INTRODUCTION OF DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE

HC Deb 21 May 1991 vol 191 cc790-823

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 12, at end insert "a community care supplement"

4.12 pm

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott)

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

Mr. Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to consider the following Lords amendments: No. 2, in page 3, line 6, at end insert , to any one of which may be added a community care supplement payable out of the National Insurance Fund. The Government's motion to disagree with the amendment.

No. 3, in page 3, line 36, at end insert— (5A) The weekly rate of the community care supplement shall depend on the individual circumstances of a severely disabled person. In particular it shall depend on the extent to which he is severely restricted in his ability to perform normal personal care and domestic tasks because of his disablement, on the extent of his need for help, attention or supervision from another person, on the cost of securing the required help, attention or supervision, and on such other factors as the Secretary of State may prescribe.

1. (5B) For the purposes of subsection (3) above—
1. (a)a community care supplement shall not be payable in addition to a payment from the Independent Living Fund;
2. (b)providing his circumstances qualify him for a payment from the Independent Living Fund, a community care supplement shall be payable to a severely disabled person in lieu of such a payment when the payment ceases on the expiry of the life of the Independent Living Fund Trust on or before 8 June 1993; and
3. (c)payment of the community care supplement shall be disregarded for the purposes of assessing housing benefit and community charge benefit."

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 3, in line 8, after 'supervision', insert `on the need for a special diet'. The Government's motion to disagree with the amendment.

Mr. Scott

I am conscious, in moving the motion, that the amendments bring us to an issue to which both sides of the House attach much importance—the position of the most severely disabled members of our community. I have considered, and in most cases listened with much care, to speeches made in debates in the House and in another place. I am sure that the House will want me to concentrate on the substance of the issues rather than to raise detailed objections to the amendments.

I do not intend to detain the House by focusing on details, other than to make two points: first, the Lords amendments for the creation of a community care supplement within disability living allowance are, as I shall seek to convince the House, unworkable in practice.

Secondly, it must be perverse to provide, as one amendment does, for the community care supplement to be paid from the national insurance fund, when the rest of the benefit, of which it is supposed to be a part, is paid from general taxation. I well understand that that was used as a device to raise the subject properly for debate and I am happy that it gives me an opportunity to explain where the Government stand.

I do not think that I am oversimplifying matters by saying that at each stage in our discussions of this issue during the Bill's passage two main points have been made. First, there was some pressure on the Government to devise a regulatory statutory replacement for the independent living fund from 1993. Secondly, there has been genuine concern that we should take the opportunity to clarify as soon as possible what the arrangements will be for people who are already getting support from the independent living fund. I very much understand that concern and I shall come back to it in a moment.

However, let me deal first with the desire to see a regulated benefits system replace the independent living fund. I have to say to right hon. and hon. Opposition Members who take a close interest in such matters that I do not believe that even the best legal skills that I could deploy to draft a set of regulations would come close to delivering the pattern of help provided now by the independent living fund. To "tack on" a community care supplement to a benefit on which we expect to have to make about 20,000 decisions a week would be a recipe for abandoning any serious attempt to go into the needs of individual disabled people in depth in order to arrive at a package that meets those needs.

I know that Opposition Members who have been urging the introduction of a regulated system do so with the best of intentions and motives, but we must recognise that the independent living fund has been more effective in delivering help where it is needed than was the system that it replaced. We must bear it in mind that that system was regulated statutory help with the costs of domestic assistance. At the risk of labouring the point, it clearly did not get to as many people, or as effectively, as those who are now getting help from the independent living fund.

I reiterate the point that I made in Committee and on Report—benefits that are supposedly designed to cater for every contingency end up not being understood let alone claimed by many of those at whom they are aimed. I can do no better than to quote Sir Roy Griffiths' report on community care in which he said: Our social security system is essentially designed to provide a standard range of benefits for large numbers of people against objective tests of entitlement. It is not an appropriate system for the direct provision of individually tailored packages of support, within a finite community care programme. Sir Roy also rightly argued that if we were to make a successful reality of our aim, which I am sure is shared in all quarters, of enabling people to live in the community, we need to give primary responsibility for the assessment of need and for the planning and delivery of care packages to a single authority.

I remain convinced that our community care strategy is the right approach to meeting the needs of all disabled people, including the most severely disabled. Local social services authorities are now drawing up plans for April 1993. The organisations that represent disabled people now have the opportunity to ensure that local services match local needs.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)

The Minister refers to a strategy for community care, but has he consulted the organisations of or for people with disabilities, such as the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, Mencap and others? Has he taken their views on board and, if so, how does he respond to their worries about cash limits?

Mr. Scott

The hon. Gentleman knows that ministerial responsibility for the introduction in due course of community care belongs to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health. We have received a number of representations about the arrangements that will succeed the independent living fund, but local authorities are already working on their plans for the introduction of community care. They have a responsibility to put their plans to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department. There is no better time for organisations of or for disabled people to begin to make clear their views about the type of packages that will be necessary in their individual localities or, more generally, across the country than when the local authorities are working out their plans. Disabled people, their carers and the organisations with which they are involved should play a major part in the designing of the services that will need to be delivered to disabled people after the introduction of community care in 1993.

The independent living fund has done a splendid job since its inception. I pay the warmest possible tribute to the trustees, the director and the staff who have been involved in all its activities. Their workload and the way in which they have tackled it have been far in excess of what was envisaged when the independent living fund was set up. It is right that not only I as the Minister, but the whole House should pay the warmest tribute to the trustees, the director and the staff for the way in which they have responded to the demands that have been placed on them.

A centrally run organisation such as the ILF could not hope in the long run to help all the severely disabled people who seek help to enable them to live independently in the community. The ILF has successfully primed the pump. It has fulfilled an invaluable role in proving that, with the right support and assistance, even severely disabled people can be enabled to live with independence and dignity in the community. From April 1993, it is right that the baton should pass to local authorities and that they should carry on and extend the good work of designing and providing packages of care for many more people than a central fund could ever hope to maintain.

The scale of the work involved brings me to the second main concern that has been raised in our recent discussions. The point has been made—I freely acknowledge its force—that some local authorities, given what else they have on their plates, will find it genuinely difficult to take on "at a stroke", to coin a phrase, from the ILF the several thousand people for whom it has worked out individually tailored care packages.

My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and other hon. Members whose expertise on these matters is well known made the case especially effectively on Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said that uncertainty about future payments from the fund was already causing disruption because disabled people could not make long-term care arrangements when they did not know whether their payments would continue. The point is well made and I hope that the House will agree that it has been well taken.

Several hon. Members of all parties in both Houses have expressed the view that it was a question not solely of ensuring that the transitional arrangements met the needs of the people whom the ILF helps, but of ensuring that those people are reassured early about their future. I recognise that it is important that we should now end any further uncertainty.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek to raise a point of order further to the points of order raised at 3.30 pm. It was alleged that after the recess it would no longer be possible for questions to be tabled about national trust hospitals. I have checked with the office of the Leader of the House and I have it on its authority that that is not the case, that normal rules apply and that national trust hospitals will be the subject of questions. Such questions can be tabled. Was not the allegation just another fabrication by the Labour party on the subject?

Mr. Speaker

I do not know about that. If the hon. Gentleman was here, he will know that the points of order, which took place some time ago, were hypothetical. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have not had the advantage of leaving the Chamber to find out about the matter. If what he has said is true, I welcome it. We do not need to hear any more about it now.

Mr. Scott

This must be the first occasion for a long time on which a Minister has been interrupted by a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the course of a debate. However, I recognise the importance of the point.

It is important that we should now end any further uncertainty. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members of all parties will welcome the proposals that I am about to announce.

I have concluded that the best way in which to give reassurance to existing beneficiaries of the independent living fund is to retain quite separate arrangements for that group. We shall not, therefore, expect local authorities to take over the role of providing for people who are receiving money from the ILF at the time at which the wider community care arrangements are introduced. Incidentally, even Opposition Members may recall that the life of the trust under which the ILF was established expires in June 1993—a few weeks after the planned introduction of the Government's community care proposals.

We will instead put in place a successor body to the ILF which will take on all existing beneficiaries and make cash payments——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I wish to thank him for bringing our anxieties to an end so swiftly. We have had many representations on this and we are most grateful to him.

Mr. Tom Clarke

Will the Minister clarify what he meant by "a few weeks"? I understand that the Government's proposals for the community care section of their Act are to be introduced at the beginning of April 1993. If not, the present situation would continue until June and we would be talking about three months, not a few weeks. Have the Government changed their plans for the implementation of their Act?

Mr. Scott

We can query whether it will be a couple of months or a few weeks, but the hon. Gentleman has the facts exactly right. The terms of the trust expire in June 1993 and the arrangements for community care come into effect at the beginning of April 1993.

Let me reiterate and put clearly on the record the arrangements, then I shall give way to any hon. Member who wishes to question me. We intend to put in place a successor body to the ILF which will take on all existing beneficiaries and make cash payments to them in the same way as the ILF does now. The details of that body will have to be worked out during the coming months, but the principles are clear—the successor body will function in the same way as the ILF. It will be able to look in depth at the circumstances and needs of the people whom it will inherit from the ILF and to judge the most appropriate way of meeting those needs. The presumption at the outset will be that the new body will usually pay the same cash amounts to people as they had been getting the week before, but it will be possible for people whose circumstances then become worse to obtain more money to enable them to carry on living in the community.

