OWNER-OCCUPIERS AND TENANTS (Hansard, 14 June 1989)

§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)
I beg to move amendment No. 317, in page 91, line 2, after 'then', insert 'subject to the exclusions by virtue of subsection (4) below'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 193, in page 91, line 23, at end insert— '(4) This section does not apply where the application for a grant is made—

(a) by a person over pensionable age; or

(b) for a disabled facilities grant; or

(c) by any other person as determined by the Secretary of State.'.

No. 318, in clause 99, page 91, line 23, at end insert— 989 '(4) No evaluation shall be made of the financial resources of an applicant in respect of a disabled facilities grant or of an applicant for a renovation grant when a member of the applicant's household is a disabled person.'. No. 195, in clause 104, page 95, line 26, at end insert— '(3A) If an application for a grant has been approved, the authority is satisfied that, owing to circumstances beyond the control of any person described in section 97(3) their income, assets, needs or outgoings have changed, the authority may increase the amount of the grant.'.

§ Mr. Morris
As you have indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, amendment No. 317, which I now move, is closely linked to amendment No. 318 and other amendments in the group.
The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) very much wanted to speak in this debate, but cannot do so for unavoidable reasons. Amendments Nos. 317 and 318 have their total backing, which strongly underlines the all-party nature of the amendments. They are very much the amendments, in fact, of the all-party disablement group in the House of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South is the chairman and the hon. Member for Exeter, who raised on Second Reading, the problem the two amendments address, is the secretary.
This is a very important series of amendments, well deserving both of maximum public attention and support from both sides of the House. In support of amendments Nos. 317 and 318, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation has said: While we recognise the desirability of directing financial assistance to those in greatest need and agree that the current rateable value limit is an inaccurate means for its achievement, we are not convinced that a test of resources based upon that devised for housing benefit is appropriate for assessing the requirement for a renovation grant. Housing benefit can be changed as the circumstances of the applicant change, but an assessment of resources for home improvement may lead to considerable long-term financial commitment by the applicant. In many cases a household's circumstances are likely to change as, for example, when it includes a number of single adult children—non-dependants—who may well leave home before a loan for home improvements has been paid off.
The royal association accepts that renovation grants for general house repairs and modernisation of properties occupied by disabled people should be subject to the same test of resources as other households. They strongly insist, however, that any benefits arising from disability, such as mobility and attendance allowances, should be disregarded.
In some cases there may be a temporary accumulation of these benefits. Mobility allowance may be saved to purchase a car or a powered outdoor wheelchair. Attendance allowance may be put on one side to assist with the cost of respite care or back payment of delayed benefits may have been received for which there has been a long-standing need. Such sums should very clearly not be considered along with other savings.
The royal association can see no reason for the complete reversal of the Government's proposal in the November 1987 consultation paper that … for adaptation work, however, applicants will not be subject to a test of resources". 990 Nor can many other national organisations of and for disabled people that I have heard from in anticipation of the debate see any justification of the Government's volte-face.
Peter Large, CBE, whose work for people with disabilities, in the service of the Disablement Income Group and many other national organisations, is so widely respected on both sides of the House, has also drawn attention to the Government's abandonment of the proposal set out in the consultation paper. He states: If disability is acquired during the course of a working life and if it is so great as to require expensive adaptations to a house, the vast majority of those affected will suffer a significant financial loss when they become disabled. The same will be true in the case of a disabled dependant. It must be remembered that the disabled applicants, or dependants, will probably spend the rest of their lives disabled. Few if any will be able to look forward to employment as a means of making good whatever they are forced to spend on adaptation.
Those with savings at the time when they become disabled can only look forward to seeing any savings they may have steadily depleted, having to spend them on aids and equipment not supplied through the NHS, on all minor and major repairs around the house, on upkeep of the garden, and on helping offset some of the extra costs of daily living as a disabled person. If the disability occurs before a person reaches working age, he or she is unlikely to be adversely affected by a means test, but many with a disabled dependant could be affected.
The recent survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys shows that the incomes of people with disabilities are substantially below those of the rest of the population; that only 31 per cent. of people with disabilities under pension age were in paid work compared with 69 per cent. of the general population; that the earnings of those who have jobs are substantially below those of non-disabled employees and decrease further with increasing severity of disability; that 4.5 million disabled adults live in households in which there are no earners; that three quarters of disabled adults are forced to rely on state benefits as their main source of income, with an average total income of only £65.20 a week; and that the overall average income among all disabled people was only £82.20 a week.
Means testing will, therefore, not save much money but would add to the severe financial stress that accompanies disability for most disabled people, not least owner-occupiers. In the circumstances, means testing hardly seems appropriate or cost-effective. It is particularly inappropriate when the proposed test of means is based on scales established for non-disabled people whose financial position is likely to improve, as opposed to disabled people whose financial position is likely to deteriorate.
While other people are rightly concerned about the greenhouse effect, an increasing number of disabled people have to worry about the "workhouse effect" of the Government's policies for social security, as the facts given by the OPCS so dramatically show.
The purpose of amendment No. 193 is to exempt pensioners, as well as applicants for a disabled facilities grant, from the means-testing provisions of the clause. Exemptions would help target grants where they are most needed. The Government's aim in introducing these changes is better to target grants on those who need them most. Successive house condition surveys have shown that 991 elderly and disabled people live in the worst conditions, yet are least able to improve them. Exempting these groups of applicants would thus be an effective way of targeting resources on those most in need.
Elderly people see means testing as stigmatising and degrading. Many are put off making applications. They need encouragement and help to improve their property —hence the Government's support for elderly home owners' advice services. The Minister thinks that strong dislike of means testing is a thing of the past. If that is true, why is the take-up of other means-tested benefits by elderly people today so poor?
Amendment No. 195 is about enabling the local housing authority, in its assessment of applicants' grant entitlement, to take account of significant changes in needs or resources.
While recognising the problems of reassessing grants, local authorities need to be able to reassess grant entitlement if the financial circumstances of an applicant worsen significantly. It is easy to envisage circumstances in which a grant level is fixed on the basis of earnings from employment, for example, following which the applicant suffers a permanent disability which requires the end of full-time employment and a signficant and permanent drop in income and yet in which the applicant is unable to escape the financial consequences of the improvement work.
The divide in this debate is not between the Minister and me, or between him and the other sponsors of the amendments on both sides of the House. It is a divide between the Minister and all the major organisations of and for disabled people. We are reflecting their deep concern, and I implore the Minister to give the House a constructive response to these important amendments. It would be utterly wrong to proceed with the clause as drafted.

