| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.17 pm
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford, South): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this well-informed debate. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the interest that they have shown in the direct payment scheme and I congratulate them on their commitment to it. I refer specifically to the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who have obviously faced an uphill task in persuading their colleagues that that important measure should be enshrined in legislation.
I pay tribute also to the progressive contributionfrom my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield(Mr. Hinchliffe), who looked beyond the Bill at how to address the future needs of disabled people. My rugby league team recently beat my hon. Friend's team, so I must ensure that I build up my stock and increase my credibility with him over time.
This is a small Bill, but it has considerable potential.I recognise the reasonable manner in which the Minister presented the Bill on Second Reading. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, the Opposition recognise that the Bill has shortcomings and is limited in its scope and application. I know that in Committee the Minister will listen to the concerns raised by hon. Members, disability groups and local authorities who want to contribute to the success of the direct payment scheme.
There should be a greater sense of outrage in relation to how disabled people are treated in this country. More Members of Parliament should be present at debates such as this to ensure that disabled people's rights--basic civil rights--are recognised. I am also concerned about the length of time it takes to get things done for disabled people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) said, these schemes exist and work, but we have had to wait a long time for this legislation to come forward and it is still discretionary. Local authorities will pursue the route that has been outlined because it is the proper thing to do and they will base their services on local need, which they are well versed in meeting.
The Government are always over-cautious, defensive and wrong in their attitudes and actions in relation to disability rights. There have been some shameful incidents--for example, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) proposed a private Member's Bill which provided for positive and clear action for people with disabilities, but the Government watered it down. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said, there are 6 million disabled people in the United Kingdom. We are approaching an election and those people will not forget how the Government treated that private Member's Bill.
People with disabilities are no longer prepared to fight in isolation or in separate groups: they now work together--they will no longer be divided and ruled, as they were in the past. A strong coalition works with disabled people in Bradford. I pay tribute to the disabled people who have travelled here to the various lobbies to ensure that their voice is heard. I also pay tribute to groups that work with people with disabilities. Many hon. Members have paid tribute to the Disablement Income Group and its excellent publication outlining its policy in relation to the Bill.
That group helped the Government to establish the independent living fund. As hon. Members have said, the fund proved conclusively that we are able to empower disabled people to develop their choices and arrangements. By 1993 the fund was making regular cash payments to more than 21,000 people and had an annual budget of £97 million, but that level of spending was going to cause a great deal of concern--and I note that the Chancellor has left the Chamber. That fund showed how disabled people could be empowered to control their lives in a way that would otherwise not have been possible.
Local authorities were looking to be creative in providing cash payments to people, but the law was ambiguous. Legal advice indicated that cash payments were permissible under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, while others were forbidden by the National Assistance Act 1948--there was a great deal of confusion. Lobbying during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, to which the hon. Member for Mid-Kent referred, ruled those payments to be illegal. It did not help at all. There was understandable frustration and anger because people's problems were not being fixed. Labour Members have said that disabled people want care when they want it and in a way that affects their lives--they need it to be tailored.
All hon. Members agree that direct payments can achieve increased empowerment and improve the quality of life of disabled people. However, there can be problems
in the recruitment, selection and suitability of the personal assistants to be employed. There need to be strong support mechanisms for efficient and effective use of the payments. Good-quality and appropriate advice is essential in employment and related matters. We must ensure that support mechanisms are in place. I refer to the meaning of "independent living" as defined by disabled people at a symposium in Finland:
That fundamental definition embodies the philosophy that we must adopt. We can no longer say that we want to do things for or to disabled people--they must have the right to choose and to determine, where possible, what can be done with them as opposed to for them or to them.
The Bill gives local authorities discretionary powers to make payments, but there is a concern about the relationship between direct payment and the existing local authority provision. There are also cuts in the local authority budgets--my local authority in Bradford has had successive cuts year after year because of the failure of central Government. This must be looked at when we examine the detail of direct payment as opposed to the provision of the wider service.
The use of the special transitional grant also needs to be examined and a suitable balance must be reached. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health will look at the problems that have been raised--he has said that he will do so following the consultation--about discrimination in disabilities. People with disabilities have enough problems without there being discrimination in relation to each disability. Ministers need to make up their minds to support the broad spectrum of disabilities. I believe that in Committee we shall iron out many of the problems contained in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will look at the arguments that have been put to him by hon. Members, by local authorities and by disabled groups.
Experienced local authorities can make assessments and they are in a good position to ensure that the test is adequately applied--that the person who is receiving the direct payment can manage it appropriately. I hope that the Minister will take into account the argument about relaxing the exclusions. The Bill appears to be too restrictive in relation to the employment of family members. I understand the proximity argument, but there is potential to look at a wider remit and there should be flexibility in relation to special needs and special circumstances. Experienced local authorities have the credibility and the compassion to deliver the choice of direct payment or the provision of service, whichever is most suitable.
Local authorities must be adequately funded, and this issue cannot be looked at in isolation--we have to look at all the services that local authorities may provide. My local authority is currently having difficulty because it has to increase its charges for social services, much to the annoyance of those who receive them. With the passage of this Bill, there will be an opportunity to soften some of the blows in relation to price increases when we look at tailoring the direct payment.
The Bill is a step in the right direction. We have been congratulating each other on getting the Bill to this stage, but the battle is not over. We must ensure that people with
disabilities are treated in a proper manner, that they are able to live their lives to the fullest extent and that they have a quality of life that takes them down the employment route with the fullest support from society.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
The Bill has an enticing trailer in its explanatory and financial memorandum. Like all trailers, it picks up the best bits and puts a spin on them in an attempt to make people watch the film. Just as films do not always live up to their trailers, the Bill is disappointing in that it does not live up to the explanatory and financial memorandum, the first paragraph of which states:
It sets out the scope of the Bill, which has the support of the House.
Hon. Members have covered the Bill in considerable detail and pressed the Minister on various issues. Even the Minister seemed unsure as to whether the regulations would accommodate their proposals. The pressure has been in one direction, so why is there a problem? The problem is that the Bill is an enabling measure. Enabling measures always worry me. I was on the Standing Committee on the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990, which was also an enabling measure to which regulations have since been attached. The legislation was inadequate because it was always envisaged that regulations would have to be added.
When I speak strongly against enabling measures,I generally point out that Adolf Hitler liked them and that they are advocated by the Militant tendency. I recognise that the Bill does not belong in that category as it is a positive measure which breaks down barriers and opens up possibilities. Even if we have a weak version of the Bill and weak regulations are attached to it, it will represent an advance and we may be able to build on it in future. However, the more concessions we gain, the easier it will be to support the measure on Third Reading instead of regurgitating the concerns which have been expressed today and will be raised in Committee.
The enabling aspects of the Bill require clarification. To whom does it apply? We have been told that 30,000 households may be eligible for assistance under the Bill. Clause 1(1) goes some way towards defining who should be included. Unfortunately, subsection (4) provides for the exclusion of certain categories, such as those over 65, so even the definition of those who are covered by the Bill needs clarification.
The definition in the Bill is taken from section 47(2) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 whereby a local authority can make an assessment of someone if
There is an argument about who may appear to be a disabled person and whether we should strengthen the provision to extend the potential take-up of the Bill.
That has been a common problem in the discussion of disabled people in debates on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in 1995 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill would have affected some 6.5 million people, but the Government never told us how many people would be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act. We may be in danger of being in the same position here. A wider definition would be appropriate.
The current definition of those who appear to a local authority to be disabled persons is qualified under subsection (1)(b) which relates to those who are specified under regulations made by the Secretary of State. The measure is shot through with provisions relating to regulations, but we have yet to find out what those regulations will contain. That is unfortunate. As we debate measures, we should have a clear understanding of the areas that are covered before those measures become law. We have only a creeping understanding of the Bill. We can only hope that the Minister will respond to pressure and extend its scope. We need more precision and understanding. "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" refers to clearly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. Any clearly defined area would be helpful in our consideration of the Bill.
As has been pointed out, the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People referred to the take-up of direct payments and stated that 60 per cent. of councils operate the system, albeit indirectly, and 90 per cent. have promised to do so when the Bill is enacted.
One crucial word will be debated extensively in Committee. That is the permissive term "may" which is used instead of the definite term "shall". Despite the pressures from local organisations, that permissive provision remains inadequate as the direct payments system could operate readily and well in some parts of the country while in other areas disabled people may be unable to exercise their rights. We must tackle that potential inequity.
A permissive right may cause difficulties for local authorities. If their accountants work out that administering direct payments instead of providing the services results in a net loss, local authorities will be under pressure not to pick up the permissive provision. They will have to measure the financial consequences against pressure from organisations for disabled people. Obviously that would not apply if local authorities were given sufficient resources. We should help to remove that choice.
Subsection (4) allows for the exclusion of certain categories. Hon. Members have referred to those who are over 65. One of my constituents contributed evidence to the consultation document. His concerns are at the other end of the scale. He has an 11-year-old daughter who will eventually be eligible for direct payments. He is concerned about her future. What he said would have made an excellent speech today--probably better than mine--to illustrate the difficulties that must be addressed in the Bill.
I am concerned about the exclusion of those over65, and about access to direct payments by future generations of disabled people. I am particularly
concerned about the problems of those who suffer from learning difficulties. I understand that there is an additional problem in that the Bill does not contain the same provisions as the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which provided for people with learning difficulties to have the details of its provisions presented in an accessible fashion.
Many other aspects of the Bill need to be clarified and enhanced. In the other place, Baroness Cumberlege gave details on Third Reading of a host of matters that she promised would be taken up in some way--for example, the idea that reports should be presented to Parliament every three years after enactment and that support in the form of guidance be given to recipients of the direct payments so that they can handle their responsibilities as employers, an important matter that has been dealt with at great length. A number of other topics will also be the subject of guidance. Reports, guidance provisions and details of eligibility, which Baroness Cumberlege mentioned, are matters that we, as serious legislators, should ensure are in the Bill so that solid decisions can be made.
The trailer to the Bill, as I described the explanatory and financial memorandum, contains other items of fascination. Towards the end of the trailer we are told that the financial effects of the Bill
The problem is that the Government are rather good at passing legislation that imposes responsibilities on local authorities without supplying authorities with the resources that they need to fulfil their obligations. That has certainly been the case with community care and it is a key issue in this instance. Adequate ring-fenced funding that is properly provided in, for example, standard spending assessments is something that needs to be tackled.
At the end of the explanatory and financial memorandum is a paragraph headed, "Effect of the Bill on public service manpower". Interestingly, it states:
It seems that the Government are anticipating that this is, finally, a small mouse of a measure and will not be picked up and run with to the extent that it should be. I hope that we can change some aspects of the Bill so that a fresh trailer has to be presented in order that the measure can be sold, although I accept that it contains some positive provisions.
No Northern Ireland Members of Parliament are here tonight--they have other things on their minds at the moment--but I know that there is considerable concern in Northern Ireland across all political parties about the rights of disabled people. Indeed, among the sponsors of my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in 1995 were members of four different political parties from Northern Ireland, and various Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (Northern Ireland) Bills have been produced.
The Bill, however, excludes Northern Ireland. The only part of the Bill that refers to Northern Ireland is clause6 which states that an Order in Council will be laid. Although Northern Ireland was not initially included in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995--or perhaps only in the same terms as in this Bill--the strength of feeling in Northern Ireland was such that that situation was changed and new provisions relating to Northern Ireland
were included. A complex addition was made in order that that measure should apply to Northern Ireland--a problem that is usually avoided by the Order in Council provision.
"Independent living is a process of consciousness raising and empowerment. This process enables disabled persons of all ages and with all types of disabilities to achieve equalisation of opportunities and full participation in all aspects of society. Disabled people must be in control of this process. Meaningful choices must be available in order to exercise control."
"The purpose of the Bill is to enable local authorities to make payments to people to enable them to purchase for themselves community care services which they have been assessed by a local authority as needing."
"it appears to a local authority that he is a disabled person".
6 Mar 1996 : Column 418
"will be implemented within existing resources."
"It is expected that any effects will be small."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |