'(1) Section 73 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (c. 4) (the mobility component) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert—

"(ba) he falls within subsection (2A); or".

(3) In subsection (1A) (a), after "(b)", insert ", (ba)".

(4) After subsection (2), insert—

"(2A) A person falls within this subsection if—

(a) he is blind; and

(b) he satisfies such other conditions as may be prescribed.".

(5) In subsection (5), after "(2)(a)", insert "or subsection (2A)(a)".

(6) In subsection (11)(a), after "(b)", insert ", (ba)".'.— (John Robertson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10— Mobility component of disability allowance—

'(1) Section 73 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (c. 4) (mobility component of disability living allowance) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for paragraph (b) (together with the "or" at the end of it) substitute—

"(ab) he falls within subsection (1AB) below; or

(b) he does not fall within that subsection but does fall within subsection (2) below; or".

(3) In subsection (1A)(a), after "paragraph (a),", insert "(ab),".

(4) After subsection (1A) insert—

"(1AB) A person falls within this subsection if—

(a) he has such severe visual impairment as may be prescribed; and

(b) he satisfies such other conditions as may be prescribed.".

(5) In subsection (11)(a), after "subsection (1)(a),", insert "(ab),".'.

The new clause is self-explanatory and needs little introduction, but the clarity and familiarity of the issue should not obscure the justness of the case and the need to right a long-standing wrong. The new clause would amend the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 so that a blind person can qualify for the higher-rate mobility component of the disability living allowance, something that the 1992 Act excludes them from unless they are also physically unable to walk.

It is easy to see why the exclusion does not make sense, and more than 220 MPs have signalled their support for this change by signing early-day motion 340, tabled by my hon. Friend Miss Begg, which has been the most popular EDM in the current Session. I would also like to thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who put their names to the new clause. The groundswell behind this activity is down to the work of the Royal National Institute of Blind People and I pay tribute to its campaigning on the issue and its work across the board. I have worked with that charity on welfare reform issues for a number of years and it has never let me down.

In addition, I pay tribute to a number of people who have been inspirational in their work on this and other disability issues over the years, such as my constituent Alan McDonald, whom I will mention again later, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South and my right hon. Friend Mr. Blunkett. I should also recognise the work done by Sir John Butterfill, who tabled a motion on the issue a number of years ago. It is disappointing to say the least that he was not only years ahead of his party on this matter, but that Conservative Members could not find it within themselves to say a single word in support of the change in Committee. Their friends in the Scottish National party are no better. Their names are absent from this new clause, but given that they never passed on the £34 million they received for disabled children, I am not surprised. They have made no contribution on this matter.

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, may I congratulate him on his work in tabling new clause 4? Is he aware that it would cost only £40 million for the Government to give way on this matter? That is a very manageable amount. Will he join me in urging the Government to be positive and generous tonight, so that we do not have to vote on this new clause?

Let me think about that—yeah, okay. I was looking to see whether the hon. Gentleman had been reading my speech; I always thought that he should have crossed over to our side anyway.

He will.

My hon. Friend says that the hon. Gentleman will. I look forward to it. He is a great gentleman and I have a lot of time for him.

New clause 10 is grouped with new clause 4. I have tabled it to cover all bases on the issue and so that we have something that will work in practice. Although both clauses are basically the same, it was important to have new clause 10 to ensure that we discussed the issue. That is why we have two new clauses that are almost the exact mirror image of each other, but with different words.

The exclusion of blind people from the higher rate must surely have been a mistake and an unintended consequence of the 1992 Act. Despite facing some of the biggest and often most insurmountable barriers to independent mobility, blind people were denied the higher rate of mobility support, which was limited to those who face physical barriers to getting around.

I, too, commend my hon. Friend for his work on this matter. My constituent Claire Hansen is an articulate, intelligent and highly motivated young lady, but she can leave her house only once a week because she suffers from Usher syndrome, which causes partial sight and hearing loss to varying degrees. She needs a taxi when she leaves the house. Does my hon. Friend agree that £29 a week extra would allow her more independence and allow her to leave her house more than once a week?

I thank my hon. Friend, who is obviously the best MP in Dundee—or so he tells me, and I have no reason to disbelieve him. The funny thing is that he, too, has been looking over my shoulder. I was about to go on to talk about the £29 extra.

The higher rate of mobility allowance is only £29 extra on top of the lower, but that works out at more than £1,500 year. There is no good reason for discriminating between someone who faces physical barriers to mobility and someone who is unable to move around safely and independently due to blindness. I should like to tell the House about one of my constituents, whom I mentioned earlier. His case highlights that paradox. Alan McDonald has been blind from birth, has orientation problems and faces huge hurdles in getting around. He is unable to use public transport because of his difficulties in getting on and off buses and trains, and he either needs to spend his other benefits on taxis, although they are meant to provide other support, or is forced to rely on his sister for lifts to wherever he needs to go. Otherwise, he has to stay at home.

Alan's blindness is not the only barrier to his mobility. He is awaiting a second kidney transplant and will undergo surgery for hardening of the arteries in a few months' time. Despite all those difficulties, he has been told on several occasions that he simply cannot qualify for the higher rate, because he is physically able to walk. Yes, he can walk—he can walk into wheelie bins or traffic lights or out into the middle of the road. But he can walk, so he does not get the money. The barriers that he faces are just as great as those faced by someone who cannot walk, and the situation is nonsensical. I swear to the House that I believe that the Minister has to consider such things. It is unbelievable that somebody with such disabilities cannot get the higher rate of disability allowance; it is unbelievable that they cannot get £29 extra. Blind people such as Alan feel justifiably angry about that discriminatory and unfair treatment.

For me, the reason for having a Labour Government is so that we can make changes such as this and give support to people who need it. This is no less important than a global financial crisis, in which doing nothing is not an option. The RNIB estimates that about 26,000 people would be included in the higher rate of the mobility component if this change were made. I understand that the proposal has been costed at an initial £12 million for set-up and a further £47 million a year—a drop in the ocean by today's standards.

As I said in Committee, and as Ministers need to remember, when the RNIB lobbied Parliament in October, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend Jonathan Shaw, who is responsible for disabled people, spoke in very positive terms about how and when blind people would be given access to the mobility component rather than whether they would. The new clauses offer a perfect answer to both those questions. I thank the Clerks and Mr. Speaker for their advice and help with tabling them and for giving them a chance to be considered. It is time for the mobility component of the disability living allowance to live up to its name. It is time for us to right the wrong and to give blind people a chance.

John Robertson has put his case very well and powerfully, as he did in Committee, when I was interested to listen to what the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Jonathan Shaw, had to say. The Minister will know that both he and the hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute to my hon. Friend Sir John Butterfill, who is in his place and has campaigned on this issue for a long time. The hon. Gentleman was also right to pay tribute to the RNIB for its work, and I know that he has had many meetings with it. It has had a campaign of meetings with Ministers to discuss the issue in great detail, and I, too, have had meetings with it.

We have made it clear in our discussions with the RNIB that we support the proposal in principle and have no objection to it. The stumbling block was always how it was to be financed. Members will know about the state of the nation's public finances, which was discussed at great length on the previous group of amendments. That has presented the problem of where the money for the proposal will come from. The RNIB has done a good job with the Government of working out a scheme to establish who would be eligible for the increased allowance. That has set out the funding requirements.

Will the hon. Gentleman cut to the chase and tell us whether he and the Opposition will support the new clause in the Lobby tonight if it comes to a vote?

I have only just begun, and if the right hon. Lady will allow me, I shall get on with my remarks. Her question will be answered when I get to the end of them.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the nation's finances, but does he accept that the job of the Government, and even of the Opposition, is to set priorities? If something is just and fair, the money must be found.

I am just coming to my remarks about that. The Government accepted that the funding of the change was an issue to consider. The Minister said in Committee:

"There are always competing demands...I shall set out carefully the context."

It is worth putting on record that he said that the Government estimated that the additional benefit expenditure would be

"about £45 million per year, with a £12 million administrative spend in the first year alone", although he said that the Department estimated that the ongoing costs of administration would fall to about £2 million a year quite quickly. He said that there would be an annual bill of £45 million, which would rise in the years to come, and that funding on such a scale could not be found from the measures in the Bill. He said:

"While the Government fully recognise the intentions behind the new clause, accepting it without having the funding to support it would require us to withdraw funding from elsewhere in the benefit system." ——[ Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 270.]

That was in Committee just two weeks ago. He then paid tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West and the RNIB. He said that the Government could not support the new clause at that stage, but that he and the Government would continue to consider the matter. The hon. Gentleman welcomed that.

As late as yesterday, at Work and Pensions questions, the matter of funding for the proposal came up twice. It was raised once by my hon. Friend Mr. Hollobone, who is in his place, and again by Rob Marris, whom I do not see in his place. The hon. Gentleman asked the Minister to tell the House why the Government had so far not supported the change, and he drew attention to the fact that we would be debating it today when considering the new clause. The Minister said that he was grateful that the matter had been raised, and added that

"we need to establish a time when we can afford to make provision for this particular benefit".—[ Hansard, 16 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 651.]

At that moment, as if by serendipity, in walked the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Minister said that when talking about finance, he was always reassured to see the Chancellor. He then made the case that the Government needed to examine the matter carefully and would continue to work with the RNIB. He said that he hoped to be able to support the measure when resources became available. If the Under-Secretary can make any progress on that today and give us some good news, the position will clearly have changed since yesterday and it would be helpful if he could state whether resources have been made available and from where they have been found.

When the Under-Secretary was asked in a written question how quickly the change could be made if the Government accepted it, he replied that any change would require a change to the legislation—that is what we are debating—and that time would be needed

"to design, test and implement the administrative processes, which will require changes such as new guidance and training for staff."—[ Hansard, 28 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 565W.]

He also said that, consequently, the earliest implementation of the proposal, if it were accepted, would be 2010-11. Perhaps when he responds, he will say whether that remains the case. If the Government accept the new clause or find another way of effecting its substance, will that time scale still apply?

To summarise our position, we have never objected to the principle. Indeed, I have worked closely with the RNIB and we have said that if a way could be found to provide the funding, we would be pleased to do that. To date, the Government have been unable to find the funding—and were unable to do so as late as yesterday. I hope that the appearance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at an opportune moment yesterday might have broken the logjam.

Is the hon. Gentleman claiming in all seriousness that the official Opposition, having considered the matter for some time, could not find £47 million of public expenditure for the purpose? Is that the problem?

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that, as the official Opposition, we cannot find any money because we are not in government. We do not know the state of the public finances. If we won a general election, we would face a deficit of more than £100 billion in the current financial year, and probably £200 billion next year—the worst public finance figures that the country has faced—and that is only what we are told. When one is in opposition and thinking about how we would behave in government, one has to reserve judgment until we know what we will find.

The hon. Gentleman is prepared to support substantial tax cuts for the very wealthy, which cost far more than £47 million. Why cannot he find £47 million to help blind people?

I have just explained that we have never objected to the proposal in principle. If the Government tell us how they can fund it, and where the money will come from, we will be happy to support it. The hon. Gentleman's question should be aimed at the Government, who said for several months and years that they supported the proposal in principle but they have not been prepared to find the funding. They are in government and responsible for making decisions today. We may be in government in due course and, when we are, we will be responsible for the decisions.

I have set out our position clearly. Other hon. Members want to speak and we then look forward to listening to the Under-Secretary, who will sum up.

First, I think that, mischievously, I should declare an interest because I am a vice-president of the RNIB. However, because a couple of people have appeared to stalk me and ring up newspapers in the past four years, I should also declare that I have an alternative method of funding transport. I shall not, at least for the moment, be a beneficiary of any change that the Government may or may not announce tonight.

There has been the most incredible collective campaign that I have experienced for a long time, and I hope that hon. Members forgive me if I embarrass one or two people. My hon. Friend John Robertson deserves a medal for his tenacity and commitment, supported ably by my hon. Friend Miss Begg and many other hon. Members, including Sir John Butterfill. I say a big "thank you" to those who have spent years dedicatedly committing themselves to the campaign and ensuring that successive Ministers have got the message and have been able to work on their Treasury colleagues. Above all, I thank the RNIB and all those who have campaigned with it to make the proposal possible.

A listening Government, who are prepared to hear the argument and respond, together with a campaign, which is committed and rational as well as tenacious, can achieve enormous change. I feel it in my bones that tonight we are fulfilling something that Barbara Castle started in the 1970s when Alf Morris campaigned vigorously for the first introduction of mobility support. We seem to make our best announcements in our twilight hours, so it is difficult for anybody to know anything about them. Nevertheless we may be taking a further historic step tonight.

I explain to Mr. Harper that, in commending the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend Jonathan Shaw, the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend Mrs. McGuire, who did a sterling job on the matter when she was a Minister, we must recognise that we are not simply scrabbling about to find money to hand something out, but liberating people by enabling them to leave their homes safely and explore not only a social life, but training and get a foothold, before they are entitled to the access to work resources. It also enables them to become more independent and have dignity and mobility. The pay-back over many years will be substantial and allow people, who would otherwise be trapped at home, to have the dignity that those who are mobile through being able to drive a car and who can take advantage of other funding streams have taken for granted for the past 30 years.

Tonight may be an occasion for rejoicing and for saying—I have not said it for a long time—a big "thank you" to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary, not for generosity but for their foresight, and their recognition that a combination of an excellent campaign in the country, the support and tenacity of Back Benchers in all parties and Ministers who are prepared to listen means that we have a Government who will put first, not millionaires, who would benefit from relief on inheritance tax under Opposition proposals, but people who need the liberation of travelling freely, easily and affordably to the sort of places that the rest of us, including me, take for granted. I would like, in advance to say, "Thank you."

It would be presumptuous to add much more to the powerful case that Mr. Blunkett made. The Liberal Democrats support the new clauses. In Committee, my hon. Friend Paul Rowen and I added our names to the amendment that John Robertson tabled there.

We all remember a cold Westminster Hall, full of RNIB supporters lobbying us. That did not happen just once. Often, there are mass lobbies and the caravan then moves on, to be succeeded by another lobby on another issue in another year. I was struck by the fact that the RNIB came back and said that its members had returned to say the same thing because they did not get the answer that they wanted. Perhaps that is a lesson to other campaigning organisations that sometimes they have to repeat the same thing time and again. I recall many letters that I and other hon. Members of all parties wrote to the Department for years, and the replies, which reflected the official position that benefits were paid on the basis not of a condition but its impact, and that the change could not be made. There is a sense from the comments that have been made that a change may be imminent—we all want to hear that.

If, as the Minister said in Committee, funding for the measure will come from elsewhere in the benefits system, I hope that he will be clear about where that will be or about whether he will announce additional funding. I recall some other changes that his Department made that looked good at first sight, but later we discovered the cut that had been made to pay for them. I therefore hope that if the Minister accepts the new clause, he will be up front about whether additional money has been won from the Treasury or whether he will take the money from elsewhere.

There are different definitions of blindness and the sorts of people who might be eligible for the different rates. If the Minister accepts the new clause, I urge him not to draw a new and potentially arbitrary line. I know that such matters are not easy, but I hope that it will be absolutely clear in any regulations that he introduces who is included. Nothing that arises from our debate this evening should lead anyone to think that they have hope, only to find themselves on the wrong side of the line. I hope that he is clear both about who falls within the scope of what he will do and about who is excluded, so that no one who has supported the RNIB, been on a lobby and heard on the radio that the change is being made will find that it has been defined rather narrowly and excludes some people. I hope that he will be absolutely clear about who is covered.

According to the standard letter from the RNIB to MPs—I was pleased to receive several letters from constituents about this issue, too—the eligible group is to be tightly defined to mean

"people with no useful sight for orientation purposes; i.e. 'the severely blind'".

Is the hon. Gentleman happy with that definition?

The hon. Gentleman has quoted from the RNIB's letter to hon. Members. The RNIB estimates that 22,000 people will be affected, at a cost of £45 million, which is the sort of figure that has been quoted. If negotiations have gone on behind the scenes involving the RNIB, Ministers and others, as one senses they have, and that is the compromise that the RNIB thinks meets many of its objectives, we just need to be clear about who is inside and who is outside. It would be very sad to get this far only for people with mobility trouble because of sight problems to find themselves just on the wrong side of the line. We need to be clear about that.

