House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 May 1991

Column 518

been given to developing a runway denial weapon with a stand-off capability? That specific point was made by the hon. Member for Wyre. When asked about the matter earlier, the Minister said that the question was premature. That is a word to which I shall return later. I hope that we shall have at least some initial response, because the matter is important.

I am sure that all hon. Members present agree that, within financial constraints, the RAF should be allowed to keep pace with technological change. Many developments seem to point the way to the future in the light of the practical experience of the Gulf war. It is also important that the RAF has available to it a broad range of options in addition to low flying. It should not run the risk of being a one-club golfer. For those reasons, we urge a reappraisal of the degree to which we rely on low flying.

As several hon. Members have said, although the Gulf and other out-of-area operations are important, by definition they are supplementary to the prime function of the Government and the defence structure--the defence of the United Kingdom. I wish to raise three matters that give rise to considerable anxiety and which several hon. Members have mentioned this evening. The first is the Tornado F3 and its replacement. It has become apparent that the main threat which the F3 was originally designed to combat--the heavy bomber--is in the process of being supplanted. In those circumstances, a more agile and manoeuvrable aircraft is required.

Perhaps just as worrying are the rumours that the F3 has already developed airframe fatigue problems. That matter was raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood. Perhaps the Minister will confirm or deny those rumours. Whether they are true or not, the new circumstances point even more directly and urgently to the need to bring the European fighter aircraft into service as soon as possible. Many hon. Members mentioned the doubts about German participation. I am sure that we were all extremely pleased to hear the Minister give a strong commitment to the House on Tuesday that we would proceed with EFA even if the other partners withdrew. At least, I hope that my interpretation is correct. The assumption has been drawn by several hon. Members and I raise it to allow the possibility of its being denied, in case it was what was referred to earlier as the intellectual raffishness of the Minister.

We are told that the European fighter aircraft is set to enter service by 1998 or 1999, three or four years later than our original requirement. May we be assured that the latest deadline will be met, and perhaps the Minister will provide, on a scale of degree of confidence, the level of confidence that we may have in the latest deadline.

The much-discussed and vexed question of Bloodhound has been a recurring feature of today's speeches, and the issue was put well in context by the hon. Member for Wyre ; I hope that my references to him will not mean that I am ending his career quickly, too. In some ways, Bloodhound seems symbolic of the way in which the Government are perceived to have approached a number of problems.

In last year's debate, when asked about a replacement for Bloodhound, the Minister--never someone to rush things--said : "It would be premature to go into this matter in any detail."--[ Official Report, 28 February 1990 ; Vol. 168, c. 291.]

Column 519

Now, little more than a year later, we are told that the Bloodhound surface-to-air missile is shortly to be withdrawn from service, but will not be replaced by a new system for about four years. I find last year's comment amazing in the context of the recent decision. It appears that the Government consider such decisions premature when they are only three years late, but somehow to be timely when they are four years overdue. The Minister said tonight, in the face of all the evidence, that there was no gap. Admittedly, he said it from a sedentary position, but that should not reduce his commitment to his expression of feeling on the subject.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House do not agree that there is no gap. Nor does Admiral Doe think there is no gap. Indeed, I suggest that there are two gaps. First, there is a gap in time and, secondly, there is the gap between Bloodhound's capability and our requirement for an adequate surface -to-air missile. The gap has grown so wide that it would apparently be better to have nothing until we can procure a replacement. That is just as disturbing as the delay, for apparently it is better to have no defence than to disturb the idle tranquillity of the procurement Ministry.

My amazement about this was exceeded only by the Minister's comment tonight that, as he put it, Bloodhound is only guarding a few Americans. That was one of the more spectacular statements among a long list of spectacular statements by the Minister. I also find it the most spectacular procurement error, judged even by the spectacular standards of the Minister. Why was it not possible to anticipate Bloodhound's obsolescence in time to replace it, if not immediately, timeously? The only answer that we have been given is that it is doing a job that is not worth doing. We hope that that was not meant to be because it is guarding a few Americans. If it is doing a job that has been worth doing, why was not the decision taken some time ago, in view of its obsolescence, the length of time it has been around and the apparent foresight that is claimed in other matters? I hope that the Minister will not find the question overly premature.

A number of hon. Members referred to IUKADGE, the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment. It has been the subject of a comprehensive and detailed report by the Select Committee on Defence. We know that when it finally enters service, the improved UKADGE is intended to provide the RAF, for the first time, with a complete picture of the United Kingdom air defence region in real time. As hon. Members have said, it will also bring us into line with NATO's command and control system.

Having been procured in the late 1970s, the improved UKADGE was intended to enter service four years ago. The four-year delay seems to be a favourite just now. It is still not ready, and it seems unlikely to be ready in the near future.

Taken separately, those three issues--the air defence fighter, the absence of a replacement for Bloodhound and the shortcomings on the improved UKADGE --would probably not be of great significance. But taken together, they add up to serious and potentially disastrous shortcomings in British air defences. However, the Government seem remarkably casual.

In view of the time, I shall make only one general comment about "Options for Change". A great worry, shared by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, is that, despite detailed deficiencies in the policy, it has been

Column 520

approached in a piecemeal, finance- constrained fashion, rather than with analysis, followed by the consideration of defence needs and the deployment necessary, within the context of finance, as outlined very well tonight by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East. I worry about that, because the point was made last year by the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), when he said that we had a chance to take a fresh approach to the matter. He made the plea that we should not, in examining our needs, simply say :

"Let us take away a squadron or two, or a brigade, or a division and reduce the British, German or Dutch contribution."

The hon. Member for East Hampshire, who is knowledgeable on such matters, was giving sound advice. Tragically, he seems to have predicted with remarkable quiescence and accuracy the piecemeal approach adopted by the Government.

The future defence of Europe arises out of "Options for Change." The Government's position on that, particularly the Minister's, is just as confusing as on "Options for Change". In one of the classic ironies of such debates, he spoke last year in unequivocal and laudatory terms of our

"robust and healthy institutions--the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation the Western European Union and the European Community"--[ Official Report, 28 February 1990 ; Vol. 168, c. 284-302.]

Despite my relative unfamiliarity with the Minister, I understand that he has not always been the greatest supporter of the EC. Since he praised the robust institutions of NATO and the WEU last year, he has, in a personal capacity--admittedly semi-detached from the Government--declared NATO redundant and is, I understand, apparently not too happy with the WEU. It appears that the robust and healthy building blocks of future European security of last year have withered unhealthily on the vine since. It would be useful to know where he thinks the future of the European defence force and structure lies.

There are many other issues that I cannot speak about in detail, including the WE177, the NATO identification system, on which the Minister said very little, and female pilots in a combat role, about which the Minister expounded at great length last year but did not mention tonight. How successful has been what the Minister last year called the imaginative package for better-qualified youngsters? How are we getting on with the 10- year programme to update and modernise the accommodation of families and single people? All those issues affect the quality of life, which was mentioned earlier but, amazingly, by only one hon. Member. On the military side, I could also mention the light attack helicopter, the EH101 and a number of other factors.

We do not ask for a decision on all those matters tonight, but we would like--

Mr. Mans : Just one.

Dr. Reid : Yes, just one would suffice, as the hon. Member for Wyre says. We should like a sign that, at some stage, a decision might be taken on one of them. I have spent all evening trying to avoid the cliche "dithering", but that cliche can be killed stone dead tonight by picking the 40 decisions that have apparently been waiting to be made for years. I hope that it is not premature in every case to make a decision.

The Government and the Minister owe those answers not only to the Opposition and the House but, above all,

Column 521

to the service men and women and their families, without whom all the technology, sophisticated machinery and aircraft are as nothing. They, more than the Opposition and the House, have been failed by the absence of detail and it is they whom we can least afford to fail. 9.43 pm

Mr. Alan Clark : Tonight's debate has been distinguished by a number of well-informed contributions. Many hon. Members who have participated have contributed from deep personal knowledge of the topic. For that reason, it has been a valuable debate. I express my appreciation to my hon. Friends for staying behind for my winding-up speech, because I know that they have many preoccupations outside the Chamber today.

A common thread throughout the debate has been the tributes and expressions of gratitude and appreciation to all members of the Royal Air Force for their recent performance in the Gulf war and for the duties that they continue to undertake, including the latest challenge that they are meeting in the mountains of northern Iraq. I am certain that those tributes will be a great encouragement to them. One of my hon. Friends mentioned the letters that members of the forces were receiving from civilians whom they did not even know. The letters were sent out to the region during the conflict, and we have been told how valuable they found them. It is always encouraging and good for the services to receive expressions of support from the population at large, as has been amplified in the House by those of us who represent them here.

I shall do my best to answer most of the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I appreciate the implied compliment that the two sharpest members of the Opposition Front Bench have opened and wound up this debate, in contrast to their benign but somewhat inchoate colleagues, the hon. Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), who have not turned out tonight. That gives an added edge to our debate this evening.

The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) raised the important question of the stealth factor in the design of future aircraft. We are at an early stage of considering that factor. Stealth can mean two things : stealth against radar or stealth against infra-red detection. To combine the two is not easy. As the hon. Gentlemen knows, the advanced short take- off and vertical landing aircraft is a distant project that we are considering. That is an aircraft that will come after EFA. It is at an early project design stage, but certainly the stealth factor must be considered in that. In all serious combat aircraft from now on, there must be a stealth element, but the extent to which it combines radar and infra- red is far in the distance.

The hon. Gentleman asked about low-level attacks. Many hon. Members have expressed misgivings about those. In his robust speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that, in the Gulf war context, low-level attacks were critical. In the early days of the Gulf conflict, when we had the only air force capable of positive runway denial on Iraqi airfields and we did not know that the Iraqi air force would pack up and leave the theatre, it was necessary to make such low-level attacks. A number of very brave men risked their lives repeatedly to do so. Naturally, once the operational situation had

Column 522

changed and the Iraqi air force had left the scene, it was possible to operate at different altitudes. However, there is a general feeling that a stand-off weapon of some kind will be produced in the next generation. It is perfectly proper that the House should be discussing this subject.

The Tornado F3 fatigue problems were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and others. At one time, it was thought that those problems would be serious and would involve an expensive rectification programme. I am glad to say that it now seems not to be the case. Although routine fatigue rectifications will have to be undertaken, they are not of a catastrophic dimension but are part of the routine maintenance of the aircraft.

As for EFA, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North put into my mouth words supposedly uttered in Tuesday's defence questions which the Official Report will not substantiate. I should be very glad if we made this aircraft even if all our collaborative partners dropped out, but at this stage that is pure hypothesis--it has not been costed, and we do not know who will stay in and who will drop out. It is no more than an assertion of principle, to say that the aircraft is needed by the RAF ; and we very much hope that it will enter operational service on the predicted date. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) assure the House that it will be cheaper to make EFA if Germany drops out. I wish that I thought that were true. Indeed, it may be true. We may find out whether it is, but the basis on which my hon. Friend made his calculations was not immediately apparent to me.

Some hon. Members made a great deal of the so-called gap that will ensue because we have decided to take Bloodhound out of service. Our judgment was that it had reached the end of its effective operational life, having been put into operation in 1964. It is not up to the modern range of electronic counter-measures that can be arrayed against it. Taking out of service a system that is ineffective does not create a gap--that is so obvious that it hardly needs to be said--

Mr. O'Neill rose --

Mr. Clark : The hon. Gentleman seems to be getting fidgety ; does he want to intervene?

Mr. O'Neill : Perhaps the Minister can explain why, on 28 February 1990, he told the House that a decision on the future of Bloodhound was premature, yet within 14 months it has become obsolescent to such a degree that a decision can be taken to abandon it without replacement.

Mr. Clark : The answer is self-evident : 14 months is a long time-- in politics, it is an eternity.

The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) asked us to jump the gun in our conclusions on various weapons systems, but we have to consider them in terms of their overall performance as assessed in the campaign. In the fulness of time that assessment will be made available to the House, and I doubt not that an interesting debate will follow.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the successor to the WE177. We are considering both United States and French options. A right decision is more important than an early one. I was particularly interested in the contribution by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), who advocated more strongly than I have yet

Column 523

heard anyone do the importance of this system, of finding a satisfactory solution for it and of the role that it is likely to play in future decades when it may be necessary to resist nuclear blackmail if the threat of a strategic ballistic strike would be inappropriate but it is nevertheless necessary to deter a nuclear conflict at a different level. The hon. Gentleman's exposition of that was exemplary --

Mr. Wilkinson : He should come and join us.

Mr. Clark : I do not want to get into that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) asked about a campaign medal, and I am glad to be able to confirm that Her Majesty has been pleased to give permission for a medal especially for service during the conflict.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire urged an early strategic plan for the future of our forces. The Committee that he chairs has been active in investigating all aspects of the contingencies that may touch on such a plan. He should appreciate that we must take account of many factors that remain uncertain : developments in relations with the Soviet Union, progress in arms control, consultations with allies and lessons from the Gulf. All those matters will have to be included in a new strategic overview. Many uncertainties inhibit a clear and coherent strategic approach. I agreed with practically all the excellent speech by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who spoke about the contractorisation of search and rescue. We have had an approach on that topic but do not propose to take any action until the "Options" study has been completed. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) that this could involve the use of helicopters not made in the United Kingdom, and we shall pay attention to that additional factor. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke about fatigue on the Tornado F3. I hope that he will accept the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Clackmannan. My hon. Friend made a valid point about the need for maritime patrol aircraft to be replaced or greatly overhauled and enhanced in the next decade. I agree, but the position is not made easier by the fact that the Lockheed P7, at which we looked closely as a possible replacement for the Nimrod, will no longer be made.

It was said that perhaps we could use a twin-engined aircraft with a slightly lower performance. We have time to consider that, because the Nimrods are performing effectively. They are equipped with advanced avionics, and there is no immediate urgency to replace them. I was asked about plans for a replacement of the C130. The C130 is a strong and durable aircraft and continues to give good service. I do not think that a single C130 operated by a

Column 524

western air force, such as the United States, Great Britain or Germany, has ever been lost as a result of a mechanical defect. As I say, it is one of the best and most durable aircraft ever made. In an interesting speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) reminded the House of the need for a wide range of aircraft, and said that it was impossible for the RAF to carry out its many tasks with just two or three types. He also spoke about the increasing dominance of the helicopter. As they become more and more dominant in certain areas there is a need for a wide range of different types, such as transport and attack helicopters. I should like to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who is not in the Chamber. He deplored comments about the performance of our allies during the war and said that an official had spoken about them running for the cellars. I do not think that an official said that ; I seem to remember that it was an hon. Member. It may have been a member of the Government, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East called for his resignation. As he is not in the Chamber, he cannot confirm that. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said that we had only eight Chinook helicopters for battlefield support. That is not so. There are more than 30, and 12 of them are presently in Turkey. He also spoke about the EH101. Work to assess the first phase of project definition is not complete and we cannot analyse the results of that work until all the lessons of the Gulf war are to hand. It has to be considered in the whole context of helicopter procurement and what helicopter we select to do which task. Certainly I take the point that he put to the House and that he based his advocacy on remarks made by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North paid an excellent tribute to the Air Training Corps in its 50th anniversary year. It is a completely worthwhile organisation supported by committed and loyal members of the community. I am grateful for the eloquent way in which he drew attention to it.

My hon. Friend also asked about the Tucano. So far 52 have been delivered to the RAF. I am pleased to tell him that it has greatly impressed both instructors and pupils.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS FUND

Ordered,

That, in pursuance of section 1 of the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972, Mrs. Marion Roe be appointed a Managing Trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund in the room of the late Sir John Stradling Thomas.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

Column 525

PETITION

Brechin Infirmary

10 pm

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East) : With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to present to the House a petition on behalf of the general practitioners, community council and citizens of Brechin and district, protesting against any major rundown or closure of general practitioner facilities at Brechin infirmary. Over 3,200 people, more than half the population of Brechin, and the equivalent of one signature for every family in the town, wish to voice their protest and to speak up for general practitioner services at the infirmary. The petition states :

That there is extreme concern about the proposal from the Angus District Management Unit of Tayside Health Board to close the upper wards of Brechin Infirmary, thus reducing the general practitioner bed complement from 34 to a proposed 21, and that we believe that this cutback induced closure will not only be hopelessly inadequate to provide the level of service felt necessary by the general practitioners but that closure of the second of the three floors in the Infirmary raises severe anxieties about the future of the hospital and the services it provides for our community.

That record of Brechin Infirmary, with its comparatively favourable bed occupancy, length of stay and range and outcome of treatments, with 79 per cent. of patients discharged back into the community after an average stay of 30 days and with almost all of the patients being over 70 years of age, shows that resources are being used well.

That since most patients prefer to be looked after in their own community by their own GPs whenever possible, GP beds in Cottage Hospitals' are an extremely cost-effective way of looking after patients as well as being popular with both patients and relatives who would otherwise find visiting very difficult and we consequently believe that the policy of running down Cottage Hospitals to achieve short-term savings is short-sighted, financially silly and extremely unpopular with patients particularly the more elderly and disadvantaged.

Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urge Tayside Health Board to upgrade facilities at Brechin Infirmary and retain the maximum possible services available locally for the citizens of Brechin and district.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc. To lie upon the Table.

Column 526

Disabled People (1986 Act)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

10.3 pm

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West) : I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity for this debate, albeit short and inadequate, on a very important subject. I am grateful also to the Minister for Health for her presence.

The House will know that there is great concern among the sponsors of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 about the Government announcement that sections 1, 2 and 3 will not now be implemented, which comes after the earlier decision not to implement for the time being section 7.

The Minister for Health will know that I certainly was not happy--and I know that this is true of a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends--about the manner of the announcement. Although I do not intend to dwell on it, even if the Prime Minister had responded to two planted questions in the way that many of us believe took place, I do not think that that was the way to deal with an Act which managed to get on the statute book because of the spirit of all-party support, which I do not think the announcement and the manner in which it was done reflected. Certainly there were two questions--one from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and one from the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth). I am bound to say that at one stage I was going to offer each of them a pint to produce a question on this subject in this Parliament, but I think that that would have been unfair, and my reputation for meanness would have remained intact. But I am not sure that that is the best way to deal with a subject of this kind.

There is extreme anger and disappointment among 6.5 million disabled people in this country and their advocates and carers, who for the last five or six years have looked forward to the implementation of these sections and who are now profoundly hurt and disappointed. I have received petitions, which I hope to present next week, on behalf of some of the villagers in my own constituency, and in the town of Coatbridge. People there have been following our procedures, and they cannot understand how we can be so cynical as to put on record such an important Act and build up the hopes of people with disabilities and then later simply say that these will not be implemented.

In case the House thinks that I have orchestrated these petitions, may I say that I have received letters from many parts of the country, including yesterday two letters from the Isle of Wight, which were quite unsolicited. That is an indication that there are very strong feelings on this issue. Those feelings are reflected in the views of voluntary organisations--I am sure that they have been made known to the hon. Lady--such as the Spastics Society, MIND and the Act Now group, which involves about 40 organisations concerned with disability.

Yesterday, I heard a very eloquent but angry speech by Sir Brian Rix on behalf of MENCAP. He fully understands the importance of the decision not to implement these sections. That anger is shared by local authorities. I speak now after 10 o'clock, and I do not know what their political complexions are, but they participated in trying to bring this legislation into being through consultation after consultation with Minister

Column 527

after Minister, and they felt that the Government were sincere in saying, as they did, that these sections would be implemented. I do not believe that the House has received an explanation for an extraordinary decision by the Government. Certainly, in the written replies which the hon. Lady has published, we are told that these sections have been overtaken by the Government's own National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and even by the Children Act 1989. I find that quite astonishing. I followed the debates on both those Acts very carefully and served on both the Standing Committees, and I recall nothing specific about advocacy and

representation--certainly not in the Children Act.

I have met nobody in the social services and social work in Scotland in recent days who takes the view that Government legislation in any sense comes anywhere near what the 1986 Act was attempting to achieve in terms of advocacy, representation and assessment.

What the Government have done means even more dependence on the complaints procedure, but we are supposed to be talking about community care, a partnership. I understand that the hon. Lady was speaking about that very issue on the BBC a few minutes ago. But there is not a partnership when entitlement that is provided for in the 1986 Act is not provided for in subsequent legislation. There is no prospect of partnership when the Government deny what was clearly identified as an opportunity for people to seek their rights in terms of advocacy and representation. Where those do not exist, I do not see how we can have the kind of partnership to which the hon. Lady has referred.

Community Care, which has played a very important role in respect of these matters, published a leader headed "Final Solution?" It said :

"section 50 of the Community Care Act (to which Mrs. Bottomley specifically referred) relates almost entirely to the complaints procedure which local authorities must have in place by April. The Disabled Persons Act went far beyond this. It recognised that disabled people might need an advocate at any stage in their dealings with the Social Services Department, to help them put their views and case.

