HC Deb 02 February 1979 vol 961 cc1897-930

Order for Second Reading read.

2.16 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright (Dearne Valley)

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

I appreciate the opportunity to introduce this Bill, which I am certain will strengthen four provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

I hope and expect that it will be non-controversial, as we want to make cerain that we can quickly deal with the points in this Bill so as to strengthen the Act. I should like to thank the Opposition, especially the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie), for giving time for the introduction of this Bill. Hon. Members on both sides regulated their speeches. For that I am grateful. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), who is an Opposition Front Bench spokesman stayed with us for some time, although I am aware that she has an important engagement not too far ahead.

I believe that the 1970 Act, which was piloted through Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security with responsibility for the disabled, was a milestone in our social legislation. Indeed, in human terms it is as important as any Act on the statute book.

Often we leave on one side those who have been born with or have suffered from disablements which have greatly restricted their lives. Therefore, that wide-ranging Act gives direct help to 1 million severely disabled people. Indirectly it helps millions more by its general provisions, especially those relating to the improved access to public buildings. It aiso helps families, because once the ability of one member of a family becomes impaired the result among the whole family is a feeling that they are a handicapped family.

I come from a mining community. I know only too well what a breakthrough was accomplished by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act for disabled people and their families. Many times in my early days I saw young miners who received severe back injuries and were confined to a chair. Many times such a man got outside the door of the house only when someone carried him there. Therefore, the Act has been of great benefit to people in the mining community and others who have been severely injured.

I have watched with great pleasure the gradual extension of the Act and the strengthening of its provisions. In 1972 the Conservative Government extended it to Scotland; in 1978 it was further extended, in its entirety, to Northern Ireland, thus becoming a United Kingdom Act. Following the passage of an amending Act in 1977, its provisions for improved access were applied to places of employment, so helping to remove discrimination against disabled people at work as well as those with leisure opportunities.

Of course, not only was my right hon. Friend the creator of the 1970 Act; in his present post he is committed to furthering the interests of disabled people on all fronts, and he is constantly seizing upon new opportunites for improving the quality of life of disabled people and ensuring that they have the rights to which they are entitled. His dedication has been recognised recently by his appointment to Her Majesty's Privy Council, and I am sure that all Members of the House join me in congratulating him on that well-deserved honour.

I know that despite the tremendous progress made in the nine years since he introduced the Act my right hon. Friend is the last person to believe that we can afford to be complacent. I am keenly aware, from my daily contact with my constituents as well as from discussions with interest groups representing disabled people, of how much more there is still to be done before the full social purposes of the Act and its meaning can be realised.

That is why, when I was fortunate enough to win seventh place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills, there was little doubt in my mind about what I wanted to do, and about the Act that I wanted to help, sustain and strengthen. I have tackled the task through four amendments and I will describe them briefly to the House. Before doing so I want to say a word of thanks to all those organisations and individuals who sent to me certain suggestions about what I should put into the Bill.

I could have obtained a good deal of publicity if I had accepted some of them. Nevertheless, I thought, and think, that what I propose to do in the Bill is the best, and, therefore, although I am grateful to all those organisations and individuals for making their suggestions to me—I hope that they do not feel that I did not consider their suggestions, for I can assure them that I did so most carefully—I made up my mind that the unfortunate disabled people ought to have my blessing through some amendments to the existing Act.

The first and most important change in the Bill relates to section 2 of the 1970 Act. That section lays on local authorities the duty of providing a wide range of services to disabled people, whether or not they are registered, but once they are registered the local authority must be satisfied that there is a need to provide such services. The services include such essential items as adaptation of homes and, along with additional help in providing telephones, all kinds of aid and equipment. This is a wry wide area, and it has come to the fore in the last few years.

Tremendous benefit has been derived by disabled people from the social services in this effort to enable them to live a fuller and better life. These services, together or separately, can transform the lives of disabled people by enabling them to stay in the community, to be in their own homes, where they belong, and to do so with the maximum degree of comfort and dignity, thereby stimulating the desire to live a fuller life.

It was until last year always believed that it was open to a disabled person, if he or she was aggrieved by the failure of the local authority to provide one of the services set out in section 2, to seek a remedy in the courts. Unfortunately, the judgment of the Appeal Court in the case of Wyatt v. the London borough of Islington in May 1978 showed that that was not after all the case, and that the only remedy open to a disabled person in that position would be to apply to the Secretary of State to use his default powers under the National Assistance Act 1948.

Understandably, disabled people feel that that is not satisfactory either in principle or in practice. The purpose of clause 1, therefore, is to remedy the situation by restoring the position to what it was believed to be before the Hillingdon judgment. The clause is designed to amend section 2 so as to insert after subsection (1) a provision to the effect that when a disabled person has requested a local authority to make any of the arrangements specified by section (2), and the authority has accepted that such arrangements need to be made in order to meet the needs of that person, if the arrangements have not been completed within a reasonable time the person who made the request may make an application to the county court for an order directing the authority to make the necessary arrangements.

In proposing that amendment of section 2, I recognise that it does not go as far as some proposals which have been canvassed. The opportunity of recourse to the courts is limited to those people whose local authority has recognised their need for a service or services but has not met that need. I am aware of the suggestion that there should be imposed upon local authorities a wider and stricter statutory duty. I am also aware that support for such suggestions springs to a large extent from a justifiable dissatisfaction with variations in the provision of services between one local authority area and another.

Nevertheless, after much hard and careful consideration, I concluded that a measure more modest in scope, as proposed in clause 1, offers the right and only practicable solution. It restores to disabled people the right that they believed to be theirs. At the same time, it does not conflict with the proper exercise by local authorities of their functions, bearing in mind that those authorities are answerable to their electors and cannot be allowed to opt out of their duties, and if they perform those duties badly they can expect the political consequences of failing the needs of the local disabled people. As far as legal representation is concerned, local representatives are in a better position than central Government to make those assessments. They are closer to the people and therefore should be aware of the people's needs and act accordingly.

Whitehall solutions are inevitably remote and reached with less knowledge of the circumstances of individuals. However, I am not happy with the performance of some local authorities in helping disabled people under the Act. Disabled people and those who care about disabled people can do much to make laggard authorities face their responsibilities without the need for the introduction of more extreme statutory measures.

For example, local organisations for disabled people can pinpoint and publicise cases of urgent need and ensure that the local authority deals with them. Some local authorities are spending considerably less on helping disabled people than others in comparable areas. Local councillors should be asked to explain why, and their attention should be drawn to their statutory duties. I do not believe that that is done often enough, in spite of the great interest that has been aroused in the last few years in the fact that there is still insufficient care for disabled people.

The councillors should be reminded that it is a failure of their duty to reduce the services without proof of diminished need. Local authorities should be urged to carry out their duty under section 1 of the Act, not only to provide services but to ensure that disabled people are informed of their rights and helped to make full use of those services.

I believe that there should be a change in attitude which cannot be achieved by legislation alone. The constant vigilance and concern shown in the practical ways that I have mentioned can assist the disabled However, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to bear in mind in their constituencies the need to arouse interest in the care of the disabled.

One provision of the Bill is designed to amend section 4(1) of the 1970 Act to ensure that the Secretary of State lays before Parliament a report on proposals for further improvement of access to and within public premises for disabled people. Much has been achieved towards the aim of ensuring that disabled people go where the able-bodied can go, so that they may take their proper place in the community and enjoy leisure activities on equal terms.

Not only has the Act led to improvements in access; the Silver Jubilee access committee that was set up by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security has led to improvements in access. The committee reported last week, after a year's intense activity and informed inquiry regarding all aspects of improving access for disabled people. I have read the excellent report and I hope to see its recommendations accepted by the Government, who have already given a pledge of good faith by setting up a successor body—the committee on restrictions against disabled people.

I paid attention in the Bill to one of the Silver Jubilee committee's recommendations to which I was sympathetic. The recommendation was that the sections of the 1970 Act that deal with access to new buildings—sections 4 to 8—should be made mandatory. In that way, the onus of proof would be transferred to developers, who would have to demonstrate irrevocably that it would be unreasonable or impracticable to incorporate access facilities for disabled people in new buildings.

I have sympathy with the thought behind the recommendation, but I feel that it is for the Government, to whom the report was made and who are giving it careful and sympathetic consideration, to respond to the recommendation by amending the appropriate sections of the Act. I repeat that I hope that the Government will be able to do so. Meanwhile, the aim of the clause in relation to access is that it will help provide a focus of attention on the vital importance of further improving access for disabled people.

Paragraph 11.10 of the report under the chairmanship of Peter Large says: We consider that Government, both central and local, and its agencies should set an example to everyone else. The Property Services Agency announced recently that, in the financial year beginning April 1979, it will provide £½ million to adapt at least one public building in each of 56 towns. We are pleased to hear that news. The report continues: Even so there are still too many DHSS local offices, job centres, hospitals and doctors' and dentists' surgeries where access is so poor that disabled people cannot reach them. Paragraph 11.11 says: However, we do not think that all the private sector will necessarily follow the example set up by public organisations. We believe that the only way to ensure access to new buildings would be to make it illegal not to include the necessary design features. Earlier (paragraph 1.5) we noted that the Department of the Environment intends to consider the practicability of amending building regulations to incorporate the revised Code of Practice. We hope that they do so quickly. We recommend that legislation be introduced to make the access sections of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 mandatory. Further, we recommend that the law be amended to place on developers the burden of proof that to make a new building accessible would be unreasonable and impracticable. I recommend every hon. Member to read that helpful and interesting report, which is vital for the future of the care of the disabled.

The remaining two provisions of the Bill are designed to extend and strengthen the 1970 Act. Section 17 of the Act provides that health authorities should use their best endeavours to secure that, as far as practicable, young chronically sick and disabled people who have to spend time in or even live permanently in hospital are not cared for in part of a hospital normally used wholly or mainly for elderly people. I believe that that is to be commended, and it has already done much for younger sick and disabled people.

The Bill seeks to apply a similar provision to residential homes provided by local authorities under part III of the National Assistance Act. It is designed to ensure that local authorities shall use their best endeavours to secure that, so far as is practicable, no person is cared for in residential accommodation that is normally used wholly or mainly for the care of elderly people unless he is himself elderly. I believe that is important, because if disabled people are to be regarded as entitled to the same rights as the able-bodied—as I believe they must be—among those rights must be the companionship of people of their own age and the opportunity to participate in activities designed to appeal to them rather than to older people. Old people often require different facilities and different types of social stimulation.

I also feel that it is necessary to extend the Act to cover local authority homes because of the increasing tendency for physically disabled people to stay in the community rather than to go into hospital.

Section 18(1) of the parent Act requires the Secretary of State to take steps to obtain from local authorities information on the number of people under the age of 65 who are resident in local authority homes which provide accommodation for people over that age. My proposal extends that provision to homes registered under section 37 of the National Assistance Act—that is, private homes approved by the local authority. The thinking behind this is that young people, simply because they are handicapped, should not be confined to the company of people many years older than themselves. By informing himself of the extent to which this may be happening in privately-run homes as well as local authority homes, the Secretary of State can act from an informed base in considering how it should be discouraged.

The amendments that I have put forward today are modest. Nevertheless, I believe that they will help to improve the position of disabled people in society, and the introduction of clause 1, in particular, will give them hope that their rights will be strengthened.

I also believe that all hon. Members will agree that disabled people, whatever their physical disadvantages, must have no less right to the fullest and most fulfilled lives that our society can offer than those of us who are abled-bodied. It is in that confident belief that I urge the whole House to support the Bill.

I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who have shown interest in the Bill. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), whose name is known throughout this country, because he has done a tremendous amount of work for all disabled. I am pleased that he is here today and I hope that he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say a few words in support of the Bill.

I commend the Bill to the House.

2.42 p.m.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker (Wallasey)

I rise to speak now, and I hope that the House will forgive me for having to depart for the North shortly and therefore not remaining for the rest of the debate. I do not think we expected the Second Reading of the Bill to be taken today.

Anyone who has dealt with and been interested in the problem of the physically and mentally handicapped over many years will well understand the points made by the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). We understand the intention of the Bill. I think that no one is more keen than him and his hon. Friends and me and my hon. Friends to facilitate in every possible way disabled people's access not only to places of necessity in shopping and attending to their needs in life but to places of entertainment and other walks of life to which for so long they have been denied in many of our cities. We are entirely sympathetic with the hon. Gentleman's wish to improve access in all its many aspects.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is totally and utterly sincere in his proposal concerning the separation of younger people from older persons in certain types of accommodation. It may be that in Committee that part of the Bill will need to be amended, because, with the best will in the world, local authorities will be unable to provide sufficient care for a disabled person unless that person, whatever his or her age, is in the only facility which exists. I think that we must look at that matter with great care.

I am sure that we have all been delighted to read the report by Peter Large and his committee—the Silver Jubilee committee—on improving access for the disabled. I should like to put one question to the Minister on this matter. He has now set up a successor committee to the Silver Jubilee committee on access. It would be helpful if, either to the all-party group, or, even better, to the House, he could in due time make more detail available about the working of this successor committee. I make that request because many people do not realise the extent of the problems of access, just as they do not realise the problems of mental illness and all that that brings forward. Therefore, it would help the cause of the disabled as a whole if we had these points on access brought to the notice of the House.

I turn now to my real worries about this little Bill. The hon. Member for Dearne Valley described the Bill as modest. However, the more he described what it would do, the more I felt that it was not nearly as modest as he perhaps at first intended. If I understand his intentions aright, we shall need to redraft the clauses because I believe that the extent of the Bill will go a good deal wider than we have heard today.

I should make it clear for the record that the Opposition fervently wish for an improvement in the economy. One of the things for which any improvement in the economy must be used is the improvement of facilities for both the physically and the mentally handicapped. Until that improvement is with us, we must not raise the expectations of people so that they feel denied when a local authority says that the money supply is not available to carry out this or that improvement.

I submit that the Bill will cost a great deal of money. There is no financial resolution and no comment in the Bill on expenditure. Therefore, I ask the Minister—because he may not be able to tell us anything on this aspect this afternoon—to go away and, with his Department and local authority associations, examine just what expenditure will be involved if this measure becomes law. It is not that we do not wish to see it become law. It is that we do not wish to raise the expectations of disabled people by putting a measure on the statute book the provisions of which we find ourselves unable to fulfil.

Unless the Government are to make funds available for the full implementation of this measure—I cannot believe that to be the case; otherwise it would have been written into the Bill—we must proceed with a little more caution than might have been thought necessary from the terms of the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Dearne Valley.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright

We must not forget that the provisions of the Bill are not a great step forward. I do not think there will be such a need for money as the hon. Lady mentioned. The hopes of the disabled have been rising tremendously for many years. I sometimes think that they have not risen high enough. Let us not forget that we are trying to help the disabled to live better and fuller lives in society.

Mrs. Chalker

I well understand the hon. Gentleman' intervention. But, frankly, I do not believe that any Member of Parliament, Front or Back Bencher, should seek to promise what he cannot deliver. That merely brings Parliament into disrepute, and that concerns me greatly.

I think it is generally felt that a totally new move is being made in clause 1(2). That seeks to put in question, without any redress for local authorities, the powers and duties of local government. I am sure that many hon. Members will have received, as I have, a letter about this aspect of the Bill. I am informed that it is totally unprecedented that such general powers and duties in relation to a particular client of the community should be made enforceable through the courts.

A recent court case has given rise to this matter. Therefore, it will be of assistance to the House and everyone concerned if a full explanation could be given by the Minister in reply to the debate. We do not, in any way, wish to resist the improvement of facilities for disabled persons, but the way in which that has been brought forward requires detailed investigation by the parliamentary draftsmen and the Department. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that he will look at the Bill in this way so that we may be totally aware of the promise that the Bill really contains.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)

I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) takes this point, because the Bill says if the local authority has identified a need". That means that it has done its duty of identifying the need, and the Bill says that it must be implemented, that is all.

Mrs. Chalker

I am grateful to the hon. Member, because he has pointed to another problem. I think it might be argued in law that many local authorities have done all that they can to identify the need. But the vagaries of the rate support grant—even though such matters are taken into account—are such that in some years it is impossible for local authorities, without further central Government subvention, to fulfil all the needs which they have identified in a better economic situation.

I can think of many instances where a local authority is aware of the need to help a particular group but the following year the rate support grant has been less than anticipated and it has therefore been unable to fulfil that need. If we are asking local authorities to be much more careful about the way in which they identify need, that is a different matter. What we need to do is to make sure that we do not promise something that we cannot carry out because central Government do not make the funds available to local government.

We shall examine the Bill with great care. I hope that the House will forgive my short intervention and the fact that I now have to depart.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright

If there is any part of the Bill about which the Opposition feel strongly, I think they will find that we shall look into it carefully and considerately to make sure that the good parts of the Bill come into the Act.

Mrs. Chalker

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving that assurance. That is the best way of doing it and the way in which we always proceed on matters concerning the disabled. I sincerely hope that the good parts of the Bill will succeed.

2.52 p.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

I appreciate the kind words spoken about me by the sponsor of the Bill. I hope he will not take it amiss if I criticise his Bill, because I believe that it is grossly inadequate for dealing with the problems raised by the Wyatt case.

The Bill is based on one that I put forward some time ago, but it has emerged in an emasculated form. I do not criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) for that. I support the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing it forward. We have to make progress slowly, and we cannot always do as much as we wish. Nevertheless, one must be frank. The Bill does not deal adequately with this major problem.

What is the flaw in the Bill? Clause 1(2)(1A) says: Where a person to whom section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 applies requests the local authority to make any of the arrangements mentioned"— and I emphasise this point— and the local authority accepts that such arrangements … This provision in the Bill is applicable only where the local authority "accepts". But we are not concerned with those good local authorities which accept. We should be concerned with the bad authorities which do not accept. The essence of the Bill is to speed up action where the local authority has accepted, but it is my contention that we should be more concerned to press those local authorities which are refusing to accept any kind of liability.

In the case of Mrs. Wyatt, when she made her complaint she was, in effect, told to push off. She was given nothing. The court told her that the only right she had was to go to the Secretary of State. The powers of the Secretary of State are sweeping. But because they are sweeping, he does not use them. He can only suspend the operation of the social services department of the local authority concerned. In my view, because this power has never been used, it is unlikely that it ever will be, because, once the Secretary of State intervenes, he may end up by running a large part of the country's social services himself. So the Minister understandably is relucant to use his powers, and it means that the individual disabled person can be ignored with impunity by a reactionary local council, and such a council is prepared to do that in the absence of any legal penalty.

The extent of the need for strong action by the Government is underlined by the latest figures, which I have. It is possible that my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the disabled will have more up-to-date figures. The bizarre patchwork of provisions by local authorities is scandalous. The latest information that I have shows that in the two years to 31 March 1977, Manchester installed 1,312 telephones, Wandsworth 1,020, and Solihull none, yet obviously the severely disabled people of Solihull needed that vital lifeline, the telephone, as much as people elsewhere.

We need new powers under legislation to impose duties on local authorities and to give rights to disabled people, because we have to ensure that the disabled individual who is neglected by his county council is able to go to a court of law under section 2 and say "I should like to see it implemented." Section 2 provides for the local authority to make arrangements in such matters as practical assistance in the home, television and radio adaptations, telephones and meals.

I have come to the conclusion that exhortation is unnecessary. The good local authorities such as Manchester are doing what they are because they want to do it, and partly because of the provisions of the original Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. The only hope of levelling up standards of provision across the country is by imposing far more serious obligations on local authorities than there are in the Bill. The Bill is a small and limited measure, and I hope that it will be extended.

When dealing with the disabled we sometimes tend to bring out the brass band to declare what we have done, followed by a crash of cymbals. Thereby, we may delude the public into thinking that all the problems have been solved. Even worse, we may delude ourselves and think that all the problems have been solved. That is the grave danger. We should put away the brass bands and the cymbals occasionally and recognise that a vast problem remains of gross discrimination against the severely disabled, and gross neglect by many wicked reactionary local councils. The councils will be dealt with only by tough, firm legislative measures. I hope that we shall be able to amend the Sill by imposing a clear duty on local authorities to provide facilities for the disabled and by giving power to the disabled to enforce their rights in a court of law.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. He is never guilty of complacency. He is always emphasising the need for action. I recognise more than most the pressures that are upon him from the Treasury, and pressure should be brought by the House on the Treasury. At the same time, I assure my right hon. Friend and the Treasury that strong measures will be brought to bear on them, and equally on local authorities.

The Bill is welcome and I shall support and vote for it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley on bringing it forward. I hope that he will not take my criticisms amiss. They are meant to be constructive and not destructive.

This is the first time that I have spoken in the House since the new year. I add my voice to the congratulations that have been offered to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on his elevation. It is much deserved. It is one that gives us all a great deal of pleasure. It has been mentioned before, but I add my small voice to the many congratulations that my right hon. Friend has received, and I wish him well in future.

3.03 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) on bringing forward an important Bill. It is a measure that we should have been ready to introduce in 1970. As my right hon. Friend knows, we began with a blank piece of paper in 1970 and we had to produce a Bill. From time to time since those days there have been amendments that have improved the original measure.

I accept the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) that sharper teeth in clause 1 would have been preferable. However, that is not to be. Although I do not go as far as my hon. Friend, I share his feeling.

By implementing the first amendment that the Bill seeks to introduce we shall be able to embarrass local authorities—and I mean really embarrass them. We shall be able to go for minimum recognised standards.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin (Wanstead and Woodford)

No. Adequate standards.

Mr. Carter-Jones

It may be that the Bill does not go as far as the right hon. Gentleman would wish. If that is his view, I am with him.

Mr. Jenkin

I should not have interjected from a sedentary position. I understand that the shorthand writers may want to know what I said. The Bill does not provide a minimum standard, which is something that I have long espoused as the right approach to be taken by the Government. I do not like the word "minimum". I wish to establish adequate standards, which may be set at a level commensurate with the money that is available. The Bill gives an automatic right to a client group to take a local authority to court. That is very different. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) said, we are looking forward to the Minister telling us how he proposes to reconcile that approach with, for instance, the public expenditure projections that were published only a short time ago.

Mr. Carter-Jones

I am with the right hon. Gentleman all the way. As far as I am concerned, if the need is identified it must be implemented. The rate support grant is not sacrosanct. I do not know of any local authority that has refused money for a specific purpose or refused additional funds for the inner city areas. Local authorities have welcomed them. If a local authority has identified a need and cannot implement it, the rate support grant should be modified for a specific purpose. If I am on the Committee, I will go that far.

We are concerned with those who are worst off in our society. If we have identified the problem and the local authority does not have the money, we should augment the rate support grant. It is clearly stated that if the local authority has identified a need, the persons affected shall have the right to go to court. That is simple, ordinary justice for those in our society who are worst off.

Dealing with the section on public buildings, we have been previously told that we must recognise that local authorities may make their own decisions on planning permission. The assumption is made that access is available purely for people in wheelchairs. That is not true. The architects' attitude to steps is bizarre. Good access is not only for people in wheelchairs but for the mother with a pram, the elderly who walk with difficulty, and those with arthritis. It is not a minority group but a substantial number of people in our society. A step should not be built instead of a ramp, because that will cut off access to a public building for 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the population. We must get our priorities right. A building used by the public must have access for all.

The third amendment is modest, progressive and extremely simple. It is the provision of a toilet. Everyone in this House uses a toilet every day. There is no point in giving access to the elderly, the mother with a pram and the disabled if they do not have access to a toilet. It is a basic requirement that should be in the Act. It is a terrible thing that in 1979 we are still talking about providing toilet access for the elderly, disabled, sick and infirm.

The fourth amendment is related to education. The disabled child faces a double handicap—the handicap or disability itself and the lack of opportunity to receive education. This is a perfectly straightforward, acceptable amendment, which should be viewed with favour in all parts of the House.

Also, there should be better opportunities for employment. For some years I have fought a battle on this. I do not think that the disablement resettlement officers in the Department of Employment or in manpower services have been as good or as effective as they should have been. This minor amendment assists that.

The final amendment concerns the question of the disabled child having the opportunity to reside with people of his or her own age group. That is vital. When we took the Act through in 1970 we thought that we had resolved this problem, but we had not. Unfortunately, there are still youngsters in geriatric wards. There are still young people who never see others of their own age. There are still youngsters who are not given the opportunities of education or employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) stressed these points. This is a modest Bill, which will bring a better form of living to substantial numbers of people.

I recognise what the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) said. There is within the Bill the distinct possibility of vast public expenditure. I identify this and recognise it. But when we took the 1970 Act through I said that that measure, which went through Parliament without a vote being taken was a time bomb ticking away in the town halls of the country. Once the Bill was enacted, local councils of all persuasions should have been prepared to accept money for specific purposes to assist those who could not help themselves, despite the fact that they wanted to protect their own autonomy.

3.13 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury)

I had not intended to take part in the debate, but in listening to hon. Members opposite I was struck by the implication that certain local authorities had failed to provide certain discretionary services.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) compared the Manchester authority with a number of others, very much to the favour of Manchester. I believe that there is a sound principle of government which says that income maintenance, where it can be identified, should be the prerogative of central Government. I do not think that local government should be involved in income maintenance. Personally, I do not think that local government should be subsidising bus fares or telephone services. These things should be done by central Government as a matter of principle and practice.

As a matter of principle, it makes for much better administration if one can say that local government is about services and central Government is about financial support. Generally speaking, this has been the rule, but it has been broken in a number of respects. When it is broken we run into trouble and get into a muddle. This does not make for very sound government.

I hope Labour Members realise that the way in which the rate support grant has been operating recently has been very unfair. It is not difficult for Manchester to provide good services, because it gets a great deal of money from the RSG. Other parts of the country are under very severe rate pressure indeed. This is the result of deliberate Government policy.

The Government are wrong, and I do not say that because I represent a shire county. The Government may be right to favour the urban areas and put rural areas at a disadvantage. That is a policy decision which they have made, but I beg the House to recognise the consequences. Those consequences can only be that urban areas which get beneficial treatment will be able to provide a better level of service than the rural areas which get adverse treatment.

That is an inescapable fact, though the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) says that the answer is to manipulate the rate support grant and to include in it more tied services. I do not think that that is the answer, I believe that, in its way, the rate support grant, though it is not a perfect instrument, is the best that we are likely to get.

I believe that the answer is to take those services out of the purview of local government, except perhaps for the shared business of administering them, and put them under the control of central Government. To be specific, such matters as the provision of telephones for disabled people should not be dealt with by local authorities. Such a service should be provided by the social security system and administered through its offices.

Mr. Carter-Jones

When the 1970 measure went through, I asked a question about the comparison of local authorities at that time. There were good and bad authorities, irrespective of which party was in Government.

Mr. Raison

That was not my point. The point I am making is that there is a strong preference on the part of Government, through the rate support grant, for certain authorities against others. Those authorities which are hard done by under the rate support grant will inevitably be less generous in the provision of discretionary services than those which get a lot of money.

There is no justice in that, because a poor person or a disabled person is just as poor and just as disabled if he lives in a shire county as if he lives in a big city. There is no logic in the situation where a poor and disabled person in a city should have available money which is not available to the poor and the disabled in the shire county.

I believe that the local government system and the rate support grant on which that system is based are the wrong methods for dealing with income maintenance.

If we could possibly transfer income maintenance back into the realm of central Government, I think that the disabled and the country as a whole would be much better off. Local government would then be able to get on with the very many services which are in its sphere.

3.19 p.m.

Mr. Allen McKay (Penistone)

I rise to support the Bill so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and I have been pleased to place my name, with those of many other hon. Members alongside his.

I realise that there are many areas in which resources are urgently needed, but there are people who sometimes believe that society has forgotten them and think that they are not being properly looked after. I have said on many occasions that the greatness of any nation will in the future be judged not by its material wealth or by its military greatness but by the use it makes of its resources to help those who cannot help themselves. There are bad and good local authorities.

The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) has said that there are some functions which ought not to be carried out by local government. The reason why some of those functions are carried out by local government is that we have not carried them out here and have apparently not been able to carry them out at the level of central government.

Those local authorities have realised very quickly, and from the grass roots, the needs of the people they serve. I am proud of my association with an authority which runs a concessionary scheme throughout the whole county area and with a small authority, well known for the way it deals with social problems, which runs a television scheme.

I was privileged, some time ago, to attend a meeting in Huddersfield which was addressed by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. At that time he was addressing meetings throughout the area explaining the contents of the Act in the hope that local authorities would carry out its intentions. I was impressed not only by my right hon. Friend's presentation of the Act but by the Act itself.

The amendments in my hon. Friend's Bill will serve to strengthen the resolve of my right hon. Friend. I believe that they accurately reflect the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley, who has endeavoured for so long to encourage local authorities to accept their responsibilities under the Act. Most local authorities, especially the Labour-controlled ones, honour to some extent the spirit of the Act. Some are better than others.

I know of many councillors who serve on social service and welfare committees who would like more resources to be diverted to the work of their committees so that the provisions of the Act may be effectively implemented. I believe that the amendments in the Bill will help that.

Local authorities have many commitments for their resources, and that means that there are always Cinderella areas. In the same way, Parliament has Cinderella areas, too. The areas that we are discussing today tend to get shoved to the back for consideration at another time, and that makes the amendments necessary.

It is essential for access to public places to be provided so that disabled people may be a part of society as of right. A couple of weeks ago one of my constituents, who is confined to a wheelchair and has no use in his legs, came to see me. By his own grit and determination he has succeeded in becoming a first-class motor mechanic. He is thus able to earn a living. But he cannot get into public offices, the library or various jobcentres. He asked me whether he did not have the right, in this society, to choose the books he wants to read and the education facilities that he requires.

The improvement of sanitation facilities is essential. This sort of problem was brought home to me when on one occasion I found myself locked out of my home. I am not disabled, so I was able to find other accommodation. A disabled person in that position would be in a desperate plight.

I support the provision in the Bill concerning the placing of young people into dwellings which are meant for senior citizens. I think that young people will already have suffered traumatically enough at being placed in residential care, without their being placed among people with whom they cannot communicate.

I realise that that subject probably trespasses on to questions of housing and other aspects of social services, perhaps involving an increase in domiciliary care. However, I believe that places could be made available for these groups, and I hope that the Minister will look at that.

I strongly commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that the House will support its Second Reading.

3.24 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (Lichfield and Tamworth)

Like all the hon. Members who have spoken so far, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) on introducing the Bill. With so many specialists in this field present, I shall not try to trade with them on the details of the Bill. I want to speak now because the organisation of our business has meant that my Bill, which concerns handicapped children, and which is fourth on today's list of Bills, is most unlikely to be debated. I hope and trust, however, that no one in the House objects sufficiently strongly to prevent its further passage.

My Bill relates to many of the matters about which my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley is concerned. He specially mentioned, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), the importance of bearing in mind handicapped children and young people and the special problems that they face.

A responsibility is imposed on the rest of us to try to help people overcome the problems of their handicap. It must be a great shock to people in this country that we sometimes treat handicapped children in schools in a way we would not treat perfectly fit adults. It is still possible to use corporal punishment against handicapped children educated in special schools. They may be partially sighted children or mentally handicapped children. I have seen disturbing reports from psychiatrists explaining what, I suppose, is common sense, that when corporal punishment is administered to a mentally handicapped child, with a cane, slipper or other implement, the child is usually bewildered and has no idea why the punishment has been administered or what the punishment is meant to achieve.

I would have thought this was a matter of great concern. We are the only country in Europe, apart from the Republic of Ireland, which sees the need to beat children, including handicapped children, in order to help them develop their education. That is an indictment of our values. I would like to think that this country leads the way in some respects. On this issue, I only beg that the House should drag us up to the standards long accepted as minimal civilised standards in other European countries. This is particularly true when one considers the effects of corporal punishment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

Order. Is this matter included in the Bill under discussion?

Mr. Grocott

I would have thought that it was very much included within the long title of the Bill, which is concerned to make further provision with respect to the welfare of chronically sick and disabled persons. I would have thought that a disabled child was a disabled person in need of the concern of this House, and that amendments to the Bill in Committee would take account of some of the points I have raised. I hope that that course will not be necessary. I trust that the feelings of decent people will be respected by hon. Members of this House and that there will be no objetcion when my Bill is presented later today.

If, however, some hon. Member was so out of touch with civilised opinion as to oppose my Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley would be prepared to respect public opinion by amending this Bill to prevent the use of corporal punishment against handicapped children.

Among the many evil effects of the use of corporal punishment are the undoubted connections that exist between sex and violence. STOPP, the organisation of teachers opposed to corporal punishment, has in its possession some distressing and disturbing pieces of pornographic literature exclusively concerned with the caning of children in a school situation, featuring all the paraphernalia of the school as a backdrop, with the blackboard, the mortar board, the gown, and so on. The House and the country should be deeply disturbed about this clear connection between the use of violence against children, including handicapped children, and certain kinds of sexual deviation.

I appeal to my hon. Friend, who I know will be sympathetic, that we should try to bring this country into line with every other country in Europe, to respect public opinion and to clear up the anomaly of the present law which allows me as a teacher, or any other teacher, to strike a handicapped child a set number of times with a stick according to regulations of a local authority, although if I were to do the same to Muhammad Ali I would be liable to a summons for assault. Rightly so, for we cannot beat adults with sticks. But we can beat children with sticks, even if they are handicapped.

I appeal to my hon. Friend to amend the Bill so that this serious respect in which we fall behind the standards of both Western and Eastern Europe can be put right.

3.31 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)

As one who played some part in the promotion of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, I am very interested in the Bill. Sections 1 and 2 of that Act laid a mandatory duty upon authorities with regard to the register and the services to be provided. We described that Act as a charter for the disabled, and I am sure that it was.

Whatever criticism may be made about where the duties should lie—whether with local authorities or with central Government—these are important duties which should be carried out. But there are difficulties. The first is that a number of local authorities have not properly tried to carry out their duties. Many have been negligent. I do not want to Rive names, but hon. Members probably know to what I am referring. There is also a difficulty over money, but surely something should be done to ensure that a mandatory duty is carried out effectively.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) is to be congratulated on having suggested in the Bill a machinery for this purpose. The only flaw is the reference in the suggested new subsection (1A) to the local authority "accepting" such arrangements. There may be a weakness in what is meant by "accepting".

But it is essential to have machinery for ensuring that local authorities accept their duties, and where they do this my hon. Friend has sought to provide machinery for enforcing this by allowing someone to obtain an order from the county court. Subsections (3) to (7) of clause 1 put a duty upon the Secretary of State to consider what further improvement could be made in access to schools and other premises and in providing sanitary conveniences needed by the disabled. The present arrangements should be continually studied and improved, and that duty is laid upon the Secretary of State.

Clause 2, which deals with elderly people, is also important. Elderly people should be dealt with in company with persons of their own age and not with much younger people.

This is a good Bill, which supplies a real need. I congratulate my hon. Friend on its presentation and hope that it will have a speedy passage to the statute book.

3.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris)

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), first, on his good fortune in the ballot, secondly, on his humane and felicitous choice of subject, and, thirdly, on the speech with which he commended his Bill to the House this afternoon. I have known my hon. Friend for many years and know well of his particular concern for disadvantaged people in our community and for the disabled in particular. It is a concern which I know is shared by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

We are all especially pleased to have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). He speaks with great authority on the subject and represents many others as chairmen of the all-party disablement group in this House. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) are listened to with much respect in any debate on the claims of the disabled. I was naturally interested to hear the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott).

I am glad to be able to say that the Bill has, in principle, the support of the Government and that parliamentary counsel will be available to help in ensuring that its drafting is sound. I shall also be arranging for consultation with the local authority associations. Those are both matters that were raised with me this afternoon.

The provisions of the Bill extend to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as to England. While Government support will be accorded to it in principle on that basis, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be asking the Scottish parliamentary draftsmen to undertake those aspects of the preparation of the draft which are affected by existing Scottish legislation. He will also consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in the matter. In the case of Wales, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be maintaining close contact with us over the drafting of the Bill. The Secretary of State for Wales will also be arranging for consultation with the local authority interests in Wales.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley has set out the benefits which he expects the Bill to confer on disabled people. As I have said on many occasions, my own concern over the years has been to argue not for litigation but for full implementation of the Act. I have never seen the judge as some kind of saviour or ayatollah of the disabled. Nor, in promoting the Act, did I ever wish to create a new light industry for lawyers. What clause 1 of the Bill will do is to bring the law into line with what was always thought to be the effect of section 2 of the parent Act. I believe it will be helpful, but we should not expect too much from legal intervention.

Authors are often the sternest critics of their own work. I would be the last to claim that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was perfect. As my hon. Friend said, it has been strengthened and extended on many occasions already, and I hope that as opportunities allow we shall be able to build further upon the foundations that were laid in 1970. Of course, the Act can be further strengthened to the advantage of disabled people, and that is the purpose of today's Bill. As my hon. Friend has indicated, he, too, believes that political action on behalf of the disabled in the localities is no less important than litigation.

Today's debate gives me the opportunity briefly to review some of the progress that has been made since the 1970 Act became law.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

The Minister appears at this point to be departing from discussion of the Bill. Will he say something about the question of finance, whether a money resolution will go down, and whether additional money will be made available to meet the costs of implementing the Bill?

Mr. Morris

I am not departing from the provisions of the Bill. I was about to say a brief word about the progress that has been made since 1970.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of finance. His hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey asked me about the help of parliamentary draftsmen. All I can say at this stage is that we shall give the wording of the provision very careful attention.

The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) used some very loose language. He spoke of discretionary powers in the Act. There are mandatory powers in the Act. I have been beside myself in the House on many occasions to emphasise that when a local authority has identified and accepted a need, it shall be the duty of the authority to meet that need. That is the legal advice available to me. I have to be extremely careful at this stage, as the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) will appreciate. I have said that I will be in touch with parliamentary counsel on the matter. There will therefore be a further opportunity to look at the effect of the provision as it emerges from the consultations of which I have spoken.

I was reviewing progress since 1970. First, as my hon. Friend said, it is worth recording that well over 1 million people have been helped individually by the Act in their own homes. Millions more have been helped indirectly by improved access to public and social buildings and by the more general provisions of the Act.

Today's debate gives me the opportunity briefly to review some of the progress which has been made since the 1970 Act became law. I should like to touch on not only provision of services under that Act but the broader purpose of improving the quality of disabled people's lives and the equality of their opportunities at leisure and at work, for, as my hon. Friend said, there is only so much that legislation alone can achieve. Changing attitudes is also deeply important.

I refer first to the effect of the Bill itself. The House will be aware that I share my hon. Friend's concern about disparity in provision of services. I am particularly concerned by the sort of case where a local authority has fully accepted that a disabled person is in need of a particular service, for example, an adaptation to his home, yet where months go by and the authority apparently takes no steps to meet the need even although it has accepted its existence.

It is in precisely these cases that I believe that my hon. Friend's Bill will provide the remedy which is required. The Bill will not, of course, provide a panacea for all the problems of disabled people in need of services. But I believe that, where there are glaring instances of apparently indefensible dilatoriness, which are the ones that all too often come to my attention, the Bill should provide a real solution. It will also restore the position to what, until last year's Court of Appeal judgment, disabled people and those of us who are identified with their interests had always supposed it to be.

Mr. Raison

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's rebuke about my somewhat loose language, but could he touch on a crucial part of the argument, which is what happens to those local authorities which are simply getting nothing like as much money from central Government as they need? How are they to pay for all the things that we all agree should be done? Why cannot the central Government take over the burden?

Mr. Morris

There are disparities in provision as between local authorities of the same kind. The hon. Gentleman's argument is that the disparities flow from the fact that there are different financial provisions for different kinds of local authority. I cannot detain the House with figures, but I point out that there are substantial disparities as between local authorities of the same kind. Manchester has been referred to kindly in the debate. There are other great urban authorities which are not doing nearly as well as the city of Manchester.

I have mentioned my concern about disparity in provision, and none of us can afford to be complacent about the position. Yet it may do no harm, for once and if only for a moment, to focus on the good news, which is that there has been considerable progress, both in numbers of disabled people registered and in the provision of services for them, not only over the nine years since the Act was passed but also within the last year.

I was greatly encouraged to see, in the issue of the British Medical Journal of 20 January, an editorial about disabled people entitled "Are they being served?" It included a reference to the figure from the Amelia Harris survey of 1.1 million handicapped adults in the community.

In this regard, the House will be interested to learn that the figures of disabled people registered by local authorities for the year 1977–78 are just becoming available. They have not yet been published, but I can say already that the provisional figure for the number of registered disabled people in 1977–78 was almost exactly 1 million, as compared to only 405,000 in 1970 and 917,000 in 1977. We are, therefore, now very close to the figure quoted in the BMJ article.

The number of households receiving help with telephone installations and rentals increased by 7 per cent. in the last year. Thus, there is now a total of 92,581 such households, compared with 29,617 in 1973. The number of adaptations to homes—an essential factor in ensuring disabled people can remain independent and in the community—increased by 13 per cent. in the last year. Over 59,000 households underwent such adaptations in 1977–78, compared to 28,374 in 1973. Some 218,400 personal aids were provided last year, compared to 118,211 in 1973. These figures are encouraging although, as I have said, there is a very great deal still to do. My Department is attempting, through a small research study, to gain information about the significance of the variations in services provided by local authorities. We hope this will give some explanation of those factors which bear on provision and which cannot easily be accounted for.

I remind the House that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was the product of a great deal of working together by both sides of both Houses of Parliament. Again, I pay tribute to those on both sides of the House who have dedicated themselves to seeing that the Act is fully and humanely applied.

I turn from the provision of personal social services to other essential action to enable disabled people to take their rightful place in society, by which I mean on equal terms with the able-bodied. In particular, at the moment I have in mind what has been done, and what still needs to be done, to improve access for disabled people to public and social buildings.

I am very glad now to have received the report of the Silver Jubilee committee on improving access for disabled people, which I set up in 1977 to look at the problems which disabled people have to face in getting about, to recommend changes to the responsible authorities and to consider ways of improving public attitudes in favour of the disabled. The membership of the committee included perhaps the most representative group of disabled people ever brought together. Many of their recommendations are both hard-hitting and far-reaching. My colleagues and I will be considering the committee's very important conclusions, so far as they relate to central Government, at once urgently and sympathetically. I hope and believe that both local authorities and the voluntary organisations will do the same.

