HC Deb 14 May 1958 vol 588 cc559-67

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

11.26 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I can assure the House that I shall be very brief. I have no intention of keeping hon. Members from their beds, and I should regard it as a permanent blot on my Parliamentary record if I caused any hon. Member to miss his train.

I should like just to say how delighted I have been to be connected with this Bill in its later stages. It was moved, as the House knows, some time ago by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr), and I should like to take this opportunity to pay a very sincere tribute to the work he did at the Ministry of Labour. I hope hon. Members will agree with me. I think he will be chiefly remembered for his work on the Carr Committee, which will be very important in the months and years ahead, and also for his great contribution to the work for disabled people. I am delighted to be connected with this Bill he moved on Second Reading.

My hon. Friend said, when he moved it, that it was a modest Bill, partly because very few of the recommendations of the Piercy Committee had needed legislative action to implement them, and partly because we are all conscious of the limitations of legislation in this matter. I think we should probably all agree that much more important than legislation in this matter is, first of all, what I am glad to say is the increasingly enlightened attitude of employers towards disabled people; second, the co-operation between all those connected with and responsible for resettlement, such as the D.R.O.s, employers, almoners, and so on; and third, and perhaps most important, the determination of disabled people themselves, and the realisation that they all, even if they are seriously disabled, can get a job of work on equal terms with other able-bodied people. I must say I have been very heartened in the last five or ten years to see a number of disabled people actually in better jobs than they would have had if they had not been disabled, jobs they have got after re-training, and so on.

If the House gives us this further legislative authority, conscious as we may be of the limitations of legislation, I can assure hon. Gentlemen that we shall do our best with this legislative authority continually to improve our administrative arrangements for the ends which I think we all share in common.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

I do not want to detain the House at this time of night. I rise to put only one specific point, which arises on Clause 3 (2) and paragraph 2 of the Schedule. In doing so, I may perhaps be permitted to tell the House a very simple story of events in Oldham.

Seven or eight years ago, there met in Oldham six severely disabled people, of whom all but one were confined to invalid chairs. They decided that not enough was being done, although it is a town which does admirable social work and work for the disabled. They came to the conclusion that only the disabled could provide the sort of service needed in the town. I can say with great sincerity that one of the reasons why we listen to the Minister who has just moved the Third Reading and my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) is not merely that we hold them in high regard but that both have acquired empirical experience in dealing with problems of disabled people.

One admired the guts of these people in Oldham in endeavouring to obtain a hall where all the disabled of the town could meet. Although no one discouraged them, we felt they were taking on something that could not be done. But, by dint of all-out purpose, they kept at the job and visited the disabled and, by little tea parties and other small efforts, raised funds by which they secured a shed on the Sheffield—Oldham Road which they made into a first-class institution. Although I have told this story before and apologise for repeating it, I want to use it as an illustration. At that stage, the only help they had was a few local guarantors and some from the local authority under powers conferred by Section 30 of the National Assistance Act, 1948.

At this point the relevant matter arises. When these people said they would trace by every available means every disabled person in the borough, find out what they needed and try to cater for their needs, the full magnitude of the problem was presented. For the first time they found men completely confined to their homes by the nature of their injuries, men who had never been out of their homes for years. Very often they subsisted on the kindness of working-class neighbours, with all too little time for their own affairs. They found some who had built round themselves a shell of inhibition and remained in their small tenements. They did not go out because they had lost the will to do so. They had almost severed their connections with the town. They found that the only way to take these people on organised excursions was by the use of special buses which could take folding chairs and occasional stretchers.

The genius behind it all was a man, himself crippled in the spine to an extent that made it impossible for him to sit. In that condition, in a special chair, he pedalled himself around the town for 30 years. He was a man named Arthur Lees, whom, I am happy to say, Her Majesty honoured in the Honours List a couple of years ago. He was most unfortunately and tragically killed in an accident about two months later when going about his duties. He was one of the best men I have met, who had some of the genuine qualities of greatness.

As the project progressed Oldham Council found that under Section 30 of the National Assistance Act some of the powers which are now the subject of this legislation could be delegated. It is too late to talk about Amendments to this Bill in this House, but it has to go to another place. Although Section 30 of the Act has not been repealed, the power of a local authority to delegate functions to a special committee or board is also given under Clause 3 (2). This would make the local authority functus officio for that purpose, and therefore mean that the special board had not the power of delegation under Section 30 to voluntary organisations of some of its functions. It seems to me very important that Section 30 should be preserved.

I listened with attention and with a certain amount of recollection a few minutes ago to the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) extolling the virtues of Brighton. He referred to Socialism. Speaking as a Socialist, I have always deplored the fact that highly important and valuable Socialist measures have sometimes tended to wipe out the work of voluntary organisations. It is welcome when the work of voluntary organisations can be preserved, because I believe that there is a quality in the voluntary organisation movement which in this field can contribute something which no officialdom, however efficient, can contribute—understanding, tolerance and perhaps time and patience, all of which are qualities needed to solve this problem.

I ask the Minister to consider that and to try to give us an assurance that Section 30 will not be impaired and that the powers of local authorities to continue to delegate to voluntary bodies in this important field will not be harmed at all.

11.36 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport)

I should like to follow the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) in what he said about voluntary organisations, which I fully support. We have an excellent organisation in the city of Plymouth, and only last year twenty-nine completely disabled people were entertained in the House.

I had the honour to serve on the Committee which dealt with the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend in getting it through in less than an hour, although I should add that we did not skimp it but went through it in considerable detail. May I ask for my hon. Friend's assurance on one or two points which were mentioned then?

First, and again following what was said by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, I want an assurance that we shall safeguard voluntary organisations, especially those dealing with the blind. I am still not sure that D.R.O.s will not take over the work at present done by voluntary organisations. Looking through the Report of the Committee proceedings, I am not sure that I expressed my meaning clearly about this. I should like an assurance that work now being carried out by voluntary organisations, particularly that on behalf of blind people, will be allowed to remain in the hands of those who for many years have been recognised as very competent to do the job.

I understand that we are to allow a disabled person to withdraw his name from the register if he so wishes, and I should like my hon. Friend to give an assurance that it will be possible for such a person to put his name back on the register if he finds that necessary. Particularly in view of the fact that at present we have perhaps a little more unemployment than we have had in recent years, I am anxious that he or she should remain as one of the quota of the firm concerned. If such a person takes his name off the register, does it mean that he will no longer be regarded as disabled and no longer remain on the firm's quota?

I hope that when the Bill becomes an Act my hon. Friend will get in touch with local authorities to see that there is no overlapping between local authorities and existing voluntary organisations. I suggest that in a town or city where there is a Remploy, any sheltered workshop might be attached to that Remploy, because it will already have trained people, teachers and competent staff who can help immensely with this work. I hope that one of the first things my hon. Friend will do when the Bill becomes an Act is to send a circular to the various local authorities explaining in detail how he wishes the Act to be carried out, ensuring that there is no overlapping and particularly giving full opportunity to the voluntary organisations to carry on the work which they have done so well in the past.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. James Simmons (Brierley Hill)

We on this side welcome the Bill as a genuine effort to implement some of the recommendations of the Piercy Committee. It is a pity that we have to crowd what we have to say into a short time at the end of the day. It seems that the disabled are always left behind. We have very keen debates on some problems, and it is unfortunate that we have to deal with the final stages of the Bill in this House at this hour. However, be that as it may. We do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary for that but the arrangers of our business.

We should like an early report on the position up to date in respect of the implementation of the recommendations of the Piercy Committee. Which of those recommendations have the Government fully accepted, and which of them have been implemented by purely administrative methods? We have no desire to impede the progress of the Bill, but we should not like to leave it tonight without a few assurances as to administration. This is largely a machinery Bill, and our object in the discussions we have had has been to secure assurances that it will be administered in such a way as to make certain that the disabled people it caters for will get the maximum benefit from it. In our short and harmonious Committee proceedings, we succeeded in clarifying some matters, and, as a result of the assurances given by the Parliamentary Secretary, doubts and fears on many points which some hon. Members had felt were eradicated.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) raised the question of the two registers in his Amendment, and urged the need to facilitate the transfer of those who suffered prolonged unemployment from one section to the other. We were generally satisfied, as a result of our discussion, that that transfer could proceed expeditiously once the D.R.O. was satisfied that the man or woman could not be placed in open employment. On reflection, I think that probably the flexibility which comes from administrative methods may be to the advantage of the disabled, rather than the more rigid method of legislation. The assurance of constant review of these cases and prompt administrative action gave us satisfaction.

It would not be too much to say that the disablement resettlement officers will play an important part in the administration of this Measure. I re-emphasise, therefore, the need to appoint men and women who have a vocation for this kind of service, not those who merely regard it as a jumping-off ground for a better appointment later in the Ministry. The D.R.O. who has a real vocation will know of no better job than that of bringing human sympathy into his work and being always able to see the human being behind the case papers. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us to what extent the recommendations on this aspect, in paragraphs 189, 190 and 191 of the Report, have been or are in process of being implemented.

Paragraph 189 recommends That the Ministry … take steps to secure that its methods of selection are such as to ensure that in the case of all disablement resettlement officer appointments, the fullest consideration is given to the question of the officer's suitability and inclination for this work. That is a most important recommendation. How far has it been implemented?

The Committee was rather critical of training in the past. It said that the courses should be retained in their present form, but was not altogether satisfied with the adequacy of the initial training given to disablement resettlement officers on their appointment. It is recommended that the present three to four day courses"— that rather shook me—a three to four day course for a proposal of this importance— should be very considerably extended in time so as to make it far more comprehensive, and that it should include such a period of training on the job, under the supervision of a group disablement resettlement officer or experienced local disablement resettlement officer, as will thoroughly equip the newly-appointed officer for the work he is to do. The other recommendation was that D.R.O.s should deal with all disabled persons within a specified area, whatever their disabilities, and should continue to co-operate with voluntary organisations, hospitals and local authorities and doctors in the area. This co-operation with voluntary organisations, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) referred, and which was mentioned in Committee by the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers), is most important, and we should do all we can to encourage it.

It only remains for me to say that good will all round and willing co-operation between the Ministry and the local authorities will make this Measure an effective instrument in the service of disabled persons, and we hope that it will soon find its way on to the Statute Book.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Wood

By leave of the House; I assure the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), whose speeches I always like reading after having listened to them, as they then sink in much more than when I first listen to them, that Section 30 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, is not affected by the Bill. I was interested to hear of his experience and, after having had the chance to read his speech, I shall certainly take very careful note of the points he has made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) was very anxious that we should safeguard the position of voluntary organisations. I can certainly give her that assurance. The Piercy Committee made certain recommendations about work on behalf of the blind and placing blind people in employment, and my right hon. Friend is considering those at the moment.

I explained in Committee that, in order to balance voluntary registration, it was thought right, if a man voluntarily registered, that he should be able voluntarily to withdraw from the register; but there is nothing to prevent a man, if he withdraws from the register today, applying for registration tomorrow.

Extension of sheltered employment and co-operation between Remploy and voluntary sheltered workshops is a matter that would need the consent of my right hon. Friend, and he would take all those considerations into account.

I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) said about the implementation of the non-legislative recommendations of the Piercy Committee. I am very glad that he was re-assured by the assurance which I gave in Committee about the constant review which we shall make about Section I and Section II cases.

I know that he is very interested in the work and training of D.R.O.s. In fact, I can give him all the assurances for which he asked. These are men who are appointed by the regional controllers, who are in the service of the Ministry of Labour, who have experience on the employment side and who have not only experience in, but inclination for this work. I am able to tell the hon. Member that the average time a D.R.O. spends in his work is five or six years. The hon. Member was quite right to refer to training. We all realised that the training given to D.R.O.s was too short, and it is being increased from the period the hon. Gentleman mentioned to a month, and that, I think, is satisfactory.

I ask the House to give the Bill its Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.