Examination of witnesses (Questions 140 - 155)
WEDNESDAY 25 MARCH 1998
PROFESSOR IAN
BRUCE, MS
LORNA REITH
and MR RICHARD
WOOD
Mr Wicks
140. It shows the need for a review if that is true.
(Professor Bruce) Yes. If you remember right at
the very beginning we said a review under the right circumstances
is a constructive thing but at the moment we do not have the right
circumstances and that is why we are being very cautious about
any sort of commitments.
Mr Goggins
141. I apologise for the fact that I am introducing issues
which we just do not have the time to explore in full but nonetheless
it is important that we make a start. Richard, a few minutes ago
you made a very powerful statement about how the benefit system
and how society treats disabled people as a burden. It struck
me as we looked at the written evidence and heard some of the
evidence this morning that in fact so much of the DLA system actually
forces disabled people to prove they are a burden and the bigger
the burden they can prove themselves to be the more benefit they
might get. One of the ideas that we have heard is the idea of
an All Living Test. The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board
told us last week that there was general support for an All Living
Test. It would not be the first thing you have disagreed with
the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board on. I wonder if
you are part of that broad support? What comments would you make?
What difficulties do you see?
(Mr Wood) The comment I heard on that was if we
were not all living we would be dead.
142. You are not supportive of the idea?
(Mr Wood) Basically it is difficult to be supportive
of any ideas when they are just plucked out of the air. This is
the whole problem with what is going on, people are coming up
with all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas without proper consultation,
without proper discussion about the way forward. I said earlier
on, and let me reiterate, we could not as a movement support any
overall cuts in benefits because we believe they are already at
the lowest rate. We believe that DLA should be about supporting
independence, it should be about supporting our ability to live
in the community. This is not just an impairment related issue,
it is about the barriers and experiences that impact on us. For
example, take a person in a given medical category, their experience
of trying to live independently will not be the same amongst all
people because we are in different social circumstances. If we
want to move towards a benefit system that supports individual
people's need for support in the community then I think overall
people would say "yes, that is good" because that is
the way disabled people want to be moving on. We want to be moving
to full citizenship. We want to have the same rights and responsibilities
as other citizens. If we need benefits to support that, as some
of us clearly do, then that is the way that we would like to go.
Over and above that we want open dialogue.
(Ms Reith) If I can just comment on the All Living
Test, without knowing quite what they meant, I believe they referred
to the All Work Test for Incapacity Benefit in the same paragraph.
The All Work Test for Incapacity Benefit has been widely discredited.
We were very pleased that the incoming Labour Government actually
had a manifesto commitment to go back to that test because of
concerns at the way it was working. It is a functionally based
test: can you lift a saucepan, can you move up and down stairs,
stand and sit, and it does not bear any relation to the world
of work. If the DLA Advisory Board are saying "we will take
this completely discredited model, the All Work Test, and we will
call it an All Living Test and we will do something similar for
DLA" then I am deeply, deeply pessimistic about it being
of any use at all. That may not be what they meant. The difficulty
is that there is not very much information there about what they
had in mind.
143. Putting aside the All Work Test and putting aside
the fact that the proposal came from the Advisory Board, are there
things that you can see that could be introduced that would make
this process more positive and emphasise capacity rather than
incapacity? That is the question.
(Ms Reith) It is a very, very difficult issue.
If you are wanting to provide money to someone because of the
extent of their needs somehow there has to be a process by which
they demonstrate the extent of those needs and it is quite hard
for that to be done in anything other than a negative way. I think
there is a genuine problem there that we will probably never overcome.
But there might be ways of phrasing things in a different way,
"how can we make you more independent", "what would
be necessary so that"—the phraseology was put in a
slightly different way.
(Professor Bruce) It is important we do not throw
out the baby with the bath water because so often everyone thinks
they can design a new benefit that is going to be perfect. It
is incremental and the issue of self-assessment, which was established
in 1992, is very important. Incrementally it can be made better
and better and better. We have not just got to chuck it all out
and come up with a new idea.
(Mr Wood) I do firmly believe that you could move
to what we would call social model benefits as opposed to medical
model benefits. What that would do could be quite amazing in terms
of promoting disabled people's independence.
Mr Goggins: I am sure that this Committee would be
interested in any proposal or practical suggestions. Can I move
to Life Awards. One of the members of the Disability Living Allowance
Advisory Board, who is disabled, said to us last week in giving
her evidence that when she was given a Life Award it was like
being given a life sentence. Since then we have had a letter from
Professor Grahame which says: "Life Awards are a particular
problem as they do not allow for improvements in the applicant's
condition leading to reviews of care or mobility needs".
I would be interested in your comments.
Ms Buck
144. Particularly damaging to children.
(Ms Reith) It was Nicole Davoud who said that
she found getting a Life Award depressing. That is her experience.
