HC Deb 07 March 1978 vol 945 cc1230-4

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Tony Newton (Braintree)

I beg to move That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise payment from the National Insurance Fund to persons over pensionable age of a mobility allowance equivalent to any mobility allowance awarded to them before reaching that age. As the House will recall, the mobility allowance began to be introduced rather more than two years ago. It is an allowance to help those severely disabled people who are unable to walk, or virtually unable to do so, with the financial problems of getting about.

Because of practical problems—in particular the need for medical examinations in many cases—the allowance is being phased in by age groups, and that process is not yet complete. The eventual aim is to make it available to all those who are qualified between the ages of five and the pensionable age—that is to say 60 for women and 65 for men.

For a step which has been generally welcome, the allowance has had rather more than its fair share of controversy. There has been controversy over the rates—originally £5, now £7, and soon to be £10—and whether they are sufficient. There has been controversy about allowances being taxed and whether they should be taxable. Above all, there has been controversy about the phasing out of the three-wheeler which has come to be associated with the allowance and which in due course led to the Motability scheme, in which, with private sector help, the allowance could be more effectively used to help the disabled to buy and run a car.

But, fourthly, there has been controversy about the cut-off at pensionable age. It is with one limited aspect—I emphasise the phrase "limited aspect"—of that part of the controversy that my Bill seeks to deal.

I emphasise that it does not seek to change the situation whereby new mobility allowances are not granted to those who are already over pensionable age. I have not sought to do that for two reasons. First, the cost of removing the age limit altogether has been estimated at £260 million. That is far too large a sum for a private Member to attempt to deal with under this procedure. Secondly, I think that in all honesty we must recognise that there is a real problem about extending the mobility allowance to all over pensionable age simply because it will be increasingly difficult to distinguish between disability in the conventional sense and the sheer consequences of old age. Therefore, I am not seeking to do that.

But we face a situation not only in which those who are already over pensionable age cannot get a new allowance but in which those who already have an allowance, when they reach pensionable age, will lose it. In other words, at the very point when severely disabled people face the general financial problems of retirement, we are to add to those problems by taking from them a gross extra income of £520 a year at the forthcoming rates of mobility allowance.

Putting the matter another way, the very purpose of the Motability scheme is to assist the severely disabled through the allowance with buying and running a car. As soon as we think of that, we recognise that to withdraw the allowance when such people retire is tantamount to saying to them "Now that you have retired, we do not see any more need for you to get about. The right thing for you to do is to stay at home." That is a heartless attitude. That is what I want to change.

One subsidiary aspect has been brought to my attention in my conversations with hon. Members and others in the last few months. I refer to those approaching retirement who have not yet been, but will be, phased into the allowance over the next year or two. I have a constituent in the age group above 55, which the mobility allowance has not reached. He is severely disabled. His family have clubbed together to buy him a modest car, which he is now struggling to run. He approached me because he was desperately worried that the escalator of his rising age would keep him permanently ahead of the age group in which he would get an allowance.

With the Minister's help, in a courteous letter, I was able to assure him that at some time within the next year or 18 months he should be able to get the allowance if he proved to be qualified. Of course, I could not assure him that he would get it, because I could not make the medical judgment. But what I had to tell him was that, even if he qualified for the allowance at some time in the next year or 18 months, within a year or two after that it would be taken from him again. That is the situation which we should change. There are many people in that position.

The purpose of my Bill is to stop that happening. Although for procedural reasons it has had to be cast in the form of apparently inventing a new allowance, its essential effect would be to provide that anyone already getting a mobility allowance when he reaches pensionable age would be able to go on getting it afterwards. I do not pretend that if that situation came about it would be entirely free of anomalies. But I think that the anomalies would be less glaring and indefensible than the present prospect.

Moreover, I believe that when we consider the problems of the disabled person who has not been able to work in the normal way during his working life, and therefore has not been able to build up for the financial problems of retirement, it is not unreasonable to giant such people special consideration under the mobility allowance in their retirement.

The cost of my proposal would he modest. The Minister has estimated it at £2½ million. However, I should guess that it would be a little less when account is taken of the fact that the allowance is taxable and, in some hands, would bear tax. On that figuring, if my arithmetic is right, about 5,000 people will be affected in the first year when the allowance starts to be withdrawn—namely, 1980.

If I sought to be controversial, I should point out that £2½ million is very little more in a year than—about the same as—the losses of the British Steel Corporation in a single working day. I believe that if we plan for it now, in the context of our social security expenditure, this modest annual cost could be managed.

The problem has not yet arisen. Because of the way the allowance is being phased in, it will be 1980 before people begin to lose it. But there is already a great deal of anxiety. I believe that when it starts to happen there will be hardship and protests which Parliament will not easily be able to ignore.

My Bill seeks for once to deal with a problem before it arises and to relieve anxiety before it builds up any further. I hope and believe that it will be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House who care about the problems of the disabled.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Newton, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Mr. Robert Boscawen, Mr. John Cope, Mr. Robin Hodgson, Mr. Giles Shaw, Dr. Gerard Vaughan, Sir George Young and Mr. Michael Mates.