APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES OF DISABLED PERSONS (Hansard, 4 July 1986)

HC Deb 04 July 1986 vol 100 cc1311-21 1311

§ Lords Amendment: No. 1, before clause 1, insert the following new clause: . — (1) In this Act "authorised representative", in relation to a disabled person, means a person for the time being appointed by or on behalf of that disabled person (in accordance with regulations made under this section) to act as his authorised representative for the purposes of this Act. (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to the appointment of persons to act as the authorised representatives of disabled persons, including provision—

(a) for the manner in which the appointment of a person as an authorised representative is to be made; and
(b) for any such appointment to be notified to the relevant local authority (as defined in the regulations) if made otherwise than by that authority.

(3) Any such regulations—

(a) may provide for the parent or guardian of a disabled person under the age of 16 or appoint himself or some other person as the authorised representative of the disabled person (but shall not permit a person under that age himself to appoint a person as his authorised representative);
(b) may provide for the appointment of a person as the authorised representative of a disabled person who is a child in the care of a local authority to be made by that authority in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations;
(c) may, in accordance with subsection (4), provide for the appointment of a person as the authorised representative of a disabled person to be made by, or under arrangements made by, a local authority in a case where the disabled person appears to the authority to be unable to appoint a person as his authorised representative by reason of any mental or physical incapacity;
(d) may contain such incidental or supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

(4) Regulations under paragraph (c) of subsection (3) may make provision—

(a) for requiring a local authority, for the purpose of enabling them to determine whether a disabled person is unable to appoint a person as his authorised representative as mentioned in that paragraph, to obtain the opinion of a registered medical practitioner;
(b) for authorising a local authority, where they determine that a disabled person is so unable, either—

(i) themselves to appoint a person as the disabled person's authorised representative, or
(ii) to make with any voluntary organisation, person or persons approved by them for the purpose of such arrangements as they think fit for such an appointment to be made by the organisation, person or persons concerned;

(c) for requiring or authorising a local authority, before determining the question specified in paragraph (a), or (as the case may be) before making any appointment of an authorised representative, or any arrangements, in pursuance of paragraph (b), to consult any of the following, namely—

(i) a person or persons appointed by them for the purpose, or
(ii) a person or persons falling within any class or description specified in the regulations;
(d) for requiring a local authority, in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations, to review the case of a disabled person whose authorised representative has been appointed in pursuance of paragraph (b) (whether by the local authority or under any arrangements made by them) for the purpose of determining whether he is still unable to appoint a person as his authorised representative as mentioned in subsection (3)(c).

(5) Subsections (2) to (4) shall apply, with any necessary modifications, in relation to the termination of the appointment of a person as an authorised representative as they apply in relation to the making of such an appointment. (6) It is hereby declared that any person exercising under Part II of the 1983 Act or Part V of the 1984 Act—

(a) the functions of the nearest relative of a disabled person, or
(b) the functions of the guardian of a disabled person received into guardianship under that Part of that Act,

may, if appointed as such in accordance with this section, also act as that person's authorised representative.

§ Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)
With this it will be convenient to consider the following Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 10, at end insert— (2A) In relation to a disabled person whose authorised representative has been appointed by virtue of subsection (3) of section (Appointment of authorised repesentatives of disabled persons), subsections (1) and (2) above shall each have effect as follows—

(a) if the appointment was made by virtue of subsection(3) (a) of that section, the words "the parent or guardian of" shall be inserted after the words "if so requested by";and

(b) if the appointment was made by virtue of subsection (3)(b) or (c) of that section, the words "if so requested by the disabled person" shall be omitted."

No. 3, in page 2, line 24, at end insert— (aa) in hospital accommodation provided by the Secretary of State under section 3(1)(a) of the 1977 Act or, in Scotland, in hospital accommodation (other than accommodation at a State hospital) provided by the Secretary of State under section 36(1)(a) of the 1978 Act, or No. 4, in page 2, line 45, at end insert— (4A) In paragraph (b) of subsection (4) "voluntary organisation" in relation to England and Wales includes a housing association within the meaning of the Housing Associations Act 1985. No. 5, in page 3, leave out lines 1 to 34.
No. 6, in page 3, line 37, after "appropriate" insert and such other bodies as appear to him to be concerned No. 7, in page 4, line 2, at end insert— (9A) An order under subsection (9) may provide for any provision of regulations made under section (Appointment of authorised representatives of disabled persons) to have effect for the purposes of the order with such modifications as may be prescribed by the order, and in that event the reference in subsection (1) of that section to regulations made under that section shall be read as a reference to any such regulations as they have effect in accordance with the order. No. 9, in page 4, leave out line 8.
No. 10, in page 4, line 9, at beginning insert "and"

§ Mr. Clarke
Before I address the detailed amendments to clause 1. I want to make a few general comments about the progress of the Bill in another place.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do his utmost to keep in order. We must address ourselves to the content of the amendments before the House.

1313

§ Mr. Clarke
As one who has witnessed the expertise from the Chair this morning in controlling difficulties on other measures, I shall do my utmost to keep in order. However, it is appropriate to acknowledge the efforts of Baroness Masham of Ilton who steered through almost 100 amendments in concert with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, Baroness Trumpington, to whom warm thanks are also due, especially in view of her other responsibilities.
The small band of civil servants — indeed, key officials — in the DHSS has also laboured hard to improve the Bill. They, in consultation with Mr. Peter Mitchell, Mr. John Healy and Mr. William Bingley, have done a superb job in bringing the Bill to the House in its present shape with the new clause and the amendments. I think that the Minister will agree that they have made our task this morning a great cleat easier and we must thank them for it.
I apologise to the House for the reams of Lords amendments, including those that we are now discussing, which need to be considered today. I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members will appreciate that another place was in many ways compelled to do the Committee work on the Bill that emerged from this House which might will have been done upstairs if Ministers had accepted rather earlier the principles which I am now happy to say they so warmly espouse.
Clause 1 has been split into two for convenience. The new clause contains all the provisions relating to the appointment of authorised representatives by disabled people or on their behalf. Most of the new clause consists of regulation-making powers in relation to the complex balance needed where the disabled person is unable to appoint someone himself.
After five months of intense thought by all concerned, including a seminar held at MIND — to whom the presence of these clauses are largely due—it has been concluded that there are no organisations in the country other than local authorities on which the duty to make the necessary arrangements for these people could be laid in primary legislation. I understand that "double delegation" would have been frowned on by the courts—that is, giving the Secretary of State a free hand to choose the intermediary bodies at a later date and also giving those bodies the power to delegate the responsibility as they wish.
Nevertheless, the local authority will also he the authority providing the services in relation to which the representative will operate. This potential conflict of interest is not wholly satisfactory, as the Minister will probably agree. One of the most important characteristics of the concept of representation or advocacy for disabled people as it has developed in this country and abroad is that the representative owes sole loyalty to the disabled person and is truly independent of the service-providing authority.
Where representatives are perhaps too pushy, too demanding, or too successful, there may be a temptation to get rid of them. It is vital that once the Bill becomes an Act careful consideration is given to the rules that will cover this issue to ensure that sufficient independence is built into the procedure, especially where, under (4) (b) (i) local authorities appoint representatives themselves. Therefore, the wording of the amendments explicitly leaves open the possibility that the local authority might set up a panel, or appoint a voluntary organisation, to 1314 fulfil this function so that it can remain at arm's length. I wish to make only one other brief comment on the procedures relating to adults who are unable to make an appointment themselves on account of incapacity. The decision whether someone is unable to appoint an authorised representative himself may not be cut and dried, and the amendments include a stipulation that the regulations may require the advice of a doctor. However, they also allow others to be consulted on that question. Those caring full-time for a disabled person may have valid views on this as valid as a doctor, who only sees a person occasionally.
11.30 am
On the detail of new clause 1, I should like to say a word about the arrangements for disabled children. In most cases parents will appoint representatives for their children, but at a late stage the Department expressed concern about parents who had, for example, harmed their children in some way. Therefore, the amendments envisage the appointment of an authorised representative for children in care, to be made by the local authority. Unfortunately, at a stage too late for amendment, it was pointed out that there might be a few children who had neither a parent nor guardian and who were not in the care of a local authority.
Perhaps I may be permitted a mild criticism. Some of the technical problems with what was, after all, the Government's new clause — which was introduced on Report — have been rather late in emerging. Nevertheless, I do not want to appear to be ungrateful or churlish. I am convinced that the new clause provides an adequate framework for achieving the Bill's intentions.
I am sure that you will be pleased to learn, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is little to say about Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 10 to clause 1, which are largely consequential. However, amendment No. 3 is most important, and will greatly assist people who are seeking to move from hospital into the community. It allows access for the authorised representative to people in hospital in advance of the general extension of the clause to the NHS. I am rather sorry that it appears there is some accommodation for children in England and Wales—but not apparently in Scotland — excluded from the list. Again, that was discovered rather late in the day. However, I am assured that that will be tidied up in the forthcoming child care Bill, and the Minister may also have something to say about that.
In connection with amendment No. 6, may I ask the Minister when he intends to commence the consultation regarding the extension of the clauses to the NHS and other local authority services. The vast majority of people and organisations, in response to the Government's consultative document on the Bill earlier this year, expressed concern that the Bill recognises the representative only in relation to social services provided by a local authority. As I am sure that the House would agree, one of the main purposes of representation is to prevent disabled people from falling through the net of services that are increasingly provided by different authorities. It makes little sense to limit the scope of a representative to just the social services.
Finally, it might be appropriate if the Minister, when he responds to each group of amendments, could say when he expects to be able to bring each clause into force. I am aware of the Minister's commitment to the principles of 1315 the Bill, and I welcome that. It was helpful at several stages. I am sure that he appreciates the despondency, not to say anger, that would be widespread in the country if key parts of the Act languished ineffectually on the statute book.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), whose assistance I most readily acknowledge, just as my fellow sponsors would do, received a letter from the Prime Minister which was rightly widely publicised, and which is relevant to this clause and the amendments. In response to my right hon. Friend's question about resources, she did not appear to be particularly generous. I must admit that that happened at a fairly early stage in our discussions, and so, given the Government's rethink on these matters and the Minister's input, especially in recent months, I hope that it will be accepted that this part of the Bill will lack true meaning unless the necessary resources are provided.
I do not believe that the House or the other place would appreciate any Government who hid behind the Treasury in saying that the resources cannot be made available. After all, both Houses have expressed themselves clearly on the priorities that we hope to identify. Today of all days, on 4 July, it is important to assert the independence of disabled persons. They are intitled to that independence. They are entitled to enjoy the same liberties as the rest of us: true liberty in the meaningful sense of that word. I believe that the Bill will assist in many ways in achieving that objective, which is widely shared by both Houses and by the people of this country. We know that the authorities want to implement the Bill. The message from this House, supported overwhelmingly by the country at large, must be, "Give them the money, and let them get on with the job."

§ Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bow and Poplar)
Unhappily, in the past seven years or so there has been some diminution and erosion of elements of our social services provision, and that has adversely affected some groups of people. Probably no group has suffered more as a result than handicapped persons. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has, therefore, done a great job in introducing a Bill that at least makes some contribution towards making up for the losses that have been sustained by handicapped persons. He has earned himself much credit in the House, and if there is a heaven he has earned himself some good Brownie points there.
I rise only to ask about some minor points. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has unparalleled expertise in this area, and perhaps he will be able to put me right. Subsection 4(a) of the amendment requires the local authority to obtain the opinion of a registered medical practitioner and would seem to be a sensible provision, but subsection 4(c) requires the local authority to consult

"(i) a person or persons appointed by them for the purpose, or

(ii) a person or persons falling within any class or description."

What sort of people could they be if their views were authoritative but if they were not medical practitioners? Why has a distinction been drawn?
Incidentally, there is also a typographical error on page (3) of the Amendment Paper, in that at the end of line 5 there are some closing inverted commas for which there do 1316 not appear to be any corresponding opening commas. I just mention that so that the error can be put right when the Bill is reprinted, as it will have to be.
What is the reason for amendment No. 9, which would leave out line 8? Its effect would apparently be to leave that part of the Bill without any definition of a health board. I cannot think why we should want to define everything else except that. But perhaps I have misread it, and if so I apologise.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I shall try to help the House by pointing out that the closing inverted commas to which the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) referred are those which appear to follow the opening inverted commas at the beginning of the second line of amendment No. 1.

§ Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)
I welcome the fact that the Bill has reached this stage. I hope that within a short time it will complete its passage through Parliament.
I ask for some clarification of the Government's intentions with regard to Amendment No. 1. Proposed subsection (4)(b) says that regulations may make provision for authorising a local authority, where they determine that a disable person is so unable, either—

(i) themselves to appoint a person as the disabled person's authorised representative, or"

alternatively any voluntary organisation, person or persons". I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that it is intended to make that a hard and fast provision. Subsection (4) is a permissive provision under which a local authority may appoint a representative. I should like an undertaking that that will happen. We discussed in Committee the position of those who were severely handicapped who could not appoint representatives of their own. Those are the people who most need the Bill's provisions.
Clause 1(9) presents another aspect of concern. I should like confirmation that the changes made in the other place help rather than hinder the progress for which we hope by extending the provisions to health authorities and local authorities where appropriate. Many people feel that such a provision is needed. I hope that there is no diminution in our intention to extend the provision in that direction in due course. Again, subsection (9) is a permissive provision. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that he hopes to move in that direction at an early date after the implementation of the Bill.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his hard work and his achievements in getting the Bill to this stage. I hope that I shall not again detain hon. Members for too long.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)
On this important day for my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who has my warmly renewed congratulations and for whom I am full of admiration, I know that he will join me in paying tribute to the sustained and invaluable help he has received at all stages of the Bill's consideration from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) who, sadly, is not able, because of constituency commitments, to be with us this morning. My right hon. Friend has played a distinguished part in all our 1317 proceedings on the Bill, and he will be as active in campaigning for the Bill's full and speedy implementation as he has been in its making.
I know that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) regret very much that they cannot be here for these final proceedings. As the House knows they, too, are tried, trusted and widely respected campaigners for disabled people.
11.45 am
This is an important part of the Bill. It brings representation into rehabilitation, which could do much, given the support that it merits, to improve the quality of life of people with disabilities and to ease the strain on families. Much progress has been made over the years in strengthening the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and in extending its implementation. Yet all too often the emphasis has been too much on what the providers of help under the Act think best rather than on what its recipients see as most likely to meet their needs. Now we seek to redress that imbalance, and, as the House as a whole must agree, not before time.
Rehabilitation is best defined as giving the disabled person the right help in the right place and at the right time. The disabled person and/or his or her representative have an important role in ensuring this, and I welcome the painstaking work that has been done in another place.
With regard to subsection (4), to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) referred, for perfectly acceptable reasons the procedures for the appointment of representatives have not been fully worked out. The clause is, of course, designed to give the DHSS sufficient flexibility in writing the regulations. I am sure that the Minister will want to respond to my hon. Friend's important points.
The most important issue is whether we can extract from the Minister dates for the implementation of each clause and a commitment to allocate the necessary resources. I want strongly to press the issue at this first opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West referred to the Prime Minister's letter to me of 24 April, in which she said: The Government have made it clear that, if the Bill is enacted, it would not be possible to make commencement orders to bring into effect the provisions of the Bill which have significant financial implications until such time as the necessary funds could be made available. That is just not good enough. I hope that the Minister will now give us much better news than that conveyed by the Prime Minister. For this and other key parts of the Bill to lie impotently on the statute book, without being brought into force, would be widely seen as a betrayal of the many thousands of people with disabilities whose initiative and lobbying helped to create this important and humane Bill. I welcome the work done by Lady Masham and others on both sides of the House in the other place and urge the Minister now to give us the best possible guidance that he can on implementation and the provision of resources.

§ The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton)
I, too, begin be extending my congratulations to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his success in steering the Bill to this position, which we hope is almost the last stage before royal assent, to all the hon. Members and people who have been mentioned in the debate who 1318 have played an important and supportive part and to my noble Friends, who were rightly mentioned, for their work in the other place.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West made what for him must count, I suppose, as a slightly acid remark about how we might have had fewer amendments in the other place if the Government had behaved differently earlier in the Commons. I do not want to sully this morning's proceedings by engaging in an argument along those lines.
Although this is unquestionably the Bill of the hon. Member for Monklands, West, the Government have clutched it to their hearts with considerable enthusiasm, as reflected in the devoted work of DHSS officials, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly played tribute. I wish to add to that tribute. I was in some confusion when contemplating this debate as to whether the hon. Gentleman or I was supposed to be moving that the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. I am sure that it is appropriate that the hon. Gentleman should have done so. That is the spirit in which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends approached the Bill, although I would have been happy to have undertaken that task.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West has already explained that the main substantive change to this part of the Bill, introduced in another place, is that the clause now spells out in more detail the Secretary of State's power to make provision by regulations for the appointment of representatives for disabled people who, because of mental or physical incapacity, are unable to appoint someone themselves. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Health said on Report that further consultation with the Bill's sponsors would be needed on that matter in relation to the Bill as it then stood. I am delighted that those consultations have produced the reasonably satisfactory outcome which we now have before us. We do now genuinely have a sound legislative basis for the provision of representatives for disabled people.
Hon. Members have raised many points during the brief proceeding. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have kindly spared me the task of pointing out to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) that the inverted commas at the end correspond with the inverted commas at the beginning. That is not a matter which need detain the House for long. For all I know it may be that the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar has some other motives for raising these points which are, at the moment, obscure to me.

§ Mr. Mikardo
Heaven forbid.

§ Mr. Newton
I will not speculate further on that.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar did raise some other points, especially in relation to subsection 4 of the new clause, about the types of person, other than medical practitioners, whom we might envisage being involved. We had in mind carers and relatives in particular. However, there will be full consultations on the details of the use of the powers in that subsection. He also asked about the reference to health boards and why they were not defined. The reference to health boards was deleted because it has been included in the general definitional clause 12 under amendment 78.
The child care aspect of the clause was raised by the hon. Member for Monk lands, West. I used to be, although have not been for some time now, the Minister responsible for child care matters. If one starts to look into the 1319 complexity of current child care law and the various provisions under which children may be taken into care and the associated provisions, they are of almost incredible complexity. It is a pity that the Department has not spotted every last arcane corner of this aspect in its work, but I cannot say that I am entirely surprised. We shall certainly seek to remedy any defects that there may prove to be in the legislation which, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Government are hoping to undertake in relation to child care law generally. Meanwhile, I accept what he said about the need for careful consultation and we shall seek to meet any of those tidying up points in the way that I have described.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) asked about the proposed Subsection (4)(b) and what we have in mind there. We are not proposing a compulsory duty on local authorities to set up arrangements for appointing representatives for people unable to act. We feel that that should be left to local decision in the light of local priorities. I hope that that does not come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman because my understanding is that that has been made clear to the Bill's sponsors throughout all the proceedings.

§ Mr. Wigley
I am afraid that it does come as somewhat of a surprise because, at earlier stages of discussion, we made our belief clear that the right to representation should be a right to a disabled person. If that person, because of his or her disability, cannot exercise that right, it should not be any less of a right. That requires there to be a responsibility either for a local authority or somebody else to make that appointment. I am not splitting hairs as to who should be doing it, but I am absolutely certain that somebody should be doing it.
It comes as a bit of a shock at this late stage to understand that it will be left to the whim of a local authority. The local authority may not use the powers available and disabled people would miss out. It may be too late at this stage of the Bill to change anything in terms of the provisions of legislation but I press the Minister strongly to think further on this matter. It does not put an additional cost on local authorities. It is a duty that can be put on them very reasonably and disabled people would expect that to happen.

§ Mr. Newton
I note what the hon. Gentleman said and I will think further about it. He knows me well enough to know that it would be my hope and expectation that these provisions should be used. However, we have to think with some care before deciding to go down the track of compulsion against the background of a position in which, whatever resources are made available local authorities will have a range of decisions to make about the balance of priorities and the way in which they use particular provisions and provide services generally. However, I note, not merely as a routine gesture, the comments that the hon. Gentleman has made and the strength with which he feels about this matter.

§ Mr. Wigley
In case I have misunderstood more in relation to these provisions, could the Minister confirm that a disabled person who is capable of appointing a representative does have that as of right, under the provisions of the Bill? What we are saying is that the right 1320 exists without question for people capable of exercising it and it is only those most in need and who are incapable of exercising it who will not have it as a right.

§ Mr. Newton
That is a slightly tendentious way of putting it. The hon. Gentleman is certainly right in respect of the right of disabled people to appoint representatives. The issue is whether we should impose a duty on local authorities of the kind he described in relation to those unable to appoint representatives for themselves. There is probably very little between us. Indeed, there is probably nothing between us about what we would like to see. However, I would not wish to disguise from the hon. Gentleman that at this moment it is not in our mind to impose that duty on local authorities. I shall reflect further on what he has said although, manifestly, there is now no further opportunity for amending the Bill.
The main thrust of the remarks from virtually every direction, certainly from the hon. Member for Monklands, West and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), concerned the question of implementation of this clause and other provisions in the Bill. There is no doubt that the representation provision will have clear resource implications for local authorities and, if the provisions are extended to them, for health authorities. At this stage I cannot attempt to give a precise estimate of what those costs might be because that is something that needs to be assessed in further consultation with the authorities concerned. It would be wrong for me to attempt to second-guess the outcome of that further work in advance.
The House knows already, because it was said on several occasions during the proceedings in the House and, no doubt in the other place, that the total annual cost of implementing the Bill has been estimated to be something in excess of £100 million in a full year. That is not just a figure that the Government have dragged out of the air in order to show some of the difficulties with which we are faced. It rests to a significant extent on the figure that the local authorities have placed on the provisions. It is also clear that the cost of implementing the representation provisions could represent a substantial proportion of that total.
It is only honest for me to say to the House that against that background I cannot, at this stage, give an undertaking as to when resources might be available to bring this part of the Bill into effect. I have already said that I sympathise with and share entirely the wish of hon. Members to press ahead as soon as possible with implementation of the Bill, and I hope to be able to be a little more specific and helpful about some later parts of the Bill that we shall be considering. I have to say, however, that it would be wrong to impose extra burdens on local authorities and health authorities under this part of the Bill and others, which have significant resource implications, until we can ensure that the resources are available to carry them out. It is against that background that we shall have to consider when we are able to bring these provisions into effect.

§ 12 noon

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
The Prime Minister appeared to say that this and other parts of the Bill requiring extra finance will not be implemented for the forseeable future. Will the Minister say when he expects this part of the Bill to be brought into effect by commencement order?

1321

§ Mr. Newton
I do not think that I can add to what I have already said, which is that the timing of bringing into effect these provisions must depend upon when we are able to ensure that local authorities, and health authorities if the extension takes place, have the necessary resources to carry through the extension. We shall do our best to ensure that we reach that position as soon as possible. I cannot give any undertaking of what "as soon as possible" means in this context. I mean that we shall be working with a view to making progress as rapidly as we reasonably can.
It is in the light of these considerations that we shall have to consider the timing of further consultation on the possible extension of the representation provision to health authorities and to other local authority services, and on the appointment regulations. It may be that there will be work there that can be undertaken in the course of refining what the cost of implementing the proposals would be. That is something to which we shall give careful consideration.
I am sorry not to be able to be more forthcoming with right hon. and hon. Members. I hope that they will take account of the fact that we have been making progress in a variety of ways. If I were in a different frame of mind, I would take up one of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar. We have been making progress in various ways in improving both benefits and services for the disabled, and most recently in the extension of the invalid care allowance to married women. I resist any implication by anyone on either side of the House that the Government have not shown their concern to maintain the pace of development in this area.
There are several hon. Members who know as well as anyone that the range of demands, requests and pressures, and the scope for developing both services and social security benefits for the disabled is almost infinite. Careful choices and difficult decision are involved. We shall continue to make what progress we can, but I cannot put a date on the particular piece of progress that we are discussing.
I welcome unreservedly the fact that these provisions are to go onto the statute book. I hope that their mere existence on the statute book will have a helpful effect in causing local authorities to think about the way in which they seek to meet the perceived needs and wishes of disabled people in the way in which they provide services.

§ Question put agreed to.

§ Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.