Lords Sitting of 7 December 1995

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Better Spoken English Initiative
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken to pursue the initiatives on spoken English announced by Mrs. Gillian Shephard, M.P., Secretary of State for Education and Employment, on 1 1 th October.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, work is in hand to ensure that the GCSE English certificates show a separate grade for spoken English from next summer. The Better English Campaign steering group has also started work.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Of course, since English of one sort or another has been spoken around these parts for about 1,500 years, no one can expect dramatic improvements in the course of a couple of months, like being able to understand announcements on the Underground. But is it not the case that spoken English was something to which teachers were expected to give classroom attention for long decades before the National Curriculum came into being? Why is it in that case so difficult to meet the Secretary of State's quite modest request of 11th October that:
"a separate … grade for spoken English [be introduced] for the summer 1996 examination round"?
I am delighted that the Minister has been able to say that this will be introduced, but it has proved difficult, I understand. Why should this be? Can it be that teachers have treated this subject so cavalierly over the years that, for example, they lack the criteria to judge child A.'s English as worse than child B's or lack the ability, perhaps even the will, to ensure that child A gets up to child B's level?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is right to put the question in the perspective of some 1,500 years of spoken English. I think that he would accept that it is quite difficult to find a way of accurately assessing, in a manner that is fair and right, standards of spoken English. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked that the SCAA (School Curriculum and Assessment Authority) and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications should look at this with a view to coming forward with proposals which can be in place by the summer of next year. It is important to raise standards. We feel that this is largely a matter for the teaching profession itself to get right. We believe that it is something that it will be prepared to address.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the English Speaking Union—of which I am chairman—is already encouraging young people
1042
to develop their spoken English skills and that this year over 400 schools entered their GCSE students, 15 year-olds and 16 year-olds, for our public speaking competition? Another 400 schools entered their A-level students for our debating competition. Moreover, over 50 universities entered teams for the John Smith Memorial Mace debating competition. Is my noble friend further aware that the ESU's new centre for international debating and communication training is establishing a national network of workshops for young people that will build their confidence in their ability to speak in public and to debate—in English, of course?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was aware of some of what my noble friend had to tell me but not of everything that she told me and the whole House with her admirable clarity. All of us are grateful for what she and the English Speaking Union are doing.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that one good test of spoken English is the ability publicly to debate? Will he consider allocating some of the £250,000 to organisations like the Oratory Group which arranges public debating competitions between London schools, where young people learn to deploy a wide and expressive vocabulary, accurate syntax and, above all, a high standard of English grammar—"like what him and me have got"?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the ability to debate is very important. I believe that it is something which this House does exceedingly well. I am sure that the noble Lord agrees with me. As to his specific request, it is an interesting suggestion that the money that we have allocated to the group which will be chaired by Mr. Trevor McDonald will be money for the group to allocate as it thinks best. I am sure that it would be right for that group to take forward the noble Lord's suggestion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an undertaking that the English language will remain untainted by "Eurospeak"?
Lord Henley: My Lords, one of the great strengths of the English language—and it is something that the noble Lord ought to recognize—is that throughout the years and throughout its history it has been able to develop and absorb words from other languages. I hope that the English language will continue to be able to develop and adapt in taking words from French, German, Latin or whatever.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, the right honourable lady (Mrs. Gillian Shephard) said in her speech that she did not want people to drop their rich regional accents in favour of so-called BBC English. May we likewise hope that the BBC will not drop so-called BBC English in favour of rich regional accents?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that that is a matter for the BBC. The noble Lord was right to stress that my right honourable friend made it quite clear that

1043
it has nothing to do with accents; it is a matter of being able to communicate efficiently and properly, so that one can be understood in the right manner.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the widespread satisfaction that greeted the news that Mr. Trevor McDonald was going to chair the body that would help the Secretary of State to improve the nation's English? Will he agree with me that too many television presenters, especially of programmes for young children, seem to court meretricious popularity by aping the accents and slovenliness of the incoherent? Might not Mr. McDonald be encouraged to use his influence and authority to ensure that those presenters rather emulate his own mellifluous clarity of diction and, of course, preserve the excellence of the media English at its best?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has to say; it certainly might be true of a number of presenters. I should not like to name names, I leave that to individual noble Lords to decide for themselves. As for the noble Lord's remarks in welcoming Mr. Trevor McDonald, can I emphasise how pleased we are that his appointment received a general welcome? I also stress that his group is very much independent of government, and it is up to that group to decide on its own programme of work, which we hope it will do, and take it forward.

Child Prostitution
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester The Lord Bishop of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the recent Children's Society report on child prostitution, they will strengthen the guidance issued to police in order to make protection rather than prosecution the priority in dealing with children who are involved in prostitution.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the policing of prostitution is an operational matter for chief officers of police and the police service works closely with other agencies to protect children from all forms of abuse and exploitation. As the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, the prosecution of juveniles for offences relating to prostitution is an exceptional step taken only where other interventions are likely to be inappropriate or ineffective.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Given the indication in a recent report by the Children's Society that prostitution on the streets is an issue of survival for young people, will the noble Baroness agree that in order to remove children from such vulnerable activity there has to be collaboration between government and
1044
voluntary societies? Will she outline to the House proposals by Her Majesty's Government to remove this scandal from our streets?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have to agree with the right reverend Prelate. This is a scourge involving the exploitation of children up with which we should not put. The Government believe very strongly that agencies should work together. That includes the police, who take such collaborative work very seriously. The report, however, contains an appeal to decriminalise; not to caution, not to press prosecutions and not to convict. I have to say that there are some very knowing and street-wise young people under the age of 18 out on the streets. It is very important that they understand the wrongness of that activity. At the same time, however, we have an absolute obligation to concern ourselves with their protection.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate raises the choice between protection and prosecution. When that choice is being made, is not one primary consideration a destination for such children that will free them from the temptation to take drugs? Is that not one of the major factors in child prostitution?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, it is not the main factor. Certainly children get into activities on the streets for many different reasons. We saw graphic illustrations of the abuse and exploitation of children on our television screens last night. It is not only a question of drugs. It is important that those with responsibility for children, particularly of primary school age and 10 to 13 year-olds—their parents, guardians or those who have responsibility for them when they are in care—are first in the front line to protect them and keep them at home at night, not on the streets.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that the Children Act 1989 needs amendment? So many children who are on the streets as prostitutes have been in residential care and have no home. Should not social services have a duty to look after such children after they have left care?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. Children who are vulnerable when they leave care should be protected. But there are many agencies other than social services. Social services have responsibility for people of all ages in the community. It is those who work with children in care who have a particular responsibility until the young person is deemed to be of adult age.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would it be possible for consideration to be given to the idea that our very able police might be encouraged to participate in relation to this incredibly difficult matter with parent-teacher associations? A triumvirate of police, parents and teachers could assist in eradicating this awful problem.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we continue to do everything we can to encourage all agencies, especially those directly involved with the care of children;

1045
teachers, parents, guardians, social care homes, children's homes and the police. The police have gone a very long way, not only specifically to train staff who work with children but to set up special units within forces, so that any child who comes under their auspices and who is suspected of any criminal activity, particularly of this kind, can be dealt with. Collaboration between all the agencies is very important.
Lord Renton: My Lords, has it come to the notice of the Government that in recent years there has been the tragedy of children being taken abroad, apparently for holidays, and being sold into prostitution? Although the practice is difficult to detect or prevent, will the Government bear it in mind and take whatever steps are necessary to try to reduce it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will he comforted by some of the measures that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is to take. We are seeking the greatest possible collaboration with other countries to do what we can to put an end to this evil trade.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, can the Minister explain why, after 16 years of Conservative government boasting of so many investments in social policy, these horrendous social problems are now manifesting themselves on the streets of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is very unfortunate that the noble Lord has sought to introduce party politics. This question concerns everybody and it is very important to get it into perspective. The report claims as fact but quite erroneously—I make the point only because of the noble Lord's remarks—that children of primary school age are being cautioned and convicted of these crimes. It is not true. The main area of cautions and conviction relates to 15, 16 and 17 year-olds. Those are young people who should know better than to be out on the street engaging in these activities. It is a message to the whole community, and particularly to parents, to take much more of an interest in what children are doing, where they are, and what activities they are involved in outside the home.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minister referred to the previous questioner introducing party politics into the debate. All of us in this House can understand why that charge is wounding. However, can the Minister advise the House as to the situation 20 years ago? It seems that the problem has got worse over the past few years. The House would welcome information about its prevalence 10 years and 20 years ago.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, bringing party politics to this subject was not wounding; it was inappropriate. The Government have made parents more responsible for their children before the court; it is now possible to bind over parents in court. We continue to make it easier for young people to come forward, tell us what is going on in their lives and talk about abuse. The police are making it easier for children to talk about these matters; social services departments and other departments are working with children. The chances are that many of
1046
these activities were going on but we did not know too much about them. We have to continue to flush out these evil activities. All of us, all in this Chamber, should do what we can to root them out.

Malathion
3.18 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which is the main route of absorption into the human body of the organophosphate malathion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, there are many hundreds of organophosphates. Malathion is widely used as it is one of the least toxic. When used as a medication or pesticide, there is a very limited amount of absorption, mainly through the skin.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Why do we pour malathion on the heads of small children when we do not know what are the effects of low-level applications over a long period of time on the immune system and central nervous system, which are not fully developed in such children? We also allow it to be used by pregnant mothers. We know that malathion passes into the foetus. There have been reports of deformities in young children. Is the Minister aware of the work of Rodgers and Ellefson, indicating that:
"an allergic-type response was occurring within four hours after exposure to malathion at concentrations over a thousand times lower than levels known to produce inhibition of acetylcholinesterase"?
I wonder whether that could account for the increase in allergies and behavioural problems in young children. Will the Minister instigate research into this matter?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand that there have been a number of studies undertaken in order to license the medicines and pesticides, which would include shampoos and lotions. I draw the attention of the noble Countess in particular to the one published in the IARC monograph of 1983. They include lifetime studies on animals, which is usual for data supplied for registration. However, I can assure the noble Countess that we are absolutely confident that there is no danger to children from using shampoos and lotions containing. malathion.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the articles in the journal Pesticide Reform, a reputable scientific journal, which underline the dangers to human beings of the use of malathion? Is she also aware of a recent report by the Agriculture Committee in another place which recommended that organophosphates used on animals should be on a "prescription only" basis? Does she agree that, in view of the known dangers of malathion, the recommendation should also apply to its use on humans?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand that the intensity of malathion for human use in terms of shampoos and lotions is absolutely minuscule compared

1047
with that used for pesticides. The noble Lord is right in that we have taken action with regard to pesticides. However, I am assured that there is no need to do so with regard to shampoos and lotions. Of course, there are two products on the market which do not contain malathion.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government are actively promoting the bug busting campaign? If not, would they consider doing so, especially as it does not promote any of the apparently damaging chemicals?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, we support Community Hygiene Concern which runs that campaign. Over the three years starting this year we are giving it £25,000 in order to help it take forward its programme.

