§ Mr. Alfred MorrisI beg to move, as a manuscript amendment, amendment No. 72, in page 22, line 38, at end insert—
'(3A) For the avoidance of doubt the means of any person shall be deemed to be insufficient if (a) they do not exceed the long term rate of supplementary benefit applicable in his case and (b) the service in question is not one the cost of which the scale rates of supplementary benefit are designed to cover.(3B) In assessing the means of a person who avails himself of a service no account shall be taken of the means of any other member of his household.(3C) Any person who does not accept that it is reasonably practicable for him to pay the amount the authority requires him to pay for a service may apply to the county court for a judicial review.'The amendment is about the important issue of charges for local authority services. Clause 17 is very wordy, but it appears to leave exactly the same discretion with the local authority as existed in the past.I have two points to make. First, if a person disagrees with a local authority about what it is reasonable for him to pay, there should be a method of arbitration. Under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978, if there is an argument about the rebate to be allowed, the person may appeal to the county court. I feel that a similar provision should apply here, and I would hope that the courts would find it unreasonable for people on supplementary benefit to be charged for services.
The second question is whether, in assessing a person's means, the local authority may take into account the means of other members of the family. The assumption is that at present the authority may exercise that power under the National Assistance Act and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, but not under the National Health Service Act. That assumption, however, has never really been tested. There is currently a case in which the husband refuses to disclose his income, but I fear that for spouses the general rules of aggregation would be held to apply.
In my view, however, those rules should not apply in the case of children and elderly parents. An adult mentally handicapped person attending an adult training centre or day centre, for example, should be assessed on his own income for any transport charge. The problems for a family in which extensive adaptation is required for a child may be more complicated. Nevertheless, the service is provided for the child, who probably has no means of his own. For clarification, will the Minister state that it would be wrong under clause 17 to take any account of the parents' capital or income?
The decision as to what it is reasonably practicable for a person to pay seems to be left with the local authority under the clause as it stands. What is the remedy if the person disagrees? Is it to ask for a judicial review? If the local authority seeks to recover the charge as a civil debt, will the court be empowered to decide that the charge is unreasonable? Furthermore, how restrictive are the words "his means"? Do they include the means of a spouse, parent, child or other relative?
The issues raised in the amendment are extremely important to some of the most needful people in Britain today. On 19 April at c. 153 of the Official Report I raised with the Minister responsible for the disabled the case of 880 a severely disabled woman who was being taken to court in West Sussex because she could not pay for her home out of her supplementary benefit and owed the council £30. Mr. Speaker said in the House yesterday that the sands of time were running out for this Parliament, but even now it is not too late to reflect on the worrying plight of that severely disabled woman. I am sure that the Minister for Health will agree that it is quite wrong to harry severely disabled people because they cannot afford the home help services which enable them to stay out of institutions.
I have moved the amendment on this important matter to give the Minister an opportunity to clarify some difficult issues raised by clause 17. I hope that he will be able to give a reassuring reply.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeThis amendment has made a very late appearance at a very late stage of the Bill. Nevertheless, it gives me the opportunity to clarify the basis on which we believe that local authorities should exercise their powers to levy charges for various services. I do not think that there is a great deal between the Government and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in principle, although for reasons that I shall explain we do not believe that his amendment is the right way to proceed on this.
We think it reasonable that people who can afford to contribute a reasonable amount towards the cost of a service should do so because in so doing they put more resources into the kitty and thus enable the local authority to provide more service to others. Nevertheless, we share the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety to protect the interests of those on lower incomes and would greatly prefer a situation in which charges were not levied against people on supplementary benefit, except where supplementary benefit contains an element of payment for the service. An obvious example is the person who receives meals on wheels, who might reasonably be expected to make a small contribution towards that service because supplementary benefit itself contains a small addition to cover food requirements, although this would obviously have to be within the very limited means that such a person would have.
Unfortunately, if we use the law in the way suggested by the first amendment to make it unlawful to impose charges, and the charges exceeded the long-term rate of supplementary benefit applicable, that would have a dramatic effect on the existing practice of local government and would, as a matter of law, instantly deprive local authorities of a great deal of revenue. With the assistance of the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, we estimate that an amendment along these lines would cost roughly £25 million if it were made law tomorrow.
Our advice to local authorities has always been that we would prefer them not to charge people on supplementary benefit for most of the range of services, including home helps, which we are describing. That remains our advice, which I am happy to confirm on behalf of the Government. We hope that local authorities will, as steadily as circumstances allow, move towards the elimination of charges to those on supplementary benefit, but we accept that, as things stand, they are entitled to make a delicate choice between remitting all these low flat-rate charges and continuing to raise revenue from the charges, thereby providing a service for more people. We do not think it is 881 right to step in and take away a local authority's discretion by saying that it ought to provide a service to fewer people so that those on supplementary benefit may have the service totally free.
We wanted to put some protection on the face of the Bill for those on low incomes. We believe we have achieved that by clause 17(3) to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The clause as a whole confirms the charging powers of local authorities, but subsection (3) obliges an authority to charge only the amount which it is reasonably practicable for someone to pay. That is an all-embracing, catch-all provision which will protect those on low incomes from being asked to pay an amount which they cannot reasonably be expected to afford.
One must look with concern at how low-income people are affected by charges by local authorities. Apart from the provision that we have included in the Bill, as opposed to the amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, it would be useful if local authority associations prepared guidance for local authorities to try to ensure that there is less variation in practice. I am glad that the Association of County Councils has agreed to produce such guidance. When last I heard, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities was refusing to do so; I think that was partly because of a political attitude taken to other parts of the Bill. I hope it will revise its attitude, because it cannot be helpful to its members if it does not join in the effort to give reasonable guidance on the principles to be followed when operating these powers.
The final amendment seeks to provide for arbitration by the county court in any case where a person who is charged disputes his ability to pay. We have emphasised in ministerial statements that people should be charged only as much as they can reasonably be expected to pay. That should reduce the number of disputes. We do not want to open up the possibility of countless cases of litigation in the county court, which might happen. Disputes should be rare. The law already provides for these to be subject to review by the divisional court where it has been apparent that the law has been incorrectly applied and the local authority has exceeded its powers. The amendment seeks to extend the power to have a judicial review in the county court but that is defective in any event because the county court does not have the power of judicial review.
882 A point was raised about the means of other members of the family when assessing the means of someone who is to receive a service. I understand the point but, with respect, I think it goes too far. It must be relevant, when considering the means of a husband or wife, to consider the income of a spouse because there is a mutual obligation between a husband and wife to care for each other in times of difficulty. It must also be relevant when considering services for a child
§ It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.