HC Deb 12 July 1973 vol 859 cc1944-54

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst (Middleton and Prestwich)

During my three years as a Member of this House no case has caused me more impatience and anger than that of Mr. Stanley Lynch of Middleton. All hon. Members feel a concern for maintaining the employment of all citizens but a special concern to ensure that people who are in some way disabled should not face extra penalties in obtaining employment.

Mr. Lynch is aged 46 and lives with his wife and five children in a Manchester Corporation-owned house on the Langley overspill estate at Middleton. He is a registered disabled person who suffers from agoraphobia, and cannot, therefore, work away from home. The evidence for this comes, first, from a social worker, who said in a recent report: Mr. Lynch suffers from a chronic agoraphobic state, which prevents him going out. He is able to walk in the vicinity of his home only when accompanied and has on several occasions ' collapsed ' in the street. His general practitioner, Dr. Claiman, has issued a certificate. The most recent that I have is dated 6th July 1973. It states: This is to certify that Mr. S. Lynch of … Middleton is suffering from chronic phobia of being transported by mechanical means. He is therefore obliged to seek such employment which he can carry out at home, thus obviating the need to travel. So there is no doubt that Mr. Lynch is a genuinely disabled person and is registered as such.

Mr. Lynch was formerly a landscape gardener until, when the time came that his disability was finally confirmed, he had to find an alternative job. He took a postal draughtsman's course and exhausted his capital on his studies and the equipment necessary to pursue his occupation. So far as I know, he is a competent draughtsman. Certainly, three years ago, a firm in Middleton was prepared to give him work that he could do at home and he was kept quite busy.

He carried on in this way for two years. Then, in conversation with the disablement resettlement officer—this is where the Department of Employment became involved in Mr. Lynch's story—the full facts of his employment came to light. The officer suggested that, to put matters on a correct footing, Mr. Lynch should apply to Manchester Corporation housing department for permission to continue his work at home. He applied, and permission was refused. He then had to cease work and has since had to rely on social security benefits.

In order to understand why I am making this appeal to the Department, we must first consider the full nature of Mr. Lynch's problem. We should first consider the attitude of Manchester Corporation, since I believe that it is at the heart of the problem. The corporation stubbornly refused to allow Mr. Lynch to work at home. It has maintained this refusal over about two years. Nor will it sanction a building in his garden in which he could keep and use his drawing equipment.

Again, had the corporation allowed him in 1971 to proceed with the purchase of his house there would today be no problem. Unfortunately, with the change of political control in Manchester Corporation, Mr. Lynch's hopes of being able to purchase his home were dashed.

To add refinement to Manchester Corporation's insensitive treatment of my constituent, the corporation suggested at one time last year a transfer to a larger house so that he would have improved conditions for his work. Mr. Lynch did not wish to move because he quite liked his present house, adjacent to Middeton Corporation allotments on which he was able to potter around.

When I pressed Manchester Corporation about whether it would give official permission to Mr. Lynch to work if he acceded to the suggestion that he should remove to another house, the corporation said it would not give permission anyway. I am forced to the conclusion that there is total insensitivity on Manchester Corporation's part. Moreover I have a rather nasty feeling that it would understand the disablement of a man with no legs but suspect whether agoraphobia was a true disablement. I suggest that it should be a matter of real concern for the Department of Employment that such ignorance and callousness towards a disabled person should exist in a public authority.

Manchester Corporation says that it is reviewing the whole question of businesesses being conducted from council houses and it implies that there are complications arising out of the Housing Finance Act 1972. This is running away from what is really at issue. Here is a man who wants to work, who is capable of doing a particular type of work, and who is prevented from doing so by some bureaucratic ruling. Mr. Lynch does not want to advertise; nor is he in search of business profits. He wants to be able to earn a living wage which will lessen if not remove his dependence on social security benefits.

I must say that I fail to see how Manchester Corporation reconciles its decision in Mr. Lynch's case when so many other tenants on the same estate are running businesses which include advertising and their being called upon by people. The business people include driving instructors, plumbers, industrial machinists and window cleaners, all of whom keep their tools of their trades at home but cause no difficulty or inconvenience, as there would be no difficulty or inconvenience in Mr. Lynch's case were he allowed to work at home.

By constrast with the attitude of Manchester Corporation, Middleton Corporation has been very much more reasonable. Mr. Lynch, when he was working at home for two years before the disablement resettlement officer talked to him, had a shed in the garden. Middleton Corporation, as planning authority, had to condemn this as a fire risk but was prepared to give planning permission for an extension to be made so that Mr. Lynch could have somewhere to work. It is interesting to note the language in which this permission was given: The proposed development would be unacceptable in a residential area. However, the applicant, due to personal circumstances, is unable to undertake any form of employment other than from home and this application is permitted for this reason. That sort of flexibility should characterise the approach of any responsible authority in dealing with a case like that of Mr. Lynch. The local social services department has been endeavouring to help Mr. Lynch and is, indeed, sympathetic to him.

