§ Sir George Youngasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many disabled people are currently in receipt of supplementary benefit; and what were the comparable figures for 1966 and 1971.
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisI regret the information is not available.
§ Sir George Youngasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that different categories of disabled people receive assistance according to their needs.
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisI replied to a Question from the hon. Gentleman on cash provision for disabled people on Thursday 9th December.
In respect of services for the disabled, there is still much to be done to achieve a satisfactory level of assistance. I am glad to be able to say, however, that there has been substantial and, in many localities, highly commendable further progress in implementing the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.
Verification of the figures for the number of households assisted under Section 2 in 1976 is not yet complete, but the provisional number is 300,000. This is an increase of nearly 30 per cent. over the previous year. Progress made in identifying and registering disabled people under Section I of the Act was no less substantial. Including blind, partially sighted, deaf and hard of hearing people, the provisional total for all registers at 31st March 1976 was some 854,000. This represents an increase of some 88,000 over the previous year thus reflecting the importance given by authorities to an on-going programme of identification as the first step in providing assistance according to need.
§ Mr. Clemitsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he intends to take to ensure that any reduction in the rate support grant does not first affect the services for the severely disabled.
379W
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisIt is intended to issue a joint circular on the rate support grant settlement 1977–78 containing,inter alia, broad guidance on priorities for the local authority personal social services. In current economic circumstances, we believe the general strategy should be to protect field and domiciliary services at the expense of the scale and standard of institutional care.
A different balance of provision may be necessary in order to meet the needs of mentally ill and mentally handicapped people. The development of a more effective pattern of community care, not least in the fields of mental illness and mental handicap, will be assisted by the use of resources available through joint financing arrangements.
In planning their own spending, we expect that local authorities will want to act as humanely as possible in the provision they make for the severely disabled.