Disabled Persons Act 1986: Implementation (Hansard, 9 July 1987)

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale)
My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for the disabled plans to meet the local authority associations shortly to review progress on discussions now taking place on the implementation of the outstanding sections of the Act.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that brief statement and I am glad that he is talking to the local authorities. Is he also going to have consultations with the voluntary organisations, which feel very strongly that they have hardly been consulted at all?
Is the Minister aware that there really is very deep concern among the organisations representing disabled people that such a vitally important 734 Bill—probably the most important since the 1970 Act, known as the Alf Morris Act—has led to such little action, if any, by the Government? Were we not assured by the Government that Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, dealing with disabled school-leavers, would come into operation when they left at the end of this present term? How can the Government justify their failure to take action on a Bill which was so warmly welcomed in both Houses and on all sides?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I am aware that this Act came up through the channel, as it were, of the voluntary bodies. I am also aware that on Second Reading, both in this House and in another place, the Government made it clear that those sections of the Act which have significant resource implications would be implemented only when the necessary funds could be made available. The major consultation must be between central and local government, particularly on costs and implementation arrangements. However, I understand that my honourable friend the Minister for the disabled intends to write shortly to the steering committee established by the interested disability organisations to discuss implementation.

§ Lord Kilmarnock
My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us a little more about the resource implications? Surely, the only requirement in Sections 5 and 6 is that local education authorities should collect certain information and pass it on to their own social services departments to see whether young people leaving school or further education require further service in the community. That does not seem fantastically complicated or expensive. Will he say what the implications are?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has put his finger squarely on the point. It is that the local authorities have changed their minds on this issue. We are now advised that the additional costs arising from the implementation of Sections 5 and 6 would be about £30 million to £50 million a year. There would be a further £20 million in respect of Section 7. If the whole Act were brought into effect, it is now estimated that by the time it was fully operative, it would cost some £150 million a year.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the mentally handicapped form the largest single group of disabled people? Will he confirm that Mencap will be kept informed of the consultations as they proceed and given further opportunities to make representations?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I say to my noble friend that I am sure that he is absolutely right about the numbers, but I am afraid that I cannot confirm them. I am already committed to discussions and to telling Mencap what is going on with regard to this issue as a result of a conference which my noble friend and I attended about a fortnight ago.

§ Lord Mottistone
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship is also informed about what is going on?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I am not sure that I can write letters to particular organisations, but I have said that there will be discussions through the steering committee. I have given a particular commitment on the subject of MENCAP to my noble friend.

§ Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, does the Minister know of any health district which has discharged long-stay patients without full assessment, and does he agree with me that if that is happening it spells disaster?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, no, I most certainly do not know of any health district or region which has discharged patients from long-stay hospitals into the community without making certain that satisfactory arrangements are made in the community. If the noble Baroness or any other Member of your Lordships' House would like to give me evidence, I shall certainly look into the matter because I regard it as a most serious point.

Lord Winstanley
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is damaging to the prestige of Parliament if a Bill debated at great length in both Houses, finally receives Royal Assent and then nothing appears to happen to the beneficiaries under the Act? Is it not unfortunate that this nearly always happens in relation to the disabled or the mentally handicapped?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, if a Bill receives Royal Assent under false pretences, then I would agree with the noble Lord. But, on this occasion, it was made clear that there were resource implicatons. I do not therefore think that false pretences apply.

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, do I understand from the Minister's answers that disabled children who leave school this year will not be subject to the Act's provisions and that another year of their lives will be wasted? On the question of resources, how does he justify expenditure of; £164 million on advertising and fees for the privatisation of British Gas—and we learn this week from the National Audit Commission that £40 million of that was wasted—when the total cost of the implementation of this Act is £150 million?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, my honourable friend the then Minister said that he would like that part of the Act to become operative by this summer for school-leavers. I have explained about the discussions with local authorities, and why that has proved to be impracticable. I suggest that the point about different blocks of money is a different question.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, when could a Bill recieve Royal Assent under false pretences? I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that this Bill was an example of that. Can he give us an example?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, no, I could not give the House an example of that. I was pointing out that this Act was not an example.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, with the greatest respect to the Minister, does he understand that I find his replies 736 to questions from myself and from other noble Lords grossly unsatisfactory? Does he understand that I am aware that this Act—because it has resource implications—needs to be implemented stage by stage? At present, not even stage one has been introduced. When he talks about resource implications, what sort of priority is set on the needs of disabled people, be they represented by MENCAP, MIND or RADAR? Why does the emphasis in terms of resources go to those who are upwardly mobile as opposed to those who are often immobile?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I do not believe that that is true, knowing, as I do, that we abolished the invalidity trap benefiting over 50,000 disabled people and that we increased spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled by about 75 per cent., after allowing for inflation, to nearly £6 billion. I can go on and on. I do not think that the noble Lord has a case.

§ Lord Banks
My Lords, the noble Lord spoke about the implementation of the Act depending upon the availability of funds. Can he give any indication what funds are available at present for the implementation of part of the Act?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, we are in the middle of a financial year. Beyond saying that, I should not like to make any prognosis.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, when the Bill was going through the House, the Government must have assumed that some money was going to be spent on it, even if it now proves to be more than was expected. Could not that money be allocated now?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, as I understand the position, it was deemed extremely unlikely that the Act would be implemented immediately.

§ Lord Diamond
My Lords, I do not understand that answer, and I expect that other noble Lords have the same difficulty. Is it not the case that every Bill has on it a notification of the resources involved, and that Parliament is fully aware of that at the time the Bill is passed? Is the Minister telling us that the Government allowed a Bill to go through in the full knowledge that they did not have the resources to carry out the will of Parliament?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I can only repeat, as I think I have done twice so far during this Question Time, what my noble friend the then Minister said in another place on Second Reading of this Bill: that it would be implemented when resources were found.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is normal for those who wish to get things into a legislative vehicle, such as an Act of Parliament when it is available, to do so in the knowledge, and with the agreement of the Government, that the measure will not be implemented until funds are available, and that what is being pointed out is not an extraordinary matter?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. With regard to a public Bill he is absolutely right. This was a Private Member's Bill, as the noble Lord will confirm. Therefore the situation, although analogous, is perhaps slightly different.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, is it not unfair to suggest that the significance attached to a Private Member's Bill is different from that attached to a government measure? If the measure is passed by Parliament surely it has the same authority of Parliament.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, yes, but that is a totally different matter. I was saying that my noble friend was absolutely right but that this was not a public Bill. That was the only point I made.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, it is well known in the House that Mr. Alfred Morris, the sponsor of this Bill, had been working hard over a long period of years to get this Bill on to the statute book. Eventually the Bill became law without the opposition but with the approval of the Government of the day. In these circumstances, and in view of the importance of this Bill and of the fact that years have gone by since it became law, will the noble Lord (with whom we sympathise in the difficulties confronting him now in the House) give an undertaking that he will speak seriously to his right honourable friend to see whether some move can be made to enable a certain sum to be available for what is in the view of the entire House one of the best possible causes?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, my right honourable friend is already seized of this point. If it is the demand of the House, I shall "re-seize" him.

§ Lord Henderson of Brompton
My Lords, may I give the Minister an opportunity to make a correction in something which he no doubt inadvertently said? if I heard him correctly he said that the Bill under discussion was a private Bill, whereas it is a Private Member's Bill. If he agrees that that is the case, does he also agree that, as it is a public Bill, it has the same status a government Bill? The only difference is that is has been introduced by a private Member. There is just as much obligation on government to implement the provisions of Private Member's Bill as there is to implement a government Bill?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I rather think that the noble Lord, with all his experience, is trying to tie me into knots, and indeed has succeeded in doing so. However, I am well aware of the feeling on this matter. Both Private Members' Bills and government Bills—if that is the right expression—are sometimes delayed in their implementation while resources are found to implement them. This is such a case.

§ Lord Kilmarnock
My Lords, it is right to put on record that the Bill was originally introduced by Mr. Tom Clarke in another place and not by Mr. Alfred Morris, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said inadvertently.