HL Deb 09 November 1988 vol 501 cc626-32

3.12 p.m.

Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Integration of Disabled People (13th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 77).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like at the outset to thank my colleagues on the sub-committee for their co-operation in what proved to be a not very straightforward inquiry. I also thank our witnesses. some of whom were quite severely disabled; it must have been a considerable strain for them to come and give evidence to the sub-committee. We are indeed most grateful to them.

Behind the somewhat cool and detached prose of this report, there lie some deep human problems affecting the lives of many of our less fortunate citizens. It so happens that we are coming to the end of a Session in which the fortunes of the disabled in this country have been rather mixed. The Minister will be able to point, among other things, to the recent uprating exercise and the concession on the Housing Bill. Conversely, we have seen the rejection of a proposal which would have improved the prospects of the disabled being employed by contractors to local authorities.

We have experienced great delays over the implementation of the 1986 disabled persons Act and, indeed, the Griffiths Report. We have seen a not very satisfactory cobbling together of a non-statutory fund to try and plug one of the gaps left in the social security legislation and during the passage of the poll tax Bill there was the sad reversal of a decision taken by this House on behalf of the poor and the disabled. Now, as the Session draws to a close, we embark today on discussing what is possibly the European Commission's first approach to social policy in its rather narrow sense.

The subject on which the Treaty of Rome is silent and on which there must be some doubts about vires is touched upon in our report. The approach by the Commission has been a somewhat halting one, as I shall seek to show. It is an approach which lumps together the blind, the deaf, the crippled, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped under one general heading. However, leaving all that aside, and while I do not think there is any problem here for the Government about the Community enlarging its jurisdiction and encroaching cn national responsibilities, it is an approach which in a modest way raises questions of what kind of Community we are heading for and what kind of social provision we wish to see provided in that Community.

I turn to the report itself. It is a substantial and somewhat complicated document but at some risk of oversimplifying I shall try to pick out what I think are the main issues. The Community's first action programme for the disabled was a four-year programme which should have run out at the end of last year but, in the event, was extended for some months into the early part of 1988. It concentrated on vocational aspects. In addition to some beefing-up of existing Community enterprises—in particular the network of rehabilitation centres—it introduced two new elements. The first—the kind of flagship of the programme—was a network of 19 local projects designed to pioneer ways of promoting the vocational opportunities for the disabled. The second was the development of a project for making information available to the disabled; first, on technical aids and, subsequently, over a wider field. This piece of information technology came to be blessed with the name of "Handynet"—a word to which your Lordships will, I fear, have to become accustomed as the debate proceeds.

The issue to which our report is addressed is the proposal that this first programme should be followed by a second action programme, again for four years but this time embracing not only vocational aspects but also, for the first time, social integration and independent living; phrases which are not all that easy to define. Again there were proposals for local projects and for the development of Handynet and it is to these two proposals that I propose to devote the remainder of my remarks.

I first refer to the local projects. To assess the new proposals we obviously needed to look at how this part of the first programme had worked out. Out of the total of 19 projects two were in this country—one in Lambeth and one in West Berkshire. There was a central liaison committee in Brussels and a national advisory committee here under the chairmanship of the DHSS, as it then was.

The two English schemes were considerably different from each other. Berkshire concentrated on vocational training for employment of the disabled in the field of information technology. Lambeth was more ambitious and sought to enable the disabled to take part in the decision-making processes, both of the project itself and of the local authority. As far as we could ascertain, both projects were reasonably successful and I should like to pay tribute to the help given by the Manpower Services Commission, as it then was, both to the projects and to the inquiry conducted by the sub-committee. I fear it is not possible to hand out bouquets of quite the same size to the Commission or to the DHSS.

The part of the Brussels directorate concerned is staffed by devoted and highly intelligent people but there is only a tiny number of them and their resources are very limited. It is not altogether surprising that they never managed to make it clear what was expected of the individual schemes. We formed the view that they did not do enough to consult interested bodies before arranging for the setting up of the schemes or during their operation. One touch of genius was to arrange for a seminar for those concerned to be held in an hotel which turned out to have no facilities for the disabled.

The Commission's representatives agreed that the liaison committee in Brussels had not been a success and though it arranged for the appointment of assessors it did not give them much guidance as to how to set about evaluating the projects. For its part I fear that the DHSS failed to put any life into the national advisory committee here with the result that the two schemes received precious little help. The committee failed also to take any steps to give publicity to these two schemes—we soon learned that the members of the sub-committee were not alone in never having heard of them—or to see that what lessons were learned were widely disseminated.

We were also told that the department looked to an assessor appointed from Brunel to tell it what his judgment was on the success of the schemes whereas that same assessor told us that the department had approved his plan of campaign which specifically excluded making any such judgment.

How successful would be the second programme, we wondered, in overcoming these difficulties. This second programme was adopted by the council in April of this year at about the time that we were polishing off our report. It was christened the Helios programme. As I understand it, the individual schemes to be helped this time are not necessarily to be new schemes like those of Lambeth and Berkshire, but existing arrangements which may benefit from some boosting. We did not dissent from this approach but it will be interesting to learn from the Minister how matters are working out. As I understand it, applications have been sought for three projects in this country with what is described as an innovative approach to vocational rehabilitation and training and, this time, for four projects with a similar approach to social integration and independent living. The hope was to select the successful applicants in early October. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that this proved to be possible.

I believe that the training commission also sought applications for new rehabilitation centres; and there is a slightly mysterious proposition, falling outside the Helios programme for two projects to promote the integration of handicapped children into ordinary schools. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how all this stands and whether it is proposed to publish a list of the successful applicants. Perhaps the Minister can also say whether the voluntary bodies, the employers and trade unions, are this time to be represented on a new liaison group in Brussels. Most important of all, I ask whether on this round the Government will themselves put more effort into helping and guiding these local projects; spreading the results of any lessons that are learned and, in short, getting value for money.

There is one additional point affecting Northern Ireland as regards these schemes and of which I gave notice to the Minister. However, the noble Lord, Lord Blease, will be speaking about it and so I need not pursue the matter further. Instead I shall turn much more briefly to Handynet. Here the concept is that of a central computerised unit which, by linking up with national databases and by building in a multilingual translation, will make information available throughout the Community relevant to the needs of disabled people. A number of areas will be covered in the plans; namely, access to buildings and to transport; aids and equipment; education; employment; and so on. If it were in operation and if, for example, one needed a special type of wheelchair one could get particulars of all the available types within the Community—there are a great many of them—with details of the after service provided. There may be the incidental advantage that the best products might then achieve rather longer production runs than they do now, and become cheaper.

If one were travelling to, say, Italy or Portugal, one could find out in advance what facilities were available on the aircraft and at the airport instead of being left to discover what they amounted to by bitter experience, as I know that three Members of this House have had to do. If one were posted to a service job in Germany or one's firm sent one to live in France, one could learn what facilities were available for the education, training and employment of one's handicapped children. But attractive though this prospect is, it is obviously quite elaborate and expensive and going well beyond the four years of the Helios programme, without any indication at present of where the necessary money would come from.

The United Kingdom Government have said in a pragmatic way that they will go along with an initial experiment called Handyaids, limited to technical aids and equipment, and that it would be best to wait and see how that works out. We on the sub-committee thought that that was a perfectly reasonable approach. However, we are aware that there is a good deal of experimentation going on, and perhaps the Minister can tell us how matters stand and whether I am right in thinking that there has been a successful test. Perhaps he can also say what are the prospects of a comprehensive UK database and of that base being compatible with similar bases in other member states.

There are many other aspects that I have not touched upon, but I have been talking quite long enough. I believe that there is an increasing, if a somewhat faltering, awareness of the needs of the disabled in this country. We now have some fresh information about the numbers of the disabled, and among other recent additions to knowledge about the problems of the physically disabled, the recent report of the Prince of Wales's advisory group on disability deserves special mention.

In conclusion, let me say this. One thing that stood out from our evidence was that even the experts did not know a great deal of what was going on in Europe. They were very much better informed about the United States of America and Scandinavia. Equally, there was a widely-held feeling that we should know more and that there are matters that we can learn from others and also show to others. If we are to be full and active members of the Community with extensive free movement, there should be a greater awareness and a greater pooling of experience in these matters. Although I have tried to show that the approach of the Community in Brussels has hitherto been somewhat halting and although the reaction of this country in the past has perhaps not been all that it might have been, there is a real issue here about the future of the Community in its approach to social issues and about the kind of Community we want. It is no bad thing to be reminded of what we ought to do in this country about the disabled. These are the reasons why we thought it right to put forward the report for debate in the House today. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Integration of Disabled People (13th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 77).—(Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)

3.30 p.m.

Baroness Cox

My Lords, I must reluctantly start with an apology. Due to a longstanding commitment to be speaker at a nurses' graduation ceremony this evening, I am afraid that I must leave by six o'clock. If I have to miss the final stages of the debate I apologise most profusely. I shall read the proceedings with great interest.

Perhaps I may express very deep appreciation, which I am sure is shared by all members of the committee, of our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. We valued the masterly way in which he elicited so much important evidence and helped to shape it into a degree of coherence. This enabled us to draw the conclusions which form the substance of the report and of today's debate. This was no mean achievement, given the fact, as the report points out on page 8, that, the background to the enquiry embarked upon by the Committee was not only complicated but also somewhat confused and it took some effort on the part of the Committee to clarify the main issues". I quote that masterly piece of tactful official understatement in order to highlight the difficulties we faced. They included confusion over definitions. paucity of comparitive data from other European countries and a lack of measurable outcomes from the evaluation of local projects in this country.

