| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.44 pm
Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester): I detect a certain enthusiasm on the Opposition Benches to move quickly to a Division, so I shall be briefer than I had originally intended.
The regulations are about choice--not necessarily a particularly easy one, I acknowledge. It comes as no surprise to me to discover that new Labour is not prepared to make such difficult choices. I freely admit that I would rather that we did not have to make such a choice, but it is right to do so and I admire the straightforwardness of my hon. Friend the Minister's approach. The Government and the House often have to choose. I have supported many such difficult choices, and am delighted to do so again.
Hon. Members often have to choose in a way that upsets individual special groups. Sometimes there is a genuine disagreement about objectives, sometimes there is simply a disagreement about the means, and sometimes, as under the regulations order, we have to make difficult decisions about using public money--that means taxpayers' money--wisely. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) explained that very clearly.
We must acknowledge that the regulations reduce the incomes of some disabled people in hospital, but we should support them for four specific reasons. First, my hon. Friend the Minister made a powerful case for the logic of avoiding double provision. Every other benefit does that and I am not persuaded that we should make an exception for this particular aspect of the disability living allowance.
Secondly, the regulations will release resources for better use elsewhere in the system. We should always try to do that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West explained. Thirdly, the regulations are is sensitive to the particular needs of individual groups--the terminally ill in hospices, long-term cases and those with motability agreements for their wheelchairs or cars. Of course, they apply only to those whose stay in hospital exceeds four weeks.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow):
Despite his promise, the Minister failed to answer my question concerning the exclusion of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland from consultation. I have been given an indication that he will answer the question.
In a letter that all the Scots Members of Parliament received, Dr. Dyer, the director of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, said about the regulations:
Mr. Andrew Mitchell:
If I do not answer all the points made by all hon. Members, I undertake to write to them after the debate to ensure that they have full answers.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who has a very honourable mention on these occasions for the work that he has done for disabled people, should have recognised just how many strides the Government have made in helping the disabled people whom he has described over recent years. I make that point in all sincerity.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) made several detailed points. I should like to pick up on some of them. I apologise to him if I do not pick up on them all. To some extent, those in long-stay hospitals whom he mentioned get protection at the lower rate. As he knows, 92 per cent. of long-stay patients have been in hospital for more than one year and get protection.
My right hon. Friend asked about the extent of consultation, as did the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)--I apologise to him for not having answered his question in my opening remarks. My officials looked in detail at eight hospitals as part of
5 Dec 1996 : Column 1259
The private agreements referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and the excellent wheelchair scheme referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling are being kept under careful review by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He has heard what has been said tonight. The House has our undertaking on that matter. The hon. Member for Rochdale made a point about balances. Balances were an issue at one time, but, as I made clear in my answer to her, we accept that they are no longer an issue. To some extent hospitals and patients have become adept at dealing with that problem.
In a characteristically well-informed speech on a subject on which he has immense expertise, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) paid tribute to our right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott). The whole House will agree with his comments.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), who is a parliamentary neighbour of mine, if not quite an hon. Friend, said that this was a cost-cutting measure. I explained in some detail that that was not the case. Spending on the disability living allowance has increased enormously over the past five years. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that those on the Opposition Front Bench were unwilling to give a commitment to replace the spending that we are discussing. If the Labour party is unwilling to make that commitment, what we have heard tonight is just political posturing and hot air.
I have visited Highbury hospital and have looked specifically at some of the cases that the hon. Member for Nottingham, East mentioned. On that visit, I heard nothing to undermine our conclusions. That is why I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put:--
"The Mental Welfare Commission has information from Lennox Castle hospital, for example, which has 166 residents previously in receipt of the high rates of mobility component. The total loss of income to these patients as a result of the changes will be £181,272 per annum. The Commission does not know if every penny of the money was previously spent exclusively for mobility purposes, but it does know that good use was made of DLA for mobility purposes in this hospital."
In another letter, Hugh Stewart, the depute director of the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, which does very fine work for people in Scotland who suffer from learning disabilities and other mental health problems, pointed out that the Scottish Office report--the Crosby report, which was published more than 10 years ago--encouraged hospitals to find ways of spending the benefits to improve the lives of their patients. In that sense, Scotland is different from England and Wales. The Department of Social Security typically failed to consult extensively throughout Scotland, and that is a matter for profound regret.
6.48 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |