§ Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing for each of the counties of England the number of registered disabled persons per thousand population.
§ Mr. PrenticeThe number of people registered as disabled per thousand population on 31 March 1980 in each county is as follows:
298W
Non-Metropolitan Counties Avon 15.75 Bedfordshire 26.92 Berkshire 26.32 Buckinghamshire 27.98 Cambridgeshire 5.22 Cheshire 20.84 Cleveland 30.79 Cornwall 21.11 Cumbria 11.71 Derbyshire 24.37 Devon 11.80 Dorset 16.19 Durham 26.14 East Sussex 13.72 Essex 12.40 Gloucestershire 22.78 Hampshire 12.96 Hereford and Worcester 15.69 Hertfordshire 16.71 Humberside 15.95 Isle of Wight 16.58 Kent 12.05 Lancashire 22.84 Leicestershire 14.10 Lincolnshire 12.57 Norfolk 19.26 Northamptonshire 11.23 Northumberland 11.91 North Yorkshire 16.59 Nottinghamshire 10.73 Oxfordshire 19.81 Salop 10.36 Somerset 14.27
Non-Metropolitan Countries Staffordshire 13.63 Suffolk 13.37 Surrey 10.59 Warwickshire 18.10 West Sussex 14.81 Wiltshire 15.04 Metropolitan Countries Greater Manchester 31.84 Merseyside 20.57 South Yorkshire 30.53 Tyne and Wear 36.95 West Midlands 18.82 West Yorkshire 12.77 Greater London Council 23.81 Registration as a disabled person is voluntary and these figures are not a reliable guide to incidence.
§ Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps the Government are taking to recognize in a practical way the International Year of Disabled People 1981.
§ Mr. PrenticeI refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) on 5 November.—[Vol. 991, c.605.]
§ Mr. Hannamasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what conclusions he has reached following the Motor Industries Research Association's report on the transport needs of disabled people; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. PrenticeThe Primary purpose of the MIRA study was to discover the vehicle needs of those disabled people who continue to use invalid three-wheelers provided by this Department and the Welsh Office against the day when these vehicles might have to be taken out of service. The information was needed in connection with the previous Government's undertaking to ensure that this group should not be immobilized as a result of phasing out the three-wheeler except where increasing disability makes this unavoidable—an aim which the present Government share. But it is clear that many people have viewed the report as the basis of a re-examination of the Government's policy for helping those whose ability to walk is severely restricted. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Transport, the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and I have therefore taken this opportunity to review our policy.
Like our predecessors, we accept that disabled drivers and non-drivers should be treated alike and that therefore outdoor mobility assistance should continue to be provided in the form of a cash benefit. Cash provides three essential advantages—flexibility, choice and equality of treatment for disabled drivers and non-drivers. By the end of this financial year the mobility allowance will be in payment to nearly 190,000 disabled people, thus helping nearly four times as many people as the old invalid vehicle scheme. The rate of the allowance has recently been increased by 21 per cent.—a higher proportionate increase than for the general run of benefits. Since the mobility allowance was introduced, spending on outdoor mobility for disabled people has increased from just over £13 million to £130 million a year. And this amount of money has been put into the hands of the disabled to spend as they choose. Mobility allowance, complemented by the splendid efforts of the voluntary body Motability, has enabled many disabled people to have their own cars; and 299W I am sure that together mobility allowance and Motability provide a sound and firm foundation on which to build as resources allow.
When the invalid vehicle scheme was wound up, there were in England and Wales about 19,000 three-wheelers on issue; today there are about 11,500 and the rate of transfer to mobility allowance is not slackening. Stocks of vehicles and replacement parts are healthy. So we are able to predict that existing three-wheeler users who wish to retain their vehicles will be able to do so for at least another five years and possibly longer. It is too early at this stage to say precisely what arrangements will be made to help those former vehicle scheme beneficiaries remaining if, eventually, their three-wheelers have to be taken out of service. When this is in prospect, individuals will, if necessary, be assessed in order to determine how their mobility needs might best be met.
The Government accept MIRA's main conclusion that the vast majority of three-wheeler users could manage a production car adapted as necessary. This finding has been widely supported by those who have studied the report. For the great majority of three-wheeler users therefore an alternative means of transport already exists.
We accept that a small number of three-wheeler users, in MIRA's view just under 10 per cent., will have varying degrees of difficulty in switching to a car, although the MIRA considers that many of the problems can be overcome by the more sophisticated conversions already on the market or under development. That leaves a tiny proportion of severely handicapped three-wheeler users whose needs are so individual that one-off solutions might need to be devised to meet their particular circumstances; and it seems unrealistic to expect that the wide range of requirements can be met by one vehicle. In our view, therefore, the MIRA's findings do not support the case for the development of a successor vehicle for issue to those who continue to use the three-wheeler.
The findings also cast doubt on whether the development of a vehicle purpose-designed for disabled drivers generally could be commercially viable. I shall, however, watch the progress of various projects for producing specialist vehicles with close interest.
The Government recognise the difficulties facing some disabled drivers wanting to switch from a three-wheeler to a car. In particular, any three-wheeler driver must give up the vehicle when he switches to mobility allowance. If he does not then have a licence to drive a car, he may lose his independent mobility for a time, while he learns to drive a car. We propose to change the law so as to enable disabled people in this group to retain the use of their three-wheelers for a maximum period of six months following transfer to mobility allowance, whilst they are learning to drive a car they have acquired with the help of the allowance.
A number of reactions to the MIRA report have concerned the need to provide more facilities for the assessment of disabled would-be drivers who need other than straightforward adaptations. This leads me to think that there may be a need for places where people could look at, try out and discuss vehicles and accessories. I am instructing officials to open discussions to see if any progress could be made on this idea.
Finally, I draw attention to one other point that was raised in representations. It was that the invalid three-wheeler provided independent mobility at the age of 16 and that this is a crucial age, particularly in relation to 300W seeking employment. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is proposing to bring in regulations that would allow 16-year-olds in receipt of mobility allowance to hold an ordinary driving licence. His proposal is subject to consultation and to the normal safeguards of health screening. My right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) today gives the details.