Private Member's B111-2.

Meals on Wheels

By GEOFFREY JOHNSON SMITH* . . we shall also try to make it easier for them to go on living at home. For example, better provision will be made for a "Meals on Wheels" service for the old and infirm.'

—Conservative Party Election Manifesto, 1959.

rr o be one of the twenty Members lucky I enough in this year's ballot to gain the right to introduce a Bill is something like winning the Pools. Suddenly you are popular with strangers; surrounded by advice. The mail is full of sugges- tions on how to spend your windfall. What about a fairer tax deal for women? Or a Bill to eradi- cate race discrimination or vivisection? Why not a Bill to register hairdressers, even?

One discovers, too, that the Whips have a list of handy little measures passed to them by government departments, dealing with just those matters that had to be squeezed out owing to lack of parliamentary time. If a Ministry fails to persuade the Government to find time, it can always hope time will be found on one of the days set aside in the parliamentary year for the introduction of legislation by backbenchers. In fact, the Whips take on a new aspect alto- gether : one of them is deputed to look after you, which is just as well. With a Bill on your hands You are in unfamiliar, procedural territory.

A private Member's choice is also conditioned to some extent by his position in the ballot. Six Fridays are set aside for second-reading de- bates of Private Members' Bills. I drew No. 11, which meant that those before me had the right to choose the most favourable days for the introduction of their Bills, the top six being assured of a second-reading debate. This leaves a problem for the others. No. 7, for example, has to decide whether to follow No. I or wait until another day. If Bill No. 1 is a fairly meaty affair the debate on it will last all day. That does not necessarily spell disaster, as the House will be asked to give Bill No. 7 a second reading without a debate— to pass it 'on the nod'—so that it can move on to the Committee stage. But should this Bill also contain controversial clauses, some Mem- bers will be reluctant to let it through so easily; and one of them has only to shout 'object' at the appropriate moment for the Bill to lose its Place and go to the bottom of the queue of Bills Waiting for a second reading. No. 7, therefore, Will prefer to follow a Bill in the first six which Is unlikely to take up much debating time.

There is an additional hazard in following a Bill which has been debated all day. If it is de- feated or 'talked out,' so that it goes to the bottom of the list (a peculiar parliamentary method of bloodless killing), its supporters may feel sufficiently annoyed to 'object' to any Bill which follows. This was a risk I took when following Tom Williams's Hire Purchase Bill, drawn No. 1 in the ballot (I was able to jump the queue because my Bill was already drafted before some of those higher in ..the ballot). I took the risk of asking for the Bill to be Passed 'on the nod' for two reasons: to avoid the log-jam either of getting into Committee *MP for Holborn and St. Pancras South. (there is only one Committee set up to consider Private Members' Bills) or of getting back on to the floor of the House again for the final stages. I was influenced too by the fact that the Bill had support from both sides of the House— it was, indeed, a measure inherited from the Labour Member for Bradford East, Frank McLeavy. Twice, Frank McLeavy, thick-set, kindly (he has often been taken for Churchill), had tried to get such a Bill through the House. But, though it was amended by the Government itself in early 1961, time had run out on it, as so often happens to Private Members' Bills.

So there it was: A

BILL

TO Amend Section 31 of the National Assistance Act, 1948

and to empower local authorities to pro-' vide meals and recreation for old pebple; and for purposes connected therewith.

Section 31 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, only commits local authorities to make a contribution to the funds of any association whose activities assist in, or include, the pro- vision of meals to old people. They are not em- powered to provide such a service themselves.

The idea of taking up this Bill came from a friend, who reminded me of the words quoted at the beginning of this article. 1 recalled that in my more active broadcasting days 1 had spent the best part of a day with a BBC tape- recorder recording interviews for a story on the operation of a WVS meals-on-wheels service. Experience on the LCC and as a Member of Parliament for a constituency with a large pro- portion of elderly people has taught me that there are many more ways, and often more useful ways, of helping people of retirement age than by raising the retirement pension or pro- viding them with an opportunity of entering a 'home.' Most elderly people do not wish to be institutionalised; they want to be independent and remain part of the community.

For many elderly people old age is a burden; and if old age is to be something more than a dreary, aching period between life and death I have no doubt we shall have to see a big ex- pansion of our personal welfare services in this country. This Bill is a modest step in that direc- tion. For the provision of meals for old people, either in their homes or in some com- munal centre, is more than just a way of seeing that they get a decent hot meal and a friendly chat, a break in an otherwise lonely day. The WVS, who alone served three million meals to people in their homes in 1961, tell me that they find that they are often the first to note signs of ill-health, senility or the need for special care. This information they pass on.

What gives the Bill added substance has been a government decision to enable it to be amended. Backbenchers cannot propose legislation which imposes any additional burden on the Exchequer; so my Bill had a clause to the effect that expenditure incurred by a local authority should be borne by the rates. But local authorities argued that a meals-on-wheels ser- vice, or its equivalent, should' qualify for an Exchequer grant as do other welfare services. When I took up the Bill the question at the back of my mind was whether the Govern- ment would accept this point of view. Within hours of the arranging of the first Com- mittee meeting, a note came informing me that the Government intended to table a money reso- lution to make it possible for the local authori- ties to draw upon Exchequer grants.

And that is where matters now stand. The Committee, drawn from both sides of the House, will soon have its first meeting: and, with luck, the Bill will become an Act.

'The good one will be along in a minute. . .