I hope that that will come as welcome news to the more than 7,700 people who currently obtain help from the ILF. Hon. Members who follow these matters with care and, I hope with sympathy will know that in each year of the ILF's life to date we have given substantial extra sums so that new claimants could be helped. Funding in 1991–92 is more than 10 times the level at which it was when we set out in 1988–89 and more than 20 times the amount that the old supplementary benefit system domestic system addition ever provided. That commitment will continue during the 1992–93 financial year so that there will be room in the ILF's budget not only to continue helping all existing beneficiaries but to carry on admitting new people during the year.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

I have been following the Minister carefully. Am I right to understand that from 1993 onwards there will be a twin-track situation with one group of people benefiting under the successor body and obtaining increased levels of support, whereas people with identical needs and circumstances will not be able to obtain any benefit under that body because those circumstances arose after mid-1993? Is not that a formula for uncertainty and misunderstanding? Will not some people be looking over their shoulders at friends and neighbours who will be obtaining assistance on which they are missing out? Surely that cannot be a stable formula for the future.

Mr. Scott

I shall not reiterate the argument that I have already deployed because I understand that the hon. Gentleman wishes to challenge it. As the hon. Gentleman knows quite well, in April 1993 it is planned to move to a wholly new arrangement for care in the community which will apply to residential care in nursing homes and to decisions made about care packages in different localities. He will recall that when Sir Roy Griffiths studied these matters he came to the conclusion that I have already outlined, that local authorities should look at the individual needs of not just disabled people but elderly people to decide what care package was most relevant to their needs, whether that involved institutional care or care in the community, and to devise appropriate arrangements.

That applies, too, to those who have been helped by the independent living fund but, appropriate though I think those new arrangements are and much though I support what Sir Roy Griffiths concluded, we came to the conclusion, after having studied the matter, that to ask local authorities to take on whatever the existing case load of the independent living fund is in April 1993, at the same time as they will be introducing the other more general arrangements for community care, would be too much and that it made sense—not least to meet the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter—in order to put at rest the minds of those who are receiving help from the independent living fund to say that this successor body would continue the payments that are now being made and that it would also, where conditions had deteriorated but people could still live in the community, meet any additional costs that may arise.

I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will see that point. His views on community care may differ from those of the Government, but that will be the Government's policy in April 1993. I have sought to find the most satisfactory arrangements to meet the needs of those who will be the beneficiaries of the independent living fund then and to make an early announcement about what the arrangements might be so that any uncertainties can be removed.

4.30 pm

Sir Michael McNair Wilson (Newbury)

Can my right hon. Friend say from which budget the successor body will draw its finance?

Mr. Scott

These matters will be discussed by the Government, but I envisage that it will be part of the Department of Social Security's budget. We shall seek funds to ensure the position of the successor body to the independent living fund after April 1993.

My response today means that we shall be spending more next year than this and that we shall be ensuring that all those who currently receive cash help from the independent living fund will carry on receiving cash help after 1993. I hope that the measures that I have announced today will meet I he concerns in a far better way than the amendments that we are considering today. On that basis, I urge the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

It says in the press that this debate was delayed until today so that the Minister could attend a preview of the Chelsea flower show. That was a contest he won. If it is also true, as some people think, that he battled with the Treasury to avoid having to make the speech we have just heard, that was a contest he lost, and he must be ashamed of having been made to oppose the Lords amendments.

Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West)

rose——

Mr. Morris

I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me at least to start my speech. I know that other hon. Members want to intervene in the debate but, as I continue my speech, I shall seek to give way.

This debate is crucially about choice for disabled people and achieving full control for them over their own lives. The amendments will vouchsafe for people with disabilities the freedom of choice and independence they crave and which thousands of them now enjoy with help from the independent living fund. The right hon. Gentleman is said to take pride in the creation of the ILF. If it was his baby, he is now clothing himself, like Herod, in the ignominy of infanticide.

His commitments to existing recipients are simply not good enough. Thanks to this Government, we now see more bands of second-class disabled people than in "Son of Poll Tax". Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many people in the last 12 years have enjoyed some form of transitional protection which has disguised a creeping cut for them alongside massive cuts for others in identical situations?

The Minister has argued that, under the new community care arrangements, the ILF's role is best undertaken by local authorities. But unfortunately the new era of community care exists solely in the imagination of Ministers. Their disgraceful decision not to implement sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, thus tearing the heart out of that important Act, shows the Government in their true colours. The Minister for Health claims that the community care arrangements "reflect and amplify" sections 1, 2 and 3 of the 1986 Act. This is a good description of these so-called "arrangements": they are son et lumiere without substance. They are a fantasy for which Tory Ministers know that they will not be called to account since, by 1 April 1993, they will have been swept from office.

Anyone who saw Margaret Tebbit talking to Terry Wogan will have admired her courage in building a new life after her terrible injuries. Her triumph over severe disability is an inspiring example of personal bravery. Perhaps Mrs. Tebbit's most significant statement, in terms of this debate, was that the independence she now prizes depends on two young New Zealanders who provide the personal assistance she needs. This level of support can be essential if the most severely disabled people are to lead normal lives. To some, but by no means all, it is provided by the ILF. These amendments enshrine the assistance it gives as a statutory right. That is what severely disabled people want. They need and ask the House for a statutory right to the assistance that they need.

I have some sympathy with the view that assessment should be locally based; but it is essential that the right to support must be made enforceable nationally. As all hon. Members know, the statutory rights provided by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 ultimately have to be enforced nationally if they are not to be infringed. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), when he was Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled, recognised this truth in his laudable decision to enforce the provision of telephones for housebound disabled people in Wandsworth under section 2(1)(h) of the Act. We want to see the same uniformity across the country in the provision of personal assistance services as in the administration of cash benefits for disabled people.

One of the ILF's key features is that the money it provides is paid direct to the disabled person, so that she or he has the power to hire the assistance she or he wants and arrange the work to suit her or his needs. This is the formula which works so successfully in Denmark, Sweden and Finland; and the ILF has shown that it works equally well here.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the issue of direct payments by local authorities was raised during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Despite expressing warm sympathy and even visiting local projects, health Ministers rejected Opposition amendments; but they promised further consideration before the Act came into force. This seems to have been an empty promise. In a reply to me on 10 May, the Minister for Health said that the Government had decided not to change the law because of the difficulties in determining which clients would be eligible for direct payments and in controlling costs. This is crazy. If the ILF can make satisfactory arrangements, why not local authorities? They have a legal duty to decide who needs help and for the Government, with their fetish for privatising local authority services, to say that it would be more difficult for councils to control costs is a rich argument indeed.

The reply of 10 May continued: However, our guidance stresses the need for disabled people to be fully involved in decisions about the care which they need and points out that there is no reason why a disabled person who wants to have day-to-day management of his or her carers should not do so."—[Official Report, 10 May 1991; Vol.190, c. 608.] The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) put it very well in a letter to The Times on 9 May, when he said that, because, where help is financed by the ILF, disabled people are the employers, they are able to hire staff in whom they feel confidence. He went on to say that they can arrange the sort of day-to-day flexibility which suits both parties and, therefore, create for themselves the sort of life which, for example, allows for an unexpected whole-day visit to the Department of Health to lobby for the continuation of such arrangements. The hon. Member saw the problem as one of machinery; I see it simply as a psychological block on the part of health Ministers, which, if it is not removed, will turn all the right hon. Gentleman's promises for 1993 into hot air.

My hon. Friends and I have tabled an amendment to draw attention to a particular group of people, many of whom are now terminally ill, whose problems Ministers in both Houses have been determined to sweep under the carpet. We have done this in order to warn the Government that they will not succeed in doing so, and because the daunting problems of the people of whom I shall speak exemplify those of countless other victims of the Government's so-called social security reforms of April 1988. I refer to people with AIDS, who, as I told Ministers from this Dispatch Box yesterday, are in many cases now literally dying for want of financial help from the Department of Social Security for the special diets that they so vitally need. If the right hon. Gentleman ever finds time to talk to colleagues in the other half of Richmond house, he will learn of their growing concern about the increase of HIV infection among the heterosexual population. Their PR offensive on this issue last Friday prompts one to ask why, if they are so concerned to limit the future death toll, they show such total unconcern about deaths that are happening now because of inability to afford special diets.

In Committee, I tried to make sense of the figure in the reports of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on people who need special diets, but I received very little assistance from the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I had to complain to the Chairman that Ministers were apparently concealing vital information from the Committee. When totally out-argued, they developed a habit of referring to detailed secondary analysis from the OPCS reports. But even when I tabled a parliamentary question specifically asking for the data to be placed in the Library my request was ignored. The written answer is to be found at column 419 of the Official Report of 11 March.

I was referring to the secret data that had been mentioned in Committee. These secret data from the OPCS tapes will feature in the next debate on the amendments relating to mobility allowance, where Ministers have been floundering for years. In relation to people who need special diets, we start with the clear statement in the OPCS reports that the highest additional expenditure was associated with digestion disabilities. On the other hand, extra expenditure on food varied little between the severity categories. This last fact supports the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that many people who need a special diet will receive DLA. Of course they will, but it will be insufficient for their needs; and many others will not receive the allowance.

I think that it is worth recalling today some of the figures in various other parliamentary replies. On 21 January, I was told that a quarter of those expected to qualify for the lower rate of the self-care component—some 60,000 people in all—need a special diet".—[Official Report, 21 January 1991; Vol. 184,c. 61.] A later answer, on 20 March, revealed that, of the total of 240,000 eligible for the lower care component, only 140,000 were expected to receive that help. This shortfall of 40 per cent. is not something the right hon. Gentleman has greatly publicised. The figure of 60,000 will fall in practice to 35,000.

Also on 20 March, the right hon. Gentleman told me that Something under 500,000 people below the age of 65 said that they needed a special diet and that nearly 200,000 of the people in this group would be in receipt of at least one of the rates of the new benefit."—[Official Report, 20 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 124.] He attempted to justify the exclusion of the 300,000 by asserting that their problems were not, strictly speaking, disabilities. This is just playing with words. Their costs are just as great, and if they cannot afford the correct diets they may well soon become seriously disabled and die prematurely.

4.45 pm

This brings me back specifically to the situation of people with AIDS. I will pass over briefly the letter I quoted on Report from Mrs. Anita MacDonald, which blew out of the water all the figures Ministers had been quoting for the last two years on the cost of diets recommended to people with this condition. What it is essential to know now is how effective the social security system is in meeting their needs. The OPCS conducted its postal screening for the adult survey in March-May 1985. The Minister for Health told me on 28 March that in 1985 there were only 205 people alive with AIDS. The chances of one being included in the data were thus remote. Even one such person may well have died before interview. The OPCS data can therefore tell us nothing about the social security problem of people with AIDS in 1985–86—when additions of £30 for the cost of diets were available on supplementary benefit—let alone today, when they may qualify for nothing.

So it was an additional disappointment when, on the same day—28 March—the right hon. Gentleman dismissed out of hand the suggestion that he should conduct research into the effectiveness of the social security system in meeting the financial needs of people with AIDS. He clearly just wants to bury his head in the sand. I will stress, in case he gives the same misleading reply as he gave on Report, that I am talking not just about people who will die within six months, but about people with AIDS who are determined to live, and who need the money to buy the right kind of food to enable them to do so. Our amendment, like those from the House of Lords, is thus extremely important.

I implore the right hon. Gentleman to recognise the validity of the amendments as a whole and, even at this late stage, to reconsider his position. Caroline Glendinning, in her deeply well-informed article in the current issue of Disability, Handicap and Society, says that, despite ministerial rhetoric of 'protecting' the most 'deserving', `vulnerable' or `needy', much of this 'protection' has been illusory. She states that the Government's economic and social policies have done much to damage the quality of life for disabled people, and she concludes: The last ten years have, in policy terms, been disastrous for disabled people, involving threats to opportunities, living standards, independence and choice. Yet in response the growing strength and articulated demands of disabled people and their organisations give hope for the future. The right hon. Gentleman knows that all the organisations of and for disabled people are united in very strong criticism of the Bill's inadequacies. To look for any exception to that truth is about as worthwhile as looking for the Kohinoor diamond in a box of Smarties. I ask him to recognise the force of disabled people's criticisms and now to respond more constructively to them.

Mr. John Hannam (Exeter)

First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People for the sympathetic hearing that he has given to the arguments advanced by Members of both Houses during meetings with the all-party disablement group and throughout our debates on the independent living fund. My right hon. Friend today confirmed the importance of the fund's role and acknowledged it in his announcement of a successor body.

There is no doubt that the ILF is recognised by everyone, including Ministers, as an important cog in the wheel of provision for severely disabled people. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee, the fund is a great success not least because it has identified a real need in the community and gives disabled people the chance to exercise control over the provision made for them.

The fund filled a worrying gap which became evident in 1986, and it has proved extremely successful in enabling severely disabled people to buy in their own personal care and assistance services. For many such people, the ILF is central to independent living, and disabled people want it to be made statutory. That has been the whole gist of the argument throughout our debates.

The ILF has been administered largely by disabled people, such as the eminent Peter Large, and at present it helps more than 7,000 severely disabled people to live in the community. The average payment is about £70 per week, and the highest £400 per week. That gives some idea of the wide range of assistance that the ILF gives, and I express my thanks to all the members of the trust for their tremendous work for the ILF.

Looking to the future, we must ask ourselves to what extent social services departments, with all the diverse calls upon their funds, will be prepared to provide such levels of payment and assessment. On Monday, during health questions, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Health why local authorities were now being prevented from making individual cash payments in lieu of personal assistance. I asked that question because that problem is connected with the question of the ILF; the two are linked. If we do not have ring-fenced funding for community care and the ability to pay cash amounts, how can new severely disabled people be assured of help after 1993?

During the debate on a new clause that I tabled on Report, I said: I cannot realistically envisage that one day in April 1993 all local authorities will suddenly, magically, assess and provide individually tailored packages of care for severely disabled people in the way that payments from the ILF do." —[Official Report, 7 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 435.] Many feel that community care funding for local authorities is not yet adequate, and dread a future in which they may be forced back into institutionalised residential care after having enjoyed the basic human right of independent living. It is in that context that I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that the Government propose to continue to maintain payments to existing recipients of funds from the ILF. I am especially pleased that the new body will be able to increase the amounts if the needs of those severely disabled people increase. That is different from the principle applied in respect of the replacement social security benefit system in respect of special allowances. In that case, the allowances remained static and account was not taken of inflation. In this case, the arrangements are more flexible; allowance is being made for the possible deterioration in the condition of severely disabled people and for a consequent increase in their needs.

I remain concerned that those who become severely disabled after 1993 will be at the mercy of local authorities with varying levels of performance, and I continue to argue the case for ring-fenced funding to take account of the problem. Having said that, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will ensure that proper levels of provision are given through the care in the community system, and that will remain our main concern for the future.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his announcement today. I regard it as an achievement on the part of all those in both Houses who have campaigned on this issue and who have expressed deep concern about the sudden break that will occur when the ILF ceases to exist. We shall continue to monitor the situation carefully, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for listening to the arguments and for providing a solution today.

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

This is a remarkable debate. We have heard the Minister eulogising the independent living fund and his supporters saying how marvellous it is, yet the Government intend to kill the ILF stone dead. How on earth can any Government operate like that? If the ILF is as good as the Government make out, it is absolutely crazy to kill it, and the Minister knows full well that the reasons that he advanced for doing so were pathetically inadequate. The decision has been dictated by the political fact that the Minister cannot get sufficient money to continue the ILF. That is the basic truth about this debate.

The Minister made one of the worst speeches that I have heard from him. He boasted about how wonderfully well the ILF had done. That is fine; we accept that. But if the disabled people of the present are entitled to the kind of consideration that they receive from the ILF, the disabled people of the future should be entitled to precisely the same consideration. Why should they be second-class citizens?

The Minister talked about the ILF passing on the baton to local authorities. How can he use such euphemisms? What if local authorities drop the baton because they are butterfingered? Many local authorities are hamfisted and will drop the baton and, as a consequence, disabled people will suffer. With a great fanfare of trumpets, the Minister says, "Local authorities are preparing their plans". That sounds marvellous. They are preparing their plans, we gather, for community care for disabled people. That is wonderful. There is just one thing wrong with the statement. I have been in the House for 25 years—some would say that that is far too long, but never mind—and I remember hearing the same refrain in respect of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Ministers said, "Local authorities are preparing their plans." We all know what happened. Countless local authorities neglected their responsibilities under the Act, implementation was patchy and after 21 years it has still not been fully implemented. There is absolutely no point in the Minister telling us that local authorities are preparing their plans because we are not convinced—and we are not convinced that they will take the baton that is passed to them by the ILF either.

The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) works closely with me. I am the chairman of the all-party disablement group and he is its secretary. He works very hard. Having said that, I think that he was a trifle too diplomatic today. I suspect that the fact that the Minister praised the hon. Gentleman and mentioned the efforts of other Conservative Members while failing to refer to those of the Opposition is a sign of the impending general election. The Minister was just a trifle selective, although I do not complain about that because I know that Opposition Members are marvellous, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will tear the Government to shreds, as the Minister knows, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has already made a fine speech. However, I want to avoid party politics.

When the hon. Member for Exeter said that many people were afraid that the funding of community care was "inadequate", he was taking diplomacy to its extremes. He knows quite well that it is not merely inadequate but pathetically inadequate. Community care is neglected by local authorities, and there is no point in the Minister saying that authorities will do the kind of job currently being done by the independent living fund.

I have 5,000 points to make, but I will sit down now because many hon. Members wish to speak and I see my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), the Opposition Whip, glaring at me from the end of the Front Bench.

I believe that the Minister is making a very serious mistake in ditching the ILF and handing responsibility to local authorities. He will be there this evening, with a wad of banknotes in his pocket like a gambler, with a majority of 100 in the Division Lobby. At the end of the debate, he will have lost the argument, but he will win the vote. He is presenting us with a fait accompli.

I ask the Minister this if, as is certain, he wins the vote and gets this killing of the ILF through, will he seek legislation to enable local authorities to make cash payments? I think that the all-party disablement group would support him very strongly on that. If the local authorities can have those powers, it will go a very short way towards ameliorating—not condoning, but ameliorating—the crime that he is about to commit by killing the ILF.

5 pm

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson

I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the successor to the independent living allowance for those 7,000 people benefiting from it. It will be reassuring to them, even if it brings a shadow of a doubt into my mind as to why the Government are not entirely confident that the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 will not be able to provide for these cases from 1 April 1993. I shall be interested to hear my right hon. Friend's explanation.

The disability living allowance, which is central to the Bill, seems on the face of it to be a sensible amalgamation of attendance and mobility allowances. Where there were two benefits there will now be just one. Fewer and simpler allowances always have much to commend them, especially if they make it easier for disabled people to know what is on offer. But that gain is negatived if administrative neatness detracts from the help that was originally available, or if the funding arrangements are varied and left with a margin of doubt about their payment.

To that extent, I understand and sympathise with those organisations representing the disabled which are concerned about what will happen when the independent living fund is phased out in 1993. I know that the fund is discretionary. I know that the Government have given assurances that the local authorities will take on responsibilities for the costs of domestic assistance within their new community care duties, as set out in the National Health Service and Community Care Act. But, leaving aside the 7,000 people to whom I have already referred, who are covered by the successor structure which my right hon. Friend outlined, for the newer claimant that must depend on the funds available and the sensitivities of local authorities to what is being asked for.

As I think the House knows, I am the president of the National Federation of Kidney Patients Associations. The federation has expressed to me its concern about what will happen when the independent living fund goes. It shares my worries about how local authorities will react.

Kidney patients on dialysis at home have the cost of paying for a carer to help them with their machine and to be available while dialysis is taking place. As I have told the House before, any suggestion that the attendance allowance at the lower rate for the cost of the carer is very far from the truth. Undoubtedly, many of those who receive dialysis at home, and who are less fortunate in the amount of income that they have, have had to turn to the independent living fund for assistance to cover the cost of a carer. Therefore, they are worried about what will happen when their situation is dealt with by their local authority. Additional heating and diet, which has already been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), are costs that apply to all kidney patients who are on dialysis. Then there is the question of additional laundering requirements, particularly if a kidney patient is on CAPD—continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis.

I know that those costs do not come immediately under the amendment that we are discussing, but they are nevertheless the costs of staying alive for kidney patients and therefore have to be met from some fund or other. Once upon a time those patients could rely on the additional costs being met by supplementary benefit. Then they were turned on to income support. Now, of course, they do not get any provision built into the Bill to which they can turn for support. So they wonder what statutory provision is being made for them, other than the community care proposals, to which I have referred, when the independent living fund disappears. I understand that the federation is not alone; other charities have the same misgivings.

If I am not to consider supporting their Lordships' amendments—and, as a kidney patient, my sympathy is obviously with the federation, even though I am now freed from the iron discipline of thrice-a-week home dialysis—I shall want reassurance from my right hon. Friend that the successor to the independent living fund does not mean that his Department is doubtful about the effective start-up of financing of the National Health Service and Community Care Act when, in theory, it comes into effect in April 1993. I hope that I have drawn the wrong interpretation from his announcement this afternoon, but the very fact that he felt it necessary to give the House that reassurance raises a doubt in my mind, which I hope that he will look at.

Mr. Wigley

The point that the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) made a moment ago is well made. If the new system is to be entirely reliable for those thousands of people who will come on stream from 1993 onwards, deserving of and needing the sort of support which the independent living fund is giving at the moment to an increasing number of people, that raises the whole question of the Government's confidence and the degree to which they have worked out their strategy for 1993 onwards.

Another point about that date is the future of local government itself. We know from discussions that have gone on at other times in the Chamber that there is a question whether we shall be moving in the next three or four years to a new structure of local government, with unitary authorities. If we do, authorities that are still finding their way forward may have to deal with not only responsibilities under the legislation that we passed two years ago, but with this additional responsibility.

We have all seen in our constituencies cases concerning people who are entitled to mobility allowance. A person aged perhaps 67 or 68 who has difficulty walking and who developed that difficulty at the age of 63 or 64 gets the mobility allowance. An identical person, perhaps living next door, who did not develop that condition until he or she was 66 or 67 does not get the mobility allowance. That person does not understand why, in identical circumstances, the person next door gets the allowance and he or she does not.

We are now building up a similar structure, in which some people will be consolidated for ever more, presumably. If youngsters are getting help from the independent living fund now, they may live for another 50 years and they will have this ongoing institution, in whatever new structure it exists, to ensure that they are safeguarded from the failures and shortcomings of the alternative structure that the Government are introducing.

Is that really what the Minister is telling the House today? Is he saying that it is necessary to have this sort of structure on an ongoing basis to look after this group of people, which may build up by 1993 to be 15,000 or 20,000 strong and thereafter will taper off, over 50 years, until there are only one or two left? Is it a fact that the structure will exist for their benefit because of the Government's lack of confidence in the alternative that they are putting forward.

Mr. Scott

I sought in my reply to the hon. Member's earlier intervention to reassure him about this. I will try again, and perhaps at the same time I can address one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson).

It is not because of any lack of confidence in the arrangements for community care, but for two distinct reasons that we concluded that we needed to make continuing arrangements for the existing case load for the ILF in April 1993.

The first reason was that the local authorities would then be taking on many new responsibilities. To ask them to take over an existing caseload with whose individual needs they would, by definition, not be familiar at that point of change would be to put an excessive burden upon them. The second reason concerns a point that has been made very strongly to me in recent weeks and months. The existing recipients of money from the independent living fund are very concerned, as April 1993 approaches, about the ability of local authorities to take them on as going cases. I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is a fair-minded man, will recognise that I was seeking to meet genuine doubts and fears in the hearts and minds of existing beneficiaries of the fund.

Mr. Wigley

I welcome any assurance that has been given to those who were suffering from a feeling of insecurity as a result of the changes that have taken place. Any assurance that can be given is to be welcomed. I suspect, however, that in responding to one problem the Minister has opened Pandora's box and that a host of other problems will emerge. Surely the Minister is not saying that the new structure that will operate from April 1993, under local government control, will be incapable of taking on a going concern that has already been assessed and under which payments are being made. If the new structure is incapable of taking on that system, how will it be able to assess the 4,000 or 5,000 additional cases that will come to it each year, which until now have been dealt with by the independent living fund? I understand that the ILF will retain the responsibility for looking after those people that are on its books in June 1993, even though the nature of individuals' disabilities and needs may change.

In some instances financial needs may increase. It seems, however, that the ILF will continue to deal with them. It will monitor and assess, and in parallel with that operation there will be a similar structure doing an identical job under local authority control. Do I understand that aright?

Mr. Scott

In essence, yes. However, is the hon. Gentleman really asking me not to go down the road that I have outlined? Is he saying that whatever the case load of the ILF come April 1993, it being administered by ILF staff who know the individual cases and who have seen social workers' reports, the files should be distributed to the areas in which individual beneficiaries live and local authorities should be asked to take them on, when at the same time they are introducing their arrangements for the assessment of cases within the areas for which they are responsible? I believe that the Government have found a better way and a more reassuring approach. If the hon. Gentleman examines his conscience, I am sure that he will not advise me to take the route that he appears to be advocating.

Mr. Wigley

The Minister is saying that, in the second quarter of 1993, local authorities should not have the burden, as it were, placed upon them. It is possible that in nine, 12 or 24 months from now the local authorities will have the ground ready under their feet, and will then be in a position to cope more easily with any burden that is placed upon them. Is the Minister providing a continuing solution for the 50 years or so that beneficiaries may live beyond 1993, or is he saying that he is offering a solution that will stop individuals worrying, and that it is possible that a year or two after 1993 a unitary assessment system will be introduced that will be geared to local authorities?

I suspect that this is the tip of an iceberg. I accept that for every good motive in the world the Minister is trying to safeguard beneficiaries from a feeling of insecurity that has spread among them because of the way in which the changes to the system have unfolded, but he is introducing new problems that will have to be tackled by the next Conservative Government, or the next Labour Government. Whichever party wins the next general election, the Government who are formed will have to examine these matters in considerable depth. A basis must be established of rights and entitlements. Individuals should have the security that will come from knowing that payments will be made because of their statutory entitlements. Such rights should be built into legislation.

5.15 pm

I am not too certain whether the words that have been adopted by those in another place are the right ones, but it is clear that a significant majority of their Lordships supported the amendment. They agreed to that amendment because they were aware of the needs of the client group that we are discussing. I hope that at the very least the Government will give an assurance that they will find some way, even if not through this legislation, between now and 1993 to ensure that when the new system comes on stream everyone who has a need will know that he will have an entitlement, and that the state will ensure that it will be met and that no one will go without.

Miss Emma Nicholson

I am grateful for having the chance to speak in this important debate. I am sure that all those who have participated in it have a personal responsibility for disabled people in their constituencies. Many of us have national responsibilities and help the disabled through charitable involvement or in other ways. I am especially proud to be one of the vice presidents of the recently established Conservative disability forum, which was founded by my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). In addition, I am chairman of ADAPT—access for disabled people to arts premises today—an organisation which comes under the Ministry with responsibility for the arts, which considers applications for Government funding. I am also a member of the Select Committee on Employment, which recently produced a report on disability and employment.

My reason for referring to those organisations and to the Select Committee, and indirectly to the three Departments to which they are related, is to show the Government's commitment to the disabled, which is entire and stretches across the spectrum of the Government's work. The Government have their heart in the right place and are prepared to dip into the public purse. They encourage private initiatives in every way they can. We are led by a Prime Minister whose dedication to the disabled is surely known to everyone. One of his first actions on becoming Prime Minister was to honour an existing commitment to give awards to young deaf people. He has continued to commit himself to the cause of the disabled. That is, however, merely indicative of the attitude of his Ministers towards those who are disabled, and none is more committed than my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People.

The independent living fund was the creation of my right hon. Friend. I know that well because a couple in my constituency had a baby with devastating disabilities. There was acute hydrocephalus and non-development of the major brain stem, and the baby should have died. Shortly before the fund was announced, I discovered that the child had not qualified for any allowance at home because it was not meant to live. Under the old understanding, it would have remained in hospital until it died, fairly rapidly. By some freak, the child survived for some months. I went to my right hon. Friend the Minister and immediately thereafter the ILF was brought into play. That was triggered by his concern and his initiative.

I attempted to intervene at the beginning of the speech of the Opposition's spokesman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), because of his slight on my right hon. Friend the Minister, and because of his slight, through my right hon. Friend, on the Save The Children Fund. Monday night's event—I have no knowledge of who was there—was designed to benefit the Save The Children Fund and raised many thousands of pounds for that superb organisation, which has Government support from the Overseas Development Administration. I am ashamed of the Opposition spokesman for having slighted the effort that was made to support the Save The Children Fund, which has cared for millions of disabled children during its 70-year history.

I am concerned about those who benefit from the current independent living fund arrangements, but I do not share the Cassandra-like wails of the Opposition about the ability of local authorities to undertake responsibility for the disabled. Why not? The answer is that in the area which I represent—I invite others to have regard to their constituencies—the local authorities have already taken responsibility. The Griffiths report proposed packages of independent care for independently-minded people who happen to be disabled, and that is already happening in the Torridge and Devon, West constituency. I pay special tribute to our foremost local authority staff member in Torridgeside who deals with such cases—Mr. Ian Rice and his outstanding team, who are a jewel in Britain's crown in this work. Indeed, experts from Scandinavia have been sent to see the ways in which that team is already effecting the principles and practice enshrined in the Griffiths report, which has been part and parcel of the work of that department in Torridgeside for some years now.

I do not share the apparent disregard for the capacity of local authorities to cope properly and well, strenuously, imaginatively and sensitively with the needs of the disabled. No, I do not doubt the Government's commitment to putting the funding behind that. Let us consider the Government's track record. Since 1979, spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled has increased by 152 per cent. in real terms. Expenditure overall on recipients of help with mobility and care costs has increased by more than £5 billion in real terms since 1979 and the number of people helped as a result of this new Bill is 1.9 million, compared with 400,000 in 1979. That is no small achievement and I am confident that the Government will continue down that splendid route.

While welcoming the continuation of the independent living fund for the 8,000 people who currently benefit from it, and however much we welcomed its initiative several years ago, it could surely only be a stepping stone. Is it right and proper that we should ask for the continuation for ever of a system which makes judgments on cases from the top and not at grass roots level as the Griffiths report properly recommended. I am convinced that, although transitions are always difficult and we are quite properly fearful for the needs of those disabled people whom we care for in our constituencies or in our circle of family and friends, nevertheless, the independent living fund can only be a stepping stone because decisions should properly be made at patient level and not at the top. That is why I welcome the fine tuning arrangements outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister today.

I strenuously support my right hon. Friend's work and ask him to encourage the Secretary of State for Employment to look kindly at the proposals in paragraph 23 of the recently published report of the Select Committee on Employment that The Government should explore urgently the possibility of equal opportunities legislation for the employment of people with disabilities and report to Parliament on its potential effects and costs in the labour market. That is within his remit because the disability working allowance is already within it.

Mr. David Bellotti (Eastbourne)

The Bill does not meet the needs of the majority of disabled people in our communities who depend upon benefits. In fact, it does absolutely nothing for more than 4 million pensioners who have disabilities. The Bill will help about 300,000 of the 6.2 million people in our community who have disabilities. The extra costs that will be incurred as a result of the Bill are nothing compared with the cuts which took place in the Social Security Act 1990. Indeed, the comprehensive review of disability benefits that the Government promised had not taken place before the publication of "The Way Ahead".

People who have disabilities have many extra needs which have not been tackled in the Bill. The issues that we are discussing do nothing for them. For example, the Bill does nothing for people with disabilities who need extra heating as a result of being confined to their homes for long periods of time, or for those people who have extra dietary needs. One hon. Member mentioned the dietary needs of those who suffer from AIDS and other people have dietary needs. The Bill does nothing for people who have special transport needs—I have many such cases in my constituency—or for those with extra laundry needs.

I am surprised that the Minister should rise from the Government Benches to say that the Government's record on work for those with disabilities is good. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) cited one major Government strategy in the area of employment which was supposed to help people with disabilities. I find that amazing because the Government's employment policy for those with disabilities has led to one of the most massive cuts in funding that I have known in the 25 years that I have been working with people in the community. I refer to the massive cuts in the Government's employment and youth training programmes for people with disabilities.

Some months ago I asked a question of the Minister and the record shows that cuts have been made successively in recent years, and at the present time even more so—about 30 per cent. All the voluntary organisations in the country have got together to tell the Government that people with disabilities are not being recruited to Government training programmes. Therefore, it is misleading and scurrilous for the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West to cite that example from the Conservative Benches and she should reconsider her comments.

The independent living fund should be placed on a statutory basis. It should not be discretionary, or grace and favour, but should be available as of right. Let us suppose that from 1993 local authorities will have responsibility for their areas. I remind the Minister of the Government's record since 1979. The Government have removed from local authorities £58 billion worth of funding in real terms for local government services. With that record, it is no wonder that people working in the voluntary sector and advocates for people with disabilities do not believe that the Government will provide the resources that will be needed. As the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has said on a number of occasions, those promises are worthless without ring-fencing the sums of money available. That is certainly the case when one considers the Government's track record.

When we are told that community care packages will meet people's needs, we must ask what the Government have done to help local authorities to plan and prepare for the implementation of the community care provisions which will be in force from 1993. The Government have entered into discussions on the structure of local government and those new structures will be in place from 1994. We have the ludicrous situation in which the Government are transferring major policy areas to local government in 1993, and the promise of a reorganisation of local government in 1994, which is a recipe for chaos and disaster. However, in recent years the Government have shown that they are prepared only to pass the buck to local government without passing the resources.

Today we are concerned with people who have disabilities. They have rights and they should not be dependent upon charity. People on the independent living fund have been somewhat reassured today by the statement made, but for those who join that area of need in the future there are but empty promises.

If the Government are funding that trust well now, why do they not reallocate that sum of money and introduce ring-fencing? They should pass not just the responsibility, but the funds, to local authorities.

The amendments from the other place seek to improve a poor Bill and are concerned with those who are most seriously disabled. The community care supplement would help to meet real needs. I ask the House to support the amendments and disabled people.

5.30 pm

Mr. Tom Clarke

I agree with the response of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), much of whose speech did not seem to relate to reality. Before she leaves the Chamber, may I say that I much preferred her televised speech on St. Stephens green in support of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) during the election campaign for the Tory party leadership to the speech that she made today. The hon. Lady was also uncharacteristically ungracious in her remarks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who had only just started his speech when the hon. Lady sought to intervene. She has much to learn from him about disability and other issues.

Miss Emma Nicholson

I hope that I was not being discourteous to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) about his ability or his depth of feeling for the disabled. However, his inapposite and insensitive criticism of my right hon. Friend the Minister's support for the Save the Children Fund, which has been pre-eminent throughout this century in the care and protection of handicapped children, caused me to intervene towards the beginning of his speech, which was where he put in his poisoned dart.

Mr. Clarke

When the hon. Lady reads my right hon. Friend's speech, she will see that he did not refer to that. For some reason, the hon. Lady seems to be in a little tantrum. I hope that the Minister, the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), will give her a ticket for the Chelsea flower show so that her speeches will not be so difficult in future debates.

On a more serious point, although I am sorry to dwell on the hon. Lady's speech, I profoundly disagree with her suggestion that the Prime Minister has acted in the interests of Britain's disabled people. One of the first issues over which he presided was the shameful announcement that the remaining sections of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 would not be implemented. When we consider the independent living fund—the vital issue that is before the House today—we shall see the importance of advocacy and its relationship to any strategy for community care.

The Government's approach to the independent living fund is less about passing the baton than about passing the buck to local authorities. Our greatest worry about that relates to ring-fencing. By passing responsibilities to local authorities, the Government are not providing the vital resources that will make their decisions meaningful, which must be an enormous worry to disabled people and their carers. That aspect of Government policy worries me and the organisations of and for disabled people.

Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South)

Does my hon. Friend remember opening Wallace Court, where the Scottish Council for Spastics was operating a centre in Elderslie in my constituency? Is he aware that that centre now faces a massive annual deficit because of lack of available funding, part of which came from local authorities, which are experiencing difficulties collecting the poll tax from, among others, mentally handicapped people?

Mr. Clarke

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I remember visiting Elderslie in his constituency and the splendid provisions made for the disabled in the Strathclyde region. My hon. Friend's example underlines the fact that, as with the independent living fund, it is not enough for the Minister simply to say that he looks forward to 1993 and to give vague promises for community care, which the Government seem loth to explain. Indeed, they have not even explained why they have postponed their policies for community care—the only aspects of their legislation that many people welcomed. My hon. Friend's point stands—it is profoundly unfair to offer local authorities the prospect of making the provisions that they clearly want for disabled people but deny them the resources that are fundamental to meeting those objectives.

Despite the Minister's earlier response to me on disability income, I am still worried about the Government's thinking on cash limits. Will the Minister take this second opportunity to clarify that matter? It is not simply a case of people who do not benefit at the moment not benefiting in the future, but a question of whether the Government's policy on cash limits, which has so discredited the social fund, will apply here. As the Minister did not take the opportunity of my earlier intervention to state firmly that cash limits would not apply, will he do so when he winds up?

The central thrust of the Labour party's comments suggests that the Minister cannot come to the House yet again with a proposal—in this case the independent living fund—and present it in a vacuum. What is the Government's understanding of community care and how do those issues inter-relate? He must be more positive about what will happen in 1993 and about ring-fencing, advocacy and the future of local government. That fair point has been made by several hon. Members. I am sorry to say that, as so often in the past, the Minister has been disappointing in his failure to win battles with the Treasury. I hope that he will not be too disappointed when some of us question the proposals that he has made today.

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)

First, I wish to apologise to the House for my absence from part of the debate. Unfortunately, I was carrying out parliamentary duties elsewhere.

I support the Government's position in opposing the amendment for a number of fundamental reasons. First, the Government's record on this subject is exemplary. Although the Opposition have criticised it forcefully, 400,000 disabled people were being helped in 1979 and today 1.9 million are helped and expenditure on disabled people has increased to £5 billion. Those figures are not trivial and show the deep concern on both sides of the House for the need to help disabled people.

The major reason why we should look again at the Lord's amendment, which, on the face of it, has some credibility, is my right hon. Friend the Minister's announcement about the future of the independent living fund and his proposals to replace it. Under the system, 8,000 severely disabled people have their payments protected and will benefit considerably. That meets some of the arguments that have been put forward against the amendment.

The clause contains a disability living allowance that meets the major problems encountered by all hon. Members in their constituencies in relation to the attendance allowance and mobility allowance. I am pleased that the Government, as I understand it, will accept the changes in the mobility allowance test and we shall see the end of the walking test, which was nonsense. If someone can walk 100 yd or whatever distance, it does not mean that he can go on and on walking, certainly not without pain. I am pleased to see the back of that.

There will also be additional resources——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. We are not discussing the clause, but specific amendments. So far, the hon. Gentleman has not addressed those amendments and I hope that he will do so.

Mr. Hind

I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Lord's amendment shows that the Lords have no confidence in the system of community care to be introduced. In 1993, responsibility for caring for severely handicapped people will be placed on local authorities, through their community plans, and they will have to make individual evaluations of the needs of those in their care. That will negate the need for the community care addition to the clause as proposed in the Lords amendment. Therefore, I urge the House to set aside the amendment. The disability working allowance and the disability living allowance are great improvements, but we must view them side by side with the proposals for care in the community which, effectively, negate the need for the amendment.

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)

What the 7,000 people who currently rely on the independent living fund need more than anything else—perhaps more than the money that they receive from the fund—is security and a sense of permanence in the arrangements made in individual cases. I am glad to see Ministers nodding. I hope that between us, and in the light of the protracted proceedings on the Bill for 27 hours in this place and the other place, we shall be able to find some means of providing those 7,000 people with that permanency and security. Perhaps we failed the test in not coming up with something to meet that need.

The Lords proposed a new clause and the idea that the ILF should be found a place in statute so that it would have a long future. We all know that the deeds of the ILF, which was created in 1978, expire on 8 June 1993. If we are to believe that the ILF should be retained and found a place in statute, we must test whether the ILF has done its job.

I have attempted to read the various Committee reports, proceedings in the other place, briefings circulated by all the organisations interested in the issue, and pronouncements by eminent hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have yet to find one individual who can deny that the ILF has not only done its job well, but done it in an exemplary fashion of which all those who have worked in it should be proud. I have not heard one logical argument to show that the ILF should be wound up, that it is inefficient, a creation of socialism, a nationalised industry or wasteful of public expenditure—all the usual things that are chanted whenever a decision is made to abolish an institution.

5.45 pm

The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who was present earlier, and his colleagues on the former Social Security Select Committee pronounced, as one, that they wished to see the ILF retained. Today and on other occasions the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has spoken of the superb work of the ILF and was glad to pay tribute to it. I am pleased to associate myself with those remarks. The all-party disablement group, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and other hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber have all said that the ILF has done a remarkable job and is worthy of being retained to carry out its current functions.

That leads me to believe that there must be something else wrong with it—perhaps its shape, organisation or structure. Recently, we have heard much about the agencies being created within the social security sphere. We have heard about the contributions agency and the benefits agency. I agree with the concept that all those agencies are to be established to create a more customer-sensitive service that will deliver, be localised and responsive, and carry out the valuable functions that hon. Members believe all such organisations should have.

The ILF meets every one of those criteria and more. It disburses amounts of money ranging from £60 to £700 with great sensitivity, touch and responsiveness to those severely disabled people who require assistance. It cannot be faulted on that count. The Minister eulogised the ILF in his earlier speech, and I do not blame him, although whether it was a eulogy or an epitaph, I am not sure. The ILF deserves a eulogy, and I am more than happy to add my voice to those who congratulated the Minister on the significant part that he played in creating the ILF.

Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) was a little harsh in referring to King Herod and infanticide, but he is known for his bruising style. I would use another religious analogy—Abraham's relationship to Isaac. Almost as an act of faith, the Minister is placing the beloved child he created on an altar in which I do not believe he has faith. I do not believe that the Minister feels that it is appropriate to sacrifice that child on the old altars of public expenditure—maintaining tight budgets when dealing with those in greatest need. Perhaps the Minister does, but I do not feel that he has made a convincing case today as to why the ILF should be wound up.

There was a happy ending in the case of Abraham and Isaac. I do not want to be tested too heavily on my religious knowledge, but I understand that divine intervention occurred at the last moment. In this instance, divine intervention, or its closest equivalent, might come, not necessarily from an election but from No. 10 Downing street—from John, son of God, or son of Brian, I am not too sure which. He has shown that he is not averse to a little political opportunism to get a bit of the credit for the Government, and I welcome that. He has given money to the haeomophiliacs, an action commended by all hon. Members. We have seen a little nod in the direction of severe weather payments, and an attempt to claim perhaps greater credit than he deserved. Such a concession is welcome, and there have been a number of other cases where nice little announcements have been made to bolster the Prime Minister's image. If it means that 7,000 disabled people will receive a better deal, I for one will be the first to congratulate the Prime Minister.

Mr. Scott

I detect——

Mr. Allen

I am giving way to the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "We thought that you had finished."] I think that that was an intervention from a sedentary position. Perhaps I may continue. I am being heckled more severely by my hon. Friends than I usually am by Conservative Members.

We now appear to be proceeding towards "son of ILF". It seems that there is to be a successor body, albeit a transitional one. The Government intend to transfer the cases currently dealt with by the ILF to local authorities as far as is possible, but those that cannot be so transferred will be dealt with by the transitional body.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) pointed out, that is not so much passing the baton as passing the buck. I do not know what the transitional body will be called. Perhaps it will be the National Organisation for Transitional Arrangements, whose acronym would be "No, ta", or perhaps it will be called the Nick Scott Benevolent Fund. Whatever it is called, it will continue to administer a number of cases, although the vast majority will be transferred to local authorities. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, local authorities are not yet in a position to deliver in many of those cases. They cannot yet provide the care package needed by those who currently depend on the ILF.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) put his finger on it. We shall end up with a rolling programme —a programme that will roll a number of people out of "son of ILF" into local authority care. We have not been told how that will be done, or the basis on which people will be assessed as being capable of being transferred. That, too, will cause considerable anxiety among those who are currently entirely dependent on the ILF. They will need to know as soon as possible whether they are in the domain of the local authority, that of the ILF or that of "son of ILF".

Mr. Hind

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Allen

No. The hon. Gentleman came in late, and made a speech that may not have been entirely relevant to the amendment.

Local authorities themselves are beset by a number of problems. They will have to introduce the package amid other major structural changes. Whichever party is in power, changes may be made that will affect them directly. "Son of poll tax" will be hanging round their necks; the financial squeeze will, of course, continue. In the middle of all that, we shall be expecting authorities whose social services budgets are already under considerable stress to pick up a number of difficult cases.

I am afraid that, as the hon. Member for Exeter pointed out, local authorities may be unable to maintain a large proportion of those people. As he said, authorities may have to put many of them into accommodation that they would not normally have chosen; if the ILF payments had been maintained, those people would probably have been able to stay at home. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) rather let the cat out of the bag when she made a passing reference to private care. I do not quite know how that will fit into the equation, given the number of people who will be taken out of the domain of the ILF and, perhaps, put into private rather than local authority accommodation.

Today's announcement about the proposed transitional arrangements raises more questions than it answers. Seven thousand people look to us in this place—and will look to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People—for clarification. An election is on the way. I hope that, with the return of a Labour Government, it will be clear that the independent living fund will continue to serve the people whom, as even the Minister has admitted, it has served so well. Once he has answered some of those questions, we shall wish to divide the House.

Mr. Scott

I detect, on both sides of the House, a wish to reach an early decision on the amendments. I shall therefore sum up quickly while also addressing a number of the points that have been raised.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) either was not listening to the announcement that I made in my opening speech, or was being mischievous at the end of his. I emphasised—not only in my opening speech, but in response to a number of interventions in the speeches of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and others —my anxiety to set at rest any fears that the ILF might have about its future, given its existing caseload. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North suggested that at the point of change, and in the succeeding months and years, there might be picking and choosing in relation to which existing ILF beneficiaries would be transferred to local authorities. That suggestion is without foundation: the entire caseload will be the responsibility of the new body. There will be no question of its being shifted to local authorities.

I realise that change is never comfortable, and I am therefore not surprised that anxieties have been voiced this afternoon. It is, however, something of an irony that three hon. Members who were present when the establishment of the ILF was announced should say what they are saying now. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) expressed disappointment; the hon. Member for Caernarfon said that it was an interim step towards the privatisation of a facility; the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) saw it as an abdication of the Government's responsibilities. Those three are the most passionate defenders of the success of the fund. But I do not wish to make too much of that; I do not want to embarrass Opposition Members.

Mr. Alfred Morris

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Scott

No. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman did not give way to my hon. Friend and I want to get on. The right hon. Gentleman may be very embarrassed about what I have just said, but I see no reason to give way to him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) paid warm tribute to the trustees of the ILF, as did I. He particularly mentioned Mr. Peter Large, with whose name I would couple that of Pauline Thompson: both have played a distinguished part in the workings of the fund over the past three and a half years or so.

My hon. Friend also referred to community care and the Griffiths report. I think that decisions should indeed be made at local level. Local authorities ought to be in a position to know what is needed in the community, and also what is available; they should also be able to take steps to supply what is lacking.

I understand the point that my hon. Friend made about the difference between cash and care, and his observation about the ILF's unique attribute—its ability to pay cash to people so that they have control over their own care needs. I am anxious to ensure that, when the new arrangements come into effect, it will be possible for disabled people and their carers to exert the maximum influence and control over those arrangements. Now is the time when the consumers, as well as the providers, of care should be working to ensure that, when we reach the transition point in 1993, appropriate arrangements are in place.

The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South was on song today: he was in good voice. I was nevertheless astonished at the strength of his arguments. If I may say so, however, he was wrong to suggest that local authorities were merely being asked to prepare plans. Local authorities have a statutory duty to prepare plans, and submit them to the Department of Health; they must also show that they are able to respond to local needs.

The right hon. Gentleman was also anxious about the resources that would be available, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson). They —or, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman—may know what those resources will be; if so, the right hon. Gentleman is privy to information that is not yet available to me. We shall have to see, when April 1993 arrives, what arrangements are made for local authorities to deal with community care.

I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury welcomed the new arrangements for the administration, assessment and adjudication of DLA. I am pleased that we have been able to demedicalise those arrangements and rely much more on self-assessment. I am confident that the arrangements will work well. I am at pains to put to rest the fear of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury that people on current rates of attendance and mobility allowance will be moved to the lower rates of the mobility or care components of DLA; they will retain their present entitlements.

6 pm

The new system will be reliable and flexible and I have explained why it is essential to move to the new arrangements for community care in 1993 and to place the main responsibility on local authorities. The existing caseload should be looked after by a successor body to the ILF.

I understand the strong feelings of the hon. Member for Caernarfon—he has made this point to me more than once —about the age limit for mobility allowance and the new mobility component of DLA. I told him that it would cost almost £2 billion to abolish age limits. Not even the Labour party, if it had the opportunity, would he in a position to take that step.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) for her defence of the Government's record, which I have mentioned more than once at Question Time and on previous occasions. The Government far outstripped their predecessor in making provision for severely disabled people.

I am sorry that the Chelsea flower show entered our discussions. Not only the Labour party but "Atticus" seems capable of putting two and two together and making five.

The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) raised the scare about imposing cash limits on the independent living fund. I have already made it clear that we shall spend more on the ILF next year than this year and, as the ILF does now, the successor body will be able to make increased payment when the need arises.

Mr. Tom Clarke

The Minister used the word "scare", but I can assure him that that was not intended—it was a genuine search for knowledge. If he can assure us that there will not be cash limits, I shall be happy.

Mr. Scott

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Those who support the amendments are anxious to reinvent the complexities of the supplementary benefit system. Such a system would be unworkable in practice. A combination of our two new disability benefits at national level, providing the generality of care, and local authorities, providing individual community care for disabled people, and the protection that I have announced for the existing ILF caseload is the right package of measures to continue this important work, and I urge the House to disagree with the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 198.

Division No. 150	at 6.03 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Browne, John (Winchester)
Aitken, Jonathan	Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Alexander, Richard	Buck, Sir Antony
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Budgen, Nicholas
Amess, David	Burns, Simon
Amos, Alan	Burt, Alistair
Arbuthnot, James	Butterfill, John
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Ashby, David	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Atkins, Robert	Carrington, Matthew
Atkinson, David	Carttiss, Michael
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Cash, William
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Batiste, Spencer	Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Chapman, Sydney
Bellingham, Henry	Chope, Christopher
Bendall, Vivian	Churchill, Mr
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Benyon, W.	Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Colvin, Michael
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Conway, Derek
Body, Sir Richard	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Cope, Rt Hon John
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Cormack, Patrick
Boswell, Tim	Couchman, James
Bottomley, Peter	Cran, James
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)	Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Bowis, John	Day, Stephen
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Devlin, Tim
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Dickens, Geoffrey
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Dorrell, Stephen
Brazier, Julian	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Bright, Graham	Dover, Den
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Dunn, Bob

Durant, Sir Anthony	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Dykes, Hugh	Maclean, David
Emery, Sir Peter	McLoughlin, Patrick
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)	McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Fallon, Michael	McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Madel, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Malins, Humfrey
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey	Mans, Keith
Fishburn, John Dudley	Maples, John
Fookes, Dame Janet	Marland, Paul
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Marlow, Tony
Franks, Cecil	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Freeman, Roger	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
French, Douglas	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Gale, Roger	Mates, Michael
Gardiner, Sir George	Maude, Hon Francis
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan	Mellor, Rt Hon David
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Mills, Iain
Goodlad, Alastair	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Mitchell, Sir David
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Moate, Roger
Gorst, John	Monro, Sir Hector
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')	Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Morrison, Sir Charles
Grist, Ian	Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ground, Patrick	Moss, Malcolm
Grylls, Michael	Neale, Sir Gerrard
Hague, William	Neubert, Sir Michael
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Nicholls, Patrick
Hampson, Dr Keith	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Norris, Steve
Hayes, Jerry	Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney	Oppenheim, Phillip
Hayward, Robert	Page, Richard
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Paice, James
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)	Patnick, Irvine
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)	Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Patten, Rt Hon John
Hill, James	Pawsey, James
Hind, Kenneth	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Porter, David (Waveney)
Holt, Richard	Portillo, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Powell, William (Corby)
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Price, Sir David
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Rathbone, Tim
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Redwood, John
Hunt, Rt Hon David	Riddick, Graham
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Hunter, Andrew	Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Irvine, Michael	Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Irving, Sir Charles	Rossi, Sir Hugh
Jessel, Toby	Rost, Peter
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Rowe, Andrew
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)	Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Key, Robert	Sayeed, Jonathan
Kilfedder, James	Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)	Shaw, David (Dover)
Kirkhope, Timothy	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Knapman, Roger	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Knight, Greg (Derby North)	Shelton, Sir William
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)	Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Knox, David	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Latham, Michael	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Lee, John (Pendle)	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Speed, Keith
Lightbown, David	Speller, Tony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Squire, Robin
Lord, Michael	Stanbrook, Ivor
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
McCrindle, Sir Robert	Steen, Anthony

Stern, Michael	Waller, Gary
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)	Walters, Sir Dennis
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)	Ward, John
Stokes, Sir John	Warren, Kenneth
Sumberg, David	Watts, John
Summerson, Hugo	Wheeler, Sir John
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Whitney, Ray
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Widdecombe, Ann
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman	Wiggin, Jerry
Temple-Morris, Peter	Wilkinson, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)	Wilshire, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)	Wolfson, Mark
Thurnham, Peter	Wood, Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)	Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Tracey, Richard	Yeo, Tim
Trippier, David	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Viggers, Peter	Tellers for the Ayes:
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William	Mr. John M. Taylor and
Walden, George	Mr. Tom Sackville.

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)	Fatchett, Derek
Allen, Graham	Faulds, Andrew
Alton, David	Fearn, Ronald
Anderson, Donald	Fisher, Mark
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Flynn, Paul
Armstrong, Hilary	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Foster, Derek
Ashton, Joe	Fraser, John
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Fyfe, Maria
Barron, Kevin	Galbraith, Sam
Battle, John	Galloway, George
Beggs, Roy	Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Beith, A. J.	Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Bellotti, David	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Godman, Dr Norman A.
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Golding, Mrs Llin
Benton, Joseph	Gordon, Mildred
Bermingham, Gerald	Gould, Bryan
Blunkett, David	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Boateng, Paul	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Boyes, Roland	Hain, Peter
Bradley, Keith	Hardy, Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Harman, Ms Harriet
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Haynes, Frank
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)	Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Henderson, Doug
Buckley, George J.	Hinchliffe, David
Caborn, Richard	Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Home Robertson, John
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Hood, Jimmy
Cartwright, John	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Howells, Geraint
Clelland, David	Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Cohen, Harry	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Corbett, Robin	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Corbyn, Jeremy	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Cousins, Jim	Illsley, Eric
Crowther, Stan	Ingram, Adam
Cryer, Bob	Janner, Greville
Cummings, John	Johnston, Sir Russell
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Cunningham, Dr John	Kirkwood, Archy
Dalyell, Tam	Lambie, David
Darling, Alistair	Lamond, James
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Leadbitter, Ted
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Dewar, Donald	Litherland, Robert
Dixon, Don	Livsey, Richard
Dobson, Frank	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Duffy, A. E. P.	Loyden, Eddie
Dunnachie, Jimmy	McAllion, John
Eadie, Alexander	McCartney, Ian
Edwards, Huw	McFall, John

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)	Robertson, George
McKelvey, William	Robinson, Geoffrey
McLeish, Henry	Rogers, Allan
McMaster, Gordon	Rooker, Jeff
Madden, Max	Rooney, Terence
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Marek, Dr John	Ruddock, Joan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Salmond, Alex
Martlew, Eric	Sedgemore, Brian
Maxton, John	Sheerman, Barry
Meacher, Michael	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Meale, Alan	Short, Clare
Michael, Alun	Sillars, Jim
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Skinner, Dennis
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Morgan, Rhodri	Snape, Peter
Morley, Elliot	Soley, Clive
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)	Spearing, Nigel
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Stott, Roger
Mowlam, Marjorie	Strang, Gavin
Mullin, Chris	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Murphy, Paul	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Nellist, Dave	Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
O'Brien, William	Wallace, James
O'Hara, Edward	Walley, Joan
O'Neill, Martin	Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Parry, Robert	Wigley, Dafydd
Patchett, Terry	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Pendry, Tom	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Pike, Peter L.	Wilson, Brian
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Winnick, David
Prescott, John	Worthington, Tony
Primarolo, Dawn	Wray, Jimmy
Quin, Ms Joyce	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Radice, Giles
Randall, Stuart	Tellers for the Noes:
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn	Mr. Robert N. Wareing and
Reid, Dr John	Mr. Martyn Jones.
Richardson, Jo

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 4, line 36, at end insert— (aa) he falls within subsection (1A) below; or".

Mr. Scott

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 5 and Nos. 7 to 12 inclusive. I must inform the House that some of the amendments involve privilege.

Mr. Scott

I do not intend to weary the House by recapping at length the problems that we have had to overcome on this issue. I know that all hon. Members will accept that the problems were severe and I pay the warmest possible tribute to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for his intervention in the case, for his sympathy when I was not able to respond, and for his welcome now that we are able to do so.

We have been struggling to find a way of distinguishing the relatively restricted group of people whose mental handicap and behavioural problems are so severe that they make it effectively impossible for them to walk from the much wider group of people whose problems in walking can be overcome if they are supervised and guided by another person.

The amendments would ensure that the smaller group of severely mentally handicapped people who have severe behavioural problems will get the higher rate of the mobility component of the disability living allowance. We propose to demarcate that group by relying on entitlement to the highest rate of the care component as a filter and then directing simple questions to the professional people who will be best able to judge how severe the effects of the mental handicap are. That makes me optimistic about solving the problem.

We look forward to continuing to work closely with voluntary organisations such as Mencap and the Spastics Society which have also put much effort into helping us with the means of identifying the target group. With their assistance, I am confident that we can get the benefit to those who need it.

Mr. Alfred Morris

The Minister knows that it is totally farcical to say that I slighted him in referring to his attendance at the preview of the Chelsea flower show if, as I hope, he did attend. Indeed, I congratulated him on a contest he had won and, by implication, on both his good sense and good taste in attending the preview as I myself used to do when I was the Minister. My point was that, if it is also true that the right hon. Gentleman has been battling with the Treasury to avoid having to oppose Lords amendments tonight, that unfortunately is a contest he lost.

Naturally I very much welcome this penultimate chapter in a long-running saga which occupied us here and in Committee on many occasions before the Bill went to the Lords. A very great deal of the credit for what has been won must go to Lord Allen of Abbeydale and to Mary Holland, formerly of Mencap and now of RADAR, who fought for years through a fog of misinformation from the DSS. It was in relation to similar amendments in another place, on a previous Bill, that the OPCS data tapes first made their appearance. It was highly appropriate for my colleague and friend, Lord Carter, to say in Committee in another place that they appeared over the horizon like the United States cavalry coming to the rescue and ending up like Sherlock Holmes's dog which did not bark.

Ministers in Standing Committee assured us that they wished to make this move, but they were not content with Opposition amendments and could not work out one of their own. For some time it seemed touch and go whether any Government amendment would be tabled to the Bill.

I have called this the penultimate chapter of the saga because the chickens will not hatch until the regulations referred to in Lords amendment No. 10 are laid. Can the Minister shed any light on the contents of the draft regulations? Will he give a commitment to work closely with, in particular, Mencap and the Spastics Society?

These amendments also place in primary legislation the entitlement to mobility allowance, or the higher mobility component of the DLA, of people who are both blind and deaf. Are we to infer that previous regulations were ultra vires? As the Minister may know, the Disability Alliance, which has worked so very hard on this Bill for people with disabilities, and in assisting hon. Members on both sides of the House, states: Clearly … confusion has been caused by a legal mistake on the part of the Government. Can the Minister give any further information about take-up? Is he satisfied that the regulations are being correctly interpreted by examining doctors and adjudicators? Will he explain why the entitlement of double amputees was not also put on the face of the Bill? May we be assured that, in a year's time, his legal advisers will not have changed their minds, as they have apparently done with the deaf and blind, and seek a further amendment to the law? Might not inclusion in the Bill assist take-up?

I thank Ministers for listening finally to the insistent representations made to them, in both Houses over many years, and also to the cogent arguments of voluntary organisations. I hope that they will follow the same pattern, perhaps rather less dilatorily, in regard to some of the other extremely important issues we have raised in the debates on this Bill.

Yes, it will cost money to do so, but it will also avert human suffering. That more money is needed is demonstrated by a simple comparison that refutes every word that has been said from that side of the House about how vastly disabled people have benefited from this Government's policies. The comparison is that, while average earnings have risen by more than 20 per cent. since 1979, disability benefits have risen by only 1 per cent. That is the central truth about all the self-congratulatory comments we have heard from some Conservative Members in tonight's debate and why much more needs to be done if we are really to address humanely the unmet needs of disabled people.

Mr. Wigley

I thank the Minister for his kind remarks and even more for having at last succeeded in getting this problem sorted out. The group of mentally handicapped people who, at one stage, were deemed to be entitled and who then, for many years, after the case law, lost that entitlement will now again be entitled to the allowance. That is a matter of considerable pleasure to Mencap, to the Spastics Society and to a number of other organisations that have worked hard on the problem. I also thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for the reception that we have had on a number of occasions on which delegations have been to see them.

Can the Minister give any idea of when the provisions will come to fruition and people can apply for benefit? There are different dates for different sections, so it would be helpful if the Minister could give us an idea.

Amendment No. 7 deals with the deaf-blind. Will the Minister clarify—the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) referred to this—the position of the existing help given to deaf-blind people under the provisions introduced in April 1990? It appears that it is a question of interpretation. For those who are almost wholly deaf but who have some residual vision, there is a test of the extent of that vision. People have to say how many fingers are being held up at a distance of 1 ft. The point must be considered seriously.

Let us consider the case of a person who is wholly deaf and who is walking down a road. That person needs sufficient residual vision to see whether a car is coming. However, the fact that he or she can see four fingers at a distance of 1 ft does not mean that he or she can discern a fast-moving vehicle at a distance of 50 yd or 100 yd. In the spirit of last year's provisions, those people should be eligible for mobility allowance because they cannot get around without help. However, the interpretation may be restrictive and needs to be considered. Having said that, I am grateful that the Lords amendments were tabled and that they will help many people.

Mr. Scott

I take the point on the deaf-blind. We thought that it was entirely sensible to take the opportunity to include them within the group in primary legislation. I am conscious that the arrangements that we introduced within mobility allowance for the deaf-blind have not been working out as satisfactorily as we had hoped. We have again consulted Sense about the matter. Those who are interested in such matters will see an improvement in the take-up and many more people whom we believe would be entitled will receive the benefit.

The new benefit will come into operation in April 1992. We want the regulations to be in place well before that. As the hon. member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) knows, claimants will be able to apply for the new benefits from February next year, well in advance of the introduction of the benefits. That will make administrative sense and it will be useful for our customers to be able to benefit from the arrangements. We shall, of course, keep in the closest possible touch with Mencap and the Spastics Society in drafting the regulations. I am sure that that will be of great benefit.

Mr. Ashley

May I warmly welcome the Minister's announcement? It is an advance. I add my congratulations on the efforts of Lord Allen, Lord Carter, Mary Holland and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).

Will the Minister carefully monitor the whole proceedings to ensure that none of the mentally handicapped or deaf-blind people who are deserving will be excluded?

Mr. Scott

We shall be anxious to ensure that the regulations do the job for which they are intended. With the help of the Spastics Society and Mencap, I am sure that we can achieve that. Although I did not pay tribute to the people mentioned by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I take the opportunity to do so now.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 4, line 38, leave out from "that" to "guidance" in line 39 and insert disregarding any ability he may have to use routes which are familiar to him on his own, he cannot take advantage of the faculty out of doors without

Mr. Scott

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

Once more I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who convinced us of the need for an amendment of this sort so that our intentions were clear in the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman was, as ever, an invaluable member of the Committee which considered the Bill. I know that he wanted us to go further in some areas than we have done, but I am sure that he will recognise that the Bill will be of genuine benefit to groups such as the blind and the mentally impaired at whom the amendment is primarily aimed.

We will need to monitor closely how the law is interpreted in practice, but I think that the amendment makes as clear as possible our intentions for the lower rates of the mobility component.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 24 agreed to.

6.30 pm