Previous Section Home Page

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on raising this important matter. I should like to begin by expressing my deep regret over the unfortunate accident that occurred during the afternoon of Sunday 18 June on the Dartmoor training area. I obviously wish Jenny and Gary Worral a full and speedy recovery, and I am glad to hear that they are making good progress. As I told my hon. Friend last night, I have trained as a soldier so much on Dartmoor that I am confident that I could find my way from A to B without a map. The unfortunate incident occurred close to Great Mis Tor, part of the moor with which I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are familiar.

It appears that, during a visit to the national park, a family from Ashburton had been engaged, as my hon. Friend said, in the pursuit of letterboxing. While the family had paused for a rest, one of the children apparently picked up a metal object, which subsequently exploded, causing serious stomach and spleen injuries to the girl, aged eight, and shrapnel injuries to one of the two boys who was with her. Our early investigations have revealed that the munition involved was a 2 in mortar round, which was manufactured in March 1942.

As my hon. Friend knows, a military board of inquiry has already been established to investigate the matter, and the full circumstances surrounding the case will not be clear until the board has concluded its investigations.

National parks have accommodated many uses since their creation. They are indeed living, working landscapes. My Department employs about 50 people at Dartmoor and contributes considerably to the local community. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to bear that in mind when weighing his remarks. I believe

Column 343

that that should be taken into account when formulating policy for the national parks, and that we should recognise their entirely legitimate uses.

Of course, a balance rightly must be struck between those legitimate uses and the understandable wish of the public to enjoy the peace and tranquillity which those parks offer. Although military training may not conform to the general perception of quiet enjoyment, it is often forgotten that it is that very military presence which has helped to preserve and secure the exceptionally beautiful and varied landscape which attracts so many visitors to the national parks.

On the issue of military training generally, and the use of military parks in particular, my hon. Friend will know that the draw-down of forces from Germany and the introduction of new weapon systems are placing significant demands on our training areas. Some must be used more intensively, and others developed to provide new infrastructure. While use of training land will be maximised, we are of course conscious that this needs to be balanced against the interests of conservation.

It is an often forgotten fact that the Army has had a presence in the national parks since long before they were designated as such. At Otterburn, for example, the military training area was established in 1911, some 45 years before it was designated as a national park. As my hon. Friend rightly said, there has been a military presence on Dartmoor since the early 19th century, again many years before the national park was created.

The military presence in those areas has done a great deal to enhance and conserve the landscape and the natural environment. Salisbury plain is a superb example of an area where the long history of military training has helped to preserve one of the most important archaeological sites in Europe and one of the finest examples of chalk downland in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Steen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Soames: If I my hon. Friend will allow me, I must press on. My hon. Friend mentioned the need for safety in the national parks. It has, of course, long been the policy of my Department to provide the greatest possible degree of safe public access to the defence estate. With that in mind, the Department has reached agreements with the landowners and the Dartmoor national park authority to stop military training on Dartmoor every weekend throughout the year, and to permit unrestricted public access.

Mr. Steen: It is not the miliary use of Dartmoor--everyone understands and accepts that we must have a location in the south-west where military training can go on--but the live firing that concerns me.

Mr. Soames: If my hon. Friend will try to contain himself, I hope to come to that point.

As I have said, the Department has reached extensive agreements to ensure public access. I should like to make it quite plain to the House that we have no intention of altering our policy on public access. We shall continue to encourage it wherever it is consistent with essential operational, security and safety requirements, and with the interests of conservation and of our landlords and tenants.

Column 344

On Dartmoor, the arrangements for managing military training and public access are monitored and guided by the Dartmoor steering group. That is a non-departmental public body which was established in 1978, following a recommendation in the report by Lady Sharpe on military use of the Dartmoor national park. The steering group is made up of representatives from my Department, the Dartmoor national park authority, Devon county council, English Nature, English Heritage, the Countryside Commission and the owner, the Duchy of Cornwall.

The group's principal aim is to reconcile the requirements of military training, conservation and public access on Dartmoor. At present, it meets annually under an independent chairman, Sir Anthony Barrowclough QC, who is appointed jointly by the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence. Sir Anthony has been extremely successful in enhancing public access and conservation, while at the same time advising on the balance between the military presence and the interests of the national park, the Duchy and, not least, the general public. We are not complacent, despite of his excellent work. As my hon. Friend said, Dartmoor training area has been used for military training for many hundreds of years, and it was used extensively for live firing by British and American forces in preparation for D-day.

