Mr. Bernard Gloster:

What I am saying is that it is absolutely not changing the nature of what an assessment of need is, but changing the basis on which people would access it and how it would be done. In fact, it is reforming the legislation to actually improve people's chances of having their rights in law vindicated rather than the current one. There are two ways to do that. One is to slightly reform the legislation in terms of the purpose of the assessment. The second, and the Deputy quite rightly mentioned it, is that I have no doubt that despite the fact there might be a policy position that people do not need an assessment of need for certain things, they are being told they do or they are being led to believe they will get it faster if they do. I believe approximately one third of referrals to assessment of need are actually quite inappropriate. At the moment, we see that there is no sign or indication of a disability in approximately one third of concluded assessments. That suggests people are being pushed into accessing assessments for accessing other things for which they should not need an assessment of need. I do not believe people should need an assessment of need for things like basic equipment in education, special needs assistance support or, indeed, social welfare entitlements. I do not control that. I am around long enough to remember when the Disability Act was written. The Disability Act and the assessment of need were written for a very different purpose than for what people are trying or being forced to access it today or feel they are forced to access it. That is the reform I am talking about - not changing the purpose or removing the right.