HC Deb 04 May 1961 vol 639 cc1743-52

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

10.14 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the case of Mr. G. A. Rogers of Oakley, in Fife. This is the second Adjournment debate I have had on this case. The first debate took place on 25th October of last year, on the first day of our return from the Summer Recess. I think that the results of that Adjournment debate were highly successful from the point of view of both Mr. Rogers and myself, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Ministry of National Insurance for the consideration it gave to this case and the results of that consideration. Mr. Rogers got substantial back payment of his pension and was very pleased with the outcome.

The point I now want to make is that money alone does not alleviate the hardship of this case. Money can never give this man, his wife and his family, the normal life that they could have expected to enjoy before the terrible war experiences of Rogers took their toll. It was a recognition of those harsh facts that impelled me in the former debate to request the Scottish Office to examine the possibility of supplying a motor vehicle to my constituent.

I shall not repeat the history of the case. Suffice it to say that Rogers is now 39 years of age, and his wife, I think, is of a comparable age. As a result of his war experiences on the Russian run—continually bombed back and forth, twice within an ace of being drowned—this man is now completely unemployable. He is in receipt of the unemployability supplement and of the constant attendance allowance, and is on 100 per cent. pension.

Financially, as I have said, that is probably satisfactory, but it certainly cannot be called affluence. Even assuming that it is financially satisfactory, it remains the fact that Rogers and his wife are confined within the four walls of their house for the rest of their lives. Rogers is so incapacitated that he cannot even get to a football match at Dunfermline, three miles away.

I made my representations for a car in the first instance through the Ministry of National Insurance as long ago as 29th February, 1960. That letter was sent to the Scottish Office, from whom I received a reply dated 8th April, 1960. In other words, there was a delay of nearly six weeks before I got that reply. I make little complaint on that score, because one understands that investigations had taken place, but in view of the anxiety of Mr. Rogers and his wife at that time about the outcome, I think that the Department ought to do something to inject a greater sense of urgency into its officials particularly in cases of this kind. These cases must, by their very nature, be rare, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should tell his officials that these cases do come along, and they must be treated with the very highest priority, because I must point out that this sort of thing was twice repeated later on.

Rogers had been examined at the Limb and Appliance Centre at Edinburgh on 28th September, 1959, and found to be ineligible for the supply of a motor-propelled vehicle. The grounds for refusal were: …disability—psychoneurosis—does not bring him within the groups of severely disabled who are given motor propelled tricycles because of total or almost total loss of the use of both legs. He does not need a tricycle to get to and from his work…. That is the burden of our complaint not only in this but in other cases, because many of my colleagues in the House have similar cases and this is not the first time that this kind of matter has been raised. The letter goes on: I am afraid that I can only confirm that it is not possible to solve Mr. Rogers' problem by supplying a motor propelled tricycle. That was in April, 1960.

I again raised the matter in August, 1960, when the hon. Gentleman was more forthcoming and gave more information about the supply of Morris Minor motor cars being available to ex-members of the Forces and the Mercantile Marine in receipt of 100 per cent. disablement pension. But only three categories qualify—the double amputee with at least one above the knee, those who suffer from paraplegia and are unable to work, and those suffering from physical disability which results in total loss or almost total loss of both legs. That was the further information which the hon. Gentleman gave to me. He also said that further extensions of this scheme were being made, but only to help those who would be able to work—still this provision—and therefore Rogers was rejected.

That was the position when I took up the Adjournment debate on 25th October last year with a Scottish Minister in attendance. On that occasion, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance indicated that arrangements were made to have Rogers further medically examined in connection with his application for a motor-car. Again, there was delay. That debate was on 25th October, but I did not get a reply from the Scottish Office until 2nd February of this year—a delay of three months—during which time I had I do not know how many letters from Rogers. The hon. Gentleman must remember that he is a nervous case. His nerve is completely shattered, and he and his wife were living on tenterhooks for three months wondering what was to happen and whether a bit of pleasure could be injected into their lives. I could do nothing about it, because the letter was in the Department.

The reply came on 2nd February, and if it had contained worth-while news one would have said that it was well worth waiting three months, but in fact there was no advance whatever. A medical examination had taken place, but he was still ineligible for a car. The quotation I take from that letter is this: The only possibility would be if he required it for the purposes of employment, but I understand that he is not at work. If his circumstances should change in this respect it would, of course, always be possible for his case to be reconsidered. But, of course, the hon. Gentleman knew then that Rogers was in full receipt of the unemployability supplement, so that, in effect, one Minister was saying that he can never be employed, while the hon. Gentleman was saying, "If he gets a job, we might consider giving him a car."

It seems to me to be quite absurd. Here we have a man who was in the service of his country in one of the most dangerous exploits of the war, who suf- fered grievous physical harm during that Russian run. It may well have been that another man on the same ship could have suffered almost identical harm, but, in the nature of things, he might have been able to get a job, while Rogers was not. A man who gets the job, which in itself is giving that man additional pleasure and additional independence, gets a car, while a man who cannot get a job does not get a car. To me, this is quite outrageous.

It took the hon. Gentleman six weeks again to say "No". I took the case up on 2nd March of this year, when I asked the hon. Gentleman to look at it again, and there has been this further delay of almost exactly six weeks to the day again to say "No". Up to now, I have been rather restrained in presenting this case, and nobody knows more than I how difficult that is. I find it very difficult to restrain myself in these circumstances, when I see cases like this and look around elsewhere and see the greatest extravagance in other fields. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that for the last few weeks I have been conducting a campaign against extravagance in other fields, particularly with Royal Palaces. I need not quote all the specific examples which I have mentioned in the House. I merely quote two. This year, £6,000 is to be spent on renewing the railings round Holyrood House. This year, £50,000 is to be spent on the provision of a home in Kensington Palace for Princess Margaret. These moneys are to be spent when I am pleading for a little car for a man who gave his all for his country. In these circumstances, it is very difficult to be reasonable.

I do not know what discretionary powers the Joint Under-Secretary of State has nor what humanity there is in him. I believe that there is some. All that I ask him to do is to look at this case again and to strain the law to breaking point to provide this man and his wife with a tiny prospect of enjoying their lives a little more than their immediate future seems to hold for them.

10.26 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith)

I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) on the persuasive way in which he has presented his case, which is a very moving one, and also on the reasonable manner in which he presented it. I know how strongly he feels about this case. I congratulate him, too, on his persistence in trying over a fairly long period to obtain for his constituent what he believes to be his constituent's due as some slight recompense for all that he suffered during the war in the service of his country. This is an aspect to which no one can be unsympathetic; indeed, it is recognised in the preferential treatment which is already accorded to Service pensioners.

As a result of the previous correspondence which I have had with the hon. Gentleman, and in the light of this debate, I have taken the opportunity to review the whole case most thoroughly and to look particularly at the possibility of helping Mr. Rogers further. These are the reasons why it has sometimes taken rather a long time to reply to the hon. Gentleman's communications. These delays are a sign not of inefficiency but of seeing whether it was possible to help Mr. Rogers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that. Apart from that, I do not think there is any disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and myself about the facts. Broadly, they are as he stated them.

Before I go into the details of this case, it might be for the convenience of the House if I first explained the arrangements which are made for the operation of the scheme for the provision of tricycles and cars to war pensioners so that the House may have the matter in perspective. The scheme goes back to the end of the First World War, when severely disabled war pensioners were supplied with invalid chairs or hand-propelled tricycles, if they needed them for the purposes of their employment. By 1920, motorised units had become available and two categories were recognised as being eligible for them—those with amputations and those who were paraplegics. In 1934, a third category was added, that of permanent loco-motor disablement, other than paraplegia.

Subsequently, the design of these tricycles was improved, but in spite of this in 1948 the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) announced that it was the intention of the then Government …to provide a limited number of small cars, not exceeding 1,500…to certain classes of very seriously disabled war pensioners who may elect to receive a car in place of the motor propelled tricycle to which they are entitled…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1948; Vol. 454, c.1103.] This principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman still guides this Government, though in fulfilment of our election promises the ceiling which previously existed has been removed in accordance with the answer given in this House to a Question on 4th April, 1960. So the categories of eligibility for these vehicles remain today broadly the same as they were in 1948, when the issue of cars was first made.

I am certain the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in a scheme such as this for the supply of tricycles and mini-cars to war pensioners it is absolutely essential that all the pensioners should be able to feel that they can rely upon a uniform treatment of all applications. The present Government, therefore, as well as the previous one, have tried to achieve uniformity first of all, by having certain medical categories for eligibility and, secondly, by vetting in the central Government Departments all the applications that are received so as to ensure that the scheme is uniformly administered throughout the whole country.

The medical categories of pensioners who are eligible are those which I described to the hon. Gentleman in the letter which I sent him on 5th October. For the benefit of the House I should like to repeat them. They are: first, those who have suffered amputation of both legs, at least one above the knee; secondly, those who are suffering from paraplegia and who to all intents and purposes are unable to walk; and, thirdly, those who are suffering from a physical disability—I emphasise the word "physical"—which results in the total or almost total loss of use of both legs. In addition to these three main groups, less severely disabled pensioners are brought within the scheme if they need cars in order to get to their work. This is the point which the hon. Gentleman made, and I will later on deal with it in greater detail.

Unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman will realise from this description of the various categories, Mr. Rogers does not come within any of them, and it is this fact which creates all the difficulty.

The hon. Gentleman may wonder-indeed, he indicated that he did wonder—why Mr. Rogers, since he has a 100 per cent. disability pension, and since he cannot walk, should not qualify for a car. The reason for this is that we have not felt able to give cars or tricycles to those whose inability to walk derives from anything other than a direct physical defect. So those who suffer from heart complaints that affect the use of their legs, or lung complaints that affect the use of their legs or, as in this case, nervous complaints which produce hysterical paralysis which affects the use of their legs are not eligible for cars or tricycles. If people suffering in these ways from indirect physical complaints were eligible it would vastly increase the scope of the scheme.

The trouble—I do ask the hon. Gentleman to accept this—is that Mr. Rogers is not just a borderline case who may be pushed over the border with a little goodwill and a little stretching of a point here and there. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if that was all there was to it there would be no difficulty at all. But the trouble is that if Mr. Rogers were granted a car, it would mean creating an entirely new category, which involves considering 1,700 cases in Scotland alone—because that is the number of disabled pensioners in Scotland who are in receipt of supplementary allowances similar to those which Mr. Rogers is receiving. I may add that the United Kingdom figure for people in the same category as Mr. Rogers is as high as 19,000, a very considerable figure. The suggested change would obviously involve substantial extra costs beyond those of the scheme announced in April last year.

To widen the medical categories of eligibility in this way so as to include severely disabled pensioners with hysterical paralysis, heart, lung or other systematic diseases which affect locomotion is thus clearly a development of considerable magnitude and though I fully understand the hon. Member's reason for making the suggestion, I am afraid that the development would be on such a scale that it is something which the Government cannot contemplate.

The hon. Member, as well as making the point about 100 per cent. disability, asked why ability to work should count particularly in this matter. Ever since the inception of the scheme—which goes back a long time, long before the present Government were in power—ability to work has been one of the principal criteria for considering eligibility of the less severely disabled. It is the less severely disabled to which it applies.

I agree that it may seem unfair that the most incapacitated pensioner like Mr. Rogers should get the least help. But we must recognise that the longer a man can work, the better it is for him mentally—quite apart from the benefit in earnings to himself and his family. If a car can keep him at work, I think he should have a car, even if by itself his medical condition would not have entitled him to it. That is why work is an important criterion.

I have told the hon. Member in correspondence that we are always willing to look again at Mr. Rogers' application for a car if he finds employment. From what the hon. Member has said, this seems unlikely at the moment. But the welfare officer of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance can sometimes help even badly disabled people to get a job. If the Ministry is successful in this, they will get in touch with the Department of Health, as is their practice, so that the new circumstances can be considered. I am sorry, therefore, that on this point, this is as far as I can go to help the hon. Member.

I admit that the hon. Member did not go as far as he might have gone in asking why we could not cut this or that item of expenditure or increase the level of taxation and use the money to pay for an extension of the car service. It is easy for people who have warm-hearted inclinations to make suggestions of that sort. We all have sympathy with that attitude, but it is quite another matter when one has the responsibility for raising the money and, in the process of doing that, having too high taxation and killing the goose that lays the golden egg. That is a consideration which hon. Members opposite are in constant danger of forgetting. Yet these are the things which must be remembered if one has the responsibility within the general framework of an expanding service—I stress that it is expanding—of deciding what are to be the priorities. In an ideal world, it is easy to decide what should be done, but we have to work within practical limits.

I should like to quote a remark of my hon. and learned Friend the then Minister of Health, who, replying to a debate on this subject in June, 1960, said: It is obvious that there will be times when our will is not matched by our means, and there will inevitably be times when our purse does not allow us to go as far as our hearts would take us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1960; Vol. 625, c.1676–7.] That is unfortunately still the position with regard to the extension which the grant of a car to Mr. Rogers would involve.

I therefore regret that I am not able to satisfy the plea of the hon. Member. I hope, however, that I have shown him that Mr. Rogers' case has been considered thoroughly and sympathetically and with a real desire to grant his wishes rather than an attempt to reject them.

I can assure the House that there is nothing negative about the Government's approach to this problem. All the time, within the limits set, we are trying to stretch points and to give cars in borderline cases. I remind the hon. Member that Conservatives do care, although he may not believe it. I hope that I have shown him what is perhaps more important than sympathy—that over the years our good intentions have resulted in a considerable improvement in the lot of the war pensioners. I see no reason why this process should not continue, but the expression of this general hope, is I am afraid, as far as I can go tonight.

10.40 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)

My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) will be far from satisfied with that reply. What is the reason for the Government's refusal to grant Mr. Rogers one of these cars? It has been made clear in the Joint Under-Secretary of State's reply that it is the financial cost to the country. He tells us that there would be 19,000 of these cases.

I would like him to calculate what the cost would be of providing cars for these people, and how that would compare with the £83 million that, in a full year, the Surtax payers are to get. Would not a generous Government have thought that they could give some happiness, some hope, to 19,000 of these people—

Mr. Hamilton

And their wives—

Miss Herbison

—by using part of that £83 million? Does not the Joint Under-Secretary of State think it strange that if a pensioner has a broken back, is a paraplegic, or has lost his limbs, the Government will give him a car, yet if he has the type of disability of Mr. Rogers—a disability which leads to depression not only for the victim but for his family when they come into contact with him—they will not give him a car? Is it not just as important that this group of severely disabled people should have the same treatment as the paraplegics or those who have lost their limbs?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State said the pensioners want to be convinced that there is uniform treatment of allocation. Because of that, he cannot stretch a point for Mr. Rogers. I agree that pensioners and almost all decent minded people want to have uniform treatment of allocation—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half-an-hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.