§ 3.10 p.m.
§ BARONESS SEROTAMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether arrangements have yet been made for the Supplementary Benefits Commission to provide pocket money for patients in hospitals for the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill as they do in all other hospitals for all people who are eligible, including the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE)My Lords, I regret that, in deciding what priority to give to proposals for increased public expenditure on social security benefits, we have not yet found it possible to provide the additional resources necessary for the transfer of this function from hospital authorities.
§ BARONESS SEROTAMy Lords, in view of the fact that it is now over two years since I put down an almost identical Question, the noble Lord will not expect me to be very satisfied with that Answer. On the last occasion he indicated support, at least in principle, for the proposal I was then making, and I was very hopeful that by waiting for this period the Government would be in a position to remedy what I think most of us would regard as a gross injustice to the patients in the hospitals for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. Can the noble Lord say what this change would cost in net terms, not in gross terms, because in fact it would be a transfer of responsibility for expenditure from one side of his Department to another?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, the noble Baroness may be assured that in principle we absolutely accept that this would be the right thing to do, but we have made a number of improvements in 184 social security benefits which we have thought have a higher priority than this one. The fact is that the cost would be something like £3 million a year to make this change, and there are many other demands on scarce resources.
§ BARONESS SEROTAMy Lords, does that mean that the Government are saving £3 million from allowances which should be paid as of right to all citizens in N.H.S. hospitals, regardless of whether they are mentally ill or mentally handicapped or whether they are patients in our acute hospitals?
§ LORD ABERDARENo, my Lords, this is not a saving. These arrangements have been in practice since the early days of the National Health Service and they obtained in the days when the noble Baroness was in my position.
§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, was not one of the purposes of the Mental Health Act of, I think, 1960 that patients in mental hospitals should be treated in exactly the same way as patients in general hospitals; and should not that therefore apply to the pocket money that they get?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I agree that it is desirable and we certainly have it in mind; but it has to take its place in the queue.
§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEK; My Lords, would the noble Lord agree with me that part of the psychosomatic treatment of a patient, especially one who is mentally handicapped, is to let him feel that he has a little money of his own in his pocket? Would the noble Lord take a suggestion from me to the Treasury that if they postponed the Channel Tunnel for six months and put that £20 million in the bank they could easily raise the £3 million needed next year for the pocket money of the mental patients?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, the fact is that the hospital authorities do pay pocket money to people in psychiatric hospitals. It is not as though they are not getting anything. So far as the Channel Tunnel is concerned, that matter seems to be rather far ahead.
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, is the Minister not aware that since my noble friend first raised the matter some two 185 years ago the Government have had ample time to consider the suggestion? The Minister has said in his Answer today that these patients can take their place in order of priority. I am a past member of a hospital management committee and was associated with Sedgefield Mental Hospital where we had over 4,000 patients to be cared for. I am sorry if I am making a speech, but I am trying to get across to the Minister the seriousness of the position. Would the Minister not agree that the people concerned, having to be looked after in the way they do, ought to be put at the top of the list and not further down as he has indicated?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I have spent a great deal of time recently going round psychiatric hospitals and I can assure the noble Lord that there have been enormous improvements in them, even since the days when he was a member of a hospital management committee. It is not that we are not doing anything for the mental hospitals: we are. We have accomplished a very great deal. It is simply that this particular improvement we think has not yet got priority in front of other very desirable improvements.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, would not the noble Lord agree, on consideration, that he could perhaps regard this payment as part of the therapy? These patients have such a limited life. They are enclosed in a building without their relatives. The smallest change in their lives makes a difference to their outlook, and the very thought of being able to spend a small sum of money on sweets, or whatever it may be, would give them something to think about for days. Will the Minister not reconsider this matter?—because I think it is a piece of meanness that really is not acceptable.
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, the noble Baroness is assuming that they are not getting any money. They are getting pocket money, but it is paid by the hospital authorities instead of by the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMay I just put a supplementary? Did not the noble Lord say that this would cost £3 million and therefore these patients must take their place in the queue?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I did say that, because additional staff would be required by the Supplementary Benefits Commission and this would be in addition to a probable increased payment to each individual.