§ Sir George Young (Ealing, Acton)
I shall speak briefly to emphasise the all-party nature of amendments Nos. 317 and 318 and shall return briefly to some of the debates that we had in Committee when we discussed this subject. I again pay tribute to the Government for introducing new clause 10, as it then was, which went a substantial way towards meeting the anxieties of those who represent disabled people.
I should like to press the Government a little more on some of the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister could explain why the Government have changed their mind on what appeared in the original consultation paper. There was a principle there with which most of us could identify, which said that for normal repair or improvement work unrelated to a person's disability people should be exposed to a means test when they apply for an improvement grant. In the case of adaptations which helped people to meet the needs of their disability, they were to be exempt from the test of resources.
That principle was understandable in that it enabled disabled people to come to the starting post at the same time as everyone else, and the rules would be exactly the same. The withdrawal of that proposal in the consultation paper has caused some anxiety and amendments Nos. 317 and 318 refer to that. In his response to the Committee 992 debate, my hon. Friend the Minister said that he would reflect again on this in the light of letters from George Wilson and Peter Large. Is he now able to move a little towards the position pressed on him by hon. Members in all parts of the House?

§ Mr. Trippier
One of my difficulties with the amendment is that I do not think that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) is speaking as a representative of the all-party committee of which I was a member before I became a member of the Government. I think that he devalues the currency of what he says because he did not start his speech by making exactly the same comments as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young).
The whole purpose of the clause is to give additional resources to the disabled. That is what my hon. Friend has just said. The point was effectively made in Committee, but only by him. I have great respect for the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe for the work that he does for the disabled. However, I am surprised at him because he missed a great opportunity to acknowledge how the Government have moved in this direction.
I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton the comfort that he seeks because it is not clear to me what hon. Members would substitute for a test of resources. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe is saying that all pensioners and all disabled people should qualify for 100 per cent. grants irrespective of their ability to afford the cost of the work. I entirely accept that it is perfectly legitimate to hold that view, but I am not at all sure that it would be fair to people who are not in those categories, for example, those on low incomes, nor am I sure that all local authorities would welcome the resource commitment that it would bring. Nobody has mentioned that.
We expect pensioners and the disabled to do well out of the new grants system. If they do not, we have failed in our precise intention. We did not think that the former system was fair. I assure the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe that many of the people that he mentions will qualify for help with the full cost of the work. We have also said that we shall look carefully at the possibility of passporting particular groups of people whose needs have been assessed for other purposes. We shall encourage help for pensioners and others in order to increase their take-up of grant.
I remain of the view that where a pensioner or disabled person has the resources to fund the work either wholly or in part, it is not unreasonable for them to do so, not least because it encourages a degree of independence which many elderly people and others value a great deal.
Amendment No. 195 touches on the issue that we discussed in Committee—the matter of redetermining grant entitlement where the circumstances of the applicant change after grant has been approved. We understand the arguments in favour of that, although I am not sure about why the redetermination should be one way, as the amendment would provide, if an applicant's income increased following grant approval. For instance, why should the grant not be reduced?
There are practical difficulties in providing for the determination which the local authority associations acknowledge, even if Opposition Members do not. We are seeking to keep the test of resources as simple and straightforward as possible. Redetermination will mean 993 placing a duty on applicants to inform the authority whenever their circumstances change. That could happen on a number of occasions—certainly more than once—between the time of approval and even by the time the grant is paid. Would the authority, for example, need to redetermine grant each time or just once? That is not an idle debating point. It must be seriously considered, certainly in terms of legislation. We gave an undertaking in Committee, and I repeat it now, that we are prepared to consider that matter further with the local authority associations. I hope that, in those circumstances and on that understanding, the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
I assure the Minister that the whole of my submission about amendments Nos. 317 and 318 was based on information made available to me by organisations of and for disabled people which are widely respected on both sides of both Houses. At the same time, I made it clear that the two amendments were those of the all-party disablement group in the House.
What upsets the organisations of and for disabled people is the Government's change of policy since the consultation paper. I heard nothing from the Minister about the change of policy. It is not possible for me now to press the amendments, for reasons the House will understand, but I implore him to try his best between now and the debate in another place to review the Government's policy on this important issue. I hope that there will be significant improvements to the clause before the Bill becomes law.