I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I and other members of the all-party disablement group tabled the new clause to open up the debate on community care payments to enable severely disabled people to remain living in the community in their own homes. The new clause seeks to end the uncertainty about the future of the independent living fund, to fulfil the general desire to bring the payments more into line with social security disability benefits and to enable us to talk about meeting the crucial need for an alternative means of helping severely disabled people when independent living fund payments cease in 1993.

A theme running through several of the debates today will be the extra cost facing severely disabled people and the need to ensure that the costs are properly provided for in the benefit system. When the social security benefit reforms went through in 1986 and the system of additional cost payments was abolished, a worrying gap opened which threatened the community care programme as it affected severely disabled people. That is why the independent living fund was created and why it is vital that the uncertainty surrounding its future should be removed.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on managing to secure £62 million this year for the independent living fund. The fund is highly successful in enabling severely disabled people to live independently in the community. It is an innovation, providing money directly to disabled people to enable them to buy in their own personal care and assistance services and to have maximum personal control over their living arrangements. Such a system, on a statutory basis, is central to any philosophy of independent living. Similar systems exist in Scandanavia. The basic philosophy of individual control over care arrangements is working well for many disabled people because of the money that they are receiving from the fund. Local authorities never have been, and never will be, able to provide that flexibility.

The fund helps more than 6,000 severely disabled people. The average payment is about £74 a week, and the highest payment is up to £400 a week. The trust deeds come to an end in April 1993, when the Government propose simply to transfer the fund to local authorities.

It is important to remind the House how the fund came into existence. During the passage of the Social Security Act 1986, much concern was expressed by disability organisations and by Members of all parties about the loss of additional requirements payments, in particular the domestic assistance allowance. At the 11th hour, the Government responded to our concern by setting up the independent living fund. I feel an awful sense of déjà vu, because April 1993 is approaching but no new arrangements are being made for severely disabled people. There will be an 11th hour panic as 6,000 severely disabled people, who currently receive payments from the fund, begin to make urgent representations to their Members of Parliament. I remind hon. Members that that figure represents about 10 for each constituency.

In Committee, the Minister said: It is inconceivable that on one day in April 1993 the whole of its case load will move over to the local authorities."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 11 December 1990; c. 63.] I strongly urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to assure the House that he will seriously consider setting up the ILF on a statutory basis. It would be stupid to have another panic such as we had in April 1988.

I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister to recommendations 11 and 12 in the ninth report of the Select Committee on Social Services, entitled "Social Security for Disabled People." It states: We continue to regard the ILF as an innovation that has enabled some disabled people to make community care work well … We further believe that the Government should consider the establishment of the Independent Living Fund as a statutory body. Those comments carry weight and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who is a member of that Select Committee, would like to add his comments.

In a sense, the fund has been a victim of its own success. The enforced restriction of the fund to disabled people in receipt of the higher rate attendance allowance and who are aged between 16 and 74 has meant that potential applicants have been losing out and there has been a drop in new applicants to the fund.

In Committee, the Minister responded by stating that he envisaged that the local authorities would undertake the vast majority of cases after 1993. I point out to the House that the supposedly watertight statutory duties to assess and meet the needs of disabled people may come under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and section 4 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 imposes no stronger statutory duties than are contained in section 2.

From our long experience of working with disabled people and their organisations, we know that local authorities fulfil only statutory duties. I cannot realistically envisage that one day in April 1993 all local authorities will suddenly, magically, assess and provide individually tailored packages of care for severely disabled people in the way that payments from the ILF do. Most fundamentally, the ILF gives disabled people control over their own care arrangements, arranging care at the limes when they need it, not at the times that the local authority is able to provide it. I must point out that usually they are unable to provide that care after the hours of darkness, when extra care and help often is needed.

I should be most reluctant to see the flexibility that is now in place disappear. Unless there is clear action and commitment from the Government to place the ILF on a statutory basis, one day in April 1993, 6,000 severely disabled people will begin to lose their payments from the fund.

In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister acknowledged the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), which I reiterate. Local authorities often have differing and competing priorities. If money is simply transferred to focal authorities, what guarantee will there be that it will not disappear into child protection, into road mending or into other priorities? We recently heard of one authority that is sacking five occupational therapists so that it can afford to meet its responsibilities under the Children Act 1989. I should like to place it on record that I oppose the transfer of the fund to local authorities because there is no evidence that they will be able to provide the high level of support that the fund now provides so successfully and because it will be perfectly legal for local authorities to divert the resources intended by central Government for disabled people into completely unrelated areas.

When we press for change to social security Bills, we are often told, "It is a matter of resources." All political parties recognise that disabled people and carers need more resources and that this cannot be achieved overnight. However, the argument is different with the independent living fund because the money has already been allowed for in the budget. Disabled people will lose out if the fund is stopped. I know some disabled people who are terrified about what could happen in 1993. They have tasted independent living and enjoyed a basic human right that we all take for granted. They are fearful at the prospect of being forced into institutional care and now face two years of uncertainty.

I will give an example. Before the introduction of the fund, James, who is paralysed from the neck down, received all his care from his mother aged 82. He now receives a large payment from the fund which enables him to live independently, but what will his future be? For other disabled people, the fund allows payment for much-needed respite. One parent received a payment from the fund which enabled her to buy in two hours of care a week which allowed her a break from caring for her severely mentally handicapped daughter. Uncertainty about the future payments from the fund is causing disruption because disabled people cannot make long-term care arrangements as they cannot rely on those payments continuing.

The Government rightly promote community care. The fund enables many disabled people to make a reality of that care. Does not my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that it is absurd to propose to wind up the fund that enables severely disabled people to live independently? I urge the Government to follow the recommendation of the former Select Committee on Social Services to place the fund on a statutory basis. This group of severely disabled people must be provided for. They cannot face institutional care. The Government recognised that and provided for it in 1988 and that provision must continue. There must be no question of existing beneficiaries losing out.

I look forward to a positive response from my right hon. Friend. At this stage, I hope for a reassurance at the very least that existing beneficiaries will continue to receive payments. The Minister is familiar with the work of the all-party disablement group and its continued representation on issues such as the mobility allowance and benefit for deaf students. In both cases, the Minister responded positively.

The issue of the ILF will not go away. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will receive representations from hon. Members of all parties when their constituents begin to face uncertainty. If some of that uncertainty can be lifted, we shall be happy to let members of our all-party group in another place pursue the nuts and bolts of a proper arrangement.