DISTURBANCE PAYMENTS FOR PERSONS WITHOUT COMPENSATABLE INTERESTS (Hansard, 22 February 1973)

§ Mr. Mulley
I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 33, line 10, at end insert: '; and (c) in the case of a disabled person, the reasonable expenses incurred in structure modifications of his new home to meet the special needs of a disabled person' The subject was discussed at some length in Committee, but we did not have an amendment in this form before us. We had a lengthy discussion on the old Clause 36, which is now Clause 39, concerning the provisions which the Bill rightly makes for the problem of the disabled persons who have compensatable interests. 909 Account can be taken of that in the compensation they have for their propetry.
I am now particularly concerned about disturbance for disabled people who do not have such compensatable interests but who should also have special consideration for the expenses they are put to when they are forced to move home and they or others have to make modifications to the new home in order to meet the special needs of a disabled person.
It is possible that this can be achieved in any event as part of the reasonable expenses to be provided under subsection 4(a) of Clause 33, but it could well be a source of argument as to whether structural alterations like the widening of doors or gates or putting up a ramp for an invalid carriage would be covered by the Clause as drafted.
I accept that the amateur and hasty draftsmanship of the amendment may not do, but I think the principle generally commends itself to both sides of the House. I hope, therefore, although the hour is late, the Minister, having passed his digging-in period, will agree to look at this point or, to my immense surprise, will accept the amendment as it stands.

§ Mr. Goodhart
When I move a similar amendment in Committee I said I believed that the whole Committee thought that disabled people forced to move home should not be put to any extra expense because of their disablement. I therefore support what the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) has said. Amendment No. 37, on which I spoke earlier, will cost a great deal of money. This amendment should not cost very much money, but it will do some people good and I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept it.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
I promised to write to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) about this matter and I expect shortly to do so. I am glad to say that provision already exists to meet the case he is concerned about—that of the disabled tenant who moves from one council house to another.
First, the local housing authority has power under the 1957 Housing Act to carry out adaptations that a house may 910 need for the benefit of a tenant, and this includes adaptations for disabled tenants. Quite separately, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 contains an obligation on the social services department of a local authority to satisfy itself as to whether adaptations for the sake of disabled tenants are needed, and where it is so satisfied an obligation is placed on the authority to have the adaptations carried out.
This double provision therefore takes care of the concern which the right hon. Gentleman expressed. Nevertheless, we have given further thought to the point and to the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), and while, as the right hon. Gentleman modestly said, his amendment required a little tidying up, my right hon. Friend is prepared to accept it, subject to such changes and modifications as may be needed by the parliamentary draftsmen to achieve the purpose we all want to achieve.

§ Mr. Mulley
I am very much obliged to the Minister. If I had known that the amendment would be accepted I would have polished it up a little. I would have imported the definition of a disabled person from Clause 39. No doubt that can be attended to. All those concerned with disabled people will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman.