HC Deb 05 July 1977 vol 934 cc1182-205

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

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Robin Hodgson (Walsall, North)

From what we have just been discussing to the subject that I wish to raise—that is, from military discipline to benefits for the blind—may seem a big step, but the two topics coincide in one particularly tragic area. That is those people who have given their sight in the service of the Crown while in the Armed Forces. I pay a particular tribute to that gallant and courageous band who gave their sight in this way—whether most recently in Northern Ireland, in the Second World War, or as long ago as the Frst World War.

I am glad of this opportunity to raise the subject of inequalities in benefits payable to the blind. I want to draw attention to important defects in the present situation. I have already raised the matter with the Minister, both by letter and in Questions. I thank him for his full and courteous replies to my queries, but I hope that he will not mind my adding that those replies have not exactly answered my point. I hope that we may explore it more fully now.

I am not concerned with commenting on the adequacy of benefits generally. That is not the point that I wish to make. Nor am I commenting on the relative benefits payable to different classes of handicapped people, whether blind, deaf, physically handicapped, or whatever. That, again, falls outside the point that I wish to make. The specific area to which I wish to address my remarks is the gross discrepancies in the benefits payable to people who are blind and therefore suffer exactly the same handicap.

At 31st December 1976 there were approximately 118,000 registered blind people in the United Kingdom—101,000 in England, 7,000 in Wales and 10,000 in Scotland. About 60,000, or just over 50 per cent., were aged 75 or over and about 86,000, or nearly three-quarters, were aged 65 or over. That makes it clear that increasing blindness is primarily attributable to old age.

But that does not tell the whole story. An analysis of the causes of blindness reveals a much wider disparity. There are statistics available for the period from 1963 to 1968. I apologise to the House for the fact that they are out of date, but there do not seem to be any available for later periods. Those statistics reveal that during that five-year period some 13,000 people became blind, and that 43 per cent., 5,700 suffered from myopic degeneration, that is, loss of eyesight primarily due to old age.

There were two other significant causes. Twenty five per cent.—just over 3,000—were born blind as a result of some form of pre-natal influence, and about 25 per cent.—nearly 4,000—went blind as a result of some systemic disease, diabetes or neuralgic disorders of one kind or another. During the same period 49 people were blinded as a result of industrial accidents and 17 people were blinded as a result of service in the Armed Forces. I draw the attention of the House to those two categories, because I wish to return to them in a minute.

Against this background I was surprised to learn from a constituent of mine, Mr. Charles Deakes, who lives at Willenhall in my constituency, that the amount of benefits received by a blind person is dependent not only on his personal financial circumstances, but on the manner in which he becomes blind. I could not believe this when I first heard it. I considered, in my innocence, that blind people had broadly the same needs, and that payments made to them were linked to those needs and not to the pure accident of how they were blinded. My view was confirmed when I saw that the Inland Revenue made an allowance of £180 against income tax for all blind people irrespective of how they were blinded.

But my questioning of the Minister, both in the House and by letter, has revealed that my constituent was completely right. It has revealed the following extraordinary state of affairs. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are blinded at work or in the Armed Forces, you will receive a pension of £25 a week. You will receive it as of right, automatically. In November that sum will be raised to £28.60. Moreover, it will not be subject to any claw-back if you are employed. That is to say, if you can go out and supplement your earnings by getting a job, you will not lose any of that £25. It is payable as a lump sum on a weekly basis irrespective of the level of earnings.

On the other hand, if you are blinded at home, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or there is a medical cause of your blindness you receive nothing—I repeat, nothing—except your right to supplementary benefit, which every citizen has a right to, in any case. As a blind person you will receive one small increase amounting to £1.25 per week as an addition to the supplementary benefit which will be paid to you because you are blind. It is interesting, though not strictly in the context of the remarks that I wish to make, that that allowance, which is now £1.25, was 75p as long ago as 1948. It is difficult to believe that 75p in 1948 did not buy a great deal more than £1.25 does today.

I return to my main point. If a person draws supplementary benefit and becomes a long-term claimant under the supplementary benefits scheme, he will receive £16.95 per week, which is going up to £1915 in November. But he will receive that £16.95 only if he is not working. If one has other sources of income, whether capital or income, one will suffer withdrawal. One will start to lose that benefit and not even receive the £1695, which is a maximum and subject to claw-back. That means that through chance John Citizen can be up to £8 per week worse off because he happens to have been blinded in an accident at home instead of in an accident at work. Can this be right? Can it be fair? I think not.

Perhaps I may anticipate some of the remarks that the Minister may wish to make in reply. I am sure that he will say that the second category, the person who was blinded at home and who has to apply for supplementary benefit, will receive a rent rebate. He is probably right. But the levels of rebate, certainly in my constituency, are never more than £5 a week, and are often as little as £2 or £3. Therefore, the £8 differential, though it is minimised, still exists. There is still a difference resulting from the means by which one is blinded.

Secondly, I think that the Minister will say that there are additional benefits payable to the blind. He is right. But, of course, they are payable to all the blind, and therefore the differential between the two classes of blind people still exists. Indeed, I might also point out to the Minister that the benefits that he may refer to are not always as broad in their application as he might like to think. The much-vaunted postal concession is available only for dispatches of Braille material and certain incoming material from approved and registered sources. Concessionary travel fares, which are often mentioned in connection with blind people and which are given by British Rail or by some of the bus companies, similarly usually apply only to travel to and from work and for medical treatment or to and from further training. As such, their application is not as wide as is sometimes thought from a mere superficial study of the benefits available.

Thirdly, the Minister is likely to say that the £25 per week automatic pension is a contributory benefit whereas the supplementary benefit is non-contributory—that is, the £25 automatic pension arises because people have made contributions to the graduated pension scheme and as such are merely drawing some of the contributions that they have made. In part that is right, but many people who will be blinded at home will not qualify for the pension even though they may have worked for a period and made contributions to the graduated pension scheme. Certain people struck blind at 40 by natural causes will find that although they have paid 20 or 25 years' contributions to the graduated pension scheme they cannot draw the same pension as that of the person blinded at work.

On the other hand there are other examples which I am sure the Minister will not mention, for if he did they would only serve further to underline the idiosyncrasies of the present distinction. What he will not say is that people who are blinded at work nearly always find it easier to get a job, because an employer who has an accident on his premises, as a result of which an employee is blinded, not surprisingly, and quite rightly, feels a moral duty to that person and will do his level best to ensure that some alternative form of employment is found, albeit not in the same job. It may have to be a telephonist's job or some other job in which sight is not so important. For those who are tragically blinded in the service of the Crown, the Earl Haig Fund and some of the funds run by that organisation are able to do a great deal of work.

Equally, I do not think that the Minister will want to admit that supplementary benefit is not available to many blind people. There are blind workers who are on low rates of pay and who do not qualify and there are non-working blind housewives whose husbands are at work.

I do not think that the Minister will say that the £8 gap could be just a minimum, because there are many other allowances that those in receipt of invalidity pensions are allowed to draw on top of their pension and that are not available to those who are on supplementary benefit. There is the constant attendance allowance of £10 a week. There is the unemployability allowance, which is available to the very severely handicapped, of £15.30 a week. There is the invalidity allowance on a sliding scale, with a maximum of £3.20. Added together, they total £53.50 a week, including the £25 a week pension. If we compare that with £16.95 plus a rent allowance, we see that the discrepancy has increased rather than decreased.

I have not mentioned the £10 special hardship allowance, which brings it up to £63.50, or the extra £5 a week which is available to blinded members of the Armed Forces. That is made up of a comforts allowance of £4 a week, and £1 extra on the unemployed benefit allowance. These are very substantial discrepancies, indeed, which could range as high as £40, £45 and £50 a week, covering two classes of people who, quite by chance, are blinded 20 minutes apart, one at home and one at work. I submit that this differential is quite inequitable and also quite indefensible.

I do not wish to be accused of lèse majesté, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if this evening you were to tumble from your Chair and to catch your forehead on the chair in front of you, as a result of which your optic nerves were damaged and you were blinded, you would qualify for a £25 week pension automatically as a result of an industrial injury incurred in the course of your work. If, however, you were to go home and tumble down the stairs and receive similar injuries with a similar result, you would qualify for nothing other than your right to apply for supplementary benefit.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his indication of how one can get money, but I do not think I am prepared to accept either method.

Mr. Hodgson

I am not suggesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that either method should be followed. I was merely wishing to draw attention to the anomalies and to the quite indefensible way in which a person can be penalised as a result.

I believe that this cannot be right. I think that the enormous discrepancies, between £50 a week as a maximum and £5, £6, or £7 as a minimum, existing between two categories of blind people, are morally indefensible. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to draw the Government's attention to this point this evening.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

I think we should appreciate the very fine speech made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) about that section of the community who suffer from the unfortunate tragedy of being either partially sighted or blind. There are persons who are partially sighted but who can still be registered as blind persons and who are as a consequence entitled to some of the proposed concessions which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

The nature of this subject is such that I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to look into the many aspects of how blind people are treated. I always believed that any person who was totally incapacitated from work, simply because of the fact that he was blind, would be entitled to the full benefits as long as the necessary obligation had been fulfilled under the National Insurance Act. But there is an opinion abroad that a person who, while fully qualified for benefits, suddenly becomes blind but it not being treated by the insurance officer as totally incapacitated.

For the life of me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot understand this attitude. Here we have an individual who, due to some accident or some act of God, if one may call it that, finds himself without eyesight and, therefore, has to leave his work immediately. I should have thought that that person was totally incapacitated from working due to the fact that he had lost his eyesight, and that as such, being totally incapacitated, he should qualify for the ordinary sickness rate, followed by the invalidity rate of benefit after six months, as long as he had fulfilled the obligation of paying the statutory insurance contributions. But I am told that this is not so, and I should therefore be most grateful if the Minister would look into it.

If insurance officers are interpreting the National Insurance Act as meanly and as harshly as that, it is time that something was done about it, because the individuals I am thinking about will never work again, due to no fault of their own. As the hon. Gentleman said, it can be due to an accident at work, to failing health or to many other causes.

For instance, myopics usually inherit that particular trouble from birth. Medical science has proved that usually it is hereditary. There is no need for me to tell hon. Members that anyone reaching the mid-50s finds his eyesight beginning to trouble him. Many persons who have never had any bother with their eyesight find that they require to get reading spectacles at that age because age is affecting their sight. If age affects a person who previously enjoyed perfect eyesight until his mid-50s, you will realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how badly it affects those who have had this trouble from birth. I was a myopic at birth, and when I reached the mid-50s worsening eyesight due to age affected me much more severely that it affects persons who previously had very good eyesight.

A person who left school at 15 and who has been working and paying insurance contributions may find, on reaching 55, that he has become totally incapacitated because age has caught up with his hereditary myopia. Such a person is no longer able to work. I believe it is extremely unfair that any insurance officer should interpret the regulations to mean that in these circumstances such a person is unable to give a reasonable answer for not being able to work. That interpretation deprives any such person of his total incapacity benefit, and in my view that is extremely unfair. I do not think much of any statutory bodies which back such opinions from any insurance officer. 1 shall be most grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will be good enough to look into it.

There are also persons who, although blind, can get about with the aid of a stick, although they cannot see an inch in front of them. Such persons, because they are regarded as mobile, are not entitled, it has been ruled, to the immobility allowance. This is extremely unfair.

One could have a housewife who is blind but who has a good physique, so that she is able to go out of the front door or the back door but cannot get beyond it unless she is accompanied and has the security of some person before she ventures to cross streets. There is nothing more worrying or upsetting than the lack of security which is felt by a blind person who, when walking the streets, has to pass by shops which have dustbins at the door, and has to cross streets and overcome various other hazards on the journey to a particular destination.

That is why these people require someone with them. Yet, because they are able to walk, it has been ruled that they do not qualify for mobility allowance. That is an unfortunate occurrence, especially from a Government and a party which have built themselves on compassion. I say that sincerely. At the same time, however, I appreciate the difficulties of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who has responsibility for the disabled. I know that he has finite resources and I know that there are infinite claims on those resources. I am the first person to concede that. However, I hope that some further compassion can be given in such cases. These are genuine cases.

All that one has to do to recognise what it is like to be a myopic is to walk along the street for 10 yards and to close one's eyes. Imagine what it would be like to be unable to watch a good football match on television or that wonderful tennis competition which took place last week. Yet such people can see absolutely nothing of that sort.

Of course these people have sought to overcome their difficulties, but I think that they should be given some extra consideration. I have never understood why the income tax authorities allow only £180 for a person who is blind. A person who is blind needs someone to read and write and to escort him everywhere. I would have thought that £180 a year—about £3 a week—is an infinitesimal sum to allocate to any blind person who cannot possibly survive—that is the important point—without assistance both inside and outside the home. I went along to see an old soul who suffered from blindness and found him lying on the kitchenette floor. He was trying to make a cup of tea and could not see the Same of the fire.

A lot of these unfortunate citizens in our society are trying to overcome their difficulties and to live as normal a life as possible. I feel that the powers-that-be do not really appreciate just what these unfortunate persons have to try to overcome. I believe that we might have more consideration, not only with regard to the benefits referred to by the hon. Member for Walsall, North but with regard to other benefits.

I would give one illustration to show the lack of compassion which exists at present. I know of a blind person who is self-employed. He is an excellent chap who works as a chiropodist. Someone drives him to work. When he is driven to Glasgow, the driver cannot park where the boss's car is parked or where staff cars are parked. He has to park about half a mile away, and then that blind person has to walk all the distance in order to get to the house where he will do this valuable work. What we have is a case of real thoughtlessness on the part of the powers-that-be.

Surely some arrangement could be made whereby that person could be dropped off right at the place of work and picked up again after completing his work. This person wants to work for his own livelihood. His lifelong aim is never to be unemployed. He wants to reach the age of 65 without having drawn a halfpenny of dole money. That is the ideal of a blind man.

If we had some aspirations from our Ministers, and some other powers-that-be, I am sure that we would have a much greater recognition of the plight of the blind person. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has done a great deal of work for all sections of the disabled and handicapped in our society. I do not know of any Minister who has exceeded the contribution of my hon. Friend, both as a Back Bencher and as a Minister. I am not suggesting that he is inconsiderate or that he does not understand the problem of the blind person. What I am suggesting is that there is a greater need for my hon. Friend to prevail upon the powers-that-be to give greater recognition to the nature of this handicap and for them to help these people much better than is being done at present.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Tony Newton (Braintree)

Since we have a little time tonight, I should like to take a moment of the time of the House to support my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson), who has performed an important service by raising this subject.

In the few years that I have been a Member of this House I have taken a considerable interest in issues both of taxation and of social services affecting disabled people, including the blind. The first thing that strikes one is the apparent absurdity of the situation which affects blind people. But, of course, as my hon. Friend will acknowledge, it covers far larger categories than the blind and includes the disabled and widows.

A vastly different range of benefits is applied to such people. It would be wrong, and out of order, for me to attempt to discuss the broader problems. It should be made clear, however, that in essence they are exactly the same as the specific group on which my hon. Friend has concentrated, namely, the blind. I have no doubt that the Minister can find an explanation for the differences that exist. I am sure that he will talk about the Industrial Injuries Scheme and all the various other special schemes that have grown up and been introduced.

Rather than hear from the Minister why this situation exists, I should like to know whether he thinks that it ought to exist. Even if we agree, as I hope we shall, that it ought not to exist, I accept that it will take time to get away from it. If one were to raise all the benefits, not only for the blind but for all the other categories I have mentioned, to the most generous level currently paid, it would be a costly business and it would have to be done over a period of years.

The key point is whether the Minister acknowledges what to me is the most important single fact, which is that we have an absurd situation in which we are currently dealing with people according to circumstances in which a particular form of hardship arose rather than dealing with the hardship and tackling it according to the nature of the hardship and the needs of the person.

In the long run, whatever the explanation tonight, that cannot make sense. 1 for one shall be much encouraged if we have some recognition from the Minister that he accepts that position.

7.29 p.m.

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

I would say at the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that as one who holds you in the highest possible regard, and with very much affection, I pray that you will be saved from the rather violent fate that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) mentioned towards the end of the speech.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has spoken with obviously genuine feeling and concern for raising this important topic for debate tonight. It is only through expressions of concern in this House and elsewhere that we can hope to improve conditions for disabled people and speed their full integration into society.

May I say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) for having intervened in the debate? As he said, he was myopic from birth and he is: quite severely handicapped now. I much admire all the work that he does in the service of blind people. He was kind enough to recall a statement that I made to the effect that we have finite resources to try to keep pace with infinite claims.

As the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) indicated, there are many things yet to be done for disabled people generally. I know of his personal interest in the problems of the disabled—it is not just an interest, he has also worked on problems of taxation that affect disabled people.

The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to what he regards as inequality of treatment for blind persons in relation to social security benefits. Before replying to the specific points that he raised, I emphasise that social security provision is, of course, only one aspect of the help that is available for blind persons as it is for people suffering from other kinds of impairment.

As the House will recognise, it is quite wrong to assume that all disabled people are incapable of self-support and must rely on social security benefits for their basic incomes. For young blind people in particular training and rehabilitation are most important aims. It may help to put my later remarks into context if I remind the House of the number of people afflicted by blindness and also say something about the different considerations that affect benefits and services and their relationship to individual circumstances, such as the age of the blind person concerned and the age at which blindness occurred. The hon. Gentleman referred particularly to the incidence of blindness among the elderly.

In Britain we have a statutory definition of blindness. It is to be found in the National Assistance Act 1948, which says that a blind person is a person so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential. At 31st March 1976, the latest date for which figures are available, more than 100,000 people were registered as blind by local authorities in England. Of these, about 74,000 were over 65 and about 55,000 were over 75. In other words, nearly three-quarters of the registered blind people are past normal retirement age. Moreover, the hon. Member and the House will readily appreciate that the services and the benefits needed by the great majority of elderly blind people may be entirely different from those needed by children who are born blind and people who become blind during their working lives.

Another point that is sometimes overlooked in general discusion of the problems is that individual blind people, like other people, have individual qualities and needs. They include people who have so succeeded in overcoming their handicap that they lead fully independent lives, financially as well as socially. Yet they also include people who have the misfortune to suffer additional physical or mental handicaps as well as blindness and who are, therefore, completely dependent upon others for their welfare. Again, some blind people are members of a strong family group that offers great comfort and support, while others are helped by neighbours or friends.

Sadly, however, there are those also who have to rely exclusively on help from statutory or voluntary organisations. I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the voluntary organisations in this field, I feel that I do so on behalf of both sides of the House and on behalf of people generally throughout the country. But, as I have said, there are those blind people who must rely exclusively on help from statutory or voluntary bodies and this is the difficulty about standardised services and benefits for all blind people. The first consideration is to assess each blind person's needs for training, rehabilitation and other services, taking into account all relevant factors, including those of environment.

For those who are born blind we have a range of support services to the family provided by the health and local authorities and by voluntary organisations. Here I must mention the Royal National Institute for the Blind, whose contribution to the welfare of blind people in relation to almost every aspect of their needs is unrivalled throughout the world.

For our part, the Government are constantly seeking methods to improve services. For example, we are seeking reactions to the possible introduction of a new form which will, we hope, lead to improved arrangements for notification of visual handicap in children, so that more information can be made available about their visual defects without premature attempts to classify them as being "blind" or "partially sighted". This should help with the planning of suitable services at the most appropriate time for these children, including consideration of a young person's employment potential and training needs.

For people who become blind during their working lives the first essential is to try to help them to accept their grievous loss, to come to terms with blindness and thus face life with new and realistic expectations. The next essential is to help them with social rehabilitation. By this I mean learning such things as how to move about unaided in the house, how to find things, how to cook and do housework, how to move about safely out of doors by public transport and in the streets, and how to shop.

Communication skills such as Braille are also extremely valuable. A range of special aids is available—from the long cane, which is the most generally useful aid to mobility, to hand-held sonic or laser obstacle detectors and electronic devices that enable blind people to read ink prints. One of these latter devices, the Optacon, is being supplied in increasing numbers from funds provided by the Employment Service Agency to enable blind people to work as computer programmers. As part of its specialist resettlement service for all disabled people the Employment Service Agency provides assistance for blind people interested in industrial employment through its 35 blind persons resettlement officers and 32 blind persons training officers.

Mr. Hodgson

I am grateful to the Minister for going through the long list of aids and benefits, but the question is whether it is right that differential benefits should apply to different classes of blind people. The Minister can answer that "Yes" or "No".

Mr. Morris

I shall be coming to the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman sought to anticipate my reply by saying what it would and would not include. I am afraid that my reply will disappoint him, because he did not accurately anticipate my speech. If he likes to examine my notes afterwards, he will see that I am not reading from some text that was typed out without any kind of contribution from my own pen. I am sorry that I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because he clearly has a genuine concern for blind people, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie and the hon. Member for Braintree.

I was referring to the Employment Service Agency and the assistance that it provides for blind people interested in industrial employment. This is undertaken through the agency's 35 blind persons resettlement officers and 32 blind persons training officers. In addition, the agency is making a grant to the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which has responsibility for the resettlement of blind people in professional and commercial employment and of school leavers. The RNIB runs a residential employment rehabilitation centre at Torquay, and the Society for Welfare and Training of the Blind has a centre at Ceres in Fife. Both centres are given financial support by the Employment Service Agency. They both accept people, whatever the cause of their blindness, who can be expected to benefit from the service available.

The people who attend these centres receive rehabilitation allowances on the same scale as those attending the Employment Service Agency's own rehabilitation centres. The courses are intended primarily for newly blind people, but they are also open to people who have been blind for some time and who are considered to be in need of rehabilitation to enable them to take up employment again. In addition to the rehabilitative and assessment aspects, the courses include facilities to assist social adjustment, restoration of independence, and, at Torquay, mobility training. After receiving this help, the blind persons resettlement officer will, of course, come into the picture again to help place the person in a suitable job.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to employment opportunities for blind people. I should like to take the opportunity to emphasise the abilities of blind and other disabled people. It is easy to spot the disabilities of disabled people. One of my tasks is to point to the abilities even of people who are very severely disabled. I think that we can take pride in the achievements at work and in other activities of many severely disabled people in Britain.

Earlier today I was with Richard O'Brien, the Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission. He carries out great work in seeking to emphasise the claims of disabled people in the matter of employment opportunities. My ministerial colleagues at the Department of Employment, particularly the Undersecretary of State for Employment, have been extremely active recently in seeking further to emphasise the need to increase the employment opportunities for disabled people. The House will know of the "Positive Policies" document recently launched by my hon. Friend. I have the greatest possible pleasure in working with him to try to advance the claim made by the hon. Member for Walsall North on behalf of blind people in seeking to improve their employment opportunities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie referred to the craving of blind people and other disabled people for employment. He rightly emphasised that in most cases even the most severely disabled people would rather be taxpayers than supplementary pensioners. That point is well taken. I know that that view is shared by Opposition Members.

For my part, I shall go on emphasising the abilities of disabled people. There is no room for condescension of disabled people by able-bodied people. We can take some pride in the achievements of disabled people, both in terms of employment and in other respects. There are a number of services and concessions available for blind people further details of which are contained in a leaflet entitled "Help for Handicapped People". The hon. Gentleman might like to examine pages 22 and 23 of that important publication. The hon. Gentleman did not anticipate that I would draw attention to those two pages in that important official publication.

I would also ask the hon. Gentleman to consider more directly the financial assistance available to blind people. The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred mainly to benefits for which my Department is responsible, but we must not overlook the special tax treatment accorded to blind people. The hon. Member for Braintree will be familiar with that concession. As he knows, there is a blind person's tax allowance, which provides exemption from tax at the recipient's marginal rate of tax, on £180 a year, or twice this sum if both spouses are blind, less any tax-free disability payments received. There are many who do not believe that relief from income tax is the best or necessarily the most appropriate way to help disabled members of our society, but this quite exceptional measure for all blind people has now been with us for 15 years, and I am sure that it plays a significant and useful part in meeting the extra expenses resulting from blindness.

I turn to the subject of social security benefits. The hon. Member for Walsall, North illustrated his argument in part by referring to a constituent. If he feels that in that case, or in any other case, the law is being inappropriately or unfairly applied, I or the manager of the appropriate local office, with which I know the hon. Gentleman has been in contact, will be pleased to reconsider the case in detail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie referred to cases in his constituency. Again, I shall be pleased to examine any individual case or any case that affects a group of individuals which he may like me to study in detail after this debate.

Mr. David Hunt (Wirral)

The Minister referred to certain allowances aimed at overcoming the additional costs of blindness. Perhaps one of the greatest complaints made by those who are blind is that these allowances—tax allowances and supplementary benefit level—have not kept pace with inflation. In 1948, when the allowance was first introduced, it amounted to 15s. and the average weekly earnings were £5. 17. 4d. Average weekly earnings have now increased to £68 a week, which is 12 times as much, yet the special benefit of 15 shillings has increased to only £1.25 a week.

That is the sort of problem that hits blind people as a result of inflation and they are not given enough to help to overcome the problems of blindness. They do not need any help except financial assistance—that was thought of originally in 1948—to help them to overcome those particular problems. Is the Minister considering the constructive proposal of the Royal National Institute for the Blind for a blindness allowance which would be fixed at a proper rate and index-linked to ensure that it would keep up with inflation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have no objection to the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) taking part in the debate. I know that he is a comparative newcomer to the House, but an intervention is not supposed to be a substitute for a speech. If the hon. Member wishes to take part he may do so after the Minister has spoken.

Mr. Morris

I was happy to give way to the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt). The hon. Gentleman has been in close touch with me on many matters affecting the disabled and I know that he takes a special interest in these matters. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the effect that inflation has had upon long-standing benefits that have not been uprated. This is an extremely difficult matter of policy. I shall come later to some of the particular points that the hon. Member raised, but his main point was much the same as that made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North.

When the hon. Member for Walsall, North raised the subject tonight, and on a previous occasion, he drew attention particularly to the industrial injuries scheme and to the supplementary benefits scheme. In their different ways both schemes make special provision for blind people. As the hon. Member for Walsall, North will understand, however, in considering improvements in social security provision for any one group of the disabled the Government have also to consider their overall priorities in improving provisions for the disabled. Some important progress has been made since we came to office in improving existing social security benefits to help the disabled and in adding new ones where there were gaps.

I acknowledge that there is still much to be done and the Government welcome the wide-ranging debate on priorities, as evidenced by the seminar on social security that took place in London today. I had the pleasure of addressing that seminar on the problems and claims of disabled people. I strongly made the point that there is still much more to do. I am sure that most hon. Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Coatbridge and Airdrie and Bradford, South (Mr. Torney)—who are here tonight—would agree that, while there has been substantial progress recently, there is still much to do in redressing the wrongs of centuries against the disabled.

In accord with the practice of most other countries, special and preferential provision is made in Britain for people who have been disabled at work or in war. The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to the schemes that particularly help those who have been disabled in that way. The schemes through which provision is made for those disabled through war or industrial injury have an honourable place in our wider system of social security which elsewhere provides benefits irrespective of the cause of disablement. Naturally, as the Minister with special responsibility for war pensions, I endorse the warm tribute that was paid by the hon. Member for Walsall, North to the men and women who have become disabled through service to our country. Within these schemes there are no preferential provisions for blind people as such, although loss of vision as a result of, for instance, an industrial accident gives entitlement to a specified rate of disablement pension in the same way as does, to take a further example, the amputation of the hand.

I must now turn to the supplementary benefits system. As the hon. Member for Walsall, North will know, this system can provide help to people not in full-time employment if their resources are less than their requirements as laid down in legislation. The important thing to note in the present context is that when their requirements are being calculated, all blind people, whatever the cause of their blindness, have a preferential margin of £1.25 a week above other claimants in similar circumstances. The preferential scale rate is, however, largely historical in origin and now represents something of an anomaly within the supplementary benefits scheme.

Within that scheme the Supplementary Benefits Commission thinks it appropriate to provide for any extra expenses of disablement on an individual basis through its discretionary powers. Where in an individual case the extra needs of blindness exceed the margin, the excess may be provided for in that way. As its name suggests, the supplementary benefits scheme is not intended to provide a system of income maintenance for general classes of the population. It acts rather as a safety net for those who for various reasons find themselves without sufficient income from all other sources. Some do not require that assistance, but some require the preferential scale rate, and their incomes are rather different from the incomes of those who do not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie raised the possibility of providing a mobility allowance for the blind. There is no doubt that the blind have mobility problems. They are more severe for some of the blind than for others, but the mobility problems of the blind are real enough. However, the mobility allowance was designed for those disabled who are unable, or virtually unable, to walk. The allowance will help some of the blind, but it will help them because of a combination of handicaps and not because of blindness alone.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie appreciates, the mobility problems of the blind are not related to an inability to walk, but to their inability to cope with unfamiliar areas and difficulties associated with their use of public transport. It would not be possible to make the mobility allowance generally available to the blind without altering the nature of the allowance by widening the medical criteria, by abandoning the upper age limit—and, as my hon. Friend knows, about three-quarters of registered blind people are over pensionable age—and possibly by easing the condition as to duration of mobility problems.

Questions of principle apart, the cost of any such concession would be considerable. It is estimated that an extra 100,000 blind beneficiaries would double the cost of the mobility allowance, when all new beneficiaries were fully phased in. A cost of £182 million is estimated for abandoning the upper age limit for sighted beneficiaries and a further unspecified sum would be required to meet the claims of other diagnostic groups who might come within the scope of any wider criteria. In our present circumstances this is, unfortunately, impossible. The hon. Member for Braintree will appreciate how many claims there are on resources for helping the disadvantaged.

Mr. Newton

This is a key point. Do the Minister's figures take account of the fact that the mobility allowance is taxable and that for a very large number of people the cost to the Government would be 35 per cent. lower since these people would be paying standard rate income tax?

Mr. Morris

The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the Government's financial arrangements. The figures represent the financial cost to my Department. The hon. Gentleman may argue at another time in another part of the House that there may be savings in giving certain kinds of extra help, but the figures that I have quoted represent the cost to my Department.

We have all heard it said that the sum is greater than the parts. However, those who want higher public expenditure in one area after another sometimes seem to argue that the sum is less than the parts. They want to reduce the totality of public expenditure while increasing all its elements. The hon. Member for Walsall, North will appreciate that we have a very difficult resource problem. There has been remarkable progress in helping disabled people considering the economic background against which we are working. If extra cash for the disabled becomes available, which group or groups of people are to be assisted and how must be decided on priorities. In view of the many competing claims, this will not be an easy decision.

I have already referred to the seminar on priorities in social security. This is one example of our continuing examination of financial help from which disabled people, among others, may benefit. Another example is the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury under the chairmanship of Lord Pearson. Naturally, we shall be giving careful consideration to that report when it becomes available.

I am sure that from what I have said the House will acknowledge the wide range of help available to blind people irrespective of the cause of their blindness. The House will know that there is much more that I should like to do for blind people as for other disabled people. Occasions such as this debate are extremely valuable in encouraging us all to examine our scale of priorities for improvements and I thank the hon. Member for Walsall, North for giving us an opportunity to consider the problems faced by blind people. He has my assurance that I shall keep very much in mind all that he has said in my efforts to help blind and other disabled people. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie and the hon. Member for Braintree have the same assurance.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. David Hunt (Wirral)

I intervened during the Minister's speech because I felt that he was not responding to the major point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson), namely, the inequalities in the allowances paid to blind people. I take a great deal of what the Minister said as signifying his deep concern about the problems of the blind, but one of the major points in this debate is the need for a blindness allowance. It is not necessarily a question of funding it now but is more a question of principle. Is the Minister prepared to accept here and now that one of the major priorities when funds are available must be to tackle fairly and squarely the problems faced by blind people?

I understood that the Minister was not prepared to commit himself on the general question of a blindness allowance. It has long been recognised—and the Minister himself recognised—that the problems of blind people are special problems with special financial significance. This has been stressed many times in this House. The introduction of the allowance in 1948 was a recognition of these serious problems. They cannot be tackled by small weekly sums. Often they entail heavy items of additional expenditure by a blind person.

Examples have already been given by hon. Members and I should like to give some more from the Royal National Institute for the Blind. For travel of all types, it is often necessary for a blind person to be accompaned by a guide and it is frequently necessary for him to pay two fares. In some areas the lack of public transport makes the increased use of taxis necessary. A blind person needs to use the telephone more often and needs a typewriter and Braille writing equipment and a scribe to write his leters and deal with his personal correspondence and bills.

There is additional wear and tear on a blind person's clothing. Spillage causing stains means additional laundering or dry cleaning bills. Bumping into objects and rubbing against walls lead to a shorter life for garments. There are also likely to be more accidents with scorching, cigarette burns and so on. Blind people also suffer additional wear and tear on their shoes.

In the household, there is additional heating expense for elderly blind people because of lack of exercise and movement in the home. More expensive appliances have to be purchased for the home because of the safety factor and ease of use. Additional storage space and kitchen fitments are needed and there is also the expense of hiring professional labour for household tasks such as heavy gardening, window cleaning and electrical repairs.

The blind person has to try to meet all these expenses out of a not very special allowance. I have already explained how the supplementary allowance of 15s. which was introduced in 1948 was moderately significant at the time but that it has been eroded over the years, particularly by recent inflation, so that the present level of £1.25 should, if account were taken of average earnings, be £8.70 a week.

There is surely a case for having a special blindness allowance to meet the special problems of the blind. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North pointed out that a high proportion of the blind people at work are in low-paid jobs and are therefore unable to benefit from income tax allowances. It seems most unfair that these blind workers receive no allowance at all from any source in respect of additional living costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North also referred to the many unemployed blind housewives who, if their husbands are in low-paid employment, do not benefit from any tax relief or supplementary benefit.

Will the Minister turn his mind to considering in principle the acceptance that there is an established case for the provision of a blindness allowance payable as a right to all blind people over the age of 16 years, whether in work or unemployed, in addition to wages, salary or statutory benefits?

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris

With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply briefly to the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt). I am well aware of the problems facing those who are disabled at war or at work and those who are disabled at neither war nor work. I referred to the social security seminar that I addressed in London early today. That shows that we are considering all the priorities.

The hon. Gentleman will readily appreciate that there are many competing priorities. There are those of the elderly, one-parent families, widows and battered wives. I spoke at the seminar about the claims of the disabled, including those who are blind. We must not raise false hopes.

The 1948 scale rate was referred to by the hon. Gentleman just as it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson). It is an issue which has been considered by successive Governments since 1948. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that his party—

Mr. David Hunt

It is not a party matter.

Mr. Morris

If he is saying that his party, if given the opportunity, would remove the differences between the war pension scheme and the schemes that help the civilian disabled, that would cause considerable debate outside the House. I appreciate that he is not saying that his party would, given the opportunity, immediately iron out the differences between existing schemes.

Mr. Hodgson

This is a matter not of eradicating differentials but of accepting that payment should be related to need, not to the accidental circumstances in which a person is blinded. There cannot be any logic in doing that.

Mr. Morris

I pointed out that the Supplementary Benefits Commission has the discretion and uses the discretion to consider the needs of the disabled person, whether he or she is blind or suffering from some other disability.

The hon. Member for Wirral referred to the proposals made by the Royal Institute for the Blind. I am in fairly frequent contact with the institute and other organisations representing blind persons. We are constantly considering priorities. That which is put to me by the institute will be carefully considered. I have said that it provides a service for the blind that is unrivalled in the world. I am the person least likely not to give due weight to anything that is put to me by that organisation. At the same time, I cannot promise to do the impossible. I shall try to do everything that is possible in the service of the blind and other disabled persons.