The very regrettable incident which occurred recently highlights the fact that not only is there a danger as far as live firing areas on our ranges are concerned, but also some small risk remains in those parts of our training areas which were used as live firing areas in the past--for example, during the second world war. Buried munitions can and do work their way to the surface, and there is always a slight risk, even after clearance, that ordnance may appear on the surface. As my hon. Friend may know, when a blind is fired these days, the most extensive efforts are made to locate it. At Dartmoor, my officials and local range staff do all they can to alert members of the public to the dangers, and there are a number of measures currently in place with which my hon. Friend is familiar. The live firing areas are clearly defined and marked, and there are warning boards on all main public access routes into them. Periodic sweeps of the training areas are also carried out in order to clear unexploded devices.

However, despite those efforts, there remains the possibility that some ordnance could rise to the surface and remain undetected, even after a full search has been made. That is the case not only on Dartmoor but also, regrettably, throughout the United Kingdom wherever there are likely to be munitions--some of which could have remained undisturbed, and possibly unstable, for 100 years or more. I am therefore concerned that we do all that we possibly can to draw the potential risks of unexploded ordnance devices to the attention of as many visitors to our training areas as possible. In that respect, my noble Friend Lord Henley, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, has recently written to the chairmen of nine of the national parks to seek their help in warning members of the public who visit those areas of the dangers which may exist in those parts of the parks used as military training areas.

On the issue of military use of national parks more generally, I can say absolutely that the military training areas which are found in national parks provide essential facilities for military training which could not be dispensed with and could not be found elsewhere. Military

Column 345

use of national parks accounts for only about 3 per cent. of their 3 million acres, and live firing amounts to about 2 per cent. of the total acreage.

We carry out live firing and dry training in six national parks: Dartmoor, Northumberland, the Pembrokeshire coast, the Peak District, Snowdonia and the Yorkshire dales. Like the public, the military use national parks for adventure training, orienteering and hill walking.

My hon. Friend asked me to address the question of live firing. It is important that he realises that we will continue to introduce simulation wherever possible. My hon. Friend may not be aware that a new tactical engagement simulation system has been an amazing success. It is extremely expensive, but a number of full sets of equipment have been ordered. The Chief of the General Staff and I watched it being used on Salisbury plain last week. It is truly remarkable, and I believe that my hon. Friend should be encouraged about its use in the future. However, I must emphasise that nothing can supplement or replace live firing.

Having said that, my hon. Friend will be interested to learn that national park designations--with all the constraints they bring for current and future military use--apply to some 30 per cent. of the Army's training estate, which, as he said, is extremely busy. Taking full note of its responsibilities as far as the use of national parks is concerned, my Department has issued a declaration of commitment to the national parks.

It is my firm intention that we will abide by that declaration and formally consult the various national park authorities and the Countryside Commission over any proposal to extend or significantly intensify military activity within a national park. In addition, my Department has signed similar understandings with English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage, and we will shortly be doing so with the Countryside Council for Wales. We will also continue with the policy of releasing any land that becomes surplus to defence requirements. My hon. Friend knows that conservation plays a very important part in our strategy for use and management of the land which we occupy within the national parks. My officials maintain regular close liaison with the national park authorities through the conservation groups that are established on military training areas.

Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport): Will the Minister give way?

Column 346

Mr. Soames: No.

I assure my hon. Friend that we fully understand his strong feelings about the matter, but our national parks are not the same as national parks abroad. National parks abroad are designated solely for the purpose of recreation. Our national parks have always been--it is one of their glories --living, working landscapes.

My hon. Friend knows Dartmoor very well, and I know the Yorkshire dales particularly well. The dales simply would not exist in their present form unless they had been farmed. It is a living, working landscape, and the military are very much a part of it. I know that my hon. Friend would want no less.

I take on board my hon. Friend's points, but I am afraid that I do not agree with his argument as to why we should end live firing. I believe that he is right to point out that there is a danger on Dartmoor of people picking up items which they should be very wary of handling. We will continue to do everything we can to draw the public's attention to those matters.

It is my wish that the public should have as much access as possible in order to enjoy the defence estate. While I believe that there is a great deal for them to enjoy, it is also my firm wish that they be safe--I know that that is my hon. Friend's primary concern also. Unfortunately, the only way that my Department can guarantee that absolutely is by prohibiting access, which is a move in the opposite direction to the path that we are determined to follow. In light of what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the action we are taking to encourage safe public access and to educate the public about military training is the best way forward. While I regret the recent incident very much, I hope that people will continue to come and enjoy all that the defence estate has to offer. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing an extremely important debate at--bearing in mind the background against which it was raised--a very apposite moment.

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's concern for the safety of all who use the parks. I also beg the general public to pay the closest attention to the extensive safety markings and signs that exist in all the national parks where live firing takes place to prevent and enhance their own safety. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter, and I hope that he will be reassured by what I said.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We now move to the next topic.

Column 347

Disability Living Allowance

1.30 pm

Mr. Eric Clarke (Midlothian): First, I should make it clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) will be helping me in the debate. The Minister and I have agreed that he should share the time.

I am grateful for this Adjournment debate, which gives me the opportunity to draw to the attention of the Minister and of the House the injustice to the parents and carers of severely handicapped children under five years of age, and perhaps to do something to rectify the anomaly that the mobility component of the disability living allowance is denied to those parents and carers.

I wrote to the Ministry and received a reply from the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, Ian Magee, who kindly pointed out that, regardless of the compassionate case that I had presented to him, section 73 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 states:

"Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to the mobility component of a disability living allowance for any period in which he is over the age of 5".

His letter also pointed out that appeals to tribunals and adjudication officers are to no avail as they must adhere to that clause. I ask the Minister to alter section 73 of the legislation. I should like to quote as an example the case of my constituent, Rebecca Kennedy, of 17 Attlee crescent, Mayfield, Dalkeith. Today is the 50th anniversary of the election of the Attlee Government, so I hope it is a good omen for the case. Rebecca is 19 months old. Her mother has given me a list of what is wrong with her and I shall read it out.

"Rebecca has got brain damage and cerebral palsy--she has both ataxic cerebral palsy and spastic cerebral palsy. She has epilepsy--myoclonic seizures and petit mal seizures. She is microcephalic, which means her head will not grow to the normal size. She has abnormal swallow, which means she cannot eat and requires suction. She is blind. She has only 1 per cent. vision in her right eye and her left eye does not work properly. Rebecca cannot roll, sit, stand, let alone walk. She cannot use any part of her body. All she can do is lie on her back."

I should add that she is a beautiful young child.

Transport is a problem. Her mother writes:

"To get a bus, I have to take a snug seat wheelchair, a tray for the suction machine, the suction machine itself, all her tubes, a bag carrying nappies, food plus her drugs. The seat of the wheelchair is very large and heavy. You cannot fold it down as it is hard backed for her spine. To fold the frame down you have to take the tray off and the frame is extremely heavy. There is no possible way I could use a bus, even with two adults helping."

She then challenges anyone to come along for a demonstration. The most important part is as follows:

"Rebecca requires 24-hour care. You cannot leave her for a second as she could choke to death on her own saliva. She takes lots of muscle spasms due to her cerebral palsy. In the future, she will be getting an operation which will mean a tube shall be coming out of her belly to feed her through."

That is heart rending and no one has challenged those facts or her condition.

The argument that children under five are not mobile and can be carried physically does not apply to Rebecca. There are many other children in similar predicaments.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe): The compelling case that my hon. Friend is making for a change in the rules can be of help to disabled people generally. It would be enormously helpful, as he says, to

Column 348

disabled children, but others too could benefit. My hon. Friend has long shared my concern and that of other right hon. and hon. Members that many people who have Alzheimer's disease are excluded from applying for the allowance because of the very restrictive criteria used. Is he aware that the Alzheimer's Disease Society now estimates that as many as 17,000 people with the disease who are under the age of 65 are being excluded because of those very restrictive criteria?

Mr. Clarke: I have had correspondence with the Alzheimer's Disease Society and there are practical examples in my constituency. As my right hon. Friend knows, we have been trying to form an organisation to look after people in that anomalous position.

I am sure that Rebecca's predicament is repeated throughout the country. Her case should be heard on its merits and should not be written off because she is under five. Rebecca will never be independently mobile and the whole Kennedy family have rallied round to offer her mother and father financial and physical help. The local community of Mayfield has contributed towards the very expensive walker that is needed for a child such as Rebecca. A normal walker that helps children start walking is nowhere near as expensive. Rebecca's grandparents, uncles and the rest of her family have rallied round, as has the local community, and I am proud to represent them. The family have an old car and its upkeep and running costs are a severe burden on the domestic budget.

I understand that lifting the five-year policy will cost the Government money, but if children such as Rebecca were cared for not by their families but by the state, the cost to the country would escalate. I am in no way threatening the Minister. The Kennedys would never contemplate that option as their love and dedication are far too great, but keeping children such as Rebecca in an institution would be more costly than the sums of money that would accumulate if they received an allowance. The figure has been roughly estimated as £30 million. That is not a large amount when one takes into account the budget of the DSS.

I hope that the Minister will override the Treasury. I am aware that the dead hand of the Treasury locks on to every detail of Government spending and that, for some reason, it claws money back, usually not from the fat cats but from the people who most need it. I ask the Minister to give carer families justice, and to make that justice effective. The Kennedys and others like them need help now. If we wait until Rebecca is five years old- -she will not qualify for another three years--her family, who deserve better, will have to carry a heavy burden of increased costs. Of course communities are sympathetic to such cases--no one who knows about the disabilities of this little girl and the burden on her family could be otherwise--but sympathy is not enough. The Kennedys of this world who have dedicated their whole lives to the care of disabled children need help, guidance and financial backing.

My trade union background has taught me to be short, concise and to the point, and I intend to be so. I only wish that many other people in this place were the same. I urge the Minister to drop the five-year qualifying rule in section 73 and to allow those cases to be examined and then to qualify for the mobility component of the disability living allowance. That would give the people caring for such children a morale boost. Even more importantly, it would be a way of showing that the

Column 349

community and the country believe that justice should be delivered to the people who dedicate their lives to the children like Rebecca whom they love so dearly.

1.40 pm

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) for initiating this debate. I think that the House was impressed by the lucid and sincere way in which he invited us to discuss this case and other relevant matters. The case raised by my hon. Friend is, as he knows, not unique. I have a number of similar problems in my constituency, as, I am sure, do other right hon. and hon. Members. Like my hon. Friend, I want to pay tribute to the dedication of parents such as those whom he has described--there are many of them--and to their commitment, which is simply colossal. To care for a child with multiple disabilities is hard enough for any parent. For those--I have met some of them--who are themselves disabled, it is doubly difficult. For those who cannot take employment because of the demands of their parental responsibilities, the willingness of the wider community to provide the necessary support is vital to their day-to-day lives. I know that solutions do not come easily, but our minds are set on seeking to achieve genuine community care. That is why I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend pay tribute to his community. When a child of three or four cannot walk because of a disability, that causes quite enough stress for his or her parents. When moving the child requires more physical effort than a single adult can muster, the stress is clearly redoubled. Such parents know that mobility problems will be with their children for life--for the whole of their lives. So their inability to obtain mobility support is a further source of stress and strain in an already difficult situation. The Prime Minister has signalled his recognition of the fact that children under the age of five can and should benefit from nursery education. Of course we welcome that. This is therefore surely a good opportunity to review the cut-off at five years of age for access to mobility support--that was the kernel of my hon. Friend's case. I should be interested to hear from the Minister what new thinking the Government have done on this matter. I imagine that he will not dispute that it can become clear long before the age of five--as in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend--that a child will never be capable of independent mobility. Hence the needs of the family and others must be taken into account in any forthcoming review. I certainly hope that a review is under way.

I am sure that the Minister will not dispute, either, that the purpose of the mobility element of the disability living allowance is to promote independent mobility for those facing long-term disability, or that there can be clear benefits from providing such support at an early age. We have heard of the constant care required in some of these cases, and of the difficulties experienced when moving children with severe disabilities. The issue is the independence of carers as well as of their children. We should try to alleviate, wherever we can, the burdens carried by those who choose to do the caring. Many voluntary organisations and professional bodies are involved too--Mencap and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation to name but two. My right

Column 350

hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) will confirm that the organisations dealing with the 19-plus groups also have a stake in this matter. I visited some of them only last week in Rochdale and Oldham, and I expect to visit more of them before the end of this week. I know that I shall witness there more problems similar to those that we have been discussing today. Not for a second do I want to make a party point, but the Minister knows that Lord Brian Rix of Mencap and many others draw to our attention time after time in the all-party group on disability--my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe has played a noble role in it, as have Conservative Members and Members from the smaller parties--problems of the sort identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian. There are no doubts about their views of those problems.

Parents, especially young parents, are greatly shocked to find, sometimes overnight, that the child whom they were expecting to provide the greatest joy of their lives has severe disabilities that mean that a great deal of caring and understanding on the part of everyone concerned will be needed.

We are not charging towards the Government demanding a reply today, but we do seriously invite them to hold a review--and to involve others in it. We can learn a great deal, not just from the national organisations that I have mentioned, but from local groups. I thought it wonderful that my hon. Friend paid tribute to such groups. He was talking about a 19-month-old child; that suggests to me that people quickly rallied round to meet the family's needs.

I hope that the Minister will respond to my hon. Friend's excellent speech in the spirit in which the debate has been held. I hope that he will consider the case sympathetically, because it was a sensibly made and compassionate one. That is only what I would expect from my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian.

1.48 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) not only on selecting an important general issue but on directing our attention to a particularly sad and tragic case in his constituency. He promised to be short, concise and to the point, and he most admirably was.

We cannot listen to an account of the predicament of Rebecca Kennedy without being moved by it. Her position is obviously a most difficult one. Her family are coping admirably in very difficult circumstances, and any appeal for more help for them is bound to stir our hearts. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that discretion cannot be exercised in this case because of the terms of the statute--that is the basic point. He has therefore come to the House to invite the Government to consider altering the law. I entirely accept that that is a proper way of putting the argument. We are talking about--I shall briefly put the matter in context--the entitlement to the mobility component of disability living allowance. The allowance was introduced in 1992 for people disabled before the age of 65 and, for them, it replaces the help formerly available through attendance allowance and mobility allowance. People who need frequent help in connection with bodily functions, and who would previously have received attendance allowance,

Column 351

now receive the care component of DLA at either the middle or higher rate. People who are physically disabled and, as a result, are unable to walk, or virtually unable to walk, who would previously have been entitled to mobility allowance, now receive the mobility component of DLA at the higher rate. New lower rates of both components were introduced to extend help to people who, though disabled, could not previously qualify for the old benefits. Disability living allowance is tax free, non-contributory and non-income related, and is intended to provide help with the extra costs associated with disability.

It is important to understand the principles that at least traditionally have been understood to lie behind these matters. Disability living allowance is not a form of compensation for disability but a personal benefit based on the effect of a disability rather than on the fact that someone has a particular disability or condition. What matters is whether the condition gives rise to care and mobility needs and, if so, how those needs affect the day-to-day life of the disabled person. An award of DLA can trigger eligibility to other benefits--for example, someone who is caring for a disabled person receiving DLA may be entitled to invalid care allowance, as I understand that Mrs. Kennedy is. An award of DLA can also provide access to one of the premiums payable with the income-related benefits such as income support or housing benefit.

As the hon. Member for Midlothian said, the purpose of the mobility component, because it is directed to the effects and dealing with what has to be done to ameliorate those effects, rather than with the condition itself, is to help people to be independently mobile. That point was taken up by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). That, of course, assumes that it would not be right to pay benefit to anyone whose mobility could not be improved. To take an extreme case as an example, someone who is in a coma will never be independently mobile.

Two statutory tests may be relevant. One of them, which we have heard about in detail, is section 73(1) of the Social Security (Contributions and Benefits) Act 1992. That is the age restriction. The second test is section 73(8), which states:

"A person shall not be entitled to the mobility component for a period unless during most of that period his condition will be such as permits him from time to time to benefit from enhanced facilities for locomotion."

The classic example of someone who would not be so entitled is my example of someone whose condition is so severe that he is in a coma. I understand that very few cases are refused on that particular head.

The second matter, and the most important one, is the position of children under five years of age. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Midlothian appreciates--I saw the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in his place earlier; he has now left the Chamber but he stood in my place in 1975 to advance the argument that I am about to put to the House, but I understand that he has changed his views since-- that we are talking about a restriction that goes back all the way to 1975- 76.

Children under five were never eligible for mobility allowance which, as I have explained, was the predecessor benefit. That goes back to the introduction of mobility allowance in 1976. It has been argued throughout-- that argument has been advanced in the House on several occasions--that the rule should be changed. However, the

Column 352

general view of Governments of all descriptions since that period, nearly 20 years ago, has been that it is best to retain the exclusion.

Research conducted in the mid-1980s by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys into the incidence and prevalence of disability concluded that mobility allowance was well targeted on people who were severely disabled. That is why, when we introduced DLA, we decided to base eligibility on the higher rate mobility component, largely on the old mobility allowance conditions of entitlement. The OPCS findings also informed the creation of a new lower rate of the mobility component to help people who were able to walk but needed supervision to make use of the facility out of doors, extending help with mobility needs for the first time to people with a mental impairment rather than a physical disability.

The principle that underpins DLA is that awards are intended, in general terms, to be based on the effect that disability has on the care and mobility needs of an individual and not on the disability itself. There is a distinction in the case of children. I appreciate that we can argue about how great the distinction is. I appreciate also that we can argue whether it should apply to three, four or five-year-olds. How much is there an amount of additional care and supervision that the disabled child needs beyond what a child of normal health would require?

We recognise that some young babies need substantially more care than able- bodied children. That is why there is no age limit comparable to the one that we are discussing when it comes to the care component of DLA. We do not accept as a general proposition, however, that the position is quite the same for the mobility component. It is the Government's view that it is not so convincing to talk of a three or four-year-old as being independently mobile. I appreciate the problems, of course, when I hear about the difficulties of getting poor Rebecca Kennedy on to a bus and lifting a particularly heavy snug seat, or whatever it is called, which is part of the wheelchair. I understand that there is a real problem. As a general proposition, however, we say that the mobility component is all about making people independently mobile. That is the great success of it for the older person.

We say that the position of children is different. I recognise that there are cases where it may be--

Mr. Eric Clarke: I understand what the Minister is saying. I am a father of three children and I understand that there is involved a normal upbringing, including going shopping with them. They are mobile, or partially mobile. Shopping outings are part of learning, of meeting other people and being in the community. The same can be said of meeting relations and making journeys to visit them. Why should a person who is disabled stay at home? That is really what the Minister is suggesting should happen.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is an element of degree of mobility. We are saying that, classically, the mobility component is directed towards independent mobility. As the hon. Gentleman said, perhaps with remembrance of his own children, young children of three or four years of age learn to walk about, and the amount of supervision that is required diminishes as they become older. As I have said, it is a matter of degree. At the end, the difficulty for the Government is that we have competing priorities. However heart-rending is the case which the hon. Gentleman moved us with, we

Column 353

say that when taking the principle of independent mobility, disabled children under five, given the traditional way of looking at these matters, must be at the lower rather than the higher end of the priority list.

I cannot put it any more firmly than that. There will always be difficult decisions in social security matters when it comes to drawing a line. Undoubtedly, the drawing of lines creates hard cases. It is our view, however--this has been a conventional view of Governments, as I have said, for 20 years--that the proper dividing line, if we have to draw one, is the age of five years in this instance for the mobility component of DLA. That is comparable with school age, when normally children become less dependent on their parents. Before the age of five, it is normal for children to be unable to go about without their parents' help.

Much careful consideration was given to this issue. It was the subject of much debate during the passage of the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working

Column 354

Allowance Bill, which went through Parliament not that long ago. We do not believe that extending the mobility component to the under-fives can be the principal or leading-head claim on the list of priorities for benefit expenditure when there is so much pressure on resources and so many competing priorities. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that that would be expensive. He correctly quoted a figure of £30 million a year, which would indeed be the cost of extending the limit from the age of five to two. Although I appreciate that, as he said, it is perhaps not that big a sum when cast in the wider budget of the Department, it is nevertheless a considerable sum.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; he has moved our hearts on the issue, but I am afraid that the Government have to take the view that, on competing priorities for social security expenditure, we are not presently minded to alter the law, and it would require statute to do what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We must move to the next topic.

Column 355

Catherine Laylle

2 pm

Sir Nicholas Scott (Chelsea): I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the case of Catherine Laylle, who holds dual British and French nationality and whose case has been raised in the press on more than one occasion in recent months. The importance of her case is underlined by the presence today of a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken an interest in her case and who, I understand, may wish to intervene, albeit briefly, in this short debate. I will therefore seek to abbreviate my remarks on what is at once a complicated and a highly emotional case.

At the outset, I would like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister and to the Lord Chancellor for seeing me and my constituent on this matter and for dealing courteously with my written representations. Alas, despite many efforts, no way has yet been found of satisfying what I believe to be the legitimate grievances of my constituent.

I shall paint in some background to the case. Catherine was 29 years old when he she met her husband, Peter Volkmann, a German citizen. She had a well-paid job in the City of London and he was studying medicine while doing his military service. They married in 1984 and lived in her Kensington flat while he studied and she worked. Their son Alexander was born in the following year. After a while, Peter Volkmann abandoned his studies, found a job with a German company in London and then transferred his employment to Germany. Ms Laylle left her career in the City and went with her husband to Germany where a second son, Constatin, was borne. Alas, by 1992 the marriage was in difficulty and the couple agreed to separate. An agreement was then drawn up, and verified by a German notary, which provided that Catherine should return to London to live with the children and that Alexander and Constatin should spend much of their holidays with their father.

The arrangement went well until last summer when, four days before the children were due to be returned to Catherine, she received a letter from her husband saying that the children would not be coming back to London. My constituent was understandably devastated by that appalling breach of faith and the negation of a mutual agreement. Her pleas were dismissed by her husband with, I understand, abusive language and much disdain. She therefore took action to make the children wards of court and obtained a High Court order for their return under the terms of article 3 of the Hague convention. That decision was subsequently endorsed by the German court in Verden. Alas, Catherine's joy was to be short-lived. During the half-hour that she allowed her husband to say goodbye to the boys, the children were abducted by members, I understand, of Peter Volkmann's family. The court order, I am told, empowered the court bailiff, with police support and physical force if necessary, to ensure the return of children to their mother but no one knew the whereabouts of the children.

The bailiff became unavailable and her husband's lawyer likewise. It transpired that her husband gone to Celle, a town nearby with a higher court where he had lodged an ex parte appeal. That court ruled that he could

Column 356

keep the children until the case could be heard. A month later, at a hearing which neither took evidence from Catherine nor interviewed her or her witnesses, the court ruled that the boys should stay in Germany.

It is now a year since my constituent effectively lost her sons. Some would say that she had had her sons stolen from her. She has spent all her savings on legal fees and visits to Germany. She has had much sympathy but little action to redress the situation. Not surprisingly, she is in a state of considerable despair. She feels that a process designed to alienate her children from her has been followed. Her visiting rights have been tightly circumscribed--she gets three hours a month in Germany, under supervision. The current situation is little short of outrageous. Germany and the United Kingdom are senior partners in the European Union. The provincial German court has, in effect, closed its doors to the pleas of my constituent when all she wants is justice.

Since the Celle ruling, Catherine has had access to her sons only under the supervision of German social workers and such access is limited to a few hours each month in her husband's home. On one visit, I understand, her children were removed as she arrived, put into a car and driven away by her husband. That underlines that the situation is nothing short of outrageous.

There are, however, perhaps two openings of which I hope advantage will be taken. First, I understand that the European Commission of Human Rights will be examining her case in its next session, which it will hold very shortly. Catherine is compiling and submitting evidence under three separate articles of the convention. However, as we all know, a considerable period may elapse before any decisions are forthcoming. Meanwhile, she is actively deprived of her undoubted rights of access to her sons.

There is perhaps a second chink of light in this sad case. I understand that at the meeting of European Union Justice Ministers last week, the question of a pattern of law in this area was raised and consideration may be given to the need for fresh legislation. It is my understanding that the French Justice Minister, Jacques Toubon, threw his weight behind the idea. I hope that I can be reassured by my hon. Friend that our Ministers will take the same robust approach.

I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would clarify to me and the House the role of the child abduction unit and say what success it may have had in the case so far. We all know that legislation, especially European legislation, could take a very long time to be put into effect. Catherine is looking for early action by the British and German authorities and I believe that she deserves it. In conclusion, it is now seven months since Catherine last saw her children. She thought that she would have three hours with them this month but has now been told that their father is taking them on holiday to an undisclosed destination. She will not abandon her sons. She is a fighter and loves her children too much. She believes, rightly in my view, that she is the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice. She has fought long and hard for her rights. The French Government are giving her support. I hope that she can count on the help and support of our Government, too. I trust that the Government will find they have the fullest co-operation of the German authorities as well.

Column 357

2.7 pm

Next Section

  Home Page