Bosnia Peace Conference
3.22 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the terms of reference of the peace implementation conference for Bosnia, to be held in London on 8th and 9th December.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, there are no fixed terms of reference for the conference. However, it may assist the noble Lord and the House if I advise them that the aim of the London peace implementation conference is to agree structures for the civilian implementation and ensure that those mesh with the framework for the military implementation force (IFOR) for which planning within NATO is well advanced. The London conference will open with a briefing on IFOR and thereafter focus on civilian implementation structures and the high representative; humanitarian issues, refugees and displaced persons; political institutions and elections; and reconstruction and development.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply and particularly for what he said about the civilian aspects of the conference. Will the Government ensure that the human rights aspect, especially the right of return of displaced persons, is fully considered, bearing in mind the implications of the right of return for future elections?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the timing of the return of refugees will be looked at in conjunction with the military timetable. It will probably be better to avoid large scale returns until the forces are separated. We believe that that is the way it should be done.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we all strongly admire the role that British forces and British relief workers have played in former Yugoslavia up to the present time? Will he give the House an assurance now that Her Majesty's Government will see the peace implementation through?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, obviously the signing ceremony in Paris will be very important. We are very keen and determined that it should go through, but that is not totally up to us. We want to support it as much as
1048
possible. I thank the noble Lord and agree with him totally about the excellent job that our forces have done so far. I believe that providing that everything comes together as we hope they will certainly continue to do so in the future.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House wishes the conference the greatest possible success and the Government an easy time organising it. Can the Government say whether they favour the United States' wish that the original agreement should continue to be called the Dayton agreement or whether they favour the French wish that, since it is to be signed at the Elysée in Paris, it should be called the Elysée treaty?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I do not have any briefing on that. I should like to say that, to be quite honest, it does not matter what it is called. If it can be implemented and effective, we can call it what anyone pleases.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, are we to infer from the noble Lord's original reply that at this conference there will be a departure from the usual practice, of which the noble Lord is well aware, of a draft communiqué being placed before the conference anyway?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I should imagine that in this situation any draft communiqué would be after the conference and not beforehand.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the words of the Minister in answer to the original Question were very welcome. Will he say a little more, in particular with reference to the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Bosnia? Can he give an assurance that the work of that very valuable organisation will be taken care of; in other words, that its role will be protected in any discussions which take place at the conference?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I can indeed assure the noble Lord that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees will provide a briefing on the UNHCR work at the conference. The representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross will also outline the tasks facing aid agencies. So the conference will be fully aware of the problems and will hope to assist them.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that securing a long-term peace in Bosnia will be greatly helped by a meaningful programme of economic reconstruction? As the UK Government will chair the London peace conference, presumably they will take the lead in asking the international community for support for that purpose. In that context, what kind of funding will the UK Government be offering?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I totally agree that reconstruction is an essential part of long-term peace in the area. The final decisions on who will be contributing what will be discussed at the conference and thereafter. The humanitarian effort that we have made over the past three years, including the ODA' s £283.5 million contribution, has laid a foundation. However, at this stage I cannot state what the UK Government's contribution will be.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the International Committee of the Red Cross has played an important role in ensuring the observance of the Geneva Conventions in former Yugoslavia? Are the Government yet in a position to tell the House whether and when they will ratify the additional protocols of the Geneva Convention?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I endorse the noble Lord's words so far as concerns the activities of the Red Cross. I shall have to write to him with regard to his second request.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, is it the case that Her Majesty's Government have limited the allocation of forces to IFOR for a period of 12 months? If so, when does the clock which measures the 12 months start ticking?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the NATO forces are indeed committed for a period of 12 months and to come out within 12 months. The clock will start ticking after the North Atlantic Council authorisation of the operation, which will follow the final signature of the peace agreement and UN Security Council resolution. The main NATO forces will begin to deploy immediately following the NAC decision. It is important to deploy rapidly to capitalise on the signature and maintain the momentum of the peace process. However, I should like to add that the commitment of substantial US ground forces is a prerequisite for the involvement of our own forces.

Parliamentary Approval of Treaties
3.29 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to allow that Her undoubted Prerogative may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present Session of any measure providing for the parliamentary approval of treaties.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that the Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

Chemical Weapons Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The concept of the welfare state conjures up in some people's minds a vision of helpless people in need of someone to manage
1050
their lives. That is both wrong and degrading. Disabled people know how to order their lives. They are often very independent and self-reliant and the state should not patronise them.
At the heart of community care is the aim of supporting and sustaining individuals within the community rather than encouraging people to withdraw from it. It is driven by a commitment to respond to the individual's desire to lead as normal a life as possible. Direct payments are a natural progression in community care towards that goal, giving users more control and more choice.
Local authorities have increasingly involved users in making decisions over their own lives, both in the services they receive and in planning new ones. Experience shows that they welcome this approach. But users have been asking us to go further—to go beyond involving them in decisions which affect them and to give them control over the money which is spent meeting their needs, so that they can make more decisions themselves.
That is what the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill will make possible. Local authorities will be able to give people cash instead of services, so that those people can choose within the available resources how and when the services they need will be provided. They will be able to decide whom to employ to assist them in leading more independent lives and directly manage the services they wish to receive.
Our commitment last November to introduce this legislation was widely welcomed by disabled people, who are keen to take on this freedom. Local authorities have also welcomed our proposals. We are very grateful to a group of representatives of disabled people and local authorities who helped us think through the issues as we worked out the details of this Bill. We intend to go out to wider consultation shortly on our proposals for regulations.
Clauses 1 to 3 of this Bill apply to England and . Wales. Clause 4 makes corresponding provision for Scotland by adding new sections to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Clause 5 is a technical consequential amendment. Clause 6 allows for this legislation to be extended to Northern Ireland by Order in Council using the negative resolution procedure. So when this legislation comes into force, this power will be available to local authorities throughout the United Kingdom.. My comments therefore apply in general to the UK.
The starting point of the Bill is the local authority's assessment of an individual's community care needs. If it appears to the authority that someone (let us call her Rachael Brown) needs services—whether it be a person to help care for her, an adaptation, special equipment or any other service which the authority might provide—it has a duty to assess her needs. If it concludes that Rachael needs services, then at present it can either provide those services itself or purchase them on her behalf from another agency. Under this Bill, in certain circumstances the local authority will also have the option to make a direct payment to her to enable her to buy the services herself.

1051
The Bill does not impose on local authorities a duty to offer anyone direct payments instead of services. Local authorities will still have to decide the most appropriate way of meeting an individual's needs; but they will now have a new alternative to offer. Nor will any individual be forced to accept direct payments. If Rachael prefers services rather than cash, then that is her choice. She might also choose to receive a mixture of both cash and services.
Clause 1, and the Scottish equivalent in clause 4, enables the Secretary of State to specify in regulations which groups of people may receive direct payments. We think it will be sensible to restrict the initial size of the client group for this new, untested scheme.
In the consultation paper to be published early in the New Year we will set out a number of alternatives suggesting who should be included in the eligible group. We will consider carefully what people have to say during the consultative exercise and before we reach a final decision.
The payments will work as follows: The local authority will decide how much the direct payment to Rachael Brown should be. The local authority will not be able to set direct payments at a level which is insufficient to meet her needs. Nor can it set direct payments at a level which it knows is less cost-effective than the services it provides—the authority still has a duty to ensure value for taxpayers' money. So, for example, the local authority cannot arbitrarily decide to give Rachael £100 for a service that costs £200. Equally, if she says that the service will cost her £300, and the local authority knows that the same service is available for £200, it does not have to pay her the additional £100.
In setting the level of payments, the local authority can also take into account Rachael's financial circumstances. This enables them to require her to make a financial contribution to the overall cost of her care in the same way as it may charge for services. Not to include this provision in the Bill would be unfair to others who receive local authority services.
We propose to make regulations specifying certain categories of people who may not be paid to provide care using direct payments. Again, this is an area where we will spell things out in detail in our consultation paper. We intend to use this power to prevent the inappropriate use of direct payments to pay for "informal" care; that is, care provided voluntarily by family and close friends. The aim of direct payments is to give users more choice and control over services which they would otherwise receive from local authorities, not to replace existing support given by families and communities. But we do not intend to use this power significantly to restrict the .individual's choice of support.
Clause 1 also contains a power to make regulations to limit the length of time for which direct payments may be used to pay for residential accommodation. This will allow local authorities to make direct payments for temporary residential care—for example, for respite—but not for permanent residential care. We will be consulting on what the maximum period should be.
1052
The final provision under Clause 1 is for local authorities to be able to require direct payments to be repaid in certain circumstances. We will consult as to what those circumstances should be, but the power is designed to recover money which has been misspent. This is important as it will deter people from abusing the system. We do not expect abuses to be common, but if anyone does divert the money they receive to other purposes, local authorities need to have the power to require them to return it.
Clause 2, and its Scottish equivalent in Clause 4, ensures that a local authority which makes direct payments will not also have to arrange the services, thus paying twice. So long as the local authority is satisfied that the individual's own arrangements are adequate to provide the agreed service, it is relieved of its responsibility. However, the local authority still has to act as "carer of last resort" and will have a responsibility to arrange the services if it is not satisfied that the individual's needs are being met.
Clause 3 is a consequential amendment to include direct payments in the list of social services functions. This means that people receiving direct payments will have the same access to the complaints procedures as others, and that the Secretary of State will have the same powers to intervene, should a local authority fail to carry out this function properly, as he does in other cases. An equivalent clause is not needed for Scotland as the Scottish provisions will form part of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which already provides for a complaints procedure and other functions.
This Bill is an exciting and highly innovative measure which has the potential to make a major difference to many people's lives. It will give adults who are able and willing to manage their own care the opportunity to do so.
Direct payments are an idea whose time has come. I applaud the local authorities which have tried, with imagination and ingenuity, to make their services more , responsive to people's needs. But imagine a man in his forties suffering from multiple sclerosis who needs a lot of help to carry out everyday tasks. When receiving local authority services, he may not be able to control who comes into his home to help him or what time they come. He is a recipient. Give him direct payments and he will be able to choose how the services are provided and when. He might choose to employ his own personal assistant or contract with an agency. Either way, he is in charge.
Local authorities have been asking us to allow direct payments, and I believe that they can make them work, but there are some complex issues involved. Useful lessons can be drawn from the experience of the independent living funds, and from the payment schemes that some authorities have operated through voluntary organisations. But direct payments have never been part of core community care provision. This Bill is designed to give local authorities the best chance of making direct payments a success. Since direct payments will, for some people, replace community care services, we expect any local authority that decides to make direct payments to do so within existing resources.

1053
This Bill is an important step along the road of handing back to disabled people the dignity and respect they deserve. They have welcomed this new opportunity to take charge of their own lives. Some might wish us to go further, faster. But this is a new venture which goes beyond what any local authority has operated to date. This is not a time for enthusiasm to triumph over common sense.
I have said that we intend to consult on our proposed regulations. I hope to publish a consultation paper in the new year. In order to allow a reasonable length of time for people to respond to the consultation, I doubt that it will be completed before the Bill has gone to another place. But I can assure your Lordships that we will not be seeking to complete the Bill's passage before the consultation period ends, and that we will give careful consideration to the comments we receive. I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
3.41 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with real sincerity we thank the Minister for introducing the Second Reading of this Bill. The Bill is very much welcomed and has all-party support. When a couple of years ago the noble Lord, Lord McColl, introduced a somewhat similar Private Member's Bill following a similar effort in the other place by Mr. Andrew Rowe, the Minister regretfully told the House that she had to be the messenger of bad news. I think that she is perhaps slightly happier with her role today.
I wish also to pay tribute to those organisations which have worked so hard and so long for a Bill such as this. I think in particular of the Disablement Income Group, the Disability Alliance and the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, as well as those pioneering local authorities led by Kingston but supported by the Association of Directors of Social Services. Indeed, local authorities have for so long been keen on direct payments that many of them have been bending the law and laundering such money through trusts and voluntary organisations, something to which the Government have wisely and equally illegally turned a blind eye.
Why were direct payments wanted? Direct payments place a disabled person at the centre of the care system rather than as a dependant on it. A disabled person is supported to be independent rather than cared for as a dependant. Direct payments mean that services are fitted to the needs of the client because she—I was delighted that the Minister had a Rachel Brown rather than a Richard Brown—purchases, she organises, she employs, she manages and she chooses, rather than she being fitted to the needs of services. One has only to think of the pressures on a local authority trying to organise a rota of putting to bed services, and if someone has to be put to bed at 9.30 p.m. and someone else at 10.30 p.m., how limiting that is for the person involved. The client must fit. But if the disabled person employs her own staff—she determines when she gets up, when she goes
1054
to bed and when she goes out—it permits spontaneity and flexibility, the choices in life that every one of us here takes for granted.
With services, alas, too often that can mean that your own home becomes a smaller version of a residential home. You are confined to or contained in your own environment. But with direct payments, as the experience of the independent living fund has shown, they are very often a springboard to the richer and fuller life that we would all wish to enjoy. As a client of the ILF reported in the BCODP's report of last year, Cashing in on Independence, said:
"1 am in control. I can decide when I want help. The way help is delivered—I feel it is my life, not someone else's. You are not fitted into other people's timetable. Freedom—you can choose who you have. If you don't like them, you can have someone else. You can choose the manner in which a task is performed, unlike when local authority home care staff are used. It releases me to have family as family and friends as friends".
The second reason for supporting the Bill is that many care tasks, as many of your Lordships will know, are quite intimate. They involve toileting, bathing and dressing. Therefore it means that a disabled person with direct payments to purchase that care, no longer has to depend on the ministrations of strangers who may change from week to week; who may be kindly; who may be careless; who may be over protective; who may be judgmental; or who may not, for example, respect confidentiality on such sensitive issues as gender orientation. As an independent living fund client said:
"If you are paying for it, you get what you want".
It ensures dignity and privacy.
The third great advantage of direct payments is not only that disabled people are placed at the centre of the care system and are allowed to choose who should provide these intimate services; but it provides us as a community, and they as disabled people, with better value for money. It can be, and usually is, cheaper—not because direct payments pay for cheap labour but because local authority services in kind invariably carry up to 30 per cent. overheads; £5 an hour of direct payment takes £8 of local authority equivalent service.
It is also cheaper for a second reason, because a social worker is not required to handle the day-to-day administration of, say, a taxi account, at £20 an hour. The disabled person, or perhaps the carer, will use their skills, energy and time to manage and employ. That means not a dethronement of the professional but allowing the professional to spend valuable time on the professional judgment of assessing needs, arranging training packages and, if necessary, providing the dip stick of financial and quality control. For that reason, we also welcome the Bill.
It is also better value for money because it allows the services bought with that cash to be better targeted to needs which can indeed—for example if one has multiple sclerosis—fluctuate from week to week and does not insist that you get the same, week in week out, whatever your timetable, whatever your needs or whatever your medical condition.
Research in 1994 showed that, with the services equivalent to the cash value of direct payments, 80 per cent. of those receiving services wanted and needed

1055
more hours. But only 37 per cent. of those were receiving direct payments. Direct payments allow them to use the cash to target and meet their needs more effectively. They allow personal brokerage. The contrast with the cost of residential care is very striking. The information that comes to us from Kingston is that the authority supported eight severely disabled people in the community through direct payments at a cost of £55,000. The same cost for those eight people in residential homes would have been more than £500,000.
I quoted the direct payment client who said that direct payments allowed a family to be a family and friends to be friends. Direct payments allow the employment of personal assistants who, in turn, are able to meet needs. That frees family and friends from the often heavy and, sadly, occasionally resented burden of care—resented on both sides. Parents, partners and children no longer will become carers on whom the disabled person is quite so dependent and who in turn too often treat the disabled person as less than a full or complete moral adult. What it means is that there will be greater equity, greater respect and greater dignity within the family. Of course, informal caring will continue but the burden will not be so heavy and the help will be more gracefully received.
This is not for everyone. We estimate that perhaps one person in 1,000 people receives home care and perhaps only one tenth of those may want direct payments. Many other people, particularly the lonely elderly, may prefer the ease and companionship of services instead. It is very much an outline Bill and, as ever, the devil will be in the detail and in the regulations. We regret very much that we have not been able to enjoy the results of the consultation exercise. But at Committee stage we shall seek to raise issues which we suspect will be dealt with by regulations. Perhaps I shall seek to get the Minister's assurances or in some cases put certain concerns on the face of the Bill.
The first question in this context is that this Bill gives local authorities—I believe the Minister was entirely right to emphasise this—discretion whether to offer direct payments in whole or in part. We agree with that. But we do not believe that it is sensible to narrow local authority discretion in advance by excluding certain groups of disabled people potentially from the right to direct payments. We want every disabled person potentially, if it is appropriate, to have access to direct payments whether they be young people of 16 or 17 years of age; older people over 65 or people with educational learning difficulties as well as those with severe handicaps.
We are not saying that all should receive direct payments or that all want them, but we are saying that that decision should be made locally through the discretion of the local authority, informed by the professional judgment of the social worker and not made a priori by the Secretary of State who cannot know what the local circumstances are. This is all the more so, as direct payments under this Bill are not a right but a discretion from a local authority, and if that discretion is being exercised by the local authority, we do not need a second tier of discretion behind it; namely, that of the Secretary of State.
1056
However, we are anxious that disabled people should not experience a geographical lottery utterly dependent on where they live. Hence, we shall be moving amendments to ensure that such direct payments should "not be unreasonably withheld", thus ensuring equity of access for disabled people across the country, but within a framework a test of reasonableness about the way in which the local authority exercises its judgment.
The Minister did not mention this, but perhaps she will confirm it in her reply: we also want to underpin direct payments and strengthen references in the Bill to the appeals procedure with perhaps ultimately a right of reference to the ombudsman. We shall also want local authorities to publish annual reports in terms of assessing demand and need and the degree to which they have been met.
One of the issues concerning local authorities will be the financial implications. I am sorry that the Minister's remarks were quite as robust as they were. She said that local authorities can expect no additional finance if they switch from services to cash, on the assumption that there is a cash equivalence between the two. For example, will the Minister tell us what will happen to the existing independent living fund? I do not believe that she mentioned it. Will its work and finance be transferred to local authorities and, if so, will it be ring-fenced? Therefore, will there be a sunset clause? Can the Minister tell us whether there will be a floor or a ceiling to the levels of direct payments?
Still on the subject of finance, will the Minister give us very clear assurances—and this is pivotal—that direct payments, because they will now be cash and not services, in no way affect the other cash benefits that a disabled person currently receives? Can she confirm that we shall not see the disability living allowance or the disability working allowance affected; that we shall not see such cash payments counted as income when it comes to the assessment of other benefits such as housing benefit, council tax benefit and even income support itself? That is crucial. I am sure that the Minister' intends that it should not, but it will help to have her words on the face of the Bill.
Can we also ensure that such payments are not counted, for example, for the Child Support Agency and, equally, that any particular payment that currently goes to a disabled person by virtue of their disability such as DLA or DWA, should not count towards the assessment for charging purposes? Can we also ensure that the health medical element that may come from the district nursing service, which is currently now free, will not also be turned into a cash equivalent and charging assessed against it? It is very important because the success or failure of this scheme will depend on such questions.
Still on finance, what are the charging issues in the locality? At the moment a disabled person may receive 10 hours of home help and contribute, say, £20 towards the full cost of, say, £80. If that is translated into direct payments, how will the charging mechanism come into place? For example, will the charge be deducted at source or will there be a subsequent repayment? Will the Government issue guidelines to that effect?

1057
We share with the Minister a concern for safeguards as regards financial audit because direct payments are not meant to be a charter for cheap labour in which care is assessed at £8, a person pays £4 and the difference is held to be unaccountable. We all wish to explore whether the Minister has assumed in regulations such issues as contracts of employment, dedicated bank accounts or timesheets, and whether they are envisaged. After all, we are dealing with public money and no one, least of all disabled people themselves, would wish there to be any suggestion of misuse by people in the future.
We may equally wish to explore the implications of having a register of personal assistants in order to ensure a degree of quality control. We are open-minded about that. It may prove to be useful to people who are perhaps not used to being employers.
We mentioned earlier that up to two-thirds of local authorities are currently laundering direct payments through trusts. Experience shows that, at least to begin with, disabled people will need help and support in becoming employers and coping with tax, national insurance and accounts. The ILF has certainly had cases in which there has been less than appropriate handling of those matters and a disabled person has got into financial difficulties. Can we emphasise from the beginning—and hope that the Minister will share with us—the fact that it is urgent that even before direct payments are paid, and certainly from the point at which they are made, local authorities also produce support packages, where appropriate, for the disabled person so that they know how to manage the money, the staff and the tax and insurance implications, otherwise there may well be very real difficulties in the future.
Perhaps I may finish by quoting from Sir Peter Large, who has done so much for disabled people. He once said that direct payment,
"means the difference between a life in which most of your choices are made by others and a life in which you can mostly choose for yourself'.
This Bill extends to disabled people the right to choose, which is the same right that we all want and enjoy for ourselves. We are delighted that the Government have finally brought forward such a Bill after pressure for so long. We shall seek to make it even better. We welcome it and hope that it will get a speedy and effective passage through this House.
3.57 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as a councillor in the London borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames, which is a unitary authority with responsibility for social services and, of course, community care obligations. I too welcome this Bill very warmly. I welcome it because, in assisting people to take responsibility for and control of their own lives, something quite inherent to human dignity is being recognised. I also welcome it because it is really better to make legal something which has been of doubtful legality until now. I also welcome it because it provides a further right to make an informed choice and I stress the term "informed". I believe that it will be important to ensure that real choices are made available to those who should have the opportunities which this Bill seeks to provide.
1058
Having taken this very important step, the Government must take care not to fail in the detail. I note what the Minister said about the consultation which is to take place in the new year. I was sad that she indicated that it was unlikely to be completed before the Bill leaves this House. It is important that the legislative process does not outstrip the consultation on the proposed regulations, and indeed that the legislative process does not go very far down the line before that consultation has taken place.
Given the attention that it is able to pay to matters of detail, I believe that this House is perhaps the better forum in which to discuss that detail. It would be a pity if important, practical, small but significant matters had to be left until the Bill was in another place and if, for reasons unconnected with the Bill but relating to the pressures on the parliamentary timetable, they were not given the attention that they deserve. I understand that where there is a major change of direction such as this, it is sensible to provide for the possibility of adjustment in regulations rather than in primary legislation, so I do not seek to challenge the use of regulations.
However, if those who support the thrust of the Bill are to be happy with it, many questions needs to be answered. I hope that every opportunity can be given for full discussion of and agreement to the regulations which will be so important for the application of the principle. Those questions include: who will be able to benefit from the Bill? I very much agree that the Bill and its application must not be discriminatory. I accept that, because this is a new way of providing services and of making them available, the gradual extension of the application may be important so that all those involved can learn as experience is gathered.
It is important that there is no discrimination on the ground of age, for instance. It would be sad if there were a cut-off point at, say, 65, as has been mentioned. It is also important that there is no discrimination on the ground of what perhaps I may call "ability". Those who may be less able than others and who perhaps have learning difficulties are still able to take decisions when they have the appropriate support.
Another question relates to the services that are the subject of the Bill. I believe that local authority services should remain eligible to he purchased. In the centralisation of government there is a move to reject what is done by local authorities. I hope that that is not the case here and that the services which local authorities can provide will be among those included in the provisions. Furthermore, these provisions on community care services should not be any part of a move to replace what should properly be health care. To put it another way, the legislation should not provide the excuse to shift responsibility for what is properly health provision into another pocket and another purse.
Another question is: what if the client or the user fails properly to secure the care that she or he—I too will put it that way—should be securing and to which he or she is entitled? Is the local authority to be required, in effect, to pay twice over and thus prejudice its ability to support other people?

1059
Clause 1(2) raises the question of means. The relationship between means and need will need to be considered. It is impossible to avoid consideration of questions about the total funding available if only because every new scheme almost inevitably involves start-up costs. It would be a great pity to jeopardise the scheme by failing to pump-prime it properly. That is not to say that the best value for money should not be sought. I am well aware of the research that indicates that the independent purchase of care leads to both better quality and better value for money. However, I cannot help but think that economies of scale can now be achieved which are perhaps a counterweight to the on-costs of administration which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned. No doubt the practitioners will be using their best efforts to achieve those economies.
It will be the individual who will have the incentive to get the best value from the resources that are available to her or him. However, in the less well-run authorities, that could be reduced to, "Here is a certain sum of money; do what you can with it". As the Minister said, the overall and underlying responsibility for care is most important. Finally, on the subject of resources, the inter-relationship between payments and benefits is important. Perhaps I should say that it is important that the payments do not affect other benefits.
By whom are the services to be provided? I suggest that Clause 1(3) is slightly unusual, in that the payment is,
"subject to the condition that the person to whom it is made shall not secure the provision … specified … by the Secretary of State".
It will be interesting to see such a regulation. Those provisions raise, perhaps indirectly, the question of the regulation of the services which are to be provided, among which are domiciliary care services. There has been some call for the regulation of domiciliary care services. Such questions will doubtless be answered as the Bill moves towards enactment.
The rights of those who provide the services are important in any new regime, as are the concomitant responsibilities of the service users in their new role as employers. The provision of assistance to both parties will be an important aspect of the effective introduction of the new arrangements.
I repeat that my main concern is how to ensure that choice can properly be exercised. Once introduced, we shall need to know how the scheme is working. I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on that point. It is important that there should be an easily accessible review by local authorities, possibly as part of their community care reports. Therefore, although I heartily welcome the Bill, I believe that before it is enacted we need to see considerable progress with regard to what is not on its face.
4.7 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I give a warm welcome to the Bill and join the Minister in saying that this is an "exciting" moment for those of us who have been involved from early on. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned 1992 and Andrew
1060
Rowe's Bill; in 1993 we had that of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. It was as early as 1990, during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Act, that my noble friend Lady Masham and I lost an amendment by five votes. The Minister may remember the occasion because it happened soon after she became a Member of your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lady Masham is extremely sorry not to be here today but she is attending a regional health authority seminar.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but for different reasons, I declare an interest. I am a member of the Spinal Injuries Association, which was started 10 years ago by my noble friend who is its president. Those very severely disabled quadraplegics were among the first to press for direct payments and the freedom to choose who gave them the very personal assistance about which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, spoke, together with the freedom to operate to their own timetable, which is essential if you are to do a job and lead a busy and effective life. Both my noble friend and I are fortunate. We are not sufficiently disabled to need help with personal care, but we are only about three vertebrae away. If we age and deteriorate much more, both of us could find ourselves directly interested parties.
The Bill is most welcome, but I have one or two questions which I hope the Minister can answer today. There are also one or two changes which I should like to see made during the passage of the Bill. It must be right under Clause 1 that it should be discretionary, not mandatory, for local authorities to offer direct payments to those who are not only capable, but who are actually willing, to organise their own care package because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, not everyone who is eligible will want to do so.
I welcome the fact that there can be a mixture of care and cash payments. That may well prove useful. I hope that it will be made clear that any payments made in lieu of service should be allowed to include an administrative component which would otherwise be absorbed within the delivered service. I know that that was done in one successful early example of direct payments. I hope that the Minister can answer the point when she replies.
I turn to Clause 1(1)(b) relating to who will be allowed to benefit. I am grateful to the Library for the helpful notes it sent me. They indicate—the noble Baroness said this today—that eligibility may be restricted by disability and by age. It cannot be right to impose an age restriction. I imagine—I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance—that anyone already in the scheme will be able to continue when they reach 65. Why should anyone be less capable of organising their care package at the age of 65 rather than 63 or 64? It is not a question, after all, that they will no longer be eligible for the benefit but just the method of the delivery of the help.
Imagine the frustration, for example, of a paraplegic who, having led an active and independent life for many years, becomes a bit more disabled and needs help with personal tasks, and who is told at the age of 65 that he cannot retain control of his life and keep his

1061
independence. The Secretary of State should not be able to put blanket restrictions on particular disabilities. It is difficult to draw firm lines: people vary so much, not just in their abilities but in their desire to take on the business of managing their own package.
Until last week I believed that we were talking only about a narrow specific group of severely physically disabled people, but I understand that there are a good many examples of, for instance, people with learning disabilities who are in receipt of direct or indirect—through a third party—payments. Surely, just as it is up to local authorities to decide whether to offer direct payments, it should be up to local authorities to decide to whom they offer that option. The only real criterion should be that the person be capable, in one way or another, of managing his own affairs.
I come now to means testing. Will the Minister assure us that any means testing for direct payments will be on the same basis as for providing service? I reiterate what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said about welcoming the assurance that disability living allowance or attendance allowance will not be taken into account when calculating the amount of the direct payment.
Clause 1(3) relates to the categories of people who may not be paid. I believe it is a question of relatives and that people in receipt of direct payments will not be able to purchase local authority-provided services. I am not sure why. I wonder whether the Minister can expand on that point. There was one word of caution from the Spinal Injuries Association in a brief written by someone who has been in receipt of direct payments and knows what he is talking about. It said that we must remember, as the Minister made clear, that the purpose of the Bill is primarily to enable disabled people to have more choice and control over the assistance that they need in their lives. We must, however, avoid the situation of an adult, living with his or her parents, where the payment becomes a considered part of a family income and leads to the individual being institutionalised within the parental home. I see that as something against which we may have to guard.
Clause 1(5) deals with reclaiming all or part of direct payments. Will the Minister go into more detail on that when she replies? Apart from that, I give the Bill the warmest of welcomes. I hope that the Minister can reassure me tonight on the means testing and disregard of the DLA and AA. I look forward to the Committee stage and hope that we can arrive at a satisfactory arrangement about eligibility.
We have waited a long time for the legislation on direct payments. We very much want to get it right. It is right that local authorities should have discretion as to whether to offer direct payments and to whom, but—here I like the phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—they should not be withheld unreasonably. I hope that we can turn a good and most welcome Bill into a very good Bill indeed.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, we must all be grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her lucid explanation of the aims of the Bill. I support the
1062
principle of direct payments. I made that clear when supporting the Private Member's Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord McColl, a year or two ago.
The Bill is needed. Direct payments by local authorities in England and Wales have been ruled illegal. So some local authorities have been making payments indirectly through third parties. Direct payments have been possible in Scotland within prescribed circumstances. The situation needs to be rationalised for the whole country and to become part of the community care system.
As regards Scotland, the relevant Scottish Office departments carry out the functions of the Department of Health in England and of the Department of the Environment in England in dealing with local authorities. There has been separate legislation in Scotland, in particular the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
The experience of direct payments in Scotland has encouraged the adoption of an authorised system within UK legislation. Also, the Independent Living Fund, while it was functioning until the early 1990s, proved that its clients benefited from making their own arrangements for care and that the payment system was cost-effective. It was in the interests of the taxpayer that that system should be adopted.
While I am glad that the Bill has received a wide welcome, many important ingredients of the proposals have still to be worked out and adopted; for example, the categories of disabled and elderly to be included, and, perhaps more important, those not to be included. A great deal has to be filled in by the regulations. I have been awaiting the expected report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee (of which I am no longer a member), but I am informed that the report is not yet available. I look forward with interest to seeing its opinion on the suitability of the statutory instruments proposed which would contain the regulations under Clause 1 and Clause 4 (that is, England, Wales and Scotland respectively), and also the committee's opinion on the parliamentary procedures proposed for those statutory instruments.
Leaving much to be decided later and brought forward in regulations has advantages and disadvantages. As regards the advantages, it leaves time for full consultation with organisations which will be involved or are concerned. During the recent passage of the Disability Discrimination Bill, I, and I am sure other Members of the House, were aware that many voluntary organisations were asking that too much should not be put into the primary legislation and that too much should not be decided before they had had every opportunity to be consulted and to put their views forward, and to have those views taken into account in the subsequent legislation. Those are the advantages.
The disadvantage is that we do not know at this stage of the Bill the particulars of the scope which is intended. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us as clear indications as possible of what the Government have in mind and what is likely to be in the regulations at later stages of our discussions.

1063
One matter which is not clear to me is the intention to bring in clients gradually, starting with particular categories. Here I note that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health, speaking in another place in the debate on the gracious Speech, said:
"We want to focus on specific groups so that we can test the system and ensure that it is well proven before it is implemented generally".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/95; col. 243.]
Are there to be pilot schemes? It is not clear whether there will be pilot schemes limited to particular areas. Is the rumour correct that, to start with at any rate, the schemes will be restricted to those under the age of 60?
That brings me to the overlap of disabled people and elderly people, for both categories of which the care in the community system was created to cater. The 1991 census, with its definition of disability, produced the figure of 6.5 million disabled people in the United Kingdom. That figure has been much quoted ever since. The census analysis accompanying the figures also recorded that more than 5 million of the 6.5 million were over retirement age, most not having been disabled during their working lives. Therefore, a large proportion of the classified disabled are elderly people with handicaps of the kind which must be expected with advancing years.
The organisation Age Concern is worried about how the proposed direct payments scheme will start and for whom it will cater when it is finally in full operation. Connected questions have been raised by the Law Society. It seems that in the Bill there will be definitions of community care services and disabled people and they will not necessarily be the same definitions as appear in other statutes. A definition "for the purpose of this Act", whatever Act it may be, is a common practice as we know it in parliamentary terms. However, it is bound to be confusing to members of the public and many organisations which are concerned with these matters outside Parliament.
There is doubt and anxiety among organisations concerned about who will be eligible. For example, might a very severely mentally disabled person be ruled out because he or she is judged to be unable to handle the payments and purchases? To what extent will carers or competent helpers be accepted to manage arrangements for an elderly person who may not be capable of making the care plans on his or her own? Those are the questions—others have been raised by earlier speakers—to which we do not yet know the answers. It is intended that answers shall be provided in the regulations to come after full consultation.
I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill now, although there is still much to be decided and included in the scheme. I support the intentions in the Bill. I wish my noble friend Lady Cumberlege well in the discussions and consultations which she and her colleagues in government will no doubt be carrying out in the immediate future.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I join all those who have supported the Bill's basic intentions. Indeed, its general thrusts are so straightforward that it is strange
1064
that it was not introduced sooner. At least it is before us now. We should all applaud direct payments to the elderly and to disabled people to enable them to determine their own types of care.
I shall not repeat the points that have already been made, but it is clear that we must feel our way forward gently. There are many potential problems ahead; for instance, the types of local authorities and the structure will be difficult to determine.
The only point that I can usefully make at this time is this. We have heard much of the problems of introducing individual payments and the problem of defining the status of employers has been hinted at. However, we have not taken on board the fact that we shall need comprehensive support services for everyone involved in the system. The vast majority of people will not be used to selecting care for themselves. They will not know how to do that legally and financially, nor will they know the type of care that they should be receiving at a particular time. They will know about their current type of care and they will have a rough idea about where that is going. Other people will require knowledge of certain aspects. But we shall need support services which will know when new techniques and methods of care come on stream.
I hope that in the pump-priming—and there must be pump-priming—that will be borne in mind. Without such help, an individual may be restricting himself or herself in the type of care that is received for the simple reason that they do not have the appropriate information. The Government must take that on board. Furthermore, many groups of people will be brought within the scope of the Bill, but I hope that no group will be eliminated merely because of the paperwork involved. Decisions should be made on an individual basis and on the basis of need. However, certain groups of people will have difficulty with the paperwork. Unless assistance is given to them, they will not be able to take advantage of the benefits of the system. I hope that during the various stages of the Bill we shall be given information about the guidance that is to be provided. Without such guidance and support it is unlikely that most people will get the best out of the system.
We must bear in mind that where there is a group of 10 disabled people there will be 10 types of individual need. Therefore, I hope that there will be no subdividing of the types of assistance for individual categories. We must provide support services that are flexible for individuals so that they can get the best from a system that is designed to give them dignity and status.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I should start by declaring an interest in the Bill as the father of a 15 year-old mentally handicapped daughter and as the unpaid honorary president of RESCARE, the National Society for Mentally Handicapped People in Residential Care. I would also like to apologise to your Lordships on behalf of my noble friend Lady Cox. She is unable to be with us this afternoon because of a long-standing engagement, as speaker at a university open day, which

1065
she felt she could not avoid. She has asked me to say that she will be taking a keen interest in the later stages of the Bill.
I spoke about the Bill on the third day of our debate on the humble Address on 20th November (cols. 201 to 203 of the Official Report). I will not try your Lordships' patience by repeating that now. My noble friend on the Front Bench has been good enough to have sent a letter to me stating that she will attempt to answer the questions that I put then which were not answered by my noble friend Lady Blatch, who was answering for the Government on that day.
Briefly, I made the case then, as I and others have done before, for village communities for mentally handicapped people, which appear to be preferred by the majority of families with a handicapped member. I asked whether the direct payments proposed under the Bill could be available for those families too. One is especially talking about mentally handicapped people who are so handicapped that they cannot be expected to make that kind of decision for themselves. I mentioned the strange but virulent bias which exists in local services and health authorities against such communities. I suggested that local services appeared to be flouting the Government's intention that 85 percent. of public spending on care referrals should be ring-fenced for the non-council sector. I concluded that the Citizen's Charter was therefore being largely ignored in this area and that this was costing the taxpayer very large sums of money.
If the full import of what I said on 20th November is properly measured, I am now confident that we could save thousands of millions of pounds annually if we merely did what so many families want us to do. I repeat that we are not putting money first before care effectiveness, but the economies of scale which village communities offer and the health requirements of our more mentally handicapped people which they can meet are unavoidable, if that is what their families want.
Since then I have been giving some thought as to why this virulent bias against village communities has become so politically correct in our Department of Health and in local services. I have been asking myself why the pendulum of opinion has swung too far away from care in a residential hospital (many of which certainly had their problems) towards nothing but care in an ordinary house in an ordinary street, towards integration into the so-called community at any price, even at the price of ignoring the Citizen's Charter, and at vast expense to boot.
There is not time to debate the answers fully today, although many of them are in the brochure to which I referred in our debate on the Queen's Speech, Made to Care, a copy of which is in the Library with, as its main author, my noble friend Lady Cox.
There is clearly a certain professional arrogance in the air which takes for granted that life in an ordinary house in an ordinary street must be more fulfilling or more "empowering"—to use the jargon—than life in a village community in the country. There is also inexplicable bias against life in the country, especially in the deep country. But many of our most fortunate and
1066
successful citizens choose to live in the country and avoid London and other towns like the plague. That preference for country living is not entirely unknown, even among Members of your Lordships' House. So why should this choice be deprived to our mentally handicapped?
There is an assumption, often mistaken in my view, that a village community must be stigmatised as "that sort of funny place on the hill" or some such, and that its inhabitants must therefore feel ashamed. I assure your Lordships that my daughter does not feel ashamed. She cheerfully says she is going home when she returns to her community school, where she has a real place among her peers and where she is not constantly reminded of her handicap by other so-called normal children and people. I am convinced that this must often apply to mentally handicapped adults as well.
Of course, there are many families who know that their mentally handicapped relative is happier and even perhaps made to seem more normal by living in an ordinary house in an ordinary street. It is just that many of us know that that can be a very lonely place and even more institutionalised than the residential hospital from which they may have been evicted against their own or their family's wishes. The point is that there should be genuine choice and the point is that at the moment there is not.
The professional arrogance of which I complain is nearly always to be found in people who do not themselves have mentally handicapped members of their own families. There is a theory going around these professionals at the moment that those of us parents who support village communities must be suffering from a psychological illness known as "cognitive dissonance", which was put forward by a Mr. Festinger in 1957, I gather. This means that we feel so unconsciously guilty about having placed our relatives in a village that we are incapable of recognising the beauties of community care, as administered, of course, by the professionals who advance this theory against us.
I am no expert in Mr. Festinger's theory, but I cannot see why we should not be allowed to apply it to the very same professionals who advance it against us and suggest that it is their subconscious guilt in feeling so fearful of mental handicap which makes them want our relatives to be more normal than they really are. This therefore makes them so arrogant towards us that they cling aggressively to their notions of normality as achieved by community care.
Be that as it may, and I feel sure that it is, I have been reading the Conservative research department's brief on this Bill which is presumably well-informed about the Government's intentions. Without giving any party secrets away, I propose to quote a few passages from this laudable document which seem to make it very difficult for my noble friend on the Front Bench not to agree at least with the thrust of my request.
We start under "Key Points" with the main aim of the Bill where it says:
"The … Bill will allow local authorities to give people cash payments as an alternative to community care services".

1067
I am assuming throughout all of this that with really handicapped people one is involving their families closely in this choice. The brief goes on:
"Direct payments will give people more choice and control over their lives, and so more independence".
That is, of course, exactly what we are looking for.
When we come to the care reforms and the aims of the reforms we are told that these will ensure that:
"Individuals are directly involved in planning the services they are to receive: their needs and wishes are paramount".
I am sure that we all agree with that. It goes on:
"The old system had a bias towards residential care, regardless of what was best for the individuals concerned. The reforms have removed this bias, offering people genuine flexibility and choice in how they are looked after".
My Lords, not so. It is now biased against residential care and village communities which must not be confused with the old-style residential hospitals.
The document goes on to say that the object of the exercise is,
"to promote the development of a flourishing independent sector. This will help to improve standards and value for money. It will also help to ensure individual choice".
In my speech on the Queen's Speech, I quoted an internal memorandum from Birmingham social services department which I think disproves that that is happening at the moment and in fact suggests that quite a lot of local authorities are flouting those requirements.
The document talks of securing,
"better value for taxpayers' money, as a result of a new funding structure for social care".
Under "The Role of the Local Authorities", the document states:
"Councils now have to: identify those people who appear to be in need of care services; assess what help or support these people need … discussing with them their wishes and preferences … These services may be provided by the local authority, but increasingly a greater proportion will be purchased under contract from organisations in the independent (i.e. non-local authority) sector. Where the individual appears to need health services or help with housing, the authority must get in touch with those who can provide assistance".
Again, one assumes that they will be in touch with the family.
When we come to "The Role of the NHS", this includes,
"continuing in-patient care under specialist supervision in hospital or in a nursing home".
Again, I emphasise that the healthcare needs of our most mentally handicapped can be very well dealt with in a village community. The document goes on to talk about,
"specialist health care support to people in … residential care homes".
That is also welcome. I assume that that will also apply to village communities.
My final quote from this excellent document is this:
"The Government seeks to implement policies which are designed to help all sections of society—including elderly people".
Of course we all agree with that, and I assume that the mentally handicapped are included. It goes on:
1068
"whether they are living in their own home or in a residential home. It will continue to look at all suggestions which are made for improvements in this area, as with all policy areas, to see if they are practical and workable".
I conclude with a suggestion which I fear is not only practical and workable, but also very urgent. It is that the plan to close the remaining long-stay residential hospitals and to discharge their 16,000 most severely mentally handicapped residents into the community by the end of next year, 1996, should be shelved until the Government complete the survey which has been started by the Department of Health. I trust that it will result in a revision of the department's attitude to village communities. Only thus can those 16,000 of our most unfortunate people face anything but a most uncertain future in the community.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I, too, must declare an interest as the chairman of MENCAP and as the father of a 44 year-old mentally handicapped, learning disabled daughter. She celebrated her 44th birthday on Sunday, and did so in a MENCAP Homes Foundation house where she is resident with three other people in an ordinary street, in an ordinary part of the outskirts of London.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I have to say that we are utterly satisfied with the care and attention, love and devotion which is shown to our daughter not only by her co-residents but also by the care staff and the neighbours. As I said, my daughter is 44 years of age. She is virtually incapable of walking—she either uses a frame or a wheelchair. She is virtually blind, having had detached retinas and cataracts. She has been three times in Kingston Hospital and three times in the Moorfields Eye Hospital. At present, she is going through what can only be described as a crisis of menopause which is causing her a great deal of discomfort and mental agitation. But despite all that, she is cared for supremely well in a house which is situated in a street near Twickenham.
As the penultimate speaker before the gap in the list of speakers, I am reminded of the time when I was in demand as an act at charitable midnight matinées. You arrived at 11 p.m. and went on to perform at 3 o'clock in the morning. It was advisable to listen to all the other acts that went on in between, otherwise you would find yourself arriving on the stage at 3 o'clock in the morning telling exactly the same stories which had been told by several other performers prior to your appearance. You either had to re-write your act at the time, or you had to hope that the audience had been largely asleep and that you could blind ahead with what you had originally written. I know that your Lordships are not asleep, but I am going to blind ahead with what was originally written knowing that much of what I intend to say has already been said by other speakers.
I sense a considerable measure of unanimity around the proposition that direct payments are a "good thing". Certainly, I have yet to hear anyone say that they are not a good thing. I sense also a fair measure of agreement that they are not so uniquely a good thing

1069
that all our community care eggs should be put in this particular basket. In other words, you can—in this instance at least—have too much of a good thing. I want, if I may, to take a short walk along the frontier between direct payments and more traditional ways of delivering community care support. I do so, knowing that frontiers are sometimes mined!
As I understand it, our present Government take the view that in general it is better that people should spend their own money on making their own choices—because that way you get an efficient and responsive market; and people buy what they want, rather than being given things they do not want by other people who think they ought to want them.
Whatever our personal politics, I think it fair to say that, over a large part of our lives, most of us also like to "buy our own thing"—and count ourselves fortunate to the extent that we can, and unfortunate to the extent that we cannot. That way, we feel in control.
On that line of argument, community care would mean assessing and costing people's needs and wishes, and, as far as possible, giving them the money to satisfy those needs and wishes. The snags, at least at this stage in our development, are that we are locked into old service systems. We do not have the market to deliver choice: people lack information about what we do have; planning might become impossible (it is already often pretty poor); and monitoring extremely difficult. Moreover, I am not at all sure how we would handle cut-backs.
So, I conclude that we are talking in today's debate about one way of doing things and an approach that will probably, in practice, be chosen on quite a small scale. If it works well, it may well grow. However, I also conclude that we are not talking about a tiny minority of people with physical disability and high intellectual ability and business acumen, who can handle the whole process of direct payments from beginning to end with no outside help. There are such people, and I wish them well. But if we do not go wider than that, we are not only ignoring the rights of a wider range of people to have more say in their own affairs; we are also ignoring the evidence that a wider range of people can indeed benefit.
So, perhaps I may outline the sort of scheme that MENCAP and, I believe, our People First partners—Simone Aspis and her colleagues—want to see. It will be a scheme with the following features: no upper or lower age limit for adult beneficiaries; no disability discrimination—specifically the inclusion of people with learning disabilities; provision for the involvement of accountable supporters-advocates, brokers, and so on—who will help people make choices and follow through those choices; and monitoring by the local authority, in conjunction with the beneficiary.
The low expectations that some have of people with learning disabilities are very much the result of the low opportunities with which they have been provided. I have to confess that, 10 years ago, my briefing was all about people with learning disabilities. Now some of it is by them. It was G. K. Chesterton who wrote:
"If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change".
1070
Our perception of the capabilities of people with a learning disability may not yet have reached storm proportions—but I trust that the Government will recognise that the waters are rising.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I follow two speakers who have shown with excellent examples that, no matter how similar disabilities may appear to be, the care requirements can be totally different depending on the individuals. I should begin by declaring an interest in that I work for John Grooms Association for Disabled People which provides care in the community to people with disabilities in their own homes and which has been, and still is, involved in a number of experimental schemes which incorporate direct payments.
The first time that I heard about direct payments was, I believe, way back in 1984. A young man had been so severely injured that he could not move anything below his neck, but somehow the powers that be were persuaded that he should be allowed to handle his own grants and buy his own care. It was reported to me that the young man said that it made him feel like a human being again. He had his independence and could arrange for his carers to come in when he wanted them and not when the local authority decided. Moreover, he could end his day at whatever time of the evening or night that he wanted and not when the local authority decided was the latest that they were prepared to employ a carer.
We are discussing a major step towards the independence of disabled people—an independence that the rest of us take for granted. The Bill will enable care services to be provided that are tailored to the needs of the individual rather than to the needs of the local authority.
Despite my welcome for the Bill, it is only an enabling Bill. It does not impose a duty on local authorities to make cash payments. There could well be differences in the quality and the way care services are provided in the areas of different authorities, particularly as the local authorities will have the choice of paying the whole or whatever part they think fit of the cost of any service which a person has been assessed as needing. Will that mean that they will give cash for services that are difficult to provide? Do the Government intend to monitor the level of grants to cover different care services provided by different authorities? Will that monitoring take into account the often higher cost of providing services in rural areas? Does the service that is being bought have to be that which the local authority has assessed as being needed, or may the purchaser buy services that are more appropriate to his needs—possibly services that the local authority would not be able or willing to provide'?
In Clause 1(1) the Secretary of State has been given power to specify by regulation who will be eligible to receive direct payments. Surely all those who are capable of managing their own affairs, either on their own or with the assistance of their carers, attorneys, receivers or other advisers, should be eligible. We all take advice on certain aspects of our lives and no one says that we ought not to. Is this the Government's

1071
intention? When considering this matter it should be borne in mind that 18 per cent. of those receiving grants from the Independent Living (1993) Fund have learning disabilities. Quite obviously they make their arrangements with the assistance of advisers. If some categories are to be excluded from the scope of this Bill, that should in my view be put on the face of the Bill and not be left to regulations.
Can my noble friend tell us what categories of people under the provisions of Clause 1(3) will be allowed under the proposed regulations to be paid for care services? Will people be allowed to purchase services from their own or neighbouring local authorities? Will they be permitted to pay relatives, many of whom already care for their own disabled parents, children or spouse, often having been forced to give up paid work to do so? What will be the position of friends who live in the same house and who provide care services?
There can be no justification for the exclusion from the scope of direct purchase of care services on grounds only of the identity of the provider. The providers of such services should, however, be regulated so as to meet reasonable standards of service and quality. I welcome the inclusion of Clause 1(4) which allows for the purchase of respite care. That is often needed as much, if not more, by the carer as by the disabled person.
Once this Bill becomes an Act local authorities will still be responsible for ensuring that proper provision is made for the care service for which the recipient of cash payments has been assessed. Will my noble friend ensure that the lessons learnt both by local authorities and voluntary organisations in the so far unofficial and experimental schemes, where direct cash payments have been made for the direct employment of carers by the recipients of care, are circulated to all local authorities and recipients of care as they become employers for the first time? Can my noble friend assure the House that cash payments will be sufficient to enable the care receiving employer to pay for all the expenses involved as an employer such as national insurance contributions, sick pay, employer's liability insurance and compliance with health and safety regulations? Finally, will the recipient of cash for care be able to appeal against the amount that is assessed as adequate to pay for his care? I am delighted that my noble friend has introduced this Bill into the House. I wish it well but I have a feeling that we have a lot of work to do to improve it and to make certain that it will emerge as a fully workable Act.
4.54 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the task of winding up on a Bill on which there has been so little disagreement is difficult in a rather unusual way. However, I shall do my best. The Bill has, of course, a somewhat narrow although important theme; namely, the question of direct payments. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Rix, spoke a little outside the area covered by the Bill when they referred to care in the community as opposed to care in a residential institution or village home.
1072
Before I deal with the main aspects of the Bill, I should say in passing that we should have considerable sympathy with those who raised the issue of the continuing value of a certain kind of care on an institutional or semi-institutional basis. I fancy a good many of us realise that we showed excessive enthusiasm and excessive speed in emptying institutions before we were entirely satisfied that we really understood the needs of the people who had been in those institutions, and for whom we were not—as it turned out—making adequate provision. Although, as I have said, the matter was slightly outside the terms of the Bill, it was valuable that the opportunity was taken once again to raise that point, which a good many people—those of us at any rate with experience in this field in our personal lives—would recognise as being of considerable importance.
I return to the main thrust of the Bill, which is the subject of discussion this afternoon. I suppose that some of us at any rate enjoyed, as I did, that great comedienne, Thora Hird, in the radio performance "The Cracker Under the Sofa". If this Bill had been in operation, the person who provided the so-called help in that performance would never have darkened the door of Thora Hird again. Anyone who put her in the situation depicted in "The Cracker Under the Sofa" would have recognised that that kind of help had disappeared without trace.
The point is that the Bill gives the person who is receiving the help control over the help that is being given. There is no doubt at all that it is the person who pays the piper who calls the tune. Too many people who have received help through local authorities have never been in a position to call the tune. What is worse than that, because they have been so dependent on the help being given, they have not even dared to mention to those who pay the piper their criticisms and dissatisfactions with the service that they have received. Many of us who met such people realised how vulnerable they were as they were not the employer. They were the recipients of services which were paid for by someone else.
To that extent—it is a considerable extent—we obviously greatly welcome this change. It is something for which many of us have pressed for a long time. As has been said on all sides of your Lordships' House today, we are glad that the Government have brought forward this Bill at this time.
However, I very much echo those who say that there is a long way to go before we shall really understand how to make this measure work properly. I shall deal with the first and obvious point; namely, will there be enough money to pay for adequate services? There is bound to be a temptation, if one allocates money to allow people to buy services, that little by little and inch by inch this is done as cheaply as possible. However, that would be a false economy in this field. There must be sufficient money available to provide these services. Indeed there ought to be more money available for the direct service than there has been in the past, because the overheads will surely be lower. However, as I hope I shall show in a moment, there should still be continuing overheads—although these will not be as

1073
large as they have been in the past—to deal with the issues which will arise in bringing into being and in operating the direct payments scheme.
We must recognise that not everyone will want this provision. Many will want it and it is right that they should. However, it is right—nothing would induce me to refer to a level playing field! —that there should be absolutely free choice as to whether one wishes to continue with a local authority service or whether one wishes to have the right to buy the service oneself. Some people will prefer to have the service provided by the local authority. It is their right to choose that option, and it should be available if that is what they want. Therefore, we are not moving from provision by the local authority to a system whereby people receive the money and buy the care for themselves, although perhaps before long that will be assumed to be the normal way of doing things.
Other noble Lords have raised these points in passing or touched on them. I understood the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to say that payments would not be available to the existing informal carers. I can understand why she said that, but I can see a great many difficulties arising as a result. If an informal carer who is providing the service at present becomes aware that money is available for that service to be provided by somebody else, his or her reaction is likely to be to find something more interesting, attractive and remunerative to do outside the house and to enable the person for whom he or she is caring to get the money to buy the services which up to now have been provided free by the informal carer. Given the burdens that are placed on informal carers at present, and the large amount of money that informal carers are saving the community, I should not like it to be thought that any such change is to be turned down without consideration.
It may be right that in the future the informal carers who have been carrying the burden at great cost to themselves should be free to say, "Now that money is available for the service to be provided, I wish to return to my job, part-time or full-time, and payment can be made for someone to do what I have been doing up till now". This is certainly a matter which will have to be made very clear, because it will crop up very quickly. There are some 6 million informal carers and this point is not going to escape their attention. We should very much like to know what comments the noble Baroness has to make on that point. However, perhaps I misunderstood what she said on that subject.
It is not only the position of the people being looked after and their carers which needs consideration. There is also the very important question of the people who will provide the services. Being an employer is an increasingly complicated process. It is likely that an employee who is brought in to do the work will be working for six hours a week for six different people. The mind boggles at the complications in terms of employment law in such a process. Most employers of people who are employed on short-time work in domestic institutions—and I dare say this applies to some in your Lordships' House—do not fully conform with employment law at present: they do not provide all the safeguards, contributions and rights which would
1074
apply if the person were employed in a factory. Often National Insurance is not paid, pension rights are not protected, and all the rest of it. If there is to be a large-scale development in terms of people being employed in other people's homes on a short-term basis, involving a large number of different employers, we have to have a carefully designed system which will ensure that those employees are employed on a proper basis and their legal rights are adequately protected. I do not see anything in the Bill which suggests that that will be the case. To take it for granted that it will happen is cloud-cuckoo-land. It will not unless provision is made to ensure that it does.
A further issue connected with the employee is the quality of that employee. This raises an issue which has been discussed a number of times in your Lordships' House; namely, the need for a register of people who will provide services of this kind. I speak as the President of the Institute of Domiciliary Carers. Good carers in this field—people who provide services in a responsible way—would like a register. They are all too aware that cowboys appear as soon as there is an opportunity of this kind. Those cowboys will be exploiting a particularly exploitable part of the labour market. Unless there is some way of controlling the quality of the people who will do the work, the exploitation is likely to be serious. We must reconsider the Hinchliffe Bill which was talked out or defeated in another place on a previous occasion. The issue has not gone away. This Bill makes it even more important that we revive it.
Those are just some of the many issues which need to be considered. Therefore, it is good news that the Government intend initially to pilot the introduction of the scheme, to monitor it closely, to learn from that monitoring, and then to spread the scheme throughout the country as a whole, because it is basically an extremely good programme.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I very much welcome the strong and universal support expressed by your Lordships for the principles of the Bill, even if some noble Lords said that it had been a little late in coming. I sense a very different atmosphere from that which I experienced on the last occasion, when I felt, despite the courtesy and generosity of your Lordships' House, that there was a wish to shoot the messenger.
This is a measure which will make a real difference to the lives of many people who need community care services. Direct payments will place the crucial decisions about how care is delivered in the hands of the person being cared for. I understand many of the anxieties that have been expressed this evening, particularly those expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen, who feel that perhaps the Bill has not gone far enough and there is an issue of power versus duty. However, we feel that it would be wrong to compel local authorities to offer direct payments. That view was shared and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth).

1075
The reasons are these. This is a very new scheme. Local authorities will need to find ways of satisfying themselves that an individual will he able to manage direct payments and that the arrangements they make are adequate for their needs. Experience with the independent living funds and with payment schemes operated by voluntary organisations will, of course, be useful, but direct payments have not previously been part of mainstream community care. Local authorities are moving at different speeds in the implementation of the community care reforms which were introduced only in 1993. Some are making great advances but others are struggling even with their current responsibilities. It would be in nobody's interest, least of all those who receive direct payments, if we instructed local authorities to introduce these payments for everyone, regardless of their ability to manage, and then they were unable to make a success of the scheme.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I listened very closely to the debate, and I do not think that anybody argued that at all. Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding. The position that some of us sought to argue was not that local authorities should not exercise their discretion—although it should not be unreasonably exercised—but we were concerned about the Secretary of State's intention to limit the discretion of local authorities by restricting the eligibility of certain groups in advance.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is the second point that I shall address. If I understood my noble friend Lord Swinfen correctly, he wanted this to be a universal requirement on local authorities since he was worried about the unevenness that there might be across the country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is right that others are concerned about restricting the eligibility of different client groups, and many noble Lords expressed anxieties about that matter. That will be very much part of the consultation exercise that we shall undertake, and we shall consider it seriously when we receive the results of that consultation. We shall not be denying any group access to care. They will still receive that through the social services. What we are talking about here is access to direct payments. I understand the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). But not to limit the client group would raise unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved in the short term and might, indeed, put the whole scheme of direct payments at risk.
This Bill is not about discrimination against certain groups of people. We are not prejudging who will be able to manage direct payments. We are simply saying that there are good reasons for starting small. As I said, we shall be consulting on which groups should be included and we will take account of the points raised.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked about the extent of the regulations, as did my noble friend Lord Swinfen in suggesting that the eligibility restriction should be on the face of the Bill. We feel that defining it in regulations will ensure that it can be changed in the
1076
light of experience, without the need to amend primary legislation. That is why we feel it is more appropriate to have this in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill. I have had the advantage of seeing the results of the scrutiny committee to which my noble friend referred, but perhaps it will be more appropriate to discuss that in Committee when other Members of your Lordships' House have also had a chance to look at it.
Many noble Lords raised the question of resources. Local authorities will make direct payments only where they would otherwise have been providing or purchasing services for an individual. We are, of course, giving them a new power which they have been asking for. It will give them more flexibility in how they fulfil their existing community care responsibilities.
I do not accept that social services departments lack the resources that they need in order to use this new power. Just a week ago my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that local authorities are to receive an extra £418 million to fund community care services in 1996–97. The money will be ring-fenced and it cannot be used for any purpose except community care. That will be the fourth tranche of extra money that has been provided since the start of the new community care policy. It will bring the total extra resources for community care to £2¼ billion since 1993–94, so just in six years since the start of this decade we will have doubled in real terms the amount of money provided for community care.
In Scotland, the final figures for 1996–97 have yet to be announced, but local authorities can expect to receive nearly £40 million extra for these services, with further allowance for the care gap and infrastructure costs. That will bring the total extra resources for community care in Scotland to £280 million since 1993–94.
These are substantial increases by any standards and amply demonstrate the Government's commitment to funding this new policy fairly. I doubt whether any other area of government spending can boast increases on that scale. But it will not stop there. We plan to inject still more funds in subsequent years, and by 1998–99 the total extra resources will rise to nearly £3 billion. So for every £1 spent on community care at the start of this decade, we plan to provide £3 by the end of the decade.
I can assure my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that local authorities will make direct payments only with the individual's consent. Local authorities will not be able to force them to accept cash for services that local authorities would rather not provide directly. So there really is a voluntary element here. It is up to people to decide whether they want to receive these payments.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lady Hollis, and other noble Lords asked about the relationship between the independent living fund and the Bill. The extension fund of the independent living fund is a closed fund which now supports about 14,000 clients. That support will continue regardless of whether those clients continue to receive community care services or begin to receive direct payments in lieu of those services. The second fund, the independent living 1993 fund, is open to new clients. It will continue to be

1077
available to severely disabled people on the same basis, whether they choose direct payments, community care services or a mixture of both. The existence of the independent living funds does not make direct payments unnecessary. Direct payments will substitute for community care services which would otherwise be arranged by the local authority. Cash payments from the independent living funds complement the local authority's provision and support independent living for a particular group of the most severely disabled people. Direct payments will be a part of mainstream provision.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Darcy (de Knayth), also asked how charging would work. How should local authorities decide how much to charge? This will be for the local authorities to decide, just as they currently decide how to charge for domiciliary services. Then there was the question of how charging would work. Will the charge be deducted at source or will someone pay a charge? The Bill's provision is that the payment would be made net of the financial contribution the individual makes. This, we feel, is much less bureaucratic than giving a sum of money, only to require some of it to be returned later.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked about floors and ceilings. Again, we will leave that to local authorities to decide. But I can assure her that other cash benefits through the social security system will not be affected, and nor will the principles embodied in the National Health Service. Direct payments will be made available only in lieu of community care services which would otherwise have been arranged by the local authority, not for continuing health care, which is a health authority responsibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, felt that there was a need for very comprehensive support services. We intend to put out guidance and that will stress the importance of support services. We shall be interested to hear about current good practice so that that can be incorporated in the guidance that we put out.
The question was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as to whether people will be able to use direct payments to buy community care services from local authorities. People who receive direct payments will not be able to use them to purchase services from local authorities because local authorities are not permitted to sell services in that way. However, if someone wishes to receive services from a local authority, they can choose to receive those services instead of direct payments. They can also receive a mixture of services and direct payments. So direct payments do not create a bias against local authority provision.
There was also concern that local authorities would leave people to sink or swim and not give them the support that perhaps they need when they enter the scheme. But a local authority which makes direct payments to someone will not then be able to wash its hands of that person. It will certainly not make direct payments to someone who does not feel able to manage. As I said earlier, the person's consent is crucial.
Individuals receiving direct payments should make reasonable back-up arrangements to cope with emergencies—for example, if their personal assistant
1078
simply does not turn up one day. But if the needs the direct payments are intended to cover are not met by their own arrangements in an emergency or for any other reason, the local authority will have a responsibility to step in and arrange the services. Of course, if a local authority is being asked to step in, it may well decide to look again at whether the individual can manage the direct payments scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the regulation of providers of domestic care. We do not propose to use the regulation-making power in Clause 1(3) significantly to restrict the individual's choice of provider. This Bill is a measure to give users more choice and control. What many of the disabled people who have been calling for this legislation want to do is to use direct payments to employ their own personal assistants. We would not want to exclude that alternative. Each local authority will have to decide what monitoring arrangements it puts in place to be absolutely sure that the needs to which direct payments relate are being met. The local authority will have a responsibility to step in, as I said, and arrange services if the arrangements which someone makes using their direct payments are not adequate to meet their needs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), asked whether payments will include an allowance for administration. That will be a matter for local authorities.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was very anxious to ensure that we review the scheme and how it is working. Local authorities must publish community care plans; from April 1996 they should publish community care charters. We would expect local authorities to use plans and charters to give information on direct payments.
My noble friend also asked whether we intended to have pilot schemes. We do not intend to run pilots in the geographical sense; all local authorities will be able to offer direct payments. He also asked whether in this Bill the definition of "community care services" and "disabled people" would be different from the definition in other legislation. Clause 1A explains that the definition of "community care services" is the same as in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. We have not offered a definition of "disabled people", but if we did we would ensure that it was consistent with existing legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked whether it was fair to exclude informal carers from receiving these payments. We believe that excluding informal carers from being paid to provide care using direct payments does not mean that we do not recognise their role. It is a very, very important one. But it is different from that of paid employees who provide care on a formal contractual basis. Direct payments will be an alternative to services that people would otherwise receive from the local authority and, as I said in my opening remarks, they are not to replace existing support networks within families and communities. We do not want to create pressure for families to formalise informal arrangements. We feel that it would be bound to place

1079
relationships under strain. Existing support for informal carers is more appropriate to their role and their relationship to the person for whom they care.
The noble Baroness also asked whether we intended to give people assistance in their role as employer. As I said, we shall be issuing guidance to ensure that people are aware of their responsibilities as employers. I am sure that the local authorities will wish to help those who are undertaking this new responsibility.
My noble friend Lord Pearson raised the whole question of choice and village communities. Perhaps I should explain that we intend to use the regulation-making power in subsection (4) of Clause 1 to exclude the use of direct payments to pay for permanent residential care. We feel that suitable arrangements to provide choice in permanent residential care are already in place; to make direct payments available for this purpose would simply add to the bureaucracy. That is the same for all client groups.
I know that my noble friend is very concerned about the lack of choice, as he sees it, being offered by local authorities. We have a direction on choice. If people feel very frustrated by that and feel it is not working, especially with regard to village communities, they have a right to use the complaints procedures. But, as I think the noble Lord knows, we are having an evaluation at the moment to examine the various forms of residential provision, including that in village communities. Indeed, the booklet, Made to Care, that my noble friend quoted is very much part of that review. The whole review will be completed in about six months' time.
My noble friend Lord Pearson also asked about authorities flouting the 85 per cent. rule. All local authorities are required to submit to the Department of Health returns on their compliance with the 85 per cent. rule. These returns are audited by the independent and expert district auditors. For 1993–94, the only year for which audited returns are yet available, almost all authorities met the 85 per cent. condition. The Secretary of State is considering whether to take action in regard to those that did not.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked whether the families of people with learning disabilities would be able to manage direct payments on their behalf. Direct payments are intended to give the user more control over the way in which care is met. This benefit will not be realised unless the user is in control of the direct payments, but there is no reason why they should not get help from their families or others in managing the payments.
We have said that we will consult on the detail to be contained in the regulations under this Bill. As I said earlier, that consultation paper will be published shortly. Many of the issues raised in this debate will be considered further during the consultation and no doubt throughout the Committee stages. Whatever our conclusions at this stage on those issues, the power to specify these points of detail in regulations will enable us to adjust the framework for direct payments in the light of experience.
1080
I wish to conclude, not with my words but with the words of those involved with existing payment schemes. Terry Butler, Director of Social Services in Hampshire, said of the scheme that his council has operated for over 10 years:
"I get more positive comments from users about this programme than from almost any other service we provide … In addition, I can provide more direct care per pound spent on the payments programme than other services".
That endorses the views expressed by noble Lords this afternoon that the scheme does provide good value. One of the many people who have benefited from the scheme in Hampshire, Liz Briggs, said:
"This gives me choice over my life, I am in control of my daily living. As a disabled person you lose so much of this, the scheme has given it back to me. I now have a quality of life".
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Health and Safety (Repeals and Revocations) Regulations 1995
5.26 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft regulations be approved.
The regulations are to be made under Section 37 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 in order to remove, without replacement, certain existing health and safety statutory provisions which have been shown to be outdated and which have no practical effect.
The proposals, which are before your Lordships today, are part of a process which should, in time, reduce the volume of general health and safety law, by 40 per cent., while at the same time maintaining health and safety standards.
In fact, the simplification which we aim to achieve should actually improve standards, as people will have a clearer idea of what they definitely have to do, and will not have to waste time on unnecessary paperwork trying to find out.
In December 1992, the Government invited the Health and Safety Commission to review health and safety legislation at the workplace, and to advise the Government whether the legislation was still necessary. It was made clear, though, that the Government intended to maintain standards of health and safety.
The commission's review demonstrated that the present system of regulation has won widespread support. But, health and safety law has been considered to be voluminous, complicated and fragmented. This undoubtedly makes it harder for employers and others to comply with it.
The commission therefore proposed a programme of reform of the legislation in order to reduce its volume, and more importantly in terms of its impact on business, to simplify and to clarify that legislation which remains.

1081
The regulations, which are before your Lordships today, will remove 12 sets of outdated regulations, one Act, and one Section of another Act. They will remove, without replacement, legislation which covers: homeworkers; slaughterhouses; railway running sheds; and horizontal milling machines; as well as the hours of work for people who work on shifts in the manufacture of sheet-glass using automatic machines.
The legislation covering homeworkers dates back to 1911. It was originally enacted in order to address the risk of the spread of public disease, such as plague, cholera and typhoid, which might result from carrying on certain types of work in domestic premises.
The types of work covered indicate how old this legislation is. It includes, for example: the making of iron and steel cables and chains; the manufacture of brass; the sorting of feathers; and the shelling of peas. This dates from the time when people shelled peas in their own homes for public consumption, and it was thought that the unsanitary conditions which existed in some homes would lead to contagious diseases being carried to the general public through the peas. We have moved on a little since those days.
The legislation on slaughterhouses and railway running sheds, which is to be removed, was enacted in order to ensure that certain regulations and orders, which were made under the Factories Act 1937, still applied when that Act was replaced by the Factories Act 1961.
Most of the early regulations and orders have already been revoked or have lapsed. The few which still remain will be replaced shortly when regulations, which were introduced in 1993 in order to implement several EC directives, come fully into effect.
The legislation, which covers hours of employment, relates to certain types of glass manufacture which are no longer carried out in the United Kingdom, due to the development of modern manufacturing techniques and to the changes in technology.
The legislation, which amends that which was enacted in 1928 which covered the safety of horizontal milling machines, lapses on New Year's Eve this year. If the amendments to that legislation are not revoked by that date, they will remain as a statutory instrument in force, even though the legislation which they amended, has already been repealed. That of course would be an absurd situation.
I do not think that these regulations should be regarded as controversial. All the provisions were identified by the Health and Safety Commission as being outdated and as no longer having any practical effect.
At the request of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, the commission consulted widely and sought the views of both sides of industry on proposals to remove these provisions without replacement. The responses demonstrated that there was general support from those who are affected for these proposals. Another place debated, and approved, the proposed regulations on 28th November. I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
1082
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th November be approved [ 1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations. We accept, as we have always done, that there is a case for revoking legislative requirements and regulations that have become outdated and are thus quite redundant. There is no merit whatsoever in over-regulation, as we made clear when we discussed the deregulation legislation when it was before your Lordships in the last Session. I accept also that there was provision for consultation with the Health and Safety Executive. The last report of the HSE makes clear that it was involved in a wide-ranging consultation exercise. We do not intend to oppose the draft regulations that are before this House. In any event, it is not customary for us to do so when they have been approved by another place.
However, I have some anxieties, to which the Minister might possibly respond. They arise from my perusal of the report of proceedings of the First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. I see that the intention is still to repeal Section 133 of the Factories Act 1961. To some extent I share the worries to which expression was given in the committee in the other place. As the Minister made clear this evening, the proposed regulations mean that homeworking in future will not be subject to the degree of supervision—inadequate as I believe it to have been—which existed under Section 133 and which I understand involved liaison with the HSE and local authorities. Reference is made to that in the HSE report. Indeed, the HSE has made it clear that it values highly co-operation with local authorities across a whole range of issues.
As I said earlier, some of the procedures covered by Section 133 are now completely outdated and we do not wish to revive anything of that kind. But what bothers me about homeworking is that, while for many highly educated and trained people, particularly those familiar with current technologies, homeworking may very well be a welcome development which fits their lifestyle and often their home accommodation, the same may not be true of all homeworking, particularly when undertaken by less skilled people, mainly women, who may not be able get any other kind of work, and particularly work which enables them to look after children. Often, such workers are exploited. They do not benefit from the mutual support that working together with others brings. They are often isolated and without knowledge of employment rights. Many of them are from ethnic minorities. In any event, the employment rights may not be available to them in that kind of work. The homes in which they work may not be suitable for the work that they do and may even be dangerous for the workers and their children. At least under Section 133, some means of applying protection existed.
We agree with the revocation of old and outdated regulations, but I am inclined to think that perhaps a complete repeal may not be appropriate. Updating might have been much more satisfactory. I understand that the National Group on Homeworking was not particularly enamoured of the present legislation, but clearly

1083
something is necessary in this area. I understand that the HSE is undertaking a review of regulations in regard to the self-employed. It may be that the Minister will maintain that that will cover homeworking. But what happens until that time? There does seem to be a gap there. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to enlighten the House.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her remarks and for stating her intention not to oppose these orders. She feels that there should be an opportunity for people to do homeworking. She is quite right about that. People will do homeworking and there should be opportunities for it.
However, all that the regulations on homeworking required was notification of some types of homework to local authorities. Of itself, that does not help in maintaining standards. Homeworkers are protected as it is by existing health and safety law. The kind of laws that we are repealing today are, for instance, the Home Work (Lampshades) Order, which applies to:
"the manufacture of lampshades other than lampshades made wholly of metal or glass or stone".
One order refers to homeworking in:
"the manufacture of chocolates or sweetmeats, and any work incidental thereto".
Another order of 1913 refers to
"The making or filling of Cosaques, Christmas Crackers, Christmas Stockings or similar articles or parts thereof, and any work incidental thereto".
Those are very old-fashioned orders. That is the reason why they should be removed.
The point which concerned the noble Baroness was that there should be adequate protection for those people who continue to work at home under different circumstances. I can give her the assurance that that is covered already under the existing health and safety at work statutes. So they will be fully protected. It is only the removal of those pieces of legislation which are quite unnecessary that the regulations laid before your Lordships seek to achieve. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Street Works (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
5.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft Street Works (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.
This order would introduce provisions broadly in line with those already in force in Great Britain by the enactment of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.
The main purpose of the order is to introduce in Northern Ireland new provisions to facilitate the co-ordination and control of street works. It would replace the current, somewhat piecemeal arrangements found in the enabling legislation of the public utilities and in Northern Ireland's roads and road traffic law, with provisions similar to those in Part III of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Modifications have been made to reflect the different legislative and administrative situation in Northern Ireland.
The order would generally apply not only to roads maintainable by the Department of the Environment, the sole roads authority in Northern Ireland, but also to all private streets. Its key aims are to reduce the delays and disruptions to road users caused by street works and to improve the quality of workmanship. It would seek to achieve that by encouraging a more co-operative approach between the undertakers of works, the department and other street authorities, and by clearly defining their respective duties and responsibilities. Like the Act of 1991, the order sets out a broad framework within which matters of detail can be dealt with under regulations and codes of practice, thereby facilitating future amendment to reflect changing circumstances.
Turning to the content of the order, utilities and other undertakers would be fully responsible for their works, including the permanent reinstatement of the street surface. The department and other street authorities would have a duty to co-ordinate their own and undertakers' works in the street. A key instrument in this would be a register showing information on works of all kinds in streets. Many of the requirements in the order would be supported by criminal penalties for failure to comply.
Street works are a major factor in congestion and delays in towns and cities in Northern Ireland and there is a clear need for a flexible system of organising street works to accommodate increasing traffic and increasing activity by utilities. I am delighted that the increase in traffic reflects a growing economy. I am confident that the order, in broadly harmonising the law in Northern Ireland with that in Great Britain, would be to the benefit not only of the utilities, but also of considerable benefit to road users, from improved planning and execution of street works and reduced traffic congestion.
My Lords, I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I support this matter. I have neither criticism, question nor complaint. If this is the last Northern Ireland business this Session, I wish the Minister a happy Christmas.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I had not intended to rise to my feet, but I offer from these Benches our best seasonal wishes to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it would be discourteous of me not to return those felicitations. I thank noble Lords for the great support that they have

1085
shown for Northern Ireland, this year, for which everyone in Northern Ireland is most grateful. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Contracting Out (Administration of the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme) Order 1995
5.40 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order will allow my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to authorise a private sector company to administer the teachers' superannuation scheme in England and Wales. The Teachers Pensions Agency administers the scheme at present. It provides a good service to members of the scheme. It has also achieved its key efficiency targets. Administering the scheme, however, is expensive. The TPA's running costs last year were over £15 million. We owe it to the taxpayer to see if we can make savings over and above those that the TPA itself plans to make.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Robin Squire, therefore announced on 1st November that the Government were inviting six private sector companies to tender for a contract to administer the scheme. All six companies judge that they could administer the scheme for less money than it would cost the TPA and to at least as high a standard. Inviting them to submit tenders will allow them to show whether they could indeed do so. We shall let a contract to administer the scheme only if we are satisfied that it would deliver better value for money.
I should like to assure your Lordships of three points. First, there is no question of privatising teachers' pensions. Any contract would be only for the administration of the scheme.
Secondly, letting a contract would not affect the size or safety of teachers' pensions in any way. The scheme does not have a real pension fund. Pension contributions go straight to the Exchequer, and the Exchequer guarantees the payments to which members of the scheme are entitled. Those payments cannot therefore be at risk. Since the contractor would not be managing a pension fund, he could not make a profit from it. We would instead pay the contractor an agreed fee for administering the scheme.
Thirdly, any contract would require a standard of service and performance that was at least as high as that which the TPA would provide. We would ensure that any contractor met that standard. All six companies would intend to do so.
The Government have two goals; first, to ensure that teachers and retired teachers continue to receive a rapid and efficient service of pensions administration, and, secondly, to achieve, if possible, further savings for the taxpayer. Our current work is designed to achieve those goals. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for the characteristic clarity with which he introduced the order and the issues which lie behind it. It is an enabling order; it is therefore especially important that we should be quite clear about what it will entitle, and enable, the Secretary of State to do.
The Minister will have read, marked, learnt and inwardly digested, to his equal profit and pleasure, the 23 columns of Hansard in which this order was debated in another place. And so it will come as no surprise to him to learn that we on these Benches are not entirely happy with the order. We wish the proposal had never been made and believe that no good will come of it. However, the order was voted upon in another place and it is the convention of your Lordships' House not to dispute such a decision.
We are unhappy with the order for a number of reasons. I shall mention just three. First, the debate in another place exposed the enormous power that any Minister may arrogate to himself under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, since it would allow total freedom to vary a scheme which has some 1.25 million participants and running costs of the order of £15 million per annum. The Minister may do that without primary legislation and with remarkably little debate.
Secondly, the order has not been the subject of a comprehensive review. The scheme is presently administered by the TPA and was formerly run by the predecessor of the DFEE. In the only consultation which the Government undertook the claims of neither the TPA nor the DFEE to administer the scheme were considered. The only option was how the scheme could best be privatised or—a hideous word which has now crept into our language—"contractorised". Somebody in America said recently that there is no noun that cannot be "verbed".
A fair and just review would have examined all possibilities and not prejudged the vital issue. As I understand it, the original consultation involved 131 organisations and 128 of those refused to endorse the proposal. Only three positive endorsements were recorded. But the Government ignored that result and went ahead in spite of it with the privatisation option, dismissing those who were consulted on the grounds that,
"their objections to contractorisation are not well founded".
Thirdly, we oppose the order because the proposal will undoubtedly lead to job losses among the TPA staff in Darlington. There can surely be no other way in which significant savings could be made, since everyone seems to agree that the TPA provides an excellent service to members of the scheme, has achieved or exceeded all its key efficiency targets and runs the proverbial "very tight ship".
We feel it necessary to try to clarify some of the issues which did not emerge clearly when the order was debated elsewhere. The Minister will be aware that it

1087
was a time-limited debate and that his honourable friend had only seven minutes in which to try to answer the host of questions he had been asked—and he had a few interruptions in the course of that. Perhaps I may therefore ask seven questions, all of which were raised in the other place and which his honourable friend did not have time to answer, even though he will by now no doubt have written to those who asked them. I gave the Minister notice of the questions because I feel it is necessary to have the Government's position on the order on the record and clearly stated for the avoidance of confusion.
Why were KPMG asked to advise on only one option for the future of the scheme? Given its terms of reference it seems to have been precluded from advising that the administration would be best left exactly as it is, or from considering any other possibility. Does not that fact, together with the Government's almost contemptuous dismissal of the clear result of its consultation exercise, suggest that the whole thing was cut and dried, decided in advance and ideologically controlled?
Secondly, why is the proposal being made at this particular moment? Was there not a Next Steps feasibility study in 1990 which created the agency, which has given complete satisfaction to everyone concerned? What has happened since 1990 to make it so urgent that the administration of the scheme be privatised?.
Thirdly, in the debate in the other place the Minister was unable to define what was meant by "core administration" in respect of the staff employed by the TPA at Darlington. He said that,
"logic suggests to me that a significant proportion, if not the entirety of the operations, would be based in Darlington".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/95; col. 1005]
It is widely believed that all six firms which have been invited to bid have said that they will retain their core administration in that town, but, my Lords, what else would they be expected to say, especially at this stage in a bidding process? Can the Minister give a closer definition of what is meant by a "core administration" and offer some better assurance of job security to the dedicated and successful staff of the TPA?
Next, the consultants, in their report, suggest that in a five to seven-year period something of the order of 20 per cent. savings could be made in the administration of the scheme. But, as I read the report, there is no evidence whatever to support such a claim. The TPA expects to cut its own costs by 7.5 per cent. for each year for the next three years, and we would like to know how this compares with the putative 20 per cent. estimated by KPMG.
Then, few people reading the Official Report of the debate in another place will understand the significance of the Hoskyns project which was apparently introduced to provide new information technology into the TPA. I certainly did not understand it. Hoskyns, whoever they are, apparently sub-contracted to an organisation known as UPSI. But UPSI went "downsi" and the scheme was
1088
a failure. Can the Minister tell us how another private sector company would be able to make similar provision which will not similarly collapse?
I would also be grateful if the Minister could explain where ultimate responsibility for the administration of the scheme lies. In so far as I understand the proposals, the tendering companies will know that, in the event of their failure, somebody else—and I suppose it will be the Government and the taxpayer—will find the money. If he will excuse the cliché, "If a private company's scheme fails, who picks up the tab?".
Finally, the question was asked in another place whether the Minister is prepared to publish the comments made by the six tendering companies, which will allow others to judge the effect of those comments upon any consequent contract. This seems to us a good idea and a "necessary transparency", as they say, and, so far as I know, no such assurance has been given.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their patience and forbearance while I have examined the minutiae of what is a complex and controversial proposal, on the ideology of which Government and Opposition are clearly and inescapably divided. But with a population which will be increasingly made up of pensioners, the matter is not one we can take lightly. Pensions are an extremely sensitive issue. And the memory of Mr. Robert Maxwell, though not fragrant, is still green.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that I can deal with a number of the points the noble Lord raised, though whether I can satisfy him on all remains to be seen. I certainly suspect that I cannot satisfy him on the basic principle and on the power, about which he is unhappy, that we are taking on, because quite simply there are ideological differences between us. The noble Lord and his party do not like the private sector. I have no qualms whatsoever, and if I think that the scheme can be better administered by the private sector and at a saving to the taxpayer that is certainly the route I should like to pursue.
The noble Lord said that there was only one option for us—privatisation or contractorisation, or whatever. That is not the case. We shall look very carefully at all the six bids. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that if none of those six bids is satisfactory in the various ways that we wish them to be satisfactory we shall maintain the status quo. I can also assure him that we shall not accept any bid unless there are really genuine savings. As my honourable friend in another place put it—or perhaps not in another place but somewhere else—we are not just doing this for sixpence.
Perhaps I may also assure the noble Lord on redundancies. There may be redundancies. It is quite right that if someone can administer such a scheme with fewer people, they should so do. It would be wrong to maintain people in employment when there was no job for them to do. However, I can assure the noble Lord that we believe that they will be protected by the TUPE regulations. But that is a matter for any successor company to take advice on itself. Our understanding is that that would be the case.

1089
Perhaps I may briefly answer a number of the noble Lord's questions. I am grateful to him for giving me some idea of those questions in advance. I assure the noble Lord that, as he put it, my honourable friend Mr. Squire has already written to various of the noble Lord's honourable friends answering most of the points that he was unable to answer in the time available. If the noble Lord would like me to put that letter in the Library, I shall be more than happy so to do. I detect assent from the noble Lord.
The noble Lord asked why we commissioned KPMG to advise on only one option for the future administration of the scheme. I assure the noble Lord that the purpose of the report was to establish whether letting the contract to the private sector was feasible and whether it offered scope for greater efficiency. When we announced the period of consultation on the future of the TPA, we made clear that we were looking to secure further efficiency improvements but that we had not yet decided how best to do so and that letting a contract to administer the scheme was only one of the options available. We considered various options before deciding to invite expressions of interest for a contract. As I made clear to the noble Lord, if none of the offers coming forward from those six organisations is suitable, we shall maintain the status quo.
The noble Lord asked in effect why we were inviting tenders now when we decided in 1990 against letting contracts. Both in 1990 and now our key concern has been the same—to find the most efficient way of ensuring that teachers and retired teachers receive high quality pension service. Setting up the initial operation of the Teachers Pensions Agency has shown that letting a contract is indeed feasible. The KPMG report concluded that letting a contract offered a prospect of substantial improvements in efficiency and effectiveness. All six companies have declared that they would intend to seek a fee for administering the scheme that was lower than the expected cost of keeping the administration of it in the public sector. I believe we owe it to the taxpayer to find out whether such additional savings are available. That is why we invited tenders, and that is why we shall let a contract only if it will offer better value for money than keeping the administration of the scheme in the public sector.
The noble Lord asked what we meant by "core administration". All six companies that we have invited to tender intended to keep the core administration of the scheme in Darlington. By "core administration" we mean the functions the TPA currently carries out in Darlington to administer that scheme efficiently. That is what they have all offered to do. I hope that will provide the kind of assurance to those working for the TPA currently in Darlington that the noble Lord is seeking.
The noble Lord also asked about the Hoskyns contract. That is a contract between the Government and its contractor for new IT systems for the TPA. It is subject to litigation. Therefore I am afraid that it would he inappropriate for me to comment further at present. I am sure the noble Lord will accept that.
The noble Lord then asked who, as he put it, would pick up the tab if the contractor failed. I have to say that we certainly do not expect that to arise. We are satisfied
1090
on the basis of the evidence so far that all six companies are thoroughly reputable organisations. They all have access to substantial financial resources, and the relations between their staff and management are sound. We shall not let a contract unless we are satisfied that the company in question would administer the scheme, as I have stressed on more than one occasion, to the standard required. However, the Secretary of State will remain responsible for the scheme.
In the very unlikely event that the contractor failed, the Government would ensure proper and effective administration of the scheme just as we would if the Teachers Pensions Agency failed for any reason whatever. There is a risk of mistakes or failures in both the public and the private sectors. Risk can never be totally avoided. Our task is to avoid and minimise that risk so far as possible. We shall certainly make sure that appropriate arrangements are in place to do that, and we shall ensure that there are commensurate arrangements following the letting of the contract.
Finally, the noble Lord asked whether we would publish the comments of companies on the draft statement of service requirements. We shall not because they would be commercially confidential. But we shall take account of the comments we receive from all the bodies that we have consulted before finalising the statement, and any contractor would have to deliver a standard of service performance at least as high as that which the TPA would achieve. Draft statements provide for such a standard and so will the final version of the statement, which we shall make available to the interested parties. There is simply no question of allowing companies, or anyone else for that matter, to water down the requirement of the statement and certainly none has sought so to do.
I hope that what I have said deals with all the questions which the noble Lord put to me and that he will accept it as the answer. I accept that there is an ideological difference between us, but that, in time, as the party opposite moves further and further towards us, it will recognise the benefits of the private sector. If only it would, it would be a great step forward. With those assurances and that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will accept this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Statute of the European Schools) Order 1995
6.00 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order designating the new convention defining the statute of the European Schools as a Community Treaty under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972, and laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.
I will briefly explain, first, the convention to which the order applies and then the effect of the order itself. The convention defines a new statute—a set of administrative regulations—for the European schools, as agreed by the European Community member states and the European communities in Luxembourg in June 1994. It replaces the original statute of 1957; an inter-governmental agreement to which the UK acceded in 1972. There are nine European schools in six EC member states, including one in the UK, in Oxfordshire. They provide education for the children of employees of EC institutions and are jointly financed by the EC member states and the Commission itself.
The new statute, as described in the convention, introduces much needed measures to increase the administrative efficiency of the schools. The UK Government have supported the need for such reform for many years, as a means of easing the decision-making progress for routine administrative issues by ending the blanket requirement for unanimity in the governing body. Decisions on policy issues of substance will still require unanimous agreement. The new statute will also encourage the decentralisation of power and authority away from the centre by awarding more financial autonomy to individual schools. It is intended that this will further encourage the more efficient use of resources within the schools, based on local decisions. Finally, the new statute will provide teachers and parents with a more active role in the administration of the schools, through representation on the board of governors.
Having been signed by member states and the European Commission, the convention defining this new statute must now be ratified by each signatory. The debate today forms part of the final stage in this process of ratification by the UK. The convention has already undergone the usual scrutiny procedures, having been laid before both Houses in December last year for the requisite period of 21 days. The order before the House, which was discussed yesterday in Standing Committee
1092
in another place, will define the convention as a Community treaty and thus enable the United Kingdom to meet its financial obligations under the new statute. The nature and volume of expenditure under the new statute will be similar to existing expenditure under the current statute of the European schools.
It is clear, therefore, that there is nothing in the order, or the convention to which it applies, at which anyone, even some of the noble friends of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who sometimes sit behind him, could take offence. Indeed, the new administrative regulations defined by the convention are to be welcomed in the interests of the efficient deployment of United Kingdom resources in Europe. I urge the House to support the Motion and approve this order. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committed]—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am most obliged to the Minister for explaining this small but quite complex piece of bureaucratic necessity or necessary bureaucracy. It was, as he said, carefully considered yesterday by the Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, who agreed to it, surprisingly, by nine votes to one, after surprisingly little discussion. It is an uncontroversial measure; we are all committed to excellence and diversity in education and the European schools are a special form of it. This order will increase the administrative efficiency of the schools and our own school at Culham in Oxfordshire will benefit from it. We fully support the order.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful for the noble Lord's warm welcome of the order. I certainly look forward to it being passed by this House without even the one dissenting voice in another place to which the noble Lord referred.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past six o'clock.