The existence of a complaints procedure is surely a poor substitute for the wide-ranging, one-to-one advocacy envisaged under the 1986 Act."

Those are important views. However, perhaps much more important than even these considered opinions are the views of the organisations of and for people with disabilities. For example, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation said this : "The National Health Service and Community Care Act does not give disabled people the absolute right to authorised representatives or the absolute right to make known their needs before an assessment is carried out, to know what the social services will provide to meet those needs, or why they will not meet needs, and the right to a review of their assessment."

That is the difference between the Government's legislation and the provisions of the 1986 Act.

These views were not expressed by a single, albeit important, organisation ; they are shared by Age Concern--to which I shall come in a moment--Deaf Accord, National Citizens Advocacy, south Birmingham area, and many other advocacy groups, National Citizens Advocacy, the Spastics Society, MENCAP, the Scottish Care in the Community Group, the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped and many other organisations.

Column 528

It is at our peril that we ignore such important views--the views of people with disabilities and of those who care for them.

It is important that we should place on record the views of a number of organisations, if only because they are representative. In a letter to me, Age Concern said :

"As you know, Age Concern England shares your disappointment at the Government's decision not to implement these sections. Advocacy schemes have clearly demonstrated how authorised representatives can help frail, chronically sick and disabled or confused older people by representing their wishes and interests accurately and sensitively The Government have put financial constraints before the rights of disabled older people to make their wishes known and to have a guarantee that the services they receive are those which best meet their needs."

Deaf Accord said this :

"Deaf Accord is extremely upset and worried about the Government's decision not to implement sections, 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons Act."

The hon. Lady may have thought the other day that I was being a bit provocative when I responded to her comment that the lion's share of the Act had been implemented. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that you had to keep us in order. The point that I am now making is that, in the absence of advocacy, the Act remains a lion without teeth. Of course I welcome those sections that have been implemented, and do not wish to diminish the importance of the legislation. But here we have Deaf Accord telling us that one of the very important sections to have been implemented--warmly welcomed by that organisation and by me--is weakened because of the absence of advocacy. Deaf Accord goes on to say :

"Section 3 includes the provision of any services that may be necessary if a disabled person (or their authorised representative) is unable to communicate orally or in writing. The implementation of this part of the Act is absolutely essential for many profoundly deaf people who can only communicate in Sign language. Without the provision of a Sign language interpreter many deaf people are denied the right to participate in their assessment. This means, for example, that deaf school leavers do not have the right to an interpreter when being assessed under Section 5 of the Act."

National Citizens Advocacy, south Birmingham area, said : "the dropping of these important sections has angered and frustrated us all within the Citizen Advocacy movement However, whether it is through Citizen Advocacy, Self-Advocacy groups or some form of paid representation--what is vitally important must be that the principle of authorised representation is recognised and established in law, as of course it is in many other countries." National Citizens Advocacy said :

"Mrs. Bottomley stated that the Department is giving financial support to a number of voluntary organisations which assist disabled people through the provision of advocates. This number is very small indeed, and in some cases health authority grants to citizen advocacy schemes have not been granted or renewed This situation is full of irony, and will have tragic consequences for disabled people." Finally--while I am quoting the strongly held and considered views of organisations involved in disability--let me point out that MIND drew attention to the Law Commission's consultation paper, stating : "The Law Commission's consultation paper No. 119 entitled Mentally Incapacitated Adults and Decision Making : an Overview' recognises the necessity for a scheme to avoid the gaps, fragmentation and confusion of responsibility which exists under the present law' It is our view that the government estimated £18 million to establish and run a formal system of authorised representatives would be a small price to pay for guaranteeing a basic human right."

Column 529

The other day, the Minister and her colleague, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health--the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell)--answered questions that I had tabled, hopefully, in preparation for tonight's debate. As can be seen from columns 42 and 43 of the Official Report of 29 April, the Ministers first had to answer my question about the meaning of the 1986 Act in terms of representation and advocacy and the number of people involved. We observed a clear distinction between the precise reply that the hon. Member for Loughborough was able to give and the vague reply that the hon. Lady gave ; not because that was what she wanted to do, but because she was clearly basing her reply on the Government's legislation--which is itself very vague, and certainly not nearly as detailed as the 1986 Act in regard to the points with which I am dealing.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State--the hon. Member for Loughborough--referred to the number of people with learning difficulties. He said that 25 per cent. would require

representation--people with physical disabilities, elderly disabled people, people with dementia and those with sensory impairment. He actually gave a figure--which the hon. Lady was not able to do on behalf of the Government. That figure--144,000--does not seem much when we remember that there are 6.5 million people with disabilities in this country. The House of Commons recognised that, as did the other place when it passed the Act unanimously.

What we learn from the answers to those questions is that it would cost £40 for each authorised representative each week--about 75p per person, which is surely not a colossal amount. Representation is a right, especially if we mean what we say about community care. Time after time--as I have been reminded this week--decisions are being made for people with disabilities, often by local authorities and bureaucrats. Advocacy would have given those people access to the decision-making process, which I believe has been denied to many people, and will continue to be as long as the relevant sections of the Act remain unimplemented.

Under the 1990 Act, assessments will be made only when a local authority decides that it "appears" necessary. Surely community care should go well beyond that, and involve the rights and the needs of the client and the services that should be provided, with proper assessment involving advocates where they are in place. The absence of that means that decisions about the quality of life for many of our people, for the elderly, including disabled elderly people, for the physically disabled, for carers and for advocates themselves, are being taken by people who happen to have power, a power which is not always shared or used in the best interests of the consumer. That is why I believe that the Select Committee on Social Services was firm in recommending to the House that, if we genuinely believe in community care in practice, sections 1, 2 and 3 of the 1986 Act, as well as section 7, which deals with persons being discharged from long- stay psychiatric hospitals, often into the community without any preparation being made for them, are absolutely vital if we are to begin to address the problems that are out there in the community. In recent days, since we apparently take the view that people with disabilities should have a say, I thought that

Column 530

I would take the opportunity to listen to what some advocates have to say, and I shall conclude on that note. I am sure that the Minister will curb her impatience ; it will not take too long. I visited Southwark disablement association the day before yesterday, where I met a number of interesting and inspiring people such as Ben Clarke and John McGowan, but in particular I met a woman called Biray. She was in a wheelchair, and the head of a single-parent family with two children. She said that she went to her advocate, John happily, advocacy exists there ; the best practice that we want to see spread throughout the United Kingdom- -who happened to be sitting in the room with us because she did not think that anyone listened to people such as her ; she was just another person on whom sometimes people even hung up on on the telephone. She was wise to go to her advocate, because he managed to negotiate with the social security office, where it was discovered that she was being paid £16 less than her entitlement on income support. He was also able to ensure that she was put on the list for special housing in the docks area, much to her pleasure and to his.

It is interesting that her advocate was himself in a wheelchair, showing that advocacy can go far wider, involving self-advocacy as well as citizens' advocacy and professional advocacy, in order to give community care real meaning.

I met too in Islington Jean Willson, the chairman of Islington MENCAP. She has a daughter, Victoria, who is now 20, with severe learning and physical disabilities. After a lifetime of dedication from her mother, Victoria is now in her own little bungalow. But the kind of dedication that we see there would have been helped considerably by advocacy.

I end by referring to Mary Albert, and Gerald Coyle, in my constituency, to whom I have referred previously. The parents' commitment there to a young man with learning difficulties is colossal. They fervently hope that we mean what we say about advocacy, because they want to know what will happen to Gerald after they have gone. That is a question that many people have asked, but they will not get a response until we implement fully the sections that we are discussing.

10.23 pm

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley) : I have listened with sympathy and considerable respect to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), but in the examples that he gave at the end of his remarks he demonstrated so effectively the way in which the philosophy and thinking behind the 1986 Act are already being taken up and incorporated in good social services practice throughout the country.

I recognise that our decision not to implement those sections, at least for the time being, has caused considerable disappointment. The hon. Gentleman is reluctant to be persuaded that the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which are so dear to his heart, could be and have been overtaken by a major initiative mounted by this Government. In our implementation of care in the community, there is no doubt that the spirit and the principle of the 1986 Act have been developed and elaborated upon to ensure that the many frail, vulnerable

Next Section

Home Page