| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
27 Jan 2003 : Column 687—continued
11.10 pm
Mr. Bradshaw: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am tempted to agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that, although no one has spoken against the motion, one reason why we are here has more to do with the withdrawal symptoms of the shadow Leader of the House from his previous late-night sittings—
Mr. Tyler: Something of the night.
It might be helpful if I reminded the House why this matter is before us. It is because of a unanimous recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee. Much of what the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have said this evening has been about the powers—some of them real and some of them imagined, some of them possibly in the future—of the Lord Chancellor's Department. But are they suggesting that those powers should not receive proper parliamentary scrutiny? No, they are not, because the right hon. Gentleman himself said that he supported the setting up of the Committee. Indeed, the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) said, I think rightly, that it was overdue. Therefore, I think that we can all
agree on the importance of setting up the Committee. We are not here to discuss setting up any other Select Committees or the Committee's membership. It is a simple motion.I should like to address the point raised at the end of the debate by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I am assured by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), who is with me on the Front Bench, that he is right. The Committee will not be scrutinising the appointment of individual judges, but, in as far as the Lord Chancellor's Department oversees the work of the Appointments Commission, it may have a role in scrutinising overall the work of the Commission in terms of how the Lord Chancellor's Department already does so.
There is nothing more I need add to delay the House further.
Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I hope that the microphones carried the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to the Minister about whether the Select Committee that we are debating, or any other, oversees the work of the Law Officers.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Bradshaw: I am happy to respond, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am told that that competence remains with the Home Affairs Committee.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements in Matrimonial Matters and in Matters of Parental Responsibility
- That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 8395/02, draft Council Regulation concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1347/2000 and amending Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 in matters relating to maintenance, and the unnumbered explanatory memoranda of 14 November 2002 and 9 January 2003 from the Lord Chancellor's Department and Scottish Executive Justice Department on the Presidency proposals for amendment of the draft Regulation; supports the underlying aim of extending the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on parental responsibility by establishing a clear and coherent set of rules for attributing jurisdiction, and putting in place arrangements for co-operation between the courts and central authorities of the Member States; considers that the proposed amendments would achieve the objectives of the United Kingdom in relation to child abduction; and welcomes the reinforcement of support for the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction whilst providing Community measures to supplement its provisions to enable enhanced European co-operation against the wrongful removal and retention of children.—[Mr. Heppell.]
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I propose to put together the Questions on the two motions.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Constitutional Law
- That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.
Northern Ireland
- That the draft Commissioner for Children and Young People (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell.]
COMMITTEES
Madam Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 8 and 9.
Science and Technology
- That Mr Mark Hoban be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Mr Robert Key be added to the Committee.
Treasury
- That Kali Mountford be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Angela Eagle be added to the Committee.— [Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
PETITION
Health Choice
11.14 pm
Lady Hermon (North Down): I have the great pleasure of presenting what I believe to the first petition from Northern Ireland on herbal medicines. The 136 signatures have been collected in my constituency by Mr. James O'Brien, who has been the proprietor for 25 years of the health store At Harvest in Bangor, County Down, of which I am a customer.
- "The petition of consumers for health choice and its supporters,
Declares that consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European food supplements directive and the proposed European directive on traditional herbal medicinal products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products."
Disabled Facilities Grants
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
11.15 pm
Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough): The reason for my seeking this Adjournment debate is to highlight a problem that is well known to every Member of the House, and to suggest some solutions, which entail a co-ordinated approach being taken by Government, and spending that triggers longer-term savings. What I am after is fast-track access to a Government-backed incentive scheme for the installation of level-access showers as a major contribution to the goal of independent living for everyone.
Poor housing is sometimes seen as a Cinderella issue in the House, yet we all know that comfortable homes make for better health, safer communities, more independence and increased dignity of life. I am focusing on a particular aspect of the home: the need, and I suggest that it should really be seen as a right, for everyone to be able to bathe daily in warm water in their own home. Access to hot water is recognised as an emergency repair for landlords, but the hot water is no use if the individual cannot get in and out of their bath.
This is a particularly Anglo-Saxon problem. In warmer countries on the continent, and indeed in many parts of the developing world, showers—level-access showers—with the drain in the floor are the norm. In England, however, lounging in the bath became fashionable, so much so that the bath became a far more accepted piece of bathroom furniture than a shower. The problem was made worse when showers became fashionable because they were always installed over a bath, so that the stiff joints and infirmity that prevent access to the bath also prevent access to the shower. Surely in these days of central heating we could follow the example of warmer countries and redesign our bathrooms.
How many of us in the House have letters from constituents pleading for help? I quote from one:
- "My husband is 80 and I am 78. There is no way I can help him in and out of the bath as I am only 4ft 10."
More seriously, how often have we heard from constituents whose application has been turned down? A housing office turned down a constituent of mine
- "because she said he was able to have a strip wash and was not incontinent."
The first problem is discovering how to make the application. Some 30 per cent. of those questioned in the Joseph Rowntree survey in August 2001 had a problem
gaining access to a disability grant. The second problem is waiting for an assessment. In many authorities, that has to be carried out by an occupational therapist, but they are in short supply, which can lead to a wait of eight months or more.The time that it takes for the occupational therapist to submit a report and for the authority to consider the recommendation can vary widely. If the recommendation is yes, there is another wait for the builder to assess and carry out the work; but if the answer is no, because the individual can manage a strip wash, the application may become non-urgent and take an additional 18 months at least. I have known people to wait three years: that is simply not acceptable in the new century.Some 1,370 individuals are waiting for bathroom adaptations in Sheffield alone; some 658 of them are classed as non-urgent. The council recently allocated a welcome additional £500,000 to reduce the numbers, but I am not sure how that will affect the non-urgent cases. The 2001 Joseph Rowntree survey found that the most common reason for applications for major adaptations is the inability to bathe. Age Concern found that nearly a quarter of applicants mention bathing as the main reason for needing alterations to their homes.
I believe that I am speaking to a Minister who is sympathetic to my argument. The Government recognise that people want to live in their own homes and communities as they get older and are a little more unsteady. They also know that moving to residential establishments can be distressing, sad and hard for relatives and carers. The Minister's colleagues in the health team also have a huge interest in speeding up the number of bathroom adaptations to relieve the problem of bed blocking. The Community Care (Delayed Discharges Etc) Bill, which recently went through the House, has put pressure on local authorities to respond, but speed is crucial when a hospital bed is needed by someone else. It is often the bathing facility at home that is the biggest block to a patient's discharge from hospital.
In preparing for the debate, in addition to speaking to my constituents I consulted the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, the Federation of Master Builders, the Institute of Plumbing, the Bathroom Manufacturers Association, Age Concern, both locally and nationally, the National Housing Federation, the Chartered Institute of Housing, Shelter, public health officers, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, disability organisations, Barnado's, which had specific concerns about disabled children, Sheffield local authority and its social services department, and the local primary care health trusts. They all gave me wholehearted support.
I want to attack the issue from two directions. Clearly there are ways in which we can make the grant systems more accessible and better funded, but if bathrooms were normally designed to include a level-access shower, rather than one over the bath, the problem would be hugely eased. Just as in the 1980s, when the provision by the Government of insulation grants for owner occupiers or private and public landlords raised the standards for all housing and made a significant input into energy savings across the country, a more universal approach to level-access showers in our bathrooms could make all our houses last as our homes for longer.
I pay tribute to the movement for lifetime homes, which is to be wholly supported. In one of its press releases it quotes someone as saying:
- "The ability to gain access to the whole house is wonderful. I'm no longer a prisoner"
In consultation with interested bodies, we have discussed the way in which a level-access shower grant scheme could work. There could, for example, be a modest flat-rate grant for universal access subject to building regulation checks, which would offer an incentive to owner-occupiers, tenants and landlords alike. For many, a simple incentive contribution like the old insulation grant would be all that it would take for large-scale work to be done. The Government could also consider issuing further guidance on housing improvement schemes, whether in the private landlord or housing association sector, so that level-access showers were considered an element of the work normally undertaken, and consider providing a financial incentive to achieve that.
That incentive would be additional to the existing disabled facilities grant scheme for people whose disabilities or hospital discharge mean that their needs require urgent attention, or installing a shower could be combined with other extra building work throughout their home. Another aspect that the Government may consider is the need in every case for an occupational therapy assessment, as that often leads to delays. Perhaps we should recognise that a simple request for help is often all that we should require. There should be a clear directive from the Government to local authorities about what should be classed as non-urgent and a further reminder should be given about the mandatory nature of disability facility grants. In some areas, the requisite six-month period applies in the private sector but not where housing stock is publicly owned. I believe that that is the case in many of the larger metropolitan authorities. As the prospect of years of waiting drives people who have a little cash to spare to invest in the work anyway, the Government have a duty to offer an incentive. My constituent Mr Chisnall struggled for many months following his wife's stroke to get help so that work could be done. Eventually he had a shower installed at his own expense, and in his words it has "transformed their lives".
Finally, installing the showers would offer a stream of useful work for local accredited builders and plumbers. The Federation of Master Builders believes that the industry could cope and has made many useful
suggestions about quality control, simplicity and speed. As we await the publication of the draft housing Bill and the draft disability Bill, the Government have a chance to consider how such a proposal may be developed. I would be delighted to meet the Minister again with some of the bodies that I have spoken to after this debate to consider the issues further. We can be quite certain about one thing—my proposal would receive active and enthusiastic support from the public throughout the country, and bodies working with the elderly, the disabled and disabled children. Like me, they believe that it is simply unacceptable in the 21st century to fail to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a warm all-over wash or shower to maintain dignity and independence in their home.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |