HC Deb 29 July 1976 vol 916 cc1026-36

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

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Michael Marshall (Arundel)

I was in this position, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take part in earlier business which I was unable to hear, so I shall remain at the Dispatch Box to raise the subject of the problems of disabled drivers in West Sussex. I make no apology for calling attention to this issue, and I do so in the light of the statement made by the Secretary of State last Friday.

Before I proceed any further, I wonder whether the Minister who is expected to reply to this Adjournment debate is in the Chamber tonight.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Leslie Huckfield)

For the convenience of the hon. Member, I can tell him that my hon. Friend is just arriving.

Mr. Marshall

In that case I shall continue.

Perhaps I may deal with the background to this matter.

It has been raised with the Minister both in terms of my constituency and from time to time in the broader context of the rest of the country. I had considerable correspondence with the hon. Gentleman in 1974 and 1975, touching on matters such as the problem of safety for the road trike, arguments over design, and difficulties in obtaining spare parts and servicing.

Last Friday's announcement was the end of a campaign conducted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Let me remind the Minister of correspondence we had at the time, in respect of Mrs. Jane Image, of Littlehampton. She was a classic example of someone who found difficulty with the trike. Over many years she made her views known through the Disabled Drivers' Action Group and other bodies. A whole range of questions which I put to the Minister over a period were fed to me by Mr. Peter MacBryan, of the Disabled Drivers' Action Group.

The background to last Friday's announcement is important, therefore. The work undertaken by the all-party Disablement Group is important, because it is on that theme that I should like to put some questions to the Minister. I do so in no party sense, as I hope he will appreciate.

In view of the widespread criticism that had gone on about the trike, last Friday's announcement was received with some satisfaction, in certain parts of the House and the country. But, unfortunately, I could not be here last Friday. I was in my constituency, and on Saturday, in travelling around in my mobile advice centre, I received some of the first reactions to the announcement. They were very strong and they reflected the anguish of a number of my constituents and disabled drivers elsewhere in the country.

I sent the Minister three letters that are typical of the kind of reaction that has come up so far, and I should like to quote briefly from them. Other letters were sent to me after it was known that I had tonight's Adjournment debate, but I shall concentrate on those from my constituents, since they are typical of many that I have received since.

The first letter was sent to me, before last Friday's announcement, by Mr. John Sachs, of Bognor Regis. He raised the problem of a disabled driver who was the owner of a trike—in this case in 1969–70. This constituent gave up the trike because, as he says, he accepted the general view then put forward regarding doubts about the safety of the vehicle. Having given it up he found that when the disability allowance was subsequently made available and he applied for it in January this year, he was refused.

The question that arises from this case is: how does a constituent manage in that situation? That brings us back to the announcement last Friday, when the Secretary of State made clear that as for the eligibility of those beyond pension age, I have already mentioned that those who already have trikes and who will be allowed to continue with them after pension age must be allowed to continue with the alternative, which is mobility allowance, after pension age. Obviously this will produce pressure for the provision to be extended from those who do not have trikes but who have a mobility allowance that ends at pensionable age."—[Official Report, 23rd July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 2233.] The Secretary of State went on to say that he would resist that pressure. My constituent has not been granted an allowance, and he gave up the trike before reaching pensionable age.

The Government appear to deny the allowance precisely at the moment when it is most needed—at a time when retirement age is reached and earnings decline. At the moment when a person is unable to take advantage of any Employment Service Agency payments and when his overall means are at the lowest pitch, the allowance would be most valuable. What hope does the Minister hold out for my constituent and others like him?

One of the best summaries of the problem is contained in a letter written by Baroness Sharp to The Times earlier this week. She recalled the long drawn-out debate that led to the announcement that the trike was to be phased out. I draw a veil over some of the arguments in that debate over many years. The background is not entirely happy, and it has not left people with overwhelming confidence in the role of the Department of Health and Social Security in this connection.

Baroness Sharp put my constituent's case in a nutshell. She welcomed the phasing out of the trike, and added that the decision to phase it out had been a relatively easy one; the much more difficult decision was what should replace it. That is the question to which I hope the Minister will address himself.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman accept Lady Sharp's fairly severe functional criteria? Does he agree with the view of the Disabled Drivers' Association that the result of adopting those criteria would be to disqualify 13,500 disabled drivers from the scheme?

Mr. Marshall

I do not think that there is much point in going back to the debate about phasing out the trike. That decision has been made. I should like to make my speech in my own way. I am drawing to the Minister's attention what Baroness Sharp—whom we all respect—said in The Times. She asked what should replace the trike. The Government's answer to that question is an allowance of £5 a week. Again, Baroness Sharp puts is fairly: The truth is that £5 a week is not a mobility grant at all … It will help those who can afford cars to run them; it may help others to meet the cost of occasional transport. But it dens nothing to solve the problems of those in greatest need; those unable to buy a car but whose need for personal transport is compelling. That is a fair and valid point of view.

So far we have been unable to get any assurance on what would be an adequate amount. When we come to the letters from my constituents the relevance of the level of the allowance becomes all the more obvious. One constituent wrote to me as follows: As one of many thousands of paraplegics with similar problems I would ask you, please, to put it to the Minister that (1) the £5 a week would scarcely help me, since I could not board a bus even if I could reach one. My world will shrink to a radius of about one mile (if I can find a sturdy pusher). (2) I shall be forced to ask others to choose my purchases and library books, perform monetary transactions and arrange meetings for me, thus depriving me of every scrap of privacy, In fact, life in a goldfish bowl! I have had a letter from another constituent and, again, the Minister has a copy. The lady says that she left school at 16 and did not have a job until last year. She continues: I now work part-time and also because I earn less than £7 per week get the invalidity benefit, how does the Social Services Minister think I am going to be able to buy a vehicle to get around in with an extra £5? She concludes: Disabled people want to be independent, not dependent. That is the spirit of the constituents who have approached me. I am sure that it is one that is echoed throughout the country. I appreciate that it is a difficult problem, and I am not in any way underestimating the Minister's difficulties, but the answer to Baroness Sharp's question appears to be that the Government have pinned their faith on the cash allowance. Therefore, we want to hear from the Minister rather more than we have heard so far about what the allowance is likely to be.

At present we have the reference to £5. We know that the matter is to be reviewed again next year. We hear rumours that it might be increased to £7. However, the real thrust of the reaction that I get, which I suspect all hon. Members will get, is that the figures we are talking about are totally inadequate, because of the capital cost of covering some sort of replacement vehicle.

It is in that context that I have to strike a somewhat critical note. I believe, with all respect, that in the Secretary of State's statement last Friday there was an element of self-congratulation, which is rather hard to swallow in relation to the figures that have been announced. I must put that charge to the Secretary of State, but I exempt the Minister. He did not make the statement last week, and over the years I have not found him to adopt that line. I suggest that with the background that I have described there is no room for self-satisfaction.

I urge the Minister to give us some real assurance. I am sure that he is aware of the reaction and the worries that have been promptly expressed on all sides. In the two minutes that remain to me I ask him two specific questions. First, do the Government accept the need to make more cash available so that drivers can acquire a suitable successor to the trike? Do they accept the need to make cash available so that an alternative vehicle to the trike can be obtained, whether it be on hire purchase, by way of capital grant, or on any other basis? Secondly, what are the Government doing specifically to encourage the production of a successor?

It is obvious that £5 is not an adequate sum. We must face the fact that during the next 12 months there may be people who on safety grounds wish to give up the trike and use the present allowance. The worry about the recent announcement is that it seems actively to encourage people to hang on to the trike after their true safety, as it were, has already been undermined by the Department. It is possible to refer to a number of references made to that point last Friday—namely, to carrying on with trikes until they are worn out, which involve about five years' use, and then considering the matter again. This is worrying.

There is little evidence that the Government are doing anything directly about the production of a possible successor vehicle. The whole tone of the Secretary of State's answers to questions last Friday suggested that there was no urgency. He said: we expect to be able to maintain the supply of trikes, for those who want to keep them, for at least five years and possibly a good deal longer. Subsequently, he said: When the time approaches we shall assess the extent of the need for specialised vehicles for the remaining vehicle scheme beneficiaries and see which alternative vehicles and electrically powered wheelchairs, are available on the home and world markets."—[Official Report, 23rd July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 2236–7.] That surely suggests that it will be a long time before the Government feel that they are forced to take any action. Surely they should encourage the fastest possible breakthrough in terms of designs and replacements for the trike during this run down period. We cannot wait for five years and then expect a Government, of whatever political complexion, to consider the matter.

There should be scope for co-operation within the EEC. Some hon. Members with great experience of these matters have looked at work in other European countries, and there are examples of conversions that might be worth looking at.

These are some of the worries that have been expressed by my constituents. I accept the difficulties, but I ask the Minister to recognise that the points that I have put to him are mild compared with some of the criticism that has been thrown out. Indeed, he will be aware of the words of Mr. Reginald Ralph, of the Invalid Tricycle Action Group, and others. Compared with those arguments, I believe that I have put forward the mild but strong views of my constituents. I seek some further assurances from the hon. Gentleman tonight.

11.36 pm.

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

This is a rather unusual adjournment debate. The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) was good enough to let me know the day before yesterday that the matter he would raise was not the one that he originally noti- fied as the subject of the debate. I understand his reasons for having raised this alternative subject instead of a matter concerning payment of the attendance allowance, as he originally intended.

The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of matters. I understand that I have 12 to 13 minutes in which to reply. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is an extremely complex and difficult subject. Indeed, I am sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), whom the whole House respects as secretary of the all-party Disablement Group in the House, will agree with both the hon. Gentleman and me that there are few more complex subjects exercising the minds of right hon. and hon. Members at present. Naturally, I shall do my best to reply as fully as possible to the points that have been made.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me this timely opportunity to explain our policy on phasing out the invalid tricycle and extending the mobility allowance scheme and to answer some of the ill-informed comments that have been made on the policy announced by my right hon. Friend on 23rd July.

First, I must make it clear that there is no question of immediate withdrawal of tricycles from existing users or of not dealing with applications for the vehicle which are already in hand. As my right hon. Friend said, existing users will be able to keep their tricycles and, for as long as replacements and spare parts are available, they will also be able to have them replaced when they wear out.

I have seen it suggested in the Press that replacement vehicles will cease to be available within a matter of months. We heard from the hon. Gentleman about the anxieties felt by some of his constituents. The suggestion that replacement vehicles will cease to be available within a matter of months is utterly without foundation.

My right hon. Friend explained to the House that we expect to be able to maintain the supply of tricycles to those who want to keep them or have them replaced, for at least five years and possibly for a good deal longer. We shall be building up a stockpile of spare parts expressly designed to enable us to keep our residual fleet going for as long as practicable after production has ceased.

That does not mean I can guarantee that, in every single case where a tricycle wears out within the next five years, we shall automatically be able to provide a replacement vehicle. A small proportion of the tricycles on issue have been extensively adapted to suit individual disabled people's needs, and there is the possibility, even today, that we may be unable to provide suitable replacements when such tricycles wear out. Components used in an adaptation may have ceased to be available, or the tricycle may have been an early model and it may not be possible for the Model 70 to be similarly adapted, even though generally the Model 70 is more readily adaptable to a variety of needs than were its predecessors. In the vast majority of cases, however, I have no hesitation in saying that we expect to be able, for at least five years, to continue to provide and maintain tricycles for those who have had them and still want them.

There are two other points from the announcement made by my right hon. Friend on 23rd July which I should like to stress. The first concerns people who were not so severely disabled as to be eligible for a vehicle on medical grounds alone and who, under the old scheme, were provided with a tricycle only for so long as they needed it to get to and from work. It was one of the worst of the cruelties of the old scheme that their tricycles, or private car allowances, were liable to be withdrawn if they lost their jobs. Tricycles may not have been withdrawn immediately, but if the holder was unable to find another job in a reasonable time he had to surrender the tricycle, and he thus became deprived of all mobility help. That rule was, rightly, much criticised for causing hardship to people who had come to depend on their tricycles and for making it more difficult for them to continue to look for another job.

We are now making two changes affecting these former beneficiaries of the old scheme. First—and this change takes effect immediately—we shall now no longer withdraw their tricycles or private car allowances when they lose their jobs. I know that this will be most warmly welcomed by the many thousands of disabled people concerned.

Secondly, the legislation that my right hon. Friend has undertaken to introduce will provide a right to switch to mobility allowance when a tricycle, or private car allowance, is given up, or, for those who hold on to their tricycles for as long as they can, when the trike eventually wears out. Taken together, these changes amount to a substantial extension of reserved rights for disabled drivers.

My right hon. Friend also referred to the legislation that we shall be introducing to enable awards of mobility allowance to beneficiaries of the old scheme to continue in payment without age limit. Again, the legislation will enable tricycle holders over pension age, and those receiving private car allowances under the old scheme, to switch to a mobility allowance. This, too, is an important undertaking for disabled drivers, because about half of our 21,000 tricycle drivers are at present ineligible for mobility allowance, either by reason of age or because eligibility for a trike rested on the old and bitterly criticised employment criterion.

The old vehicle scheme had no age limit, and when it was superseded by the new mobility allowance scheme on 1st January 1976 the eligible disabled drivers were accorded reserved rights to continue, without age limit, to receive the benefits of the old scheme. We feel it is right, therefore, that they should now similarly enjoy, without age limit, the right to switch to a mobility allowance.

The policy statement of 23rd July is in close accord with the principles that led us, in 1974, to make the new mobility allowance the main mobility benefit for disabled people. The two principles were equity and flexibility—equity in relating benefit to the degree of disability and not to the ability to drive, and flexibility in providing cash for people to use as they think best in helping to meet their mobility needs. We have been seeking to make the amount of the allowance as high as possible within the available resources and consistent with meeting the proper claims of other groups, including other groups of disabled people.

Although "cash not cars" has been our broad policy since 1974, the Government did not then see compelling reasons for withdrawing the tricycle and it was retained as an alternative to the main benefit. But there is now a decisive new factor, to which my right hon. Friend referred on 23rd July. It is now clear that before long the limits of the present design of the tricycle will have been reached. Here we have had to recognise that the future type approval requirements, linked as they will be to international standards, will make it impossible for the tricycle to remain part of our policy in the longer term.

The Shadow spokesman on the social services made it plain in the House last Friday that he recognised that this was an extremely difficult area of policy, particularly at a time of public expenditure constraint. If my right hon. Friend appeared self-congratulatory I think the hon. Member for Arundel will agree that his right hon. Friend was by no means condemnatory of the statement that was made by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Michael Marshall

I do not think it matters too much what respective Front Bench spokesmen said on this matter. People want to know whether the Minister can give any assurance about extra cash to finance an alternative vehicles.

Mr. Morris

As we have already announced, we hope to improve not only the amount but the value of the mobility allowance.

By its reception of my right hon. Friend's statement on 23rd July, the House made plain its understanding of the basic principles of our policy. There were many sympathetic interventions from right hon. and hon. Members who have given deep study to the problems of disabled people. Of course, there are some anxieties and reservations about the way in which individual groups will be affected. I hope to comment later on a few of those, including two matters raised on 23rd July by the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen). He was good enough to say that he thought we were doing the right thing in phasing out the trike, just as the hon. Gentleman said that he thought we were pursuing the correct policy objective in that regard. That view will be widely respected, coming as it did in the case of the hon. Member for Wells, from a member of the all-party Disablement Group who has had a strong commitment to helping disabled people over a long period.

I must deal with criticisms of the amount of the mobility allowance. I accept that the allowance is not in itself enough to buy and run a new car. Even at its current level, however, the allowance is an important contribution to the mobility costs of disabled people. Even a Minister responsible for the disabled is not free to ignore the intimidating pressures of the present economic crisis. As in every other field, there is a limit to the money available for all the improvements I have been seeking. We shall, as my right hon. Friend said, review the amount of the allowance next year. Our aim will be not only to restore but to improve its value.

Some commentators on our policy seem persuaded that we should devote far greater resources to some disabled people than others because they can drive and want to run vehicles of their own. In a letter to The Times on 28th July, Lady Sharp suggests that we should give cars on a means-tested basis to drivers who need them for work or to maintain a household. She does not propose any additional or special help for people who cannot drive but who incur especially heavy expenses in getting to work or maintaining a household.

I cannot accept that we should determine the value of benefits by reference to people's ability to drive, nor do I accept that means test, with all their implications, should apply to the main mobility benefit for disabled people. Means tests would have to be reviewed regularly, and although Lady Sharp does not spell out the implications, cars would have to be withdrawn from disabled people whose financial situation had improved. Moreover, with means testing, administrative costs would take up much too high a proportion of the total resources of money and staffing that the Government could devote to mobility benefits. In contradistinction to many Press reports, the employment factor—

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 twelve minutes to Twelve o'clock.