My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, over the period since 1979 neither the NHS as a whole nor any region within it has suffered any decrease in resources, and none is now contemplated. On the contrary, the overall increase in services over the same period has been 5½ per cent. or more, and further growth is planned for 1983–84.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that reply, which seems encouraging except when it is put against the facts. Does he realise that every time we get a statement of that kind from the Government, some great hospital, for example, Great Ormond Street and Tadworth Hospitals, are put under threat? At this very moment there are hospitals in Glasgow, and in particular the leukaemia wards, under threat of closure. There is the leukaemia ward in the East Birmingham hospital which is now under threat of closure simply because they cannot find staff. Would the noble Lord be prepared to look at the examples that I give, and perhaps inform me that the fears I have expressed on behalf of those hospitals will not be realised—or will they perhaps be realised?

My Lords, I will certainly look into the specific examples the noble Lord has referred to and let him know the position in regard to them. The question of Great Ormond Street has, of course, been discussed in your Lordships' House on more than one occasion and I do not think I need to repeat what has been said about that.

There are two real answers to what the noble Lord is asking: first, on the question of priorities, we do need to establish the right order of priorities, because there is a finite sum of money available for the health service, not an unlimited sum of money, as some people seem to think. The other thing is that we do necessarily have to decide the priorities to keep the system going smoothly. I hope the noble Lord would not want us to depart from that.

My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the figures he gave relate only to the hospital service, or are they totals for the whole of the NHS, including the family doctor service and ophthalmic and dental services for which the charges to the public have gone up?

My Lords, the figures I gave related to the Question on the Order Paper, which was about the National Health Service as a whole. The financial considerations so far as the family practitioners are concerned are, of course, different.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if he is aware that I was at a reception last week at the London Hospital and an occupational therapist told me that that district was thinking of not supplying the Roho cushion to paralysed people? If the noble Lord is not aware of what a Roho cushion is, it is a special cushion filled with air which can stop people from getting pressure sores, thus keeping them out of hospital and saving money. Would the noble Lord please look into this and let me know?

My Lords, I will certainly look into the specific case which the noble Baroness has drawn to my attention. I suspect that the same arguments will apply in that case as in the cases that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, put to me—namely, the question of priorities.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that over a quarter of the annual cost of the National Health Service seems to be administrative costs? If there is to be a cutting down or slimming of services, could it be confined to the administration, rather than to the medical and associated services?

My Lords, I certainly agree that that is an area that needs to be very carefully looked at. It is not always the case, however, that administrative expenditure is misspent. For example, I heard of a case recently where it paid to provide a further private secretary for a particular consultant because it freed the consultant to get on with his proper work.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the profound concern which exists in this House, as expressed by the noble Baroness and by my noble friend, about individual cases and units, and indeed about hospitals like Tadworth? Is he able now to tell the House, in view of the encouraging statement he has made, that reconsideration will be given to the closure of these units and this hospital? His answer to that would be heard very carefully by all of us and by the country.

My Lords, there are two points, as I was saying to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, which we need to take into account when considering specific cases like Tadworth. They are, first of all, the priorities, but, secondly, we must ensure that we get the very best value for money from the funds that we can make available. In the case of Tadworth—and the noble Lord will know that my honourable friend is considering that matter specifically and we have made additional funds available in the short term—that hospital at the moment is less than half used, and I do not think that that is the best use of the resources available.

My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind that in the case, for example, of Kings College Hospital, where I have had the good fortune to have had almost continuous care for 12 months, the question of administrative costs is very largely a question of definition? They have a very remarkable system there under which the patient can spend much more time at home, with less cost to the hospital, by utilising administrative services and giving the patient special examinations from time to time at the hospital in the various departments, and supplying special treatment at those interviews.

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point to certain changes in some of the procedures within the National Health Service in recent years—for example, the greater use of day surgery and the greater use of short stay facilities, which frees beds to be used by other patients. But one does have to remember that such arrangements do sometimes throw a greater burden on the local social services.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is generally accepted that the National Health Service needs an increase of between 1 per cent. and 1½ per cent. per annum for demographic changes which, against 5½ per cent., in my view does not leave anything for growth? Will the Minister please ask the Secretary of State not to talk about growth.

My Lords, with respect I do not think that the Secretary of State needs any lessons from me on how to address himself to these matters. We have more than covered the growth in resources required by the demographic changes to which the noble Baroness refers—for example, there has been the increase for the elderly, of which, I have no doubt, the noble Baroness is very much aware. This is a matter of which we, too, are aware, and the increase in resources that we have made available has more than covered that particular point.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, in addition to the very valid point made by the noble Baroness, there is apprehension running through all grades of staff throughout the National Health Service? As I have said, they hear that there are to be improvements and that the NHS is safe in the hands of this Government, but within a few weeks of such statements there are threatened closures which stretch from Surrey, through London, Birmingham and Glasgow. Will the Minister please give some assurances on matters which are perturbing staff and patients about what appear to be promises made on the one hand and the reverse being applied when the promises have faded away?

My Lords, I am not going to give an assurance that money misspent in the health service will continue to be misspent or that half-empty hospitals will continue to remain so when there are other facilities nearby that could equally be used.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the Government would deplore any attempt to undermine the authority of teachers, and we look to schools and local education authorities to take action to deal with any such attempt. We have at present no plans to introduce additional powers in this field, but if my noble friend has specific proposals in mind we should be glad to consider them.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware—I am sure he is—that the media are increasingly reporting the physical violence and obscene abuse that is being inflicted on teachers? Does he further agree that some of this is stirred up among pupils by various items of literature that fall into their hands? Further, is he aware that I have heard reports that literature is being distributed in the Midlands telling pupils to harass their teachers, the excuse being given that education imprisons the mind?

My Lords, I am not surprised that when violence takes place in schools that is the sort of thing the media cotton on to, because there is not an awful lot of newsworthy material in a school that is working peacefully, with the pupils sitting happily doing their lessons and where all is well. I do not mean to be flippant because, of course, we are concerned about any school where violence occurs, especially towards teachers. I do not think there is a particular amount of violence at the moment. Each case must be looked at on its merits and it is up to the local education authority to deal with it.

My Lords, is not this Question a figment of the noble Viscount's imagination? Many of us have children and grandchildren and we have never heard of any such thing happening among teachers. Is it not wrong to frighten people in this way?

My Lords, I am not here to defend my noble friend's Question but I am afraid, unfortunately, that it is not a figment of his imagination. If the noble Baroness cares to go to the Library I am sure she will find reports of violence in schools unfortunately occurring from time to time.

My Lords, has the noble Earl's attention been drawn to two publications that are highly respectful not only to teachers but also to senior officers of the armed forces and even to Members of your Lordships' House? I refer to the Beano and the Dandy.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on 22nd November it was reported in the press that a group of teachers in Leeds had said that in a single year there were 73 violent physical attacks on them?

My Lords, may I ask my noble kinsman if he agrees that it is not very helpful to the authority of schools when the teachers go on strike, and that that is a bad example to the children?

My Lords, that question was not a plant. I agree, as I do occasionally, with my noble kinswoman.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that we do not want censorship and that, if anyone is anxious about what is coming in, it is up to the head and the governors to decide what is suitable or not?

My Lords, I think that is very much the case. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing that out.

My Lords, can the Minister give us some examples of what is called subversive literature that is distributed in schools, so that we may avoid it?

My Lords, I do not think it is up to me to produce the literature. That is for the noble Viscount who asked the Question.

My Lords, I beg to leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I understand that about 6,800 jobs would be produced. The Government, in consultation with the London Docklands Development Corporation, are considering urgently what action might be taken following the recent decision of the GLC not to proceed with the release of the site.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that partly reassuring Answer. Is he aware that 6,800 new jobs in this desolate dockland area are a wonderful prospect which should not be lost on any account? Is my noble friend able to say more definitely that there could be the prospect of the Secretary of State vesting this land in the Docklands Development Corporation, which is already making such splendid progress in the redevelopment of docklands?

My Lords, vesting is cetainly an option which is open to the Secretary of State and one which my right honourable friend will doubtless be considering, but I cannot today say more about that.

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether the 6,800 jobs that he has just mentioned will be in manufacturing industries, and, if so, what industries? Alternatively, will they be commercial jobs, light industry jobs, office jobs or whatever? It would be good if the House could have some clear idea of the type of spin-offs that there might be from these industries.

No, my Lords, I cannot do that because the numbers and the particular types will depend entirely upon the final scheme that a developer will decide to put on to the land if it becomes available to him. The problem as regards the point which my noble friend raises is that at the moment, having refused to release the land, it is possible that the situation as it has pertained for some years will continue—that is, that nothing will happen. I should have thought that that was a matter for much greater concern than the type of jobs among the 6,800 to which I referred.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the conference resumed on 9th November. Together with our partners and allies, we have drawn attention to violations of the Helsinki Final Act, particularly by the Soviet Union and Poland, and have stressed the need for a balanced and substantive concluding document covering all areas of the Final Act. To this end, we have jointly put forward amendments to the draft concluding document tabled by the neutral and non-aligned countries.

My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that informative, if somewhat depressing, reply, I should like to ask whether the continued refusal of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries to honour the spirit of the Helsinki Agreement in so far as contact between peoples is concerned, does not make total nonsense of the claim by Mr. E. P. Thompson and other leaders of the so-called peace movement that their organisation has serious ramifications on the other side of the Iron Curtain?

My Lords, we have continually pressed the Soviet Union and its allies on human rights, and. of course, CSCE is concerned largely, but not exclusively, with that subject. I would agree with my noble friend that there are considerably greater human rights in the western part of Europe than in the eastern.

My Lords, I think the noble Lord on the Front Bench might perhaps agree that the peace movement in this country does not, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, have serious ramifications in Eastern Europe. What it has sought to do is to make contacts in that area. Is it not the case that peace cannot be assured unless such contacts are established, both officially and unofficially?

My Lords, I would say that that was exactly the point of a conference such as is currently being held in Madrid. Talks cannot be anything but good. The question is whether what the noble Lord called unofficial talks will have the desired effect, and will effectively do better than the official talks. I rather doubt it.

My Lords, bearing in mind the last question and answer, does my noble friend not think that it would be a good idea if the activists at home were to hold their horses until they have made their contacts abroad and they look like producing something equivalent?

My Lords, it is an undeniable human right in this country, and I think I am right in saying in the whole of Western Europe, that people should be allowed to make their views known with all the force at their command. It is possible, of course, to go off at a slight tangent. So I would agree with my noble friend, at least as far as he goes, that one should think very carefully before demonstrating, or whatever, for or against a particular point of view.

My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, can he say whether the Government are pressing for amendments to the final draft on the subject of human rights? If I may refer to a specific case, can the noble Lord say what the response of the British Government is to the appeal by the three wives of the dissidents in Russia who are suffering under the Soviet Government, one of whom I think is Doctor Orlov? Can the noble Lord say what we are doing about that specific case?

No, my Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer the noble Lord's specific point, but I shall of course take the opportunity to write to him. As regards the amendments which are still required to the draft final document, there are, in fact, five of them, four of which concern human rights. Amendments are required, first, on human contacts; secondly, on experts meeting on human rights in the future; thirdly, on the position of trade unions; and fourthly, on official monitoring groups for the Helsinki Final Act. Last but by no means least, there is a conference on disarmament proposed in the draft Final Act and one of our objectives is to seek a real mandate for this and also agreement on the zone of its application.

My Lords, would the Minister not agree that during these long discussions the non-aligned nations have sought to bring agreement between the two sides? Is he aware that, while one denounces passionately the denial of human liberty in the Soviet Union, there have also been charges against the western countries? Is it the case that the communiqué of the neutral nations is of such a character that agreement is likely to be reached? Also, what is the Government's attitude to the proposal for a European disarmament conference?

My Lords, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Broekway, that without the non-aligned nations the current draft document would not be on the table and the Government are extremely grateful to them for that. However, it is also true to say that both sides need an amplification of it and want to make changes to it. I am afraid I have lost the other point that the noble Lord raised. Perhaps he would care to repeat it.

My Lords, is it perhaps possible to generate more action by the United Nations Human Rights Commission in this field? They have the power at any rate to inquire, and possibly even to interpose from time to time.

My Lords, the possibility is always there.

My Lords, would my noble friend agree with my experience in the United Nations, that it is difficult to come to any terms on human rights with the Soviet Union, who do not recognise that there is a problem of human rights?

My Lords, I do not have the experience to which my noble friend refers; I was not in her place at the time. However, I should think that on balance she is probably right.

My Lords, while appreciating the Minister's reply to me, I should like to repeat the question which he apparently missed. What is the attitude of the Government to the proposal at this conference for a European disarmament conference?

My Lords, as I said in answer to an earlier supplementary question—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Broekway, for repeating his own—we very much take the point that it should be there, but with the provisos that I mentioned earlier; namely, that there must be a real mandate and there must be agreement on the zone of application before it can become effective.

My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to abolish local authority resolutions assuming parental rights and make provision for the making of care orders in cases where a child is already in the voluntary care of a local authority; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 86:

Page 56, line 47. leave out ("(staff of health authorities)").

moved Amendment No. 87:

Page 14. line 22, leave out ("services") and insert ("any service").

moved Amendment No. 88:

Page 14. line 23, leave out ("them") and insert ("the service").

moved Amendment No. 89:

Page 14. line 24, leave out ("the services") and insert ("it").

moved Amendment No. 90:

Page 14. line 24, after ("services") insert ("(with the exception of home help services)").

I should like to support briefly what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has said. This amendment would make sure that all who need home help would get it, or at any rate they would not be deterred from getting it on financial grounds. The noble Lord emphasised that there is no addition to supplementary benefit now available in order to pay for a local authority home help, and in the absence of that it seems that this amendment is necessary.

May I ask my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary whether he can give us any guidance as to the amount that is recovered by this payment for home help service? I agree with the noble Lord as to the vital necessity of the service, but I feel that everything is comparative and if enough is not brought in by having this on a payment basis then I should have thought that there was a good case for thinking again.

As the noble Lord has made plain, the intention behind this amendment is to exempt from charges all those people availing themselves of home help services provided by local authorities. I am afraid I have to tell him that in that endeavour the amendment is defective. It applies to charges made to the broad categories of disabled people provided with home help services under the National Assistance Act and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, but does not extend to Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977, under which local authorities may also provide home help services for other clients and make charges.

Certainly the Government would not support an attempt to single out a particular client group for exemption whereas others, such as old people or problem families with equal need, were not exempt; but I do not think that that was in the mind of the noble Lord. Accepting, therefore, that the noble Lord's intention is that exemption from home help charge should apply to all clients, then I am afraid that here, too, the Government could not support the noble Lord's proposal. Our purpose in Clause 12 is to introduce consistency into charging arrangements between the various services. Given that local authorities will be obliged to take into account the ability of people to pay for these services and have the option, indeed, to waive charges altogether if they think necessary, we see no reason to single out the home help service for special legislative arrangements as proposed in the amendment.

Such arrangements are not a feature of existing legislation and would defeat the underlying purpose of this clause. I do not of course for a moment deny the importance of the home help service, particularly to people such as the ones the noble Lord described, but I do not think that we would be assisting those people by singling them out in the way that the amendment proposes, particularly having regard to the other provisions of Clause 12. As for the point raised by my noble friend, I have not got that figure in front of me. I will see if I can find it out and write to my noble friend.

The noble Lord said that the aim of the Government was to obtain consistency in charges by local authorities. Is he aware that there is a widespread inconsistency at the moment, and that if the proposals of this Bill are carried forward that inconsistency will remain? The noble Lord said that the amendment is defective. That may be so, but he referred to Clause 12 and he has not yet come to the other amendments that I have tabled on this issue. This, to me, on the home help service in particular, is a personal matter of great principle. Therefore, I propose to divide the Committee on the principle, and if I am successful the Government may have the opportunity to amend the Bill in some way or another at a later stage.

moved Amendment No. 91:

Page 14, line 25, leave out (", having regard to his means").

I strongly support the amendment because it is most important to the position of disabled people. We in this country should be able to afford to give the disabled the necessary aids to living. Wonderful work is done, for example, by the voluntary organisations, but by introducing what is an unfortunate phrase into the clause the Government are doing a disservice. For that reason I strongly support the principles so eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and I hope the amendment will have the support of the Committee.

May I ask the Minister to say what would be the effect of deleting the words as proposed by the amendment? It would seem to leave the local authority to fix charges on the basis that they were reasonable, and as I understand it, "reasonableness" in respect of these charges must include some consideration of the wealth or otherwise of the person concerned. A charge which would be reasonable for a rich man would be unreasonable for a poor one. Therefore, if my noble friend decided to meet the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, would he be losing very much? If not—if it were likely that the local authority would, among other things, take the means of the person concerned into account—is there not something in what has been said in support of the amendment as to the rather disagreeable aspect of laying down a specific means-test? Perhaps my noble friend, when he replies, will address himself to that point, among others.

Following what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has said, when the noble Lord the Minister replies, when he deals with the point as to what is "reasonableness", can he say whether certain benefits—for example, the attendance allowance, supplementary benefits, special heating allowance, et cetera—would be disregarded, or would they be treated as income? It must be borne in mind when assessing the means of a disabled person that these items are to do with the additional cost of disability. As the Disablement Income Group has always argued, a person undergoing a means-test should not be assessed on the extra cost of disability; he should not be penalised for the extra cost of disabled life.

I should like to add the mobility allowance to the list of various allowances that my noble friend has just mentioned. This allowance, too, is given for a specific purpose. Will it be excluded?

I should like first to deal with the very last point that was put to me, by the noble Viscount. I can say that the mobility allowance is centrally provided, and what we are here discussing are services of, and provisions made by, local authorities. So I can at once assure the noble Viscount that the mobility allowance is not one of the matters that we are here discussing.

I now wish to turn to the point that was raised by, I think, almost everyone who spoke on the amendment; namely, the cost of conducting means-tests and the likely benefit to Government funds, or local authority funds, from such a system. I fear that at the outset I have to say that because these matters are all conducted in a different way by different local authorities, it is not possible to arrive at a single figure. However, I do not propose to rest my argument upon the question of the costs or savings, and though I shall be happy to look into the point that has been raised, I do not think that it is one that need persuade us one way or the other.

The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness is opposed to the main purpose of the clause, which is to bring consistency to the charging arrangements for local authority day and domiciliary services. It may assist your Lordships' Committee if I describe the present position, and then indicate the changes that we want to make. At present the powers of local authorities to charge for the services are set out in the Acts mentioned in Clause 12(1) and (2), on the one hand, and in Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977 on the other hand. The Acts mentioned in Clause 12 include the one to which the amendment refers; namely, the National Assistance Act 1948, which also contains the charging powers for the services provided under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The Acts mentioned in Clause 12 empower local authorities to recover from persons availing themselves of any service provided under the section concerned such charges, if any, as the authority may determine, having regard to the cost of the service. Those words—having regard to the cost of the service—are important.

Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977, on the other hand, empowers local authorities to recover from persons availing themselves of services provided under the paragraphs concerned such charges, if any, as the authority considers reasonable, having regard to the means of those persons. As I say, that term appeared in the 1977 Act, and at that time the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and his noble and right honourable friends were responsible for such matters, as indeed they were in 1948, when the National Assistance Act made the original provision for making charges.

In the case of certain services, such as home helps, as I said earlier, they may be provided under more than one charging régime, and I submit that it is desirable to secure greater consistency in these matters. So in essence we have two or three different statutory provisions for making the services available. All of the provisions enable charges of one kind or another to be made, and at least one provision enjoins us to have regard to the means of those persons being supplied.

The amendments proposed in the Bill thus seek to replace the requirement that authorities should have regard to the cost of the service in the Acts mentioned in Clause 12(1) and (2) by the requirement that they should instead have regard to the means of the person availing himself of the service. That will then mean that there is consistency in the charging powers for this group of services. We think it right that a local authority should be empowered, if it chooses, to recover some of the cost of the services from those who are able to pay. We also consider that if the authority makes a charge, it should be able to vary it according to the means of the person for whom the service is provided, so that no one who really needs a service is prevented by the charge from benefiting from it. I should perhaps emphasise that nothing in the clause requires a local authority to impose any new charge, or increase any existing charge. It leaves local authorities with full discretion to waive or rebate charges when they consider it desirable.

The amendment introduced by the noble Baroness refers only to the National Assistance Act 1948, and not, as I say, to the Acts mentioned in Clause 12(2). It thus introduces a further difference in local authority charging powers, with the result that those provided with services under the National Assistance Act (mainly physically handicapped people) would be in a position different from those provided with services under the Acts mentioned in Clause 12(2) (the elderly) or those provided with services under the National Health Service Act 1977 (mothers and young children, and those requiring help for the prevention, care and after-care of illness, and with handicap, including mental disorder). We do not believe that further difference between groups of people requiring services and indeed between one type of local authority service and another should be introduced by legislation in this way. Therefore I hope that in the light of the shortcomings to which I have pointed the noble Baroness will not wish to press her amendment.

I think that my noble friend overlooked the question that I put to him. I asked him—perhaps I may repeat it—what would be the effect of the deletion of the words referred to in the amendment? In particular, in deciding what was reasonable, would not the local authority have to take into account means and other matters, without the disadvantage of a specific means-test?

I would need to take some advice as to the precise legal implication of an amendment other than the one that is on the Marshalled List before us.

I asked the question in relation to the present amendment.

As I understood it, my noble friend was asking me what would be the effect of an amendment without the words to which he is referring.

Surely the point is very simple. We are discussing the amendment that is before us. If it is carried, the words will be taken out. I am asking my noble friend what the clause would mean if that happened. With very great respect, surely that is about as relevant to the present amendment as anything could be.

I had misunderstood what my noble friend was asking, and I apologise. As I understand it, removing the words in the way proposed would mean that, despite the Bill, we should be left with most of the inconsistencies to which I referred in my earlier remarks, and that would be a distinct disadvantage. I am sorry that I misunderstood my noble friend when he first put the point to me.

The fact of the matter is that a whole range of different provisions are available under the present charging régime. At least one of the provisions requires the question of means to be taken into account, and two or three different charging provisions are also in place, two of them having been imposed on an earlier day by noble Lords opposite and their right honourable friends. In this particular proposal we are seeking to tidy up the arrangements. We do not seek to impose new charges. We do not seek to cause local authorities to make charges where they do not at present make charges, and I believe that the proposal that we have made, whereby authorities ought to have regard to the means of those receiving the service, is a right and proper one. As I say, I hope that the noble Baroness will not wish to press her amendment.

I agree entirely with the noble Baroness that a means-test is thoroughly undesirable. It is degrading and an absolutely unnecessary invasion into a person's privacy. As the Bill stands, a means-test is not specifically called for. I presume that there is every likelihood that it would take place, but it is not absolutely defined as being necessary. Would it not be possible to insert words to the effect that a means-test is not implied or is not to be used? Surely, if a local authority cannot decide for themselves whether a person is or is not wealthy enough to pay, then they have not sufficient intelligence to be occupying their position.

