HC Deb 06 July 1976 vol 914 cc531-4W
Mr. Carter-Jones

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what appeals procedure is available for people refused a mobility allowance.

Mr. Alfred Morris

The appeal system parallels that used for many years under the industrial injuries provisions. On non-medical matters the right of appeal is to a local appeal tribunal with a further right of appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner. On medical questions, the right of appeal is to a medical board with a further right of appeal to a medical appeal tribunal. In these cases there is a further right of appeal to the Commissioner on a point of law. Information about rights of appeal is included in every letter notifying a claimant of the disallowance of his claim.

Mr. Carter-Jones

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications for the mobility allowance have been rejected at the latest available date; how many of these applicants have then embarked on each stage of the appeals process and with what result; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alfred Morris

To the end of June 1976, of about 28,500 claims for mobility allowance which had been formally determined just over 7,000 had been rejected. Of these over 2,000 were rejected as outside the currently eligible age groups.

There were 807 appeals to a medical board. Of these 532 have so far been decided. There were 161 decisions in favour of the appellant. Appeals to a medical appeal tribunal totalled 186, of which 46 have so far been determined. There were 24 decisions in favour of the claimant.

On non-medical grounds, chiefly the current age limits, 243 appeals to a local tribunal were received. Of the 133 appeals so far determined, none has been successful. There were 14 appeals to the National Insurance Commissioner. None of the nine appeals which have so far been determined went in favour of the appellant.

Mr. Carter-Jones

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on his policy towards each of the recommendations of the Central Council for the Disabled's Working Party on the Mobility Allowance for which his Department has responsibility.

Mr. Carter-Jones

asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his policy towards each of the recommendations of the Central Council for the Disabled's Working Party on the Mobility Allowance for which he has responsibility.

Mr. Carter-Jones

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy towards each of the recommendations of the Central Council for the Disabled's Working Party on the Mobility Allowance for which his Department has responsibility.

Mr. Carter-Jones

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy towards each of the recommendations of the Central Council for the Disabled's Working Party on the Mobility Allowance for which he has responsibility.

Mr. Carter-Jones

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy towards each of the recommendations of the Central Council for the Disabled's Working Party on the Mobility Allowance for which he has responsibility.

Mr. Alfred Morris

After consultation with my right hon. Friends and my right hon. and learned Friend I have been asked to reply.

As my hon. Friend knows I have a coordinating as well as a departmental role, and I keep in close touch with all Departments with responsibilities affecting disabled people.

I am most grateful both to the Central Council for the Disabled and to the members of the Working Party for a well-researched and valuable study. As I have already indicated to the Central Council, in the present economic situation we are forced to choose our priorities very carefully in making the best use of the extra resources which have been made available for improving the mobility of disabled people. I am not able at this stage, therefore, to do more than take note of the recommendations which seek to extend the mobility allowance scheme by amending the criteria for eligibility, the age limits and the level of the allowance.

Recommendations 1–4, 6 and 8 come under this broad heading. Our inability to respond favourably to recommendations 5 and 7 relates in part to the resource problem, and in part to our basic policy of ensuring broad equality within the scheme irrespective of driving ability or car ownership. As regards recommendation 9, the legislation requires an annual review of the level of the allowance. On recommendation 10, the legislation also ensures that the allowance is treated similarly to attendance allowance as far as means-tested benefits are concerned. We have broadly accepted recommendation 11, except that it is not possible to take account in a statutory scheme of additional social factors. Recommendations 12, 14 and 15 are being considered. The detailed comments in the Report on the background to recommendation 13 are clearly sensible. In general terms we are broadly in sympathy with the objectives outlined in recommendations 16–18 and 20 and the Central Council is itself pursuing these aspects with financial assistance from my Department. Recommendations 19 and 21 cover ground which has already been discussed with the Council and have thus been taken into account in drawing up the publicity programme.

Anyone seeking a full understanding of the outdoor mobility problems of disabled people and the importance of our new mobility allowance would do well to read the report of this important study.