HC Deb 19 May 1986 vol 98 cc111-33


Mr. Major

I beg o move amendment No. 59, in page 22, line 17 a end insert— '(1A) he Secretary of S a e shall make copies of schemes prescribed under subsection (1)(a) or (b) above available for public inspection a local offices of he Department of Heal h and Social Security a all reasonable hours without payment.'. This is an entirely benevolent amendment, which we have introduced in response to an undertaking given by my hon. Friend he Minister for Social Security to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) in Committee. I brings income support and family credit into line with housing benefit, by ensuring that copies of the two schemes are readily available for inspection by members of the public a he Department's local offices. I hope that the House will welcome that and I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

9.15 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

I beg to move amendment No. 206, in page 22, line 17 at end insert— '(1A) The scheme prescribed in subsection (1)(a) above shall include a weekly payment of a community care addition to disabled or elderly people or in respect of disabled children or other disabled or elderly dependants in need of care and attention. (1B) Regulations shall provide that payments of community care additions made under subsection (IA) shall be payable at a rate that shall be determined by reference to:

  1. (a)The needs of he claimant in relation o his proper welfare and need for care and attention in a dwelling which he occupies or is to occupy as his home or in which he resides or is to reside as a member of a family; and
  2. the extent to which other benefits or payments that are payable under Part II or Part III of this Act fail to meet those needs.
(1C) Payments made under subsection (IA) shall be payable in addition o any attendance allowance and mobility allowance that may be in payment.'. I do so in my name and those of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. For all of them I thank you most warmly, Mr. Speaker, for having selected what was unavoidably a starred amendment.

The seventh report of the Select Committee on Social Services noted, and the Minister for Social Security agreed, that no premium for disability can cover the highest sums of additional requirements that individual disabled people in most need now receive. A small survey of the Disablement Income Group's existing case load has shown that payments for additional requirements range from 13 per cent. to 30 per cent. of a severely disabled claimant's total benefit income.

Notable among the payments for additional requirements that cannot be covered by the proposed premium is that for domestic assistance, a weekly payment that can now amount to £44.90 a week Plus, of course, any employee's national insurance contributions. This crucially important benefit helps to keep many severely disabled people out of institutions. The payments now made will not be met by he social fund, despite the suggestion that the fund will be a means of helping to meet community care needs. Such needs cannot be met because the social fund will not cover regular payments. Moreover, the social fund is a wholly unsuitable vehicle for giving financial help to disabled people.

As DIG stated in its response to the Green Paper, there are grave defects in he concept and details of the social fund, more particularly in relation to disabled people. In applying cash limits, the operation of the fund will introduce a new and undesirable concept into the social security benefit system. Instead of meeting all financial needs on the basis of pre-determined criteria, some financial needs in future will be me according to the availability of pre-allocated resources.

The absence of a satisfactory appeal system will inevitably lead to injustices and bad relations locally between staff and clients. The local management of the fund will also lead to variations of treatment throughout the country, thus compounding existing variations in respect of the provision of services under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Help for disabled people should depend on need, not on where they live, and the Bill shows a most worrying lack of understanding of what care in the community for severely disabled people really involves.

The amendment introduces a community care addition to augment the proposed inadequate basic income support payment and disablement premium. This addition would be to help meet the regular financial needs of disabled people trying to live outside institutions.

Three examples from the current case load of the organisations that work to help disabled people illustrate the problems that will result if the amendment is no agreed. None of the three examples is extreme. There are many others showing potential losses of £40, £50 and even £60 a week.

My first example is that of Miss Y who lives in a Sussex village. She is paralysed from the neck down following a road accident. She requires help with virtually all aspects of personal care. Miss Y was looked after by her elderly mother who became progressively more frail and unable to cope. Miss Y consequently had to spend weekends in bed before employing a domestic assistant. After intervention by DIG, her entitlement to a domestic assistance allowance of £20 a week was established. Her weekly income from supplementary benefits is £64.20, comprising £37.50 long-term rate, £5.45 for heating requirements, £1.25 laundry requirement and £20 domestic assistance allowance. Under the proposed income support scheme, she would receive £30.60 weekly rate and £12.25 disability premium — a total of only £42.85. That is a loss of £21.35. If Miss Y qualifies for the full rate of domestic assistance of £47.20, as DIG thinks probable, the loss to her would be £48.55.

My second example is that of Mr. S who graduated from university in 1984. He is 24 years old and confined to a wheelchair. He needs help with washing, dressing and toilet, and must also be turned in bed at frequent intervals during the night. He receives the higher rate attendance allowance and the following amounts of supplementary benefit: long-term rate of £35.70, domestic care allowance of £40. minus available scale margin of £1, leaving him with £74.70. Under income support this would be reduced to personal allowances of £24 and disabled person's premium of £12.25, giving a total of £36.25. This young man's home care costs him more than £70 a week. Without maintenance in real terms of his current income from supplementary benefit, he would no longer be able to remain living in the community and will have to move into residential care.

Thirdly, I turn to Miss A, who is 20 years old and, due to her disabilities, is confined to an electric wheelchair. She has very little strength or length of reach in her arms. She needs help in washing, dressing and using the toilet. She receives attendance allowance. Her present supplementary benefit weekly payment is as follows: long-term rate £35.70, domestic care allowance £44.90, diet allowance £3.60, heating allowance £5.20, bathing addition £1.50, minus available scale margin of £1, giving a total of £89.90. Under the income support proposals she would receive personal allowance of £24 and disabled person's premium of £12.25, giving a total of £36.25. Miss A left full-time education in 1984 and was de ermined to take her rightful place in the community. Her live-in care attendance costs currently amount to £40 per week plus board and lodging. So how can anyone, in these circumstances, retain his or her independence under his Bill as it now stands?

It is the contention of every major organisation of and for disabled people in his country that it would cost more in public expenditure terms to fund these three people, and very many others like them, in residential care than it would cost to maintain their benefits in real terms.

Le me spell out the point in sharper terms. the Spastics Society provides residential care for severely disabled people at a cost of between £233 and £288.50 per week. Of these amounts, the DHSS currently pays £180 per week per person. This sum far exceeds the amount of supplementary benefit received in my three examples, who are all severely disabled but just managing to remain in the community. That is why the Spastics Society has put it to me that Independent living will no longer be possible for many severely disabled people if they are expected to live or. less money than they do now. It is our belief that by, in effect, reducing the incomes of such people … the Government will defeat its own objectives of 'Care in the Community'. The alternative will lead to considerably higher public expenditure. For the Government to reject this amendment would thus be self-defeating as well as inhumane. All hon. Members know that disabled people crave nothing more than to live independently and, wherever possible. in their own homes. Many will incontrovertibly he forced into institutions unless the Bill is amended. I implore both the House and the Minister to accept amendment No. 206. Let us a least all agree that there will be no point in sloganising about caring for severely disabled people in the community, ever again, if hey reject this amendment tonight.

Mr. Hannam

This is a crucial debate for the most severely disabled members of our society, and I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for accepting our amendment.

I am surprised that we are having to debate this matter, because it is a longtime since the all-party disablement group first began to express anxiety and to discuss with the various disability organisations the implications of the social security review, especially for severely disabled people. Under the present system severely disabled people receive a range of additional payments to cover the additional costs of living. However, they, or at least those who come into the scheme in future, will lose some of those benefits.

Throughout last year my hon. Friend the Minister has signified his acceptance and knowledge of the matter and of the need to find a satisfactory solution. In our discussions with the group and to her organisations he has repeatedly implied that the Government hope to come up with a scheme to solve the problem. I sincerely hope that that proposal will not be long in coming. Indeed, I hope that it may be forthcoming tonight.

The number in the group is no large. The Government estimate that we are talking about a total of 4,600 people who are severely disabled and are likely to lose by these proposals in the Bill. We cannot be sure that the figure is completely accurate. Indeed, they may be more than that. We are not talking about large numbers, and we are certainly not asking the Government for a large sum. Moreover, under the present system these severely handicapped people are judged to be in need of the various additional allowances that they receive.

The righ hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) illustrated the type of people whom we want to help and who will suffer under these proposals. I have a further example. A married woman has a 14-year-old son who has multiple sclerosis and is chairbound. The family receive a total of £109.55, whereas under income support that figure would be reduced to £81.10. Multiple sclerosis is a deteriorating condition, and in future additional allowances will be required. Certainly the family could not cope with any loss in their present income.

All present recipients will continue to receive the existing level of allowances under the transitional arrangements, but those allowances will not keep pace with inflation as time goes by. Therefore, even existing recipients will suffer a steady erosion of their support income. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister recognises the problem, and has suggested that it can be met under the provisions of the social fund. However, there are a number of difficulties with this, as he knows. I would be much better to tackle the problem and to meet the financial needs of severely disabled people through income support schemes, as our amendment proposes.

If we mean to encourage severely disabled people to live in the community, it is essential to provide them with the independence that they must have. If this is not done, they will have to resort to institutional or residential care or to residential homes, and we know what the cost of that will amount to.

The present arrangements in the Bill mean that existing recipients of disablement benefits will continue to receive them as long as they do not visit hospital, but if they have to do so for further treatment, they will lose entitlement and will go on to the income support, which will be far less. There is an anomaly that we must resolve. New claimants will only have the disability premium, which for most severely disabled people will be inadequate to live on.

9.30 pm

All the disability organisations have made strong representations on both these counts, as has the all-party group, to my hon. Friend the Minister, and I hope that we can have some sign of how he in ends o rectify the situation. He has shown by his replies that he recognises the problem and wants to do something about it. I am sure that he would not want to force people back into institutions at the same time as encouraging them to go out into the community, which is the Government's policy.

There is a clear need for a regular, guaranteed payment each week, and our amendment will provide for a community care addition to be paid through the income support scheme to disabled or elderly people. It will be a weekly payment, and regulations will determine the rate of the payment, by reference to

  1. "(a) the needs of he claimant in relation to his proper welfare and need for care and attention in a dwelling which he occupies or is to occupy as his home or in which he resides or is to reside as a member of a family; and
  2. (b) the extent to which other benefits or payments that are payable under Part II or Part III of his Act fail to meet those needs."
It is important that this is a weekly payment. Disabled people must be able to budget adequately for their day-to-day needs. For example, they need to pay for attendance, laundry, special diet and their additional heating, needs. They must know that they will be able to meet all those additional expenses if they are to continue to live at home.This is an important aspect of the community care addition, and I do no see a payment from the social fund being able to meet this requirement.

It is also essential that the community care addition is no open to discretion. If a disabled person is to continue to live in the community, he must be able to plan ahead. For instance, he needs to know that he will be able to meet the cost of an attendant in the long term, and any other domestic assistance that he may require. It would be impossible if his addition were subject to the discretion of a social fund officer every so often and he had no absolute knowledge of what he was entitled to. Faced with such uncertainty, many people would have no alternative but to live in an institution. It is obviously important that the regulations establishing the rate are flexible enough to allow for the varying needs of people with a progressive or intermittent disability, but people must know what they are entitled to and know that they will always be entitled to that.

We recognise that it is intended for the social fund to meet various community care needs. For that reason, we have included subsection (b)so that account can be given to the extent to which the social fund meets those needs. However, at this stage we cannot see how the social fund will be suited to give a regular, guaranteed cash payment to enable severely disabled people to live independently in the community. Severely disabled people need this over and above any other back-up support that may be provided through the social fund.

Our principal contention in the all-party group is that we wan disabled people to live in the community and we must ensure that they are entitled to sufficient means to be able to do this. In the longterm, it is both cost-effective and care efficient to give people sufficient cash to prevent them from having to live in an institution. The amendment emphasises the importance of this. It says that payments shall be made to meet the requirements of a disabled person living a home. I commend it to the House. I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.

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

I endorse the constructive comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and those of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), both of whom do such splendid work for the disabled.

This amendment is vital. Without it, the most severely disabled people will lose the most. Simply to replace the flexible and sensitive additional payments under the supplementary benefit system with just one level of disability premium is an inflexible and insensitive decision. I do not believe that it is possible simply to average the needs of severely disabled people in this way. None of them is average. All of them are individuals and they should be assessed as individuals. Failure to assess and recognise their individuality is the hallmark of the unimaginative.

It is impossible seriously to doubt the claim that, without cash from the community care addition, the severely disabled will be forced into institutions. Failure to recognise this fact is the hallmark of the illiterate, who cannot read case histories. It is also the hallmark of the innumerate, who cannot do simple sums, because the figures are there for all to see.

Without this amendment, the most severely disabled lose from a few pounds to over £50 a week. That money has helped to keep many of them out of institutions. Without it, and without the community care addition that we recommend, they may be forced into institutions. If they are forced into institutions, the Government will have to pay very heavily. Of course, the disabled will pay far more heavily because they are severely affected by being forced into institutions.

Those of us who know severely disabled people know that they fight very hard for their independence and that they cherish it. If they are forced into institutions, they find that their independence is eroded and that it is insulting, demeaning and demoralising. That is why this Government, or any Government, at all costs should avoid forcing the severely disabled into institutions. To force, to impel or to compel one severely disabled person into an institution against his will is the hallmark of a ruthless person. I am not accusing the Minister, but I am saying that to force any severely disabled person against his will into an institution, simply for lack of cash, is the hallmark of a ruthless person.

It is completely false to suggest, as I understand the Minister has suggested, that in the attendance allowance and the mobility allowance the most severely disabled people already have a premium, in the way that we understand it. It is wrong to make that claim. These essential allowances are made for a quite different purpose. It was never intended, either by the former Minister, or by the former Government, or by Parliament, that the cash from these allowances should be used for needs which ought to be met by supplementary benefit. I do not believe that that is in ended by his Government.

However, the allowances are inadequate, in any case. The full attendance allowance for a very severely disabled person is a mere £30 a week. To qualify for the full allowance, those people must have constant care, day and night. Care costs some £2.50 per hour. There is nothing cheaper than that, even in poor areas. Therefore, £30 a week will pay for some 12 hours for someone needing constant care day and night who is severely disabled and unable to help herself or himself. That is quite wrong.

Another poppycock suggestion that has been made by some Ministers— the Minister will have the chance to answer this if he thinks that I am doing him or the Government an injustice — is that severely disabled people can rely upon the social fund for their individual needs. That is rubbish because that fund does not provide weekly payments. It is limited and here will be enormous local variations. The difficulties of severely disabled people are far too intense for them to be left to flounder at the mercy of local officials.

I conclude by suggesting that the unique problems of severely disabled people must be met by unique payments. Those payments should be in the form of the community care addition which has been suggested and spelt out in the amendment. I make it clear that this is not simply a financial test for the Government. This is a major moral test, requiring a specific and categoric response. An affirmative answer from the Minister would help to allay he anxieties of severely disabled people. Silence or an evasive answer will be unforgivable.

Mr. Tim Yeo (Suffolk, South)

I endorse what the right hon. Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) have said. It is beyond doubt that a number of people will be financially worse off under the new proposed income support scheme. When my hon. Friend the Minister came to the Select Committee on Social Services to answer questions about the proposals in the Bill, he assured us that, quite apart from protecting people during the transitional phase, there was the social fund.

The social fund rests on a discretionary element which undermines the main objective of severely disabled people. The severely disabled are a group with whom I have had close personal contacts in the past five years. The overwhelming conclusion that I reached after working with a number of severely disabled people, with whom I developed a close relationship, was that of all the aspirations which they treasure, independence, which everyone else takes for granted, was the one which they held in the highest esteem.

Nothing will undermine the independence of the severely disabled more than a feeling that their financial provision from the state is based upon some kind of discretionary handout element. It is critical to the feeling of dignity independence and self-respect, which I hope that the Government wish every British citizen to enjoy, that any financial benefits which they receive, and will need in order to maintain their present standard of living, should be paid as of right.

This group of people is not enormous, so the cost of the necessary provision is not high. The Government do not wish to demean this group of people who have many other disadvantages. I cannot believe that they would wish to do so especially now. My hon. Friend the Minister, with this considerable knowledge and widely recognised sensitivity to the aspirations of disabled people, will see the merits of the amendment, and I commend it strongly to him.

9.45 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

I, too, support the amendment. From the large volume of correspondence that we received when he Bill was in Committee and until Reports age, there is no doubt that the matter touches a raw nerve and that more people are worried about it than are worried about almost any other part of the Bill There are many areas of concern in the Bill, but many organisations, as well as the right hon. Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and for Stoke-on- Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), have highlighted examples of individuals who stand to lose substantial sums.

Of course, I am aware from discussions in Committee that those individuals will be safeguarded by some provisions, but a person in an identical position who develops a disability later will not receive the support that people get now. To that extent, the Bill is inevitably a major step backwards.

We are not talking about small sums. Examples have been quoted of reductions of between £10 and £50 a week. That makes all the difference between being able to care and not being able to care. Although the Government have an understandable commitment to the voluntary sector, I do not believe that they intend to move away from paid services for people who clearly need them to saying, "It will have to be done for free by volunteers."

Mr. Newton

indicated dissent.

Mr. Wigley

The Minister shakes his head. I accept that that is no his intention, but that will be the effect of the Bill.

In Committee and today we have heard about the Government's three proposals for making up the loss. Much emphasis was placed on the social fund. However, it is discretionary, inconsistent and uncertain. It will vary from area to area. It is cash-limited, and many local officers will not have the necessary expertise in profound handicap. That is one reason why the mobility allowance and attendance allowance schemes end to be administered from centres, not from local offices. People who need reliable, consistent services will have to depend upon ad hoc, day- o-day, hand- o-mouth services according to the resources that are available. It is ironic that we are discussing this in the context of a Social Security Bill when the proposal is profoundly anti-social and provides insecurity for disabled people.

The evidence that we have received from many people points in the same direction. In its most recent memorandum to me, The Association of Directors of Social Services stated: The most unacceptable aspect of the premium for the sick and disabled is that those with the highest needs will be amongst the highest losers. Those with disabilities that may prevent them from working but have no extra costs related to ill-health will receive the same benefit as a severely disabled person with high costs … The combined lack of support to carers and restricted help to the most severely disabled of claimants will result in the breakdown of much home-based care. If the Government has a genuine commitment to community care, adequate incomes for those in the community is the firs step. That underlines the depth of feeling among the professionals in this area.

The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South mentioned the other two palliatives that the Government have suggested to help severely disabled people — mobility allowance and attendance allowance. The Minister mentioned this in Committee on 11 March. But those two benefits are geared specifically for functions—mobility allowance to the ability to get around, and attendance allowance, as the right hon. Gentleman graphically illustrated, to the profound needs of those who qualify for them. These should not be regarded as making up for the loss of the provisions in current enactments. Taking away those provisions will leave a group of people in considerable doubt and insecurity about their future.

The Government are showing a brazen and insensitive attitude to disabled people.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

I seem to recall the Minister for Social Security talking about lump sum or intermittent payments being made to someone who leaves hospital with, say, severe brain damage or severe disablement. Surely there must be regular, adequate weekly payments.

Mr. Wigley

Absolutely. That is not to say that there is no need for lump sum payments, but they will not make up for the regular, consistent availability of resources. I know from personal experience and from the experience of many friends and associates who have faced disability that there is a need for a person who can help consistently and regularly. That can be ensured only when resources are available to pay that person so that he or she will be available for certain hours on certain days, come rain or shine. If the resources are not available, paid people will not be taken on to help with that work. No one would dare risk taking on those people and, therefore, the infrastructure that enables disabled people to remain in the community would be in danger of collapsing.

I do not think that the Minister in ended having to defend that sort of possibility. I urge him to realise that if the Government's words about their commitment to care in the community are to mean anything, they must look again at this matter.

Mr. Galley

I must be clear from our debates in Committee and on Report that firm arrangements will have to be made for the small groups of severely disabled people who may be disadvantaged as a result of the withdrawal of single payments.

In Committee we spoke of groups of perhaps 2,000 or 4,000 people who can accumulate significant single payments, particularly those for domestic care and attendance. Those debates ended to concentrate on the social fund and not on an addition to income support.

However one approaches the matter, there may be difficulties of definition and interpretation of terms such as "community care" and to other wide phrases such as those in the amendment, and, indeed, those in the amendment that I tabled to the social fund provision in Committee. It is abundantly clear that some method must be found to overcome the problem.

The social fund may be a better, more appropriate and flexible way of dealing with the problem. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is wrong to say that it is rubbish to suggest using the social fund. It may be an appropriate way of solving the problem flexibly and sensibly. However, we need — tonight, if possible—assurances from the Government about how the social fund will be operated to meet these needs.

From the Green Paper onwards, it has always been intended that an element for community care needs will be included in the social fund. The details have remained extremely sketchy, and perhaps there is still some thinking to be done, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security will come to a conclusion in the near future about how the community care element of the social fund will be operated to give some security and confidence to severely disabled people who would lose out under the system that is currently proposed. There must be consistency between local areas. I hope that we shall not have to use the appeals procedure every time to achieve that consistency.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned the problem of social fund officers having the medical or social work expertise to make the appropriate assessments for payments. One solution might be to set aside community care money within the social fund that could be operated voluntarily by experts who are somewhat independent of the Department. We need a firm, clear and secure arrangement, which involves regular, intermediate or instalment payments. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister made some concessions to us on that point in Committee and that he is moving towards some regularity of payment. Indeed, there is an amendment that may take us in that direction and give us more flexibility.

I turn again to the problems of the terminally ill and to the difficulties that they often face when claiming, for example, attendance allowance. Hon. Members should remember the 26-week rule and the bureaucratic difficulties of obtaining such aid. Community care must take the needs of the terminally ill into account. I would be counter-productive if my hon. Friend did no make arrangements to keep people in the community with security of funding. The alternative is institutionalisation, which is expensive, unnecessary, wrong for the person concerned and counter to Government policy. Therefore, some arrangements must be made for the sake of the individuals concerned and in the interest of the Government themselves.

Mr. Kennedy

On this crucial issue, the mood of the House during this short debate is reminiscent of the mood during the debate on the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill, or Tom Clarke Bill, which successfully passed through the House. Good sense and good will was apparent then, too, on both sides of the House. More importantly, generous, welcome and sensible commitments were made by he Minister.

I shall be brief. We have seen good sense and good will. Let us hope that, even if we cannot obtain an absolute commitment from the Government, they will a least say that they are aware of the difficulty and will take steps to remedy it, if not tonight, then in the other place. In an earlier debate, in which I spoke just about as briefly, we discussed some form of appeal mechanism or independent review for the social fund. Some of us strongly opposed the measure, while some Conservative Members, perhaps understandably, welcomed it. Nevertheless, they expressed the hope that the Minister would go further. The difficulty highlighted in that debate must be multiplied a least tenfold in his debate, given the category of citizen involved. A fit and healthy person who enjoys his independence and the hings that perhaps we take for granted, will have difficulty with the social fund, how to appeal, and so on. How will people who see others enjoy independence and want to achieve it themselves react to the provisions? I find the thought distressing.

