§ Mrs. ChalkerI beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 11, line 42, at end insert—
'(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3) above the Secretary of State shall retain powers to issue, in exceptional circumstances, a certificate under this section to any disabled person he considers would have been covered by subsection (3) but for some delay, or error, or other circumstance, which he considers appropriate to take into account in any particular case and which is brought to his attention within one year from the date of implementation of this section'.Habitués of social security debates will recognise the reason behind this amendment. In Committee we examined the problems that might arise when certain of the benefits through mobility allowance might not come to people whose circumstances had changed since a previous assessment.158 In Committee the Minister put our minds at rest in a number of ways by saying that people who had a right to a vehicle in the past would undoubtedly be looked after by the benefaction of the Department in future, even if in the interim there were some administrative slip up. However, I recall that our discussion swayed in seeking to appreciate what both sides of the Committee were trying to achieve—namely, that no disabled person should be denied through some administrative error access to a mobility benefit or a vehicle.
9.45 p.m.
Both sides of the Committee were on the same wavelength because the Minister said in Committee:
I think the Committee will agree that it would not be right to treat as having reserved rights anyone whose benefit was withhdrawn before 1st January 1976 and who does not subsequently fulfil all the conditions of the old scheme that are relevant to his or her former category of eligibility."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20th January 1977; c. 334.]For those who are not as familiar with the change from being a beneficiary of an invalidity vehicle to being a beneficiary of the mobility allowance, that date may not have the same ring of change about it as it has to the disabled and to those who work so hard on their behalf. Cases have arisen since 1st January 1976 in which some people have not continued with their vehicles and because they were outside the group that could then apply for mobility allowance, they have also become disfranchised from that benefit. Therefore, some people may not benefit from any of the intended help with mobility, even though they are severely disabled.We have considered the matter carefully and Amendment No. 14 is intended to clarify what will happen. I am delighted to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Services, who is the Minister responsible for the disabled, is here and I hope that he will reply favourably to this small amendment.
One of the problems that we often find during debates in Committee—which is where much of the detailed argument takes place—is that people outside the House do not understand or have access to all the detailed argument. It is well known in the House that there is still 159 much disquiet about mobility allowances and invalidity vehicles. I hope that the amendment will clarify what will happen if there is a delay, error or other circumstance that might prevent, for a time, the intended beneficiary of a mobility allowance from receiving the benefit. Provided the case is brought to the attention of the Secretary of State within one year from the date of implemention of the amendment—if it is accepted—it would be right to look after that person as if the delay or error had never occurred.
I have mentioned in the House on many occasions that we are indebted to Peter Large and the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled for having worked out this official stop-gap that would ensure that nobody would fall between the provisions of our legislation when he should rightfully be entitled to the mobility allowance. We drew the case of a category three beneficiary with a trike or private car allowance to the attention of the Minister in Committee. This is the case of someone who is disabled, but not very severely, who has had a trike or private car allowance withdrawn before 1st January 1976, whose condition has deteriorated since that date to category one or two—very severely disabled—and who has not had the benefit of a medical reassessment.
We are well aware that such a person should have been offered the chance of a reassessment, but hen. Members who have disabled persons in their constituencies know that sometimes it has been impossible for the local offices of the Artificial Limb and Appliance Centre to carry out all these reassessments in the time available.
The problem has arisen because we have changed the system since 1st January 1976. We know that some of these centres have made mistakes in the past and they have tried to rectify them, but it is no good trying to rectify something that lies outside the law—as this case would be without our amendment.
If the person whose condition had worsened considerably were insufficiently disabled to qualify for a mobility allowance—and this is not impossible—if he were in an age group which had not yet been phased into the allowance or if he had gone beyond pensionable age, he 160 might miss out on the allowance for the rest of his life and do so, often, because of mistakes, administrative errors or delays for which he was not responsible. The amendment seeks to ensure that persons who might fall into that category are fully covered and that they will get the benefit when they would otherwise have been disenfranchised.
In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), Mr. Peter Large has posed a number of questions in his worry that we might not get the amendment accepted. Hints given during the debate have led me to believe that I might be wasting the time of the House if I went through these points individually. Therefore I shall await the Minister's reply and if the points in the letter are not fully answered, I hope that it will be possible to ask for further clarification to help the House, our legislation writers and, above all, the disabled whom we are seeking to help by the amendment.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris)The purpose of the amendment is to allow an extension of time during which exceptional cases may be able to establish reserved rights under Section 33 of the Health Service and Public Health Act 1968. It is not clear which exceptional cases hon. Members have in mind. They were asked in Committee to advise us of any deserving cases who might not be adequately covered by the wording of the clause.
Since then, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) has kindly been in touch with a number of cases. I am grateful to him and to Mr. Peter Large, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled, to whom the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) has rightly paid tribute, for the detailed information which they have given us. I can reassure the hon. Member for Eastleigh on many of the points raised in his letters to me.
We believe that the principle of the amendment could serve a useful purpose if cases were to arise later which have not been foreseen. However, the amendment appears to have some drafting deficiencies and if it is withdrawn, a Government amendment will be put down in another place to achieve its effect. We 161 conceive the purpose of the amendment to be not merely to clarify but to improve the clause. I hope that in the light of my assurances, the amendment will be withdrawn.
§ Mr. David PriceI am grateful to the Minister for his response to the amendment and particularly grateful for his positive response to the correspondence which I have had with him and to the problems which I have put to his Department.
At this late hour, it would be wrong for me to say any more. I hope that in the light of what the Minister has said, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) will withdraw the amendment.
§ Mrs. ChalkerI am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I thought that he might say that the amendment was technically deficient but we are delighted that he is to introduce an amendment in the House of Lords with the same intention, so that there will be no exceptions for people who, through administrative failure or some other delay, fall between having a vehicle or private car allowance and having a mobility allowance. In view of that assurance and in grateful recognition of the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) and Peter Large, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.