| Previous Section | Home Page |
Madam Speaker : That is the end of the matter. There can be no further points of order on it. I have dealt with it.
Mr. Skinner : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker : Is it a different point of order?
Madam Speaker : In that case, I shall take it.
Column 35
Mr. Skinner : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, Opposition parties get what is colloquially known as Short money. There is a point here that applies to the House as a whole, and in which you are bound to have an interest. Now that this debacle has taken place in the Scottish National party, who will receive the money? We are talking about taxpayers' money. Who will it be handed over to--the executive body or the leader of the SNP?
Madam Speaker : I put the hon. Gentleman on his honour when I asked whether his point of order related to the former point of order. I should have known better.
Mr. Corbyn : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker : I put the hon. Gentleman on his honour. He must not usurp the time of the House to ask about a matter that I have already dealt with. He may proceed if it is on a totally different matter.
Mr. Corbyn : It could not be a more different point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you read the newspapers at the weekend, as many of us did, and saw the disturbing reports that the Prime Minister managed to raise £17 million for the Conservative party by holding private dinners at 10 Downing street. By what means can we question the Prime Minister about his use of Downing street as a fund-raising agency for the Conservative party and about what undertakings were given in return for the secret donations made to the Tory party election machine so that we may know how Government policy has been influenced?
Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman assumes quite a lot. I have much more to do at the weekends than read the national press. The hon. Gentleman should not expect answers on procedural matters of that nature to be given by the Chair across the Floor of the House. We must now move on.
Column 36
Orders of the Day
Disability (Grants) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
4.21 pm
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time This is a short Bill for the House to consider, but it is an important one for severely disabled people. Before I deal with the contents of the Bill and the independent living fund in detail, I should like to place the concept of independent living within the wider context of care in the community. As we all know, policy on care in the community developed as a concept in the 1980s. Against the background, the aim was that, wherever feasible and sensible, people should be assisted to live as independently as possible in the community.
The final phase in the implementation of that concept will take place in April, when social security funds--that is to say, income support--hitherto used to pay independent sector home fees will be transferred to local authorities to enable them to purchase care from a range of providers, according to the needs that have been assessed for each individual. The future of the independent living fund, with which the Bill deals, has to be set in that context. The background against which ILF has hitherto been operating will be changed from April and I shall say something about that later.
The Bill fully meets our manifesto commitment to continue to support people with severe disabilities and consolidates the excellent work that the independent living fund has done over the past five years. It is the next step in the development of support to enable disabled people to live independently in the community.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : What would be the position of somebody who was so severely disabled that he could not remain at home, even with the assistance of the council and the fund, admittedly at the large amount of £500? Would such a person have to go into a home?
Mr. Scott : I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is talking about the present situation or about what will happen after the Bill has become law and the new funds have been set up. I shall explain in detail how the new arrangements will work for people who need support from both a local authority and the independent living fund and who have exceptionally high costs.
As we all recall, the ILF was announced as an interim measure in 1988, pending the introduction of the community care arrangements along the lines that were recommended by Sir Roy Griffiths. Those arrangements are now in place and will be implemented from 1 April, but as the ILF has been so successful the Government have decided to continue support for the main concepts behind it, which are giving cash to disabled people and recognising that by doing so we give them independence and the power to determine how best to meet their own care needs. I believe that that is right and fitting. It is sensible that this should be carried forward into the new arrangements, where the fund will operate in partnership with local authorities, which will no longer be merely
Column 37
providers of services but facilitators of a wide variety of care provisions. I hope that that will become increasingly true of the role of local authorities in the future.I suspect that our debate will be mainly about the ILF. The House will have noted, however, that we have also taken the opportunity in the Bill to put the funding for notability on a new statutory basis. I shall return to that towards the end of my remarks.
So we embark on the establishment of two new funds. Before I go any further, I wish to place on record my warmest thanks to the trustees and staff of the existing ILF. I am sure that during the Bill's passage, and especially today on Second Reading, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to take the opportunity to place on record their gratitude to all those associated with the fund. I know, because of my close contact with them over the years since the fund came into existence, that their work has not always been easy. They have had to develop a new way of working with disabled people under the sometimes critical eyes of the disability lobby and various arms of government. The trustees, under the chairmanship first of Winifred Tumim and then of Trevan Hingston, faced many difficult decisions over the five-year life of the trust.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) : I am sure that we all want to underline what the Minister has said about thanking the trustees for the work that they have done. As he is complimenting them on the way in which they developed the task that was presented to them by the Government, will he say whether they were all happy about being wound up?
Mr. Scott : I think that the trustees understood that the ILF was, as constituted, an interim measure to see us through the gap before the introduction of care in the community in April this year. I shall come on to that
Mr. Field rose --
Mr. Scott : I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he might wish to listen to the next few sentences of my speech.
Mr. Field : I shall listen to what the Minister has to say, but I ask him now whether he is not rewriting history. When the fund was established, it had nothing to do with a measure to fill the gap between what then existed and of community care. It was introduced because the Government had introduced income support, under which those who were very disabled would have received less money than previously. They introduced the ILF to ensure that those people were not worse off and we congratulated them on that. The fund developed into a success which the Government did not believe possible. It is rather sad that we are mourning the loss of the ILF while welcoming a rather smaller initiative to follow in its wake.
Mr. Scott : Perhaps it would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had waited to hear what I was about to say about the proper transition from supplementary benefit through to income support, as a result of which we thought it necessary to fill the gap between that change and the move to care in the community, which was already in preparation. It is-- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) might like to undermine the tribute that I have been paying to the trustees--well, I know he would not. I shall move on to the
Column 38
new arrangements that are being made. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a proper intervention in due course I shall be only too happy to gve way to him, as he well knows.I pay tribute to the two chairmen, Winifred Tumim and Trevan Hingston, who faced many difficult decisions over the lifetime of the trust. No decision was more difficult than that of winding up the trust and bringing about its closure in November 1992--that is to say, its closure to new applications at that juncture.
It has been quite clear for a long time that to make proper provision for the ILF to hand over its caseload to the two new funds that will come into force on 1 April 1993 there would have to come a time when the ILF could not accept new applications. I well understand--it has been impressed on me by a number of the trustees--that there has been some misunderstanding about the discretion of the trustees in whether the fund could have stayed open in the particular circumstances of the delays in dealing with disability living allowance cases. Some people have had to wait several months to have their DLA claims processed.
It has been said, and technically it is correct, that trustees of charitable funds have discretion. However, I have always recognised that the need for an orderly handover prevented the trustees from being able to exercise their discretion in those circumstances. I want to make plain my regrets and apologies if any of the trustees feel that the excellent work that they have done for disabled people over the five-year life of the fund was in any way undermined by that misunderstanding.
Having paid tribute to the two chairmen of the ILF trustees, I want now to pay a particular tribute to the director of the fund, Judith Hoyle. She is on secondment from the Department of Social Security and has been with the fund since its inception five years ago. She has played a major part in its success. Through her, I also pay tribute to all the staff who have worked so conscientiously to ensure the fund's success. I am aware of their immense contribution to its work. With them, I bracket the social workers who have visited the potential beneficiaries of the fund and done great work in assessing their needs and making provision for them.
Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale) : The Minister said that he is grateful to the trustees. Will they be able to continue with the successor bodies? If not, is not it strange that he is saying how great they are when, in effect, they are virtually being sacked?
