---

Column 896

asked their Lordships not to shoot the messenger. I certainly have not meant to do that ; she is held in warm personal regard. However, it is our duty to debate the policy. If parliamentary debate is to count for anything, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will heed the arguments that have been put forward from all parties and in both Houses. Early-day motion 1673 on independent living has been signed by 146 hon. Members of all parties. I hope that Ministers will respond positively to those arguments and views now because it is an urgent issue. My hon. Friend the Minister the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), has said that the Government's position is not irreversible. Care in the community and the new independent living fund must be established on a sensible basis. We cannot continue to defer to the obstinate obscurantism of a departmental tradition which dates from 1948.

Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale) : I shall not detain the House for long, as the arguments have been well rehearsed by hon. Members on all sides of the House.

Direct payments to people with disabilities will help them to lead individual lives in the same way as everybody else. We all know that, and I believe the Minister is well aware of it. I hope that the Government will change their mind about the amendment, as it will empower people with disabilities and help them to feel as if we treat them as normal human beings, because that is what they are. If we do not allow them to manage their own lives, we are saying that they do not have the same rights as us.

One of the arguments was that it is not cost-effective, but it is very cost -effective. If people with disabilities do not stay in their own homes and cannot manage their own budgets, they will probably have to go into residential accommodation and that will cost a great deal more. I hope that the Government take that on board. If disabled people do not go into residential accommodation, yet again the carers will have to cope. The carers, who carry the burden all the time, will have to meet those needs. Under new community care legislation, much respite care will be cut because of insufficient Government funding. I urge the Government to change their mind.

I do not accept that there would be a lack of accountability. It will be far easier for an individual to liaise with his or her local authority than for the local authority to liaise with the provider of services. The individual can be in constant contact with the social services department as to his or her needs and the services that it is buying in. That argument also goes by the board.

Only a small number of people are involved, and for the Government to deny them a proper standard of living is extremely heartless. Cash payments are already made under the Children Act 1989, so a precedent has been set. I hope that the Minister will tell the Treasury that costs will not run out of control. There are too few people involved for that to happen. Disabled people should be able to enjoy their dignity and to manage their own lives. That is why I put my name to the amendment.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : There is unanimity on this issue on all parts of the House, and I will emphasise some of the points made with great force by other hon. Members in the belief that, as we say in Wales, "Dgtal donc a dgrr y garreg"--constant knocking breaks the stone. The stone that we have to crack is a strange and uncharacteristic stubbornness among Ministers.

---

Column 897

Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to make grants to the funds

"for such purposes as the Secretary of State may determine." The amendment would define those purposes as

"promoting independence and freedom of choice"

among the disabled. I am sure that we will share that aspiration. The importance of the disabled receiving cash payments wherever possible is that they can make their own decisions--something very much with the grain of Government thinking on so many other issues--as to how the money should be spent and the services needed can best be provided.

The old ILF made payments direct to the person concerned, and that was a successful arrangement. The extension fund will continue to make such payments to those already receiving them, and the 1993 fund will make payments to the disabled and to third parties--and is likely to do so in most cases. The reason is that part of the money required will be provided by local authorities, which cannot make cash payments to the disabled but only provide services.

The 1993 fund trustees will probably feel that it makes more sense to deliver the full package in kind rather than part of it being paid in cash and the rest in kind. The solution is to give local authorities the power to make cash payments, as they can in Scotland. Ministers virtually conceded that that will have to be done sooner or later but, for reasons that perplex us, they have refused to do it now.

On Second Reading, the Minister of State said :

"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."--[ Official Report, 15 March 1993 ; Vol. 221, c. 42.]

However, local authorities will have to "manage cash", whether they are making payments to their own employees, other organisations, or the disabled themselves. Making it possible for local authorities to pay money to the disabled where they think that is right will not add to their burdens. On the contrary, it will make their task easier if some people can organise their own services rather than rely on their local authority to do that for them.

In Committee, the Minister was even more forthcoming :

"No one who has stayed in close touch with the work of the independent living fund can be unaware of the importance of cash, as opposed to services, to empower disabled people to have control over their lives current legislation does not enable local authorities to dispense cash I suspect that that argument will be pursued with vigour by my hon. Friends, as well as by Opposition Members, who hold strong views on the matter, which will not go away. I recognise that the provision of cash maximises the freedom, the choice and the empowerment of disabled people. Current legislation does not provide for that and the Bill does not deal with it. However, I have noted carefully the hon. Gentleman's remarks."--[ Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 March 1993 ; c. 52.]

The Bill cannot deal with that point because of the narrow drafting of its long title--hence the amendment's indirect wording. However, there is nothing to prevent the Minister from giving an undertaking tonight that that point will be dealt with by suitable legislation at the earliest opportunity. We are only asking the Minister to confront the logic of his own persuasive arguments.

---

Column 898

6.45 pm

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott) : I recognise the importance of debating this subject, which is in many ways central to community care. However, a number of problems confront me in respect of particular amendments. As the House will be aware, we are four weeks into the new care in the community arrangements. It would be unrealistic for the House to expect me to accept this evening amendments introduced at such an early point in those new arrangements.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge the debate's importance and the powerful speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the House in support of the narrower point--although I understand why the amendment was drafted in the way that it was--of whether cash alone, a mixture of cash and services, or just services should be the response to meeting the needs of disabled people.

If I were tempted to accept the amendment and it were passed, that would involve changes to the activities of the trustees, who have all been appointed, and would involve the Charity Commissioners. That would not be an overriding consideration, but it would present problems, given that the trustees have held their first meeting and are deciding the way ahead. For those narrow reasons--I will come to the broader issues--it would be inappropriate to accept the amendment.

Mr. Alan Howarth : I appreciate my right hon. Friend's point about the practical difficulties of altering the terms of the trust just after it has been established--clearly the new trustees and their staff want to get on with the job on the terms already defined. However, is not the important issue of parliamentary accountability in question, in establishing the rules of the fund by way of a trust deed? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that there should be accountability to Parliament for publicly provided funds and that there should be scope from time to time to change the trustees' terms of reference?

Mr. Scott : There may be occasions during the life of the fund when, if there were strong and overwhelming feelings in the House, it would be necessary to alter the terms on which trustees settle matters. But it would be somewhat premature and untidy if, four weeks into the new arrrangements, we were to be persuaded to go down that route. Incidentally, I am not saying that I necessarily believe that the arguments being advanced at the moment will in due course be necessary, but at least for the time being I can rest on the fact that the timing would be singularly inappropriate at the moment. The main debate that we have had today, however, is on the question of cash. Illumination has been provided by the debate in another place and by debates in Committee and the debate this evening has brought home how cash delivered by the predecessor independent living fund empowered people to make choices about the care with which they were provided. I, too, have read the reports and views of Ann Kestenbaum, Pauline Thompson and others. Nobody can read them without being impressed by the power of their arguments. They are extremely moving as well as persuasive. But I hope that the House will be prepared to accept that, persuasive and moving though the arguments may be, we are at present in a new situation, with care in the community operating in its infancy.

---

Column 899

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and other hon. Members have made the point that, all too often in the past, the provision of care services by local authorities has tended to be inflexible. Sometimes, as in the example quoted by the hon. Member, it has even been uncaring and unresponsive to the varying needs of disabled people. I accept that such cases are in the minority and that many social service workers and carers employed by local authorities are immensely committed to their task and carry out their duties carefully and with flexibility.

Overall, however, I believe that the attitudes of local authorities have been changing and will continue to move away from what one might call the rather authoritarian attitude that has characterised some provision in the past, with local authorities deciding the disabled persons' needs and how they will be met. That is not a total caricature of the attitude of some local authorities to the provision of care, whether it be because of budgetary constraints or because of attitudes among some professionals, who believe that they can say what is best for those in their care.

We must recognise that, under the new community care arrangements, local authorities will increasingly become enablers rather than providers in the care business. They will be looking to organisations, private organisations, perhaps specially set up to provide care, perhaps voluntary organisations that can move into the business of providing care. We already know of some national organisations that are establishing schemes for looking after the group of disabled people in their particular remit ; in some ways that could be a better path than local authorities seeking to provide all the services themselves. Local authorities becoming facilitators rather than providers will therefore be a very important part of this new approach. The fact that they must spend some 85 per cent. of the ring-fenced money in the non-public sector will be an important encouragement to move in that direction.

As we discuss this matter today we share a common aim : that the people who need help and caring services receive them. I do not apologise for repeating what I have said before : my colleagues in the Department of Health and I, as Minister for Disabled People, are anxious to see that package of services are arrived at after proper consultation with the recipient of the care packages and that local authorities will assess the needs through their own social workers and will then explain to the disabled person what they feel able to provide, but ask for his views and offer to make such changes as they feel they can.

Above that package of care, if the needs are in excess of the benchmark, the independent living fund, the 1993 fund, will be able to come in and provide the necessary extra cash. That will introduce the element of flexibility which has been so important.

The cash argument is unlikely to disappear simply because I am unable to accept these arguments. I am trying to deal with the matter on its merits at the moment. I believe that we should give the new arrangements a fair and clear run-in. But nobody who has been involved in the workings of the independent living fund over the whole of its life could fail to understand the importance of cash in the lives of many disabled people. It is important that instead of the fund coming entirely to an end when community care was introduced a month ago, we were able to have both the extension fund and the 1993 fund, in order to preserve this concept.

The Government will certainly monitor the impact of the new arrangements. Bearing in mind the strength of the

---

Column 900

views expressed across the House this evening, I have a feeling that I will be constantly reminded of the arguments that have been put forward and that the Government will have to reconsider this from time to time to see whether the new arrangements are bearing up or what changes may be necessary.

I thank all those who have contributed to the debate this evening. I end by reminding the House that although some examples have been put forward of local authorities being able to make cash payments, in general--Scotland is an exception--it is illegal for local authorities to make regular cash payments to individuals. They can make one-off payments in certain circumstances, but the concept of regular cash payments inherent in the arguments put forward this evening is at present generally illegal. If local authorities can devise schemes that are lawful, I will certainly not oppose their working with disabled people to work out innovative ways of giving disabled people more control over their care packages.

I have tried to respond to the debate, but, because I am unable to accept the amendments or the idea of introducing changes so early in the life of the community care arrangements, I must ask the House to reject the amendments. I hope that I do so with some tone of sympathy in my voice and some understanding of the arguments that have been put forward.

Mr. Sheerman : We are disappointed that the Minister has been unable to accept the amendments. Sometimes one listens to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and one tries to decode them as he is speaking. I feel that what he has said this evening needs some decoding. There is a sense in which he seems to be saying to the House, in a very quiet voice buried somewhere in the speech, that he is convinced of what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said in a very good speech and that he accepts that the moral case, as debated here and in Committee, has been made for accepting the principle embodied in the amendment. So I am encouraged by that voice in the right hon. Gentleman's speech.

However, we are not very impressed by some of the reasons for failing to act now. I am tempted to quote the immortal bard and say, "It's not our fault, guv," when the Minister points out that we are a month into community care and it is all too late. He could have prepared for this a year ago. He knew that the independent living fund was coming to the end of its five years and he had plenty of time to prepare. He has had a year since the general election. So he has no excuse not to have all this up and running, thought through and implemented a long time before now. He says that it is all very difficult because we are a month into community care and all the problems there.

There is an argument to be made--I will not elaborate too much, because we will come back to it on Third Reading--that the independent living fund was seen pragmatically as a great success, a great empowerer of disabled people. The independent living fund ran with great success for five years and the principles embodied in it could have been part of the doctrine that has now been introduced. Another point about planning is that the Government--knowing that the independent living fund was coming to the end of its five-year life and that the community care package was coming in at the same time--could have extended the independent living fund for a short time until the community care package had bedded down. That is an

---

Column 901

argument that we have heard time and again from professionals--allow community care to bed down for a period and assess the match or mismatch between that and the independent living fund. I know that the Minister has heard that argument many times from many quarters. The Minister said that his imagination had been illuminated by the debate, but he has given a catalogue of reasons for not being able to implement any of the suggestions at the present time.

7 pm

My final point concerns the changed nature of local authorities. It is interesting that a Minister in the present Government should acknowledge that local authorities actually can and do do a good job. The Labour party has been saying that for 14 years, long and hard. Local authorities believe that cash payment is the best way to enable and facilitate this group of severely disabled people.

Consequently, local authorities, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of Directors of Social Services and all the other organisations that have been quoted by hon. Members on both sides of the House are telling the Minister that the most effective way for severely disabled people to be helped is by the provision of cash by local authorities. I was encouraged by the Minister's closing remark--and I will be reading his speech very carefully tomorrow--that if arrangements were made by local authorities, by way of a trust or whatever, which will facilitate certain kinds of payments, he would not wish to stop that.

That is the only encouragement that I have been given, however, so we will be pushing this amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made :--

The House divided : Ayes 193, Noes 259.

Division No. 250] [7.2 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Ainger, Nick

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Alton, David

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Armstrong, Hilary

Ashton, Joe

Austin-Walker, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnes, Harry

Barron, Kevin

Bayley, Hugh

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Benton, Joe

Betts, Clive

Blunkett, David

Boyce, Jimmy

Boyes, Roland

Bradley, Keith

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Byers, Stephen

Caborn, Richard

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Canavan, Dennis

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Clelland, David

Coffey, Ann

Connarty, Michael

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Corston, Ms Jean

Cousins, Jim

Cryer, Bob

Cummings, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Dafis, Cynog

Davidson, Ian

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Denham, John

Dewar, Donald

Dixon, Don

Dowd, Jim

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eastham, Ken

Enright, Derek

Etherington, Bill

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Fatchett, Derek

Fisher, Mark

Flynn, Paul

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Foster, Don (Bath)

Foulkes, George

Fyfe, Maria

George, Bruce

Gerrard, Neil

---