There are two other disadvantages suffered by Mr. Lynch. I am concerned about his pension entitlement. He has already claimed unsuccessfully for certain credits to be made on his contribution record and has been unsuccessful according to the rules which apply. I should like to know from my hon. Friend the Minister whether he can say whether Mr. Lynch's ultimate pension has already been put at a disadvantage by what has happened and whether it can be worsened still further if Mr. Lynch is not permitted to work in the near future.

The second problem for Mr. Lynch is what the neighbours may say of him. There is liable to be gossip in certain quarters—for example, "Mr. Lynch seems to be an able-bodied person. Therefore, he cannot really be unable to work." Since attention was drawn in the Press to the fact that this debate was to take place this evening, I have received an anonymous letter, from which I should like to quote. It states: Off Mr. Stanley Lynch I wish you had your facts right, because I the writer of this letter happens to know what I am saying this man is a con man he can tell a good story he has never worked in his life he doesn't know what work is … Dr. Claiman may be can put you in the picture, he knows his type. He been getting away without paying stamp or tax for years. It is about time somebody caught up with him If this sort of filth is peddled totally in contravention of the known facts and the statement of Mr. Lynch's general practitioner, one can understand the hurt and the discomfort that can can come to Mr. Lynch and his family by his inability to be able to do what he wishes to do

All I have said adds up in my view to an absolutely intolerable state of affairs, and I seek the help of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in trying to bring it to an end. This must surely be a matter of concern to him. There must be an obligation on his Department to assist Mr. Lynch, a registered disabled person, so that he may maintain his independence and provide for his family to the best of his ability.

I ask my hon. Friend whether his Department can initiate discussions at the highest level with all interested bodies to help to resolve this personal problem. It is a monstrous situation which cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. Humanity demands that Mr. Lynch be given back his dignity.

11.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith)

My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst) has been most diligent in his endeavours on behalf of his constituent in the best possible traditions of this House, and he has spoken of the case tonight with understanding and compassion and a good deal of vigour.

I fully sympathise with the dilemma in which Mr. Lynch finds himself. I knew this case before in a slight way. As a result of my hon. Friend's notification that he was applying for this Adjournment debate I have inquired fully into it, and I shall address myself to some of its details. I shall put forward some proposals which, I hope, will help my hon. Friend.

In dealing, however, with our efforts on behalf of my hon. Friend's constituent, I have to touch on matters which are not directly the concern of my Department, such as questions of planning policy and, more especially, policies in connection with the use of private houses for business purposes, to which my hon. Friend referred. The debate has hinged round these issues, which of course are primarily for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

It may be helpful if I begin by reviewing briefly my Department's involvement and concern in this matter. Our local officers have been in touch over a number of years with Mr. Lynch, but some two years ago we were asked to assist him in setting up business on his own account. This entailed drawing office work at home. As is known, the nature of his disability makes it unlikely that he would be able to work away from home at any time, and clearly it was a case where we needed to examine my Department's scheme for helping the severely disabled to take up business on their own account.

A visit by one of our officers showed that there were safety hazards in the building which must be used by Mr. Lynch. At the same time we advised him that if he was going to work from home, he ought to be satisfied that his landlord—in this case, as my hon. Friend said, the Manchester Corporation—would permit him to do so from what is, of course, rented council property. I submit that this was hardly negative advice, although I know that the gentleman is inclined to blame us for it and I thought that I detected a note of criticism from my hon. Friend. I may add that our officers were totally sympathetic. Indeed, they were impressed by the quality of Mr. Lynch's work and undertook to try to find additional work for him so that he could carry it on at home.

We were not in a position to go ahead with helping him to set up business on his own account while there were doubts about whether it could be carried on in the premises in question and whether subsequently adaptations could be sanctioned for the property.

I understand that Mr. Lynch was unwilling to apply for a larger council house, which I gather was on offer and which might have given him extra room. At a later stage he decided that a building on his allotment would meet his purposes and insisted that it was the duty of our officers to approach the allotment owners—in this case Middleton Corporation—and obtain the necessary planning permission for him. Our officers made the corporation aware of these proposals, but understandably the corporation asked for a personal approach from Mr. Lynch.

I move on to March last year, at which point my hon. Friend wrote to us, making it clear that he had had correspondence with the Manchester Corporation and asking for my Department's help. We decided, therefore, that what was needed was for someone from the Middleton Corporation to visit Mr. Lynch at home with one of our officers to advise what action he should take over his proposal for providing a workshop at his home. Our officers thought that it was possible that a personal approach might move the situation forward, and indeed took with them planning application forms to his home.

The application for a building on the allotment for business premises was not granted on the grounds, I understand, that the land was to be used only for horticultural purposes.

This brings me to the central point—the use of rented houses for business purposes. My hon. Friend has pointed out that the Manchester Corporation, in its capacity as landlord, is unwilling to permit council property to be used as business premises. My understanding is that this is not because it is unsympathetic in this case—far from it, for it recognises that a severely disabled man is involved. But there is a question of policy which the corporation has to resolve. My information is that Mr. Lynch is now well aware of the dilemma of the corporation.

Let me emphasise that these are not questions for my Department. They fall more to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—although on matters of housing management and control he has no direct powers to intervene. On the question of the use of council property for business purposes he has published no advice, but I understand that if any local authority were to consult my right hon. Friend, his Department would be ready to pass on what it knows of practice throughout the country on this question.

I therefore turn to the functions of the Department of Employment, which derive from the Disablement Employment Acts of 1944 and 1958. Our rôle is to resettle disabled people by helping them to find suitable employment in open industry or in sheltered employment. In appropriate cases our function is to advise the severely disabled about facilities for setting up business on their own account. As my hon. Friend knows, these are the particular functions of our disablement resettlement officers, who play an important part not only in placing disabled people in employment but also in giving them general advice.

In this case the only possible resettlement which our officers could envisage was through our scheme for helping people to set up business on their own account. We have the power under the 1944 Act to provide some financial assistance to severely disabled people to set up business on their own account, where this represents the only prospect of satisfactory and lasting resettlement. But we could not help Mr. Lynch in this way until the matters which were appropriate to the local authorities in this case were resolved. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that it was the duty of our disablement resettlement officers to advise Mr. Lynch about this.

My hon. Friend also makes the point that no Department, or, for that matter, the corporation, seems able or willing to bring his constituent's case to a conclusion. My inquiries show that over a long period our officers had many contacts with Mr. Lynch and made a number of approaches to officers of local authorities on his behalf.

Since I wrote to my hon. Friend in May last year we have had no direct contact with Mr. Lynch, nor has my hon. Friend raised the matter since he wrote to our local office last December. I acknowledge that he has been pursuing his constituent's case with other Departments.

My hon. Friend specifically asked me about the question of credits of national insurance contributions. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to look into this matter. However, I understand that my right hon. Friend's Department gave a ruling to Mr. Lynch in June of last year to the effect that he was not entitled to contribution credits. He was told that he had the right of appeal to the Secretary of State for the question to be determined judicially. My information is that this was not taken up by my hon. Friend's constituent.

I wish to be as helpful as I can. I appreciate that this is a very human case and it is one which obviously causes us concern. Now that my hon. Friend has raised the case in this way, I have immediately instituted further inquiries. I intend personally to make strong representations to Manchester Corporation, because I know that the corporation has yet to come to a final conclusion about its policy as it affects the use of council property for business purposes. My hon. Friend says that the corporation has taken a long time about it. I hope that the corporation will come to a decision quickly so that cases like that of Mr. Lynch will not recur.

Mr. Haselhurst

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the general question of policy, one should particularise in the case of such a definable category of persons as the registered disabled?

Mr. Smith

My hon. Friend appreciates that we do not make the rules about housing and its use. As I said, I intend to make strong representations to Manchester Corporation. We are not able to decree to local authorities what they should or should not do. If the corporation wishes to contact my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for advice, he is willing to give it. Perhaps my hon. Friend can engineer that.

I have also given instructions for our local officers to take up once more the case which has been so vigorously put forward tonight. But I must emphasise that they have no jurisdiction in planning and housing management matters. If our local officers can bring about some kind of round table conference with the good will of people on all sides, I am sure that some progress can be made.

I sincerely hope that the local authorities involved will take a sympathetic view of the very difficult circumstances in which this unfortunate man and his family find themselves. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is sheer ignorance for people to make allegations to the effect that agoraphobia is not a disease and that people must be without arms or legs before they are regarded as disabled. My Department comes into contact constantly with many manifestations of disablement. I am sure, with the diagnosis that there has been, that this is a perfectly genuine case.

We shall still then have the opportunity to see how far we can help Mr. Lynch set up in his business by himself and to aid him in the courageous attitude he is adopting in trying to earn his living. I hope that this will reassure my hon. Friend that I have taken his point about the need for further initiatives.

I understand my hon. Friend's frustration that, with several different agencies involved, it does not seem to have been possible to get functioning exactly on the same wavelength, but I imagine that as a result of the debate a number of people on the ground in the locality will begin to look serious at what has transpired. They will read what my hon. Friend and I have said. Anything we can do further to bring this matter to a successful conclusion we will do.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.