Our experience is that for lots of people it is a relief, it gives
people security and the opportunity to plan ahead. Quite often
people only get Life Awards when they have had a number of short
term awards first. Yes, I can see that in certain circumstances
people might feel that it is difficult and it may well be that
there are people on Life Awards and there are medical changes.
I actually think that is a very, very small proportion. For the
vast majority of people as they get older their position is not
likely to improve dramatically. We think that Life Awards are
very important. It may be that you would want to be doubly sure
when someone first gets the award that it is right that they get
a Life Award but because it gives people that security and ability
to plan into the future and to know that they have got that one
sum of money they can rely on. It has been very, very important
in all the debate around Welfare to Work. If you are doing calculations
for people about what happens if they move from being out of work
into work, the one constant is Disability Living Allowance because
it is not affected by whether you are earning or not. When you
are saying "This is what you get now, this is what you might
be able to claim if you take up that job that pays this much",
the one secure income that person knows they have got is the Disability
Living Allowance and it may be that that is what enables them
to have their Motability car. We would still see a role for Life
Awards.
Mr Gibb
145. One aspect of this report you might agree with,
it would be helpful to have it on the record that you do, is they
consider that cash payments are preferable to the provision of
a direct service. Do you agree with that?
(Mr Wood) Yes.
(Ms Reith) Yes, we do indeed.
146. Can you briefly describe the effect that greater
community care has had on this benefit, Disability Living Allowance?
(Ms Reith) Are you talking in terms of take up
of benefit?
147. Yes.
(Ms Reith) There are two aspects on community
care. One is the move from institutional care or long term psychiatric
care to living in the community which people do with the benefit
of having some extra cash. Therefore what in fact you have seen
is a transfer of spending that was previously NHS spending to
being DSS spending, that is one aspect of community care. The
other is that as there has been a squeeze on local authorities
there is now a built in assumption that something like nine or
ten per cent of a local authority's social services budget will
be raised through the imposition of charges for community care
services. Because most local authorities㭛 per cent or
whatever—now charge people for community care services they
have also most of them been doing a lot of work with people to
make sure that they are claiming the benefits to which they are
entitled. That is one of the reasons why the take up of benefits
has increased, local authorities helping people claim their entitlement,
but partly because the local authority has got its eye on that
money, part of that money, to go towards payment of services.
148. Just a political question, if I may. I am a passionate
supporter of the Disability Living Allowance because I believe
it does enable people to have an independent life and to put back
into society energy and effort which they would not otherwise
be able to do. I have a number of examples in my own constituency
of people whose lives would be ruined if benefit were not there.
Do you think that the Disability Living Allowance should be taxed,
as has been proposed in this paper?
(Ms Reith) No. It is about in a sense compensating
somebody for the extra costs that their disability brings. If
Government believes that people on higher levels of income should
pay more tax, well, let us do that equally across everyone who
is on a higher level of income.
(Professor Bruce) If any of you took a train on
business to Birmingham and you were given the money back for that
train fare and then you were taxed on that money you would be
a bit annoyed, would you not? DLA is a cost allowance, it is not
income.
149. The other rumour that is going around is to means
test the allowance, do you agree with that?
(Ms Reith) No, for exactly the same reasons. It
is about promoting independence and equality.
(Professor Bruce) A level playing field.
150. Finally, given your antipathy to the Advisory Board,
have you ever met these people and sat down with them?
(Professor Bruce) Frequently.
(Ms Reith) You have?
(Professor Bruce) Forgive me, we need to be clear
what we mean. Two organisations were lucky enough to meet the
Advisory Board during that year and the Royal National Institute
for the Blind was one of them. It was quite difficult to manage
but we did manage it. Do you mean do we know several people on
the Board? Certainly I know several of the people on the Board
through other committees and things of that sort.
151. Have you had formal meetings and how many formal
meetings over the last few years have you had?
(Ms Reith) None.
(Professor Bruce) RNIB has had one.
(Ms Reith) You have had one. If you look at the
DLAAB annual report, this was the 1997 annual report, it says
here that the Board continues to attach great value to meetings
with organisations representing people with disabilities. They
then say that they met an incontinence nurse from Northwick Park
and Saint Mark's NHS Trust and representatives from the Royal
National Institute for the Blind. That is the full extent of their
consultation with disability organisations. I have never met the
Board and I do not think other disabilities organisations have.
The RNIB put a lot of effort into securing a meeting with them.
They do not even have their address on their annual report.
152. How do you think they could improve themselves and
what do you think their role should be? Do you think they should
exist?
(Professor Bruce) I think there should be a fundamental
and radical review.
(Mr Wood) Of who is on the Board.
(Ms Reith) And what it does, over which we would
be consulted.
(Professor Bruce) There could be a very important
role for a properly constituted group with proper terms of reference
and openness.
(Mr Wood) Something called the Disability Benefits
Task Force which is what we asked for which would have a wider
remit. I think looking at one benefit bit by bit is not constructive.
(Ms Reith) I have to say one thing that the Board
does do—and I have to say I was under the misapprehension
that this was all that they did—is to advise the Benefits
Agency about things that are in what is called the Disability
Handbook which are details about different medical conditions
and the prognosis that attaches to those medical conditions. If
an Adjudication Officer has a DLA form from somebody where they
mention a particular condition that an Adjudication Officer has
never heard of, there is a book they can go to where they can
look up what that particular disability is and therefore what
effect it is likely to have. That is what the Board and the doctors
on the Board have done in the past and I think there is a perfectly
useful function being served there. Whether that is the same group
of people you want to then say: "Okay, how is the whole of
this benefit working and how are the recipients of that benefit
using it and what difference does it make to their lives and so
on", no, I do not think they are the right people to ask.
Mr Leigh: I was very interested in the question from
my colleague who represents the South Coast which I suppose shows
that Thatcherite ideology always stops at the doors of one's own
constituency.
Mr Gibb: No, I do not agree with that. My Thatcherite
ideology will not be questioned by anybody. My view is that this
allowance does enable people to have an independent life and therefore
put back into society the same amount of effort that other people
can. That is why the Conservatives introduced this allowance and
why it is so successful.
Chairman: This is a private fight which the witnesses
do not need to join in.
Mr Leigh
153. You both dismissed this question that he asked,
which he obviously wanted dismissed, that it should be means tested.
I did not quite understand that because this is not a flag saying
"I am disabled", it is why we are surely against means
testing for pensions, because people have actually made a contribution
towards it and therefore it should not be taken back subsequently
through means testing or taxation. It is different for a pensioner.
A lot of people, presumably some people who become elderly, have
got quite considerable resources. I cannot understand why there
is this fundamental objection to it being means tested. I am not
saying it should be means tested, I just want to tease out a response.
(Professor Bruce) There is an important philosophical
argument and that is what you are asking us for. It is around
the phrase of "level playing field". If you are a Member
of Parliament and you are paid a certain salary in order to do
the job but you are disabled and you have extra costs which you
have to pay out of your salary then you are not on a level playing
field with an able bodied MP. Therefore, we would support, as
is the case, that members and ministers who have disabilities
should have additional money given to them so that they can get
on to a level playing field with an able bodied MP or Minister.
Is it therefore fair to say because an MP gets a good salary that
they should get no extra money to cover their extra costs as a
disabled person? I think philosophically you will see instantly
that is an untenable argument. We are trying to get a level playing
field between disabled people and able bodied people so that rights,
responsibilities can be exerted. Luckily Parliament does just
that and did just that last Friday.
Chairman
154. We have got a very important session and other subjects
that we want to go into. I cannot draw the proceedings to a close
without asking a final question about your relationship with the
Advisory Board. It is becoming clear to us that there has been
a fair amount of lack of consultation with the people and the
players who are involved and have an important role in these questions.
I have to say to you after the session we had last week and the
session this week if there had been full consultation between
you and the Advisory Board the Government would have been none
the wiser because you have been taking very, very different perspectives
on this question. I think that the Advisory Board was looking
for a new role in the context of the new Government and were actually
asking us to help promote that. If we do that we have got be very
careful that we do not fall over one another and end up negating
the very points of representation that have to be made on behalf
of the people you seek to represent. Would you encourage a proactive
role for the Advisory Board?
(Professor Bruce) Not under the present circumstances
at all. We have made our position quite clear, that the DLA Advisory
Board appears to be opaque, unaccountable, ill-informed, and working
to terms of reference which are not adequate and working outside
those terms of reference.
Ms Buck: But apart from that!
Chairman
155. Apart from that everything else is fine.
(Mr Wood) They are not working in the interests
of disabled people.
156. You do accept that this has got to be sorted out
one way or the other.
(Professor Bruce) It certainly has to be sorted
out and there is only one way it can be sorted out because what
you are hearing is evidence of the vast majority of disability
organisations in this country who both through personal experience
and through expertise actually know what they are talking about.
We do not always get it right but at least the basis of what we
are saying has a legitimacy which I am afraid the DLA Advisory
Board no longer has.
(Mr Wood) The current expression in Newcastle
is "sack the board".
Chairman: That has been extremely useful. I am very
grateful to you. I know that these sessions are a burden. It is
not just a case of appearing in front of us, it is the work that
you do and the submissions that you make. They have been very
helpful to the work of the Committee. We are very grateful to
you for coming. Thank you very much.
| 
