View report page

APPENDIX V
OBSERVATIONS ON THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
LOCAL AUTHORITY AND ALLIED PERSONAL SOCIAL SERVICES
by H.L. SETTLE
It is important to get the problem in perspective.
The Seebohm report is a powerful document on a very emotional subject. I always wonder
when considering reports on subjects which are largely matters of opinion whether, given the same
evidence, a committee of a different composition might not have come to very different
conclusions.
One member of the Seebohm Committee has stated that the Committee was established as a
result of "pressures to set up a Family Service", and that the social services "were believed" to
have been in a state of crisis for 10 years or more, and that "dissatisfaction with the social services
was widespread". He also said that either the crisis is phoney or else it requires a radical solution. I
would suggest that many will share his doubts as to whether a crisis does exist. In Bexley, I am
not aware of a crisis although much requires to be done to extend and develop our welfare
provisions.
I would have expected the Seebohm Committee first to have satisfied itself as to the true
position but nowhere can I find any scientific statistical evidence to support the radical changes
proposed. In fact, paragraph 42 states that one of the main lines of enquiry was "to discover the
opinions of all those concerned with the services" whilst in paragraph 42 we learn "We were,
regrettably, unable to sound consumer reaction to the services in any systematic fashion".
In view of these contradictory statements, the value one can place on the findings of the
Committee is conjectural.
The main faults attributed by the Committee to the present arrangements are:—
1. a failure to provide sufficient services,
2. a failure to provide the necessary types of service,
3. inadequacies in the quality of service provided,
4. poor co-ordination, etc.
All the above short-comings, and no-one would disagree that they do exist in varying degree,
could be eliminated from the existing services by the provision of adequate funds. I suggest that
even under the Seebohm proposals some of these short-comings will still exist even if vast sums of
money are made available.
Seebohm would seek to isolate the social services from medical direction and control, and I
feel this is wrong. All handicaps have a medical basis and most, if not all, handicapped persons are
under medical supervision, some constantly, some intermittently, but all receive medical care at
more than the average rate for non-handicapped persons.
133