| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Social Security
5.45 pm
Mr. Henry McLeish (Fife, Central): I beg to move,
- That the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance and Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1436), dated 4th June 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th June in the last Session of Parliament, be revoked.
Unfortunately, this is another example of the Government trying to pass regulations after they have been implemented in the country. Equally important, it smacks of four characteristics of the Government.
First, the Government have a cavalier attitude to Parliament. They make and lay orders, but proceed to implement them without any Member--
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. McLeish:
Not at this stage.
Mr. Hughes:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McLeish:
Not at this stage.
Mr. McLeish:
On that cavalier attitude--
Mr. Hughes:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House about what went on between the parties when, as everyone knows, Labour asked for the debate to be delayed? That is why the change was introduced before the debate took place.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris):
Order. Luckily, the Chair does not know any of these things.
Mr. McLeish:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can understand Conservative Members' excitement.
The Government's cavalier attitude to the House means that orders are made and laid and six months later we have a debate on the regulations. That is a disgrace and a scandal.
The second characteristic is the Government's lack of courtesy towards, and lack of consideration of, voluntary organisations. Through the Social Security Advisory Committee those organisations are asked to make representations, but when they do, the Government ignore the volume of representations that have been made.
Thirdly, the Government show contempt for the Social Security Advisory Committee. It is charged with seriously considering some of the most important regulations that pass through the House. The committee does its job well, but in the case of the regulations before us--not for the first time--the Government have refused to acknowledge its wisdom and judgment.
5 Dec 1996 : Column 1243
Finally, we have the ultimate contempt--contempt for the people at the sharp end of the changes that have been made, who are some of the most vulnerable individuals in this country.
In my opinion, those are the characteristics of a Government who have been here too long and who now see only a process ahead instead of individuals who will be affected by the regulations.
It is important to place on the record the views that were expressed by many of the voluntary organisations. Of necessity, the debate will be brief, but that is due only to the procedures of the House. This is a vital matter. Under the former rules, disability living allowance was generally not affected by a hospital stay. On 31 July 1996, regulations came into force to the effect that the mobility component of the allowance generally ceases after a person has spent four weeks as an in-patient--12 weeks in the case of a child. Of course, those regulations are being debated on 5 December 1996.
We are discussing the mobility component of the disability living allowance. I want to distinguish that from the other part--the care component.
It is worth noting the process which led to today's debate. In January this year the Secretary of State sought the views of the Social Security Advisory Committee regarding the draft regulations. On 15 January, the SSAC invited representations from voluntary organisations, and 189 organisations and individuals responded. That information was imparted to the Secretary of State on 12 March, the orders were made on 7 June and they came into force on 13 July.
It is remarkable that the overwhelming majority of respondents did not like the Government's proposals and advanced a reasoned case on their behalf. It appears that the care in the community Scottish working group comprising Age Concern and many different councils--from the Scottish Council for Spastics to single parents and the Scottish National Federation for the Welfare of the Blind--was not consulted. I ask the Minister to explain today why a part of the United Kingdom much beloved by the Conservatives was simply ignored in the consultation process.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow):
For some strange reason, the Department of Social Security also excluded the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland from the consultation process. Its director, Dr. Dyer, has pointed out to every Scots Member of Parliament that, by way of the Crosby report mechanisms, that money is spent constructively and imaginatively in the overwhelming majority of hospitals in Scotland caring for those with mental health problems.
Mr. McLeish:
My hon. Friend, who takes an active interest in these matters, makes an excellent point. I hope that the Minister will respond to it, as it reinforces our belief that the measures are ill conceived, have been rushed through and will not assist those organisations which represent the vulnerable. Organisations such as Mencap and MIND--the National Association for Mental Health--are at the front line in defending the interests of vulnerable people. I could mention more such organisations, but time does not permit.
5 Dec 1996 : Column 1244
Sadly, the Government have failed to justify the regulations--and probably the nation is not surprised by their attitude. However, I hope that the Minister will try to justify their introduction today. I remind him of the comments of the Secretary of State for Social Security in his 1995 statement on the uprating of benefits. He said:
The Secretary of State then moved to the real reason for the measures, when he said:
Why are the regulations so objectionable? First, false assumptions have been made about the lack of mobility needs of long-stay patients and the meeting of those needs by the national health service. The fact-finding exercise carried out by the DSS was fundamentally flawed as it did not consult patients or those directly responsible for their day-to-day care. Secondly, long-stay patients in particular are often in hospitals in isolated areas and the mobility component can be used to enable them to make and receive visits. That is even more important when young children are involved.
Thirdly, there is evidence that in many cases the mobility component is used imaginatively and constructively to enhance the quality of life of long-stay patients. Unspent balances are evidence of poor organisation and provision rather than a lack of mobility need.
Fourthly, patients in NHS homes and hospitals will be worse off than those in homes provided by other bodies, even though care provision and needs may be similar. The proposals run counter to the efforts to transfer care from a hospital to a community base. That is an important consideration if we want community care to work.
The transitional protection does not include people who have been in hospital for less than a year and who will lose benefit at four weeks. Furthermore, the exclusion of those in special hospitals, secure units and those detained in low-security hospitals effectively puts them in the same position as convicted prisoners rather than patients. That is inexcusable--but it is a reflection of the Government's mindset.
"It cannot be right to pay people who are unable to use the benefit for the purpose intended and who are already having most of their needs met by the taxpayer."
That proposition has been completely and utterly demolished by every organisation that responded to the consultation.
"We believe the move is justified in ensuring that taxpayers' money goes to those best placed to benefit from it."
That same kind of targeting has led to a 40 per cent. lack of take-up of benefit--1 million British pensioners who are entitled to income support do not receive it. That is the sort of targeting that the Secretary of State is happy to pursue. The SSAC decided that it could not recommend proceeding with the proposals--that in itself is a damning indictment--and urged the Government to consider several points if they decided to go ahead. However, the Government accepted only one--that a linking rule should be introduced in determining the 12-month period for transitional protection.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |