Disabled Persons (Independent Living) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I strongly support this Bill, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley; I have great admiration for everything that he has done over a lifetime helping those with disability. I must declare an interest in that I have a daughter with multiple sclerosis who benefits from the Access to Work scheme. It is marvellous and enables her to continue working in a very responsible job in the Department of Health. I was somewhat surprised at the figures from the Department for Work and Pensions, which showed that only four people in the whole Department of Health get assistance to go to work. There must be more people with a degree of disability who merit help, but this information came out simply when Access to Work payments were transferred from the DWP to the local department. All departments, except the Department for Work and Pensions, were listed, so we wonder how many are employed in that department. I am aware of the extreme difficulties of succeeding with Private Members’ Bills. My history of these Bills is on hedges—I seemed to be at it for ever. In the end, the Government added the issue to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, a very happy solution. But, knowing how important it is to deal with the technicalities of these Bills, and as a strong supporter of this Bill, I thought I should raise this point today. I serve on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In the previous Session, we considered this Bill and noted many technical flaws. I understand that the Clerk of the committee has written to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to explain the position, and the flaws were published in a report on 30 June 2006, in the previous Session. When the Bill came to our committee again on Wednesday, we were rather surprised to discover that none of our points had been taken up and the Bill had not been improved or amended to meet these requirements in any way, which is why I thought that I should raise this issue. Supporters, such as the Disability Rights Commission, do a great deal and have sent wonderful briefing on this, which I will not go into because it would take too long and I know that others will bring out its points. The case is so well known that it almost speaks for itself. But, if we place this on the record in Hansard, the supporters will know to look at these technical flaws. I refer them directly to that report. Most of the powers in the Bill are conferred on the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, but the Bill does not specify who is to make the regulations—the report lists the relevant clauses. The Delegated Powers Committee recommends that, "““it should not be left to implication that these powers too should be exercisable by the Secretary of State or the NAW””." Another point relates to the powers to make further provision. Again, the report sets out in detail the clauses concerned. It states: "““As this is a private member’s bill, there is no memorandum to the Committee””—" the ““memorandum”” is usually a detailed statement sent by the government department, involved explaining the logic behind its points, but we do not receive one with Private Members’ Bills— "““to explain the delegations and so it is not apparent to us why these powers are needed or appropriate. Accordingly we draw them to the attention of the House so that a further explanation may be given””." On the parliamentary procedure, the report states: "““All of the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by the bill (except that in clause 24(2)) are made subject to affirmative order by clause 36(2), including commencement orders and orders applying to the bill with modifications for the Isles of Scilly. We draw this to the attention of the House because we do not think this can have been intended, as the only power in the bill which seems to warrant affirmative procedure is that in clause 3 to extend the definition of ‘disabled person’””." These are highly technical points. By putting them on record in Hansard the people working on the Bill will have the opportunity to study the defects and to consider how to overcome them. I have found from personal experience that the Public Bill Office is marvellous at helping to draft amendments. The amendments to this Bill would need to come forward in Committee. It would be rather onerous on the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to be asked to table all the amendments himself. I am sure that, if the Public Bill Office were to issue a list of the required amendments, many Members of the House would be willing to table amendments and to speak to them. This would not be opposed by anyone in the House because we all want to see the Bill go through. That deals with the technical points. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that this might cost far less than expected. The noble Lord referred to housing. I have always been upset that in this country a house or residence of any type designed specifically for a disabled person is not necessarily passed on to another disabled person. I have seen expensive adaptations being ripped out and I find it tragic that there is not a central place to which they can be taken. A neighbour of mine put in a chair lift and used it for only about a year before she died at a great age in her nineties. But afterwards, when the executors asked me to try to find someone to take the chair lift or to use it, there was no system into which it could go to be re-used or to benefit anyone. I considered it very wasteful that something like that, which had cost a lot of money, was just discarded. In Australia—and, given the cricket, I hardly dare mention Australia, although this test match seems to be a bit more even—certain properties are designated for disabled people. Very often a charity or a similar organisation owns the building. That organisation will give a person a lifetime lease or tenancy of the property, and when that person dies—if the spouse survives, he or she can remain there for the remainder of his or her life—the house is not converted into a ““des res”” for anyone to live in; it continues to be a useful property for another disabled person. Under ““disabled”” I include those people who have not a lifetime disability but a disability due to their lifetime and wearing out in old age. Many people come into that category, and there will be many more as life goes on—although yesterday, at the Royal College of Physicians, we were all cheered to be told that we would live longer but not live badly any longer; that the difficult period of our lives will still be fairly short at the end. That was good news. There is a vast and growing need for help of all kinds for disabled people. The provisions referred to in the Bill—the rights of choice, short breaks, mental health support—are very important. I could go on and on, but I will not do so because the argument is well made. I want only to express my support for the Bill and to draw these technical matters to the noble Lord’s attention.