| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 803
far from the truth. Undoubtedly, many of those who receive dialysis at home, and who are less fortunate in the amount of income that they have, have had to turn to the independent living fund for assistance to cover the cost of a carer. Therefore, they are worried about what will happen when their situation is dealt with by their local authority. Additional heating and diet, which has already been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), are costs that apply to all kidney patients who are on dialysis. Then there is the question of additional laundering requirements, particularly if a kidney patient is on CAPD--continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis.I know that those costs do not come immediately under the amendment that we are discussing, but they are nevertheless the costs of staying alive for kidney patients and therefore have to be met from some fund or other. Once upon a time those patients could rely on the additional costs being met by supplementary benefit. Then they were turned on to income support. Now, of course, they do not get any provision built into the Bill to which they can turn for support. So they wonder what statutory provision is being made for them, other than the community care proposals, to which I have referred, when the independent living fund disappears. I understand that the federation is not alone ; other charities have the same misgivings.
If I am not to consider supporting their Lordships' amendments--and, as a kidney patient, my sympathy is obviously with the federation, even though I am now freed from the iron discipline of thrice-a-week home dialysis--I shall want reassurance from my right hon. Friend that the successor to the independent living fund does not mean that his Department is doubtful about the effective start-up of financing of the National Health Service and Community Care Act when, in theory, it comes into effect in April 1993. I hope that I have drawn the wrong interpretation from his announcement this afternoon, but the very fact that he felt it necessary to give the House that reassurance raises a doubt in my mind, which I hope that he will look at.
Mr. Wigley : The point that the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) made a moment ago is well made. If the new system is to be entirely reliable for those thousands of people who will come on stream from 1993 onwards, deserving of and needing the sort of support which the independent living fund is giving at the moment to an increasing number of people, that raises the whole question of the Government's confidence and the degree to which they have worked out their strategy for 1993 onwards.
Another point about that date is the future of local government itself. We know from discussions that have gone on at other times in the Chamber that there is a question whether we shall be moving in the next three or four years to a new structure of local government, with unitary authorities. If we do, authorities that are still finding their way forward may have to deal with not only responsibilities under the legislation that we passed two years ago, but with this additional responsibility.
We have all seen in our constituencies cases concerning people who are entitled to mobility allowance. A person aged perhaps 67 or 68 who has difficulty walking and who developed that difficulty at the age of 63 or 64 gets the mobility allowance. An identical person, perhaps living
Column 804
next door, who did not develop that condition until he or she was 66 or 67 does not get the mobility allowance. That person does not understand why, in identical circumstances, the person next door gets the allowance and he or she does not.We are now building up a similar structure, in which some people will be consolidated for ever more, presumably. If youngsters are getting help from the independent living fund now, they may live for another 50 years and they will have this ongoing institution, in whatever new structure it exists, to ensure that they are safeguarded from the failures and shortcomings of the alternative structure that the Government are introducing.
Is that really what the Minister is telling the House today? Is he saying that it is necessary to have this sort of structure on an ongoing basis to look after this group of people, which may build up by 1993 to be 15,000 or 20,000 strong and thereafter will taper off, over 50 years, until there are only one or two left? Is it a fact that the structure will exist for their benefit because of the Government's lack of confidence in the alternative that they are putting forward.
Mr. Scott : I sought in my reply to the hon. Member's earlier intervention to reassure him about this. I will try again, and perhaps at the same time I can address one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson). It is not because of any lack of confidence in the arrangements for community care, but for two distinct reasons that we concluded that we needed to make continuing arrangements for the existing case load for the ILF in April 1993.
The first reason was that the local authorities would then be taking on many new responsibilities. To ask them to take over an existing caseload with whose individual needs they would, by definition, not be familiar at that point of change would be to put an excessive burden upon them. The second reason concerns a point that has been made very strongly to me in recent weeks and months. The existing recipients of money from the independent living fund are very concerned, as April 1993 approaches, about the ability of local authorities to take them on as going cases. I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is a fair-minded man, will recognise that I was seeking to meet genuine doubts and fears in the hearts and minds of existing beneficiaries of the fund.
Mr. Wigley : I welcome any assurance that has been given to those who were suffering from a feeling of insecurity as a result of the changes that have taken place. Any assurance that can be given is to be welcomed. I suspect, however, that in responding to one problem the Minister has opened Pandora's box and that a host of other problems will emerge. Surely the Minister is not saying that the new structure that will operate from April 1993, under local government control, will be incapable of taking on a going concern that has already been assessed and under which payments are being made. If the new structure is incapable of taking on that system, how will it be able to assess the 4,000 or 5,000 additional cases that will come to it each year, which until now have been dealt with by the independent living fund? I understand that the ILF will retain the responsibility for looking after those people that are on its books in June 1993, even though the nature of individuals' disabilities and needs may change.
Column 805
In some instances financial needs may increase. It seems, however, that the ILF will continue to deal with them. It will monitor and assess, and in parallel with that operation there will be a similar structure doing an identical job under local authority control. Do I understand that aright?Mr. Scott : In essence, yes. However, is the hon. Gentleman really asking me not to go down the road that I have outlined? Is he saying that whatever the case load of the ILF come April 1993, it being administered by ILF staff who know the individual cases and who have seen social workers' reports, the files should be distributed to the areas in which individual beneficiaries live and local authorities should be asked to take them on, when at the same time they are introducing their arrangements for the assessment of cases within the areas for which they are responsible? I believe that the Government have found a better way and a more reassuring approach. If the hon. Gentleman examines his conscience, I am sure that he will not advise me to take the route that he appears to be advocating.
Mr. Wigley : The Minister is saying that, in the second quarter of 1993, local authorities should not have the burden, as it were, placed upon them. It is possible that in nine, 12 or 24 months from now the local authorities will have the ground ready under their feet, and will then be in a position to cope more easily with any burden that is placed upon them. Is the Minister providing a continuing solution for the 50 years or so that beneficiaries may live beyond 1993, or is he saying that he is offering a solution that will stop individuals worrying, and that it is possible that a year or two after 1993 a unitary assessment system will be introduced that will be geared to local authorities?
I suspect that this is the tip of an iceberg. I accept that for every good motive in the world the Minister is trying to safeguard beneficiaries from a feeling of insecurity that has spread among them because of the way in which the changes to the system have unfolded, but he is introducing new problems that will have to be tackled by the next Conservative Government, or the next Labour Government. Whichever party wins the next general election, the Government who are formed will have to examine these matters in considerable depth. A basis must be established of rights and entitlements. Individuals should have the security that will come from knowing that payments will be made because of their statutory entitlements. Such rights should be built into legislation.
5.15 pm
I am not too certain whether the words that have been adopted by those in another place are the right ones, but it is clear that a significant majority of their Lordships supported the amendment. They agreed to that amendment because they were aware of the needs of the client group that we are discussing. I hope that at the very least the Government will give an assurance that they will find some way, even if not through this legislation, between now and 1993 to ensure that when the new system comes on stream everyone who has a need will know that he will have an entitlement, and that the state will ensure that it will be met and that no one will go without.
Miss Emma Nicholson : I am grateful for having the chance to speak in this important debate. I am sure that all
Column 806
those who have participated in it have a personal responsibility for disabled people in their constituencies. Many of us have national responsibilities and help the disabled through charitable involvement or in other ways. I am especially proud to be one of the vice presidents of the recently established Conservative disability forum, which was founded by my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). In addition, I am chairman of ADAPT-- access for disabled people to arts premises today--an organisation which comes under the Ministry with responsibility for the arts, which considers applications for Government funding. I am also a member of the Select Committee on Employment, which recently produced a report on disability and employment.My reason for referring to those organisations and to the Select Committee, and indirectly to the three Departments to which they are related, is to show the Government's commitment to the disabled, which is entire and stretches across the spectrum of the Government's work. The Government have their heart in the right place and are prepared to dip into the public purse. They encourage private initiatives in every way they can. We are led by a Prime Minister whose dedication to the disabled is surely known to everyone. One of his first actions on becoming Prime Minister was to honour an existing commitment to give awards to young deaf people. He has continued to commit himself to the cause of the disabled. That is, however, merely indicative of the attitude of his Ministers towards those who are disabled, and none is more committed than my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. The independent living fund was the creation of my right hon. Friend. I know that well because a couple in my constituency had a baby with devastating disabilities. There was acute hydrocephalus and non-development of the major brain stem, and the baby should have died. Shortly before the fund was announced, I discovered that the child had not qualified for any allowance at home because it was not meant to live. Under the old understanding, it would have remained in hospital until it died, fairly rapidly. By some freak, the child survived for some months. I went to my right hon. Friend the Minister and immediately thereafter the ILF was brought into play. That was triggered by his concern and his initiative.
I attempted to intervene at the beginning of the speech of the Opposition's spokesman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), because of his slight on my right hon. Friend the Minister, and because of his slight, through my right hon. Friend, on the Save The Children Fund. Monday night's event--I have no knowledge of who was there--was designed to benefit the Save The Children Fund and raised many thousands of pounds for that superb organisation, which has Government support from the Overseas Development Administration. I am ashamed of the Opposition spokesman for having slighted the effort that was made to support the Save The Children Fund, which has cared for millions of disabled children during its 70-year history.
I am concerned about those who benefit from the current independent living fund arrangements, but I do not share the Cassandra-like wails of the Opposition about the ability of local authorities to undertake responsibility for the disabled. Why not? The answer is that in the area which I represent--I invite others to have regard to their constituencies-- the local authorities have already taken responsibility. The Griffiths report proposed packages of
Column 807
independent care for independently-minded people who happen to be disabled, and that is already happening in the Torridge and Devon, West constituency. I pay special tribute to our foremost local authority staff member in Torridgeside who deals with such cases--Mr. Ian Rice and his outstanding team, who are a jewel in Britain's crown in this work. Indeed, experts from Scandinavia have been sent to see the ways in which that team is already effecting the principles and practice enshrined in the Griffiths report, which has been part and parcel of the work of that department in Torridgeside for some years now.I do not share the apparent disregard for the capacity of local authorities to cope properly and well, strenuously, imaginatively and sensitively with the needs of the disabled. No, I do not doubt the Government's commitment to putting the funding behind that. Let us consider the Government's track record. Since 1979, spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled has increased by 152 per cent. in real terms. Expenditure overall on recipients of help with mobility and care costs has increased by more than £5 billion in real terms since 1979 and the number of people helped as a result of this new Bill is 1.9 million, compared with 400,000 in 1979. That is no small achievement and I am confident that the Government will continue down that splendid route.
While welcoming the continuation of the independent living fund for the 8,000 people who currently benefit from it, and however much we welcomed its initiative several years ago, it could surely only be a stepping stone. Is it right and proper that we should ask for the continuation for ever of a system which makes judgments on cases from the top and not at grass roots level as the Griffiths report properly recommended. I am convinced that, although transitions are always difficult and we are quite properly fearful for the needs of those disabled people whom we care for in our constituencies or in our circle of family and friends, nevertheless, the independent living fund can only be a stepping stone because decisions should properly be made at patient level and not at the top. That is why I welcome the fine tuning arrangements outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister today.
I strenuously support my right hon. Friend's work and ask him to encourage the Secretary of State for Employment to look kindly at the proposals in paragraph 23 of the recently published report of the Select Committee on Employment that
"The Government should explore urgently the possibility of equal opportunities legislation for the employment of people with disabilities and report to Parliament on its potential effects and costs in the labour market."
That is within his remit because the disability working allowance is already within it.
Mr. David Bellotti (Eastbourne) : The Bill does not meet the needs of the majority of disabled people in our communities who depend upon benefits. In fact, it does absolutely nothing for more than 4 million pensioners who have disabilities. The Bill will help about 300,000 of the 6.2 million people in our community who have disabilities. The extra costs that will be incurred as a result of the Bill are nothing compared with the cuts which took place in the Social Security Act 1990. Indeed, the comprehensive review of disability benefits that the Government promised had not taken place before the publication of "The Way Ahead".
People who have disabilities have many extra needs which have not been tackled in the Bill. The issues that we
Column 808
are discussing do nothing for them. For example, the Bill does nothing for people with disabilities who need extra heating as a result of being confined to their homes for long periods of time, or for those people who have extra dietary needs. One hon. Member mentioned the dietary needs of those who suffer from AIDS and other people have dietary needs. The Bill does nothing for people who have special transport needs--I have many such cases in my constituency--or for those with extra laundry needs.I am surprised that the Minister should rise from the Government Benches to say that the Government's record on work for those with disabilities is good. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) cited one major Government strategy in the area of employment which was supposed to help people with disabilities. I find that amazing because the Government's employment policy for those with disabilities has led to one of the most massive cuts in funding that I have known in the 25 years that I have been working with people in the community. I refer to the massive cuts in the Government's employment and youth training programmes for people with disabilities.
Some months ago I asked a question of the Minister and the record shows that cuts have been made successively in recent years, and at the present time even more so--about 30 per cent. All the voluntary organisations in the country have got together to tell the Government that people with disabilities are not being recruited to Government training programmes. Therefore, it is misleading and scurrilous for the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West to cite that example from the Conservative Benches and she should reconsider her comments.
The independent living fund should be placed on a statutory basis. It should not be discretionary, or grace and favour, but should be available as of right. Let us suppose that from 1993 local authorities will have responsibility for their areas. I remind the Minister of the Government's record since 1979. The Government have removed from local authorities £58 billion worth of funding in real terms for local government services. With that record, it is no wonder that people working in the voluntary sector and advocates for people with disabilities do not believe that the Government will provide the resources that will be needed. As the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has said on a number of occasions, those promises are worthless without ring-fencing the sums of money available. That is certainly the case when one considers the Government's track record.
When we are told that community care packages will meet people's needs, we must ask what the Government have done to help local authorities to plan and prepare for the implementation of the community care provisions which will be in force from 1993. The Government have entered into discussions on the structure of local government and those new structures will be in place from 1994. We have the ludicrous situation in which the Government are transferring major policy areas to local government in 1993, and the promise of a reorganisation of local government in 1994, which is a recipe for chaos and disaster. However, in recent years the Government have shown that they are prepared only to pass the buck to local government without passing the resources.
Today we are concerned with people who have disabilities. They have rights and they should not be dependent upon charity. People on the independent living
Column 809
fund have been somewhat reassured today by the statement made, but for those who join that area of need in the future there are but empty promises.If the Government are funding that trust well now, why do they not reallocate that sum of money and introduce ring-fencing? They should pass not just the responsibility, but the funds, to local authorities.
The amendments from the other place seek to improve a poor Bill and are concerned with those who are most seriously disabled. The community care supplement would help to meet real needs. I ask the House to support the amendments and disabled people.
5.30 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke : I agree with the response of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), much of whose speech did not seem to relate to reality. Before she leaves the Chamber, may I say that I much preferred her televised speech on St. Stephens green in support of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) during the election campaign for the Tory party leadership to the speech that she made today. The hon. Lady was also uncharacteristically ungracious in her remarks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who had only just started his speech when the hon. Lady sought to intervene. She has much to learn from him about disability and other issues.
Miss Emma Nicholson : I hope that I was not being discourteous to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) about his ability or his depth of feeling for the disabled. However, his inapposite and insensitive criticism of my right hon. Friend the Minister's support for the Save the Children Fund, which has been pre-eminent throughout this century in the care and protection of handicapped children, caused me to intervene towards the beginning of his speech, which was where he put in his poisoned dart.
Mr. Clarke : When the hon. Lady reads my right hon. Friend's speech, she will see that he did not refer to that. For some reason, the hon. Lady seems to be in a little tantrum. I hope that the Minister, the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), will give her a ticket for the Chelsea flower show so that her speeches will not be so difficult in future debates.
On a more serious point, although I am sorry to dwell on the hon. Lady's speech, I profoundly disagree with her suggestion that the Prime Minister has acted in the interests of Britain's disabled people. One of the first issues over which he presided was the shameful announcement that the remaining sections of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 would not be implemented. When we consider the independent living fund--the vital issue that is before the House today--we shall see the importance of advocacy and its relationship to any strategy for community care.
The Government's approach to the independent living fund is less about passing the baton than about passing the buck to local authorities. Our greatest worry about that relates to ring-fencing. By passing responsibilities to local authorities, the Government are not providing the vital resources that will make their decisions meaningful, which
Column 810
must be an enormous worry to disabled people and their carers. That aspect of Government policy worries me and the organisations of and for disabled people.Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South) : Does my hon. Friend remember opening Wallace Court, where the Scottish Council for Spastics was operating a centre in Elderslie in my constituency? Is he aware that that centre now faces a massive annual deficit because of lack of available funding, part of which came from local authorities, which are experiencing difficulties collecting the poll tax from, among others, mentally handicapped people?
Mr. Clarke : My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I remember visiting Elderslie in his constituency and the splendid provisions made for the disabled in the Strathclyde region. My hon. Friend's example underlines the fact that, as with the independent living fund, it is not enough for the Minister simply to say that he looks forward to 1993 and to give vague promises for community care, which the Government seem loth to explain. Indeed, they have not even explained why they have postponed their policies for community care--the only aspects of their legislation that many people welcomed. My hon. Friend's point stands--it is profoundly unfair to offer local authorities the prospect of making the provisions that they clearly want for disabled people but deny them the resources that are fundamental to meeting those objectives.
Despite the Minister's earlier response to me on disability income, I am still worried about the Government's thinking on cash limits. Will the Minister take this second opportunity to clarify that matter? It is not simply a case of people who do not benefit at the moment not benefiting in the future, but a question of whether the Government's policy on cash limits, which has so discredited the social fund, will apply here. As the Minister did not take the opportunity of my earlier intervention to state firmly that cash limits would not apply, will he do so when he winds up?
The central thrust of the Labour party's comments suggests that the Minister cannot come to the House yet again with a proposal--in this case the independent living fund--and present it in a vacuum. What is the Government's understanding of community care and how do those issues inter- relate? He must be more positive about what will happen in 1993 and about ring-fencing, advocacy and the future of local government. That fair point has been made by several hon. Members. I am sorry to say that, as so often in the past, the Minister has been disappointing in his failure to win battles with the Treasury. I hope that he will not be too disappointed when some of us question the proposals that he has made today.
Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) : First, I wish to apologise to the House for my absence from part of the debate. Unfortunately, I was carrying out parliamentary duties elsewhere.
I support the Government's position in opposing the amendment for a number of fundamental reasons. First, the Government's record on this subject is exemplary. Although the Opposition have criticised it forcefully, 400,000 disabled people were being helped in 1979 and today 1.9 million are helped and expenditure on disabled
Column 811
people has increased to £5 billion. Those figures are not trivial and show the deep concern on both sides of the House for the need to help disabled people.The major reason why we should look again at the Lord's amendment, which, on the face of it, has some credibility, is my right hon. Friend the Minister's announcement about the future of the independent living fund and his proposals to replace it. Under the system, 8,000 severely disabled people have their payments protected and will benefit considerably. That meets some of the arguments that have been put forward against the amendment.
The clause contains a disability living allowance that meets the major problems encountered by all hon. Members in their constituencies in relation to the attendance allowance and mobility allowance. I am pleased that the Government, as I understand it, will accept the changes in the mobility allowance test and we shall see the end of the walking test, which was nonsense. If someone can walk 100 yd or whatever distance, it does not mean that he can go on and on walking, certainly not without pain. I am pleased to see the back of that.
There will also be additional resources--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. We are not discussing the clause, but specific amendments. So far, the hon. Gentleman has not addressed those amendments and I hope that he will do so.
Mr. Hind : I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Lord's amendment shows that the Lords have no confidence in the system of community care to be introduced. In 1993, responsibility for caring for severely handicapped people will be placed on local authorities, through their community plans, and they will have to make individual evaluations of the needs of those in their care. That will negate the need for the community care addition to the clause as proposed in the Lords amendment. Therefore, I urge the House to set aside the amendment. The disability working allowance and the disability living allowance are great improvements, but we must view them side by side with the proposals for care in the community which, effectively, negate the need for the amendment.
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) : What the 7,000 people who currently rely on the independent living fund need more than anything else- -perhaps more than the money that they receive from the fund--is security and a sense of permanence in the arrangements made in individual cases. I am glad to see Ministers nodding. I hope that between us, and in the light of the protracted proceedings on the Bill for 27 hours in this place and the other place, we shall be able to find some means of providing those 7,000 people with that permanency and security. Perhaps we failed the test in not coming up with something to meet that need.
The Lords proposed a new clause and the idea that the ILF should be found a place in statute so that it would have a long future. We all know that the deeds of the ILF, which was created in 1978, expire on 8 June 1993. If we are to believe that the ILF should be retained and found a place in statute, we must test whether the ILF has done its job.
I have attempted to read the various Committee reports, proceedings in the other place, briefings circulated by all the organisations interested in the issue, and
Column 812
pronouncements by eminent hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have yet to find one individual who can deny that the ILF has not only done its job well, but done it in an exemplary fashion of which all those who have worked in it should be proud. I have not heard one logical argument to show that the ILF should be wound up, that it is inefficient, a creation of socialism, a nationalised industry or wasteful of public expenditure--all the usual things that are chanted whenever a decision is made to abolish an institution.5.45 pm
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who was present earlier, and his colleagues on the former Social Security Select Committee pronounced, as one, that they wished to see the ILF retained. Today and on other occasions the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has spoken of the superb work of the ILF and was glad to pay tribute to it. I am pleased to associate myself with those remarks. The all-party disablement group, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and other hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber have all said that the ILF has done a remarkable job and is worthy of being retained to carry out its current functions. That leads me to believe that there must be something else wrong with it-- perhaps its shape, organisation or structure. Recently, we have heard much about the agencies being created within the social security sphere. We have heard about the contributions agency and the benefits agency. I agree with the concept that all those agencies are to be established to create a more customer-sensitive service that will deliver, be localised and responsive, and carry out the valuable functions that hon. Members believe all such organisations should have.
The ILF meets every one of those criteria and more. It disburses amounts of money ranging from £60 to £700 with great sensitivity, touch and responsiveness to those severely disabled people who require assistance. It cannot be faulted on that count. The Minister eulogised the ILF in his earlier speech, and I do not blame him, although whether it was a eulogy or an epitaph, I am not sure. The ILF deserves a eulogy, and I am more than happy to add my voice to those who congratulated the Minister on the significant part that he played in creating the ILF.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) was a little harsh in referring to King Herod and infanticide, but he is known for his bruising style. I would use another religious analogy-- Abraham's relationship to Isaac. Almost as an act of faith, the Minister is placing the beloved child he created on an altar in which I do not believe he has faith. I do not believe that the Minister feels that it is appropriate to sacrifice that child on the old altars of public expenditure --maintaining tight budgets when dealing with those in greatest need. Perhaps the Minister does, but I do not feel that he has made a convincing case today as to why the ILF should be wound up.
There was a happy ending in the case of Abraham and Isaac. I do not want to be tested too heavily on my religious knowledge, but I understand that divine intervention occurred at the last moment. In this instance, divine intervention, or its closest equivalent, might come, not necessarily from an election but from No. 10 Downing street--from John, son of God, or son of Brian, I am not too sure which. He has shown that he is not averse to a little political opportunism to get a bit of the credit for the
Column 813
Government, and I welcome that. He has given money to the haeomophiliacs, an action commended by all hon. Members. We have seen a little nod in the direction of severe weather payments, and an attempt to claim perhaps greater credit than he deserved. Such a concession is welcome, and there have been a number of other cases where nice little announcements have been made to bolster the Prime Minister's image. If it means that 7,000 disabled people will receive a better deal, I for one will be the first to congratulate the Prime Minister.Mr. Allen : I am giving way to the right hon. Gentleman. [ Hon. Members :-- "We thought that you had finished."] I think that that was an intervention from a sedentary position. Perhaps I may continue. I am being heckled more severely by my hon. Friends than I usually am by Conservative Members.
We now appear to be proceeding towards "son of ILF". It seems that there is to be a successor body, albeit a transitional one. The Government intend to transfer the cases currently dealt with by the ILF to local authorities as far as is possible, but those that cannot be so transferred will be dealt with by the transitional body. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) pointed out, that is not so much passing the baton as passing the buck. I do not know what the transitional body will be called. Perhaps it will be the National Organisation for Transitional Arrangements, whose acronym would be "No, ta", or perhaps it will be called the Nick Scott Benevolent Fund. Whatever it is called, it will continue to administer a number of cases, although the vast majority will be transferred to local authorities. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, local authorities are not yet in a position to deliver in many of those cases. They cannot yet provide the care package needed by those who currently depend on the ILF. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) put his finger on it. We shall end up with a rolling programme--a programme that will roll a number of people out of "son of ILF" into local authority care. We have not been told how that will be done, or the basis on which people will be assessed as being capable of being transferred. That, too, will cause considerable anxiety among those who are currently entirely dependent on the ILF. They will need to know as soon as possible whether they are in the domain of the local authority, that of the ILF or that of "son of ILF".
Mr. Hind : Will the hon. Gentleman give way ?
Mr. Allen : No. The hon. Gentleman came in late, and made a speech that may not have been entirely relevant to the amendment. Local authorities themselves are beset by a number of problems. They will have to introduce the package amid other major structural changes. Whichever party is in power, changes may be made that will affect them directly. "Son of poll tax" will be hanging round their necks ; the financial squeeze will, of course, continue. In the middle of all that, we shall be expecting authorities whose social services budgets are already under considerable stress to pick up a number of difficult cases.
I am afraid that, as the hon. Member for Exeter pointed out, local authorities may be unable to maintain a large
Column 814
proportion of those people. As he said, authorities may have to put many of them into accommodation that they would not normally have chosen ; if the ILF payments had been maintained, those people would probably have been able to stay at home. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) rather let the cat out of the bag when she made a passing reference to private care. I do not quite know how that will fit into the equation, given the number of people who will be taken out of the domain of the ILF and, perhaps, put into private rather than local authority accommodation.Today's announcement about the proposed transitional arrangements raises more questions than it answers. Seven thousand people look to us in this place--and will look to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People--for clarification. An election is on the way. I hope that, with the return of a Labour Government, it will be clear that the independent living fund will continue to serve the people whom, as even the Minister has admitted, it has served so well. Once he has answered some of those questions, we shall wish to divide the House.
Mr. Scott : I detect, on both sides of the House, a wish to reach an early decision on the amendments. I shall therefore sum up quickly while also addressing a number of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) either was not listening to the announcement that I made in my opening speech, or was being mischievous at the end of his. I emphasised--not only in my opening speech, but in response to a number of interventions in the speeches of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and others--my anxiety to set at rest any fears that the ILF might have about its future, given its existing caseload. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North suggested that at the point of change, and in the succeeding months and years, there might be picking and choosing in relation to which existing ILF beneficiaries would be transferred to local authorities. That suggestion is without foundation : the entire caseload will be the responsibility of the new body. There will be no question of its being shifted to local authorities.
I realise that change is never comfortable, and I am therefore not surprised that anxieties have been voiced this afternoon. It is, however, something of an irony that three hon. Members who were present when the establishment of the ILF was announced should say what they are saying now. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) expressed disappointment ; the hon. Member for Caernarfon said that it was an interim step towards the privatisation of a facility ; the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) saw it as an abdication of the Government's responsibilities. Those three are the most passionate defenders of the success of the fund. But I do not wish to make too much of that ; I do not want to embarrass Opposition Members.
Mr. Alfred Morris : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Scott : No. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman did not give way to my hon. Friend and I want to get on. The right hon. Gentleman may be very embarrassed about what I have just said, but I see no reason to give way to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) paid warm tribute to the trustees of the ILF, as did I. He
Column 815
particularly mentioned Mr. Peter Large, with whose name I would couple that of Pauline Thompson : both have played a distinguished part in the workings of the fund over the past three and a half years or so.My hon. Friend also referred to community care and the Griffiths report. I think that decisions should indeed be made at local level. Local authorities ought to be in a position to know what is needed in the community, and also what is available ; they should also be able to take steps to supply what is lacking.
I understand the point that my hon. Friend made about the difference between cash and care, and his observation about the ILF's unique attribute --its ability to pay cash to people so that they have control over their own care needs. I am anxious to ensure that, when the new arrangements come into effect, it will be possible for disabled people and their carers to exert the maximum influence and control over those arrangements. Now is the time when the consumers, as well as the providers, of care should be working to ensure that, when we reach the transition point in 1993, appropriate arrangements are in place.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South was on song today : he was in good voice. I was nevertheless astonished at the strength of his arguments. If I may say so, however, he was wrong to suggest that local authorities were merely being asked to prepare plans. Local authorities have a statutory duty to prepare plans, and submit them to the Department of Health ; they must also show that they are able to respond to local needs.
The right hon. Gentleman was also anxious about the resources that would be available, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair- Wilson). They--or, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman--may know what those resources will be ; if so, the right hon. Gentleman is privy to information that is not yet available to me. We shall have to see, when April 1993 arrives, what arrangements are made for local authorities to deal with community care.
I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury welcomed the new arrangements for the administration, assessment and adjudication of DLA. I am pleased that we have been able to demedicalise those arrangements and rely much more on self-assessment. I am confident that the arrangements will work well. I am at pains to put to rest the fear of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury that people on current rates of attendance and mobility allowance will be moved to the lower rates of the mobility or care components of DLA ; they will retain their present entitlements.
6 pm
The new system will be reliable and flexible and I have explained why it is essential to move to the new arrangements for community care in 1993 and to place the main responsibility on local authorities. The existing caseload should be looked after by a successor body to the ILF.
I understand the strong feelings of the hon. Member for Caernarfon--he has made this point to me more than once--about the age limit for mobility allowance and the new mobility component of DLA. I told him that it would cost almost £2 billion to abolish age limits. Not even the Labour party, if it had the opportunity, would be in a position to take that step.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) for her
Column 816
defence of the Government's record, which I have mentioned more than once at Question Time and on previous occasions. The Government far outstripped their predecessor in making provision for severely disabled people.I am sorry that the Chelsea flower show entered our discussions. Not only the Labour party but "Atticus" seems capable of putting two and two together and making five.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) raised the scare about imposing cash limits on the independent living fund. I have already made it clear that we shall spend more on the ILF next year than this year and, as the ILF does now, the successor body will be able to make increased payment when the need arises.
Mr. Tom Clarke : The Minister used the word "scare", but I can assure him that that was not intended--it was a genuine search for knowledge. If he can assure us that there will not be cash limits, I shall be happy.
Mr. Scott : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Those who support the amendments are anxious to reinvent the complexities of the supplementary benefit system. Such a system would be unworkable in practice. A combination of our two new disability benefits at national level, providing the generality of care, and local authorities, providing individual community care for disabled people, and the protection that I have announced for the existing ILF caseload is the right package of measures to continue this important work, and I urge the House to disagree with the Lords amendment. Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment :--
The House divided : Ayes 266, Noes 198.
Division No. 150 at 6.03 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert
Aitken, Jonathan
Alexander, Richard
Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Amess, David
Amos, Alan
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Ashby, David
Atkins, Robert
Atkinson, David
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Batiste, Spencer
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bellingham, Henry
Bendall, Vivian
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Benyon, W.
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Body, Sir Richard
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Peter
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Bowis, John
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Browne, John (Winchester)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Buck, Sir Antony
Budgen, Nicholas
Burns, Simon
Burt, Alistair
Butterfill, John
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Carrington, Matthew
Carttiss, Michael
Cash, William
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Chapman, Sydney
Chope, Christopher
Churchill, Mr
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Colvin, Michael
Conway, Derek
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Cope, Rt Hon John
Cormack, Patrick
Couchman, James
Cran, James
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Day, Stephen
Devlin, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey
Dorrell, Stephen
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Dover, Den
Dunn, Bob
| Next Section
| Home Page |