10 pm

As the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) said, the logic of the measure runs counter to Government policy. The amount of money to be spent in terms of the numbers involved cannot disrupt Government policy, because it will not significantly affect the amount of money allocated to income support.

I hope that the Minister will be as constructive, generous and correct as he was that Friday morning a few weeks ago when we debated and passed the disabled persons measure. That did much in terms of needs and rights for disabled people. The amendment seeks to preserve and protect the needs and rights of severely disabled people.

The Minister said that the social fund appeals mechanism conferred rights. The rights involved in his amendment are more fundamental than the right to an independent appeal. We are talking about the right to support under the legislation to give disabled people a sense of independence and security. I support the spirit and detail of what has been said about the amendment.

Mr. Fred Silvester (Manchester, Withington)

I did not serve on the Committee on the Bill and so I am treading an area where other hon. Members spent many hours in discussion. I support the amendment. I hope that the Minister will address two crucial issues. Since we published the Green Paper concern has been expressed about those who are particularly dependent upon state benefit because of the multiplicity of their disabilities and their need for special support. The Government have said that they will consider the matter, which they recognise as important. We are now at the eleventh hour and we need a response. The Minister must make it clear that the Government intend to write greater safeguards in to the Bill.

No one has suggested that the sums lost will involve the current holders of benefits. They are to be lost by people of like kind in future. It is not suggested that economies should be made at the expense of current recipients. It is not suggested that people in receipt of such benefits do not need them.

People have had benefits which we, by definition, agree that they need but which we know from the evidence are to be taken away from them and which the Government do not wish to take from them. We seem to be on all fours, but the Bill does not provide the security or knowledge that people require.

I doubt whether the measure serves the Government's purpose because the social fund was setup to sweep together the multiplicity of applications covering a range of social security needs and to provide a mechanism so that people could get into the fund from time to time as needs arise. We are talking about a group of people whose needs are known for a long period, where the payment is not an individual or periodic payment but a continuous payment. If we know now that those continuous payments are needed at the present level or at that which we can afford, why can we no provide a means in the Bill whereby a continuous payment is made in future?

It seems to me that, from the definition in the Green Paper, the social fund is not a sensible means by which to make the payment. It will complicate the administration of the social fund, which will not be to the benefit of the reform. We should provide a continuous means of income support for severely disabled people, administered by people who consider individual cases and know a lot of detail about disability, who will arrive at what they regard as a reasonable, continuous sum. We should use that highly concentrated and highly developed expertise for that purpose. I hope that the Government will find a way of providing an additional mechanism for continuous support outside the social fund that will give to the people concerned the sense of security that they so severely desire.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, Wes)

The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) was most reassuring, because I rise with some trepidation in the knowledge that no only has the House heard some informed speeches, including that of the hon. Gentleman and those of hon. Members who have served on the important Committee, but that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and those of members of the all-party disablement group, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on- Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). They demonstrated to me during the passage of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill that it is one of the most effective groups in the House. Certainly, it is the best informed group in the House. Without wishing to be patronising, I think that the Minister for Social Security would be well advised to listen to the advice of that group, especially when the advice is as unanimous as it would appear to be regarding the clause.

When the House discussed that Bill, hon. Members and I received correspondence which showed that the whole issue of community care, and how we as a society respond to it, is one of the most vital matters that disabled people face. This debate gives us an opportunity to ask the fundamental question: what does community care mean? What explanation do we offer when people ask about community care? How can we possibly have community care in any meaningful sense if as the correspondence we all received suggests, we are not providing the resources which are essential if only to maintain the dignity of so many people who have given so much to our community. There is not the emphasis on care which the House would like to see.

I support the amendment. I support it in the knowledge that we are dealing with about 4,600 people, which is the tip of the iceberg. The problems run far more deeply than we realise, but that it is right to accept that if people have to face the problem and the reality of disability, no just day after day but hour after hour, and if the problem grows with age, we should not impose the worry of how to pay for the next laundry bill or whether their heating charges will be so high that they cannot turn up their heaters, and in so doing act in conflict with the medical advice that they have been given.

Additional community care recognition as advocated in the amendment represents a step forward. On the basis of representations that have been made to me and other hon. Members, I regret that such a facility has no existed before. I would be quite wrong to introduce any element of discretion into his Bill. Our method of dealing with these matters seems patchy in the extreme. Some of the people who did not agree that we should be doing a bit more than we are about carers seemed to come from parts of the country where carers were most in need of assistance, where ordinary domestic circumstances were so compelling that some of the information left us stunned. There is a challenge to try to do something as the amendment suggests.

I agree that the choice is often between a reasonable approach—giving a bit of assistance to people who have done a sterling job, usually without complain — or opening the door to institutional care. We have two objections to the later. First, it is wrong for people to be compelled to go to institutions when it can be avoided and, secondly, community care with real meaning is something that we want to encourage.

It seems insulting in the extreme to wave the banner of community care, knowing that it means that the House is washing its hands of the problem and saying that, if resources are necessary, they will have to be found elsewhere. There is a feeling of pride among the folks who we are discussing, and rightly so. I would be wrong for us to attempt to diminish that pride. I refer to pride in individual achievement and pride in spreading limited resources, and even spreading limited affection.

There is a dignity there which the House should be encouraging. I know of the Minister's interest in these matters and I do not want to be insulting about this role. My regret is that the ability that the displays is being spent on matters such as this. He is capable of a much more constructive and helpful contribution and I am sorry that he has been chained to such legislation.

With the amendment, however, the Minister has a chance to redeem himself, and I urge him to take that opportunity. Yesterday's The Sunday Times carried a profile of a very good friend of all of us—Mr. Brian Rix. It said that Mr. Rix will be advising the Prime Minister's advisers on Thursday on how the Government might be presented as more caring. I have not had an opportunity to have a word with Mr. Rix, but, knowing him, I suspect that he is likely to tell the Government that they could take a step in that direction by accepting the minor proposal in the amendment and by showing the House and the country that, for once, they will encourage a new approach and that they believe that there is a place in society for those who ignore the concept that we should consider the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Mr. Cohen

When I was at the shops this morning I saw a constituent of mine who is now in a wheelchair. I went over to speak to him, and he said "I'm finished". He meant that he would not walk again, but, chillingly, he mean much more than that. It was a sad assessment of his prospects in our current society.

10.15 pm

People with disabilities can be helped to gain independence and contribute to society. Their hopes and aspirations for a full life are much the same as the rest of us. A caring society helps them to overcome the obstacles put in their way. My constituent assessed that we do not have much of a caring society and that those obstacles will finish him off. That was his instinctive feeling.

Disabled people have a right to live a useful life in the community. They have a right to a decent income, which is essential for heir dignity and independence. My constituent and others like him who are disabled have a right to say, "I shall carry on, despite my disability", not to be forced to say "I'm finished."

I welcomed the amendment to pay the community care addition as a weekly payment to the disabled. There is a clear correlation between poverty, low income and disability. The payment of this weekly benefit will help to tackle poverty and allow the disabled to build a life in the community with dignity.

In the amendment there is also recognition of the role of some of the carers. They pay a high cost in stress for the job that they do. A recent survey showed 68 per cent. suffering physical illness, 48 per cent. suffering mental stress and many of them living in poverty and social isolation. A caring state should be encouraging the carers. They are the real community carers. That same survey showed that if 5 per cent. of them sopped working, the cost to the health and social services budge would double. Therefore, it is in the state's interest that carers should be encouraged with benefits of this type.

Real community care does cost money. The Government want to do it on the cheap as an excuse for cuts. That is extremely short-sighted. If they do that, thousands of people will be thrust into the community without support. In those circumstances, many more of them will feel that they are finished, as does my constituent. I support the amendment.

Dr. Godman

I warmly support the amendment. I remind the Minister that in Committee I mentioned the plight of some of my constituents who are serverely disabled and pointed out to him that some of them receive upwards of £20 by way of clothing allowances, let alone to her allowances. At one point during the Committee's deliberations the Minister replied that my constituents who are suffering from disabilities are covered by the transitional protection.

I seems that people already on supplementary benefit will have the existing benefit protected, but only in cash terms. That means i will become steadily more inadequate to meet their needs. That point was repeatedly raised in Committee, but to my mind no solution was ever offered. Worse still, anyone who stops drawing benefit, even for a week or two-for example, because of admission to hospital—may well lose even that form of protection. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about the threat of the loss of protection.

I should like to ask the Minister whether he and his officials have had time to reflect on his remarks about lump sums or intermittent sums given to those leaving hospital in a severely disabled condition. I recognise some of the problems associated with weekly additions, but what is needed is an adequate weekly income with, on occasion, some additional lump or intermittent sums, to use the Minister's words. I would welcome answers to those two questions when the Minister replies.

Mr. Newton

Once again, the importance of the debate has left me relatively little time to respond to all the points that have been made, but first I should like to acknowledge the importance that I and the Government attach to this subject, which has been reflected in the debate.

I should like to remind the House of something that could have been overlooked by anyone listening to the debate. Our proposals for the new income support scheme incorporate a significant number of improvements for the overwhelming majority of those classified as long-term sick and disabled, currently for supplementary benefit purposes, and under the Bill, under the income support scheme. People will receive the proposed disablement premium automatically where they are receiving a qualifying benefit such as attendance allowance or severe disablement allowance. Unlike the current position with the long-term rate, receipt by a partner of one of those benefits would passport the family as a whole to extra help.

In cases where we retain time on benefit rules to deal with cases of people who are unable to work because of ill health or disability but who do not, for whatever reason, receive one of the qualifying benefits, we have, in effect, halved the qualifying period to 28 weeks instead of one year before they receive the premium rate. Those arrangements are consistent with criteria that we already adopt in other long-term sickness and disability benefits.

It is also important to remember that our proposals on equal treatment should make it easier for a disabled partner to qualify the whole family for extra help. We are also proposing significant improvements in the treatment of part-time earnings of disabled people. This touches on the point raised by several hon. Members — we are committed to continuing the disregard of attendance and mobility allowance.

This is not a point that I wish to labour too much, because of the shortness of time, but I must remind the House that, on the figures that we have published in the technical annex, illustrative though they are, we estimate that there will be an increase in expenditure of over £50 million a year for those eligible for the disability premium —in other words, £50 million a year overall for those who are classified as long-term sick and disabled. It is clear to anyone who has studied those illustrative figures in the technical annex that, on that basis, the great majority of long-term sick and disabled people would gain or face no change as a result of the proposals. The average improvement across the group as a whole, after allowing for everything in the illustrative figures — the least favourable way of looking at the figures—would be an increase of £4.60 per week. That is an important part of the background to the issue, but I would not want to minimise or dismiss the genuine concern that has been expressed about the relatively small numbers of people receiving relatively large amounts of supplementary benefit in the form of some of the present additional requirements, particularly the domestic assistance addition, which must be the basis of much of what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

From the debates in Committee, I think that the House, those who were members of the Committee and those who have studied the Committee proceedings, will know that from the information available the numbers involved with the specific problem on which the debate has focused are undoubtedly—and I emphasise that this does not dismiss the problem but puts it into perspective—quite small in comparison to the hundreds of thousands who receive supplementary benefits and the tens of thousands of long term sick and disabled people on supplementary benefit. From the latest information available—admittedly this is out of date—there were some 2,400 payments of the domestic assistance addition and the average payment was not at the level of £40, £50 or £60 a week that some hon. Members have referred to, rather there was an average payment of £3.59 a week. I accept that that information dates back to December 1983, but it shows the nature of the problem and the ease with which it can be exaggerated.

Whether or not that problem can be exaggerated, that does not mean that it is not an important problem for those affected by the arrangements. It does not minimise the extent to which the Government are concerned to find a solution. However, I cannot accept that the amendment is a solution to the problem, because, in effect, it would entail going away from the basic structure of the Government's income support proposals, with all the advantages that they bring to the great majority of long-term sick and disabled people. The amendment would lead us straight back to the present tangle of weekly additional rquirements. Under these, we try to assess, for example, how many baths people need to take a week, peoples' laundry needs and all the other details that come into these matters.

Those hon. Members who have spoken must recognise that we will either have the simpler and clearer structure of income support without the great tangle of additional requirements, with all the problems that that entails, or we will maintain that structure and have something similar to the present tangle. That would inescapably mean that many of the people that I have described as "gainers" would have their gains removed by the maintenance of the present structure.

I hope that the House would recognise that if I were to come forward and say that the Government were abandoning the proposed disability premium and the many important elements of the proposed new structure, I would receive no thanks. Those who would expect to gain from the proposals would suddenly find that they would not. It is inconsistent with the basic nature of the Government's proposals to start tacking back on to the simplified structure that we are proposing, the weekly additional requirements proposed in the amendment.

I hope that the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) will recognise that the notion that the amendment's proposal is in some way significantly different from a discretionary way of dealing with the problem, whether through the social fund or in some other way, is far fetched if one considers the wording of the amendment. The amendment refers to The needs of a claimant in relation to his proper welfare and needs for care and attention. That cannot be settled by a clerical officer in a DHSS local office on the basis of some handbook of regulations. That is essentially a discretionary assessment of the needs and requirements of a severely disabled person. That is a social work assessment. That is the kind of approach that we are trying to build into the system through the operation of the social fund and through the more trained staff that we would expect to have within the social fund.

I would ask hon. Members to accept that what they are proposing through the amendment is not a continued regulated entitlement, it is simply the writing of what purports to be a regulation which includes a discretionary social work decision within it. It would require discretionary social work or social fund assessments to make it work.

In response to the requests from my hon. Friends and others, I cannot tell the House that we have yet found a certain way of solving the problems that have been described. We will need to assess the implications of the more up to date information on the receipt of additional requirements as it becomes available.

The House will know that we have been asked by disability organisations to consider proposals for improving transitional protection. That picks up a point raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). We have said that we shall look at what some of those organisations have said about improving transitional protection. We shall also want to consider the extent to which the social fund has a role to play in that area, and at some aspects of the developing debate about the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill. Indeed, I must ask the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) to consider how far the principles and purposes of his Bill would be undermined by a proposal which enabled local authorities to pass all responsibility for—

It being half past Ten 0' Clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [15 April] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 333.

Division No. 185] [10.30 pm
Adams, Allen (Paisley N) Bray, Dr Jeremy
Alton, David Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Anderson, Donald Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Ashton, Joe Buchan, Norman
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) Caborn, Richard
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Campbell, Ian
Barnett, Guy Campbell-Savours, Dale
Barron, Kevin Canavan, Dennis
Beckett, Mrs Margaret Cartwright, John
Beith, A. J. Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Bell, Stuart Clarke, Thomas
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Clay, Robert
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) Clelland, David Gordon
Bermingham, Gerald Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Bidwell, Sydney Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Blair, Anthony Cohen, Harry
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Coleman, Donald
Boyes, Roland Conlan, Bernard
Cook, Frank (Stockton North) McNamara, Kevin
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) McTaggart, Robert
Corbett, Robin McWilliam, John
Corbyn, Jeremy Madden, Max
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Marek, Dr John
Craigen, J. M. Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Crowther, Stan Martin, Michael
Cunliffe, Lawrence Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Cunningham, Dr John Maxton, John
Dalyell, Tam Meacher, Michael
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) Meadowcroft, Michael
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) Michie, William
Deakins, Eric Mikardo, Ian
Dewar, Donald Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Dixon, Donald Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Dobson, Frank Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Dormand, Jack Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Douglas, Dick O'Neill, Martin
Dubs, Alfred Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Duffy, A. E. P. Park, George
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Parry, Robert
Eadie, Alex Patchett, Terry
Eastham, Ken Pavitt, Laurie
Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE) Pendry, Tom
Evans, John (St. Helens N) Pike, Peter
Fatchett, Derek Prescott, John
Faulds, Andrew Radice, Giles
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) Randall, Stuart
Fisher, Mark Raynsford, Nick
Flannery, Martin Redmond, Martin
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Forrester, John Richardson, Ms Jo
Foster, Derek Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Foulkes, George Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Fraser, J. (Norwood) Robertson, George
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Freud, Clement Rogers, Allan
Garrett, W. E. Rooker, J. W.
George, Bruce Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Rowlands, Ted
Godman, Dr Norman Sedgemore, Brian
Golding, John Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Gould, Bryan Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Gourlay, Harry Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, James (M'well N) Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central) Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)
Hardy, Peter Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Heffer, Eric S. Skinner, Dennis
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)
Home Robertson, John Soley, Clive
Howells, Geraint Spearing, Nigel
Hoyle, Douglas Steel, Rt Hon David
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham) Stott, Roger
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Strang, Gavin
Hughes, Roy (Newport East) Straw, Jack
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Hume, John Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Janner, Hon Greville Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd) Thome, Stan (Preston)
John, Brynmor Tinn, James
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) Torney, Tom
Kennedy, Charles Wallace, James
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Kirkwood, Archy Wareing, Robert
Lambie, David Welsh, Michael
Lead bitter, Ted White, James
Leighton, Ronald Wigley, Dafydd
Lewis, Terence (Worsley) Williams, Rt Hon A.
Litherland, Robert Wilson, Gordon
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) Winnick, David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey Woodall, Alec
McCartney, Hugh Young, David (Bolton SE)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
McGuire, Michael Tellers for the Ayes:
McKay, Allen (Penistone) Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Frank Haynes.
McKelvey, William
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Adley, Robert Fairbairn, Nicholas
Aitken, Jonathan Fallon, Michael
Alexander, Richard Farr, Sir John
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Favell, Anthony
Amess, David Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Ancram, Michael Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Arnold, Tom Fletcher, Alexander
Ashby, David Fookes, Miss Janet
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. Forman, Nigel
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) Forth, Eric
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Baldry, Tony Fox, Marcus
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Franks, Cecil
Batiste, Spencer Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Freeman, Roger
Bendall, Vivian Fry, Peter
Benyon, William Galley, Roy
Best, Keith Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Bevan, David Gilroy Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Biffen, Rt Hon John Garel-Jones, Tristan
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Blackburn, John Glyn, Dr Alan
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Goodhart, Sir Philip
Body, Sir Richard Goodlad, Alastair
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Gorst, John
Bottomley, Peter Gow, Ian
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Gower, Sir Raymond
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Grant, Sir Anthony
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Greenway, Harry
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Gregory, Conal
Brinton, Tim Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon Grist, Ian
Brooke, Hon Peter Ground, Patrick
Browne, John Grylls, Michael
Bruinvels, Peter Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Bryan, Sir Paul Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Buck, Sir Antony Hampson, Dr Keith
Budgen, Nick Hanley, Jeremy
Burt, Alistair Hargreaves, Kenneth
Butcher, John Harris, David
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Butterfill, John Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Carlisle, John (Luton N) Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Hawksley, Warren
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S) Hayes, J.
Carttiss, Michael Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Cash, William Heathcoat-Amory, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Heddle, John
Chapman, Sydney Hickmet, Richard
Chope, Christopher Hicks, Robert
Churchill, W. S. Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Hill, James
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Hind, Kenneth
Clegg, Sir Walter Hirst, Michael
Cockeram, Eric Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Colvin, Michael Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Coombs, Simon Holt, Richard
Cope, John Howard, Michael
Cormack, Patrick Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Corrie, John Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Couchman, James Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Cranborne, Viscount Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Critchley, Julian Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Crouch, David Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Currie, Mrs Edwina Hunter, Andrew
Dickens, Geoffrey Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Dicks, Terry Jackson, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen Jessel, Toby
Dover, Den Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Durant, Tony Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Dykes, Hugh Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Eggar, Tim Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Emery, Sir Peter Key, Robert
Evennett, David King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Eyre, Sir Reginald Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) Powell, William (Corby)
Knowles, Michael Powley, John
Knox, David Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Lamont, Norman Price, Sir David
Lang, Ian Proctor, K. Harvey
Latham, Michael Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Lawler, Geoffrey Raffan, Keith
Lawrence, Ivan Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Lee, John (Pendle) Rathbone, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Lester, Jim Rhodes James, Robert
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Lightbown, David Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Lilley, Peter Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant) Roe, Mrs Marion
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Rossi, Sir Hugh
Lord, Michael Rost, Peter
Luce, Rt Hon Richard Rowe, Andrew
Lyell, Nicholas Rumbold, Mrs Angela
McCrindle, Robert Ryder, Richard
McCurley, Mrs Anna Sackville, Hon Thomas
Macfarlane, Neil Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
MacGregor, Rt Hon John St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) Sayeed, Jonathan
Maclean, David John Scott, Nicholas
McLoughlin, Patrick Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) Shelton, William (Streatham)
McQuarrie, Albert Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Madel, David Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Major, John Sims, Roger
Malins, Humfrey Skeet, Sir Trevor
Malone, Gerald Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Maples, John Soames, Hon Nicholas
Marland, Paul Speed, Keith
Marlow, Antony Speller, Tony
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Spencer, Derek
Mates, Michael Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Maude, Hon Francis Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Squire, Robin
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Stanbrook, Ivor
Mayhew, Sir Patrick Stanley, Rt Hon John
Mellor, David Steen, Anthony
Merchant, Piers Stern, Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove) Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Mills, Iain (Meriden) Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Miscampbell, Norman Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW) Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Moate, Roger Stokes, John
Monro, Sir Hector Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus Sumberg, David
Moore, Rt Hon John Taylor, John (Solihull)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S) Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) Temple-Morris, Peter
Moynihan, Hon C. Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Murphy, Christopher Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Neale, Gerrard Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Needham, Richard Thorne, Neil (llford S)
Nelson, Anthony Thurnham, Peter
Neubert, Michael Townend, John (Bridlington)
Newton, Tony Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Nicholls, Patrick Tracey, Richard
Normanton, Tom Trippier, David
Onslow, Cranley Trotter, Neville
Oppenheim, Phillip Twinn, Dr Ian
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Osborn, Sir John Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Ottaway, Richard Viggers, Peter
Page, Sir John (Harrow W) Waddington, David
Page, Richard (Herts SW) Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Patten, Christopher (Bath) Waldegrave, Hon William
Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn) Walden, George
Pattie, Geoffrey Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Pawsey, James Wall, Sir Patrick
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Waller, Gary
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian Ward, John
Pollock, Alexander Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Porter, Barry Warren, Kenneth
Portillo, Michael Watson, John
Watts, John Wolfson, Mark
Wells, Bowen (Hertford) Wood, Timothy
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone) Woodcock, Michael
Wheeler, John Young, Sir George (Acton)
Whitfield, John Younger, Rt Hon George
Whitney, Raymond
Wiggin, Jerry Tellers for the Noes:
Wilkinson, John Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.
Winterton, Mrs Ann
Winterton, Nicholas

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

I am now required to put the Question on the outstanding Government amendment in this group, namely, amendment No. 62.

Forward to