I have one more observation. Mr. Harper, who speaks for the Conservatives, said that people's actions in opposition show what their actions in government would be like, and he did just that. We recognise that the public finances are difficult, but to govern is to choose. We have heard the priorities that the Conservative party has chosen and the measure that we are discussing is not one of them. Even with the one or two hints—if he had been listening, that is—that he might be able to get it anyway without having to go through the Division lobby, he still did not think that it would be a priority. I hope that the wider public beyond this Chamber will have seen the way a Conservative Government would act.

I congratulate John Robertson, who moved the new clause, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

I, too, would like to thank my hon. Friend John Robertson for tabling new clauses 4 and 10.

I pay tribute to Sir John Butterfill. I remember him inviting me to the first lobby in Westminster Hall and his being somewhat surprised that, as the Minister, I actually turned up. We got through that together. He has been tenacious in pursing the issue, as have many of my colleagues, in all parts of the House.

Like Steve Webb, I was somewhat flummoxed, surprised and disappointed by the comments of the official Opposition this evening. The equivocation was unnecessary. They have to learn to make the leap from principle to reality. It would not have cost them anything to make that leap this evening.

The case for widening the definition of mobility to refer to those who have no sight has been unanswerable. The exclusion of those who are totally blind from the higher rate of DLA was an anomaly that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West said, was not sustainable. I hope that the painstaking work undertaken by RNIB and DWP officials will pay dividends this evening.

Like others, I want to pay a special tribute to the RNIB, which has headed the campaign. Its campaign was measured and relevant and was sustained over a long period. I should never have been surprised at some of the inventive ways in which the RNIB encouraged us to understand its exact case. Those of us who were at the Labour party conference in Scotland last week went through a maze. Perhaps the Liberal party had already gone through that maze.

We often find ourselves in a maze.

The Liberal party is always in a maze, but there we are.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps we should get that very maze into Westminster Hall, in order to give all our colleagues the opportunity to see what it is like to be totally blind?

I have already made that suggestion to the RNIB. The maze was a fantastic way of describing, to those of us who have our sight, the difficulties that people who have no usable sight face.

Over the past two and a half years, the RNIB has argued its case with great clarity, with both individual MPs and Ministers. As my hon. Friend said, the RNIB has gathered a degree of support in the House that is probably without parallel in recent years. Let me say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister that I hope that the RNIB's perseverance will pay off tonight.

The measure before us is the right thing to do and it could make a difference to the lives of many people. I hope that we are all in politics to do those two things. This evening we have an opportunity to do both: to do the right thing and to make a difference to the lives of those people who have no sight.

When I entered the House in 1983, there was no mobility allowance for blind people, who were not regarded as having a sufficient defect. The fact that they could walk for 25 yd disqualified them entirely from any form of mobility allowance. They did not necessarily know where they were walking—they might be walking into danger—but still they were excluded.

I first became aware of the situation through lobbying by the RNIB. The RNIB has been persistent and energetic, and we can only commend its resolution over a long period. I first started lobbying on the issue in the 1980s. I was pleased in 1992 when we achieved a minor victory, in that the lower rate of mobility allowance was accorded to blind people. I was of course disappointed that we did not get the higher rate and the issue seemed to become unfinished business. Even as we speak it remains unfinished business, although I hope that it will shortly be unfinished no longer.

I am still concerned that the criteria being imposed are severe. However, I am delighted that more than 20,000 blind people will benefit, and if the measure is a success, there may be an incentive for hon. Members to look a little further.

People have asked how the measure will be paid for. The fact that more than 20,000 blind people will be able to get to work, instead of being trapped in their homes, may mean that quite a considerable amount of money will flow into Her Majesty's Treasury, from the tax on their earnings and from their contributions towards social security. Perhaps that is the pot of gold that has been uncovered by the Chancellor, but I hope that it will be a bigger pot than he realises. Indeed, I suspect that it will be, because there is an enormous amount of determination and talent among blind people. Given that they will be released much more into the world of work, we may be surprised at how much is produced by their efforts. That might encourage the House to go a little further with the criteria at some future date, because that would be seen to be a positive move that produces more than it costs. That is my hope, but in the meantime, I join everyone else in congratulating all the Members on both sides of the House who have worked so hard to get an agreement that this should be done. I hope that the Government now will ensure that it is done.

I, too, would like to thank my hon. Friend John Robertson for tabling the new clauses. As everyone else has said tonight, it is self-evident that those who have limited mobility because of their sight impairment should qualify for the higher rate of the mobility element of the disability living allowance.

About two years ago, my hon. Friend Mr. Doran and I were lobbied in his office by two of the workers at Glencraft in my constituency. Glencraft is the name of what used to be known as the old blind workshop. The two blind men came along to lobby us because they were keen that we should turn up to the RNIB lobby in London that they could not attend. They were obviously in the vanguard of the RNIB campaign. It was the first that I had heard of the campaign. It was their tenacity, and the tenacity and clarity of the argument of the RNIB—to which my right hon. Friend Mrs. McGuire referred—that persuaded a number of us to pursue the issue. At the time, I think that I said something that I often say to constituents—"I can't promise anything, but we'll see what we can do. We will certainly lobby the Government, but don't get your hopes up." I hope that the Government have now listened to the arguments and decided that it is right that someone who finds it difficult to get around because of their sight impairment should qualify for the higher rate of the mobility element of the DLA.

I suppose that I should admit that I am one of the lucky ones who qualify for the higher rate of the mobility element of the DLA because I cannot walk. That might come as a surprise to some of the people round here as I mow them down with my electric wheelchair. Because of the definition in the present legislation, I qualify for the higher rate, as does anyone who needs a wheelchair to get around. However, there has always been an anomaly, in that someone who is severely sight impaired does not qualify because they can physically put one leg in front of the other. As I often say, however, there are different ways of getting around, and it is how we get around that matters, and not necessarily the mode of transport involved.

I hope that the Government will see sense tonight. The two blind men who came to see my hon. Friend and me a couple of years ago are in work, and they know, more than anyone, the importance of work to their sense of well-being. If this Welfare Reform Bill is about anything, it is about getting people who have been dislocated from the world of work for years back into work. It is therefore right and proper that this provision should be part of the legislation. Seventy per cent. of blind people do not have a job. That cannot be right, because we know that they are capable of work in a whole range of areas. I heard that, as part of Comic Relief, the person who won the prize for stand-up comedy was Peter White, the broadcaster. I heard him tell a joke that there was an argument in the blind community about whether one should have a stick or a dog. His answer was, "You get the stick, you throw it away, then you get the dog."

We know that blind people can work, and we need to give them the support that they need to ensure that their lives are liberated and that they can enjoy the fruits of their labour. One of the ways of doing that is to ensure that they can get around, and the main factor in allowing them to do that is ensuring that they qualify for the upper rate of the mobility element of the DLA. I hope that the Government have listened. This has been a long campaign, but Members on both sides of the House have signed up to it. It is a worthy cause, and it is one that the Government should support.

I congratulate John Robertson on tabling the new clause, and I should like to indicate my full support, and that of my party, for the campaign he has waged. Everyone in the House has been very successfully lobbied by the RNIB, and I know that it has been equally active in Northern Ireland. The present situation has been described as an anomaly by a number of hon. Members, but I think that it goes beyond an anomaly. There is great unfairness in the current provisions, which results in great injustice. I think we have all listened to what members of the RNIB have said, and to our constituents.

I have experienced at first hand the impact that the loss of sight can have on a family member, when my father lost his sight as a result of diabetes. It was only when I saw it close up that I realised how foolish the mobility rules were. Of course he was perfectly capable of walking around; he was still fit enough to do that. However, his lack of confidence, his loss of independence and his need for support meant that he was as tied as someone who could no longer walk. The House has been done a great service by those who have highlighted the needs of these people—especially those who have been used to having their eyesight and who have suddenly lost it—and the impact that this can have on them.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the sense of unfairness felt by those who are visually impaired stretches to the wider public, who have always regarded it as unfair that visually impaired people did not get this benefit? If the Bill is passed tonight, it will not just be the recipients who will say that that is fair; the general public will also say that it is a long overdue correction of a clear unfairness.

The very fact that this measure has gained such widespread support across the House shows that we are aware that this is the feeling not only of those constituents who have lost their sight, or never had it, but of the many constituents who help us to recognise the unfairness and injustice that exists. That is the first reason we need this change: it will right an injustice in the existing system.

The second reason is that, despite all the arguments that such a measure would open the floodgates and set a precedent, it applies only to a fairly tightly defined group. Some Members feel that the definition accepted by the RNIB is too tight. We have a fairly good idea of the numbers involved, and it is unlikely that other people with the same impairment would be able to hook on to any change by the Government on this issue. So the fact that the measure will not open the floodgates, and that it will not set a wider precedent, is a second reason the Government could, and should, accept the new clause.

The third reason is the cost involved. There has been wrangling over the cost, and that has been unfortunate. Given the budget for welfare provision, it should be possible to find the necessary £44 million or £45 million, even by prioritising how we spend money. And, as other Members have pointed out, there will be benefits involved. For many young people who have lost their sight, and with it their confidence and independence, the very fact that they can get financial support that could enable them to go out and do a job will have a positive impact on the public finances.

The last reason is that the Government are halfway there already. In fact, they are more than halfway there. Ministers have accepted the idea and have no objection in principle; they are sympathetic to the call for change; they are committed to making this an urgent priority; and they wish to continue to work with the RNIB. Ministers have almost got there, so I suppose the call from this House tonight is: undo the injustice, take the last step and accept the new clause.

I will not detain the House long, as I have very little to add to what has already been said. I would certainly like to congratulate my hon. Friend John Robertson on tabling the two new clauses, which I strongly support. I very much hope that the Government will accept them. I also thank others who have been named for their strong support for this reform.

This is essentially a matter of greater social justice and greater equality. As Members supporting the new clauses have said, it makes no sense to recognise the mobility problems of someone who cannot physically walk, without giving equal recognition to the mobility problems of people who cannot get around owing to loss of sight. Both groups of people face barriers to free movement. Many of us who spoke on Second Reading made that very point. We made it in the context of the Bill for reasons other than just social justice, because employability issues are also relevant.

Both groups to which I referred face barriers that, as my hon. Friend Miss Begg, a long-term supporter of these changes, rightly said have a direct and negative impact on employability and their right to control their lives. Two thirds or between 60 and 70 per cent. of people with sight loss and of working age are not in work. As many organisations, including Leonard Cheshire Disability, have pointed out, these people face huge barriers, not least in relation to transport difficulties. We in the House do not need to look at the statistics to realise that, as we meet constituents every week, including those with sight loss, who face problems accessing public transport—and of course this is a problem that affects work. It is hardly surprising that visually impaired people are the group most likely to miss job interviews or to be unable to take up offers of employment because of transport difficulties.

Let us consider the proposed changes. I accept that £29 is significant, but it is hardly a massively generous amount. It will make a significant contribution to improving people's mobility, but it will still leave many people facing real challenges if they have to go to work five days a week or just participate as members of society without going to work five days a week. They will still face real challenges, as £29 is not everything—but it is significant.

I do not know for sure, but there appears to be a consensus this evening. No one has said anything to me, but there seems to be a feeling—sorry, Minister—that the Government might be inclined to support the new clauses. As others have pointed out, we have had supportive statements from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Jonathan Shaw, and, indeed, from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, so if the Government accept the new clauses, I believe that they should be congratulated on listening and acting accordingly.

The Royal National Institute of Blind People has been working on this issue for a considerable period and it deserves very enthusiastic congratulations on what it has achieved by working with the Department for Work and Pensions officials and Ministers. It has developed the details of its case, as my right hon. Friend Mrs. McGuire has pointed out, over a significant period, so it really deserves our congratulations.

Finally, no one should be cavalier about spending an extra £45 million a year, but given the level of public spending and given that the official Opposition are happy to make a commitment that would help millionaires pay substantially less inheritance tax than they do today— [Interruption.] Yes, certainly billionaires as well. It does seem a little odd if tax commitments of that kind, which are far more expensive than this one, can be made, but we cannot support this proposal, which would allow people with sight loss to participate more equally in society. I genuinely cannot understand the Opposition's priorities; they are certainly not mine. I know that they are not in government, so I very much hope that our Government will support the new clauses this evening.

It must be a terrible thing to be blind, and I have no hesitation whatever in supporting the new clauses proposed by John Robertson. I have been hugely impressed by the number of representations I have received from blind people in the Kettering constituency. Although there are lobbies of this place every week on different issues, I am sure that every Member will have been impressed by the number of blind people who made their way to this place in very difficult circumstances to lobby their Member of Parliament.

I would hate to be blind. I would never want even to imagine it, but some years ago I was led round the centre of the town of Rothwell in my constituency by members of Rowell Lions club—an organisation that has played a leading role in supporting blind people and was one of the instigators of the white stick campaign. They gave me a white stick, blindfolded me and escorted me around Rothwell, which I know extremely well. With a blindfold, however, and unable to see anything at all, suddenly that Rothwell was a very different place. Suddenly, I was hearing things I had never heard before and smelling things I had never smelt before. That hour spent in Rothwell brought home to me how awful it must be to be in darkness or semi-darkness 24 hours a day.

I know that if my Kettering constituents were asked whether they would want me to support these new clauses, they would overwhelmingly say yes, and that is what I intend to do, but I very much hope that it will not come to a vote. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept the new clauses so that we do not have to go through the Division Lobby. In calling for the Government to accept the provisions, I must say that they could have included them in the initial draft of the Welfare Reform Bill when it was first brought to this House. In a way, it is a shame that it has taken the huge efforts of everyone who signed the early-day motion, of the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West, of the RNIB and of others to reach this debate, especially when the Government could have included the provisions in the Bill at an earlier stage.

I join everyone else who has spoken this evening in paying great tribute to the tenacity of my hon. Friend John Robertson and also to that of the RNIB. I and fellow Fylde MPs were similarly lobbied in a sustained fashion—and quite rightly so—last October.

Tonight's discussion about making a change to the disability living allowance is interesting if we reflect on the number of times we have had discussions in our constituency surgeries about DLA issues, and how often we have had to explain that it is not an automatic benefit. It is something given to people to allow them to get on with their lives despite their disabilities. It is an empowering and an enabling mechanism. That has been the whole thrust of the RNIB's campaign, which it has put to us as it has to so many others.

Despite the organisational aspects, much of importance of the higher rate mobility component of the DLA comes back to the impact on individuals. I would like to speak briefly about one of my constituents, Carole Holmes, who is the chairman of the Blackpool Fylde and Wyre Society for the Blind. She is, in fact, the first visually impaired chairman of that society in its history. Last week she came to Buckingham Palace to receive an MBE medal for her services to visually impaired people. Let me share with the House what she wrote to me and, indeed, wrote in her local newspaper, in explaining why the change was so important. She wrote:

"I am blind and a guide dog owner. Some years ago I was mugged at a railway station by 3 men. I've also had accidents and injuries when trying to get about with my guide dog. I'm unable to use public transport to reach some of the venues that I visit regularly... I need to use taxis as these venues are not on a bus route... If I had the higher rate of mobility component of Disability Living Allowance... I would spend it on taxis."

I am sure that taxi drivers in my constituency will be particularly pleased to hear that. She continued:

"I would be pleased to be putting something back into the economy while feeling a lot safer.

I... enjoy visiting the theatre... attending monthly book clubs and W.I. meetings. As most of these social activities are in the evening, once again I need to use taxis as the buses only run every half hour and are not always reliable. These days I don't feel safe stood at bus stops after dark."

That is just one individual's experience, but it has been replicated in the numerous representations received by many Members on both sides of the House in the last few months. I know—not least because I heard what he said to the lobby last autumn, and not least because of his sensitive and sympathetic response to my Adjournment debate on Workstep a few months ago—that my hon. Friend the Minister has inherited from my right hon. Friend Mrs. McGuire the honourable tradition of thinking long and hard about these issues, and caring about them deeply. I hope that, on the basis of the strong and persuasive arguments advanced by Members in all parts of the House, the Government will feel able to proceed with this matter.

The words with which Carole Holmes ended the article about her campaign in the Blackpool Gazette underline the empowering and enabling aspects of the new clause:

"I don't want to climb mountains. I just need it to get on with my life and be safe."

Those are very humble but very noble aspirations, and I hope that they are aspirations with which the Government will find themselves concurring tonight.

Let me begin by thanking my hon. Friend John Robertson for tabling the new clauses, and—like others, I suspect—by congratulating one or two people who have been at the forefront of a campaign which has undoubtedly been led by the RNIB. It has not been just a campaign, though; it has been a campaign with a robust strategy behind it. This issue was never going to go away, and it needed to be addressed. I thank those at the forefront of the campaign, including my hon. Friend Miss Begg and my right hon. Friend Mr. Blunkett—and it would of course be remiss of me not to mention the robust approach of Sir John Butterfill, who did so much to ensure that we would reach this stage. If this were a race, I sincerely hope that what stands before us this evening would be the last hurdle.

Along with a small group of Back-Bench colleagues, I went to see the then Minister with responsibility for disability, my right hon. Friend Mrs. McGuire. We emerged from that meeting with the impression that the door was at least partly open, and I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that she has done. Perhaps I should also thank officials in the Department. Although any decision made this evening will be a political decision, I assure the House that those officials have been working in the background, examining the policy that so many of us would like to see in operation. They worked—I was about to use unparliamentary language, Mr. Deputy Speaker—very hard indeed to take us to this point.

Following up the meeting with my right hon. Friend, we had a further meeting with our good friend the Secretary of State. That meeting—again—came down to the question "Can we afford it?" We said that we had to afford it. When we left his office that day, I think that the words that were ringing in his ears were "If we need to go to the Treasury as a delegation, we will go there to make the case for the funding to make this happen for people."

I have attended a number of events organised by the RNIB. On one of those occasions, I was told that there was a message for me. The message came in the form of a compact disc from a constituent of mine, a lady called Charlotte Bennie, whom I had met a couple of times. There were a number of different messages for different Members of Parliament, but the message to me was clear, and I listened to it as I travelled across my constituency one day. It took the best part of 40 minutes. The message described the difficulties that Charlotte experienced in life, getting around, and the difference that a little additional money would make.

Along with many others, I attended the lobby in October. I was honoured to be able to address it, and I was honoured to address the massive gathering in the Methodist Central Hall a little earlier.

Let me make a comparison. I ask Members to think of the difference that they could make to people's lives. I look back to the early 1990s, when I served on Dumfries and Galloway regional council. At that time, as a minority administration, we introduced free bus passes for the elderly, which was ground-breaking stuff in those days. It opened up a new world to so many elderly people who had been confined to their homes. The small sum that is now being not just requested but—I must say this to my hon. Friend the Minister—demanded this evening may open up other areas that have been forgotten by those who are partially sighted and blind.

I hope that the Department has listened, because I see this as the last chance saloon. Notwithstanding what was said by Mr. Hollobone, there is a great fear among Labour Members that should my party be defeated at the next election—although I will not be defeatist in that regard—and should we not have secured what we seek tonight, it may not be delivered by those on the Conservative Benches. I think that, in 2009, there could be no more appropriate celebration of the bicentenary of Louis Braille than a Labour Government's agreement to what is being requested. We all wait to hear what our good friend the Minister has to say.

This has been a very good debate, which has encapsulated the excellent campaign by the RNIB. I congratulate my hon. Friend John Robertson on tabling the new clause. I well recall his eloquent words in Committee. Then as now, he was able to grasp and express the sense of injustice felt by many blind people in the absence of this important benefit. I am also grateful for what was said by many other Members, with which I shall deal later. They put forward compelling arguments in favour of making this important change.

As the House knows, the campaign to extend the higher rate mobility component has been running for well over two years now, and throughout that time I and my right hon. Friend Mrs. McGuire—the former Minister—have been engaged in numerous and fruitful discussions with the RNIB to see how we can progress this measure. Those discussions have been enormously helpful and have greatly assisted us to come to a shared understanding of what it would mean to extend the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance to severely sight-impaired people. For many, it can be very difficult to get out and about and to enter work. That means that thousands of people can become socially isolated—unable meaningfully to become independent, unable to indulge in the normal social pursuits non-disabled people take for granted, and unable to enter work or actively seek work.

Through working with the RNIB, we have been able to come to a shared understanding of how we can define those with the most severe visual impairments such that they have no useful sight for orientation purposes. I am also grateful for the help and assistance we have received from numerous other organisations and professional bodies. In particular, I would like to thank the medical experts we have consulted such as ophthalmologists and optometrists, as well as Moorfields hospital, for the valuable professional and statistical advice and information they have been able to give us. I should also like to thank more generally the many thousands of people—many of whom have no sight difficulties—who have written, through their Member of Parliament, to me as the Minister for the disabled. This House has spoken with a consistent voice, as has been articulated by many Members this evening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West began his remarks in moving this new clause by saying it was supported by the most popular early-day motion in this Parliament. Potentially then, I could perhaps become the most popular Minister. I am looking at my boss, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; if that were to be the case, he could do my Adjournment debates and sign all my letters. He is not looking very enthusiastic, but there we are. That early-day motion had an extraordinarily high number of signatures from Members of different parties. My hon. Friend also rightly mentioned Sir John Butterfill, who is not in his seat at present, and the support he received from him and their working together.

My right hon. Friend Mr. Blunkett spoke in his usual way, setting out clearly for the House the difference this would make for blind people. Obviously, nobody in this debate is in a better position than him to inform us of such matters.

Steve Webb talked about the cold temperature in Westminster Hall even though, as other Members have said, many of our constituents made the difficult journey to come and lobby us. It is a journey people have to make every day, and he brought that home to us.

I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling. It is an honour to follow her in holding this ministerial post. The work she has done on this issue, and on many others, will stand the test of time. She is held in high regard in this House and among all those involved in disability issues. She worked very hard on this issue, and her hard work has made my work load that much easier. I thank her for her work.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West has a proud and honourable record of campaigning on these matters. He talked about the lower rate mobility component having been introduced and the untapped pool of talent among blind people. My hon. Friend Miss Begg reminded the House that 70 per cent. of blind people are not in work. Not only is their not being in work their loss, it is the rest of society's loss—not just for social reasons, but for economic reasons as well. That applies among people with all the ranges of disabilities. We need to do more, working with businesses to ensure that that untapped pool of talent can be fully utilised; that must be done for the business case, as well as for the social case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South spoke of the clarity of the RNIB's argument, and I think all colleagues would agree with her on that. Sammy Wilson spelled out in his usual way how important it is for blind people to get this extra benefit, and the difference it would make to their lives. He also talked about the active campaign that has been run in Northern Ireland, and we are grateful to him for his contribution.

The House recognises that my hon. Friend Roger Berry has been a champion for disabled people for a long time, not just when it becomes a fashionable cause and many people seek to latch on to it. [Interruption.] As an individual, however, he is extremely fashionable of course—far more so than the hon. Member for Northavon, and I am sure my hon. Friend can recommend a good tailor. My hon. Friend has a proud record, and he talked about the barriers that people face. He talked about how the mobility component was not just a social justice issue, but that it was necessary for employability. Members will know that we have increased the access to work budget that helps people to get a firm job offer or get into work. Obviously however, they need to do the round of interviews in the first place, and this measure would help.

Social justice and employability go hand in hand. They are part of this Government's programme, and run through all the welfare reforms we are debating in this House this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said the £29 was not a massive amount, but he challenged the Opposition to say whether that was a massive amount when it came to providing millionaires and billionaires with tax cuts. That is, of course, about priorities, and shows which side of the argument we are on.

I want to illustrate that point and refer to Mr. Harper, who is a nice man. If the House will indulge me, I am going to provide a quote from the Committee stage—and it is a quote from me. I wish to do so not because it was a particularly good speech or contribution, but because it illuminates the Conservative position and how that has perhaps changed tonight. I said:

"I thank the hon. Member for Rochdale for bringing forward a case on behalf of the hon. Member for Twickenham, and the hon. Member for Forest of Dean for setting out the information that I was able to supply."

That information was provided in answer to a written parliamentary question. I continued:

"His lack of comment about whether he supported the proposal was deafening. Perhaps we will hear at a later stage whether he and the Conservative party have an opinion on this."

He replied:

"I am listening to you."

I replied:

"And we listened to the hon. Gentleman's very succinct remarks, which offered no opinion. I invite him...to give me an opinion."

That silence was the pause from the transcript. I continued:

"There we are, we have heard the opinion of the Conservative party." ——[ Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 269.]

Well, it is not amateur dramatics, as the hon. Gentleman says; this is about trying to assist blind people and it depends on what side of the argument one is on.

What the Minister is not saying, of course, is that I listened very carefully to what he said in Committee and that just two weeks ago he made it very clear that the Government did not have the funding to support this—as I said in my remarks, as late as yesterday they did not have the funding to support it. So I hope that he tells us what has happened between now and then, and exactly how they are going to fund it. I said that if they are able to fund it, we would be pleased to support it—two weeks ago, he was not able to offer that guarantee.

The hon. Gentleman has a policy on inheritance tax—he has made it clear that he wants to give millionaires and billionaires tax cuts. He is not prepared, however, to offer his view on this—he is not prepared to say whether this is the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do. I will provide him with the answer to his question shortly. If he purports to be a member of a party that wants to govern, he must demonstrate leadership and, on this issue, get off the fence that he has been on for a long time. He did not come to the Westminster Hall meeting that was described tonight by the hon. Member for Northavon—the Liberal Democrat spokesman came, and I spoke at it as did the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West—and neither did the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman. The Government have made our position clear: that we want to introduce this measure and it is a case of how and when we will be able to do so. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean has not been able to tell the House until this evening—we still do not think he has—whether he has a view on this.

In my role as Minister for disabled people, I have also been able to voice my support for this measure. Indeed, when I spoke at the lobby that I mentioned, I gave an unequivocal nod towards the Government's commitment to it, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State equally demonstrated his support for the measure when he said on Second Reading:

"The Government do not have any objection to it in principle. They totally understand the case that is being made."—[ Hansard, 27 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 186.]

In the past I have said that progress was not a matter of if, but when and how. The "how"—in terms of who may be within the scope, which we have discussed this evening— has been largely worked out. As I explained in Committee and on the Floor of the House, the "when" has been about how we finance this important measure, given that we are in the midst of an economic downturn. In Committee, I explained that we did not have the resources to fund this measure but were committed to this important change. I said:

"When we are in a position to finance a change to the rules, we are firmly committed to make that change an urgent priority and to do so at the earliest possible time." ——[ Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 271.]

The costs are not inconsiderable and a commitment to change must be taken in the broader context of stabilising the economy and helping people remain in, or return to, work. We have considered this measure in the context of these issues, and recognise that it will bring about considerable economic and social benefits to severely sight-impaired people. I am therefore delighted to announce today that we are now in a position to agree to fund this proposal, and I take great pleasure in accepting new clause 10, as tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 4 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.