HC Deb 05 August 1976 vol 916 cc2283-92

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

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas (Huddersfield, West)

After the mundane arguments we have just heard from both sides of the House it is as well that we should refer to people and the problems with which they are faced.

During the last few months, Mr. Speaker and his Deputies have had a fairly hectic time, and this is the last evening Adjournment debate before the House rises for the Summer Recess. On behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker, have a very enjoyable recess. I should like to preface my remarks on the phasing out of the invalid tricycle by asking you to accept the sincere and grateful thanks of the whole House for the patience and tolerance you have shown during the Session. I am sure the House would like to place on record its thanks for the work of the attendants, police, catering staff and all the others who serve in the House of Commons for the benefit of Members of Parliament. They have done a first-rate job.

I raise the subject of the trike in general terms, but I have been greatly impressed by the arguments put forward by the Huddersfield and District Invalid Tricycle Club, particularly by Mr. Harold Newsome, the secretary and news editor, who is writing a history of the club, which celebrates its twenty-first birthday in October this year, an event that I hope will be crowned by a visit from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security with responsibility for the disabled. I appreciate the tremendous amount of work that my hon. Friend has done, and I know how much my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cares for the handicapped people in our society and how much he has done for them. They are both extremely humane, understanding Ministers.

Although I welcome both the introduction and the extension of the mobility allowance. I regret my right hon. Friend's decision at the same time, announced in a statement on Friday 23rd July, that the trike should be phased out over the next five years. He said: Existing trike holders will, of course, be able to keep their vehicles until they wear out and will also be able to have them replaced when they wear out for as long as spare parts and replacements are still available. How long does my hon. Friend expect the spare parts and replacements to be available? On the same day, my right hon. Friend said: The report of the Department of the Environment on the subject of repairs and the efficacy of these vehicles discloses disturbing information. He added—and this is crucial: But it is important to recognise that many trike drivers have driven their vehicles for years and with that experience are extremely safe drivers. Evidence shows that most of the safety problems occur in respect of those who are fairly new to the driving of such vehicles and that is an important matter to recognise."—[Official Report, 23rd July 1976; Vol. 915, cc 2230–2233.] So said the Minister, but I would argue that that is not an argument for phrasing out the trike. It is an argument for more and better repair facilities, and it is an argument for better and more driving instruction, but it is not—and never will be—an argument for depriving people of their means of transport

My right hon. Friend in his statement of 23rd July made much of the fact that since the mobility allowance was introduced more applicants had opted for the cash and not for the trike. With great respect, my right hon. Friend confused the issue. It might well be true, but he must appreciate that he is dealing in the main with two different classes of people—those who have always had the trike, including many who would he unable to travel to work without one and would have their livelihood taken away from them if they did not have a trike—and those who want the mobility allowance —which is not much, at £5 a week, less tax—becaunse it is a help as a means of getting out of their homes.

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motions No. 554, which has all-party sponsorship, and No. 563, sponsored mainly by Labour Members. There is a considerable body of Members who feel that the Minister has gone wrong in these matters. Both motions, in essence, say the same thing: that hon. Members are concerned about the proposal to phase out the trike and argue that the Government should continue the supply of cars to the physically handicapped and guarantee the replacement of the trike whenever necessary.

Much has been made in the various reports on the subject of the accident rate of trike owners, which is much higher than that of the normal car user. I accept that, but I have spoken to many drivers of invalid trikes, and when I have asked them what they want they have said "We want our trike, but obviously we should prefer a converted car if that were possible, primarily for the sake of companionship".

I am repeatedly told—I am sure that my hon. Friend takes this on board—that it is essential to impress upon the drivers of invalid trikes two things, namely, the limitations of the vehicle and its capability, just as one must recognise the difference between driving a Rolls-Royce and a Mini. I believe that if people accept this point of view the invalid tricycle is as safe as any other vehicle.

On 29th August 1975 my hon. Friend sent me a letter in reply to one that I had forwarded to him from the Huddersfield and District Invalid Tricycle Club. He enclosed a number of tables on three-wheeler accidents in the period 1st October 1973 to 30th September 1974, and said: The total number of injury accidents in three-wheelers in 1974, 419, related to the nearly 20,000 such vehicles on issue represents less than one injury accident to every 50 years of driving; and even then most injuries are of a very minor nature. According to the report which my hon. Friend sent me, the incidence was just over 2 per cent.

In an earlier letter, dated 14th July 1975, my hon. Friend said: We have concluded that the three-wheeler should be kept for those who want it and for those who cannot manage anything else. What has caused him to change his mind? There has been criticism of the trike from responsible persons, such as Baroness Sharp and the Ombudsman. I do not accept those criticisms. I ask my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend to find out not from the various associations but from the owners of the trikes whether they want to give them up. If they sent a circular to the 20,000 people who own the trikes, the answer would be "No, we don't". Many people would opt for a converted car if they could, but I suggest to my hon. Friend, for whom I have tremendous affection, that he gets down to the grass roots and asks the individual drivers whether they want to keep the trikes.

Obviously I welcome the introduction and extension of the mobility allowance. We are proud that it has come from a Labour Government, and it is a good allowance. But no one can kid me that £5 a week, less tax, will buy a car. Certainly it will not buy a car and at the same time meet the costs of running and repairs. It is a very useful addition to the Welfare State, but it is no reason for phasing out the trike.

In a report published inThe Guardian on 15th October 1975, written by Peter Hildrew—who, incidentally, is the Labour candidate for Colne Valley and who will be in this House after the next election—the Minister of Transport was reported as saying that there was no case for banning invalid tricycles on safety grounds and that, although he was concerned that the rates of death and serious injuries for invalid tricycles was four times higher than that for ordinary cars, the rate for motor cycles was even worse. Mr. Hildrew went on to ask: Are we then to conclude that the two wheeler might be taken off the road? I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on these points and perhaps say something about the introduction of a specialised vehicle, which might be brought in at the end of the phasing out of the trike.

I next refer my hon. Friend to the article that appeared in the Observer last Sunday, 1st August, by Adam Raphael. The first paragraph reads: The cruellest and most hidden saving of the Government's public expenditure cuts this month was made at the expense of disabled drivers. It will diminish the quality of their lives and make many of them suffer real hardship. I am quite certain that my hon. Friend does not want to go down in history in that light. I ask him to give an undertaking to consider the matter again, allow people to opt for trikes, or preferably converted cars, and refuse to let the thousands of disabled people in the country be deprived of their right to mobility for work or pleasure. If he will do that, he will go down in history as one of the greatest Ministers for the disabled that any Government have ever seen.

I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the limbless man who merely wants to go 100 yards from his house to a park, so that he can sit and enjoy the pleasures of the park. He cannot do that on £5 a week. He cannot do it without a trike. I beg my hon. Friend to think again and to make a more positive response to the House.

11.24 p.m.

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

I am glad to endorse the generous and kindly gesture with which my hon. Friend began his important speech. He is very widely respected on both sides of the House for his genuine concern for disabled people, and it is wholly characteristic of him, so near to the end of a most hectic and tumultuous period of parliamentary activity, that he should still be here pursuing the interests of his constituents in special need.

My hon. Friend's speech was entirely sincere, and I congratulate him on his choice of subject. It is most helpful to me to have this opportunity to enlarge upon what has been said already about the decisions that we have taken and to allay some of the fears that have been aroused.

A great deal of anxiety has been caused by reports that the invalid tricycle was about to disappear almost forthwith. I can assure the House that this is not so. We are not withdrawing tricycles now in service from those who want to keep them. We expect to keep the tricycle fleet going for at least five years and possibly a good deal longer. As the phasing out of the trike proceeds, we have not ruled out the possibility of a residual need for specialised invalid vehicles.

My hon. Friend referred to £5 a week as the amount of the mobility allowance. I emphasise that it is our intention not merely to increase the allowance but to uprate its value.

Anyone who is registered as disabled with the Employment Services Agency, who is unable to use public transport and needs a car or taxi to get to work, may be eligible for financial help from the Agency. He can apply for this if he no longer has a vehicle. Any disabled person who was given a trike or private car allowance under the old vehicles scheme for the particular purpose of getting to work will not in future lose his benefit if he loses his job. From now on he can keep his trike as long as supplies are available. Moreover, when we have brought in the necessary legislation, he will be able to switch to mobility allowance even if he is not eligible under the present rules.

We shall be building up a stockpile of the spare parts most needed to keep the residual fleet going as long as possible. It is this which will enable us to ensure that, for the vast majority of those who want to keep their trikes, we are able to go on providing and maintaining them for at least five years and possibly a good deal longer. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept this as the fullest answer we can give to the first of the questions he has raised.

Mr. Lomas

The mobility allowance cannot be a replacement for a tricycle. The allowance of £5 a week cannot compensate for a tricycle. My hon. Friend knows that.

Mr. Morris

My hon. Friend will know that I have written at some length on this subject. He will be aware, with his interest in matters affecting disabled people, of the efforts that the Central Council for the Disabled has been making to devise a scheme which, among other things, would help disabled people to obtain cars at discount rates.

The invalid tricycle lasts, on average, between seven and eight years. I have emphasised that it is our intention to increase the rate of the mobility allowance.

Mr. Lomas

From what to what?

Mr. Morris

Even at its current rate it would produce about £2,000 over the average lifetime of an invalid tricycle. My hon. Friend would argue, with many disabled people, that this points to the need for commutation. The Central Council for the Disabled has been looking at the possibility of such a scheme. I am in close contact with the central council, which has had contacts with the motor manufacturers. The council hopes that it will be possible at least to devise a scheme which, among other benefits, would enable the disabled person to use his mobility allowance to obtain a car at discount rates. This evening I cannot go any further on what is an important point. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall keep in the closest contact with all the agencies that are taking an interest.

My hon. Friend asked if I would keep as close as possible to the grass roots. My hon. Friend will know that I keep very close to the grass roots. I intended to end my speech by saying that I hoped to be with the grass roots at their best when I visited him and his constituents in a town that I hold in the highest regard. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) will know from a recent visit that I paid to his constituency, the grass roots in Wakefield are also very attractive horticulturally.

It was fairly clear from the reception given to my right hon. Friend's statement on 23rd July that there was support on both sides of the House both for our decision that the trike must be phased out and for the basic principles of our policy. That central principle is that, in the interests of equity and flexibility, cash and not hardware should be the main mobility benefit for drivers and non-drivers alike.

My hon. Friend referred to the problem of a disabled driver in his constituency. He will appreciate that many disabled people find it difficult, without the most imaginative forms of help, to get on the pavement, let alone the road, in order to drive a vehicle.

Only two years ago, when our policy was formulated, there was no reason to believe that the trike would not continue to be available for issue as long as could be seen ahead. But now there is a decisive new factor, to which my right hon. Friend referred in his statement of 23rd July. My hon. Friend suggested that I was saying something quite different from what was previously said about the invalid tricycle and its future. I am emphasising now what my right hon. Friend emphasised.

The progress of international standards governing the design of road vehicles makes it most probable that before long, the limits of the present design of the tricycle will have been reached. So in the longer term it cannot form part of our mobility help for disabled people.

In questioning whether we really had to take this decision my hon. Friend has referred to the accident risk and the fact that the risk is greatest for drivers who are new to the trike. I agree with him that many trike drivers, who drive carefully within the limitations of their vehicles, have driven safely for many years. I have no doubt that in Huddersfield my hon. Friend will introduce me to many trike drivers who, in their vehicles, have covered tens of thousands of miles quite safely.

But, as I have said in the House on other occasions, we have to recognise that the invalid tricycle cannot be made as stable as a modern four-wheeled car. We took this and all other factors into account in reaching the decision to phase out the tricycle. But I must emphasise that no one is banning the trike. Any question of banning a particular kind of vehicle from use on the roads would be for my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, whose views were quoted earlier in the debate. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport expressed these views to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and a report by Mr. Peter Hildrew appeared inThe Guardian summarising my hon. Friend's speech.

The legislation that my right hon. Friend has undertaken to introduce will ensure for all 47,000 of the pre-1976 beneficiaries a right to switch to mobility allowance when a trike or private car allowance is given up. For those who hold on to their trikes for as long as they can, it will be possible to switch to mobility allowance when the trike eventually wears out. Mobility allowance payable under this new legislation will not be subject to any upper age limit.

This promised legislation is of real importance for disabled drivers, because something like one-half of the people who have a reserved right to a vehicle or private car allowance under the old scheme are at present ineligible to switch to mobility allowance, either by reason of the age bar or because eligibility under the old scheme rested on the controversial employment criterion of Category 3.

I have been asked many times, in the last week or two, about the development of an alternative specialised vehicle for existing trike drivers who might not be able to meet their mobility needs in any other way when trikes are no longer available. My hon. Friend suggested that there will be trike drivers who will feel themselves unable to drive any other vehicle. I cannot go further than to repeat what my right hon. Friend said on 23rd July: When that time approaches we shall assess the extent of the need for specialised vehicles for the remaining vehicle scheme beneficiaries and see which alternative vehicles, are electrically powered wheelchairs, are available on the home and world markets.—[Official Report, 23rd July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 2237.] In the meantime, we are watching the progress of the change-over to mobility allowance as increasing numbers of trike holders have the option to switch. We shall study how people are actually spending their mobility allowance. We shall see to what extent people with particular kinds of disabilities tend to switch to the allowance or choose to keep their trikes. We shall take full account of the comments of disabled people and their organisations and will share with them what we learn in the studies we make. Above all, we shall consider the continuing needs of the people concerned. We shall see what choices they make, and will not rush into particular technical developments, which could so easily prove to be wasteful, and expensive attempts to solve the wrong problems and divert resources from better lines of advance. At the same time, we shall bear in mind that for very many severely disabled people driving is not within the range of practical possibilities at all.

I know that the mobility allowance, at the current rate of £5 a week, is not in itself enough to buy and run a new car. It is a contribution to the mobility costs of disabled people. As in every other field, there is a limit to the money available for all the improvements I have been seeking—

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

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to Twelve o'clock.