| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Disability Living Allowance
5. Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about changing the regulations relating to disability living allowance for long-stay hospital patients; and if he will make a statement. [1702]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): The Department has received a number of representations. The responses have made it clear that the changes will affect only patients being maintained free of charge by the NHS.
Mr. Canavan: Can we have a parliamentary debate and vote on the matter, so that the Minister can tell us how on earth he can possibly justify such a miserable policy that will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for many long-stay hospital patients to travel to visit their friends and relatives or to take part in various community activities? The next time the Minister is sitting in the
12 Nov 1996 : Column 142
comfort of his chauffeur-driven ministerial limousine, will he reflect on the fact that he is depriving thousands of disabled people of their mobility rights and virtually incarcerating them in the institutions where they live?
Mr. Mitchell: A debate in Parliament on those changes is a matter for the usual channels, and I have no doubt that they will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. The decision to make those changes was very carefully considered. Previously, disability living allowance mobility was not withdrawn or down-rated when someone went into hospital. The changes that we have made align DLA mobility with both DLA care and attendance allowances.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that we would be more likely to take seriously what the Labour party says on this issue, were it not for the stark fact that more than six times as many people are helped with their care and mobility than were helped under the previous Labour Government? That is how much they cared. Do not the measures that we have discussed target help on people who need it most? Is that not what people who really care do, rather than weep crocodile tears?
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we target disability living allowance on those who most need it. We provide special protection for people who have been in hospital accommodation for 12 months or more. My hon. Friend will be aware of the sheer scale of Government spending on disability living allowance. Last year, we spent £3,700 million; this year we are likely to spend £4,400 million, which is an increase of £700 million; and next year there is likely to be a further increase of £600 million, to a total of £5 billion. That is an eloquent testimony to the Government's absolute commitment to helping disabled people.
Mr. Eric Clarke: Is the Minister aware of the consequences of that withdrawal? People are signing themselves out of hospital prematurely--before they are signed out by their doctors--and their carers are suffering. Were the Government motivated by greed when they introduced that change, because it was not done to help the carers?
Mr. Mitchell: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the effects of the regulations. I will consider any particular case that he wants to raise with me in writing. On his specific point, the change affects payability and not entitlement, so those who are not in hospital accommodation for full days during the week will receive disability living allowance and mobility allowance in respect of those full days.
Occupational Pensions
6. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of pensioners currently in receipt of occupational pensions. [1703]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): The latest estimate is that there are some 6.5 million pensioners in receipt of
12 Nov 1996 : Column 143
at least one occupational pension. More than 20 million people have rights to a pension from an occupational scheme, including those whose pensions are in payment.
Mr. Dunn: Given that the sum of £600 billion invested in British private pension funds is more than the figure for the rest of Europe put together, will the Minister assure the House that we will resist all attempts to have our pension funds expropriated by the European Union to pay pensions to foreigners?
Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend highlights the success of the Government's policy in making our pensions system affordable. That achievement was recently applauded by the Select Committee on Social Security, and was reflected in OECD studies. It is vital that we ensure that our carefully won assets are not combined with other countries' liabilities--we should not end up having to pay the debts of pay-as-you-go schemes in Europe. The Government are committed to ensuring that--is the Labour party?
Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister resist the claptrap that we heard from the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), which creates unnecessary fears among pensioners that their pensions will be expropriated by people in other countries? There is no foundation whatsoever for that allegation, as the Minister well knows. Will he apply himself to the more serious question of the 45 per cent. of pensioner households in these islands that have no pension other than the state pension? What does he intend to do to restore the link that the Government destroyed in 1980?
Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman should know that, under the Government, pensioners' incomes have increased on average by 51 per cent. in real terms. With his new-found Euro-enthusiasm--which no doubt has something to do with his party's views and interests--he should bear in mind the fact that debt is an important factor in the convergence criteria under the Maastricht treaty. It is extremely important that this country is committed to protecting its interests--and the Government are.
National Disability Council
7. Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with the National Disability Council on possible additional functions for the council. [1704]
Mr. Burt: I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the National Disability Council's duties, particularly in the light of recent statements by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) which suggested that the council can give advice only when asked to do so by Ministers. Since its creation in January 1996, the council has had the power to give advice on its own initiative, and it has done so on a number of issues, including the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It has also consulted widely and proposed a code of practice on the rights of access to goods, facilities, services and premises, which was published in July this year. The council's annual report identifies its priorities
12 Nov 1996 : Column 144
for the coming year, and details its ambitious work plan. There has therefore been no need to discuss extending the council's functions.
Mr. McFall: Does the Minister agree that every organisation for the disabled in Britain realises that the council has weaknesses, that it needs to be strengthened and that employment matters affecting disabled people should not be treated separately from other issues affecting their lives? Non-discrimination and access to work are what disabled people want, and a stronger council is therefore essential.
Mr. Burt: The question whether the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities should retain its duty to advise the Secretary of State for Employment on matters relating to discrimination in employment was considered at the time of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are examining the matter; we expect to reach a conclusion some time next year, and changes may be made.
There is no doubt that advice and information on discrimination in employment are already being passed to those who need that advice and information, but I nevertheless say to organisations for disabled people that they should wait and see in regard to the council's abilities. It is already doing good work, and I think that it is proving a number of people's expectations wrong.
Mr. Tom Clarke:
If the National Disability Council is as proactive as the Minister would have us believe, may I issue a specific challenge to him? Will he ask the council to investigate the outrageous discrimination that building societies are practising against disabled people, contrary to the spirit and letter of the Government's 1995 Act?
In particular, will the Minister join me in deploring the actions of the Alliance and Leicester and Halifax building societies, which are refusing bonus shares to disabled people because they are represented by carers or by supervisors in residential homes? Is that not outrageous discrimination? Will the Minister confirm the council's impotence, or inactivity, by telling us whether it will investigate the matter? Yes or no?
Mr. Burt:
If there were prizes for huffing and puffing, the hon. Gentleman would be head and shoulders above the rest of us. I note that, in his opening remarks, he did not deny that my interpretation of the NDC's power was entirely contrary to what he has been saying in recent weeks. I hope that he will now withdraw his observations and apologise, because he got it wrong.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |