HC Deb 15 February 1979 vol 962 cc1413-24
Mr. Hodgson

I beg to move amendment no. 16, in page 7, line 4, at end add— ' (5) A payment to or in respect of any person under Section 1(1) above and the right to receive such payment shall be disregarded in applying any enactment or instrument under which regard is had to, or may be had to, a person's means.' The purpose behind the amendment is to write into the Bill the provision that the £10,000 payment made under clause 1 shall be disregarded in the award of any means-tested social security benefits. The reasons for this are quite clear.

I raised this matter on Second Reading and the Secretary of State replied: The Supplementary Benefits Commission has agreed that if the damaged person is a child it will ignore the £10,000 payment. If the damaged person is an adult, the payment will be taken into account and the Commission will give sympathetic consideration to the special circumstances."—[Official Report, 5 February, 1979; Vol. 962, c. 47.] Obviously, while that is a reassuring reply —I thank the Secretary of State for it—it means that there is no legal remedy. There is only a commitment given by the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House. I wonder how satisfactory it is for the beneficiaries under this Bill to be' dependent upon the Supplementary Benefits Commission, Professor Donnison and his successors, since their interpretation will be critical. The fact that the Secretary of State has said this on the Floor of the House will not have any legal force in years to come.

The value of social security benefit is very great. In paragraph 182 of the Pearson report this is dealt with in detail. It points out how a person who is totally incapacitated is likely to receive about £150,000 in a lifetime, and that the payments are inflation-proofed and most of them are free of tax. It is very important that it should be perfectly clear once and for all that eligibility for means-tested benefit will not be affected by the acceptance of this sum.

The cause for concern has been dramatised in two ways. Here I go back again to Pearson and to the explanatory notes which the Secretary of State has kindly provided on this Bill. The explanatory notes on clause 6(4) point out that the clause provides, however, that if a payment has been made, a court in awarding damages in respect of such disablement shall treat the payment made under the Bill as paid on account of any damages. It is perfectly clear, as I read it, that if there is a subsequent award of damages, the £10,000 is to be disregarded. This takes us into the realms of Pearson. It follows precisely the lines that Pearson argued in chapter 13, dealing with offsets. He said, in paragraphs 475 and 476:

We think the time has come for full co-ordination of the compensation provided by tort and social security. An injured person, or his dependants, should not have the same need met twice, not only because it is inequitable, but because it is wasteful. This principle has been adopted in most countries where compensation may be provided through both tort and social insurance. Our conclusion is that there should be no overlap between the compensation provided by tort and that provided by social security. If we have in this Bill a clear undertaking that an award from the courts will not be allowed to overlap and will be disregarded—I quote again from Pearson, in paragraph 480: We think that the deduction should be made both from damages for an injured plaintiff and from damages for dependants in the case of a fatal accident. The arguments for avoiding overlap between tort and social security seem to us to apply with equal force in both cases. The concern is that since this is a preview of what will emerge in regard to Lord Pearson's report, and since it has been decided to follow Pearson on damages awarded in the courts, it has become alarming to some of the dependants and to the disabled themselves that if that principle is extended we are likely to have a situation where eligibility for means-tested benefits, particularly supplementary benefit, will be affected by taking up this £10,000.

In order to clarify this matter—and I do not doubt for a moment what the Minister will say—we want to write into the Bill the undertaking that the Secretary of State gave on Second Reading on 5 February. We want that embodied once and for all on the face of the legislation.

Mr. Ennals

I think that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) did not expect that I would accept the amendment. He recognises that its effect would be that the £10,000 payment would be disregarded in any assessment of the resources of the disabled person or his trustees for the purpose of determining their eligibility for means-tested benefits, including legal aid and supplementary benefit.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that means-tested benefits are provided only in cases of need, where the applicant lacks sufficient personal resources. That is the principle underlying both the payment of supplementary benefit and the payment of legal aid, as the law stands.

The hon. Member raised the question of damages. Compensation awards made by the courts in respect of damage, for example, are not distinguished from other resources, except in certain very unusual circumstances.

Concerning legal aid, the position under present legislation is that an award of £10,000 made under the Bill would have to be taken into account in just the same way as any other capital sum, however that sum was derived. As the hon. Member may know, the other place is currently considering a Bill which is designed to make some changes in the legal aid scheme. I understand that the Lord Chancellor is considering the effect of the payment of an award under the Bill in any future application by or on behalf of a vaccine-damaged child for legal aid to seek redress in respect of the damage caused. I certainly cannot give any undertaking at this stage, but I hope to be able to consult the Lord Chancellor about this matter.

On the question of supplementary benefit, I intervened in the debate on Second Reading, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I can really do little more than say what I said then. I explained in that debate that the Supplementary Benefits Commission had already agreed to disregard payments made under the Bill which are held in trust for children and to take account of any special circumstances in the case of adults, dependent upon the particular nature of the expenditure on behalf of that adult.

It would certainly not be possible to make a general exception for this payment and, at the same time, to retain the spirit of the supplementary benefits scheme. By the very nature of the scheme, financial resources available to a claimant must be taken into account when the level of payment to him is being considered, unless there are some very special circumstances.

Mr. Boscawen

Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate this point? Is the chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission entitled to make that disregard without reference to the House of Commons in changing the regulations? Has he a discretion to do that?

Mr. Ennals

Yes. The Supplementary Benefits Commission has a good deal of discretion. When it looks at the question of the amount of capital that is available, in this particular case it may look at the way in which certain expenditure is being made from a trust—for instance, whether some conversions have been or are about to be made to a house. It may be that work is being undertaken which will cost £2,000 and that that is being done for the benefit of the disabled child, and that it comes from the £10,000 and it is part of the trust. That factor would be taken into consideration.

That is what I meant when I said in the House that there might be special circumstances. Those are the special circumstances. The chairman of the commission assured me that the commission would look at those sorts of special circumstances—the nature of the payment —when deciding the level of capital which could be considered when deciding whether a person was entitled to a supplementary benefit.

If carried, the amendment would set a very dangerous precedent, as there is no particular reason why this concept should be restricted to this Bill. If we were to say that this particular sum of money made available by the Bill would be disregarded for the purposes of supplementary benefit and legal aid, we might find ourselves doing the same, the precedent having been created, for other sums of money. It would undermine the basis of supplementary benefit, which takes these resources into consideration—and the same concerning legal aid.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Hodgson

In the light of the Minister's comments and the fact that we wanted to use the amendment as a probe to discuss the response of the Supplementary Benefits Commission to these special circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Ennals

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I should like to take the opportunity to reply to the debate, if there is one.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, Central)

I have not taken part in any of the proceedings on the Bill, but I should like to say a few words at this juncture because I have a special Scottish constituency problem. As the Bill applies equally to Scotland as to the rest of the United Kingdom, I think that I am entitled to put the facts before the House in the hope that the appropriate Government Department will take action.

When the original announcement was made regarding compensation for vaccine-damaged children, I was called to a constituent's house to look at a child who was incapacitated both mentally and physically. The parents informed me that in their opinion it was due to the Salk vaccination which the child had many years before. They said that up to the time of vaccination the child was perfectly normal and happy. Therefore, they asked me to investigate whether the child would be eligible for such compensation as would be available.

I took up the case with the Scottish Office. In the meanwhile, between the vaccination and the raising of the problem with me, there had been a complete reorganisation of the National Health Service, of local government and of schools. It was impossible to get at the papers. It was not clear where the vaccination had been carried out. I found it impossible to establish responsibility for the vaccination. There the matter rested and still rests.

There might be other similar cases where, because of reorganisation within the Health Service or local government, records have been lost or mislaid. I do not know whether the Bill covers such cases. There must be records somewhere relating to the child to whom I have referred. If not, I should like to be assured that machinery is available which will allow a degree of flexibility and humanity to deal with such a case.

This is a magnificently humane Bill. It is highly apt that in a civilised society like ours, faced with enormous crises, this House should devote a considerable amount of time to debate this matter. I applaud the Minister, the Department and the Government for finding the time and the cash to deal with a problem of this kind. I hope that it will not be sullied by a lack of flexibility in dealing with the kind of case I have mentioned.

Dr. Vaughan

We, on this side, endorse what the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has said. This is a very humane Bill, which we strongly welcome. It has a significance far greater than simply the awarding of a sum of money to these families. It explores new ground. That has emerged clearly from some of the points that have been raised and the answers given by the Secretary of State during the debate.

The House will be watching carefully to see how the Bill works out. The measure is a direct result of a devoted and exceptionally persuasive campaign by Mrs. Fox and members of the Association of Parents of Vaccine-Damaged Children. Their efforts show how much can be achieved by a small group of people who have a just cause and do not give up in the face of what appears to be opposition in the early stages. We would also like again to pay a warm tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). Despite some of his comments, he has been a magnificent supporter of this Bill.

The campaign and the Bill have led to considerable benefits. The medical professions are already examining their attitude to the causes of disability. They are also examining more carefully the vaccination advice they give to parents. That can only have widespread benefits. Those professions have become much more careful over the criteria for not giving vaccination. They have looked again at the safety and the efficacy of some kinds of immunisation, particularly immunisation against whooping cough. All these developments flow from the activities of Mrs. Fox and her group and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and the Government's recognition of the need to take action.

There is also the important parliamentary significance. The Government on behalf of society have recognised that where people do something for the public good at the request of society, ensuring that sufficient people are immunised to prevent major epidemics, the Government and society have a responsibility when things go wrong. That is the basis for the payments we have been discussing.

A terrible personal human tragedy is involved for the families who are affected. The difference between the disabilities we are discussing and many other kinds of disability is that parents of a normal healthy child decide that they will respond to the Government's policy and have their child immunised. A child who was alert and normal becomes, as a result of a rare but tragic accident, a vegetable or a very damaged person who will need care and attention for the rest of his life. There are not only practical problems. We also have to recognise the guilt, doubts and anxieties which parents suffer after this awful event.

We believe that the Bill will be welcomed as a humane action by all sections of society. We on this side congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on bringing the Bill before the House.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Ennals

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) for what he said. It is all too rare that a Government can bring forward a Bill that everyone welcomes. In a sense, this is a modest Bill. The amount of public expenditure involved is not enormous and the number of those who will benefit runs into hundreds rather than thousands or tens of thousands, but each individual and his family will benefit from what the House has decided to do.

My interest and commitment in the matter started before I met Mrs. Fox and her committee. It arose from a case in my constituency. A mother and father brought their young child to see me. The child was damaged and they had to carry him because he was inert and totally unresponsive. They told me of their conviction that the damage was the result of vaccination. I told them that I would see whether we could do something to help. My inquiries immediately led me to Mrs. Fox and her committee who were vigorously campaigning with the tremendous support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley)—and there is hardly a more effective campaigner in the House.

I agree with the hon. Member for Reading, South that we have seen one of the best examples that I have experienced of a group of people, with a cause that they know is right, changing the course of events. They achieved results because of the way they campaigned. They did not cause any antagonism. They spoke from the depths of their own experience and suffering and their sense of responsibility for their children. They have been responsible, helpful, forthright and wise. They have given guidance about how a scheme could be established and have always understood the difficulties involved. Their campaign was almost a perfect example of how a voluntary organisation should do its job.

The House is proud that we are able to pass this modest measure and I am proud that we were able to get the scheme moving before the Bill became law. We already have 2,000 applicants and our pamphlet is being widely circulated. We are on the brink of making the first payments. We could not have reached that position if we had waited until the Bill became law.

I am sorry that payments have not already been made. Part of the reason is that there was a need for further consideration of the question of the trust and trustees. We had hoped to make the first payments—to about 50 people—before the Bill had its Third Reading. I hope that there will be no further serious delay.

I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for enabling us to get the Bill through so quickly and for their co-operation in agreeing that there was no need for a Committee stage upstairs. We look on the Bill as another product of the Government's tremendous concern for the problems of the handicapped and disabled. I feel a great sense of pride that my right hon. Friend the Minister who is responsible for the disabled has been involved with this Bill, as with so many other measures. The Bill is another product of the commitment of the Government, my right hon. Friend, my party and myself. I am glad that we have been able to proceed so rapidly with this humane measure.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Ashley

The House will welcome the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I think that I speak for both sides when I thank him for bringing in the Bill so quickly and for breaking new ground on social policy. It is a great Bill; and, although I have been critical this afternoon, I do not want that criticism to detract in any way from the Bill itself.

I extend my warmest thanks to my right hon. Friend for his work on the Bill. I would like to echo his words about my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the disabled. I understand that there has been an unseen hand, unspoken of so far. I do not know how much influence he has exercised but I believe the Prime Minister was also sympathetically interested in the Bill and I would like to place on record my warm appreciation of his sympathetic interest too.

In extending thanks, the important thing is to say, as my right hon. Friend has said, that one person above all to whom the House must be grateful is Mrs. Rosemary Fox. She is the person who is responsible for the Bill. If I had my way I would call this Bill the Rosemary Fox Bill, because throughout thick and thin, and especially the thin—and there were some very thin times early on—she fought and persisted; and the odds at one time seemed very great. I am speaking now of four or five years ago, a very long time ago.

I saw Mrs. Fox today. She is delighted with the Bill, but she has one or two serious points to make about it and some reservations which I hope the House will allow me to make. Before doing so, I would say that the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) made an extremely important speech on Third Reading.

Mr. Ennals

A very good speech.

Mr. Ashley

I was grateful for it, and the hon. Gentleman was speaking not only as a very respected Member of this House but as a doctor, emphasising that the basic thought behind this Bill is that any damage that may have been done by a State immunisation scheme should be adequately compensated. This Bill does not do that. It does not compensate those families; and my right hon. Friend has recognised that. It is not a Bill to compensate them, and I hope the public will have taken that point. The essential thing is that this is an interim measure, and I hope that the whole House will bear that in mind, because this Bill is a stop-gap Bill. It is, I hope, the precursor of a far greater measure and one which will adequately recompense, in so far as finance can adequately recompense, the families concerned.

On Second Reading the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) made a very distinguished speech in which he referred to the Pearson committee. In the course of its report the Pearson committee drew attention, as the hon. Member mentioned, to the fact that a man incapacitated at work would, by the age of 65, get £150,000, and that does not allow for the inflation-proofing which would take place. These children have been damaged not as workmen or as men and women but as babies. Therefore, they would have got more. I am not asking now for that payment. I put forward my very modest amendment to the Bill because I was confined by the Bill; but I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of that larger problem and I hope that the whole House will bear in mind the need for proper and adequate provision, and that hon. Members will regard this Bill as a springboard for a proper compensation scheme for these children.

One final point arising from the Bill is that the scheme itself, as it is spelt out in the Bill, is giving great anxiety to the parents. I welcome what was said by my right hon. Friend about his awareness of the need for further consideration of the question of the trust. In a letter, Mrs. Rosemary Fox wrote the following: There is a clear agreement between the Department of Health and Social Security officials and us"— she is referring to her organisation— that payment will be made simply, i.e. parents would be asked to provide details of arrangements made to invest half the money for the child. Three Government solicitors took part in the discussions which led to the above agreement. Mrs. Fox was speaking unofficially and I cannot commit the Government. I certainly cannot hold the Government to discussions that took place privately. I am merely drawing the attention of the House to the fact that parents are concerned with this trust, and I wish to appeal to my right hon. Friend to bear these points in mind, as I am sure he will. My right hon. Friend is as anxious as anybody to ensure that the trust is dealt with in a humane way. I think that the trust could not be in better hands than those of my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he will ensure that the trust is dealt with properly and humanely.

I conclude by saying that my right hon. Friend has introduced a measure which will be warmly welcomed throughout the country. One additional value of the Bill is that it will strengthen the immunisation scheme. I wish to echo my right hon. Friend's words about the immunisation scheme. I strongly support that scheme, and this Bill will show the country that the tiny minority of children who are damaged by immunisation—I emphasise that it is a minute fraction—are taken care of by the Government. It will strengthen the scheme. That is one of the great virtues of the Bill.

I wish to express warm congratulations to my right hon. Friend, and I express appreciation to him on behalf of many families.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Back to