Mr. Scott : I understand the hon. Lady's point. In essence, the two new funds--the independent living (extension) fund and the independent living (1993) fund--will have a wholly different role from that of the ILF over the past five years. The ILF made total provision, on a charitable basis, for a trust where direct application was, in effect, made to the trustees. In the new circumstances
Mr. Malcolm Wicks (Croydon, North-West) : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Scott : No, not in the middle of a reply to another intervention. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in due course. The main thrust of new cases being provided for by the 1993 fund will come to the trustees after an application has been made to a local authority and the local authority has
Column 39
begun an assessment of the needs of the disabled person. Then, the 1993 fund will have the job of deciding whether to top up the help that is already being given by the local authority. The work of the new bodies, whether the one that provides for new cases or the one that manages the existing caseload and decides whether cases need to be reviewed because of extra need, will be wholly different from the work of the existing fund.Mr. Wicks : I apologise to the Minister for having tried to intervene at the wrong time. I am interested in what he has said about there being a wholly new role for the new funds. If that is so, why call them by the same name as the existing fund? Is not that confusing?
Mr. Scott : No-- [Laughter.] This is obviously a matter of great humour for the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, who have little enough to laugh at these days.
It is important to recognise that, although the two new funds have a wholly different role, disabled people whose needs have previously been met by the ILF may feel that the use of the same name gives a sense of continuity. I deliberately decided to incorporate the title of the old fund into the new funds, but with the caveat that one fund deals with new applications and the other deals with the existing caseload.
I acknowledge the important role and contribution of the Disablement Income Group and DIG (Scotland) in launching the fund five years ago. The ILF was established jointly by DIG and the Department and, without the group's support, it would have been difficult to launch the fund in the first instance.
It may be hard to recall what a courageous step that was for the Disablement Income Group at a time when many disability organisations wanted nothing to do with a discretionary fund but wanted a statutory, regulated system continued. To those critical of that decision I would only say--addressing my remarks to DIG and with apologies to Sir Christopher Wren--that if one wants to see the monument to that courageous decision by DIG, one need only look at the lives of the 21,000 people now receiving help from the fund.
Mr. Frank Field : I, too, congratulate DIG on being courageous enough to put its head above the parapet when everyone else, lacking in courage, kept their heads firmly below it--and were most unpleasant to DIG in the process. Is DIG happy with the fund's winding up?
Mr. Scott : I cannot speak for DIG, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman has access to its views. I had an extremely pleasant meeting with the ILF's outgoing trustees. Many of them perhaps felt some disappointment at not being able to contribute to the work, but they all took great pride in their achievements over the fund's lifetime. Although it may be invidious to mention individual trustees, we owe a particular debt to Peter Large and Pauline Thompson of the DIG. If I may mention two more names without in any way diminishing my respect and praise for others, Jack McGregor of DIG (Scotland) and Eilis Gallacher from County Derry played a major part in ensuring that the needs of Scotland and Northern Ireland were fully met through the fund's operation. I pay particular tribute to them.
Column 40
Mr. Keith Bradley (Manchester, Withington) : As the Minister if praising DIG so lavishly, and rightly, may I ask whether any DIG representative will be among the five trustees who have yet to be appointed by the Government?
Mr. Scott : The hon. Gentleman must control his impatience until he sees the names--but I do not anticipate that DIG will be represented on the new body of trustees. The hon. Gentleman should await the outcome, because final decisions have to be made on the new trust fund's composition.
I will recap--as this was mentioned in an intervention--on why the ILF was first introduced in 1988, at the time that we reformed the supplementary benefit system and introduced income support. Although I was engaged elsewhere during much of the lifetime of the supplementary benefit scheme, we can all, as constituency Members of Parliament, remember many of its complexities. A number of the weekly additions rules were not well targeted and were too complex for many customers to understand.
Local authorities long had responsibility for providing care, but the arrangements made for the disabled had precious little flexibility. The traditional response to the most severely disabled in particular was the offer of a place in a residential or nursing home. Between the abolition of the supplementary benefit additions and the introduction of community care, the ILF was introduced to bridge the gap.
The fund's purpose was to allow those severely disabled people who did not want to go into residential care but who needed substantial levels of care and domiciliary support to remain in their own homes.
Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside) : As to the Minister's decision to exclude those over working age, I must inform him of the great disappointment of the Alzheimer's Disease Society, which feels that an element of discrimination is at work--bearing in mind that older people suffer dementia and that those who look after them suffer physical and financial hardship. Will the Minister reconsider that decision ? It has been badly received in my constituency and has caused great anguish nationally.
Mr. Scott : I entirely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but let me make two more points. He will acknowledge, I hope, that any scheme of this sort must be introduced within the available resources. Substantial extra resources are being provided for independent living as a result of this legislation and I forecast even more expenditure over the years to come.
We must determine the priorities. I thought it right, and the Government feel it right, that the available resources should be concentrated in particular on those who have become disabled earlier in life. They are likely to have substantially higher care costs than older people and they will not have been able to build up savings or acquire pension rights which are frequently available to such people. As was shown by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report examining the difference in income levels between younger disabled people and able-bodied young people, and between older disabled people and older people who are not disabled, the gap is greater at the younger level than at the older. I therefore think it right to concentrate help on the younger disabled and I am prepared to defend that decision. I understand
Column 41
the feelings that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, but, within the resources available, I believe that it is right to concentrate them in the way that I have suggested.The ILF had a small beginning, spending only £1 million of the £5 million provided in its first year of existence--1988-89--but since then it has grown to be a respected organisation in the disability world, currently administering a budget of nearly £100 million and making payments to some 21,000 people. One reason for the growth in the caseload is that the fund was more effective in delivering help to where it is really needed than the system that it replaced. It should be borne in mind that that system gave regulated, statutory help with the costs of domestic assistance. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will recall that there were never more than 6, 000 people receiving those supplementary benefit additions and that average individual payments amounted to less than £30 a week. Today, we have some 21,000 cases on the ILF with payments averaging about £114 a week.
I believe that, in a flexible and individually tailored way, the ILF has been a considerable success throughout its lifetime. We all know that by far the most popular aspect of the ILF is the flexibility and freedom of choice that cash payments bring. Dignity and independence are as important to disabled people as they are to everyone else in society. Disabled people have come to value the ability to select and employ their own carers. The new 1993 fund will ensure that disabled people continue to maintain that dignity and independence in two ways. First, it will ensure that the package of care put together for their needs involves a partnership between the disabled person, the professionals from the local authority and the ILF ; secondly, it will continue to provide at least an element of cash payments to support the services provided by local authorities.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) : Unless the deed says so, I do not see any procedure in anything that the Minister has said to enable the people whom the Bill is supposed to serve to have an adverse decision reviewed, either by the local authority or the trustees of the fund. If there is no process of review or appeal, would decisions of that kind be subject to judiciable statements in the courts by way of judicial review?
Mr. Scott : I suppose that almost anything may be subject to judicial review nowadays, but, in essence, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. If someone is dissatisfied with a judgment made about the fund's role in topping up local authority care, the trustees will be able to ask for their case to be reviewed, and, if necessary, two or more trustees will be able to look individually at the provision that has been made. Clearly, in a partnership between local authorities and trustees, there will be some constraints in regard to the exercise of that judgment, but there is nothing to say that, if the trustees feel that a mistake has been made about the assessment of their need in excess of the fund, the position cannot be re-examined--as long as the amount does not exceed the maximum.
Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden) : Obviously, this is a matter of some concern. The fund is to provide a top-up payment, which may often be quite modest. The majority of help will come in the local authority package. The Minister has talked rather generally about the arrangements being a partnership, and of course we all
Column 42
hope that individuals will be consulted ; but will the right hon. Gentleman say a little about the rights of the individual in cases of disagreement between local authority and recipient? If the local authority wishes to make a financial payment, as distinct from providing services, can it do that?Mr. Scott : The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there is currently no provision for local authorities to provide cash. They can provide services. Whatever may happen in the future, at a time when local authorities are taking on so many extra responsibilities in relation to community care, it is surely a mistake to add to those responsibilities a duty to manage cash. I do not know what the future may hold, but at present authorities have no power to provide cash. What authorities have, however-- under the terms of the introduction of community care--is a responsibility to consult and involve disabled people in the decision-making process about the package of care with which they will be provided. If that exceeds the £200 limit that the authority must provide in terms of services, a social worker from the ILF will become involved in discussions with local authority social workers to decide what extra cash payment may be necessary in the circumstances. Anyone who is dissatisfied at that point can return to the fund's trustees and ask for the matter to be reconsidered--as, indeed, the local authority can be asked at any time to assess whether the package of services should be re-examined. Circumstances may have changed, or it may be felt that the assessment has gone wrong.
Of course, the introduction of community care has taken us into new territory. No doubt we shall have to monitor carefully how it all works in practice and, in particular, the workings of the partnership between local authorities and the new 1993 ILF.
Mr. Dewar : I believe that there are guidelines on the pricing of the local authority contribution, but how exactly will it work in practice? Presumably, the local authority is the only arbiter when £200 worth of services have been offered. After that it will be up to the ILF, but I assume that there will be some disagreement between the fund and the local authority--and, possibly, the recipient--about precisely how the services should be priced and costed.
Mr. Scott : As I said in response to an earlier intervention, I do not suggest for a moment that there will not be a certain amount of constructive discussion about such matters as the system is launched.
Mr. Kirkwood : It is due to start in a fortnight.
Mr. Scott : Applications are already being made to local authorities and they, in a sense, will be the gateway to the cash that the 1993 fund may be able to provide for disabled people. I believe that authorities are approaching the provision of community care positively. I also believe that the trustees of the new fund will approach their role positively. I am not saying that there will not be the odd hiccup, but I, too, have adopted a positive attitude to the partnership that is evolving. I believe that it will meet the needs of disabled people.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire knows how much I respect him and I know that it is the Opposition's job to be critical of anything that Governments do. I do not ask him exactly to rejoice in the current developments, but I ask him at least to be pleased
Column 43
that it is possible to continue providing cash for the most severely disabled people in our society, when that has proved so important to them.Mr. Kirkwood : The Minister of State is provoking me. He is, of course, dealing with difficult and complex questions. What concerns me is that we have only about a fortnight before the procedure comes into operation. We do not know the names of the trustees and we have not seen the guidelines, the regulations or the statutory instruments, but the Minister expects everything to be sorted out in the wash. The matter is too important to be left to the vagaries of such a timetable.
Mr. Scott : The hon. Gentleman may not have caught up with everything that has happened. The staff of the ILF is already preparing for the new fund, two new trustees are in place and operating the system, and others will be appointed in the near future. [Interruption.] All seven trustees will be appointed before the fund comes into existence. They will be in place in the next two weeks. The staff members of the independent living fund are already in discussion with local authorities.
As we launch the new arrangements, the first job is for local authorities to receive applications from the most severely disabled people and from disabled people generally within their curtilage. The authorities will then assess their needs. First, they will assess needs against the level of services that are likely to be needed. Where they feel that the £200 limit will be exceeded they will want to have discussions with the staff and trustees of the independent living (1993) fund. There is nothing very complicated about that, although the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire may feel that there is. Apart from the odd hiccup, the system will operate sensibly and sensitively.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) : The Minister does not seem to understand the point. We have been entirely helpful. Given the background of chaos and the problems caused to many people over the DLA, we are trying to help the Minister to avoid another administrative cock-up that will damage his reputation and that of the Government. The people connected to the present independent living fund are extremely concerned that they were not consulted about the new body although they have a wealth of experience. The team for a system that will be operating in two weeks has not been set up. We are genuinely concerned for the recipients and for the Minister's reputation.
Mr. Scott : Before I spoke I was tempted to take a bet on how long it would be before the hon. Gentleman mentioned the disability living allowance. The problems of the DLA were the problems of success. I do not think that there will be problems with the independent living fund. The gate-keepers in the operation of the new ILF will be the local authorities. Sensible discussions are already taking place between local authorities and ILF staff about how matters will be handled.
Local authorities are now in the driving seat for community care for disabled and severely disabled people. They will be the facilitators of care whether it is provided at home or in a residential setting. That is why the time has come to make some changes in the concept of the
Column 44
independent living fund and how it will operate in the future. The aim is to extend the good work of designing and providing packages of care, which may well turn out to be a mix of services and cash for the most severely disabled people.Mr. Frank Field : The House should not be fooled too much by the Minister's skill in convincing us that all is well. Those of us who think that, where possible, we should give people the money to do their own thing rather than adopt a paternalistic attitude have been defeated. Whatever the Government's reasons for introducing the measure, it is a defeat for that principle. We are moving from extending people's freedom by giving them cash to local authorities being generous gate-keepers, the Minister hopes, for the new benefit.
Mr. Scott : Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide care packages for the elderly, the disabled and other vulnerable people. When the community care arrangements of Sir Roy Griffiths were seen as the most sensible way forward, cash provision was not envisaged. There is now such provision through the continuation of the independent living (1993) fund and that is a great prize for severely disabled people. I note the hon. Gentleman's scepticism. We shall have to see. I shall certainly do my best and I know that the trustees and staff will do their best to continue in the tradition of the foregoing independent living fund in providing sensitive, sensible and generous packages of help for disabled people to enable them to live in their own homes where that is feasible.
Mr. Frank Field : I intervene again on this important issue. I shall not do so at any other stage in the debate. There is all the difference in the world between giving people cash and hoping that local authorities will deliver care packages. Local authorities currently operate under restraints. The packages will be designed largely in line with what local authorities can currently provide using the people that they employ. There is a great difference between a person having the money to design his own package and having discussions with a local authority which then fits that person into the scheme which it thinks that he needs and in line with the number of workers that the authority employs.
Mr. Scott : I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The Government's aim and that of many local authorities is that authorities will not simply provide services using the people that they employ, but will co-operate with voluntary organisations and private sector providers. The local authority will be the facilitator for the care packages which will be delivered by other organisations and individuals. Increasingly, local authorities will take a much more flexible approach to providing or facilitating the necessary care packages. The independent living fund will be an important top-up to those arrangements for the most severely disabled people.
Mr. David Willetts (Havant) : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the extra money for local authorities for community care will be ring fenced and that the Government have made it clear that 85 per cent. of those funds are to be spent on private provision of services? Does he agree that one of the arguments for precisely such an arrangement is that it will deal with the anxieties of the
Column 45
hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) by ensuring that local authorities' care plans are not determined by the services that they themselves provide?Mr. Scott : My hon. Friend makes the point well. I hope that the arrangements will lead to a great deal more flexibility-- [Interruption.] Perhaps the Opposition do not understand these matters. They are so locked into the tramlines of former provision that they do not know the extent of the potential in the new arrangements which my colleagues in the Department of Health and local authorities will be enabled to introduce.
I shall briefly describe the character of the two new funds. The independent living (extension) fund applies to existing cases. The partnership arrangements, with which I shall shortly deal, apply to new cases. Nearly two years ago I first announced that there would be no disruption of the arrangements for existing independent living fund beneficiaries. It would not be fair to individual disabled people to unmake the successful care packages that were devised for them, nor would it have been fair to expect local authorities at a stroke to take on and manage agreements that had been entered into by others.
The independent living (extension) fund has been set up as an independent charitable trust to continue to make payments on the same basis as now to all people who are currently receiving money from the independent living fund or who have temporarily had their payments suspended from 1 April. It would be possible for someone who had entered a short-term care provision and was therefore not receiving a weekly payment from the ILF still to be part of the existing caseload taken on by the extension fund on 1 April.
In practice, the only difference that any recipient of independent living fund support should notice on 1 April is a change of name on the cheque at the time of takeover. The extension fund will continue to have review powers, just as the independent living fund does. Resources for the extension fund in 1993-94 will be of the order of £120 million for the United Kingdom. That is rather more than a 20 per cent. increase on the provision that has been made for this year and should enable adequate provision to be made for any upward reviews, in terms of the care that is needed by disabled people. I turn now to the independent living (1993) fund. The independent living fund was the pioneer in allowing people with disabilities to take a proactive role in determining how best their care needs could be met. We all welcome that.
Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East) : My right hon. Friend has just said that we all welcome the work of the ILF, but is it not a fact that when it was introduced it was attacked by the Labour party and described as an abdication of the Government's responsibilities?
Mr. Scott : I believe that the Opposition have now been convinced and are among the stoutest defenders of the independent living fund. There is joy in heaven on these occasions.
Mr. Frank Field : And there will be again.
Mr. Scott : Yes, but the Opposition will have to go through the whole process all over again.
The ILF was the pioneer in allowing people with disabilities to play that role, with support and professional back-up which is an important element in the package.
Column 46
That is why, in establishing the 1993 fund, we have built on the case work approach. From April this year, the vast majority of disabled people, including the bulk of those who would have looked to the ILF for help in the past, will, in the first instance, look to their local authority. For the most severely disabled people, whose care needs are so great that without additional help they would have to go into residential or nursing care, the 1993 fund will provide an additional option for social workers in planning packages of care with their disabled clients.We expect that each year around 1,500 people will get a cash payment from the new fund, as well as help from their local authority. The budget for the first year of this fund will be just over £4 million for the United Kingdom. One has to reflect on the fact that the budget for the larger-scale ILF was £5 million in its first year, only £1 million of which was taken up. For a much more restricted caseload, I believe that £4 million is an even more generous provision to meet the demands that are likely to be put upon the fund in its first year.
I have already mentioned that the 1993 fund will work as a partnership between itself--the trustees--and the local authority. All the most severely disabled people who are likely to come within the purview of the fund will already, overwhelmingly, be likely to be in touch with their local authority social services departments because of existing needs. As with the current ILF, the new fund will be restricted to people on low incomes and to those who live alone or with someone who is unable to supply all the care that they need. Eligibility will also be limited, as I think I have already stated, to those of working age--those between 16 and 65.
Where it is clear that the cost of care in the community will be above the national threshold--which, as I have already stated, we have set at £200 a week--the social worker will want to consider whether the client might be eligible for help from the new fund. The fund would then be able to make a topping-up cash payment of up to a further £300, making a total of £500 a week.
I believe, in essence, that the new system will ensure that a significant group of disabled people will be able to look to the primary facilitators of community care, the local authorities, for their community services without losing the extra flexibility of an element of cash payments.
Mr. Dewar : Presumably the qualifying criteria will be a matter for the trustees of the new fund which is to take over new cases. They will, I presume, start on the same higher payment component care, the disability living allowance, basis, but in future they will have to keep within a budget, which will be cash limited. If they cannot do so, the criteria may have to be altered as happened in the past.
Mr. Scott : Manifestly, the new fund, as with the existing fund, will be run on a cash-limited basis. It will be up to the trustees to deploy their resources as necessary. It has been broadly true over the life of the existing independent living fund that there has been an underspend of the cash limit, perhaps because of the trustees' prudence. Nevertheless, we believe that the provision that has been made for both the new fund and the existing cases fund will be adequate to cope with needs for the foreseeable future.
Motability is the organisation that enables people to use the top rate mobility component of their DLA to buy or lease a vehicle specially adapted to their needs.
| Next Section
| Home Page |