All too often, disabled people are still made to feel that they are second-class citizens. Owners and managers of public and social buildings all too frequently fail to take the needs of disabled people into account. But we are beginning to get the "access" message across. In this respect, the Silver Jubilee committee's report is a landmark. The committee's central message is: In a civilised society disability should not just be a problem for disabled people. It is up to each and every one of us to ensure that disabled people can go where we go and also that they are accepted when they get there.

One of the most important of this Silver Jubilee committee's recommendations was that a successor body should be set up to carry on the fight. We have accordingly set up a new committee on restrictions against disabled people. This will be chaired by Mr. Peter Large, who was such an able and effective chairman of the Silver Jubilee committee.

The new committee's terms of reference will be to consider the architectural and social barriers which may result in discrimination against disabled people and prevent them from making full use of facilities available to the general public, and to make recommendations. In carrying out its work the committee will, of course, recognise and take careful account of the interests of other governmental advisory bodies, such as the National Council on the Employment of Disabled People. I shall keep in mind the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Wallasey that I should make a further statement about the new committee as soon as possible.

Another area in which more can be done without necessarily introducing further legislation or significantly increasing expenditure is the provision of better information for disabled people about the services and benefits available to them, both from central and local government and the voluntary sector. Often the sheer multiplicity of sources of help can be confusing, and we are, in a sense, victims of our own virtue. The more services and benefits we provide, the more complex the system becomes. We all want simplicity, but we cannot ignore the fact that the needs of the disabled are complex. Because help in meeting these needs is given both nationally and locally, there is a limit to what can be done centrally to inform disabled people of what is available to them.

With this in mind, my Department is constantly looking at ways in which the dissemination of information to disabled people can be improved, not only nationally, but locally. We are currently supporting two research projects to evaluate different forms of local information services, and I shall be studying the results with keen interest. The BMJ article, to which I referred earlier, makes some very valuable suggestions about the need for better communication systems and for improving the disseminating of information. I am following these up and hope that it may be possible to act on some of them in the near future.

Also on the subject of communication, a recent initiative—which cost little, but should give important help to disabled people whose needs are often forgotten—gave me particular personal pleasure, as I know it did the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford. That was the national competition in which my Department worked with the Royal National Institute for the Deaf to find a symbol for the deaf for display in public places, in much the same way as the wheelchair symbol is now used for physically disabled people, to indicate that inquiries from people disabled by deafness will be met with an understanding and helpful response. The results of this competition were most encouraging, as the right hon. Gentleman saw when he attended the Royal Academy on the occasion of the presentation of the prizes. I hope to see the winning symbol becoming widely known and playing its part in alleviating the invisible but severe and isolating handicap of deafness.

I have referred to one or two of the more recent steps my colleagues and I have taken to complement the personal social services provided for disabled people under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. One thought which always has to be in the forefront of our minds is the need to achieve the right balance between cash benefits and services. I am glad to say that cash benefits for disabled people have also significantly improved over recent years.

For example, there are half a million people now receiving invalidity benefit and, over the past few years, the rate of benefit they receive has improved in real terms.

In addition, we have introduced three brand new cash benefits. First, we now pay the non-contributory invalidity pension to over 100,000 men and single women who cannot work and have never been able to earn their own living. This has recently been extended to tens of thousands of married women who cannot work or look after their homes.

Second, we have introduced the invalid care allowance for the man or single woman who stays at home to care for a handicapped relative. Both these new benefits go to people who previously had to rely on means-tested help.

Third, we now provide the mobility allowance to help severely disabled people who are unable, or virtually unable, to walk. This gives a cash grant to very large numbers of disabled people who had no mobility help at all under the old scheme. We recently extended the age limits for the allowance, and it will eventually be available to 145,000 people. This new help, backed by the work of the new voluntary organisation—Motability—will do a great deal to help the severely disabled to get out and about. In all, spending on benefits for the sick and disabled in 1978 was nearly £400 million higher in real terms than it was in 1974.

The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford explained what he wanted to see in terms of provision for disabled people. He thought that the provisions should not necessarily be through local authorities but through central institutions. There is already a great deal of provision from central institutions. Local authorities have their part to play, because they are much closer to disabled people than anyone in Government. The voluntary sector also has a vital role in this area.

For the future, there are many other initiatives on behalf of disabled which the Government want to help forward. We shall not be content until disabled people are fully integrated into our society and can enjoy the same opportunities as the able-bodied. One opportunity to hammer this conviction home will be provided by the international year for disabled people in 1981. We were one of the sponsors of the United Nations resolution on the year and we intend that the United Kingdom shall play its full part at all levels.

I am quite certain that the hon. Member for Aylesbury and all his parliamentary colleagues will be as anxious as we are to see that Britain plays a leading part in the activities of the international year for the disabled.

Government initiatives need backing up by the day-to-day concern of society at large. I hope that today's debate will go further to improve the well-being and status of disabled people. That is the intention of this Bill. I urge hon. Members to give it their support today.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

I can assure the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) that I have no intention of talking out his Bill. Let there be no doubt about that. I simply wish to put one question to the Minister which I have put previously. The Minister uses the formula of referring the Bill to parlia- mentary counsel and taking their advice. Will he now say that, if—as a result of the advice of parliamentary counsel—additional expenditure will be involved, it will be the Government's intention to table the necessary money resolution and introduce the necessary Supplementary Estimates to provide for that expenditure?

Mr. Alfred Morris

This is the Second Reading. I have explained that I am meeting the request of the Opposition that parliamentary counsel be asked to look at the provisions of the Bill. There was a money resolution attached to my measure in 1970 which dealt with section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I have explained that the hon. Member for Aylesbury was in serious error when he ignored the mandatory nature of section 2. That section makes it absolutely clear, as I am advised, that if a local authority identifies and accepts a need, it shall be the duty of that local authority to meet that need.

I am fully aware of the concern of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford. I hope that he will accept that I shall have all that has been said this afternoon very much in mind and shall see that we get the best possible advice from parliamentary counsel about the nature of the drafting. If there are problems that are then needed to be none into further, there will be other opportunities, I am quite sure, for the House to go into them in considerable detail.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).