HC Deb 16 December 1980 vol 996 cc127-8
1. Sir David Price

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what reply he has given to the representations which he has received that all registered blind persons should receive a special blind allowance comparable to non-contributory invalidity benefit.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Reg Prentice)

I have made it clear that, although the Government have the greatest sympathy for blind people and the problems they face, resources are not available at present to finance new benefits.

Sir David Price

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, whereas great progress has been made in the past 12 years in regard to financial help to the disabled, the blind have not done very well? Would he agree that the top priority for future progress is the blind? Is he aware, from the answers that he gave me yesterday, that it would cost less than half of 1 per cent. of his Department's expenditure on social security—which lies well within the margin of error in the Department's estimates—to give the NCIP to the registered blind?

Mr. Prentice

Yes, although another way of interpreting the replies that I gave yesterday is that if the benefit were of the same order as mobility allowance it would cost nearly£100 million a year, and if it were equal to non-contributory invalid benefit it would be more than£100 million a year. In present circumstances, it is not possible to make progress towards an objective that we would all like to achieve.

Mr. Dempsey

Why does the Minister state that he is unable to give a blind allowance? Could he not at least realise that optical charges are costly for blind persons? Would he not agree to relieve registered blind persons of such optical charges, thus encouraging them to believe that Government Departments and Parliament are interested in their welfare?

Mr. Prentice

Again, there would be a public expenditure implication. As to optical charges, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is already help with charges for people on low incomes whether or not they are blind.

Mr. Alfred Morris

Speaking recently in Eastbourne as Minister with responsibility for the disabled, the right hon. Gentleman said that if he had to apologise for anything it was for cutting too little and too late. How does he reconcile that statement with his right hon. Friend's sympathy for a blindness allowance, and how can it possibly be reconciled with the right hon. Gentleman's reported statement that there is now an unanswerable case for such an allowance?

Mr. Prentice

The statement that I made in Eastbourne applied to public expenditure in general, and I stand by it. I recognise—I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House do—that there is a strong case for a blind allowance, because, apart from the handicap of blindness, identifiable extra costs also arise from blindness. We would all like to provide such an allowance if the resources were available, but at present they simply are not.