Disability Benefits: Effect of Judgment (Hansard, 10 June 1997)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)
My Lords, since the commissioner's decision of 14th October 1994 the Department of Social Security has requested additional information from customers claiming attendance allowance or the care component of disability living allowance about their social activities. That information has been taken into account when making decisions on entitlement and subsequent payments. The decision of this House in its judicial capacity delivered on 21st May confirmed the need for that action.

§ Lord Ashley of Stoke
My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Does my noble friend agree that that 834 landmark judgment entitles disabled people, for the first time, to seek social security to enable them to live their lives as normally as possible? That is in striking contrast to the previous position where they simply received necessities for their existence. However, the judgment will be of little help if people do not know about it. Why cannot my noble friend and the Government inform those disabled people on the lower rate of the disability living allowance so that they are aware of the vital importance to them of the judgment?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, we believe that people in the situation of Rebecca Halliday are, broadly speaking, known to us and are now claiming benefit. The House will recall that Rebecca Halliday was on the old attendance allowance which did not have the lower rate that was introduced with DLA. Once DLA was introduced in 1992 future claimants were entitled to the lower rate and therefore would already be within the system, unlike Rebecca Halliday at the start of her claim. Secondly, since the commissioner's decision in October 1994, this information has been collected. As a result of the court decision of December 1996 the 3,000 or so people in the system whose cases were similar to Rebecca Halliday's case have had their claims met in full. However, having said that, my noble friend Lord Ashley is right to remind us that there may well be people already known to the Benefits Agency who would benefit from the outcome of this case but have not already done so. We have a responsibility within what is called the LEAP framework—the legal entitlement and administrative practice framework—to consider the question of entitlement, a responsibility we take very seriously, and we are doing so.

§ Lord Marsh
My Lords, does the Minister accept that at first sight to lay people the implications of this judgment financially could be massive in general application? If we have misunderstood, can she say so, and can she give any indication otherwise of what the potential cost could be?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I had hoped that I had to some extent addressed that question in my previous answer. There were 3,000 people in the pipeline, if I may use that rather ugly phrase, who were in a similar situation to Rebecca Halliday. Paying the arrears on their cases has come to some £3 million. We do not expect there to be a huge number of additional people, partly because they are already in the system and partly because Rebecca Halliday's situation arose before DLA was introduced. Now that there is DLA and its lower rate of benefit, which was not available when Rebecca Halliday took up her case—she was on the old attendance allowance—we do not believe there are very many people still in the pipeline for this judgment. At the moment we believe that the numbers are in the order of about 3,000. There may be others. The cost so far is about £3 million and we are not expecting it to rise very much above that. That is our understanding at the moment.

§ Lord Rix
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the mobility and attendance allowances have been of the 835 greatest possible help to disabled people since their introduction? Have the Government any plans to encourage their take-up in the months and years ahead to enable people with disabilities to take their rightful place in society?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I am pleased to confirm from my personal knowledge that that is indeed the case. I am fully aware of the importance disabled people attach to these benefits in meeting the extra costs of their disability. DLA will account for nearly £8 billion of the Department of Social Security's expenditure this year and more than 3 million people will be receiving help under DLA and attendance allowance. The noble Lord raised the question of take-up. Disabled people can get help with claiming these benefits from many sources such as disability organisations and the CABs. Most importantly, they can access, as I hope they will do, the Benefits Agency's free inquiry line—I shall give the number so that it goes into Hansard—on 0800 88 22 00 for information, advice and help with their claim forms.

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the generous £8 billion paid in DLA and attendance allowance is as a result of the policies of the previous Government? Do I take it from her reply that she does not believe that the judges have actually gone beyond the original policy intent? If judges do decide to go beyond the original policy intent, is it incumbent on them to think about where the money is to come from? Lastly, what cuts will she make elsewhere in the social security budget in order to accommodate what I have to tell her will be a great deal more than £3 million of extra expenditure?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I am happy to pay tribute to the previous Administration for introducing DLA and attendance allowance. It was well judged and they should take the credit for it. However, the result of court cases can sometimes mean that the purpose of any benefit—I do not just mean this one—can be drawn wider than Parliament originally intended. If that is the case, that has to be reviewed and, if necessary, refocused.

§ Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
My Lords, as we have time, perhaps I may come back and say that if, as a result of the review, the Government decide they ought to amend the legislation to bring it back into the form Parliament intended, the noble Baroness will have the support of this side of the House.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I did not suggest that we were going to refocus this benefit. However, as the noble Lord will recall from our previous exchange on the matter, we are in the autumn moving into a major strategic review of all benefits, including disability benefits. I am sure that questions such as these and the extent to which benefits meet the 836 needs of disabled people will be taken into consideration. At that point I shall most certainly welcome the support of the noble Lord.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, can the Minister assure us that when disabled people ring 0800 88 22 00 there will be a person at the end of the line and not a disembodied voice telling them to ring somewhere else?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I have to confess to the House that I have not used the inquiry line number. I shall go out and use the line and see for myself.

§ Lord Ashley of Stoke
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while I appreciate the tone and content of her reply, my information is different from hers? I am told that a considerable number of people are not receiving the higher benefit. They should be seeking it but they do not know about it. There are financial implications—the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, was right to refer to this point—as the difference is between £13 a week and £33 a week. If large numbers are involved there will be severe financial implications for the Government. But the law is the law. The House of Lords has now pronounced that this new interpretation of the law should stand. Therefore, these people should be paid.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, my noble friend is right. Under the legal entitlement and administrative practice framework we have an obligation to review cases known to us. We shall certainly be doing that.