HC Deb 16 July 1973 vol 860 cc180-90

Lords Amendment: No. 24, in page 49, line 11, after Clause 35, insert new Clause "D": A. The Secretary of State shall review social security provision for chronically sick and disabled persons, and shall lay a report on his review before Parliament by 31st October 1974".

Mr. Dean

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams (Kensington, South)

May I halt for a moment the flood of approvals to the amendments that have been made in the other place to draw attention to this amendment which, although of only a few lines, is of special importance? It arises from an amendment which I had the honour to move and which was supported by hon. Members on both sides. My amendment referred to the need for a review of social security provision for the chronically sick and disabled.

There were deficiencies in the new clause which I suggested, which put an unnecessary degree of responsibility on the National Insurance Advisory Committee and when the clause was not accepted on Report, I thought that the matter was dead, T was delighted that it was revived in the other place. The Government were defeated by one vote on an amendment moved in Committee by Lady Seear, whom I should like warmly to thank and congratulate for having taken up the suggestion that originated here. The question then arose whether the Government would accept the amendment on Report in the other place. It is difficult to understand what has happened, but it appears that there has been a compromise. Amendment No. 24 as it has come back to us from the other place is a watering down of what was in itself a watering down. The amendment moved in Committee by Baroness Seear did not go quite as far as the amendment I and my colleagues introduced in this House.

The question of the date by which the review is to be produced by the Secretary of State—whether it should be early in 1974 or subsequently in that year—is a relatively unimportant aspect, which I do not think that the House needs seriously to consider. But this three-line amendment could be read so as not now to cover the hopes and intentions of hon. Members in either House with regard to the Secretary of State's responsibility. We should like the Secretary of State—indeed, tonight if possible through my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—to commit himself to publish a Green Paper on the Government's future plans for dealing with the tragic problem of disability. The word "review" is so wide that I am not certain what it implies. Does it imply a survey of what already exists in the way of provision for the disabled—perhaps a statistical analysis—or does it involve the Secretary of State in making a statement of intention? Will it be a review of the Government's whole policy on disability, taking in every facet—particularly employment—or is it a question only of the Secretary of State's immediate concern resulting from his responsibilities in his own Department?

The House is entitled to ask my hon. Friend to enlarge on this. Many thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people will be glad of a full statement of the Government's intentions.

I should like a thorough-going commitment from my hon. Friend to a Green Paper, which would be a turning point for the disabled because it would contain a complete and considered statement of what the Government as a whole, and not merely this Department, have in mind. I believe that I am not allowed to speak more than once on the amendment, but I think that other hon. Members are just as concerned as I am. I simply ask my hon. Friend to deal fully with the Government's intentions, to tell us why the Clause has taken this form, and to let us know what we may expect as a result of the Government's agreement to accept the amendment.

Mr. Alec Jones (Rhondda, West)

The Labour Party would accept this type of amendment. It would be a little strong to say that we welcome it, but since the Government are accepting and remedying the folly of their past attitude to amendments like this, we would accept it on the basis that half a loaf is better than no bread.

The Minister knows the deep feeling on both sides of the House on this subject. Many hon. Members, organisations for the disabled, the disabled themselves and their families and ordinary men and women concerned about the problems of disablement felt tremendously bitter that there was originally nothing in the Bill for the disabled. If the Minister feels that that is an exaggeration, I would recommend to him a statement by DIG, in which, referring to the Committee debates on the Bill, they said: For the disabled people who need help now, it was a non-event. We should bear that in mind when discussing and, I hope, accepting, the amendment. It is at least better than the original omission.

We tried in Committee, with help from hon. Members opposite, which I acknowledge, to write into the Bill some provision for disabled people, but all our attempts failed, and disillusionment and bitterness increased among disabled people and the organisations which represent them.

That is why, on Report, Amendment No. 52 was moved by the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), supported by large numbers of hon. Members on both sides, asking for a detailed inquiry to be carried out by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, and suggesting 30th April 1974 as a reasonable date by which it could be completed. The Secretary of State said then that the Committee was not a suitable vehicle for such a review, and many of us felt that he was probably right.

But in the same speech the right hon. Gentleman also dismissed the idea of a green paper, also suggested by hon. Members on both sides. The House, disabled people and their organisations were left with his view that instead of these two suggestions, the matter should be left to the Government's own review. This refusal to consider the other suggestions led to the growing frustration and impatience among disabled people and all concerned with them.

11.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State told the House about his own experience of this disillusionment and the rising tide of impatience. He said how well he was received in 1971 when he addressed a conference of DIG. But when he addressed a similar conference in the early part of May, he said that he received a vigorous and slightly less warm reception than two years previously because of the rising tide of impatience …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May 1973; Vol. 856, c. 585.]

It was that rising tide of impatience that led Members of the other place to move their amendment on 12th June. That amendment was resisted by the Government spokesman in the other place, but fortunately, because of the wisdom of Members of the other place, it was carried by one vote.

We then move to 4th July which then saw the amendment in the form in which we now have it before us. We welcome this amendment for two reasons. There are two essential commitments in the amendment. First there is the commitment to a wide-ranging review and that the commitment is to be made public. The second essential commitment is that we have now established a definite time limit which means that the review is to be completed and made public by 31st October 1974. I welcome the review, but I do not want to be too exuberant about it because there is still some suspicion among organisations outside the House. We must not be too suspicious, but it must be said that the Secretary of State himself is to blame for some of the suspicion because of his rejection of an amendment on these lines and of the idea of a Green Paper.

The Government's attitude has disappointed many back-bench Conservatives, and initially in the other place the amendment was vigorously resisted by the Government spokesman. I hope that the Minister in dealing with the amendment will deal specifically with three areas of suspicion—not for the sake of hon. Members in this House or of our colleagues in the other place, but for the sake of the disabled and their organisations.

The first matter relates to why the time limit was extended from 30th April 1974 to 30th October 1974. I do not make too much of this matter since it is a relatively short period, and it is essential that we have some time laid down because this will concentrate minds in Government Departments and the minds of Ministers. But was it really essential to extend the time limit from the original proposal that the review was to be completed by 30th April until 30th October?

The second point relates to the watering-down process which occurred between the amendment which was moved on 12th June and that which was moved on 4th July. In fact, certain words have been omitted and this gives cause for certain suspicion. The original amendment called for a report on what amendments were needed in the law relating to social security to meet the special needs of the chronically sick and disabled persons including categories of such persons not at present entitled to benefit hereunder".

With what difficulties did this wording present the Government? If there was no objection or difficulty, then surely the original amendment would have been preferable.

The third point relates to the nature and extent of the review. We want to know how comprehensive the review will be. We ask the Minister to lift the corner of the review and to let us see a little of what we may expect. Will the whole review be published, or are we merely to have a modified, watered down version? Once we have had the review, when can we expect action to flow from it?

A review is not only desirable. It is necessary. However, for the disabled, it is not only the review which is essential. It is the action which must follow soon after it.

The Opposition support the amendment. But we believe that the Government were very late in the day in changing their attitude towards it.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle (Billericay)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) on his elevation to the Opposition Front Bench for the purpose of this debate. If his sincerity and his dedication to the cause of the disabled are the reason, the hon. Gentleman very much merits being there.

I hope that that expression of sentiment is evidence of the fact that we had a very good cross-party debate when this matter was discussed in Committee. On several occasions, the hon. Gentleman and I found ourselves engaged in not so much a verbal tussle as a genuine attempt to discover not whether we should have a disability income but the method by which we might move towards its introduction. There is no dispute, nor was there in Committee, other than perhaps in regard to the timing of it.

We all pay tribute to the DIG, and I repeat my commendation of it for having maintained its pressure and for having brought us to this slightly more advanced stage that we are discussing tonight. The Lords amendment makes progress. It refers to a specific date, and that in my experience wonderfully concentrates the mind of a Government. Irrespective of whether the date is six months later than the hon. Member for Rhondda, West would have wished, I express my own gratification about the fact that we have now a target date.

I do not entertain the suspicions which have been voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and the hon. Member for Rhondda, West. If I thought that we were to interpret the wording of the amendment literally so that there would be a review of the present situation of the chronically sick and disabled and nothing more, I should take issue with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. But what is intended in the Government's acceptance of this amendment is first a statement of where we stand in relation to the chronically sick and disabled and secondly an outline of various ways in which provision for such people can be moved forward. That is my understanding. I suggest that that may be better than continuing to press for the publication of a Green Paper.

I suggest that if the review puts forward the proposition, as we look to the future, in the way that I envisage, we shall take several more steps along the road that we all wish to travel than a Green Paper necessarily will do.

For all these reasons, it would be churlish not to accept that this amendment is a distinct move forward. Subject to the review containing not only a reference to what we have done but a few guidelines to what we ought to do, I believe that we should agree to it.

Mr. Marcus Worsley (Chelsea)

I support the amendment. Despite the qualifications that we have heard from the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones), in my view it is a major step forward.

It is not true to suggest that this Government have been remiss in what they have done for the disabled. More has been done in the early years of this Parliament than in any other that I recollect. However, I share the hon. Gentleman's impatience that we should carry this forward as a major step towards a disability income.

Perhaps I may define slightly what I want to see. First, a disability income must go across the board and be applicable not only to people within the National Insurance scheme.

Secondly, it must not discourage the disabled from taking a part-time or lowly paid job. One of the greatest disadvantages of the present treatment of sickness generally is that it discourages people from doing part-time jobs. That is the second criteria I should like to put on it, and certainly it would include women working in the home.

If those are the criteria when looking at a way of bringing in a disablement income, the difficulties are considerable. It is easy to press for a disability income, but difficult to say how it should be done. Though I share the respect for DIG and many of those who work for it, it still has not produced a clear policy on how a disability income could or should be achieved.

In the past many of us have thought of an extension of something like the industrial injuries scheme, with all the degree of medical work and certification that is required. It may be that that is the right way forward. However, if that is the only way we must face the fact that shortages of medical staff will make it a very slow process to get a disability income off the ground.

It may be that we would be wiser to build on one or other of the major social advances in this sphere that the Government have made. First, the attendance allowance scheme has enormous advantages. I will not go into them now. It is going well and it is relatively easy to apply. It may be that an extension of that scheme would be the next best way forward.

Secondly, an extension of the principles of the invalidity benefit could conceivably produce a short cut to a disability income.

Mr. Dean

I am sure that the House will wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) on what I think is his first appearance at the Opposition Dispatch Box. All who debate these matters are aware of his great knowledge of matters concerning the disabled, the sympathy that he brings to his advocacy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

Order. The hon. Gentleman must have the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Dean

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and the courteous way in which he always puts his points. In order that I do not appear too congratulatory, I should like to wish him a very long innings at that Dispatch Box.

I am grateful to the House for the welcome that has been given to the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) will recollect the clause that he introduced at an earlier stage of our proceedings dwelling on the need for a really comprehensive review of cash benefits for the disabled. My hon. Friend was good enough to say then, and he said much the same this evening, that he accepted that it probably would not be wise, as it were, to change horses in midstream by moving over to the National Insurance Advisory Committee in this matter and that the work would best be done by a review by the Government of the day. Therefore, I am grateful for the welcome that he extended to the new clause. I think he can fairly claim that the work that he put in here has had some influence on it.

My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of a Green Paper, but my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle), in effect, said that now we have the new clause—I hope that the House will accept it—we have something specific and possibly of more value for the future provision for the disabled than the idea of a Green Paper which was put forward earlier.

11.15 p.m.

The hon. Member for Rhondda, West asked how comprehensive the review would be. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) outlined some of the criteria which he thought should be taken into account in the advance which we all wish to bring about. I am glad that my hon. Friend stressed that this is a difficult area. It is by no means straight forward to see what the next step should be and how additional help can best be brought to the disabled.

The review will be wide ranging. It will cover the whole range of disabled people, the whole range of their needs as they have been identified, and the whole range of cash benefit possibilities for meeting those needs. We are concerned for people and contingencies for which provision is not at present made, as well as for contingencies for which there is already some provision. There is a very wide-ranging review over the whole cash benefit field, both progress made up to now and possibilities for the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay said that a date wonderfully concentrates the mind. That is the best answer I can give to the point raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda, West about the date. The date is specific, it is 31st October 1974, which is not al! that far ahead in view of the difficulties facing us in making further progress with the disabled. The clause states clearly the timetable for the production of a report and it also makes clear that there is an obligation on the Government to produce the report. I assure the House that we shall continue to work very hard on making as much progress as is possible. The work will be done thoroughly. It must be if it is to be worth while. I therefore hope that the House will feel that the clause, which I commend to the House, is part of the unfolding pattern of better provision for the disabled which we all wish to see.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

I thank my hon. Friend warmly for his statement which will be welcome generally amongst the disabled. Is it intended that the report will deal specifically with amendments to the law relating to social security?

Mr. Dean

It will deal with all aspects of social security provision. If, as a result of the review, amendments to the law are required to make improvements, that will be covered by the review.

Mr. Robert Boscawen (Wells)

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has lifted the veil much further than I expected. He has given encouraging news about looking into possible cash benefits available to those of the disabled who do not get benefit at present. It is a wide-ranging review. Hitherto, the Government have been reluctant to review some of the experiences they have been having under the present workings of the disability allowance and the invalidity allowance. I congratulate the Government on what they intend, in the hope that it will fulfil expectations I have had that we look after those who are not getting anything at present, even though they are severely disabled. I warmly congratulate the Government in advance. We shall study the report very carefully when it comes out.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Forward to