Organisation "Network" (Hansard, 31 July 1978)

§ Mr. Alfred Morris

The correspondence I have had copied to me is set out below.

1. Text of the letter dated June from NETWORK to all hon. and right hon. Members: We enclose a copy of our drafting of a new Bill to amend Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970 115W which we have drafted at the request of the All Party Disablement Group and which we believe they are to sponsor in the Commons. We do hope that the many disabled and handicapped people in your constituency may be able to count on your support for this Bill when it is read in the House, so that not only will the 'muddied waters' (to quote the Ombudsman's pronouncement on the legality of Section 2 as it now stands) be cleared for local authorities to interpret Parliament's will, but that the courts will be able to allow the Chronically Sick and Disabled the right to obtain that which the Act has given local authorities a duty to supply (ie Wyatt v London Borough of Hillingdon in the High Court and Appeal Court). NETWORK is a unique law and advisory centre for the disabled and their families comprising a number of solicitors and barristers and other counsellors, some of them disabled themselves. All the members work on an entirely voluntary basis and in 2½ years have advised and represented well over 1000 disabled people and parents of handicapped children. We would be happy to let you have any further information you may require about this organisation or supply you with any one of the bulletins we publish on areas of law and disability, and equally, should you wish to visit our Centre on a Thursday evening, we would be delighted to see you. In the meantime we thank you for reading this letter and hope for your support for the redrafting in the House.

2. Text of the letter of 5th July to the Chairman of Network from my hon. Friend, the Member for Chorley: I am writing to you about your circular letter to MPs, dated June, enclosing the draft of a new Bill to amend Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which you have sent to all Members of Parliament. I am not at this stage commenting on the matter of a new Bill which you raise, but there is one very important point that I must make immediately. The Ombudsman's reference to 'muddied waters'—to which you refer in the first paragraph of your letter—arose out of a report he sent me two years ago in connection with a Surrey case which I had raised with him. The phrase had no connection whatever with, to quote the words of your letter, the 'legality of Section 2 as it now stands'. On the contrary, it referred to a sentence in an inter-departmental Circular (the DHSS number was Circular 12/70) of 17th August 1970, which was issued by the then Conservative Government shortly after the Act received the Royal Assent. The offending sentence read: 'Criteria of need are matters for the authorities to determine in the light of resources'. Although it is probably fair to say that the meaning of this is not entirely clear in the light of the paragraph in the Circular that precedes it, Alf Morris was very concerned about the interpretation that might be placed upon it, as he had received legal advice that 116W a local authority could not plead lack of money as a reason for failing to meet need under Section 2. And he has, to my knowledge, made this legal advice repeatedly clear to local authorities. No Authority should now be unaware of the legal position regarding the duty of a local authority to assess the needs of a disabled person and, where satisfied of a need, to make arrangements to meet it. I should add that, in referring to the phrase in his report, the Ombudsman said: "And an internal minutes they (i.e. the DHSS) recognise that by mentioning "resources" in their circular they might have "muddied the waters". In other words, the phrase was not even the Ombudsman's own but the Department's. He concluded his report by saying: "the Department have themselves realised that the wording of their circular of 17 August 1970 could have led to some misunderstanding. But they have since made clear publicly in Parliament (and in correspondence with various bodies and with Members of Parliament) the mandatory nature of Section 2 of the 1970 Act". In the circumstances and in the interests of the disabled, it is very important that you should now set the record straight by explaining, in a further circular letter to all who received your June letter, that no such stricture as your letter alleges was passed by the Ombudsman on the legality of the Alf Morris Act. I am sending an urgent copy of this letter to Alf Morris.

3. Text of the letter of 10th July from the Chairman of NETWORK to my hon. Friend, the Member for Chorley: Thank you for your letter of the 6th July and your comments on our use of the phrase "muddied waters". I do apologise if I have misunderstood the precise context in which this phrase was used by both the DHSS in their circular and later by the Ombudsman Sir Idwal Pugh. However, the incorrect interpretation which we put on that phrase in no way alters the fact that after you had so kindly allowed us to use the Ombudsman's statement as our Bulletin No. 10 and after statements made by Ministers that it was the will of Parliament that Section 2 should be legally enforceable, our experience in the case of Wyatt v. the London Borough of Hillingdon was that in the High Court the judge stated that a disabled person has no rights in law in that Section and the Appeal Court judges upheld that decision. I would be happy to circulate the above comments together with a photocopy of your letter to the MPs to whom we sent our circular, but as this centre is not funded and the Sergeant at Arms will not allow us to deliver letters to the House, we would find it extremely difficult to finance another circular immediately. I would therefore ask whether in the light of this reply you would consider it absolutely necessary. It would be a pleasure for either one of our barristers or myself to meet you and 117W discuss this matter further at your convenience.

4. Text of reply to NETWORK from my hon. Friend, the Member for Chorley: Thank you for your letter of 10th July. I appreciate your problem in circulating the correction and feel the best course will be for me to try to bring out the facts by means of a Parliamentary Question. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to co-operate, but feel sure he will at least want to try.