Disability Information Trust (Hansard, 16 May 2000)

§ Lord Burlison
My Lords, each year the Department of Health makes discretionary grants to support activities to help people with physical disabilities and sensory impairments, which this year totalled £2 million. Voluntary organisations submit applications, which are considered on merit as funds are limited. The Disability Information Trust has received grants for many years. This year the trust submitted three project applications: one, jointly with the Disabled Living Foundation, attracted funding of £20,000; the other two were unsuccessful.

§ Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that somewhat disappointing reply. I must declare an interest: until two years ago I was chairman of this trust based at the Mary Marlborough Lodge in Oxford. Does the Minister accept that this charity has for many years, with core funding from the Department of Health, produced invaluable publications which have been widely commended by disabled people and by those who care for them? Does he further accept that the withdrawal of core funding of some £80,000 will inevitably result in the winding-up of this trust, which provides a valuable service, and in rendering redundant its three dedicated staff?

§ Lord Burlison
My Lords, I acknowledge the role played by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in the trust and the value that the department places on its work in the past. The formula for reducing the payment on a tapering basis over the past three years was decided in 1996. This year the applications were rejected, generally, because of the high level of demand on our cash-limited funds and because there are several existing Section 64 grants to organisations which provide information about disability equipment. I agree with the noble Lord that the publications from the trust have been informative and well appreciated. However, other organisations have made similar applications to those of the trust.

§ Lord Ashley of Stoke
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that was an incredible response? Is he aware that, in less than two hours' time, the Audit Commission is coming to the All-Party Disablement Group to explain the report on the disastrous state of equipment for disabled people in Britain? The Disability Information Trust reports on disability equipment.
This is the very last time that we should be cutting finance for trusts of this kind. With the development of the Disability Discrimination Act, the implementation of that Act and the complexity of the law which disabled people and the public need to understand, the Government should be increasing information about disability rather than reducing it. Will the Government think again?

§ Lord Burlison
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that comment and I am well aware, as are noble Lords in the Chamber today, how concerned he is about the issue of contributions to the disabled. The Audit Commission report's findings confirm that these services are critically important to disabled and older people. We agree that there needs to be improvement and there also needs to be a higher profile.

§ Lord Addington
My Lords, the noble Lord has already referred to the Audit Commission's rather damning report referring to wasted money and lack of management structures. In the light of that, can the noble Lord assure us that more funding will be given to other organisations which are covering the work done by the trust and that, if they are not, they will ensure that the trust receives more fundings? There is quite clearly an absolute lack of proper information here and most disability organisations spend most of their time giving out information.

§ Lord Burlison
My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the Audit Commission report. I can say that the Government are already taking a wide range of actions to increase standards as a result of that report. Extra money is available through specific fundings such as partnerships and prevention initiatives. We recently announced a £4 million investment in 2001–02 to modernise hearing aids. We funded the Disabled Living Centres Council to produce good practice guidance on provision of community equipment 179 services. We have distributed the guidance widely in the National Health Service and social services. The Government's record in this area is very good. Indeed, by the end of their term of office they will have proved that they have successfully aided the position of those who unfortunately are in disablement positions.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, irrespective of the value of this charity, of which I am well aware, does the Minister agree with me that it is one thing for government departments to give project grants for individual items that charities undertake and it is quite another thing for them to give core grants to continue their operations in a general way, employing staff and such like? In those situations, does not the Minister agree that the charity in fact ceases to be a charity and becomes an organ of the state?

§ Lord Burlison
My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, would want me to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on that issue but I agree with the general thrust of what he had to say. At the time of the Disablement Information Trust becoming a charity in 1991 less work was being done in the field of information about disability and disability equipment. In recent years more organisations have become active in this area. All applications from voluntary organisations wishing to further this work must be considered on equal merits. Unfortunately, that is where the Disability Information Trust falls at the moment.

§ The Countess of Mar
My Lords, the Minister has frequently used the word "we" when talking about the allocation of grants. Could he tell us who "we" are?

§ Lord Burlison
My Lords, I thank the noble Countess for correcting me in that area. I can only say that my explanation of "we" is that it is the Government and the Department of Health on this occasion.

§ Earl Howe
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the service provided by the Disability Information Trust is not commercially economic—not remotely so—and that it must depend on grant funding of some nature if it is to survive? Does he not consider that this is a worthy use for taxpayers' money and will he not undertake today to reconsider his department's decision?

§ Lord Burlison
My Lords, the noble Earl refers to the Disability Information Trust surviving only if it has core funding. The decision to taper off core funding was made in 1996 under the then Secretary of State and we are now coming to a point where the core funding has indeed tapered off. It is necessary for the Disability Information Trust to consider its future which lies either on the basis of being able to apply successfully in the future for funding or, perhaps, consider other alternatives such as a merger, which might be a possibility for the future.