HC Deb 26 October 1982 vol 29 cc898-902

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

4.4 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)

I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the disposal by the National Bus Company and their subsidiaries of property, rights and liabilities, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in making payments under any provision of that Act in respect of the examination of applicants for medical certificates required as a condition of any exception prescribed by regulations under section 33A or 33B of the Road Traffic Act 1972, being applicants falling within any class listed below or specified by order under that provision.

The classes referred to above are—

  1. (a) those in receipt of—
    1. (i)attendance allowance under section 35 of the Social Security Act 1975;
    2. (ii)mobility allowance under section 37A of that Act;
    3. (iii)disablement pension under section 57 of that Act at a weekly rate increased by virtue of section 61(1) of that Act; or
    4. (iv) an allowance under article 14 of the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Services Pensions Order 1978;
    1. (b) those in receipt of—
    2. (i)family income supplement; or
    3. (ii)any benefit under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976;

and their dependants;

(c) those provided with invalid carriages or other vehicles under subsection (1) of section 46 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 or in receipt of grants under subsection (3) of that section in respect of invalid carriages or other vehicles which belong to them; and

(d) those whose names are in the register of disabled persons maintained under section 6 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

Many hon. Members know that only two money provisions with public expenditure implications were in the Transport Bill when it was originally introduced. The two new proposed provisions relate to part IV. The first would enable the Secretary of State to make payments in respect of the medical examination made free to applicants for the certificate of exemption from compulsory seat belt wearing. The second provision would enable the subsequent Order in Council containing similar powers to be made for Northern Ireland, subject to negative resolution. As this would be a continuing service, it would not be proper for the expenditure to be covered by the Appropriation Acts.

The first paragraph of the money resolution seeks authority for the Secretary of State to make these payments. The second paragraph sets out the classes of applicants for exemption which will be eligible for the free examinations. This follows the Lords amendment exactly.

I recognise that it is unfortunate that such a provision was not put forward when the Bill was considered earlier by the House, but that was because the need for such a scheme was not then apparent. The timetable to commence seat belt wearing means that amendments to the list of those eligible are not possible. When Parliament approved the seat belt regulations in July, the Government were pressed to introduce compulsion as soon as possible, and, indeed, the regulations will come into effect on 31 January.

An essential part of the preparation is to allow people time to apply for medical exemption. That is why we need the money resolution, and I know that that is agreed on both sides of the House. I appreciate that some hon. Members may wish to comment on this, but I commend the money resolution to the House because it enables as many as 7 million potential applicants to benefit from a free medical test if they seek exemption from compulsory seat belt wearing.

I know that some hon. Members would like us to do more, but we cannot. If they were to reject this money resolution, it would achieve the very opposite of what they intend. Therefore, I commend the motion to the House.

4.7 pm

Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness)

I oppose the money resolution on a number of grounds. First, ostensibly the resolution quite unreasonably excludes a category of people that I believe should be contained in the classes that can receive financial assistance from the Secretary of State to meet the necessary cost of gaining a certificate of medical exemption from the wearing of seat belts. I make no comments on the merits of the general provisions in relation to the wearing of seat belts. My argument in no way turns upon that.

Those hon. Members who have examined the money resolution will see that those in receipt of an attendance allowance, mobility allowance, disablement pension, a naval, military or air force disablement pension—even a death pension, presumably widows or dependants—those in receipt of family income supplement, supplementary benefit, including their dependants, those provided with invalid carriages and the registered disabled will be entitled to have their medical fees paid by the Secretary of State. My objection is that the list does not contain those whose sole income is the old-age pension. Many people on low incomes, in receipt of Government aid or pensions are covered. Therefore, it is inequitable that those whose sole income is the old-age pension should not also be covered.

My second objection is that we have no way of calculating the maximum cost of such a provision, as the Secretary of State has singularly failed to use the powers that his predecessor sought in the 1981 Act. Section 27 of that Act contains a specific provision in relation to the wearing of seat belts in cars to enable the Secretary of State to determine cases in which a prescribed amount may be charged on an application for any certificate required as the condition of any prescribed exemption. I challenge any hon. Member to suggest that that does not cover an exemption from wearing the seat belt on medical grounds.

Clearly, the Government sought the power—I have no objection to that—to make regulations concerning the prescribed fees. However, my objection is that the Secretary of State has not used the powers granted to him by the House, and that directly bears on the financial effect of the money resolution. I do not claim that it is a precedent, but it is remarkable that the proposal to change the financial scope of the Bill should come from a House that supposedly has no financial powers. Therefore, we should examine the money resolution all the more carefully.

I believe that I was justified in saying that exclusion has only an ostensible effect. Lords amendment No. 87, which will be brought into play by the money resolution, gives the Secretary of State the power either to add to or subtract from the list of those who may obtain help with fees for exemption certificates. If the Lords amendment and the money resolution are accepted, the Secretary of State could decide to delete or add to any of those categories when he makes the regulations. The Government have a simple remedy if they wish to meet that point. They can give an assurance here and now that, in making the regulations, the Secretary of State will use the power that he receives from that Lords amendment to include old-age pensioners in the categories of those who will be exempted.

On those grounds, I hope that I shall have the support of the House in pressing the Government—if they secure the money resolution—to use it equitably and fairly in respect of old-age pensioners, just as it is to be used for the other categories who will benefit from payments made as a result of the money resolution to assist them in paying the medical fees for exemption certificates.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

I accept that the money resolution is necessary if the Bill is to have effect from 1 January. However, I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State still has to see the driving instructors about their concerns. Can she give any assurances about the points that they are likely to raise?

Mrs. Chalker

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that is beyond the scope of the money resolution.

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough)

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are grave doubts about whether the exemption certificates can be issued on the due date? Before the money resolution is approved, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the apparent—I stress that word—delay in the issuing of exemption certificates by Government employees will not result in those who are genuinely entitled to exemption certificates being unable to get them and, therefore, being liable to prosecution? I have written to my hon. Friend on that point, hut it is important that it should be clarified before the money resolution is approved.

Mrs. Chalker

The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) said something that I do not believe he meant to say and I should like it to be correct in Hansard. I refer to the fact that the money resolution applies not to the widows and dependants of Service men but only to Servic,7 men with war pensions on a constant attendance allowances. I wish to make that point clear, so that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the public.

At the end of my speech I hope that I made it clear that if the right hon. Gentleman should succeed in opposing the money resolution the categories delineated by it will be unable to obtain a free examination through the DHSS medical service and, as a result, they will fail to obtain the very help that all hon. Members intended that they should receive.

The right hon. Gentleman said that one of his grounds for opposing the money resolution was the failure to include 8.8 million pensioners in the categories covered by automatic free medical testing, if necessary. However, of those 8.8 million, 1.6 million are covered as they are beneficiaries of a supplementary pension. Those over 65 who cannot claim mobility allowance would cost a great deal more—about £450 million—and the DHSS medical service simply does not have the resources to test 8.8 million, or 8.8 million less 1.6 million pensioners. Those are the figures that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about.

When I had to decide who should be included in the list, I did not consider only the financial cost. Those pensioners who are in greatest need are already covered by a supplementary pension and, therefore, by the money resolution. I decided that priority should be given to those disabled people who need transport for their work. That seems to be a crucial area for help.

The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness asked me about the costs. In the revised estimates for 1982–83 a sum of £300,000 for England, and pro rata sums for Scotland and Wales, have been set aside. It is too early to tell the right hon. Gentleman whether demand will match that estimated cost. However, there is a physical limit to the numbers that the DHSS can examine, and the present provision of 1,000 examinations a week in the forthcoming months should ensure that those who need free examinations receive them. To go further than that would prejudice the beginning of a valuable scheme.

The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness commented on our failure to use the 1981 Act. That Act can prescribe a fee that doctors can charge. Those who follow our proceedings will be aware that the British Medical Association has recommended to its doctors that they charge a fee of £19 for a full medical examination. It has also said that if a doctor decides not to charge that amount, there is no reason why he should do so. Sometimes hon. Members are greatly concerned about certain members of the medical profession. Happily, they are a minority. We knew that if we prescribed the fee the BMA would not be prepared to co-operate. We believed that it was more important to save lives by introducing the compulsory wearing of seat belts, so we had to find another way of helping those on low incomes who might need to be exempted. That is why, at an earlier stage, I put forward certain suggestions.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not like provisions that stemmed from the other place. He has intimated that it is not proper that the other place should require us to move a money resolution at this stage. However, on 29 October 1975, when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of State, Department of Employment, he moved a money resolution to the Employment Protection Bill. The then Opposition agreed to it on the nod, because they thought it important that the provisions in that Bill should be given the financial wherewithal. The measure also involved an entitlement to unemployment benefit, maternity pay and maternity pay rebates. We considered it sensible that the right hon. Gentleman should do exactly what we are doing tonight in moving the money resolution to facilitate a Government and parliamentary decision that is agreed on both sides of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman is in doubt about that occasion, he should refer to column 1608 of Hansard.

The right hon. Gentleman then mentioned the Lords amendment, and whether there would be subtractions from the list contained in the money resolution and Lords amendment No. 87, should the House pass it. Additions to or subtractions from the list contained in amendment No. 87 could only be made by order of the House. That is why the regulations come before the House. There are no simple remedies. One must proceed in the way that I have sought to take the Bill through the House. I hope that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness will be reassured that there is nothing to be gained, and a terrible amount to be lost, if he opposes the money resolution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) asked a question that was outside the scope of the money resolution. I assure him that I am meeting the driving instructors, and that he need have no fear on that score.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) was worried that some doctors might not have the medical exemption certificates that people would require if they were to be exempted under the guidelines set down by the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention. The certificates have been sent to every family practitioner committee. If they have not been sent to any individual doctor, I assure my hon. Friend that they are available from the DHSS store. If he has any specific cases in mind, perhaps he will see that we know about them so that we can ensure that the system works as smoothly as it seems set fair to do.

I hope that I have satisfactorily answered hon. Members questions. If the House opposes the money resolution, it will deprive about 10 per cent. of the 7 million people who are likely to be eligible for free medical examinations leading to medical exemption. That would be a great shame and a pity for everyone who wants to save lives by getting the majority to wear seat belts.

Question put and agreed to

Resolved

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the disposal by the National Bus Company and their subsidiaries of property, rights and liabilities, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in making payments under any provision of that Act in respect of the examination of applicants for medical certificates required as a condition of any exception prescribed by regulations under section 33A or 33B of the Road Traffic Act 1972, being applicants falling within any class listed below or specified by order under that provision.

The classes referred to above are—

(a) those in receipt of—

  1. (i)attendance allowance under section 35 of the Social Security Act 1975;
  2. (ii)mobility allowance under section 37A of that Act;
  3. (iii)disablement pension under section 57 of that Act at a weekly rate increased by virtue of section 61(1) of that Act; or
  4. (iv)an allowance under article 14 of the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Services Pensions Order 1978;

(b) those in receipt of—

  1. (i)family income supplement; or
  2. (ii)any benefit under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976;

and their dependants;

(c) those provided with invalid carriages or other vehicles under subsection (1) of section 46 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 or in receipt of grants under subsection (3) of that section in respect of invalid carriages or other vehicles which belong to them; and

(d) those whose names are in the register of disabled persons maintained under section 6 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.