However, offsetting these problems, we were greatly helped, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, by the informative and often very moving evidence of witnesses, many with direct experience of various disabilities and also many with front-line experience of attempts to promote the social and economic integration of disabled people into the wider society.

Such witnesses gave many examples of good practices which merit recognition. As the noble Lord said, we believe that it would be very beneficial if information about these achievements were more widely disseminated throughout the Community. I should like to take this opportunity therefore to highlight one area where considerable progress has been made. The subject has already been touched upon, but I should like to develop it. I refer to the ideas and practices concerning independent living.

I wish to concentrate on this area because it is so important. Opportunities for independent living can do much to enhance the quality of life of disabled people, enabling many to live in the community who in previous times would almost certainly have been admitted to a residential institution. Independent living is also a challenge both to the disabled person and to those who care for him or her; and it may be fraught with risks for all concerned.

Before addressing the benefits and problems of policies designed to promote independent living, it is necessary to define the term. And here we immediately run into an illustration of one of the problems I mentioned earlier—the lack of a clear definition. The report, in paragraph 81 on page 18, points out: The Committee welcome the identification in the Second Action Programme of independent living as the overall aim of the Commission's initiatives. But they were surprised to learn that the Commission had not defined what it meant by independent living in the context of the many different types and degrees of disability. From the evidence they received it is clear that witnesses employed the term in different senses usually applicable only to one discrete group of disabled people". This confusion over definition may lead to problems in the development of policies. We therefore urge that clarification of definition must be a priority. However, all definitions relating to groups of disabled people seem to include two essential criteria: first, an appropriate degree of autonomy for disabled people to control important aspects of their lives; and secondly, the availability of genuine choice.

The committee was not in favour of developing policy guidelines. However, we believe in the value of sharing ideas and information on good practice. One example from this country which we felt might be of interest to other countries is the use of volunteer workers to provide personal care in independent living schemes. This care is often given by volunteer workers on a one-to-one basis with the volunteers living in the homes of disabled people and providing intimate round-the-clock personal care. Without this help a disabled person might be obliged to leave home and be admitted to a residential institution. The organisation which has done so much to pioneer and promote these schemes is now famous for its work. I refer to the Community Service Volunteers, best known by its CSV initials.

Such work is clearly to be commended both for its highly beneficial effects in promoting independent living and for the opportunities it provides for the volunteers themselves to give this valuable form of service. However, precisely because the schemes draw on the generosity and goodwill of volunteers, many of whom are relatively young—often schooleavers—we believe that great care should be taken to ensure that they are adequately prepared for the demanding work they will undertake. We believe that they should be appropriately placed and adequately supported and supervised. The committee expressed concern, for example, that volunteers should receive adequate training in lifting techniques in order to help them to avoid back injuries. I know a number of young people who have gone to work in the homes of disabled people but who have not been given preparation before going. That is a dangerous position in which to place young people. They could injure their backs and give themselves a consequent disadvantage for life.

We believe also that there should be continuing emotional support for the volunteers as they confront situations which must at times be harrowing. It is also suggested that the successful completion of a period of service as a CSV worker should attract recognised credits which could be taken into account should the volunteer subsquently apply to join a caring profession. Perhaps I may add a question. It does not appear in the committee's report; it has occurred to me subsequently. Will my noble friend the Minister consider the possibility of some arrangement whereby the experience of a volunteer could be combined with some educational input and count towards a qualification recognised by the NCVQ?

I know several young people who have served with CSV. I know a little about the quality of their work, the contribution they make, the enhancement of the quality of life of the disabled people for whom they have cared, and the enormous demands made on them. The fall in the number of schooleavers inevitably means there will be a problem in continuing to recruit the same numbers of young people into this kind of voluntary work which requires such total commitment. Therefore, if anything could be done to recognise and reward the value of their work, it would not only be well deserved but also desirable as a way of helping to encourage more recruits.

I should like to conclude on this note of appreciation of the work of CSV and other voluntary workers. They are an inspiration to us all. We talk a great deal now about community care. I have often expressed my reservations concerning this concept, with the premise that the community does care. I have voiced my concerns about the danger of neglect and the isolation of many vulnerable people who are least able to help and assert themselves. The wider issues of community care are the subject of a debate for another day. Suffice it to say today that among the more encouraging aspects of our work was evidence of the dedication of so many people in voluntary organisations of many kinds whose vision, commitment and hard work have done so much to help disabled people to be more fully integrated into the wider society and thereby to contribute to it.

It has been well said that a country is judged by the quality of care it provides for its most vulnerable citizens. I believe that as a nation we owe a great debt of gratitude to the countless volunteers who give so generously of themselves to help those in need, and thereby make our country a more humane and civilised place. They are an inspiration and an example; they make me feel very humble.