HC Deb 28 April 2004 vol 420 cc973-84

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]

6.17 pm
Mr. Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)

I rise for this Adjournment debate in the knowledge that a lot of extra time is available to me, but I will not tax the patience of the House by utilising it all.

I am not here to whinge about the Government, who have a good record on improving provision for people who are visually impaired because they are blind or partially sighted. No doubt the Minister will want to mention some of the policies that they have introduced, especially on vocational training and welfare to work.

I want to talk about a particular group of people who are receiving support that is partly, but not wholly, funded through the Minister's Department. I also want to talk about Manor House, a facility in my constituency.

I begin by quoting the 2001–02 annual review published by the Royal National Institute of the Blind. It says: Every day over 100 more people…will start to lose their sight. Imagine if it was you. How would you read books or see the latest blockbuster film? How would you get around, or go on holiday? How would you do your job? Would someone be there for you to talk to? Imagine then if you did not receive the services needed to continue with everyday life. For around 2 million people with sight problems in the UK, living with sight loss is a daily reality. In many cases, people are not getting the support and services they need. There is no immediate, comprehensive help and support should you lose your sight. Those were the words of the RNIB's chairman, Mr. Colin Low. I should like to follow them up with a further quote from the report, because it is pertinent. It tells of the experience of a Mr. David Brown, who says: I'm not going to give up something I love doing just because I can't see any longer. With the help of Manor House, I mastered cooking my favourite meal, Thai curry. Manor House is an RNIB facility that has offered services such as rehabilitation and mobility training for 60 years. The RNIB's 2001—02 report states that, in 2002, we opened a new accommodation block, so more people can attend the centre.

So this is a well established centre that, even in 2002, was having money invested in it by the RNIB for a good residential block to meet the needs of its client group. It is therefore very odd to hear that this centre of excellence is under threat. Finding out precisely what the RNIB's proposals are has proved extremely difficult. Throughout this period of uncertainty, staff at the centre have effectively been told not to speak out or to seek support, and have been reassured all along that they would be fully consulted and involved in any changes to the situation.

Manor House is a specialist employment and social rehabilitation centre for adults who have lost their sight or whose sight has deteriorated. Thy aim of the centre is to give people the skills and confidence that they need to cope independently at home, at work and outdoors. Courses are tailored to individual needs and can include assessment, work preparation, independent living skills, vocational training, job-seeking skills, low-vision training, and so on. Accommodation is available on site with 24-hour staffing.

In response to the rumours of closure and of the transfer of clients into mainstream provision, the staff at Manor House have pointed out: Residential provision is unique in the opportunities it provides to make positive changes to disrupted lives, in a short period of time. Here there is time and space to think about oneself and one's future without distractions, with important peer support, 24-hour ongoing assessment, support and opportunity to develop greater independence and skills from the outset. The building and grounds themselves ideally provide the initial stages of mobility and independence training in a quiet setting. That is vital for people to help them to get to a position from which they can go into the mainstream vocational training regime. They go on to say: The provision includes input which is always available from a range of experienced staff—the immediate and personal as opposed to the more often than not inaccessible, slow or even no solutions available in the community. For most of the clients with whom we work, be they high-achieving visually impaired adults who require a short specialist course to update their computer skills, or the person with more complex needs working through the initial rehabilitative stage, the proposed mainstream provision that is being discussed at present is not appropriate. So, early on, the staff—who work not only with the client group in which I am most interested but with other people with some degree of sight deficiency—have expressed their concern about moving some of the provision into the mainstream.

Why is specialist provision so important? Let us consider what would happen to someone who woke up tomorrow morning and found that they could not see. Their employer might sack them because they could no longer do their job. Their family might not be able to cope, and their life could begin to fall apart. The local social services might tell them that there was a 12-month waiting list for mobility training, and that it would be for only one hour a week. They would be referred to their disability employment adviser, who would suggest that they needed to learn to use the assisted technology that would enable them to continue to work, and who would also review their employment options.

Would that person feel more comfortable making those first steps in a further education college where people—often young people—move fast and thoughtlessly and the residential accommodation is far away, or would they prefer to be in a small, safe environment where they were treated as individuals with individual needs and where their skills could be monitored and nurtured so that they could enter the mainstream with confidence in their ability to survive?

Why is such a valued, and valuable, unique service closing? First, we must consider the context in which many charities and voluntary organisations operate today. There has been a shift since 1997, as many charities and voluntary organisations have been attracted by the opportunities that the Government have rightly made available through grant funding and contracts either to carry out duties that have replaced functions that the state used to provide or, more likely, to add value to that which the state is able to provide.

There is nothing wrong with that—it was a long-standing criticism of Governments that they did not use the voluntary and charitable sector enough—but, as a side effect, some charities and some voluntary organisations start to alter their original ethos, and even to shift away from their original client group, in order to access income. That is part of the context in which the problem has arisen.

Secondly, and specific to Manor House, we must consider the RNIB's financial difficulties. The RNIB has moved recently to a super-duper new headquarters in Judd street, London, and it is running a significant deficit. The view is that there is a need to consider the asset base, realise some assets and bring down that deficit.

I want to consider the matter from the taxpayers' perspective, just for a moment. Manor House is linked to a further education establishment, South Devon college, which sits on a site just out of the centre of Torquay in an area known as Torre. It has been there since the 1930s. A great deal of taxpayers' money has gone into that college and new buildings have sprung up year after year—there is always building work going on there.

In fact, millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been invested in the site, but this is a higgledy-piggledy, ramshackle college in the sense that it is not a uniform unit and that access for people with disabilities is extremely poor. Indeed, the people with disabilities are stuck up on the fifth floor of a building. In the event of a fire, they would have to go to a metal fire escape to wait to be rescued by the fire and emergency services. We hope that such a fire never occurs.

Practical problems exist, but because of how the Government operate their internal financing regimes the Learning and Skills Council is prepared to put money in for the college to move to a new greenfield site, rather than give it the money to bring things up to scratch. The college could bring itself up to scratch, but that would probably take 10 years of constant disruption. Quite rightly, the principal says that that would not make for a good learning environment. So, to access the money on offer, the college is going to move.

Manor House provides the link to vocational training. The RNIB realises that there is an issue: if it were to dispose of Manor House, what would it do about that link? It has found another college that is able to get another new stream of taxpayer's money to update its premises to deal with this client group. Money is therefore being spent on a brand new college in my constituency, and money is being spent to upgrade a college in Taunton to which some of the vocational training will be moved, while the RNIB realise an asset sale in Torquay. That does not make financial sense to the general taxpayer, because there is no joined-up or linked thinking as to how that impacts on the purse, partly because different bits of money are coming from different parts of government. That is not good value for money if considered in the round.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD)

I have some knowledge of the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes, because I was once a student at South Devon college. I am particularly interested to know whether the catchment area for a potential facility at Taunton would be anything like as useful to the area that he and I know so well, Devon. Incidentally, I very much appreciate the strong case that he is making for this group. I have glaucoma and I know how important it is for people to know that these facilities can still be available at a reasonable distance from their locality.

Mr. Sanders

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. First, this is not a battle between two colleges—South Devon college and the Somerset college of arts and technology, which I believe is known as SCAT. The catchment area does not matter, and that is where we could go down the wrong road. The client group in which I am most interested today comes from all over the United Kingdom, and it makes no odds whether the facility is in Taunton, Torquay or the north of Scotland. I want to emphasise that the battle is to keep Manor House open and to look after the people lost to the system if it closes, rather than being about the merits or demerits of one college or another.

The announcement that everyone dreaded came last month. The BBC n port said: A centre in Torquay which has helped thousands of blind and visually impaired people over several decades is to close. The Royal National Institute of the Blind's Manor House Rehabilitation Centre is being relocated to Taunton. That is not actually true. It continued: The centre specialises in helping people who have either lost their sight, or whose sight is deteriorating. RNIB director Eamonn Fetton said the move would let them expand and improve what they could offer. That is highly debateable. He said: 'What we have had in the past is a limited number of services which were seen as national, and I include Manor House in that. We are now moving towards having services in every region—that is our vision for the future. In every region we want to work in partnership with a mainstream college to provide services nearer to where people are living."' Manor House already has a partnership with a mainstream college. The report continued: The RNIB announced about 12 months ago that the Manor House centre in Middle Lincombe Road could close They blamed a lack of funding, partly caused by a drop in the amount of money being left in wills, and a falling demand for places at the centre. The Manor House has provided expertise and care for thousands of people since it opened in 1941.

The financial benefits to the RNIB appear to be twofold. Manor House is in a glorious position. It overlooks the magnificent Tor bay, which, for those who do not know, is the bit of sea that is circled by Torquay, Paignton and Brixham, which are the three towns that make up the administrative area known as Torbay. It is a prime piece of real estate, and it could well reach a price in the region of between £3 million and £3.5 million were it to be sold, subject to planning permission for, I suspect, residential apartments for the very wealthy. The RNIB would also make a revenue saving on course subsidies, to which I shall come on to refer.

In a letter to staff at Manor House, the RNIB gave the game away. Its representative wrote: I am sure that the underlying reasons for the current financial challenges at Manor House have already been explained to you but in case it is not clear the position is that the bulk of Manor House's current funding comes from Government contracts awarded by Jobcentre Plus and the Residential Training Unit. I understand that in recent years the number of referrals to Manor House under these contracts has significantly reduced. One reason for this is that referral into more local, community-based provision is increasingly preferred by Jobcentre Plus staff as well as by many of the clients themselves. That is partly true, but it is not the whole story.

The letter continues: Essentially the Government contracts, held by Manor House, are to deliver residential work preparation and residential vocational training. Both of these contracts are designed for clients who are close to applying for jobs in the open labour market. However, in recent years, we have reached a high proportion of referrals (mainly from Disability Employment Advisers) of clients who require significantly higher levels of support than the contract funding allows us to provide. We now come to the heart of the matter. Up until now we have accepted these referrals because it appears that there is no alternative referral route for such clients. In doing so, we have effectively provided an enhanced service on a financially subsidised basis and this has contributed to the financial challenges that are currently faced by Manor House. But is that not what the RNIB is for? It uses Manor House in its fundraising material. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are raised locally.

Let me say something about the local link with Manor House. There is a low vision centre there, which is open to the public. Hundreds of people from across Devon can go and try out adaptations and receive expert advice that is not available anywhere else. Indeed, people will travel from much further afield that Devon to visit the centre.

There is also a link with the local football club. Some might say that one would need to be blind to watch Torquay United play, but since the 1960s the club has set aside seats for people who are staying in the area for 12 or 13 weeks to be rehabilitated at Manor House. They can go to the ground and listen, experience the atmosphere of a football match and receive a commentary through headphones. I think that that is wonderful and that Torquay United should be applauded. I also think that it demonstrates the strong links between the community and Manor House, and the importance that is ascribed to it.

If the RNIB wants to concentrate on those who can join vocational and pre-vocational training, having moved to Taunton, it is obviously in order to have access to Government grant. Who will offer services to the pre-pre-vocational client group that Manor House currently serves? The manager of Manor House wrote to the chief executive of the RNIB to say: In the last ten years the team here have used their specialist knowledge and experience to develop a way of working that is about as up to date as you can get. Equipment is as close to current as possible. Suppliers come regularly to demonstrate the most up to date technology. The suppliers could come from anywhere in the United Kingdom. They come to Manor House, so its geographical location is clearly not a problem. The letter continues: The new accommodation block was opened in 2002 by HRH Prince Andrew and offers single en-suite study bedrooms of a very high standard. One effect of the new regulations and of what is expected is that the capacity has actually been reduced. Initially, people lived in dormitories. That is not appropriate today, so now people who are there as residents have single en suite facilities. That of course increases the costs and the subsidy that the RNIB has to put in. The letter adds: But perhaps the most important thing is the way each customer is treated. Our customers are individuals in control of their own programme and future. Staff have a genuine, professional relationship with each one and the skills to negotiate and assist in the development of truly individually tailored programmes. Both employment and rehabilitation are woven into everything we do, in many cases, without the customer really being aware of it. What they do notice is the progress they are making in a very short space of time because RNIB's subsidy has allowed us to deliver a very intensive programme. Even the RNIB chairman, Colin Low, has acknowledged in an e-mail to a member of staff that some clients may be abandoned. He says: I do appreciate that the closure of Manor House may mean that there are some potential clients whose needs we cannot meet". It is not just the RNIB's decision but the way in which it took it that has devastated staff at the centre, whose expertise and specialist rehabilitation are second to none. The vice-chairman of the Manor House governors set out that very point in a letter to the RNIB trustees. He said: No financial information has been presented to Governors…for the suggested co-location of rehabilitation training to Further Education Establishments or other shared facilities, or for the total closure of Manor House. No comparative data are to hand to demonstrate that work done through Manor House is any less cost effective than other job preparation and training work done by other RNIB establishments or organisations. No strategic analysis has been made of practical regionalisation within the RNIB's total portfolio of services that could properly test whether the Manor House site could have a sustainable future as a south-west region centre. No policy/programme is in place to meet the needs of clients who are not approaching job readiness and who require wide-ranging rehabilitation, of which Manor House, owing to its 'centre of excellence' status now receives as a large proportion of its referrals. Without these major issues being resolved, the Governors conclude that any short-term closure of Manor House would be premature and prejudicial to the welfare of a significant group of RNIB clients. A major RNIB public statement in May 2003 about downsizing stated that direct services to the blind and partially sighted would not be affected. With the last two significant financial cuts affecting Manor House, this is hardly so. I come back to the question of what the RNIB is for and why anyone should donate money to it if it can cover its costs through Government grants.

Last night, unbeknown to me—it was timely given the debate—Manor House was described by Peter White, presenter of Radio 4's "In Touch" programme, as a flagship provider for over 60 years. A campaign to save Manor House has begun. On 5 May, there will be a march from Euston station to the RNIB's lavish HQ in Judd street. An alternative business plan has been drawn up by staff at Manor House involving the sale of part of the site but retaining the recently built residential block, with clear links to the new South Devon college campus, which will, of course, comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as a new building and, it is hoped, will be open in 2005.

The RNIB estimates that Manor House generates £1 million a year in charitable donations. A third of that figure would keep the home open. The local community supports Manor House, which has strong links with the local NHS, social services, the council and local people. Those people respond to Manor House's many fundraising campaigns and raise thousands each year to help it, including at the annual "It's a Knockout" event, which I have taken part in. I got very wet.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle)

Did the hon. Gentleman win?

Mr. Sanders

No. I got soap in my eyes from the foam machine. Local firms and local societies put in teams and raised enormous sums of money for the centre.

There is a real connection, right down to the fact that people in town are used to seeing people learning to cope with the loss of sight—perhaps learning to use a stick—and can point them in the right direction when they have been allowed to wander into town from the residential centre. Geographically, the area offers every obstruction and barrier that anyone who has lost their sight could wish to learn to deal with: broken pavements, busy traffic, hillsides, complicated bus routes and all the rest of it. The centre is part of our community and we do not want it to go.

People do not give the RNIB donations to match fund Government projects. They do it to help programmes that the Government do not support and we have to ask who will support those now? If the RNIB is retreating, who will come to the rescue? I think that we know the answer, but the Government could put pressure on the RNIB to think again and delay a final decision until it has properly analysed the business plan. It is not the case that all the staff at the centre who have built up specialist expertise over many years will simply transfer to Taunton, or that Taunton will be able to deal with the client group from Torbay. It is that client group who will miss out.

I hope that this debate will help the RNIB to think again. People with impaired vision in my constituency and throughout south Devon will be the losers, and the biggest losers of all will be those who, tomorrow, next week, next month and thereafter will lose their sight without warning.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)

Is not the dearth of professionals working in rehabilitation in visual impairment a concern for the future? Does my hon. Friend share my view that the Government could also do more to provide low vision aids? He talked about the advancing technology earlier. The Government have revolutionised what is available for the deaf through digital hearing aids. Could not they do the same for this client group, taking advantage of new technology that is far superior to what was available previously?

Mr. Sanders

That is an important point. I referred to the low vision centre at Manor House, which has all the latest gadgets. Perhaps the Government could indeed do more. I know that my hon. Friend speaks as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on eye health, for which he is famed and does good work.

My late mother lost her sight and was one of the people from Devon who was able to go to the visual aid unit. Tremendous things are available to help people maintain their quality of life despite deteriorating eyesight and I cannot praise the centre enough.

Mr. Heath

The problem is that the technology is available, but at a price. Unit costs are extremely high. I spoke to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) about this yesterday, and I hope that the Minister here can also talk to her colleague about how the Government can tackle the problem so that more people have access to the technology.

Mr. Sanders

I am sure that the Minister heard my hon. Friend and will respond. I am also keen that something should be done about VAT on audio books, which are also highly valued by people with poor or no sight.

Imagine the position of someone who wakes up tomorrow, next week, next month or thereafter having lost their sight, without warning. If the centre closes, there will be no comparable facility anywhere in the world to help them. I cannot stress enough the uniqueness and excellence of the centre. It helps people to come to terms with those changed circumstances. I spoke last week to a member of staff who is convinced that there are people who might have committed suicide had it not been for the support available at the centre. They were not ready to go into vocational or pre-vocational training, but needed support to pick their lives up off the floor and come to terms with the trauma. Without that facility, receiving a white stick in the post might be all the support and help that some people get.

I conclude with a comment from a member of staff at Manor House who said: My broad view is that any future proposal that 'fixes on' Further Education as The future location for the work that has been undertaken at Manor House is flawed. I am clear that the majority of clients I sec here—and the many who are not funded to come, or even know of our existence—would be negatively affected by the culture, geography and pace of FE. There is a need for a properly funded facility—along the lines of Stoke Mandeville—for clients who have been and are devastated by sight loss.

6.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle)

May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on securing this debate? Luckily for him, we have had a little more time than might have otherwise been the case, because the main business finished slightly early, which has enabled him to set out at length— probably as fully as he would have wanted to had he had unlimited time—the points that he wanted to make on the valuable facility in his constituency.

I have also heard what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) had to say, and I recognise, too, the interest that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has in the matter. There is no doubt that those who have to deal with visual impairment are numerous and initially, particularly when sight deteriorates, have difficult problems to overcome in order to get on with their lives. Some 111,000 people of working age in Britain have difficulty in seeing as their main disability. "Difficulty in seeing", the definition used in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, covers both people who are blind and those who are partially sighted.

In addition, more than 20 per cent. of the almost 10 million disabled people in Great Britain have a disability related in some way to seeing, so there is no doubt that the impairment is prominent and difficult to deal with for those who have to do so in their lives. It is an impairment that is of great concern to the Government, and to my Department in particular, which has some responsibility for trying to enable those with visual impairment to put their lives back together, get back to work and remain in work, and partake again of life following the trauma of losing their sight or of a sudden deterioration in their ability to see. I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay on raising the issue without in any way limiting what I have to say. We, too, are concerned about the matter.

I shall say something on the particular issue of Manor House, which the hon. Gentleman set out in great detail. We are, of course, aware of the impending closure of the Royal National Institute of the Blind's residential training centre in Torquay, which it announced in its press release of 29 March. My Department intends to take every step possible, in conjunction with the RNIB, to ensure that people currently at the centre who will need to be assisted in some other way get what they need for their particular requirements. My officials will meet the RNIB about that very matter on Friday. We very much believe that we will be able to replace the courses that those people are in the middle of, and that we will be able to deal with the needs of those currently at Manor House.

Of course, this is not a matter for the Government, and the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to make it clear at the beginning of his remarks that he was not criticising the Government. It is not for the Government to tell the RNIB how it should provide its services. It is an independent charity, and we have contracts with it to provide courses for our own visually impaired clients throughout the country. The RNIB is one of many providers, and it is not for us to tell it how and where to make such provision. Our job is to provide help and assistance to visually impaired people throughout the country.

I should make it clear, however, that in addition to not being responsible for whether Manor House stays open, we were not consulted by the RNIB on the closure. There is no particular reason why it should consult us—it has no obligation to do so, and the matter is one for itself—but I should make it clear that we had no more advance knowledge of the closure than the hon. Gentleman. In fact, he probably knew more about it than I did, given that local MPs usually hear things on the grapevine a bit sooner than Whitehall does.

The RNIB acts as a contractor for Jobcentre Plus. Of course, it is not for us to guarantee or comment on the viability of particular places or courses; our job is to ensure that the services provided by our contractors offer value for money, that they provide what we expect them to provide, and that they do the job that we expect of them.

As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, there has been some discussion about changes in the type of provision, such as mainstreaming into colleges. He expressed his own views about that so far as his local area is concerned, and it has been suggested that that was a factor in the closure. Our disability employment advisers always recommend to their clients the most suitable provider, in order to deliver the most cost-effective programme to meet the individual's employment needs. It is not true that our DEAs have gone off residential training or have suddenly become positive about a different way of providing such help. In fact, a recent survey of DEAs demonstrated that they are very positive about the quality of residential training for clients, including at Manor House.

I should also make it clear that we have other centres at which such training can continue to be provided, and that we have contracts that will enable us to continue to meet the needs of those who want residential training. There is no doubt that, these days, some of our clients prefer to stay at home and perhaps do not regard residential training as their first choice; instead, they would prefer a more local service. To the extent that our DEAs are there to meet the needs of individual clients, they will of course take that point into account when recommending the type of course that is suitable for a given individual. However, we have no preference one way or the other.

It has been said—although not by the hon. Gentleman—that falling volumes and a decline in Government money might in some way be responsible for the closure. In 1997–98, we bought spaces for six residential training places at Manor House at any given time. The total spend was £48,500, give or take a few pounds. In 2002–03 there were 10 such places, and the total spend was £148,353. So although it is true that the number of places we contract for is small—of course, that always presents a certain threat to the viability of any organisation—it is not true that the number has fallen significantly. Nor has the amount of money spent by my Department at Manor House declined.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the RNIB's suggestion that it provides far more than our Department pays for. In a way, he answered the point himself, by making it clear that the Royal National Institute of the Blind has wider charitable objectives. The money that we pay to the RNIB at Manor House is not for meeting its wider charitable objectives, but for holding the residential training courses that we contract with the organisation. It may well provide more than we pay for—

It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]

Maria Eagle

Is it that late already?

The funding that we provide meets the cost of residential training, but not any of the wider charitable intentions or activities. Sometimes the work might go beyond the specification in our contracts.

Mr. Sanders

The Minister is absolutely right, but it was put to me that the contract might buy nine weeks at the centre, when the person needs 12 or 13 weeks. The additional weeks are what the RNIB is subsidising. It is perfectly possible under the contracts in force to buy nine weeks in various establishments around the country, but what about the extra weeks and the additional expertise and work necessary during those extra weeks to produce a positive outcome from Government funding?

Maria Eagle

I hear the hon. Gentleman's point, but I cannot tell him precisely how many weeks are specified in each of our various contracts or in the particular case of the RNIB. I can tell him that our contracts are intended to meet the needs of a specific individual. I am receiving information that on average nine weeks are specified, but that provision is sometimes made for a longer period. I cannot comment on individual instances, but no doubt some value is always added from a little more. In respect of our contracts, we are happy both that Manor House has done a good job and that other providers are able to do the same.

The hon. Gentleman also said that cash payments had fallen; I dealt with that when I explained that the cash spent at Manor House had not fallen. It was the RNIB that suggested that the amount of money that it received had gone down. As I explained, the number of places that we buy there is quite small and fluctuates when people do not want to take them up. We cannot force people to go there. Our spend on residential training is certainly three times what it was in 1997.

Mr. Sanders

The record will show that I did not allege that the amount of funding was going down. That makes my point. The RNIB made that allegation— obviously wrongly—to justify closure of the centre.

Maria Eagle

Yes, the hon. Gentleman was reading out what some at Manor House had said about the reasons for the closure. I was not trying to suggest that he was making the allegation; I am only trying to set the record straight by explaining that our spend there has increased.

The hon. Gentleman discussed the way in which the decision was taken and said that he and his local community were not prepared to put up with it and were undertaking various activities in order to persuade the RNIB to change its mind. All I can say is that I have heard everything that he has had to say. It is not for me to tell the RNIB what to do. As I said, my officials are to meet the RNIB on Friday, and we also meet on an ongoing basis to deal with longer-term issues of funding provision. My officials will also have heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say. I hope that he will recognise that that is about as far as I can go in that respect.

I end by saying that I am sure that the Department will continue to be able to meet the needs of people who are visually impaired. The sort of treatment and training that can be obtained at Manor House will be available at other centres around the country. We will do our absolute utmost to ensure that the people currently at Manor House will not be disadvantaged. My officials will meet RNIB representatives on Friday to make sure that that is the case, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I and the Department will continue to look closely at what the RNIB is doing. If the closure goes ahead, our aim is to make sure that the transition for constituents—of the hon. Gentleman and of other hon. Members—who are at Manor House will be as smooth as possible.

However, I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman had to say about his ongoing campaign. We will watch with interest how that develops, but I assure him that the training and help for visually impaired people that is currently offered at Manor House will still be available in other settings.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Seven o'clock.