---

Column 819

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

McKelvey, William

McLeish, Henry

McMaster, Gordon

Madden, Max

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Marek, Dr John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Martlew, Eric

Maxton, John

Meacher, Michael

Meale, Alan

Michael, Alun

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Morgan, Rhodri

Morley, Elliot

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Mullin, Chris

Murphy, Paul

Nellist, Dave

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

O'Brien, William

O'Hara, Edward

O'Neill, Martin

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Parry, Robert

Patchett, Terry

Pendry, Tom

Pike, Peter L.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Prescott, John

Primarolo, Dawn

Quin, Ms Joyce

Radice, Giles

Randall, Stuart

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Reid, Dr John

Richardson, Jo

Robertson, George

Robinson, Geoffrey

Rogers, Allan

Rooker, Jeff

Rooney, Terence

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Ruddock, Joan

Salmond, Alex

Sedgemore, Brian

Sheerman, Barry

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Short, Clare

Sillars, Jim

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

Snape, Peter

Soley, Clive

Spearing, Nigel

Stott, Roger

Strang, Gavin

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Wallace, James

Walley, Joan

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Wigley, Dafydd

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Wilson, Brian

Winnick, David

Worthington, Tony

Wray, Jimmy

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Robert N. Wareing and

Mr. Martyn Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 disagreed to.

Lords amendment : No. 4, in page 4, line 36, at end insert "(aa) he falls within subsection (1A) below ; or".

Mr. Scott : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 5 and Nos. 7 to 12 inclusive. I must inform the House that some of the amendments involve privilege.

Mr. Scott : I do not intend to weary the House by recapping at length the problems that we have had to overcome on this issue. I know that all hon. Members will accept that the problems were severe and I pay the warmest possible tribute to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for his intervention in the case, for his sympathy when I was not able to respond, and for his welcome now that we are able to do so.

We have been struggling to find a way of distinguishing the relatively restricted group of people whose mental handicap and behavioural problems are so severe that they make it effectively impossible for them to walk from the much wider group of people whose problems in walking can be overcome if they are supervised and guided by another person.

The amendments would ensure that the smaller group of severely mentally handicapped people who have severe

---

Column 820

behavioural problems will get the higher rate of the mobility component of the disability living allowance. We propose to demarcate that group by relying on entitlement to the highest rate of the care component as a filter and then directing simple questions to the professional people who will be best able to judge how severe the effects of the mental handicap are. That makes me optimistic about solving the problem.

We look forward to continuing to work closely with voluntary organisations such as Mencap and the Spastics Society which have also put much effort into helping us with the means of identifying the target group. With their assistance, I am confident that we can get the benefit to those who need it.

Mr. Alfred Morris : The Minister knows that it is totally farcical to say that I slighted him in referring to his attendance at the preview of the Chelsea flower show if, as I hope, he did attend. Indeed, I congratulated him on a contest he had won and, by implication, on both his good sense and good taste in attending the preview as I myself used to do when I was the Minister. My point was that, if it is also true that the right hon. Gentleman has been battling with the Treasury to avoid having to oppose Lords amendments tonight, that unfortunately is a contest he lost.

Naturally I very much welcome this penultimate chapter in a long-running saga which occupied us here and in Committee on many occasions before the Bill went to the Lords. A very great deal of the credit for what has been won must go to Lord Allen of Abbeydale and to Mary Holland, formerly of Mencap and now of RADAR, who fought for years through a fog of misinformation from the DSS. It was in relation to similar amendments in another place, on a previous Bill, that the OPCS data tapes first made their appearance. It was highly appropriate for my colleague and friend, Lord Carter, to say in Committee in another place that they appeared over the horizon like the United States cavalry coming to the rescue and ending up like Sherlock Holmes's dog which did not bark.

Ministers in Standing Committee assured us that they wished to make this move, but they were not content with Opposition amendments and could not work out one of their own. For some time it seemed touch and go whether any Government amendment would be tabled to the Bill. I have called this the penultimate chapter of the saga because the chickens will not hatch until the regulations referred to in Lords amendment No. 10 are laid. Can the Minister shed any light on the contents of the draft regulations? Will he give a commitment to work closely with, in particular, Mencap and the Spastics Society? These amendments also place in primary legislation the entitlement to mobility allowance, or the higher mobility component of the DLA, of people who are both blind and deaf. Are we to infer that previous regulations were ultra vires? As the Minister may know, the Disability Alliance, which has worked so very hard on this Bill for people with disabilities, and in assisting hon. Members on both sides of the House, states :

"Clearly confusion has been caused by a legal mistake on the part of the Government."

Can the Minister give any further information about take-up? Is he satisfied that the regulations are being correctly interpreted by examining doctors and adjudicators? Will he explain why the entitlement of double amputees was not also put on the face of the Bill? May we

---

Column 821

be assured that, in a year's time, his legal advisers will not have changed their minds, as they have apparently done with the deaf and blind, and seek a further amendment to the law? Might not inclusion in the Bill assist take-up?

I thank Ministers for listening finally to the insistent representations made to them, in both Houses over many years, and also to the cogent arguments of voluntary organisations. I hope that they will follow the same pattern, perhaps rather less dilatorily, in regard to some of the other extremely important issues we have raised in the debates on this Bill.

Yes, it will cost money to do so, but it will also avert human suffering. That more money is needed is demonstrated by a simple comparison that refutes every word that has been said from that side of the House about how vastly disabled people have benefited from this Government's policies. The comparison is that, while average earnings have risen by more than 20 per cent. since 1979, disability benefits have risen by only 1 per cent. That is the central truth about all the self-congratulatory comments we have heard from some Conservative Members in tonight's debate and why much more needs to be done if we are really to address humanely the unmet needs of disabled people.

---