sense—but being mindful of the people whose welfare they particularly want to 1306 represent and enhance, they will make it very plain when the matter of representation comes up that the commission is composed of people who would be agreeable as regards the voluntary bodies. I think it is better to do it as my Amendment No. 4 seeks to do it rather than to make the Secretary of State under a rather vague obligation as to which is "concerned", as in the last sentence of the noble Lord's amendment. But I do not think there is very much between us.

§ Baroness Macleod of Borve
I wonder whether I may briefly twist the arm of my noble friend? I am certain that he is aware that in the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill for England the voluntary bodies are not stipulated but that they are very much concerned. I happen to be the national chairman of a large voluntary body relating to hospitals in this country and indeed in Scotland, where we have a large representation of leagues of hospital friends. I have already received forms from the Minister in England asking if my organisation, or any similar voluntary bodies, would be prepared to serve on the commission in England. I would hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland would ensure that the voluntary bodies, which can give so much help in this direction, would certainly be consulted in Scotland.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
We are dealing with a very different point from that which we were dealing with in Lord Mansfield's amendment. His amendment was in relation to consultation. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be prepared to consult everybody in the whole of Scotland for that matter, but this is a different matter, and, to that extent, it is a much more important matter, because it deals with the recommendations that the Secretary of State makes to Her Majesty for appointment as a commissioner. We are now dealing with the actual appointments, where Lord Taylor of Gryfe's amendment specifically states that the Secretary of State has to ensure that the commissioners, are sufficiently representative of all bodies including relevant Voluntary Agencies". That is a very different matter. I do not think that it is vague. It is rightly specifically naming the voluntary bodies which are interested and have been interested, and many of which have been pressing for many of the kinds of amendment that we have in the Bill, and for some further amendment to strengthen the hand of the commission. I hope that the Minister will look at this again and not brush us off with a suggestion, "Well, if they are consulted that will be all right. They will be quite happy." Consultation is not enough. So far as this amendment is concerned, it is, before making a recommendation, ensuring that the commission will have some representatives of such bodies.

Lord Winstanley
I, too, hope that in the fullness of time we shall have an assurance that the commission itself will include commissioners—I do not say how many—of whom some at least will be capable of speaking on behalf of the different voluntary bodies. There are slight difficulties in the noble Lord's amendment, in that he merely requires that the Secretary of State shall ensure that, the Commissioners are sufficiently representative of all bodies". 1307 There are so many voluntary bodies, and it would be possible to read into this the right of each and every one of the voluntary bodies to have a representative on the commission. I do not think that that is the intention of the noble Lord. Were each voluntary body which is active in Scotland—and I know that they are very active indeed—to feel that as a result of this particular clause it was entitled to have a commissioner, then the commission would become an unwieldy body.
Merely leaving it to the Secretary of State to ensure that "the Commissioners are sufficiently representative of all bodies" is, again, a very open kind of statement. Who is to say what is sufficiently, and what is insufficiently? I hope that at some stage the noble Earl will be able to come back to the House with an amendment which will make it clear that the voice of the voluntary bodies will be heard among the commissioners, whereas I doubt that, without some kind of amendment, we really have an assurance that that will in fact be the case.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raises a point which goes a good deal further than what has so far been said so far as undertakings from me are concerned. I did not pursue the first part of the noble Lord's amendment because that was inherent in our first debate this afternoon, where I undertook to bring forward an amendment so far as the numbers and the composition of the body are concerned, which I hope will please everybody.
When I said that the Secretary of State, if this amendment was accepted, would be put under a rather vague duty or obligation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, took exception, I meant no more and no less than that. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, agrees with me. If one is going to have this as part of a statute one must do better than use such phrases as, "sufficiently representative of all bodies … as appear to him to be concerned". There are an enormous number of organisations, some of which are professional and some of which represent workers in the industry, so to speak, and, not least, there are the relevant voluntary agencies. It would be an extremely difficult task for any Secretary of State to carry out that obligation.
I cannot say at this juncture that I am committing the Secretary of State to actually appointing some person representing voluntary agencies as a commissioner. It would be quite wrong of me to do so at this moment, because it might well be that the Secretary of State, having taken the advice of such bodies—and let us not forget that they sometimes tend to have violently differing views, and probably all of us can think of examples—is going to have to steer some sort of a middle course to try to appoint one or more people who will be as nearly acceptable to all of them as possible, but certainly acceptable to the greater number.
I cannot take it further than that. It would be dishonest of me to do so. I assure the Committee that the purpose of this clause in the Bill is to try to ensure that in future the commission is going to be large enough to be able to carry out its greatly enlarged role, and, obviously, representative enough of all shades of 1308 opinion and experience to command general acceptance in Scotland.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
May I encourage the Minister to read the last report of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, which is titled, Does the Patient Come First? They comment on this area of concern for the patient with some critical comments on the National Health Service, and related to their own particular activities. On page 9 of that report they say that it appears to the Mental Welfare Commission that within the National Health Service the interests of the employees are taking precedence over those of the patient, and they recommend that the concern for the patient should be adequately represented in the commission and in the body which is going to handle these new responsibilities.
I can see the weakness which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has mentioned in connection with my amendment, in that it would include in membership of the commission a large number of voluntary organisations. Perhaps there has been some unfortunate draftsmanship there. I am content to feel that the case has been made this afternoon for the inclusion of voluntary organisations who do tremendous, painstaking, difficult work in this area. The case has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, with some experience [...] that field. I would certainly commend to the Minister that representation of some of these committed people in the voluntary organisations, who have a deep concern for the rights of the patient, should be present in the commission. I should be content to leave it there.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 4.20 p.m.

§ The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 6: Page 1, line 6, after first ("of) insert ("the said")

§ The noble Earl said: This drafting amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.

§ On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 7: Page 1, line 11, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")

§ The noble Lord said: Although this would make the simple change from "may" to "shall", I can recall some heated arguments on the subject, which has been debated often and at length; but I hope we shall not have that sort of debate today. What the Government are doing, strangely enough—and they are not doing it very well from the drafting point of view—is that, whereas at present the Secretary of State is empowered to pay the commissioners any remunerations and allowances, and so on (which everyone understood, and I do not think anybody ever complained about), we are now told: The Mental Welfare Commission may… pay to the said commissioners such remuneration", and so on. While, seemingly, we have taken the Secretary of State out of it, we need have no fear; he is still there because the provision goes on to refer to such sums, as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine".

1309

§ If the Secretary of State has determined the matter and has received the approval of the Treasury, why need we insert the word "may" in respect of the commission? Surely by that time we should say that they "shall" pay. The only possible reason not to say "shall" is that somebody will be working without payment, in which case that exception should be spelt out in the Bill. Normally, however, if the body receives the money from the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury, that money should be paid to the commissioners.

§ In any event, I do not like the new idea at all. I think it was better as it was. The Government have become confused, especially over some of the provisions we shall be discussing later about who pays what to whom, and who provides what. Whereas what we are discussing now applies only to commissioners, later we shall be discussing the same sort of dilemma in relation to staff, who are provided for by the Secretary of State and paid for by the commission.

§ I see no justification for the "may" in this provision. If it is included because of the exception I posed—the possibility of somebody working without payment; which has been known to happen—that should be provided for; otherwise, it gives far too big a discretion, not to the Secretary of State this time but to the commission, which could even bring pressure to bear on people by saying, "We expect you to work for nothing". I beg to move.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
This is similar to a number of amendments which follow, but I will take this one on its own, as the noble Lord did. If accepted it would require, rather than enable, the Mental Welfare Commission to pay remuneration to commissioners and to make provision for pensions, and so on. The fact is that some commissioners may not wish to receive any remuneration. For example, Lord McDonald, the chairman, as a High Court judge, is prevented by virtue of his office from accepting remuneration. Thus, if "may" was changed to "shall" it would be forcing the commission to do what some of the commissioners would not want it to do.
It is essential that somebody has power to pay remuneration to the part-time commissioners and salaries to the full-time commissioners. At present, as the noble Lord correctly states, it is the Secretary of State who exercises this power. Clause 1 proposes that in future the commission should exercise the power, in line with other provisions which, in effect, will place in their own hands the management of their own financial affairs, which I think will be much more satisfactory.
Coming back to the wording of the amendment, it is better—indeed, it is undesirable and unnecessary to impose upon them a duty to pay people who do not wish to be paid or who are perhaps estopped from being paid—to leave the provision as it stands, rather than insert the word "shall", which would enjoin them to do what they would not want to do.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
The Secretary of State is still in command because the provision concludes with the words: as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine". 1310 It is only playing, therefore, to suggest that more power is being given to the commission in this matter; the position will be exactly as it was before from the commission's point of view.
In saying "may" instead of "shall" there is the danger that the commission may say, "We need not give any money because so-and-so does not take it, nor does so-and-so", and there will be pressure on some people to say, "In that case, we will not take it, either", when it may be they are in desperate need of the money. After all, there is nothing to prevent them taking the money and returning it: doing that would meet all the legal demands on a judge or anyone else. I am not entirely happy with the noble Earl's reply, but I shall not continue the argument here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 4.28 p.m.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 8: Page 1, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert ("allowances").

§ The noble Lord said: The lines which the amendment propose to leave out read: The Mental Welfare Commission may … make provision for the payment of such pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of the said commissioners".

§ We have been told that they will be in office for about four years. We have also been told that a learned judge has been there for 17 years. He will be pensioned off as a judge, so I do not think he will be further pensioned off for a position in which he did not take any salary.

§ Will the commissioners all be full-time? If so, I can understand the justification for there being pensions. If not, may we be told when all this started? Remember, if they are only part-timers, that means they have other jobs and, according to the law of the land, those jobs must be superannuated, either in the Government or private sense. So when did we start this business of giving pensions or gratuities to part-time commissioners who may be in position for only four years?

§ We are more and more going over to this business where everything must be paid for; it is coming more and more into new towns and everything else, that, somehow or another, people are paid pensions for part-time work. I know it was not the case when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was chairman of the Hydro Board. This kind of thing did not apply then. I think he would just have shrugged his shoulders and said, "No. I do not want this kind of thing". I want to know the philosophy behind this and whether we can justify payment of a pension for, it may well be, a chairman who works part-time, with perhaps two-fifths of his time being applied to the duties. If he is there for only four years, how much pension does this represent? How is it justified? Allowances, yes. That is fair enough. But to go on to the question of gratuities and pensions is being a bit generous with public money. I beg to move.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
I seem to have heard the noble Lord's argument before on this matter in some of the other legislation that we have dealt with in the last three and a half years or so. This is a perfectly ordinary power, a permissive power, that in future the commission which, as I have said, is responsible for its 1311 own finances, so to speak, can pay pensions, allowances and gratuities in respect of commissioners. The Treasury has requested that as a matter of course in future such provisions should be written into this sort of legislation even if, in fact, there are not to be or were not any full-time commissioners at the moment. It is a permissive power which takes effect for the present and in the future.
As we know, there are two full-time commissioners and there may in future be more. I think it is axiomatic to their taking the job that they should be entitled to remuneration, to salaries, if they are full-time and, when they retire, to pensions. I see no reason why this appointment should be an exception to the rule. There are also occasions when small pensions are paid to chairmen or members of bodies such as this who have put in enough time to become entitled to pensions, and I see no reason or any justification for removing the proposed power to provide for pensions to be made.
I want to stress to the Committee that the payment of remuneration and provision of pensions or allowances or gratuities are all subject to the approval of the Treasury, so that there is no question of there not being perfectly adequate financial control over any payments that the commission may propose to make. All that it is is an enabling power to behave—properly, some may think—in relation to its quasi-employees just like any other body of this nature.

Lord Winstanley
Before the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, decides what course of action he will pursue with regard to his amendment, may I say a word which perhaps he might consider in relation to what has been said already. I share his view about certain aspects of the amendment that he has moved. I think that we can perhaps lean over rather too far in relation to paying people for the kind of duties which in the past were generally regarded as being jobs which people did because they wanted to do them. But there is another aspect of this matter which ought to be borne in mind, and particularly with a commission such as this, on which it is possible that perhaps we may want quite senior medical people or professional people who are in employment to take on the duties of a commissioner for, it might be, two days, three days or even four days a week. It might perhaps be necessary before a person could accept appointment as a chairman or as a member of the commission that that person should give up full-time, superannuated employment. I am aware of cases where this question has arisen, and I have a particular case in mind.
Where a person is persuaded to become a commissioner and, in order to do the work of a commissioner effectively, decides to retire from superannuated employment, then I think that it is perhaps appropriate for the period of his office and for this particular commission that he might benefit from this being superannuated, or pensionable in some form, to make up for the kind of sacrifice that he has made in order to take up the appointment. Those cases are rare, but I think they are less rare in relation to a commission of this kind which may require the services of professional people than they are in some of the other commissions about which the noble Lord may be thinking.

1312

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
All these commissioners, since the year 1962 when the commission was set up, have been labouring under this situation; and I have never heard a single complaint. Not one! The position at the moment is that the Secretary of State may pay to the said commissioners such remuneration and allowances as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine. If the question is one of full-time commissioners, then I can understand. In fact, where anyone is employing anybody at all under the laws of this country, there has to be superannuation. It might not be very much in the Government scheme, but that is part of the terms of employment.
I do not see why this should be extended. Although the Minister says that it is permissible, it is entirely up to the commission itself. I am not terribly happy about it. I want to know when this practice started. When did this generosity of the Treasury, who now insist that this should be common form in all this kind of legislation, begin? I might even have been Secretary of State myself when it started. I do not remember it. But it is as well to know. It may be that the information is not readily available. If we can return to this at a later stage, then for the moment I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. But I myself am happy that allowances are adequate to meet this case as they have been for the past 15 years or so.

§ Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

§ The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford)
Before calling Amendment No. 9 I should inform your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 10.

§ 4.39 p.m.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (7A).

§ The noble Lord said: I should like to know what all these things mean. I wish I had the time to go into the Library and sit for hours going through the provisions of the National Health Service Act 1978 as now applied to health boards, Section 85(1), (2A), (4) and (6), and so on. But why should I? We have a Minister here who is paid to enlighten us. Can he tell me exactly what these mean—these heads (a) and (b) of (7A)? I am interested particulary in the provisions about expenditure being met by the Secretary of State and Sections 85A(1) to (3), which impose financial duties. What are the financial duties? I beg to move.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
Clause 1 inserts this new subsection (7A) into Section 2 of the principal Act. Subsection (7A) applies to the Mental Welfare Commission as they apply to a health board certain provisions of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 as amended by the Health Services Act 1980, and these provisions will enable the Secretary of State to meet the expenses of the commission and will oblige the commission to maintain accounts and observe other financial proprieties. Without these provisions, the commission will not be able to function because there will be no means of defraying their expenditure. What in fact this does is to regularise the funding of the commission.

1313

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
That is to say, the new funding of the commission?

§ The Earl of Mansfield
That is right.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
So all this arises out of the changes that we have already made which are, to my mind, illusory in giving a greater measure of freedom and independence to the commission; whereas we have already discovered that they are independent and free so far as the Secretary of State will allow, and so far as the Treaury will allow the Secretary of State to allow them to allow. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 10: Page 2, line 8, leave out ("to") and insert ("and").

§ The noble Lord said; This is a minor drafting amendment. It is intended that subsections (1) and (3), which we find in Section 85A of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, should apply to the Mental Welfare Commission in the same way that they apply to a health board, but not subsection (2) of Section 85A because this is wholly irrelevant. With that brief explanation, I beg to move the amendment.

§ On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 11: Page 2, line 10, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

§ The noble Lord said: This is the "may" and "shall" argument again. The Bill reads: The Secretary of State may provide for the Mental Welfare Commission such officers.

§ There is no question of these officers not being anxious to be paid, I am perfectly sure. There is no reason to my mind why the word "shall" should not be used. That will give some reassurance to the commission that they really are going to get something. I beg to move.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
There is a very good reason in this particular instance. If we take Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 together, it would in effect mean that the Secretary of State would be under a duty to provide the commission with such accommodation, and so on, as they may require. If we equate the word "require" with demand, then the commission would be in a very enviable position indeed. I do not believe that any Secretary of State would want to be under that duty. In this particular instance, I say all the more strongly that this is a case where the Secretary of State should be provided with a power. He obviously must have power to enable him to provide the commission with accommodation. It is quite unnecessary for him to have to be under a duty to do so. I do not believe that any Secretary of State is likely to leave the commission without a roof over its head. Equally, he should not be placed under a duty by statute to have to give whatever they shall require of him.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
Why does the Secretary of State need to do this under the new régime, the new power, the new freedoms that we are giving to the commission? Why do they not do it for themselves?

1314

§ The Earl of Mansfield
They have to have the cash.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
Of course, they have to have the cash. We have already been told that they are going to get the cash. They are going to get the cash from the Secretary of State. All this comes from the change which is quite unnecessarily being made by the Government. It does not end there. I have another amendment which I shall come to—I think we had better come to it right away, so I shall withdraw this amendment. We are getting nowhere, anyway, with "may" and "shall". I shall proceed to the next amendment with more hope.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 12: Page 2, line 11, leave out from first ("such") to end of line.

§ The noble Lord said: This invites the Government to remove certain words from "such" to the end of the line. At the moment the provision reads: The Secretary of State may provide for the Mental Welfare Commission such officers and servants and such accommodation as the Commission may require".

§ I suggest that we leave out the officers and servants but we leave in the accommodation. Why do I suggest that? If we turn in our "hymn books" to page No. 3, with Clause 5 thereon, we find that it says that the Mental Welfare Commission may appoint officers and servants, and may make provision for the payment of remuneration to people appointed as officers and servants, and so on. What is this provision doing here? I think there has been some rather strange drafting. It certainly escapes me as to why this should be in the Bill twice. The Secretary of State is going to provide for the Mental Welfare Commission officers, servants and accommodation that are required. I leave "accommodation" in because that is not mentioned in Clause 5. Perhaps the Minister of State can give me a simple explanation that I have overlooked. But, for the life of me, I do not see it. If we are going to have Clause 5, what are we going to do with this one? Why is it needed at all? I beg to move.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to reconcile the evident desire of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to extend the function of the commission with his apparent desire to render the body completely ineffective—and, worse than that, inactive. His Amendment No. 9 would have deprived the body of all financial support; this amendment taken with a desire to leave out Clause 5—which comes later—will deprive them of all their staff.
The purpose of this particular subsection (7B) is to enable the Secretary of State to continue to provide staff for the commission. The reason is simple: the commission has a small staff and it is desirable that any unforeseen reduction in that staff should not result in delay to the work which may be of very considerable importance to individual patients. The Scottish Office has a relatively large staff. It is in a position to help if the commission suddenly finds itself short-handed. So by retaining the Secretary of State's power to provide staff, what we do is enable the Scottish Office to provide immediate help without any formality if the commission should experience a temporary staffing crisis.
1315 I urge the noble Lord not to take such a suspicious view of what we are trying to do, which is to enable the commission financially and actually to stand on its feet, with the restraints appropriate to any such body, and at the same time to have the maximum flexibility; and we want to provide help in this particular instance if it should be needed.

The Earl of Selkirk
The point that the noble Earl has made is interesting. The Mental Welfare Commission will now be entirely independent. It will appoint its own staff in the ordinary way. This amendment allows the Secretary of State to give help temporarily to fill some immediate requirement, or possibly one that will arise in the immediate future until the commission has time and opportunity to appoint its own staff. The object is that the commission staff shall eventually be its own. Am I right in thinking that, or is there some other explanation?

§ The Earl of Mansfield
My noble friend is perfectly right. This is what I might describe as a "top-up" power to help out, so far as staff is concerned, in an emergency.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
But why should that be so? Clause 5 of the Bill says that the Mental Welfare Commission may appoint, under (a) and (b), such persons, as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine. There is no need for any top-up. What is happening is simply that the Secretary of State still has to provide the money: that is really what the Minister of State is saying. He is making the change in the Bill so that it appears to everyone that the commission is now going to be its own master. It is not going to be its own master; and this is being done by "doctoring" a Bill, putting something in Clause 1 and then putting in a new Clause 5, when really what we ought to have had was a new Bill. We could then all have understood what was happening and the Minister of State would not have got tied up in a "topping-up" explanation which, to my mind, has no relation at all to what is being done here. If he had said to me that if I proceeded to destroy this particular subsection it would mean that the Secretary of State had no statutory power to give any money to the commission, then I could have understood it. But I do not know that the Scottish Office knows what it is at in respect of the draftsmanship of this.
The Scottish Office is not responsible. It was the Government who decided that they wanted only to have an amending Bill, and to anyone who has tried to amend this Bill I can say that it is very, very confusing indeed to try to amend it. I am sorry to say that I spent most of Christmas and New Year trying to do that—I have got to do something with my spare time. I am not going to do anything in the next fortnight, so let us have a return to this long after the Burns Supper period. These are simple facts and the Minister of State has tied himself into knots about the complexity of the draftsmanship. However, I will not worry him too much on this at the moment. I will return to it on a belated Report stage. It may well be that it will be Third Reading before we get round to this and get a 1316 suitable explanation from the Secretary of State. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment and will leave him to reconsider it himself before the next stage.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford)
I should explain that Amendment No. 13 has taken the wrong place on the Marshalled List. It will be a pleasure postponed for the noble Lord until after Amendment No. 15, when I shall call it. It is an amendment, in effect, to Clause 2.

§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

§ 4.47 p.m.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 14:

§ After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:

§ ("Duty of Mental Welfare Commission in respect of persons suffering from mental disorder.

§ . For subsection (1) of section 4 of the principal Act there shall be substituted—

§ "(1) It shall be the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission generally to exercise protective functions in respect of persons individually or collectively who may by reason of mental disorder require care or be incapable of adequately protecting their persons or interests, and, where those persons are liable to be detained in hospital or subject to guardianship under the following provisions of this Act, their functions as aforesaid shall include in appropriate cases, the discharge of patients in accordance with the said provisions.".").

§ The noble Lord said: I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. As was said on Second Reading, it is a great pity that the opportunity was not taken to introduce a new Bill, because in amending this legislation we have to make references to other Bills. But here it is and, though I, like the noble Lord, Lord Ross, find some difficulty in the semantics of this Bill, I am concerned about Amendment No. 14 and consequently No. 15, which are not dealing with the "mays" or "shalls" of the Bill but are dealing with the responsibilities of the Mental Welfare Commission.

§ These amendments are key amendments, policy amendments, and have been prepared in consultation, if I may say so, with the Scottish Association for Mental Welfare, the Glasgow Association for Mental Health and the voluntary Link organisation, which is concerned with the after-care of people who have suffered from mental illness. The important thing about Amendment No. 14 is that, while the Mental Welfare Commission's responsibilities are clearly defined, we are suggesting here that they should have an additional responsibility. The fact is that the commission responds on the initiative of individuals who feel that they have a complaint in connection with wrongful detention or maltreatment, and so on. The important phrase in this amendment is this: It shall be the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission generally to exercise protective functions in respect of persons individually or collectively who may by reason of mental disorder require care or be incapable of adequately protecting", and so on. This means that it moves away from an individual's initiative for establishing complaints into the more general area of looking at policy for the care of the mentally ill.

§ I think that it is a key amendment and would be a useful addition to the responsibilities. It gives the 1317 Mental Welfare Commission a much broader responsibility to be concerned about those suffering from mental disorder, wherever they may be, without the patient initiating the contact by complaint. It is not limiting the commission to dealing solely with questions of release from compulsory detention. Consequently, if we were to take the opportunity of giving extended power to the commission, I think we could do it in this amendment and it would do a great deal to assure those who are concerned with mental welfare that the commission is going to be an important and a central body as regards policy. I beg to move.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
I understand the desire of the noble Lord to require the commission—I think I am more or less using the words he used—to move into a more general arena. The way the noble Lord intends to do it is by inserting the words "individually or collectively" and, secondly, the words "require care or" into the existing provision. I have to say to the noble Lord that the word "persons" is not made any more general by adding these words "individually or collectively". The expression, persons who may by reason of mental disorder be incapable of adequately protecting their persons or interests", does embrace all those who require care. In other words, what I am saying to the noble Lord is that, if he thinks that by the insertion of these words into the Bill or into the Act he is transferring or enlarging the commission's attentions to classes of person rather than to individuals, then I have to tell him that these words are ineffective and unnecessary to achieve that purpose. No doubt this will be discussed in connection with the next amendment No. 15 and I do not want to anticipate that debate: nor do I want to anticipate my own amendment, which is No. 18 and which I think meets the aim of the noble Lord rather more effectively. However, as I say, we shall come to that shortly.
So persons who are incapable, by reason of mental disorder, of adequately protecting their persons or interests certainly include persons who require care. It is a wider expression. There may be people who could not be described as needing care who would, nevertheless, be incapable of adequately protecting their interests. So, as I say, the additional words do not broaden the scope of the existing provision.
The terms, as they exist at the moment, in Section 4(1) have never prevented the Mental Welfare Commission from exercising their protective functions in respect of groups of patients, rather than individuals. I think that we can in other ways ensure that the commission are not inhibited in raising wider issues on behalf of patients in general, which is a somewhat different matter. I hope that the noble Lord will realise that, in many ways, I am sympathetic to what he seeks to achieve. But I do not think that the way in which he seeks to achieve it is particularly effective and I believe we can do rather better in the later amendment.

The Earl of Selkirk
I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said. It is frightfully difficult to find out what this Bill covers. I have been more lucky, perhaps, in that I have not succeeded in getting a copy of the 1960 Act, but it is 1318 extremely difficult for me to follow this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has made a number of points which we must all feel are right. This is the sort of thing which the Mental Welfare Commission should be able to do. My noble friend has told us—and I have to accept this—that the amendment is unnecessary and that this point is covered by different words in other places. Am I right in that? As I understand it, it is the job of the commission to protect their persons. Is this properly covered, or do words which are at least in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has suggested, need to be incorporated at some point? I cannot follow closely enough either this Bill or the principal Act to be sure about that, and if my noble friend could give an assurance I should be very grateful.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
I sympathise with my noble friend. This method of textual amendment of previous Acts is not one which means that one can pick up the Bill and immediately understand what the Government are trying to do. What I said to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was that, so far as the powers and functions are concerned, the Mental Welfare Commission can already do what he seeks to allow them to do by virtue of the amendment. They are perfectly capable of doing that, as the original Section 4(1) stands.
But what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, seeks to do—and I have no doubt that we shall come to it in later amendments—is to widen the scope of the commission's activities. I see him nodding. As I have said, that is something for which I have a certain sympathy. But there is a Government amendment, Amendment No. 18. It would not help our deliberations to start talking about it now, but a casual look at that amendment shows that it sets out the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission in a way which I say will achieve what the noble Lord wants to achieve, in a way which is better than trying to write into the Bill, in a perfectly praiseworthy manner, what the commission are not stopped from doing already.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
Surely, the question is whether or not they are doing it. The feeling is abroad—and we should like to be corrected on this—that the commission are a very passive organisation, that they sit and wait for complaints and that they are not the kind of dynamic organisation which should be improving the whole care and attention that is being paid to people who are suffering from mental illness. That is why we hoped that we would get a different Bill, a new Bill and a Bill in advance of what is being done, instead of this jogging amendment Bill which nobody can understand without a great deal of trouble. That is because, even if you have available the original Act, you discover that that has been amended three or four times.
I am sure that the Public Bill Office must be furious with me for having sent down an amendment, for then having sent down an amending amendment and for them 'phoning down to amend the amending amendment, in order to get it right. With all due respect, if we are to be able to do the job which the House of Lords must do, we must have the wherewithal to do it. We are not even provided with an amended principal Act, in order that we can readily 1319 understand. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, would have welcomed something like that. He has asked time and time again that we should be provided with this kind of basic information, in order to be able to do the job of the House of Lords. The House of Lords inflates its importance by saying that we are doing our job. But we are not doing it; if we cannot understand the Bill, then we cannot amend it. Possibly, this also applies to another place as well. If mystification is the purpose of the Government, then they are succeeding.
What we are concerned with is, first, strengthening the commission and, secondly, ensuring that they carry out their functions. Protection for people suffering from mental illness within the community is not provided in all cases. It is not entirely the task of the commission to do that, because there are other authorities. But unless the commission are empowered to ensure that that is done—and health authorities and local authorities are also involved—then the task will never be done. I think that that is the main concern of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
It is a very serious matter, when we have 23,000 people—I do not know how many more there will be within the next month—who are dependent on the kind of protection and care which they get through the principal Act, as now amended. The Minister should appreciate that what we are saying is that the patient should come first, whether he is in hospital or outside. I am more concerned in respect of the commission's functions and responsibilities as regards people who are not detained in hospital, and I do not think that this function is being carried out properly, either by the commission or by local authorities.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, was out of the Chamber at the beginning of my original discourse and I shall not weary the Committee with a repeat of it. But one must get straight, if one can, the fact that there are two aspects to this question. First, there are the powers of the commission and, secondly, there is the question of their duty and how it is that they shall be enjoined, so far as a statute can enjoin a body such as this, to carry out that duty. What I have said, so far as Amendment No. 14 is concerned, is that the words which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, seeks to insert into the Bill will not give the commission any new powers over and above those which they already possess. Indeed, they can do everything which is, in effect, implied by the words in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. So that, so far as the legalities are concerned, the amendment is not advancing us one whit.
I turn now to what I know is the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and, possibly, my noble friend Lord Selkirk. They want to see to it that the commission play a rather larger part than they have played up till now. I hope noble Lords agree when we come to Amendment No. 18, which is a Government amendment, that we are going some way to doing what they want. But as regards this amendment—and I do not say this offensively—the words are quite pointless.

1320

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
In view of the fact that we are to consider Government Amendment No. 18, which deals with this matter, at this stage I am prepared to withdraw Amendment No. 14. I hope that the points made will be taken care of, as the Minister assures us they will, in the amendment which he is to move. I beg leave, therefore, to withdraw Amendment No. 14.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 5.10 p.m.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 15:

§ After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:

§ ("Duties of Mental Welfare Commission.

§ For subsection (2) of section 4 of the principal Act there shall be substituted—

§ "(2) In the exercise of their functions as aforesaid and without prejudice to the generalities of these it shall be the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission:

(a) to ascertain any case where it appears to them that there may be ill treatment, deficiency in care or treatment, or improper detention of any person who may be suffering from mental disorder, or where the property of any such person may by reason of his mental disorder, be exposed to loss or damage, and to act in accordance with its duties and requirements under subsections (c) and (d) of section 4.
(b) to visit regularly, and as often as they may think appropriate, patients who are liable to be detained in a hospital or who are subject to guardianship and in the case of patients liable to be detained in a hospital, so to visit each of them at least once every' three years and on any such visit to afford an opportunity, on request, for private interview to any such patient as aforesaid or, where the patient is in a hospital to any other patient in that hospital.
(c) to bring to the attention of any Board of Management or of any Local Authority the facts of any case in which in the opinion of the Mental Welfare Commission it is desirable for the Board of Management of the Local Authority to exercise any of the functions of that Board or of that Authority to secure the welfare of any patient suffering from mental disorder by

(i) preventing his ill-treatment.
(ii) remedying any deficiency in his care or treatment.
(iii) terminating his improper detention, or
(iv) preventing or redressing loss or damage to his property.

(d) to bring to the attention of any Board of Management, Local Authority, Local Health Authority, or other body, any matter in which, in the opinion of the Mental Welfare Commission, that Local Authority, Board of Management or other body might exercise any of its functions to promote the welfare of persons suffering from mental disorder".").

§ The noble Lord said: In so far as it extends the responsibilities of the Mental Welfare Commission, Amendment No. 15 develops the argument which I advanced on Amendment No. 14. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said, the commission tends to be a rather passive organisation, apart from the fact that it responds to individual complaints on discharge of maltreatment and so on. Because, by tradition, the commission has been rather circumscribed, apart from the law on the matter, it does not take the positive action which is called for in any new Bill dealing with the care of the mentally ill. The proposed Amendment No. 15 tries to give it a much more positive impact.

§ The key words in the amendment are that it shall be the duty of the commission in the exercise of its functions to ascertain any case where it appears to it 1321 that there may be ill-treatment, deficiency in care, and so on. It will not wait until a patient applies. It will try to ascertain where adequate care is not being provided. This does not mean that it will go and look at patients in hospital or visit hospitals which care for the mentally ill. It may try to ascertain where there is a need by going to places like model lodging houses in Glasgow to ascertain whether there is a need for treatment of people who find themselves in these unfortunate circumstances but who have never heard of the Mental Welfare Commission.

§ The amendment provides for much more extended and substantial responsibilities for the Mental Welfare Commission. First, it would give it the duty to seek out or to ascertain. It would give it the power to fund research into how far the mentally ill are being cared for. It might wish to find out how many people are taking advantage of the Mental Welfare Commission facilities and how many have not heard about it. It would have a monitoring and advisory role in connection with the policy of care for the mentally sick. For that reason it would have the additional responsibility of drawing attention to local authorities which perhaps make inadequate provision for the care of the mentally ill. These broad responsibilities are necessary in order to make the Mental Welfare Commission a positive and an important body for the care of the mentally ill.

§ Like the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I spent some time over Christmas trying, though with great difficulty, to prepare amendments to the Bill. At the same time, I spent a good deal of time with some of the people who are engaged in caring for the mentally sick. It is a great national problem in Scotland. Indeed, it is a much bigger problem in Scotland than it is in England. In certain areas of medicine we have been able to pioneer new techniques. The original Act was a pioneering Act. I suggest to the Government that in this case they have a chance to lay down responsibilities which will make the commission a powerful, important and dynamic force in the treatment of the mentally sick in Scotland. I move this amendment with, I hope, some conviction.

§ Lord Lyell
I am sure your Lordships will have listened with very great interest to the eloquent moving of his amendment, and the principles which lie behind it, by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and all your Lordships that the Government are very willing to accept in part—and I stress "in part"—the principle of Amendment No. 15. However, may I draw the attention of the Committee to new paragraph (d) of the amendment? Your Lordships will see that this amendment would substitute a new subsection (2) for subsection (2) of Section 4. The effect of paragraph (d) would be to require the Mental Welfare Commission to draw the attention of various bodies to the matters which would affect the interests of persons suffering from mental disorder.
May I draw the attention of your Lordships, and especially the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, to Amendment No. 18, to which I shall speak later? Your Lordships will see that Amendment No. 18 proposes that a new subsection (6) should be substituted for subsection (6) of Section 4. It would 1322 have the same effect as the new paragraph (d) of Amendment No. 15. But there is one part of Amendment No. 15 which is not reflected in the Government amendment. I refer to the amended text of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) in Section 4. The commission's present duty is to inquire into any case which comes to its attention where there may be ill-treatment, neglect or something of that kind. The amendment would make it the duty of the commission to ascertain any such case and then to act in accordance with its duties under the other provisions of Section 4.
I assure the Committee that the alterations suggested by Amendment No. 15 would have no real effect other than to cause a certain amount of confusion. The duty of the commission under paragraph (a) is properly expressed as a duty to make inquiry. A case might come to its attention in which it would be bound to pursue its inquiry until it was satisfied as to the outcome. At one extreme the inquiry may consist of such simple matters as a telephone call, or a visit by an officer of the commission or by a commissioner. At the other extreme it may consist of a formal inquiry under the powers which are set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, which your Lordships will find on page 41 of the Bill. Certainly it is the duty of the commission to establish whether there is any case to be answered. A criminal charge case would be referred by the commission to the procurator-fiscal.
At this stage I agree to consider the implication of the words, "to ascertain any case". I shall certainly take that point on board. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, will be content with the acceptance in principle of this part of the amendment which he has moved.

The Earl of Selkirk
As I understand the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—I have great sympathy for his point of view—in his amendment he is putting a clear duty on the Mental Welfare Commission. He says that it shall be the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission to ascertain. As far as I can see in Amendment No. 18, there is a duty to advise the Secretary of State but there is no clear duty to ascertain. That seems to be the difference. Could this be considered at another stage? I believe that the noble Lord is right in that the intention of Amendment No. 18 is much the same—but I am not clear that it is a negative action, rather than a positive action, which is what the noble Lord is trying to emphasise.

§ Lord Lyell
I hope that my noble friend will accept that we have agreed to consider this matter—the question of ascertainment—which has been raised. I am not clear about the negative or positive aspects raised by my noble friend as I consider that Amendment No. 18 will place a duty on the commission to advise the Secretary of State and to bring certain factors to his attention. I hope that before the commission carried out either of these two duties, they would certainly ascertain all the factors which lay in the particular case. I will give an undertaking that we will consider this matter of ascertainment raised in Amendment No. 15. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, will accept that. We take on board the 1323 principle of Amendment No. 15, but we believe that this object can be achieved by Amendment No. 18.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
I accept the noble Lord's assurance that the Government will look at the positive functions of the commission, but the noble Lord has not replied on the more general functions of the commission in its duties to conduct research or ascertain and monitor the performance of local authorities and other bodies in this area. I am not sure that Amendment No. 18 covers this point, but I await with interest the statement on Amendment No. 18 and will accept the assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in respect of the introduction of responsibility for ascertainment being a function of the commission.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 13:

§ Page 2, line 13, at beginning insert— ("(1) In subsections (1) and (2)(b) of section 4 of the principal Act references to "guardianship" shall be omitted.")

§ The noble Lord said: This amendment may strike some people as being rather curious, and I am the first to admit that it does not do what I would like it to do. Its function is to raise a subject which has been raised both publicly and privately by the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties and by the Scottish Association for Mental Health: the value of the whole question of guardianship with regard to mental health. In the Second Reading debate the figures were quoted showing those in Scotland who are subject to this type of guardianship, and they are remarkably few, which shows that there is less and less resort to guardianship.

§ Guardianship of this kind means the appointment of guardians who virtually take control of the comings and goings of a person. There is considerable encroachment on their liberty. I believe it is really regarded as an alternative to better community care, and as such has not really succeeded. There is an element of the whole ideology of compulsion which is repugnant to many people. The view is not that guardianship should be dropped and nothing else done. This worries certain people, such as elderly people with children who have some mental illness. They want a measure of reassurance about what will happen to their children when they are no longer around. Some are comforted by guardianship, but that is only a second best. They cannot be terribly reassured by that.

§ What we want is a much more specific type of community care which would give real reassurance in these cases. The same applies in respect of the Scottish Association for Mental Health. They are not aware of guardianship being used in respect of mental illness and would rather see it dropped from the Bill. I am not going that far, but this amendment gives the Government an opportunity to answer some of the points which have been made. Let the Government not think that I am out to destroy the Bill; they have almost done that themselves by its incomprehensibility. The reason is the nature of the Bill. This is a probing amendment and I hope that there will be a reasonable answer to the probing. I beg to move.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
Subsection (1) of Section 4 1324 requires the Mental Welfare Commission generally to exercise protective functions in respect of mentally disordered persons, and provides that, where such persons are liable to be detained in hospital or are subject to guardianship, the commission's functions include the discharge of such persons. Removing the reference to guardianship from this provision would mean that the commission would have no general duty to exercise protective functions in respect of persons under guardianship. The duty to discharge persons from guardianship in appropriate cases would also be removed, but this would not matter because the reference to discharge in Section 4 is just a forward reference to the specific duty to discharge contained in Section 43.
Subsection (2)(b) requires the commission to visit persons who are subject to detention in hospital or guardianship, and there may seem to be some merit in removing the reference to guardianship from this provision. Persons under guardianship will be subject to far less restriction of their freedom than persons detained in hospital. However, the duty to visit means that the commission must not only be accessible to such persons but must also take periodic steps to maintain direct contact. This ensures that the commission will have first hand knowledge of each patient.
Taking the two references separately, removal of the first would exclude patients under guardianship from the general protective functions of the Mental Welfare Commission, and I can see no good reason for doing this. Although a patient subject to guardianship will not be subject to the same degree of restriction as one detained in hospital, he will, because of his mental disorder, be subject to some interference with his personal liberty. As such, it is right that such a person should come within the ambit of the Mental Welfare Commission—and we are talking about extending the functions of the commission.
So far as the second part of it is concerned, I would have thought it better, and indeed for the benefit of the patient, that the commission should continue to have a duty to maintain direct contact at intervals and to have first-hand knowledge of the patient's circumstances. So I do not think that in this case the civil liberty argument really applies very much.
I have to say that guardianship is not very much used at present. It no longer has the place in the care of mentally handicapped persons which it once occupied and is not regarded as having much relevance for the mentally ill. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will know that there is a considerable division between some of the voluntary bodies as to the uses of guardianship in relation to the mentally ill, and more especially the mentally handicapped. For instance, the Scottish Association for Mental Health takes a diametrically opposite view from the National Schizophrenia Fellowship.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
I explained that I was concerned about the implications of this not really in respect of the Mental Welfare Commission, but I think that if there has to be guardianship the functions of the Mental Welfare Commission should comprehend those functions covered by guardianship. What I was trying to get from the Government was an opinion about the merits and value of guardianship at all in the present day. That the noble Earl said it was very little 1325 used is in itself is a condemnation of carrying it on. I appreciate that to get the fundamental argument I should have referred back to some other Act. If we get through the next fortnight, toasting the haggis, and all the rest of it, I will have a look and find that other Act so that we can get down to the argument. In view of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 2 [Duty of Mental Welfare Commission to visit patients]:

§ 5.32 p.m.

§ Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 16: Page 2, line 13, leave out ("subsection (2)(b) of").

§ The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 together. I may refer to other amendments which are also bound up with these amendments; I may make passing reference to Amendments Nos. 19 and 23. I hope that will not draw in the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, nor indeed the noble Lord, Lord Ross, if they would not wish to come to those at this stage, but I hope they will forgive me touching on the fringes of those two amendments.

§ Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18, which are bound up in one way or another with Amendment No. 15, as well as the fringe aspects of Nos. 19 and 23, seem to be rather a complex set of factors. I hope the purpose of the Government's amendments will be plain enough to your Lordships and, above all, to the two experts who have been speaking this afternoon, Lord Taylor and Lord Ross. I would hope that these three amendments will be acceptable to your Lordships and to the two noble Lords, whose objectives we hope they meet.

§ The three amendments, and indeed the replacement of Clause 3, seek to do two things. The first objective of these amendments is to combine in one clause all the amendments which relate to the duties of the Mental Welfare Commission. These are set out in subsections (1) to (6) of Section 4 of the principal Act. Thus we will find that the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill before us will be combined with two new provisions. The second objective, and indeed the purpose of the two new provisions, is to reflect the Government's acceptance in principle of certain aspects of Amendment No. 15 and of those we shall be considering, Nos. 19 and 23. I mentioned earlier the way in which the new subsection (6) in Amendment No. 18 will meet the aims of part of Amendment No. 15, which was spoken to earlier by Lord Taylor.

§ If I may draw your Lordships' attention to the new subsection (6A), this will impose on the Mental Welfare Commission a duty to publish a report on their activities every two years, beginning in the year 1985. This differs from Amendments Nos. 19 and 23 in that our amendment sets a date for the first report and it requires two-yearly reports rather than annual reports. I think it would be sensible to allow the commission time to adjust to the many changes which will be made by this Bill before requiring them to publish their first report under this provision. Also, we would do well to consider that for so small a body as the commission a requirement to publish an annual 1326 report would be unduly onerous and would divert a disproportionate amount of energy from their primary functions. The commission have of their own accord published reports at intervals of approximately five years. The Government accept that more frequent reports would be desirable. I hope your Lordships would accept that a report every two years would be a reasonable compromise. With that, I beg to move the amendments.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
This amendment, instead of giving us annual report, as I understand it gives us a report every two years. I am not entirely satisfied that this is right. Most bodies report annually. If it is a matter of giving time to the commission to get into the way of the amended Act, as it will be, they are not going to start until 1985, and that is pretty generous to them. But then, every second year thereafter I cannot accept; I do not think that is right. We are coming to the further amendment to be considered. If we pass this amendment, that kills the debate on an annual report. If we decide it is going to be a report every two years, we cannot then discuss whether it should be an annual report. So we have to discuss this now.
I see no justification for accepting this idea. I have no objection to the rest of Amendment No. 18; I am sorry that the Minister did not speak about it. What is the real change in subsections (6A) and (6B)? I think that is worth talking about, because there was nothing like this in the original Act. The only thing in the original Act, so far as I recollect, is that it was the duty of the commission to advise the Secretary of State on any matter under the Act that he may refer to them, and to bring to his attention any other matter of which, in the opinion of the commission, he ought to be apprised. Here we have a reference to the Mental Welfare Commission with respect to matters referred to them, not just by the Secretary of State but by the health board and the local authority. This is a considerable advance. I am surprised that the Minister did not shout it from the housetops because a lot of people will be very pleased to see it. We read: to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State, a Health Board, a local authority or any other body any matter concerning the welfare of any persons who are suffering from mental disorder which the Commission consider ought to be brought to his or their attention. That is a tremendous advance. However, I did not quite gather that from the speech that the noble Lord made from the Government Bench. This is a breakthrough. It is a breakthrough in that we shall have a report every two years. The Minister will have a record of the reports given by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland from 1962 onwards. Those reports have been very spasmodic indeed. This is an advance, but to my mind it is not good enough.
It is a great pity that we could not have broken these matters into two parts. I would not like to vote against the whole clause. Probably the best idea would be to accept it as it is and then to put down an amendment to the Government amendment when we come to the next stage of the Bill. This is an advance. The Government are going the right way. I hope that between now and the next stage of the Bill they will decide whether they can go the whole way towards an annual report rather than a report every two years. I do not think that 1327 there is an argument in favour of a report every two years.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
I support the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, because Amendment No. 19 in my name requires an annual report. If we pass the Government amendment now I am not sure what happens to Amendment No. 19 in which an annual report is called for. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I think the important item in the Government's amendment is not the annual report, though that is important, but the mere fact that the Government have in the amendment responded to some of the suggestions that have been proposed in earlier amendments and to some of the representations that have been made by the Scottish Association for Mental Health and other bodies. It is an indication which we very much welcome.
When it comes to the annual report, I am surprised that the Minister said that preparing an annual report would take up management time. Under the Companies Act companies have to prepare annual reports. Even in Government service and in the commissions over which the Secretary of State for Scotland presides annual reports are called for. I seem to recall regularly producing an annual report on the Forestry Commission for the Minister. It was a good thing because in an annual report one has to assess how one has done in the previous year. It then became the subject of public debate, of press comment and discussion in the Houses of Parliament.
If I may I will give the record of the Mental Welfare Commission to date. In 1972 it published a report on its work from 1962 to 1972—a 10-year period of duty. Then, it published another report in 1971 and a further report in 1981. It is little wonder that the people who should have access to the Mental Welfare Commission are hardly aware of its existence. I suggest that the annual report is useful not only to enable the commission to judge its work for the past 12 months, but to enable Ministers to monitor its work for the past 12 months, and it will enable the public and the press to comment on an annual report. For all these reasons I regard an annual report as a useful thing. It enables the voluntary bodies, too, to check on the activities of the Mental Welfare Commission. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I press the Minister to look again at the question of an annual report from his new, powerful, beefed-up commission and let us tell the world a little about what it is doing with its new remit, its new powers. I hope the Minister will respond.

§ The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger)
In view of the wide range covered by the three amendments, and the fact that exception is taken to certain parts of them, the Minister would be well advised to move them separately.

§ On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 17:

§ Page 2, line 15, after ("Commission)") insert ("—(a) in subsection (2)(b)").

§ On Question, amendment agreed to.

1328

§ The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 18:

§ Page 2, line 18, at end insert ("; and

§ (b) for subsection (6) there shall be substituted the following subsections—

§ " (6) It shall be the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission—

(a) to advise the Secretary' of State, a Health Board or a local authority on any matter arising out of this Act which has been referred to the commission by the Secretary of State, the Health Board, or the local authority, as the case my be; and
(b) to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State, a Health Board, a local authority or any other body any matter concerning the welfare of any persons who are suffering from mental disorder which the Commission consider ought to be brought to his or their attention.

§ (6A) The Mental Welfare Commission shall in 1985 and in every second year thereafter publish a report on their activities; and copies of each such report shall be submitted by the Commission to the Secretary of State who shall lay copies before Parliament.

§ (6B) Where, in the course of carrying out any of their functions, the Mental Welfare Commission form the opinion that any patient who is—

(a) liable to be detained in a hospital; and
(b) either a restricted patient within the meaning section 60A of this Act or a person to whom section 60E of this Act applies

§ should be discharged, it shall be their duty to recommend accordingly to the Secretary of State. ".")

§ On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 18A:

§ After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

§ Amendment of s. 4 of principal Act.

§ (" . Section 4 of the principal Act shall be amended by omitting the words "a medical commissioner or "in subsections (3), (4) and (5).")

§ The noble Lord said: This amendment is not simply a matter of semantics. It is an important amendment. When the Government appoint the commission, the commissioners are equal in status as commissioners and therfore to differentiate between the medical commissioners and the other commissioners is not desirable. Similarly, in company law, one does not differentiate between the professionals on the board and the non-executive board members. The whole board has a total responsibility just as the commissioners have a total responsibility. Therefore, they should be referred to as "commissioners" without this professional distinction, which I do not think is desirable. The commission will employ its own professional advisers and consultants from outside as the board may require, but it is the responsibility of the board to stand above that as a central organisation which will assess the work being carried out in its name. I beg to move.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has taken me slightly by surprise because I am bound to say that I read his amendment, which is now Amendment No. 18A, with Amendment No. 22 and concluded that the object of the exercise, so far as the noble Lord is concerned, was to exclude medical commissioners from the commission; in other words, to have what I might call a lay commission. That is not his desire. I will be perfectly frank with the Committee.
1329 I am not sure what the implications would be of omitting from the statute the words in Amendment No. 18A. It would seem to me that it might bar the appointment of medical commissioners. If I may, I will take it away and think about it. I am rootedly opposed to any idea that there should not continue to be medical commissioners as there are now, but I do not think the noble Lord is at odds with me about that. I will take it away and consider it.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 5.50 p.m.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 18B:

§ After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

§ ("Duty of Mental Welfare Commission to report on local authority arrangements for care of mentally ill persons.

§ . In subsection (6) of section 4 of the principal Act there shall be added at the end "and the Mental Welfare Commission shall report to the Secretary of State within eighteen months of the passing of the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1983 on the adequacy or otherwise of the arrangements made under section 7 of this Act for the care of persons who are or have been suffering from mental illness."

§ The noble Lord said: This is a really important amendment and a very thoughtful one, too. One of the linchpins of the care and protection of the people suffering from mental illness is that local authorities have been empowered, authorised or required to make arrangements under Section 27(1) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, which deals purely and simply with the functions of local health authorities in respect of the prevention of illness, care and after-care or mental illness. Nothing could be finer when one reads the 1960 Act. Section 7(1) refers to: the provision, equipment and maintenance of residential accommodation, and the care of persons for the time being resident in accommodation so provided:

(b) the appointment of officers …
(d) the provision of any ancillary or supplementary services …
(f) the supervision of persons suffering from mental deficiency"—

§ although that is to be changed, it will be "mentally handicapped"— who are neither liable to detention in a hospital nor subject to guardianship.

§ We in Scotland decided, way back in 1960, that all these desirable things should apply to mental health. However, I am afraid that when we look at what has been achieved and what arrangements have been made, and whether they are satisfactory or not, the position is very chancy indeed when one part of the country is compared with another. There may be some parts of the country where the attention given and arrangements made are good. Everything started from different levels and some parts of the country probably had a good start. However, is it not about time to make it a duty to find out what these standards are and how good they are? Do we meet the hopes that we had in 1960? Who better to give the task of finding that out than the strengthened Mental Welfare Commission? That is the purpose and reason for the amendment. There is nothing ulterior about it.

§ Knowing that it would take some time, I have suggested that the commission should report to the Secretary of State within 18 months of the passing of 1330 the Act. I am prepared to change that, perhaps to two years, if noble Lords think that 18 months is too short a period for the commission to report to the Secretary of State on the adequacy or otherwise of the arrangements made under Section 7, most of which I have already quoted. All those arrangements are desirable and will be helpful. People would be very pleased if they applied, but sadly they do not. The new duty I propose for the commission, is to report on the adequacy or otherwise of the arrangements and to do this within 18 months. I beg to move.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
As the noble Lord said, the amendment would require the Mental Welfare Commission to conduct what I might describe as a nationwide survey of all local authority accommodation in which mentally ill people might be housed, and to report to the Secretary of State on the adequacy of the arrangements—no doubt not only as regards accommodation but on associated services—possibly before the end of 1984. That would be a Herculean task. The commission do not have the resources to carry out such a survey and even if the necessary professional staff could be devoted to the task it could not be done thoroughly within the timescale which the noble Lord lays down.
It is not reports that we need, but real improvements in services. Reports can point the way in which future efforts can be directed and are useful if attention is paid to them; but a report from the Mental Welfare Commission, as the noble Lord suggests in his amendment, would be in addition to the reports which have been, or are being, prepared by the Scottish Health Service Planning Council on various aspects of services for the mentally disordered. These reports are mainly directed at the health service, but they consistently draw attention to the vital part to be played by local authorities, and they have been, and will be, drawn to the attention of local authorities.
I need hardly say to the Committee that these are difficult times. Local authorities are constantly being urged to give priority to those in greatest need. Deficiencies in services for the mentally ill in the community cannot be remedied as rapidly as we all wish. It is not only unnecessary but it would not help to have a report which identifies such deficiencies. The resources which would have to be devoted to preparing the report would be more usefully employed in making improvements in services. Local authorities are very well aware that improvements need to be made. I have no doubt that, with the resources at their disposal, they do their best to make such improvements as and when they can.
I have a certain sympathy with what the noble Lord proposes, but I do not think that the situation would be helped, and it certainly could not be done by the Mental Welfare Commission in the timescale suggested.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
I expected that final comment; that is why I said I was prepared to change the time from 18 months to two years. I would even grant the Minister three years. The Minister said that this would be a Herculean task. We are recreating the Scottish Mental Welfare Commission. We are already giving it new duties, so why not this additional 1331 important duty? If we mean what we say about services for the care and protection of the mentally ill, we cannot ignore Section 4 of the original Act. When the original Act was passed it was the local health authorities who were involved. Much of their work has passed to the hospital authorities and to the health boards. However, a considerable section of work still remains with the local authorities, and these are mainly the social work departments of the authorities.
Had the Minister been honest with me and said: "Oh well, forget about looking for the deficiencies; we know there are deficiencies. Do not spend money on a report, spend it on the deficiencies and make improvements", I wonder how far that would have got us. The real fact is that most people know what the deficiencies are and they would be glad to report these to the Mental Welfare Commission and have the support of the commission in pressing the Secretary of State to make the improvements. How are the improvements to be made and the deficiencies remedied? The Minister says that the Mental Welfare Commission do not have the money. Who gives them the money? We have been all through this earlier. The commission have no independence and have no money of their own. They have only money they obtain from the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury.
When the Minister says that the commission cannot do it, what he really means is that the Treasury will not provide the money. The fact is that many of our services are being cut at present and the deficiencies are being made worse, and this is in respect, probably, of some of the most helpless people in the whole country who need our help.
We take people into a mental hospital. We discharge them. We encourage them to go in for treatment, and they are there only because they can be treated and there is a possibility of a cure. But everyone knows—and the Minister spoke earlier about the Schizophrenia Society, who probably know better than anyone else—that there may be a temporary improvement in a patient's condition but sooner or later that patient will go back in. But, if the after-care, the continuation of local treatment and the watchfulness to ensure that the proper things are done, do not take place, then there will be a return of the patient. It depends on the local community care that is mentioned in Section 7 of the principal Act. Those are the matters that are being cut at present. If we really mean business, then let us give this task to the Mental Welfare Commission, but when they produce their report it will be embarrassing for the Government because it will demand that the Government spend more money on an essential service at a time when the Government want to cut money to that essential service.
It is about time we had a Division. This is an important matter; it is the touchstone of whether we mean business or not. I hope that we shall receive a favourable answer from the Government which is a little better than the one we had from the Minister of State on the last occasion. Is he going to think about it? He knows quite well the trials and tribulations of poor 1332 Mr. Younger, the Secretary of State, trying to get money out of the Treasury, trying to get it for the steel industry and trying to get it for the railways. We have all been through it and, if he accepts my amendment, then as sure as fate the pressure will again be on the Secretary of State to get money to improve the services for the mentally ill—but they need improving and must be improved.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
My Lords, I have no desire and certainly no intention of being drawn into a debate on the state of the National Health Service in Scotland or indeed the Secretary's of State's block vote and how he spends it. All I can say is that the ratio which has been maintained for some years is still being maintained and Scotland gets more than its fair share of resources, although I do not trumpet that about too loudly in the presence of the English. If the Secretary of State wanted to do so, he could devote such resources as he wanted in order to enable this body to carry out the survey which the noble Lord wants. But I have tried to explain to him that I think it would be money that would be ill spent. It is very much better, rather than identifying problems which are already obvious to all and not least to the local authorities, to use that money to try to improve the services as and when the local authorities can do so. For that reason I reject the entire contention behind the noble Lord's remarks.
Secondly, the noble Lord does not say how he suggests that this task should be carried out. I have said that it is Herculean, and in my view that is a perfectly reasonable word to describe it. It would require a large number of skilled professional people to carry it out and it would mean that a large amount of money and resources would have to be devoted to the commission for a purpose which it is really not set up to fulfil. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot give any undertaking to the noble Lord. His amendment is misconceived. I have said that I have a certain sympathy for him, and indeed I have, but not for his amendment.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
I wonder whether the problem could be resolved by the Minister giving an undertaking. He has now accepted that there will be a report at least every second year after the passing of the Act—the commission will report every two years. Perhaps there could be an undertaking that the report of the commission will in fact be an assessment of the adequacy of the services such as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has suggested. It is the duty of the commission to measure how far their remit is being carried out. Would the report of the commission be some kind of assessment in that direction? I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would accept that as adequate.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, quite rightly points out that under subsection (6B), which is part of Amendment No. 18, it will be the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State, a health board or a local authority, or any other body for that matter, certain matters which the commission consider ought to be brought to his or their attention. Therefore that gives them discretion as to how they are to advise the Secretary of State or the local authority 1333 and I should have thought, with respect, that that is probably the best way for the Mental Welfare Commission to go about their task, rather than to insist by statute that they enter this very large, complex and expensive exercise which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would like introduced under his amendment.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
The noble Earl says "large, complex and expensive", and yet we are told by the Minister that they already know the deficiencies. A lot of this is known to the Secretary of State already. It is purely a matter for a little co-operation between the Secretary of State's department and the Mental Welfare Commission, so that the Mental Welfare Commission would be able as regards the deficiencies to highlight the priorities in respect of improving the situation.
The noble Earl referred me to subsection (6B) and virtually said, "Oh well, it is there". He says, "Do not do this Herculean task, but if you want to do it you already have the power to do it". He is saying, "Do not embark on this complex task, but it can be done under subsection (6B). Do not embark on this expensive task, but it can be done under subsection (6B)". If that is how he really feels, how will he stop them doing it? Mind you, I do not believe for a minute that what he said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is true—they could not do it under subsection (6B), but if they can it will be changed, by the next stage of the Bill.
Of course I am not going to divide the Committee, but I want to highlight the fact that the Government put the responsibility on the local authority but they do not make it a statutory duty of the local authority. So long as they do not make it a statutory duty of the local authority we shall find one local authority accepting responsibility and spending desirable monies upon it, and other local authorities saving money. When it comes down to the question of rates we know on whose side this Government are. People will suffer because the desirable arrangements that can be made have not been made.
There is one matter that I have not highlighted in this connection because it is the subject of a separate amendment, and that is the whole question of aftercare. You already have it in England and I shall not be satisfied until we have it in Scotland. We were 20 years ahead of England but by the time the Government have finished with this Bill we shall be some years behind it if this type of answer carries on throughout our discussion of this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment so that we can proceed to something else which will probably receive an equally unsatisfactory answer.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 6.9 p.m.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 19:

§ After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:—

§ ("Annual report of Mental Welfare Commission.

§ After subsection (6) of section 4 of the principal Act there shall be inserted—

§ "(6A) The Mental Welfare Commission shall publish annually a report on its activities, and copies of every such report shall be sent by the Mental Welfare Commission to the Secretary of State who shall lay a copy before each House of Parliament.".").

1334

§ The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19. This case has already been argued. I have looked up the record of the reporting of the Mental Welfare Commission so far, and it has done so three times in 15 years. As I argued when discussing the Government's amendment, in my view it is right that Government commissions should produce an annual report, in the same way as companies do, and that it should be the subject of public debate and comment. That will do good to the Mental Welfare Commission and make them more known and more responsible. I simply recommend to the Minister that he looks again at the question of annual reports as against biannual reports. I beg to move.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
We have had a good debate on this matter and we have passed Amendment No. 18 into the Bill. I am, of course, always sympathetic to anything that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggests that I do, but I cannot give him any undertaking other than to look at it.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ [Amendment No. 20 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

§ Clause 3 [Duty of Mental Welfare Commission to recommend discharge of patient]:

§ On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?

§ The Earl of Mansfield
Amendments which have already been passed into the Bill have, in effect, meant that Clause 3 is surplus to requirements, if I may use that phrase. So I shall not be content for it to stand part of the Bill.

§ Clause 3 disagreed to.

§ Clause 4 [Power of Mental Welfare Commission to appoint persons to make enquiries or chair committees of commissioners]:

§ 6.11 p.m.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 21: Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (2).

§ The noble Lord said: Clause 4 takes us back to Section 4(7) of the principal Act in which, as I recollect, the commission is given the power to appoint a committee of the commission to inquire into some matter that requires its special inquiry—it may be in respect of the treatment of a patient, negligence, or something of that nature.

§ Now we are going beyond that, saying that within that committee, instead of having a commissioner as the chairman, we could possibly have someone who is not a commissioner. Subsection (2) says that a person appointed under this new subsection who is not a commissioner: shall be—

(a) an advocate; or
(b) a solicitor

of not less than live years' standing.

1335

§ I want to know whether advocates and solicitors of five years' standing are the only people who can chair an inquiry of this nature. I beg to move.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
We have to go back to Section 4 of the principal Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, quite rightly directed us. It is necessary to distinguish between routine investigation of complaints or incidents and formal inquiries carried out by the Mental Welfare Commission under the provisions which are set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. These provisions are to be more conveniently relocated after Section 4 of the principal Act as a new Section 4A.
It is in the conduct of formal inquiries having much of the character of court proceedings that the commission may find themselves in difficulties. Therefore, the purpose of Clause 4 is to enable the commission to call upon the services of a legally qualified person to conduct such an inquiry, if the legally qualified members of the commission are not themselves available to do so.
There is nothing to prevent the commission from asking other people to pursue informal inquiries on their behalf in the course of an investigation of a complaint or an incident; but it is desirable that this should only be a matter of convenience, not of necessity. The commission should employ sufficient staff to carry out their investigations without having to rely over much on outside help.
The provisions of Clause 4(2), therefore, are designed simply to express the intention that the person appointed to conduct a formal inquiry should be legally qualified. There is nothing sinister about this; it is merely to add a greater flexibility to the way in which the commission carry out their duties.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
It is the way in which the Government tell them they will carry out their duties to which I object. Trust a lawyer to come along here with special pleading for lawyers! I have always been suspicious of lawyers. It was interesting that, when the Government set up a commission on legal aid and matters relating to the legal profession, it was not a lawyer, an advocate or a solicitor of "no less than five years' standing" who was made the chairman of that commission; I think it was my noble friend Lord Hughes, who, so far as I know, is no lawyer, but who is a capable man.
I object to this assumption that an inquiry of this nature must necessarily be something related to a court of law. I know some lay magistrates who are a darned sight better than many sheriffs or, indeed, many judges. I see another lawyer frowning at me; I see that I am on dangerous ground so far as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is concerned, too. I am not satisfied that this is something we require. If this was not the assumption, it would not rule out the advocate or the solicitor.
In fact, we have already been told that there are to be two—are there not?—on the commission, and if they are available they would usually take up this task. We have to extend the commission; there is not even a maximum. We might have a whole retinue of 1336 advocates and solicitors of not less than five years' standing there, but when we come to this, do we need specifically to say that the person appointed "shall" be an advocate or a solicitor? There may be someone eminently suitable for this purpose who is not an advocate or a solicitor, but who will now be debarred by statute from being used, even though it might well be the best appointment that could be made. It is this restriction to which I object; hence, I suggest this amendment.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
I want to direct the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to what it is that he is complaining about in Schedule 2. If I may be a touch vulgar for a moment, this is not some sort of underhand way of squirting just a little bit more gravy at the legal profession. This is in respect of one part of the commission's activities when they are, in fact, instituting formal inquiries. The proceedings in a formal inquiry by the commission have the privilege of a court of law, for instance, and in many ways the proceedings have the character of court proceedings. Therefore, if the commission are not in a position to call upon the services of a legally qualified person to conduct the proceedings, they may well find themselves in difficulties and not be able to carry out the formal inquiry which they intend to, and which they have to in certain circumstances.
Therefore, as I have said, the purpose here is to give the commission a little bit more flexibility. In other words, they can hire the services of a lawyer if their own legally qualified commissioners are otherwise engaged or are unable to act. It is no more sinister than that, and I hope, with that explanation, that the noble Lord will realise that it is a comparatively small provision to correct what could be a complicated defect in the way in which the board carries out its duties if it comes to a formal inquiry.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
The Minister of State has referred more than once to the "formal inquiry", relating it to a court of law and the rest of it. Can he tell me where in the statute it says this?

§ The Earl of Mansfield
I have referred the noble Lord to paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, which sets out these inquiries.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
Which Act—the principal Act?

§ The Earl of Mansfield
If the noble Lord would care to withdraw his amendment, then he can peruse all this while we get on with the next one. It is in Schedule 2 to this Bill.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
I asked a simple question—which Act or which Bill? I am sure that we could get on very much better if the Minister of State would just control himself and keep a little calm. He will get his meal in about 40 minutes. We have plenty of time. So far as getting on to the next amendment is concerned, I hope when we do consideration will be given to the points made with a little less bad temper than on this specific occasion.
The point I made is still worth making. There are 1337 people who can conduct these inquiries. The person conducting them can have legal advisers. No doubt the first thing he will do is appoint himself a legal adviser. There will be a fairly generous helping of gravy for the legal profession. I daresay that this is to make up for the disadvantages that are going to arise from the next Bill that the Government produce, when they are to take away from some of the Edinburgh advocates the ability to conduct divorce cases in the sheriff courts, which will make things much simpler there, but about which the lawyers are presently screaming. We shall hear about that Bill in due time.
I can assure the noble Earl that I am not satisfied. I am not going to press my amendment at this time. Far be it from me to embarrass him with a defeat of the Government on something as important as this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 4 agreed to,

§ Clause 5 [Appointment etc. of staff by Mental Welfare Commission]:

§ 6.22 p.m.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 22:

§ Page 3, line 31, at end insert— (" (2) The Mental Welfare Commission shall appoint medically qualified staff to undertake the duties of the commission, and these shall not be the medically qualified "Medical Commissioners.")

§ .The noble Lord said: As in the case of so many amendments to this amending Bill, we have already touched on some of the matters raised by this amendment. The Minister has assured me that he is going to have another look at this question since he misunderstood the purpose of an earlier amendment in this connection. These amendments are to ensure that the Mental Welfare Commissioners sit largely as a voluntary body, but they are not appointed as consultant psychiatrists to the commission. None of the members of the commission sit as medical people or consultant psychiatrists, but as commissioners.

§ So far as I am concerned I am happy for three of the commissioners to have medical qualifications, but not that they should act as psychiatrists in the exercise of the commission's business. There must be a clear distinction between the commission's responsibility as a board, which is equal among the members, and their employment of people in order to discharge their functions. Consultant psychiatrists can be employed as staff of the commission, but we must not confuse the responsibilities of the commissioners with the discharge of their duties as consultant psychiatrists.

§ The commissioners must remain objective in judgment of all of the matters that are referred to them. Therefore, they are arbitrators, and it is wrong to confuse the medical commissioners who could act as consultant psychiatrists to the commission and the employment of staff so to do. There is an important distinction here. The medical commissioners—that is the three men who have medical experience—sit there as commissioners, and do not sit there as staff discharging the duties of the commission. That is an important distinction. The commission must be objective, and must be the arbitrators. The Minister 1338 assured me in the debate on the previous amendment that he was going to look at this matter, and I hope that he will be equally generous with this particular amendment. I beg to move.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
As I understand it, what the noble Lord is seeking to ensure is that the medically qualified commissioners of the Mental Welfare Commission shall not in fact sit other than in judgment over the efforts of other people. That, I think, is something for which I do not have a great deal of sympathy. Historically, the medical commissioners have visited patients and examined them. They have inspected medical records. Indeed, in many cases the work of the commission, I will not say would be affected fatally but would be considerably hindered unless the person undertaking the particular task in relation to whatever it is that the commission are doing is not only medically qualified but is a member of the commission.
It would be perfectly open to the commission to employ medically qualified staff, and indeed they do. They employ a variety of professional persons, sometimes for a period and sometimes on a part-time basis in relation to certain of their functions. I do not suppose that the noble Lord would want to exclude them from that. What he seeks to do is to see to it that the medical commissioners do not undertake the sort of work I have illustrated.
I do not think that the noble Lord has really given any very good reasons as to why the medical commissioners should be prevented from undertaking the tasks they have carried out previously. I know that there is a certain amount of internecine warfare among different branches of the medical profession about this, and I have the feeling that what the noble Lord suggests has perhaps been suggested by one or other of the branches. Unless the noble Lord can think of some more cogent reasons why in fact the medical commissioners should be debarred from acting as medical men as opposed merely to sitting as arbitrators, I cannot recommend that the Committee accept this amendment.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
I am sorry I have been unable to convince the Minister about the wisdom of this amendment. It goes to the root of what we visualise as being the responsibility of the Mental Welfare Commission. I see that body as a body of equals, sitting there as a board sits, with certain responsibilities. But what you are creating is a board of 10 or 11 people with a few laymen on the board and some lawyers, there may even be someone from the voluntary organisations, and then you are to have three medical people. This is not a professional board. This is largely a voluntary board to which people give their services. These are matters of complaint where someone has taken the initiative in complaining about wrongful detention. They are matters concerning the duties and responsibilities of the hospital when caring, in which you have to have objective judgment; and to employ three members of the board to conduct that inquiry is not sound.
It is perfectly sound, of course, for the commission to employ consultant psychiatrists and medical people to give them advice, but it is wrong for the people who are in judgment of the matters to be professionally 1339 involved in doing that. This is an important amendment which goes to the heart of how you see this commission. It is not like the old commission; it is a new commission with new responsibilities, and I suggest that we should make that break now.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
The medical commissioners act as what I might call the executive directors of the commission; that is a convenient shorthand way of describing their role. It would of course be possible for them not to do that—in other words, for professional people to be employed to carry out the work they presently do in this field—but what the noble Lord has not produced are any arguments as to whether the system is wrong and, if so, why it is wrong.
A great many points have been raised as a result of the consultation document and a number of criticisms have been made about the work of the commission in other contexts, but nobody has suggested what the noble Lord is suggesting and, so far as I know, there has not been any complaint that by reason of their executive character, so to speak, the medical commissioners are in any way acting unfairly or in some way to the prejudice of the patient, or are doing something that should be stopped. That is what I find difficult about the noble Lord's argument; we have not had any complaints, and he does not produce any instances or cogent arguments as to why they should be stopped from acting in the future as executive directors.
However, I am prepared, if it would help him, to ask my officials if there have been any complaints, although I understand that in fact there have not. I am prepared to investigate the situation, but I must tell the noble Lord that I have no evidence before me at present—and, of course, once the amendments were tabled we pursued the necessary inquiries—to suggest that anything is wrong with the system.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
It is difficult, of course, to make complaints against the commission. I am happy that the Minister is prepared to look at the matter again, because it impinges on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross—the question of fees and duties—and I presume that the medical members of the commission, as well as being a distinct category on the commission (which I do not think they should be; they should all be equal on the commission), when discharging their responsibilities as medical members then collect their professional fees from the commission. I do not quibble about that.
Nevertheless, this is an important point of dividing the commission between fee-collecting members and other, voluntary members; and I should like the Minister to look at the functions of the commission as arbiters in judging matters that are referred, and whether the commission's judgment is impaired by the fact that one of their number conducts the inquiry. It would seem that it would be very difficult for the commission to reject anything that was done by one of their number. If, on the other hand, they employed, say, a consultant psychiatrist, they would be in a much more objective situation in judging the rightness or wrongness of the matter referred to them.
This is a fundamental point, and while I am not convinced by the Minister's reply I should be happy if he would look at the system as it now operates.

1340

§ The Earl of Mansfield
I give that undertaking, but I could not give any commitment other than that.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 6.34 p.m.

§ On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
I should like to know, before we allow the clause to stand part of the Bill, what sort of improvement, if any, it is on the original Act. I will not hark back to the arguments we had on Clause 1 in relation to the new subsection (7B). We have already decided that the Secretary of State may provide for the commission, such officers and servants and such accommodation as the Commission may require". It is the Secretary of State who will provide all that, but under Clause 5 we see that the Mental Welfare Commission will be able to appoint officers and servants and fix their remuneration, and so on, including pensions and the rest. Then we return once again to the everlasting and ever-with-us Secretary of State and the Treasury: so long as they determine it, the commission can do it.
I should like to know what point there is in having the two things, and why they must be so separated—and this is relevant to the debate we just had about whether the Secretary of State appoints medical commissioners who then, as commissioners, employ themselves. This is a very serious matter. We have already been told that two of the medical commissioners are full-time. So here are two full-time people employing themselves. Do they get further remuneration, emoluments or allowances for the number of people they examine and the various visits they make, bearing in mind that they will be making more visits? The visits are to be at least once every three years.
I question the changes that are being made. A great illusion is being created about the independence of the commission. Would it not be a good idea, from the point of view of us all, for the Government to tell us what the Mental Welfare Commission of Scotland are now? Where do they meet, for example? I would hazard the guess that it might even be at the Scottish Office. How many people do they employ? Is the answer none because they are all employed by the Scottish Office, they are all civil servants? We would have the matter in better perspective if we were told the exact position of the commission today. Once we get the full picture, we should begin to understand why they do not report all that often.
While I am not necessarily against all that is proposed, there are so many bits and pieces of the old Act left, now being amended by something absolutely new, that it does not always make sense. That is why I want the Government to justify Clause 5. After all, it will be exactly the same as it was; the Secretary' of State and the Treasury were in the original Act and appear in this clause. However, we are told that somehow or other there will be some great change coming over the 1341 commission; they will be able to appoint their officers and servants and make provision for the payment of this, that and the other, but only if the Secretary of State agrees. That is already said, without the proposed change, so I want the Government to justify burdening us with the clause and pretending it is something new.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
We have been round this course before. As the Committee knows—and as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, certainly knows—at present the Mental Welfare Commission borrow staff (civil servants, if you like) from the Secretary of State to carry out their role. There are a number of disadvantages in that. For example, it can be suggested, and has been, that because of it the commission are not as independent as they should be, though they are carrying out a very independent role. It also means that the staff have first to become civil servants before they can work for the commission. It was therefore decided that the commission should, as it were, stand to one side from the Scottish Office and be given the power to employ their own staff, and to enable them to do that we have these perfectly routine provisions. Clause 5 in effect applies ordinary enabling powers to the commission so that they may employ people and pay them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said, at the end it is subject to the Secretary of State because the payment for all this has to come out of his block and, like everything else in this country, there is in the background the eminence, although it may not necessarily be very grise, in the form of the Treasury. It really is not very suspicious. I beseech the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to accept that this is merely a way of ensuring a further degree of independence on the part of the Mental Welfare Commission and to give them the power, which they have not got at the moment, to employ their own staff. If Clause 5 is not written into the Bill then the Mental Welfare Commission will not be in a position to employ staff as is intended and as (I think it will be seen from what I have said) is manifestly desirable.

§ Lord Ross of Mamock
I still think it is an illusion of independence. The answer has not been given as to where they meet at the present time and where all this mass of staff is going to be accommodated in future. Could I have the answer to that before I agree with the rest of the Committee that the clause should stand part? Where do the Commission meet just now? Where do all these officers and servants—a lovely phrase, "officers and servants"—which the Secretary of State has been providing for them since 1962, since the 1960 Act was passed, all meet and congregate at the moment? Where is their accommodation at the present time, and where is it going to be in the future?

§ The Earl of Mansfield
I gather that they meet in 22, Melville Street, in Edinburgh. Whether they will thank me for giving their address to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I do not know.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
And who owns 22, Melville Street? This is what I want to know. Who is paying the rent for them at the present time?

1342

§ The Earl of Mansfield
Probably the Secretary of State for Scotland, as they are a creature of the Secretary of State. They owe their existence and their continued existence to the Secretary of State. It comes from his block. I thought I had said that four, five or six times this evening.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
The Minister has said that they have a new independence, that they can employ their own staff. They are still a creature of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State is still a creature of the Treasury. Every time it is mentioned the words are there, that "The Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury…". There is absolutely no change. And I wager that they will still meet in 22, Melville Street—and we will have spent all this time examining this complex, with all the help and the legal skill of the Minister of State. Eventually we have got to know what they are doing. They are making no change at all except in words—and, oh!, they are going to get pensions now, and emoluments. We are just going to spend more money. As soon as the Prime Minister discovers that, then I know who the next Governor of the Falklands will be.

§ Clause 5 agreed to.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 23:

§ After Clause 5 insert the following new clause:

§ ("Annual Report.

§ . It shall be the duty of the Mental Welfare Commission to report annually to the Secretary of State who shall lay it before Parliament.")

§ The noble Lord said: We have had this debate twice. I am prepared to move the amendment, but I think it is far better that we leave it now. The decision has been taken that we have a report not annually but every' two years. I think we will leave it there and not move this amendment.

§ [Amendment No. 23 not moved.]

§ The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Wells-Pestell)
I have to inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 24 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 25.

§ Clause 6 [Definition of "mental disorder"]:

§ 6.45 p.m.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 24: Page 3, line 33, leave out subsection (1).

§ The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment, at least—and I can be guided, I hope, in the draftsmanship if this wording does not attain its objective—is to make a distinction between "mental illness" and "mental handicap". There is that confusion in the Bill. It is quite inappropriate that mental illness should be mixed up with the problems of mental handicap. Mental handicap is a permanent disability and requires specialist help of a quite different kind from mental illness, which is treatable and, in many cases, thankfully, transient. There is confusion over the two kinds of problem and it would be sensible if a separate Act were to concern itself with mental handicap. I know that this would mean new legislation. Nevertheless, I think it is very important to 1343 make that distinction when we are dealing with this matter. I beg to move.

The Earl of Selkirk
As my name is added to that of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on this amendment, perhaps I may add a word here. I gather that this change of the expression "mental deficiency" to "mental handicap" is possible. I would not disagree that in many ways the expression "mental handicap" is perhaps a more attractive one than "mental deficiency". It was pointed out several times in the Second Reading debate how important it is to distinguish between retarded development or delayed development and what is, properly speaking, mental disorder. I am bound to say that I think that changing the name at this stage may add a certain amount of confusion—confusion which, frankly, already exists.
The difference between these sorts of institution is not all that well understood by many people in the country. I believe that this was the opinion of the Scottish Office when the Green Paper was brought out in, I think, April. They said that mental deficiency has a long history of legal usage, and is well understood by the courts and all those concerned with forensic psychiatry. A change in legal terms would achieve no great clarity and would lead to some confusion.
I think that that is perfectly true. I do not think that we should make the change unless we are quite sure that it is a wise one. The trouble with the expression "mental handicap" is that it has no clear element of definition. If we are honest with ourselves, then probably everyone of us has some kind of mental handicap. I can tell you that, among other things, my memory has greatly decreased as the years have gone by. What is implied by "mental handicap" can perfectly well be implied by "mental disorder" just as well as by "mental defect" and it leaves the thing quite open. I must admit that I belong to the school that believes that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. I cannot think that it is good enough to change a well-known phrase just because it sounds better. There may be better reasons than that but I think we should not change it unless there are better reasons.
I know that it will probably be said that the expression is used in England; but this is an expression which is of concern to people in Scotland and what is said in England does not really make a great deal of difference. I should add that there are a large number of expressions in this Bill besides mental handicap. There are "mental illness", "mental impairment", "severe mental impairment", "mental disorder" and "defective". Do we really want to muddle it further by having an additional one? There may be a very good reason for doing so; but I really have considerable doubts as to whether we should be wise to make this change just because the phrase sounds better.

§ Baroness Masham of Ilton
Perhaps I could say that the words "mentally handicapped" were taken out of the English Bill. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not here. He would have been able to explain very fully the difference between the expressions "mentally handicapped" and "mentally ill". It seems to me, being a Scot, a pity that Scotland might be lagging behind England in this matter.

1344

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
I am right in thinking that if this amendment were carried the words "mental defective" would remain in the statute. That is the sole effect of the amendment. Frankly, I was faced with the same problem as to how to raise this particular point. I came to it with a different solution, one which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will support if she looks at the next amendment, No. 25. We make the change and refer to "mental handicap".
The noble Earl may have heard lawyers talk about "mental deficiency" and "mental defective". I think it is derogatory. Has he heard children talk about people being "MD", and all that that means? This is a desirable change, and it is true to say that when it was first suggested the Scottish Office said that it would cause too much confusion, but then they changed their minds. The feeling is very strong about it. When it comes to ordinary people who suffer or whose family are embarrassed by a particular phrase being attached to them, I am in their favour rather than that of the lawyers who are going to be a little incommoded by the change in language.
My amendment puts "mental handicap" in the Bill as the Government wish, but it inserts: and on a date determined by the Secretary' of State by order all reference to persons suffering from mental handicap shall be omitted from the Act. I do not want to belabour the point at the present time. I want to warn my noble friend that I do not think this amendment to retain the terms "mental deficiency" and "mental defective" will be welcome.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
There are two amendments and really two questions in the way that this debate has proceeded. Amendment No. 24 is simply a matter of language. If it were accepted, then the expression "mental deficiency" would remain in use as opposed to it being replaced by "mental handicap". I take into account the views of the Committee about this, obviously; but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that there has been considerable pressure to replace the term which is regarded in some circles as being derogatory. It is something which I can very well understand. If we were now to replace "mental handicap" by the old term of "mental deficiency" there would be a good deal of disappointment. But, as I say, I am very much in the hands of the Committee. If there was a consensus of opinion that the term "mental handicap" was unsatisfactory or undesirable, I would at once undertake to take the matter away and have more consultations. I should not like to accept Amendment No. 24 tonight.
Amendment No. 25 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and he has more or less spoken to it now. It is quite different in its effect. What it does is to say that the mentally handcapped shall be legislated for in a totally different way and in a totally different Bill from the mentally ill. That is quite a different matter. I have a certain sympathy with the view that if this was a perfect world it would be very nice if we could legislate totally outside a Bill such as this for what I prefer to call the mentally handicapped.
I have to say that the principal Act, which is the 1960 Act, was recognised as a great improvement on earlier legislation. It brought together a tangled web of 1345 enactments, most of which were out of date, and it dealt separately with those previously referred to I think as "lunatics" and "mental defectives". This process did not just happen; it took a long time. If we were to consider accepting Amendment No. 25, I think that we would have to give very considerable care and attention to disentangling legislation so as to achieve an even measure of separation. I am not saying that it would not be worth the effort necessary, but it would certainly require a great deal of thought. It would also require parliamentary time, which is not available.
Fundamental changes are taking place in the way in which mentally handicapped people are treated in our society. Naturally enough, with strained resources, many people say that changes are not taking place anywhere near fast enough. But there is a steadily increasing momentum in the move away from the large medically-orientated institutions which have come to us from the past. The pattern of care is still evolving, and I think that it would be premature in the midst of this process of evolution to start now to think of new legislation without having given fairly careful thought to the circumstances to which it is likely to apply.
I suppose, if we were to put our minds and the necessary resources to it, we would achieve two separate Acts which would be, if not identical, pretty similar in many respects. I am not sure that to go through that motion is something which appeals to me. Whether it would benefit the mentally handicapped is extremely doubtful, although I have no doubt that it would please those who care for them and are in many cases related to them. May I leave the Committee with this thought: the provisions in Clauses 6 and 8, and other parts of the Bill, make it clear that although the protective functions of the Mental Welfare Commission and various other provisions apply equally to the mentally handicapped or mentally ill, the provisions which relate to compulsory admission and detention in hospitals affect only a small proportion of the mentally handicapped.
If one goes to the original memorandum which was circulated to all Members of the other place and also to noble Lords who are interested, there were at the time when the suggestions were drawn up, I think in 1979, some mentally handicapped people, although very few, who were required to be detained in their own interests or for the safety of others, for no other reason than the behaviour which resulted from their mental handicap. That being so, the provisions of the Bill relating to compulsory detention in hospital or to guardianship are as relevant to the small minority of mentally handicapped people in question as they are to the much greater number of mentally ill people who require to be detained. Speaking purely from memory, I think the figure is 99; just under a hundred people.
The question of separate legislation, if one looks at it in this way, is much less attractive and much less justified than one might think at first blush. For those reasons, so far as Amendment No. 24 is concerned, I am very happy to take it away and look at it, if required by the feeling of the Committee. I hope that when it comes to the point the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will not feel it necessary to move Amendment No. 25.

1346

§ Baroness Masham of Ilton
Just before the noble Lord decides what he wishes to do—

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
Might I inform your Lordships that I have not even moved my amendment yet.

§ Baroness Masham of Ilton
May I just ask the noble Earl whether he does not think it important, with the movement between England and Scotland of people, in whatever category they are, that they should be called the same thing? People do move with their families, with mentally handicapped children or with mentally ill people, from one country to the other. After all, this is supposed to be "Great Britain", and many complications may arise if, on one side of the Border, they are called "mentally handicapped" and, on the other side, they are called whatever that out-of-date word was. I cannot remember it.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
The term was "mentally deficient". May I try to help the noble Baroness by saying that it is an argument, though I do not believe it is a very strong one, and I do not see why we in Scotland should follow the English if, so to speak, our own people are urging us not to do so.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
If it will help to progress the business of the Committee, in view of the fact that the Minister apparently accepts Amendment No. 24 because it is less complicated and would entail less legislation than Amendment No. 25, I am not sure, if I may say so to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that there is a unanimous view in the organisations that we are dealing with in England that the English terminology is better than that produced elsewhere. I would simply beg leave to withdraw my amendment, on the assurance of the Minister that he accepts it in principle, and will look at this matter further.

The Earl of Selkirk
Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I really do not feel strongly about this at all, but, if I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, "MD" will change to "MH" and it will make no difference whatever. I have considerable doubt as to whether it is worth legislating for something which will have no effect, if we all know a dozen words which are used commonly in place of either, and those terms will continue to be used. I feel that this will have no effect whatsoever and therefore I doubt whether it is worth putting into the Bill. That is my argument.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
Was the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, right when he assumed that the Minister of State accepted the principle of his amendment? I did not get that impression. I am supporting the Minister in the amendment he has down. I entirely disapprove of what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I have talked to some of these people, and in fact have found that this is the term which patients themselves and the parents prefer to use about their children—that they are mentally handicapped and not mentally defective. Whether he, as a lawyer, likes it or not, I, as an ordinary person moving among people, am telling him that they feel it very strongly and they put it very strongly to the Scottish Office. The Scottish 1347 Office did resist it, but the pressure was such that they decided to make the change, and I think they were right to do so. I hope that the Government stand by their position in respect of this amendment.

§ Baroness Elliot of Harwood
I, too, fully support what has been said by the Minister and by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. The words "mentally defective" have a slur attached to them, and I think that "mentally handicapped" is a much better term to use.

§ The Earl of Mansfield
Just so that there shall be no mistake—and I do not think there should have been, in view of what I said earlier—I said that I was really in the hands of the Committee and that the Government had prepared this legislation as a result of a lot of pressure, but that if there was pressure from the Committee on me to reconsider what had been done, I would go away and reconsider it. As things stand, however, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that a lot of people in Scotland are pressing for the change in expression.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Lord Denham
Possibly this would be a convenient moment to break and go on to the next business. In moving that the House do now resume, may I say that we will not come back to this particular business before ten minutes to eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

§ Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

§ House resumed.