The Mentally Handicapped: Mobility Allowance (Hansard, 12 October 1989)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)
My Lords, following discussions with MENCAP we are looking again at the data from the OPCS disability surveys in order to refine the global estimates quoted during debates on the noble Lord's amendments to the recent Social Security Bill. The OPCS data show that there are about 140,000 severely mentally handicapped people, and the indications are that the definition adopted in his Question will include a substantially larger number of them than the 4,400 quoted in support of the amendment on mobility allowance during debates on the Bill.

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The research that was undertaken by MENCAP during the course of the Social Security Bill was accurate. We are quite confident that the number who would have benefited was a few thousand. The Government tried to reject the amendment in this place by referring to a figure of 100,000 and in the other place, 125,000. They are now saying 140,000. Can the Minister confirm that this absurd figure includes, either by action or design, a substantial number of the mentally ill—not the mentally handicapped—and those suffering from other conditions which are completely outside the definition in the Question on the Order Paper? Since we are satisfied that our original figure was correct, can the Minister say when the Government will stop playing the numbers game with the severely mentally handicapped? When will they bring forward proposals to extend the mobility allowance to a few thousand of the most severely handicapped people in society?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, obviously there were differences of opinion on the figures, as the noble Lord will know, during the passage of the Social Security Bill through this House and through another place. I have now given the figure of 140,000 severely mentally disabled. I do not think that it includes the mentally ill. I accept that the class defined by the 566 noble Lord's Question is smaller than 140,000. How much smaller is a matter for speculation. Until we have better figures I think that that speculation would be idle. However, I assure him that we expect to have more precise figures in a few weeks. I shall certainly let him have those figures as soon as we receive them.

§ Lord Allen of Abbeydale
My Lords, the figure of 140,000 is getting very near what we estimate as the total number of severely mentally handicapped people in the country as a whole. Only a tiny minority of that figure would qualify under the formula set out in the Question and in the amendment to which the Minister refers. Is he not in effect confirming that the MENCAP estimate of about 4,000 would be about right? In the village where I live, which has a population of about 10,000, the government figures would mean that there would be 25 or 26 potential applicants, whereas on the basis of local knowledge, based on a good deal of local charitable work, I should be very surprised if there were any applicants.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord may not have heard my first Answer, when I said that we now feel that there are 140,000 severely mentally handicapped people. I did not say that the group defined in the Question or the group about which the noble Lord was moving amendments to the Social Security Bill was the same group as that 140,000. I accept that it would be something smaller than 140,000, but I do not accept the MENCAP figure of 4,400.

§ Baroness Jeger
My Lords, why do the Government make arithmetic of this serious human problem? If one handicapped person needed this help he should have it. If there are 100 or 1,000, why should they be denied it simply because there are too many of them? Surely it is very important to look at the individual needs of these people rather than keep putting them through a computer somewhere, as if all that mattered was figures.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I am terribly sorry, but figures matter because costs matter a great deal. We were not clear how many people would be affected by the original amendment put forward by the noble Lord, and that would make it very difficult to estimate how much the proposal would cost.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is another important aspect of this Question? The nurses and other staff who work in the institutions looking after the mentally sick and severely mentally handicapped think that some of the terms of reference need to be examined, in particular regarding legal status, if they have this very difficult job.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's question. However, it is somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper, which concerns the numbers which are in dispute between the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and his colleagues and Her Majesty's Government.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, during the debate on the amendment related to this Question we were told that there would be a report and firm figures published very soon. Can my noble friend tell us whether there is any news of the immediate publication of those exact figures?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I can assure my noble friend, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that we expect to have some figures within a matter of weeks. I shall certainly make them available to my noble friend as well as to the noble Lord.

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, I have just made a quick calculation. Is the Minister aware that the absurdity of the Government's new figure of 140,000 is illustrated by this fact? If the Government's figures are correct, there are in excess of 23,000 people in London alone who are severely mentally handicapped and in need of physical control and assistance. Does he agree that this figure is not only an insult to the intelligence of Parliament but plain daft?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, no, I do not. As the noble Lord knows, that figure—which includes all the severely mentally handicapped—was based on the OPCS data, which is the most recent and comprehensive information ever collected on the practical effects of disability.