House of Commons Hansard Debates for 7 Feb 1991

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) : I am pleased to speak from the Dispatch Box for the first time on this important and serious matter, and especially to support the all-party disablement group, its many eminent members who are here today, and their new clause, which follows that moved by my right hon. Friend the Member

Column 437

for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). He has done more than hold my hand over the past few days while I have been working my way into this complex Bill.

I know of the interest of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) in this issue and I concur with many of his remarks. He rightly said that the new clause would put the independent living fund on a statutory basis and, above all, safeguard the payments from that fund which are currently made to severely disabled people. Sadly, the new clause is necessary because the Government appear confused and uncertain about the future of the ILF.

4.45 pm

We all know that the deeds that created the charity--the ILF--expire on 8 June 1993. If the new clause does nothing else, I hope that it will smoke out the Government and give them the opportunity to make clear the future of the ILF and, above all, the future of those people who desperately need it or whatever takes its place. We hope that the Government will take this opportunity today.

There is great strength of feeling behind the new clause which is shown both by the fact that it is tabled by the all-party disablement group and by the presence of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and other members of the former Select Committee on Social Services who propose that the ILF should be placed on a statutory basis. I hope that the Government will listen to the bodies that speak for disabled people, to parties of all complexions and to Parliament itself which found its voice through the former Social Services Select Committee.

The fund was set up to rectify the mistakes caused by the recklessness of the Social Security Act 1986, which left many severely disabled people as losers under what was then the new income support scheme. The ILF was not a spontaneous act of generosity by the Government. It was an attempt to make good some of the damage that they wrought in their social security expenditure changes in 1986 which were implemented in 1988. Having removed an essential provision, the Government rightly sought to put that right, at least in part.

The philosophical problem facing the Government is that they appear to regard severely disabled people as a public expenditure problem. The issue will not go away. Severely disabled people will not be reshuffled and will not disappear because of the 1986 Act, the ILF, a fancy agency or whatever takes the place of the ILF. A new answer must be devised which commands all -party support, which will stick and which will be for the benefit of severely disabled people. The latest Government wheeze is to shuffle this "problem" over to local authorities under the community care policy and to hive off responsibility ever further until they can say, "This is somebody else's baby. It is not our responsibility." Whatever institutional rearrangement the Government come up with, the demand of severely disabled people for basic assistance to meet their obvious fundamental right to live independently as far as possible will reassert itself. The Government must understand that that fundamental need will not be organised away.

The ILF started with £5 million a year. As the hon. Member for Exeter said, next year it will have £62 million. Even that figure entails rejecting nearly three quarters of the applications received and restricing the original criteria

Column 438

to those who are over 16 or under 74 years old. Anyone who is not on the higher-rate attendance allowance is also disqualified. As the hon. Member for Exeter said, the ILF is threatened by its very success. That underlines the need for the fund or a successor body. Who knows what is the unmet demand from among the 6,000 disabled people in the United Kingdom? The answer to that frightens the Government and motivates their search for someone--anyone but the Government--to administer a scheme such as this. In Committee, the Minister said :

"After 1993, the generality of cases should go to local authorities. There will obviously be a need for some interim arrangement to deal with the existing load of the ILF There will have to be some transitional provision and there may be some provision for new cases. I am not able to go much further than that today".--[ Official Report, Standing Committee E, 11 December 1990 ; c. 63.]

In the two months that have elapsed since the Minister said that, perhaps he has had a chance to think about what will happen next for those with severe disability. I invite him to tell the House those thoughts.

Sir David Price (Eastleigh) : I shall be brief, being aware of the desire of hon. Members to make progress due to circumstances outside the House.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. This is a good subject on which to make one's first appearance there because the issue rightly produces harmony across the Floor of the House. I am pleased that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) referred to the report of the Social Services Committee, and, as it is clear that hon. Members present today have read it, I need say little about it. Attention was drawn to our second recommendation in the part of the report dealing with the independent living fund, which was to put it on a permanent basis. I need not rehearse the arguments, but I draw attention to our other recommendation, which was based on this quotation from the chairman of the trustees of the fund, the admirable Mrs. Winifred Tumim :

"We would agree that there is an enormous amount, a huge amount, of unmet need and a vast amount of misery which is not being attended to. As trustees, obviously, we cannot do more than administer the resources in the most equitable way we can."

All who have been involved over the years with the severely disabled know that what Mrs. Tumim said is true, so it was not surprising that our first recommendation under that part of the report stated :

"We recommend that the Independent Living Fund be provided with additional resources specifically to collect more detailed information about the characteristics of applications to and awards from the Fund, and that the Government should use this information to help plan the development of social security benefits for disabled people."

That is a reasonable recommendation. We are concerned with an evolving scene. Other reports have produced more information, and it is clear that we do not know it all. Anyone who thinks that it is a static situation and who suggests that we need only upgrade for inflation does not understand the scale of the issue with which we are trying to deal. I hope that the Minister will respond to both recommendations, which appear to command the support of the majority of the House.

Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South) : I was sorry to miss the opening speech of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), who has done much work on behalf of the

Column 439

independent living fund. The new clause is about a small group of special people who are particularly and severely disabled. Their struggle is unbelievable--in many ways, beyond the imagination of many of us.

Hon. Members will recall the contribution of Mary Greaves, the director of the Disablement Income Group. She told me that it took hours for her to prepare simply to go out to a meeting--to get dressed, bathed, leave home and get into the car--activities that we perform easily when we come to the House. As I say, the effort required by them is extraordinary and is unimaginable by able-bodied people. We should keep people such as Mary Greaves in mind as we decide whether to accept this new clause.

The Minister should remember that, by agreeing to the new clause, he would help not only the disabled but himself, because he knows, being a statistician, that he will, as a Minister, have to find much more to keep them in institutions rather than it would cost to allow them their independence.

Local authorities are not the appropriate organisations to provide the type of provision that is given by the independent living fund. Indeed, they are the last bodies to wish to undertake the task, because local authorities always provide funds for popular causes. The severely disabled are not a popular cause in that sense. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept the common sense embodied in the new clause, which would then clearly be approved by the House.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : I too support the new clause, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) for missing his speech. I was caught by the starting gun in dashing through the snow to get here. I also welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and congratulate him on his initial performance at the Dispatch Box. I hope that it was the first of many, and I am sure that we shall co- operate on cross-party lines on other issues such as that being discussed today.

The Minister heard many of the arguments in Committee and I shall not rehearse them again. I believe that in his heart he has sympathy with the direction in which we wish to go. I hope on a day such as this, when we are reminded of the importance of making provision for disabled people, that the Minister will meet the points embodied in the new clause.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : I too hope that the Minister will find a way to accept the new clause. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) that the people we are referring to are not a popular group. Although small in number, they comprise an important group who elicit public support well beyond their numbers.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott) : I welcome the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)to the Dispatch Box--in taking part in a debate rather than asking questions-- and wish him well. No man who could remove Gary Sobers twice in a fortnight from the wicket can be bereft of a certain quality. I congratulate him on that and on his succession to the Opposition Front Bench. Although in the summer we played in the same team together, whereas now

Column 440

we are condemned to be on opposing sides, I hope that the spirit that was engendered on those earlier occasions will pervade our discussions.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that in no sense do I regard the troubles of, or individuals who suffer from, severe disability as a problem. Our job, as the Government and as a legislature, is to see this as an opportunity to enable disabled people to enjoy a quality of life that has been denied their predecessors and many of them. Much has happened. I will not go over the ground that I have covered on other occasions in saying why I believe that the next 10 years will be important in terms of improving the quality of life and accessibility of disabled people to opportunities in employment, leisure and independent living that the rest of us can take for granted.

I am anxious to play my part to the greatest possible extent in bringing that about, and I know, because of the all-party Select Committee, on which the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) play an important part, that, when hon. Members discuss these issues, they do not discuss them on a partisan basis. We want genuinely to help people with disabilities. Perhaps I run some gentle danger elsewhere in Government if I say that I welcome the pressure that I am frequently put under by hon. Members in urging me to do still better.

We are discussing, in particular, the independent living fund. I take a personal interest, and some satisfaction, in the way in which the ILF has developed and expanded. I recall approaching the present Prime Minister when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury to persuade him to produce £5 million for the fund, whereas the budget this year is £62 million. It has been a great success, not least because it has identified a real need in the community and gives disabled people the chance to exercise control over the provision made for them. It ensures that they are not simply told that somebody can come at a particular time of day that suits the timetable of the social services department. Instead, choice can be exercised about the nature and extent of the care that they are given.

I should like to underline the compliment paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) to Mrs. Tumim and the other trustees of the independent living fund. I doubt whether any of them realised the extent of the work that they were undertaking when they took on the responsibility. They have carried out that work with sympathy, flexibility and imagination. I congratulate the chairman and, although it is invidious to pick out a single trustee, make a special mention of Pauline Thompson of the Disablement Income Group, who has played a most constructive role in the affairs of the independent living fund since its introduction.

5 pm

I recognise that the new clause is a device to obtain assurances about the long-term future of the independent living fund, but I am bound to say a word or two about the merits of the new clause. The most satisfactory way forward is not to put it on a statutory, regulated basis. By 1993-94, we expect that the adjudication officers in our Department will be making about 20,000 decisions a week on disability living allowance. They will thus have to be very much concerned with the regulations for that benefit.

One of the most important parts of the magic of the ILF is that trained social workers make individual visits, go in some depth into the needs of disabled people and come up

Column 441

with a package to meet those needs. However worthy our staff are in the Department of Social Security, because of the pressure under which they are working, I doubt whether they could provide such attention and sympathy to the needs of individual disabled people in the same way as the ILF provides at present.

I understand the concern of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and of other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate about the ability of local authorities to pick up those cases. I reiterate that, as the ILF has been running in recent years, I have been worried about the number of local authorities that have, in essence, been passing on cases to the ILF that should properly have been the responsibility of local authority social services departments. It has been an easy option for them to take when there are other priorities competing for their budgets.

I stand by what I said in Committee, that I believe that the vast majority of cases that, at present, are the responsibility--

Mr. Ashley : If the Minister feels unable to accept the new clause, will he give strong guidance on the fund to local authorities?

Mr. Scott : We still have two years before it is contemplated that the Griffths proposals on community care will be introduced. The vast majority of cases presently being handled by the independent living fund should then be able to be handled by local authorities. I shall draw the attention of my ministerial colleagues to the right hon. Gentleman's point about the need for guidance when that change is made, so that local authorities are conscious of their

responsibilities.

The words that I used in Committee were carefully chosen. Although I take seriously the points that have been made today about the future position of people currently being helped by the ILF and understand anxieties--many people have communicated them directly to me--now I can say only that we wish to look most closely at the proposed arrangements that will come into effect in 1993, the timetable for the transfer of cases and any transitional arrangements necessary. Without wishing to sound arrogant, I hope that, given my track record of launching the ILF and seeing its successful expansion, hon. Members will accept my assurance that I wish to be satisfied about the practical effects of the arrangements.

Mr. Allen : Although I accept that the Minister cannot give a firm date or set of organisational arrangements today, will he offer some encouragement by saying when he will make announcements so that hon. Members and people who work for disabled groups can make representations to him and work towards that proposed date?

Mr. Scott : That is difficult, because of the natural decision- making processes in Government. There must be discussion and, apart from the purse strings aspect, the arrangements will involve local government, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I want to announce, as soon as possible, the arrangements that will come into effect after 1993, not least because I know of the anxieties that many people on the ILF are feeling, and I do not wish unduly to delay that process.

Column 442

Mr. Hannam : I wish to deal more with the present than the future. My right hon. Friend is aware of the problems caused by the restricted criteria presently applied to the ILF, especially the upper age limit. I understand that the trustees were looking at the restrictive criteria. Does my right hon. Friend know whether changes could be made to make matters easier?

Mr. Scott : I met a number of the trustees of the ILF yesterday to discuss a variety of matters. During the meeting, they said that they were going to lift the restriction on the upper age eligibility for the ILF from 1 March this year. I hope that that will be seen as a positive step.

I have listened carefully to the points made by several hon. Members. I understand the anxieties and am keen to put them at rest as soon as possible. For the moment, I rest on the words that I used in Committee.

Mr. Hannam : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for summing up the debate as he has, and I hope that we shall be able to pursue the subject in another place. I beg leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Authorised representative

Claims for the following benefits may be made by an authorised representative of the claimant as provided in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986--

(a) Disability Living Allowance ; and

(b) Disability Working Allowance.'.-- [Mr. Tom Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time .

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I sense the mood of the House, so I shall be as brief as possible. I was delighted by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and to see him at the Dispatch Box. I am sure that his appointment was richly deserved.

The new clause attempts to draw the attention of the House to the fact that section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, despite its considerable merits and having been unanimously endorsed by both Houses before Royal Assent, has still not been implemented. Having looked at some of the Hansard Committee reports, I do not believe that some of the explanations we received address the merits of the strong argument in favour of representation.

If the principle being applied to disability living and working allowances is to have any meaning for some of the most disadvantaged within our society, the provision simply will not work. We shall not have the safety net that we are all supposed to endorse if section 1 of the 1986 Act does not provide appropriate representation and advocacy. That is why organisations like Mencap, MIND and Deaf Accord strongly and firmly campaign for the very thing that the new clause advocates. That is why the 40 organisations that got together under the Act Now group are demanding that we have representation and advocacy. They do so not only because it works where they

Column 443

have seen it, but because they know that the social security system will not apply to some of those most in need, which would be regrettable in the extreme.

If we cannot extend the social security system to all those who are entitled to benefit, including those with disabilities, we are denying a basic human right. Our system of social security payments, including the payments addressed by the Bill, is so complex and daunting that it is absurd to expect some of the most disabled people in our society, including the mentally handicapped and profoundly mentally handicapped, to understand it. The new clause seeks to go further than simply paying lip service, as the Government seem to do time after time, to section 1 and representation and advocacy, and it gives the House and the Government the opportunity to give those matters real meaning.

From my reading of Hansard, I understand that, in Committee, the Under- Secretary of State seemed to think that regulation 33 addressed this matter. In all candour, it does not. The Government seem to think that voluntary work is important in modern times, but none of the voluntary organisations accepts that regulation 33 is adequate. How can it be when councils such as Surrey refuse to deal with appointees, or when the Minister seemed to address all her thinking to tribunals? We want to make sure that all the assistance that we can possibly give to, for example, profoundly mentally handicapped people is given long before the time when a tribunal might even be necessary.

We address these problems in the light of all our discussions about community care. Although we might disagree about how such care is being implemented, I do not think that any hon. Member doubts that community care is about choice. If we fail to address their problems, how can we give choice to people who do not have representation and who perhaps cannot understand the system and could not possibly fill in the necessary application forms?

Fundamental to providing choice to people within community care is getting their income right. Income is important for us all. It is important to business people who can employ accountants and lawyers, and there is no reason to block opportunities for some of the most profoundly disabled people in our society. They must have the degree of representation and advocacy that the new clause would provide. Organisations such as MIND have enormous experience in this field. It has told us that the proprietors of some residential homes are exercising the advocacy and representation role, but not in the way that is in the interests of the disabled person, whose rights and needs are paramount. That is an entirely unacceptable way to administer a system of social security and to deal with people's income. This is our opportunity to correct that.

Organisations such as Deaf Accord and SENSE rightly remind us of the very few deaf-blind who benefit from our social security system. There is clear evidence that that happens because, sadly, many such people do not understand or do not have the interpreters or the advocacy that I and most of my hon. Friends believe are essential if we are to address their problems, and especially those of the deaf-blind.

I think that the House supported the principle of advocacy and representation in section 1 of the 1986 Act, because it saw the simple justice of doing that and the need for efficiency. Many people might even have thought that

Column 444

we cannot be caring and compassionate without an element of efficiency. There is an interesting programme on BBC Television tonight, just a week before the second anniversary of the sad death of Beverley Lewis. I understand that the programme will conclude that, had the representation provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 been fully implemented, that tragic story might have been avoided.

We must learn the lessons of history which time after time have been brought to our attention in the House and elsewhere. Because I believe that representation and advocacy are as important in social security as in the health service, local government services, housing and elsewhere, I invite the Minister to welcome the new clause. At this late stage, I invite the Government to endorse the principle of advocacy, which we understood had been unanimously agreed. 5.15 pm

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe) : I join in the congratulations from both sides of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box. All I can add is that so felicitous and impressive a start to his Front-Bench work came as no surprise to me. Turning to the new clause, let me say that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) did a superb service to disabled people by his work to enact, with wide all- party support, the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. His work deserved much better than the shameful dilatoriness with which the implementation of the Act has been handled by the Government. Having legislated in this field as a private Member, I am well placed to assess the importance of my hon. Friend's work. I hold him and his achievement in the very highest regard.

As we have heard, sections 1 to 3 of the Act are still unimplemented. They are fundamental to the Act's humane purposes. They affect millions of people with disabilities--physical, mental and sensory alike. They are also profoundly important to millions of carers. It really is outrageous that crucial sections of that Act are still unimplemented more than four and a half years after Royal Assent.

I ask for a statement from the Under-Secretary of State about the Government's intentions with regard to the implementation of sections 1 to 3. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West said, this is very much a Beverley Lewis amendment. It is thus of deep significance to some of the most severely disabled people in this country. I hope that we can have a positive response from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe).

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : I support the plea for a positive response. I was a sponsor of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and was delighted when it went through the House. It was three more years before we were able to get a similar Act for Northern Ireland. I understand that, as they were private Members' Bills, they did not necessarily commit the Government to expenditure. We understand some of the problems, but five years on in a Government Bill the disabled deserve the advantage of advocacy. I have heard no arguments in the House or outside among

Column 445

practitioners denying the validity of the argument that the clause should be accepted. I lend my voice to those of hon. Members urging the Government to make a positive statement.

Mr. Ashley : If a disabled person is unable to speak for himself, it is unjust to deny him or her the right to have somebody else to speak for him.

It is deplorable--I choose my words carefully--that the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act have not been implemented. Acceptance of this new clause would go some little way towards consoling my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).

Mr. Wigley : I support the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), with whom I had the pleasure of co-operating during the passage of his Bill. It is now almost five years since that Bill was enacted and many disabled people find it difficult to understand why at least the parts of that Act which we are debating have not been implemented. Points were made in Committee about cost and the Minister may be in a position tonight to give the House more information about the cost of implementing clauses 1, 2 and 3 of that Act.

But more relevant to the new clause is whether its provisions are adequately covered by any other part of the Bill. I do not believe that they are. If the Minister can persuade me otherwise, I shall be glad to hear from her. If she accepts that they are not, will she, at the very least, give an undertaking that if and when the first three sections of the 1986 Act come to full fruition there will be adequate interplay between that Act and this Bill to ensure that the full force of those provisions can be used in relation to the new benefits that will come from this Bill? That is the very minimum that we should expect by way of commitment from the Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe) : I add my congratulations to those of hon. Members on both sides of the House to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on his elevation to the Front Bench. I look forward to many confrontations and useful discussions with him in the future.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on the way in which he moved the new clause. I honour and respect the reasons that he advanced for so moving it. When it was discussed in Committee in a similar form considerable eloquence and feeling were displayed in the arguments of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).

But I have to tell the House that this addition to the Bill simply is not necessary. In doing so, I do not mean to imply any criticism of the measure that has been introduced, or to question in any way the importance of representation for people with disabilities. The Government accept completely that somebody who cannot speak for himself should be represented in the important matter of claims for benefit. But that is no reason to give the authorised representatives envisaged by section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act a specific role in relation to

Column 446

disability living allowance and disability working allowance which are the scope of this Bill. I shall advance reasons why it would be undesirable to do so.

The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) rather dismissed my statement in Committee that the matter of appointees was already satisfactorily covered by regulation 33 of the social security claims and payments regulations. The evidence that he adduced for doing so was that certain county councils, specifically Surrey, were unwilling to deal with appointees.

We are discussing claims for benefits and that is what is covered by regulation 33. The Department of Social Security, our local offices and tribunals and all those concerned in any way with claims for benefits are happy to recognise, and must under this regulation so recognise, the role of appointees. If county councils are not willing to deal with appointees in community care matters, that is not within the scope of the Bill.

I am by no means dismissing what the right hon. Gentleman says--it is important--but that is effectively a matter for community care legislation through the Department of Health and I undertake to draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. But in terms of benefits, towards which the Bill is directed, regulation 33 fully covers the disabled person's need for representation where there is an appointee. Where there is no appointee, representations are still accepted from people who are clearly acting on the claimant's behalf. There is also statutory provision for claimants to be represented at appeal tribunals. The new clause would in effect give authorised representatives the same right to make claims for disabled living allowance and disabled working allowance as appointees. It is quite unnecessary to duplicate the appointee provisions. There is, of course, no reason at all why an authorised representative should not also be an appointee and in many cases it would be sensible and desirable for one person to carry out both functions. But for that to happen, it would be necessary only for the authorised representative to apply to be an appointee in the normal way. It is not necessary to give the authorised representative a separate right to make claims.

It could be argued that authorised representatives should have an automatic right to act and not have to rely on the normal appointee provisions. I disagree, for two main reasons. First, there may be occasions when it would be better for the functions of appointee and authorised representative to be carried out by different people. It is easy to imagine, for example, a case where a person has been acting as an appointee for benefit purposes for some time, and so is well placed to look after a claim for DLA, but is unwilling or is not best equipped to take on the additional and wider responsibilities of authorised representative. At the very least, there must be flexibility to cater for that possibility. If legislation contained a presumption in favour of the authorised representative, as is proposed, there would be less flexibility and the arrangements that resulted might not be the best in the circumstances of an individual case.

Perhaps more importantly, the idea of an authorised representative is not identical to that of an appointee. A disabled person does not need to be unable to act to have an authorised representative. We have concentrated tonight on those disabled people who are unable to speak for themselves and to act on their own behalf. But there are those who are not, strictly speaking, unable to act and

Column 447

there would therefore certainly be cases where disabled people were perfectly capable of making their own claims and would not want their authorised representatives to do it for them. In that situation, it might be assumed that the authorised representative would always defer to the wishes of the disabled person and that there would be no problem, but I would not wish to rely on that assumption. In any case, it would be wrong to take away through legislation the rights of disabled people to act for themselves--an effect that hon. Members may not have intended but that could result.

I am equally sure that hon. Members were motivated not by doubts about the effectiveness of the appointee procedures, but largely by a desire to press for the implementation of the remaining sections of the 1986 Act--a matter which has been raised by several hon. Members tonight. On that point, I repeat what I said in Committee. The Department of Health has recently consulted the local authority associations about the cost of implementing the sections and hon. Members will be delighted to know that a full statement will be made in due course. Again, I remind hon. Members that the Government have implemented the majority of the provisions in the Act. Hon. Members pointed to those provisions which have not been implemented and more or less suggested that we have spent five years doing nothing. But the majority of the Act has been implemented. The new clause is not necessary, in benefit terms, to secure any new rights, because the disabled are already fully covered. If they cannot or do not want to act on their own behalf, they are already catered for.

Perhaps Opposition Members should consider not those who, because they are seeking to make a claim through another person, already have information and are on the ladder, but those who cannot speak for themselves and do not know that they can appoint someone to represent them. We have commissioned a wide survey on information and the disabled person and we look forward to studying its results with considerable care. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause.

5.30 pm

Mr. Tom Clarke : The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) was charmingly unconvincing. I do not understand how acceptance of the new clause could prevent the disabled from representing themselves if they wanted. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends who drew attention to the non-implementation of the remaining provisions of the 1986 Act.

The Minister said that most of the provisions had been introduced, but in fact only 50 per cent. of them have. The Act was structured to meet its purposes, and was intended to be implemented as a whole. It cannot have real meaning unless the disabled have the right to be heard, and unless those who require advocates or representatives also enjoy that right. Unless the Government address that vital issue, those of us who supported that legislation will continue to feel that it has not achieved its objective.

The hon. Lady dismissed the argument that some councils will not deal with appointees. That is not good enough, and even if every responsible body dealt with appointees, that would still not be enough. We want to get away from formal confrontation. That ambition should

Column 448

appeal to the Minister and to her Government. If the Government do not accept the new clause, there will be more and more tribunals and formality. More disabled people will apply for benefits to which they have a right, but they will not be allowed the assistance of an advocate or representative, as the new clause suggests.

The debate has provided an opportunity to highlight the non-implementation of important provisions in the 1986 Act. This morning's weather forecast showed that it was colder in the hon. Lady's constituency of Maidstone than in Moscow, and she did not do much to warm our hearts with her contribution. However, I shall be returning to this issue time and again, but I shall not delay the House by seeking to pursue the proposed clause, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

Introduction of disability living allowance

Mr. Alfred Morris : I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, leave out from first component' to end and insert

, a mobility component and an additional costs component'. Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments : No. 2, in page 1, line 15, leave out from to' to end of line 16 and insert one or more components'.

No. 3, in page 2, line 2, leave out from awarded' to end of line 4 and insert

more than one component is the aggregate of the appropriate weekly rates for all such components as so determined.

No. 4, in page 2, line 7, at end insert--

37ZAA. Subject to the provisions of this act, a person shall be entitled to the additional costs component of a disability living allowance for any period throughout which because of a physical or mental disability he incurs extra expenditure as a result of : (

(i) a need for extra heating ;

Next Section

Home Page