HC Deb 20 March 1974 vol 870 cc1222-30

1.28 a.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield)

I intend to raise briefly the question of assistance to disabled drivers, particularly with regard to motor vehicle licences.

Perhaps I may preface my remarks by offering my congratulations to the Under-Secretary of State who is in charge of the disabled. When we were the Government I used to admire the hon. Gentleman's work as adviser to the Police Federation, and I wish him well in his new post.

This is a relatively narrow debate, and my main purpose is to seek information. In particular, I should like information about the extent to which the aid that is available to disabled persons who are unable to drive themselves is being taken up.

It might be a convenience to the House to recap on this scheme. Under the 1971 Finance Act, a valuable concession was made to the disabled. This was that a disabled person who was unable to drive himself and had to be driven was relieved of paying the £25 vehicle excise duty. That was seen as an extremely useful move. I think that it was welcomed on both sides of the House, and we should make clear straight away just whom it was intended to benefit. It was not intended for partially disabled men and women who could drive themselves, albeit in special vehicles. Other assistance is available to that group. It was intended for the totally disabled, for example, those who are paralysed, who cannot drive themselves. We are talking of a group who are in need not of our sympathy but of our practical help.

How many have been helped under this scheme? What surprises me in the Supplementary Estimates is not how much but how little public money has been spent in this area. I know that the Minister has been in office for only a short time, but I hope he can help. Has the trend been up or down since the introduction of the scheme? Is he satisfied that it is sufficiently publicised? How does the disabled man get to hear of it? I suspect that it is not widely known and that if it were better known there would be more take-up.

How many persons have applied for the scheme but been turned down? A disabled person has to satisfy a number of conditions. He must be permanently disabled, he must show that he needs to be driven, and he must be in receipt of a constant attendance allowance. Last, the vehicle must be registered in the name of the permanently disabled person and it must be "conspicuously and permanently adapted" for his use. I do not see why it should have to be in the disabled person's name; surely it should be enough that he should show that he made full use of it.

What I really cannot understand is why the vehicle should be "conspicuously and permanently adapted". I am grateful for information supplied to me by a constituent, Mrs. Martin, of Wyvern Road, Sutton Coldfield. Since her husband is permanently disabled, they applied for the £25 relief. Her husband satisfied the first three conditions—he was permanently disabled, needed to be driven, and received the constant attendance allowance—but his car was not adapted as the regulations specified, and his application was refused. That refusal was disgraceful. I hope that the Minister will undertake that, if I give him details, he will investigate.

I am concerned with the general facts in the Supplementary Estimates.

What does the condition mean? What does it mean "conspicuously and permanently" to adapt a vehicle? Why should it be conspicuous? What is the reasoning? What kind of permanent adaptations must be made, in view of the cost involved? It can cost £25 nowadays to service a car, let alone permanently to adapt it. It is extraordinary that the adaptation may cost more than the relief that is available.

Why is it considered necessary that adaptations should be made? We are talking not about the partially disabled but about the permanently disabled. We are not talking about people who can be assisted to drive their own vehicle, in which case one could see the point in making adaptations to the vehicle. We are talking about people who, by definition, cannot drive vehicles and are passengers in them. In most cases there is no point in making any adaptations to the vehicles. Provided that the disabled person can enter a car or be placed in it, that is the end of it.

The situation described to me so eloquently by my constituent is one where it is possible for someone to be too seriously disabled to benefit from the relief now offered, where the prescribed conditions work against the good that is undoubtedly intended. The scheme is well-intentioned but is seriously defective in practice. Bureaucratic rules seem to have taken over from common sense and humanity.

I welcome the fact that a new Minister has been appointed in this area. I ask the Minister, as one of his first tasks, to consider this scheme. I ask him to study the case, of which I will give him details, to review the general policy, and, above all, I ask him for the information which the Supplementary Estimates contain.

1.38 a.m.

Mr. Ernle Money (Ipswich)

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has said in welcoming the Minister for Disablement to his appointment, first because the creation of this office is a great step forward and, in particular, because the appointment of himself to that post will have given great pleasure to his friends on both sides of the House.

I ask the Minister to consider three things. First, there is the position with regard to the personalisation of this type of relief on vehicles being used solely for the benefit of the disabled person himself. In many ways a multi-purpose vehicle rather than an adapted vehicle might benefit the whole family of a disabled person and would not require the kind of adaptation of which my hon. Friend has spoken. Therefore, on economic and humanitarian grounds the rule should be reviewed.

Secondly, in connection with the criteria of which my hon. Friend spoke, it is no use having this kind of relief unless some kind of support can be given for the parking of vehicles for seriously disabled persons. I have been particularly shocked by the case, recently drawn to my attention in my constituency, of Miss Florence Gilson, who has been fighting an uphill battle—although she is without legs and also suffers from severe disability in one arm, she has shown great courage—in trying to get any sort of planning permission or support from the local authority to obtain parking facilities or any kind of shed for the vehicle that has been made available to her.

I hope that one of the things that the Minister will be able to do for the disabled in his co-ordinating function is to bring this kind of case to the attention of local authorities and try to influence them, as he did so much in his own Act —which will always be known as the Act under his name—to get local authorities to examine this type of case more seriously.

Finally, the hon. Member, above all people in the House, has fought for disabled drivers generally, in terms of invalid vehicles. I hope that now that the Sharp Report will be available on 25th of this month he will bring all his influence to bear with the Government to see that that report is made available to all the interested bodies and also made available for debate in the House at the earliest opportunity that he can persuade his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to provide, so that an early end can be brought to the many anomalies, and so that the present position of the three-wheeled vehicle may be examined.

Having said that, I welcome the hon. Member most warmly to his new appointment.

1.44 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris)

I very much appreciate the warm and kindly reference to my appointment made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) who initiated the debate, just as I also deeply appreciate the generous speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money). I preface my reply with a word of welcome to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield in his new orientation as Member of Parliament for that constituency. He has addressed us with all the eloquence and force to which we became accustomed when he represented his former constituency.

I have carefully noted the case of Mr. Martin, which causes the hon. Member such clearly genuine concern, and I shall be delighted to have it fully investigated, in keeping with his request.

I shall also be glad to examine the case referred to by the hon. Member for Ipswich. As far as I can see, this will require consultation with the local authority. Nevertheless, I shall try my very best to see that the case is urgently investigated and will do whatever I can to help.

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is also concerned—like his hon. Friend —with the wider question of entitlement to the benefits of Section 7 of the Finance Act 1971. The present scheme whereby disabled persons who cannot drive themselves may be entitled to a certificate of exemption from payment of vehicle excise duty was introduced following an amendment to the Finance Bill in 1971 —I refer to Vol. 820, col. 1128 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—an amendment which I am proud to have played a part in promoting. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on- Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) were also involved.

The new clause which we then added to the Bill may have seemed of no great consequence, yet I recall from my speech on that occasion an important comment by Mr. Peter Large, of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled. Mr. Large, who is himself very severely disabled, had put to me before the debate that the rule which we were seeking to correct by the new clause was a longstanding and cruel anomaly. In the view of many disabled people our victory in carrying through the new clause, although modest in effect, was at least a step forward. Many of us thought on that occasion that it was a halting step forward.

There have been strong criticisms during the debate of the extent of the improvement that we secured. To qualify for exemption a person must first be eligible for one of the Department of Health and Social Security's own vehicles. Secondly, he must be incapable of driving and controlling the vehicle. Thirdly, he must be cared for by a full-time constant attendant for which he receives an attendance allowance.

Fourthly, he must be the owner of a vehicle which has been conspicuously and permanently adapted for his own use.

The Department of Health and Social Security issues exemption certificates free of charge upon receipt of satisfactory evidence that the first three of those conditions are satisfied. The Department does not itself exempt vehicles owners from the statutory requirements as to payment of tax. The actual exemption is made by the local vehicle licensing authority, which must first satisfy itself that my Department has provided a certificate and further, that the disabled person is the registered owner of a suitable vehicle conspicuously and permanently adapted for his use.

The Department is thus but one of the links in this chain. As it does not undertake the exemption itself, the Department has no records of how many disabled people are benefiting under these arrangements. It is not possible for me to say how many certificates of entitlement my Department issues as no expenditure on its part is involved and no permanent records are kept. Such statistics would not in any case be of great value, because the number of persons exempted by licensing authorities cannot be deduced from the number of certificates issued. A person might satisfy the conditions for an exemption certificate but not be the owner of a suitable vehicle.

I am aware that the question of take-up is of interest to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, as it will be to others concerned about provision for disabled people. I have said that my Department does not have any figures, but I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment whether such information is available and I shall write to the hon. Member about this.

The adequacy of publicity for the scheme has been questioned. Full details are given in a leaflet "Disabled People—Help with Personal Transport", which is issued by my Department as NHS leaflet No. 5. It is widely and freely available, but if the hon. Gentleman has not seen a copy I have one with me and I shall be pleased to give it to him afterwards. I am pleased to see that he has secured a copy.

Mr. Money

Could the hon. Gentleman have special discussions from time to time with interested bodies, and in particular with such people as Mr. Keith Goldsworthy of the St. Raphael Club, to make sure that they are kept fully up to date with the way in which the Department's policy is being applied in such matters?

Mr. Morris

Certainly. I am happy to hear the reference to the friend we all refer to as Goldie. His work is much appreciated on both sides of the House.

It must be doubtful whether wider publicity would significantly increase the uptake of the scheme. Many voluntary bodies and other groups which do such valuable work on behalf of disabled people have brought it to the notice of all the potential beneficiaries with whom they are in contact. The total number of eligible persons is very small. Our amendment to the Finance Bill in 1971 was extremely modest. It was estimated in 1969 that between 1,000 and 1,250 people would benefit. However, I fully accept that to the disabled people concerned it is a very important matter, perhaps more important than some others which have exercised hon. Members in earlier debates on this Bill.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield for providing by this debate the opportunity to publicise the scheme. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced during the debate on the Gracious Speech, the future of the vehicle service and other assistance with personal transport for disabled people will be the subject of wide-ranging discussion following publication on 25th March of Lady Sharp's report on the mobility of physically handicapped people.

The hon. Members for Sutton Cold-field and Ipswich will be as pleased as as I am that Lady Sharp's report is to appear in print at last. They will not wish me to anticipate its recommendations or the outcome of discussion upon them. It would clearly not be right to consider detailed points now and out of the context of the total mobility of disabled people, but I am happy to have been able to give the assurance required of me by the hon. Member for Ipswich.

The hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field is unhappy with the present restriction that to qualify under the scheme the owner's vehicle must be conspicuously and permanently adapted for his use. It has been argued that exemption involves a loss of revenue and therefore must be policed or at least be capable of being policed. It must therefore be possible for a police officer or other authorised person to determine without difficulty whether a particular vehicle should or should not be exempt. That is one of the difficulties of the form of words that was agreed in Section 7 of the Finance Act 1971. A conspicuous and permanent adaptation to the needs of a disabled passenger enables such determination to be done by visual inspection and so prevents abuses of the scheme which might place its continuation in jeopardy.

It will be appreciated that the licensing of vehicles is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, to whom Questions may be put in the normal way.

I repeat that I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising a matter of such importance for severely disabled people, and I give him the assurance that this Government will do whatever circumstances allow to improve their mobility.

Mr. Fowler

I am grateful for that assurance, but I thought the Minister said that we were dealing with 1,200 to 1,500 people. I realise that the hon. Gentleman does not have ministerial responsibility for what the Department of the Environment does, but it seems to be making rather heavy weather of the condition to bring in the full majesty of the law, with police investigations and goodness knows what else, for this small group when they already satisfy the three conditions of the Minister's own Department. Will he consider striking out that condition, which after his reply sounds a little irrelevant?

Mr. Morris

I shall arrange for all the points which have been raised in the debate to be considered carefully. The figure I quoted was between 1,000 and 1,250. That was the estimate which was made in 1969. The amendment which was made in 1971 was proposed in 1969. As I have explained, the question of numbers is extremely difficult. I am certain that my right hon. Friends who have an interest in these matters will consider carefully the points which have been made by the hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield and Ipswich. We shall be keen to do whatever we can to help in the light of all the points which have been made.

There has been a great deal of cooperation between right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to enrich the lives of disabled people by improving their mobility. There have been no party differences. If we continue to work together, I am sure that we shall succeed. We must all strive to do everything possible to improve further the mobility of disabled people.