---

Summer Adjournment

As is traditional on these occasions among most hon. Members, I intend to focus on local issues. Disabled facilities grants are made available by local authorities to assist elderly people with disabilities to stay in their homes, and they are increasingly used to help younger people who require assistance, too. We all recognise the increased demand for adaptations. People are living longer, and a greater degree of choice is available. Most people choose to stay in their own homes rather than moving into a nursing environment. There is also an increasing technical capability to assist people and to help older people and the disabled to stay at home. Local factors in South Derbyshire have further increased the growth of adaptations. First, the local district council, I think correctly, decided to resource its own design team to provide adaptations. The county council service had previously been subject to delays, and the district council’s decision has provided more rapid progress through the design stage. Secondly, there is a strong local commitment to care in someone’s own home by the county council, which is welcome and which is a view that I share. Thirdly, there is the terrible physical legacy of the mining industry in South Derbyshire, which has left many people, some of whom are quite young, in need of help with adaptations in their homes. Fourthly, there is a fast-growing population—it is the fastest growing in the east midlands. Fifthly, rurality is an issue. The district is largely rural, which means that when adaptations are made, they need to be inclusive—a person may need to be more self-sufficient, because it is not always possible to supplement their needs. Government resources for the grant have doubled in the past 10 years, which is welcome. Local authorities must increase the sum provided by the Government to attempt to meet demand. Over the past two years, South Derbyshire district council has committed more than £500,000 towards the scheme—it has actually contributed the majority of the funds. The Government have been consulting on changes in the grants system, because they recognise the trends that I initially identified and the need for strategic alterations in how the money is delivered. Many of the proposed changes are welcome but may challenge the budget still further—for example, raising the maximum limit of the cost of works that will be funded out of the grant. Making some very welcome changes will, again, stretch resources—for example, removing the means test on adaptations where disabled children are involved. In South Derbyshire, that has led—I do not criticise this at all—to applications from families who had previously had difficulty in getting support because of the means test. Under the new rules, some extremely costly schemes are coming forward that recognise the severe needs that those families have. There has been some sensible piloting of ways in which the budget that is available can be used more flexibly with greater co-working between agencies. A lot of useful work is going on. Local authorities may only claim 60 per cent. of their expenditure on these grants, but would that South Derbyshire actually received that sort of sum. In fact, over the past two years it has itself contributed the majority of the costs of the scheme. As a small district council, that places its budget under steadily increasing pressure. The Government regional office attempts to arbitrate between the various bids for resources under the scheme and uses a mechanism that appears to be based largely on the number of disability living allowance and attendance allowance claimants in the area, together with a comparison with the bid from the local authority. There are inevitably, and have been for some time, shortfalls in the council’s ability to respond to the bids that it receives. Many councils, I am afraid, address that by, for example, slowing down the process by cutting back the design stage so that it takes longer to arrive at a scheme that can be delivered, or failing to promote the scheme so that people do not know that it is available. There are several ways of making the scheme costs smaller in the short term, although I am glad to say that they have not been followed by my council. However, the consequence is that it starts this financial year with £483,000-worth of commitments beyond the resources that it has available for the scheme. It has historically paid in additional resources from other parts of its capital budget to supplement the scheme; I emphasise that this is a statutory obligation, with no choice involved. The council must meet the demands that are placed on it. The only flexibility it has is to delay the process and increase the backlog. It is expected that at the end of this financial year the scale of unmet demand will probably reach £750,000. What is desperately needed is first, in the short term, a discussion between the regional office and the council about the resources that it needs on a more realistic basis; and secondly, more globally, that the comprehensive spending review allocates sufficient resources to this very important budget head within the Department for Communities and Local Government—one that helps the most needy people in many of our communities. I want to spend a moment or two on another matter which I am surprised that other Members have not raised. I have had increasing numbers of complaints from my constituents who are British Gas consumers about inaccuracies and difficulties in their bills. I have been greatly helped by Energywatch in pursuing issues with the company to resolve disputes that have in some cases even led to threats of court action and other consequences. That has led me to reflect on the changes that the Government have already set out for dealing with consumer representation in this area and has highlighted further work that we need to do. The removal of an organisation such as Energywatch, which we intend, cannot be left as a matter for the marketplace. The assumption is that we now have a free market in which informed consumers can make their own judgments and in which, if dissatisfied by either the quality of customer service or supply, they simply shift. I do not think that my constituents are unusual; a small number of people have that flexibility and are willing to play the game, but many wish to rely on one company and expect to receive a competent, adequate service and to be billed correctly. If the advocacy currently available is removed, people will need additional support by other means. One of those means will be to turn to the offices of people such as me for assistance, which, of course, I will be happy to provide. Others will go to the citizens advice bureau and seek help there. What is at least required is the application of clear complaint handling standards to the energy companies; a comprehensive collection of complaint data, so that it is understood how the companies are performing; clear advice on where a consumer can get help, not simply saying to them, ““You have got to talk further to the energy company;”” and an independent audit of that complaint procedure to see whether standards are being maintained. To leave many consumers—those who contact me tend to be older—to the hands of the free market in the hope that customer service standards will rise in a competitive environment is simply unreasonable. I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and others, a very happy recess. I suspect that it will be a hard-working one.