With respect to the noble Lord, it is not a question of intelligence but whether the local authority have the necessary information available to them. I must say that I am unrepentant about the words in the Bill. I think that they offer a much better régime for the future than has existed in the past. I certainly take the point made by the noble Lord. If I am reading correctly between the lines of the speech of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I think that he, too, has some reluctance to see imposed a means-test in the worst sense of that expression. So do I; but that is not what is proposed by this provision in the Bill. I rest on what I have said already.

We are all in favour of tidying up, of consistency and of avoiding unnecessary complexity. It seems to me that there are two criteria here. One is the criterion of the cost of the service and the other is the criterion of the person's means. In a sense they are related for one would only consider a person's means in relation to the kind of cost that was involved. Would it not be possible for the noble Lord the Minister to take this back again and to think of a formula which would bring both criteria into the Bill?

With respect to the noble Baroness, that is exactly what I am trying to avoid.

Of course you are!

At present, the arrangements are (in some local authorities at least) that patients or recipients are required to pay a percentage of the cost of the service or of the item supplied. That, in some cases, is a very large sum of money indeed. It imposes a great burden on some people who are of limited means. In future, we should like to see the question of their means taken into account by the local authority—not just an imposition of a bald percentage of the cost of the service which is being supplied. I do not think that the cost of the service, as far as the recipient is concerned, is the right criterion. I think that the criterion that we propose on the contrary, the ability of the person to pay, is a more relevant one; and that is what I should like to see in the Bill.

I entirely agree with that. That is what I am trying to get at. The cost of the service is a factor that comes in because a service that is a very small one may be a very burdensome one to a person of very small means, while the cost of a service which is much larger may not matter so much to a person of large means. Would it be possible not to prescribe a specific percentage of the cost of the service (as I understand is the present position) but simply to say that these two factors would be brought into the picture?

If I may speak yet again on this matter, that would be to replace one complex, unsatisfactory system with another even more complex, and probably even less satisfactory.

Clause 12 deals with charges which might be imposed upon people who are blind, deaf, dumb and crippled. If any of those people should happen to be old-age pensioners, are they to be subject to these charges, or are old-age pensioners to be exempt from them?

It very much depends on the other resources available to the old-age pensioner in question. Some old-age pensioners, particularly after the age of 70 so far as men are concerned, and 65 so far as women are concerned, are not means-tested. There is no earnings rule applied to old-age pensioners after those ages. That being so, they might have very substantial other means. I do not think that that would be a right criterion.

Is the noble Lord referring to old-age pensioners doing newspaper rounds and earning fabulous sums?

My own father drew the old-age pension—or would have done so—after the age of 70, had he lived that long. He would certainly have been able to pay, I think, for the sort of facilities we are thinking about.

The Minister talks a lot about having regard to a person's needs, but I do not think he has yet answered my question on disregard—which I hope he will, because it is very important. He said in answer to my noble friend Lord Ingleby that mobility allowance could be disregarded. What about all the other benefits designed to offset the extra cost of disabled life, such as supplementary benefits, dependants' allowance, et cetera? Will they be disregarded, or will they be treated as income?

I am not in a position to answer the noble Baroness precisely because I think we want to leave some flexibility to local authorities in this matter. I am trying to resist the suggestion that we are imposing some very formal, classified, precise, procedure in these ways; because we are not. We are saying to local authorities that they ought to be able to take into account the means of people. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press me too closely on that point because I should like to leave a good deal of discretion to local authorities on this matter.

Do I gather from the Minister's reply that if it is left open to local authorities some local authorities may disregard those essential allowances and others will not, and that there will be disparity between them?

There will, of course, be guidance to local authorities in these matters and we shall have to see how that comes.

Further to that point, can the Minister say whether he will be expecting the disregards to apply for capital for purposes of supplementary benefit?—which disregards do not include the surrender value of life policies or leases of one's home as distinct from owner occupation. If that is so, there will be considerable hardship.

I think this is a very complicated matter and I, personally, feel very strongly that the Government have got it wrong. I think that the people who do not smoke, do not drink, have lived carefully and saved some money are then going to be penalised. I think that is wholly unfair. I think that in this amendment we are dealing with the dumb, the blind and the disabled. These are perhaps the most unfortunate people in our society. To answer the question of my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth), I was told the other day that somebody could have the mobility allowance and that this would not be taken into consideration until they had collected it and saved it to go on holiday and then, when they had a bulk sum in the bank, it would be taken into consideration. Therefore, to put emphasis on having regard to their means is just helping the skivers and being most unfair to those people who probably have very little and want to save and live carefully. For that reason I would ask noble Lords to come into the Lobby with me. I should like to divide the Committee.

Before we come to that stage, may I, nonetheless, ask my noble friend to help some of us who are very much troubled by this? My noble friend said that guidance would be given to local authorities as to how they were to deal with the question of means. Obviously, in practical terms, a great deal will depend on that. I have no idea what the outcome of a vote now would be; but I wonder whether my noble friend would not think it a practical step to say that he will consider this matter further and so enable an amendment to be taken at Report stage; and that when we come to that he will then be, I hope, in a position to tell the House—it will then be a House and not a Committee—exactly how this would work by giving a quotation from the intended guidance and answering the question which, understandably (and I am not being impertinent in criticising him) he is in no position to answer this afternoon? I think that he can see that there is a great deal of feeling in the Committee, and not merely confined to one quarter. I wonder whether he can ease the position a little by giving us some help in this way?

I am certainly willing at some future stage of the Bill to expand further upon the various issues that have been referred to this afternoon. If the noble Baroness wants to withdraw her amendment and tackle me again on the subject at another stage, I have no objection at all to that course. However, I do not want the noble Baroness to get the impression that the Government are in any way wavering upon the proposals that are contained in this particular clause. I am convinced and unrepentant that the right approach is to standardise—to use a rather horrible word—the procedures in assessing the charges for these services. At the moment we are in a position where all sorts of different régimes can and do apply—generally I fear to the disadvantage of those who receive these services. I should like a better régime to apply in future. That is what is contained in these provisions. I remain willing to answer a similar amendment at another stage of the Bill, though I would not want the Committee to imagine that the Government are in any way reconsidering their position on this matter.

The noble Lord mentioned guidance. Who is going to give the guidance to local authorities? Is it the AMA? If that is the case, the noble Lord is as well aware as I am that so far negotiations have foundered. There is no possible chance that the AMA can formulate a set of guidance to local authorities. He knows that as well as I do.

I think that the noble Lord the Minister has been honest. I feel that the Government will not change their mind so far as means-testing is concerned. I know that the people who worked on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 were very worried and are still worried 11 or 12 years later. This is because people who need help from the social services departments have not come forward because they are frightened of being rebuked. The five little words in my amendment are going to make people go even less to the social service department for help. So, I still ask your Lordships to come into the Lobby with me. I should like to divide the Committee.

moved Amendment No. 92:

Again, I should like briefly to support the amendment which has just been moved and to express support for all three of the amendments to which the noble Lord spoke. As he explained, they are designed to see that the elderly and the disabled do not have to pay for services except meals, if they are on supplementary benefit, if their net disposable income is less than the retirement pension after the effect of the charge has been taken into account and if their capital resources are less than £2,500. In those circumstances they are not required to pay; and that seems reasonable.

I hope I can assist your Lordships in this matter by saying that the Government have complete sympathy with the principle of these amendments in so far as they seek to relieve people on low incomes and with small capital resources from local authority charges for services that they need. It has been the consistent policy of the Government that local authorities should not charge those receiving day and domiciliary services who are living at supplementary benefit levels or who would suffer real hardship if required to pay charges. We need to be careful, however, about enshrining that principle in legislation and particularly in the terms proposed. Legislation removes any flexibility in suiting charging arrangements to the overall circumstances of the client.

The amendment already excludes the meals service from the exemption, presumably in recognition of the element in supplementary benefit which provides for food. Supplementary benefit is not a fixed sum: the scale rate varies according to the circumstances of the individual, and additional benefits may be paid for some items which may also be provided as local authority services. There are thus several areas of overlap which need to be examined. There is also some doubt whether the particular method of assessing the income level of those to be exempted from charges who are not in receipt of supplementary benefit is the most equitable and appropriate, however administratively convenient it may be or may not be. The advent of housing benefit will take some people out of supplementary benefit and reduce the supplementary benefit of others. Its effects will need careful assessment. The proposed amendment to Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act (paragraph 2(5)) also brings the provision of residential accommodation for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, alcoholics and drug addicts within the scope of the exemption from charges and further consequent complications in relation to both supplementary benefit and charging other client groups for residential accommodation.

These are questions on which we need to consult the local authority associations. I said at Second Reading that the local authority associations had originally agreed to issue administrative guidance to member authorities about assessing people's ability to pay. The principle behind these amendments was among the conclusions of the joint working group of central and local government officials which led to these legislative proposals, and it might well have been embodied in advice by the associations. We have now heard from one of the associations that they no longer think it appropriate to issue such advice.

I would, therefore, ask the noble Baroness and the noble Lord whether they would consent to withdraw their amendment at this stage, on the understanding that the Government will look into the matter with the local authority associations, and, if a suitable formula can be devised—and I would not wish to hide from your Lordships some of the difficulties in the way of this—they will introduce an amendment at the Report stage of the Bill.

The noble Lord has been quite generous—I nearly said "for a change", but that would not be fair—in indicating that there is some sympathy with the amendment. As he has undertaken to see whether there is a case for formulating something, I shall willingly withdraw the amendment. Let us look forward to the Report stage, or, if that is not to be. possibly to the Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 93:

In view of the fact that Amendment No. 91 was agreed to, and two subsections of this amendment end with the words "having regard to his means", would the Government consider deleting those words? Without them, we would simply have "as they consider reasonable", which seems to me entirely satisfactory.

While the Minister is looking for the answer, may I say that, as it was the will of the Committee earlier that the words "having regard to his means" should be expunged, it is surely for the Government to take them out of their position here in the Bill.

I think the noble Baroness is quite right. Although I could no doubt insist upon this amendment (or, at least, seek to) I shall not do so, and I seek leave to withdraw the amendment now. If I am right in my brief that it ought to be in the Bill, I will bring it forward at the next stage. But, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 96:

We are, I think, discussing Amendments Nos. 96 to 103, which all address themselves to the same point. Local authorities have sought for some time the power to levy flat rate contributions in respect of children in care, rather than having to make a detailed assessment in every case. This was one of the recommendations of the joint local authority and departmental working group on charging policies. By means of this Bill, we are to give local authorities power to levy flat rate contributions for children in care. However, they will still have the power to make a detailed assessment in individual cases, if they so wish, subject to an upper ceiling. Local authorities will be given power not to levy a charge at all, if they consider contributions to be inappropriate in any particular case. The provisions of the Bill will have the effect of simplifying the administrative arrangements and reducing administrative costs.

The amendments proposed will, I fear, have the reverse effect and will also involve the detailed means-testing of contributors. The effect of the amendments is to impose complicated and restrictive rules on local authorities for the purpose of assessing the amount of contribution payable in respect of children in care. This was one of the recommendations of the joint local authority and departmental working group, to which I referred just now.

I consider that, as local authorities have been given statutory responsibility for the children in their care, it makes sense that they should be given discretionary powers on whether, and how much, to charge for the services they provide. Therefore, I do not, I am afraid, support the proposed amendments, including the amendment by which the Secretary of State would be given power to make regulations governing liability for, and assessment of, contributions for children in care. This is in keeping with our desire to keep to a minimum the number of central Government controls over the activities and delegated powers of local authorities.

A further effect of the amendments is to introduce a reduced and, if I may say so, inappropriate upper limit to the amount of contribution payable. Complete exemption from liability is introduced for several categories of persons, which again, I think, is inappropriate. Many young people in care, including those receiving social security benefits, have incomes sufficient to allow them to make some contribution towards their keep, however small. Under the arrangements proposed, a large number of these young people would be exempted from the requirement to make any contribution at all. I believe that this would not help them to develop a sense of responsibility in financial matters, which is so important. The net effect of these changes would be to reduce considerably the income which local authorities receive in the form of contributions in respect of children in their care.

I can tell your Lordships that the local authority associations will be setting up a working group to consider the drawing up of a sliding scale governing the charging of young people in care. In addition, they are going to consider drawing up a list of factors which may be taken into account in assessing the ability of parents to contribute towards the maintenance of children in care. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

The noble Lord has gone to town in a big way, because he has discussed all the subsequent amendments which I have yet to move. I am dealing only with the provision of the notice, but the noble Lord has gone hareing away and has replied to several amendments on which I may speak at some length. If there is difficulty over the question of the notice, I shall not press that point. I shall examine the mass of information which the noble Lord has given on all sorts of subjects related to the various amendments, and will come forward at Report stage on Amendment No, 96. Therefore, I shall withdraw that amendment, although I do not understand what the noble Lord is getting at.

I apologise to the noble Lord. I said at the outset of my remarks that I thought he wanted to discuss Amendments Nos. 96 to 103 together, and that is why I made the speech that I did.

That may have been healthy anticipation, but I had no such idea. It has put me in a spot.

The noble Lord did not say "No".

I was so astounded.

Again, I apologise. I thought the noble Lord nodded in assent when I said that at the beginning of my remarks. If I mistook the noble Lord in any way, I apologise.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 97.

I support this amendment. As the noble Lord said in his closing remarks, it seems right and wholly reasonable that the limit to be put on the contribution which is made to help to maintain a child in care should be similar to the limit which is placed on the amount of benefit given to somebody who wants to maintain his child at home. I do not believe that this proposal is subject to the criticisms of the other amendments which the noble Lord the Minister put forward in his reply to the previous amendment.

Although I am always reluctant to resist an amendment simply on the basis of some alleged technical defect, I am told that there is one in respect of this amendment of which your Lordships will wish to be apprised. It fails to make reference to any one paragraph of column 2 in Part IV of Schedule 4 to the Social Security Act 1975, and therefore to any one benefit, and is thus ambiguous. Be that as it may, I deployed the difficulties about this amendment in my earlier remarks. I am reluctant to bore your Lordships with a further extract from what I have already said, but the Government see difficulties with this amendment, along the lines which I described earlier. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press it.

Apparently a technical hitch is involved. On that basis I shall reconsider the amendment, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw it.

moved Amendment No. 98:

I am afraid that there is another small technical defect in this amendment. If the noble Lord turns his eye to paragraph (b) he will see the words, "in receipt of or entitled to apply for housing benefits". I am told that the whole world is entitled to apply for housing benefits. What is relevant is whether or not one is entitled to receive them. That is a difficulty which the noble Lord will no doubt wish to put right at some later stage, if he sees fit to proceed with the matter. I do not wish to deploy all the arguments which I deployed just now but, as I have already said, this amendment contains a technical defect.

In view of the technicalities involved and the resulting defects, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 99:

I must confess that my scrutiny thus far has not revealed any obvious technical defect in the noble Lord's amendment. None the less, I would ask the noble Lord whether he really thinks it right to impose a detailed panoply of regulation and restriction upon the arrangements we propose. We much prefer a more flexible approach to these matters. Experience has shown in some other areas of benefit that a whole raft of tiny, minute regulations, whether in statute, statutory instrument, or whatever, tend to cost a great deal to administer, throw up as many anomalies as they solve and in the end do not provide a greater level of benefit to those whom they are supposed to help. At the same time they bring into being a great department of officials and staff of every kind to operate the system. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore accept the general objection to the proposals contained in this and the immediately following amendments, and, although I am happy to deploy further detailed arguments if the noble Lord wishes, he might prefer that I did not do that.

That is a matter for consideration. I want the Government to think about this because a child in care should be treated on the same basis as a child in hospital. The parents of a child in hospital are not subjected to the particular points about which I have complained. All I ask is that the matter should be considered. Separation can be agonising even though there may be good reasons for it and the question of reuniting the child with the parent is vitally important. It is possible that visits can help in that way. I am not a social worker and I do not have the great experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], but there is something in this amendment and I hope that the Government will look into it.

I do not want to be unreasonable in these matters. I will certainly between now and the next stage look at the point which the noble Lord has made. I would not want to raise any undue expectations in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, because there are the difficulties which I have described. However, if the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment now, I shall not object if he wants to ask me about it again at the next stage.

Before the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany. reacts to what the noble Lord the Minister has just said, may I just underline one point in relation to this amendment, which calls for a disregard of child benefit? This highlights the difference between the treatment of a child in hospital and the treatment of a child in care. With the child in hospital, child benefit continues for 20 weeks and may continue longer than that if the parents are maintaining contact with the child in hospital; whereas, with the child in care, benefit lasts for only eight weeks and then stops. Very often the benefit paid during those eight weeks is required by the local authority by means of a payment. There seems to be a considerable difference in this respect between the position of children who are not in very different situations. I wonder whether the Minister could say something about this point at this stage or at some other stage.

Perhaps I may take that point into consideration between now and the next stage, as I undertook to do when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for stressing a point which I could have enlarged upon—but I found myself getting into the position which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, described at a previous Committee sitting when she said she felt that she was bashing her head against a brick wall. Therefore, I did not continue to speak too long on this particular point. A promise has been given to look into this matter and therefore I withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 100:

I have no doubt that if I examine the amendment long enough a technical defect will occur to me. In the meantime, I should prefer to rest upon the difficulty I described during my earlier remarks about the inappropriateness of an upper ceiling to the amount of contributions which are payable. Complete exemption from liability is introduced for several categories of persons, which I believe is one of the provisions of a later amendment. As I said earlier, there is a great deal of complexity inherent in the raft of amendments which the noble Lord is now proposing. In general, I believe that these are undesirable, and that is the principal difficulty with the amendment which the noble Lord is now proposing.

I will not prolong this argument. This is an important point and one that we should take into account; it is in line with what the Government want. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

moved Amendment No. 101:

I do not wish to be unreasonable to the noble Lord, but at the same time I do not want to raise any unjustified expectations in his mind. However, if he does want to withdraw the amendment now and return to this matter at a later stage, I shall certainly be very happy for him to do that and to give the matter further consideration myself between now and then. But, as I say, I shall certainly come to this matter with the basic belief that we want to keep these things as simple and as easily understandable as possible. It may be that there is some improvement that can be made within those criteria. If the noble Lord would like to withdraw the amendment we can think about it between now and Report stage.

That seems to be quite a good idea, because it suddenly dawned on me that the Report stage will be next year, after the Christmas recess; but please do not make it too quick because we want to consider this very carefully. The noble Lord has made a fair offer and I accept what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No.102:

May I make the same proposal in respect of this amendment as I did in regard to the last one, and also, if it would help the noble Lord, in respect of the next one? Thus we can dispose of this group of amendments, to which I spoke in detail earlier.

When the noble Lord says "the next one", does he mean No. 104?

No, No. 103.

Yes, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 102.

moved Amendment No. 104:

There is another side to this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, knows, I have been associated with several charities in my time. Many of them quite specifically raise funds in order to help people in the charities' homes. Many of these people pay the economic rent where they are capable of paying it. If they are not capable of paying it they have a subsidised rate, and the subsidy is made up by the charity money which is nationally raised. I see a danger. If we are to say that there is a level at which a person is to be subsidised, regardless of what he earns, any astute board of a charity will say: "You apply for the subsidy and we will charge you the full economic rate and not give you the rate we would have done in accord and in concert with the income you now have." It would cut across quite a number of charities who specifically raise money to subsidise people who cannot pay the economic rate. If they know that it will be made up by the Government, and if we put the level at such a height that it is worth charging them the full economic rate, then quite a lot of contributions to the charity will not be applied for the purpose for which they were raised.

Although the Government accept the intention of the proposed amendment, we do not think that it is appropriate for this Bill. A measure to achieve an incentive is, however, already included in that part of the package of changes agreed between DHSS Ministers and the local authority associations which will be effected in regulations to be made next year. There are also technical difficulties in the amendment which I could go into if the noble Lord wishes me to. However, I hope that with this declar-tion of the Government's intent the noble Lord will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

That is fair enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 105:

The capital disregard of £1,200 is only one of the many factors taken into account in assessing a resident's ability to pay for Part III accommodation in accordance with Part III of Schedule I to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976. Those provisions also governed the supplementary benefit system itself until November 1980; but then new regulations introduced a separate capital rule for supplementary benefit. The two rules are now of quite a different character. For supplementary benefit, the rule is a complete capital cut-off: with more than £2,500 of capital, no benefit at all is payable. For residential charging purposes. £1,200 is the starting point for assessment, with a tapering arrangement—based on assuming 25p a week of income for each £50 of capital above that level—so that the assessed ability to pay rises gradually and does not reach full payment unless a very much higher level of capital is held. Although historically it was the case that the same rules were applied for both purposes, there is, in fact, no very good reason why they should have been because the two purposes are entirely different. The supplementary benefit system is designed to provide a "safety net" of financial support for people looking after themselves. The residential care charging system, by contrast, is designed to reflect people's ability to contribute to care which is being provided for them.

When the Joint Working Group on Personal Social Services Charging Policies recommended that the capital disregard be reviewed, they also suggested that the tariff should be revalued. Both factors will be taken into account in the new regulations about Part III charging to be made next year, to which I have already referred. There are also technical difficulties which, again, I can describe to the noble Lord, but perhaps I can spare him them at this moment.

In view of what the noble Lord said, and as there is again a technical hitch—I seem to be blessed by these—at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 106.

Page 17, line 5, after ("asset") insert ("to which this section applies").

Where it states "any other assets", does this mean any little love trinket given away to a grandchild, a piece of furniture, or anything of that nature? In that case the clause is totally unworkable.

No, I do not think it means that. I do not have the reference in front of me, but it means the assets that are specifically assessable in determining charges payable for Part III accommodation.

May I ask the exact scope of the phrase "deliberate abandonment"? That seems to be very wide open. I am merely asking for information. Is there any normally held view of what that means?

The most obvious example I can give to the noble Lord—this may also help the noble Baroness—is where an elderly person disposes of his house, for example to a relative or a friend, so that that is not taken into account, or so he imagines, in assessing his ability to pay the charges for the accommodation. That is the type of situation that we are seeking to control: the deliberate abandonment of an asset—disposal, in other words—for the purposes of avoiding paying these charges or of avoiding paying them at the highest level. Of course, in the imaginary circumstances that I have suggested, the house would be sold for nothing or next to nothing. That is the type of situation that we are proposing to control under this provision.

I should like to ask another question because this seems to be giving a new meaning to the phrase "asset stripping" which is not usually associated with this type of care. An old person might well have some ancient furniture or possession which, because of the state of the antique market, turn out to be quite valuable. Supposing that old person bequeaths them to a relative or wishes, in his will, to bequeath those family goods to relatives, is the Minister saying that the relatives must be penalised or that the old person had no right to give away things which he specially wanted to keep in the family and which he would not want to sell for all kinds of reasons? If that is to be included under this clause then I think that it is unworkable and totally unjust.

I should like to support my noble friends. Sitting here and listening to the debate, it all seems incredibly and horribly cold blooded. There are pressures already on people who do not understand what it is all about, and we should not add to them again. I could not understand the Minister's explanation about a house. A house is surely only an asset when it is sold; it could not be an asset if the old person were not actually living in it. That seemed to be a rather curious example to put forward. It is very important that there should be no pressure put on people when they are already in a very difficult position. In my view, this is giving the powers far too wide a definition. Some people will apply them in a generous way, others will not do so. This is a very disturbing part of the Bill.