HL Deb 06 March 1992 vol 536 cc1155-6

2.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will recall debating last December four sets of regulations setting out the detailed provisions for disability living allowance and disability working allowance. The regulations before the House today make a number of minor, purely technical corrections to the disability living allowance regulations which were debated then.

I apologise to the House for bringing forward amendments to the regulations which are of a purely technical nature. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that on the ground the introduction of the new benefit is going extremely well. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)

Lord Carter

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the regulations, which are entirely technical. Before the debate commenced I told the noble Lord that I wished to ask about the position of the members of the disability appeal tribunals with an experience of or interest in disability. People in receipt of benefits are serving on such tribunals. It appears that if they do so, they are at risk of losing their benefits or may be taken as capable of work. I shall not go into detail because I have mentioned the matter to the Minister. However, I know that RADAR is most anxious about the matter.

Earl Russell

My Lords, we welcome the regulations. We agree that they are minor and technical; but we are not certain that all the changes concerned are minor in their ultimate significance. The references to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 arise from the fact that the original regulations forgot about Scotland. I am not sure that we are entitled to describe that as a minor defect. It should have been noticed. But I say that knowing that I live in a glass house because we should have noticed it too. Again, I wonder whether Westminster is the best place to consider Scottish legislation. There are other aspects of the original regulations Nos. 9 and 10 which could have been clarified. I shall not pursue them now.

I wish to raise the anxieties of the disabled, many of whom are interested in serving as panel members for appeal tribunals. It is possible that their expenses may be classified as income and make them ineligible for benefit. That would defeat the intention which we all have. Provisions exist for local authority councillors which would be satisfactory here. We hope that they can be so applied.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I repeat the apology I gave for these minor technical amendments. I also make an apology for forgetting about Scotland. I do not believe that this is the time or the place to enter into a debate on the Union other than to reaffirm that my party is committed to the Union of the two countries.

On the substantive point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble kinsman about the effect of service on disability appeal tribunals on the benefits of the disabled, we are fully committed to ensuring that disabled people play an active role in the assessment and adjudication process of DLA and the attendance allowance. That includes ensuring that, wherever possible, a member of the DAT is a disabled person.

I very much take the point made by the noble Lord and my noble kinsman. I assure them, first, that we are aware of the issues facing disabled people receiving various incapacity benefits who wish to serve on the tribunals; and, secondly, that we are actively considering—and I stress actively considering—what can be done in that area. At present I can go no further than that. However, I hope that we shall shortly be able to move forward in a way which will have the approval of the noble Lord and my noble kinsman.

On Question, Motion agreed to.