House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Jun 1990

Column 611

"This school does not yet exist, and nor does the story teller exist as a single person. But everything in it has already happened in a school somewhere, and all the thoughts and feelings have already happened to somebody True integration means acceptance of equality of all people, regardless of ability or needs."

The booklet is entitled "nothing special". When it is nothing special to be disabled because society accepts that one is a full member of the community, when we give support in such a way that ambitions can be met and striven for, then disabled people will have the opportunty that my motion seeks to promote.

10.55 am

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe) : This is a highly unusual debate. In fact, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) has achieved an important first, as I cannot remember when there was last a general debate on the problems and needs of people with disabilities that was not held on an Opposition Supply day since the present Government came to power. So I congratulate him on using his good fortune in winning time for a debate, on his choice of subject and on the range and quality of the, at times, moving speech with which he opened the debate. We readily accept, of course, much of his motion.

The House is often at its best in debates on disability, not least because of the success of the all-party disablement group in keeping right hon. and hon. Members so well informed about the concerns of disabled people and their organisations. Like the hon. Member for Battersea I am, therefore, extremely sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who chairs the all-party group, cannot be with us today. He is honouring commitments made before this debate was announced and his voice will be sadly missed, as will that of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), the group's very hard-working secretary.

The Minister, like his immediate predecessors with responsibility for disabled people, often tells them from the Front Bench how extremely well they have fared under this Government. However, that is certainly not how they and their organisations view the Government's record. They say that almost all the extra spending about which Ministers speak is due not to any improvements in benefits, but to the increased number of disabled people now claiming attendance allowance, mobility allowance, invalid care allowance and other benefits that were introduced before this Government came to power. In fact, the vast majority of disabled people have fared much worse than most other people in terms of their living standards. Their organisations compare the Government's claims about their performance with their consistent refusal to find time for it to be debated in the House.

The dispute about the Government's record is very much one between Ministers and disabled people. They and their organisations strongly refute the Government's claims. They say not only that disabled people have fared worse than other people, but that in a huge number of cases they are poorer in real terms than they were 11 years ago, due to the social security changes of April 1989.

There is not enough time today, or in any single parliamentary debate, for us to review all the restrictions on opportunity for disabled people ; but there is one that I must briefly raise at the outset. Barnardos recently arranged a "Parents' Forum" in a Committee Room of the House. Those of us who went were told by the parents of severely disabled young people that their sons and

Column 612

daughters can lose their severe disablement allowance if they enter youth training and then fail to find work. I am sure that they left all who heard them with the feeling that to withdraw severe disablement allowance from young people who try so bravely to triumph over severe handicap is a form of refined cruelty that Ministers must urgently stop.

The savings made by the Government from withdrawing SDA in those cases are very small compared with the £1.9 billion given in a single Budget to the richest 1 per cent. of taxpayers. The present rule is a tax on hope-- that of young people who passionately want to exchange the dependence of social security benefits for the independence of gainful employment. All that severely disabled youngsters who receive training--even those who succeed as trainees--can possibly have today is hope.

Unemployment among disabled job-seekers is more than twice as high as among able-bodied people. Only 31 per cent. of all disabled adults of working age work, compared with 69 per cent. of the population as a whole. The ratio for men is even worse ; 33 per cent. compared with 78 per cent. The earnings of disabled people who find work are substantially lower than those of non-disabled employees, and the same is true of parents of disabled children. Moreover, the Government's record in terms of jobs offered to disabled people is among the worst of all employers. So the Government's review of employment services for disabled people is of considerable parliamentary importance.

Yet I understand that, at the very moment when this debate began, a press conference was timed to take place for the release outside this House of the outcome of the review. While the Minister for Disabled People may allude here later to a document that has already been given to the press, I must strongly complain to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, about what will be widely seen as contemptuous treatment of this House. A planted parliamentary question for written answer is no substitute for full parliamentary scrutiny. This has already been described to me by people in the media as a shabby manoeuvre to avoid parliamentary questioning. The House deserved a statement yesterday in the normal way, with opportunities to question the Minister about the outcome of the review. As my speech proceeds, I shall return in detail to employment problems.

Meanwhile, I wish to emphasise that all Government policy in relation to people with disabilities, especially young people, should be directed to a single end : to enable them to participate in society on an equal basis with their fellow citizens. That requires the closest possible co- ordination between all Government Departments, but particularly between the Departments of Health, Employment, Education and Science and Social Security. Too often over the past 11 years we have witnessed a total failure to co-ordinate in Whitehall, with Departments thwarting each other's efforts. I offer one example. For severely disabled young people one of the keys to greater independence is to secure personal assistance which is under their control and which will help them do what they want to do when they want to do it. After much campaigning by Members of Parliament and others, not least the all-party disablement group, the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced a new package for disabled students, including a grant of up to £4,000 a year for non-medical support staff-- Hansard, 19 March, c.

Column 613

417. But what will happen when they leave college to seek employment and when their need of personal assistance will be just as pressing?

Ministers continue to sloganise about independent living, but continue to miss opportunities to put good intentions into practice. In another place last Monday, the Government succeeded in defeating by five votes the addition of a new clause to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill which would explicitly have given local authorities the power to make grants to people with disabilities to purchase their own care or personal assistance services.

Ministers have seldom been made to look so inconsistent and crass. They commend schemes that exist, but say that they are advised that these schemes are technically unlawful so they cannot openly obtain information about them, let alone encourage others. Local authorities support voluntary organisations of and for people with disabilities in arguing that this is a power that they should have ; but Ministers have the cheek to claim that locally elected people would act unwisely and that the administration of public funds would be at risk. As one of the least welcome parts of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill is the Government's insistence that public money should be thrown at the private sector, it is extraordinary that the Government will not allow modest sums to go to people with severe disabilities who want only to win more control of their own lives. Paradoxically, the independent living fund already acts in this way without ministerial misgivings. If new awards from the ILF are abolished from next April, as is now feared, and if local authorities are not empowered to make direct grants to people with disabilities, all the Government's fine words about supporting the independence of disabled people will be shown to be so much hot air. The Government have already resisted attempts to give disabled people the same legal rights to an assessment for respite care as they have to services under section 2 of my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. A notable recent report by

Crossroads--entitled "Caring for Carers"--shows that caring is a full-time job, with only 17 per cent. of carers having some form of employment. The survey also shows that 10 per cent. of carers have no free time at all and 52 per cent. have only between one and five hours each week. Four out of 10 carers said that they were often at breaking point and I am glad the hon. Member for Battersea spoke so movingly in support of that finding.

Crossroads has clearly shown that one of the key demands of carers is for more respite care, especially in the home. To this effect, Peter Large of the Disablement Income Group, a widely respected figure in this House, has pointed out :

"Where it exists, respite care almost invariably involves moving the disabled person out of his or her home, leaving the regular helper temporarily free of any responsibility for the disabled person. Indeed, the White Paper defines respite care in these terms."

In the recent survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, 83 per cent. of adults in the two most severe categories of disablement had not received any respite care in the previous year. The percentages of people receiving such help in the home as night sitting were negligible.

Column 614

Section 8 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 for the first time gave carers a statutory right to have the local authority consider their ability to provide care. Yet a recent report from the social services inspectorate shows that, two years after the implementation of that section, only one- fifth of councils had a written policy.

The full impact of section 8 will not be apparent until Ministers stop dragging their feet and implement section 3, not least the vital subsections on disabled people, or their carers, who need communication assistance. Is it not utterly disgraceful that this and other crucial sections of the 1986 Act, which was so ably promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)--with support from both sides of the House--still await implementation four years after they became law? May we now have a clear and definitive statement about the Government's intentions? It was good to hear the endorsement of the hon. Member for Battersea of the now general view that the Government must act now and very urgently.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott) : I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that when my predecessor supported what I tend to call the Clarke Act, it was made clear that it would be implemented as and when resources became available. We have now implemented all the important parts of the Act except for sections 1, 2 and 3, and, as I told the House on an earlier occasion during oral questions, we are now consulting local authorities about the implementation of those sections. Local authorities have a crucial role in their implementation and it is important that we have their views and reactions. We have now initiated consultations with them with a view to implementation in due course.

Mr. Morris : I well recall the statements in the House by the Minister's predecessor. None of us, on either side of the House, thought that there would be a delay of four years in implementing crucial provisions of the Act. To govern is to choose ; many people will say, not least in the voluntary sector, that there clearly have been resources since 1986 for full implementation of all the purposes of the Act. I do of course, appreciate the importance of the role of local authorities. They need to be consulted regularly and in detail. However, local authorities are themselves complaining strongly about the delay in implementing a statute that is so important for disabled people.

A recent report in The Times said that the Secretary of State for Health is preparing the ground for delay in implementing the community care parts of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Given the unpardonable rejection by the Government of ring-fencing and the vastly increased burdens that the poll tax has imposed on local authorities, I fully endorse the fears of Crossroads, of which I have the honour to be patron, that without significant resources carers will see no service improvement under the new system. Crossroads argues :

"Hard-pressed councils have to prioritise need in the face of scarce resources and it is quite understandable that people who are now looked after by a carer will be of lower priority than those living on their own."

Another key component of independent living is social security for which the Minister has direct responsibility. As he knows, his policy statement "The Way Ahead" has been

Column 615

greeted with dismay by almost all the voluntary organisations of and for people with disabilities. Peter Large has described it as a cul-de-sac and says that ministerial talk of a more coherent system of benefits is "a sign of delirium."

The Government's proposals for the new so-called disability allowance will help only those with mobility or care needs. The Government claim that this reflects the findings of OPCS, but the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation--RADAR--in its response to "The Way Ahead" told the Minister :

"The OPCS report downgraded many conditions which proved to cause significant extra expenses. Although only 18 per cent. of adults reported extra expenditure on food (OPCS 2 Table 4.7) this was, at £6.20 per week, by far the single most expensive item ; and expenditure was almost identical in all severity categories (OPCS 2 Table 4.9). Equally the small number of children with digestive disorders cost their parents four times as much as others". RADAR went on to criticise the Government's total failure to replace the extra help with special diets that was available before April 1987 for people with AIDS. The Royal Association said that restricting help to those with less than six months to live--by the extension of attendance allowance to the terminally ill--is insulting to those whose lives can be prolonged by sufficient help at an earlier stage of their illness. This example of digestive disorders and diets is used by RADAR to illustrate flaws in the OPCS's methodology which have led the Government to ignore the needs of a significant number of people with disabilities.

Is there nothing that the Minister can do to help people who are so demonstrably in the direst need? I ask him urgently to review the scandalous plight of people with AIDS to whom RADAR drew his attention and also to give today the Government's response to the social security commissioners' decision, reported this week, on the important case, to which the hon. Member for Battersea referred, of Simon Crompton, who has Down's syndrome and lives with his retired parents in Tameside in Greater Manchester. It is estimated that the decision in that case could benefit 30,000 other disabled people. What action are the Government taking to identify them, and do they accept the social security commissioners' decision?

Mr. Crompton had been refused severe disability premium, worth £28.20 a week, which is available under the income support system. The Department of Social Security says that the premium is designed for people who live on their own, although the regulations allow for it to be paid in cases where a claimant "jointly occupies" a property with other adults. The case turned on whether this wording implied a stake in ownership or tenancy of a property, as the DSS maintained, or merely a sharing of a property, as Mr. Crompton successfully claimed. He stands to receive almost £2,000 in benefit arrears. Will the Minister concede that it would be shameful for his Department now to seek to deny benefit to severely disabled people on the grounds that they are living in the same house as elderly parents? Will he now admit that the Government's policy is a complete shambles with wholly inadequate provision in income support, the independent living fund in suspended animation, social services departments unable to give grants to people such as Simon Crompton, poll tax demands that disabled people cannot afford to pay, and "The Way Ahead" offering nothing to the most severely disabled members of our society who wish to live independent lives?

Column 616

I should now like to turn to three aspects of the employment services for disabled people. First, there is a widely supported demand, not least from the organisations that speak for disabled people, for stricter enforcement of the quota scheme. As less than a quarter of firms satisfy their 3 per cent. quota obligations, and as the employment service has stated that work with disabled people is of low priority, will the Department now enforce the quota system? What will be done about people with disabilities which severely affect their employment prospects and who now languish in job shops with scant, if any, prospect of ever finding a job?

Secondly, will the Government expand the sponsored placement scheme to provide more integrated work opportunities at all levels for disabled people? Voluntary organisations were dismayed by the reply on 12 March to the chairman and secretary of the all-party disablement group, which baldly stated that no new SPS places would be available during 1990-91. That reply is at column 136. Will the Minister also respond to the criticisms in the excellent recent report by Mainstream that the subsidy is too low and that SPS employees are disadvantaged by being ineligible for the same benefits and terms of employment as others with whom they work because they are not employed directly by the host firm?

Thirdly, will the Government now belatedly emulate the United States Congress, which has passed the Americans with Disabilities Act? That Act extends to the private sector in the United States the anti-discrimination provisions of the Rehabilitation Act 1973, which have proved so effective in combating discrimination in the public sector and among firms receiving federal funds. Since

anti-discrimination legislation has been on the statute book in the United States for 17 years and is now being extended, how can Ministers here possibly claim that it would be ineffective? We could have led the world in outlawing discrimination, as we did in 1970 when we legislated on access to buildings, if the Government had acted on the report in 1982 of the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People, which I appointed as the then Minister in 1979, or had not shamelessly blocked successive private Members' Bills aimed at giving the report legislative effect.

I shall give one example from Manchester of the vital importance of legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people. A deaf young woman employed by the Greater Manchester Coalition for Disabled People is unable to enjoy the same employment rights as others because the Department of Employment will provide communicators only for deaf trainees and not for employees. Kevin Hyett, the chairman of the GMCDP, has said :

"The Government provide blind people with readers and disabled people generally with a wide range of high-tech equipment, so you have to say that this is blatant discrimination."

The Government often single out deaf people for special hardship. As in that case, their needs are ignored by the social security system and often their severe disability makes it practically impossible for them to obtain even their basic entitlement. Happily, in another place, an amendment to the Social Security Bill has been passed to allow deaf students to retain entitlement to social security benefits. I trust that the Minister will announce today that

Column 617

the Government have no intention of seeking to overturn that amendment when the Bill returns to this House. I urge him unequivocally to do so when he speaks in this debate.

I hope also that the Minister will explain what actions he will take to end the chaos which is threatening employment training schemes run by voluntary organisations. Only this week, I heard that the "Black Country Talking Magazine for the Blind", which is manned by ET workers, has to close because of lack of funds. The Spastics Society, which provided 429 training places, decided on 30 April to withdraw from the ET scheme when the Government altered the terms of the contract. If the society had not withdrawn, it would have faced a deficit of over £200,000 in the coming year. What possible justification is there for that huge tax on voluntary effort? This morning, the Spastics Society released a valuable report which reflects deep concern about the Government's employment policies. The report says that discrimination against disabled job applicants has not diminished in the past four years. As the Minister knows, the Spastics Society is in the forefront of organisations now demanding anti-discrimination legislation, to which Labour Members are fully committed.

The motion moved by the hon. Member for Battersea pays equal tribute to Government and voluntary organisations. I hope he is now persuaded that he should have been more selective in his praise. There are very few voluntary organisations of or for people with disabilities which do not have a long catalogue of examples of how the Government continue to cut the ground from under their feet and, while leaving no platitude unspoken, enact policies which reduce the equality and independence of people with disabilities. Yet the House must recognise that independence is the biggest prize of all for Britain's 6.5 million disabled people. It has become the common objective of this House as a whole.

11.22 am

Mr. Gerald Bowden (Dulwich) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on his success in the ballot and his choice of subject. I came third in the ballot, but I do not resent that fact because of the subject that he chose and because he treated it with such sensitivity and understanding.

I appreciate the experience and commitment of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), but I do not intend to follow him down the path of the financial and economic resources that should be available to disabled people. I shall look at the wider issues set out in the motion.

When talking about the disabled, we are in danger of confusing several issues. we are inclined to group many diverse talents and limitations. To name the broad categories, there are physical disabilities, mental disabilities and psychological difficulties, from which many people suffer. To consider those people as a cohesive group would be to misunderstand their problems and not recognise their contributions.

We come up against disability either personally or by recognising it in others. I discovered this early in life when I studied law at university. My tutor had been blind from birth, but he went on to hold one of the foremost chairs in jurisprudence. There is no doubt that I learnt much from

Column 618

him about understanding the law and I could in no way emulate the way he understood attempts to contribute in seminars and tutorials. One of the tasks I was first invited to perform--rather than being a chore, turned out to be a happy duty--was to read the law reports and other documents. One simply had to gabble away, but the way in which he anticipated the result before the end of the argument was amazing. Although he suffered one disability, he did not see it as such. A compensating achievement more than ruled out any disability he might have felt.

The motion has given us an opportunity to look at this matter in the broad sense. By considering the challenge that disability brings to those who suffer from it and to those of us who have no obvious psychological, physical or intellectual disability, we have an opportunity to think about where we can bring pressure to bear, place emphasis and give support.

The key concept in the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe was "access". It is clear that those with disabilities in any of the three broad categories that I have suggested suffer because of access difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea spoke of the problems of wheelchair access to schools in inner-city areas. We recognise the problems of people who wish to go to the theatre or wish to sit in the House or the other place. We should ensure that there is easy access in newly designed buildings and that, as far as possible, existing premises are adapted so that embarrassment is not caused and obstacles do not exist.

Physical access may be connected with the intellectual or educational access to which my hon. Friend referred. If children cannot get into a school because they are wheelchair-bound, the opportunities that they might enjoy and might properly claim are obstructed. Those two aspects deny people access to opportunities in the wider community. As the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said, access to independence must be the key for any person who suffers from a disability, allowing that person to fulfil himself and achieve his potential.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea has opened up a debate that challenges the attitude of the public and our attitude as individuals. It has presented us with the challenge not to look at disability as an obstruction or inhibiting factor, but to consider the opportunities for fulfilment of those who perhaps have limitations in one sense but have great potential in another. I have visited the Cheshire home and Athan house. When one is in the presence of members of the Southwark branch of Mencap or one sees the wheelchair race in the London marathon, one's attitude to the problems of incapacity and disability is changed.

The problems of a person with a physical disability sometimes come rather closer to home. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea described the day of a physically disabled person. A year or so ago, while I was gardening, I pricked my hand on a rose and had to have my hand in a sling for a week. I suddenly had a greater understanding of what incapacity and disability meant. I could not tie a tie or a shoelace, I had difficulty doing up buttons and I could not drive a car. I was suddenly made aware of what disability means even in its most trivial form. That gave me even greater admiration for the courage, grit and determination of the disabled who succeed in achieving,

Column 619

whereas those of us who are reasonably able most of the time and suddenly come up against disability find life difficult.

Disability is a matter of attitude as well as of resources. Resources must be available and properly deployed. However, the attitude of those of us who take an interest in these matters must inform and reflect itself on the rest of the community. Those who, in one sense or another, are regarded as disabled have an important role to play in decision-making. Our debate today offers the opportunity to open up the subject for a wider discussion and for wider understanding. I welcome the choice of topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea.

Royal Assent

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts : 1. Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Act 1990 2. Greenwich Hospital Act 1990

3. Pakistan Act 1990

4. Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Act 1990

5. Food Safety Act 1990

6. Australian Constitution (Public Record Copy) Act 1990 7. Computer Misuse Act 1990

8. National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 9. Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Act 1990 10. South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Act 1990

Column 620

Disabled People

Question again proposed.

11.31 am

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston) : I wish to concentrate on a specific aspect of disability. I was especially interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who addressed a wide and important range of problems facing disabled people. I shall not deal with those points or with the matters raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) as they have been dealt with adequately already. If the views of the hon. Member for Battersea were shared and acted on by the Government, there would be little, if any, need for today's debate.

As the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) said, we are all aware that many hon. Members have attempted, through private Members' Bills, to bring these matters to the attention of the Government, but most attempts have failed. Hon. Members have attempted to introduce legislation covering the range of matters raised today but in almost every case the Government have turned their face against the Bill. They have resisted the opportunity presented to them to make progress.

I was fortunate enough to be drawn in the ballot and I attempted to introduce a simple private Member's Bill, the Local Government (Access to Information) (Disabled Persons) Bill. All the points raised this morning are vital. A problem which affects many disabled people is their lack of access not only to buildings, but to information. My simple, one-clause Bill sought to bring to the Government's notice the fact that disabled people were disadvantaged by not having access to information. There are many examples of that problem. We are all aware of the tremendous impact of information technology. Information is power, and information means that one has the knowledge to deal with matters affecting one's life and the lives of others. In many ways, disabled people are deprived of information which could bring a solution to their problems or relieve the problems in their day-to-day lives.

It is only since the creation of the national health service that disability and disabled people have been brought out of the shadows of the pre-war and early post-war period, when in almost all instances the problems of the disabled were ignored by Governments and by society in general. The national health service did a great deal to make us aware that disabled people were people like ourselves who suffered from a disability which often prevented them from leading what would be considered a normal life. Progress has been made in many directions, thanks to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and of many other hon. Members who have constantly attempted to draw the Government's attention to the various problems faced by disabled people.

I want the Government to act on the single issue raised in my Bill and I appeal to the Minister to take its provisions on board. That would not be a costly exercise. My Bill sought to make local authorities and other agencies responsible for ensuring that disabled people, such as blind people, who have great difficulty in obtaining information about themselves, about the world in which they live, about their local authority and about the agencies, have access to information. Little or no provision

Column 621

is made by local authorities to make such information available to blind people or to deaf people who suffer particularly as a consequence of a lack of information.

Mr. Alfred Morris : Is my hon. Friend aware that his private Member's Bill was widely welcomed by disabled people and their organisations? It is still not too late for the Bill to be enacted. I hope that the Minister will respond as helpfully as he can to my hon. Friend's important plea.

Mr. Loyden : I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's useful intervention. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will relent and move away from the attitude adopted by his predecessor. I hope that he will at least consider the Bill, which will not cause financial problems for the Government but will make local authorities and agencies responsible for reporting annually. The Bill is not intended merely to leave the matter as a piece of legislation, but to bring the issue alive. Every year, reports would be produced to show whether local authorities and other agencies were implementing the provisions on access to information for the blind, for the deaf and for other disabled people. That information is vital.

We must remember that disabled people pay their rates and taxes just like everyone else. As ratepayers, we have access to local authority information on a whole range of issues that affect our lives. We can obtain that information reasonably easily by going to the local authority and obtaining a leaflet or some advice. Disabled people cannot make those simple approaches. We must take into account the need for local authorities and other agencies to find ways of providing information to blind and deaf people in particular. That task would not present local authorities with problems. Information technology provides the means to let deaf people know what is going on when they visit their local council chamber. How many councils provide sign language at their meetings to enable deaf people to understand and appreciate what is happening? The answer is very few. How many blind people are given the opportunity to know what is happening in their council and its committees, which take decisions that affect their daily lives? The answer, again, is that very few, if any, are trying to provide disabled people with access to information that is vital to them.

I came to understand the enormity of the problem when I first introduced my private Member's Bill. I received a video letter from a constituent in his early 20s. I had to find a means of translating that letter, which was in sign language, and I used the resources of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, which provided me with the translation that I sought. That young man went to the trouble to point out that that was his only means of communication and it made an impact on me. He pointed out that often when he could not hear what was happening on television he asked his parents, who were sometimes annoyed or could not understand him. That may appear, on the face of it, to be a minor problem but it means a great deal to that young guy.

Attempts are being made to provide sign language on television to help deaf people. Now that our proceedings are televised, sign language should be provided, because people regard this place as an important feature of life in this country. It is essential that they should have access to

Column 622

what happens here and in the other place. Sign language should be used so that deaf people can join all those who gain their information from the television.

I was greatly encouraged by the fact that the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and my young constituent went to the trouble to do what they did. I sent a video sign language reply to his message which was a simple one. He asked, "Have you forgotten our problems of communication and information? Are you aware of them?" I knew then that the video letter was the only means of communication that that young man had. We should consider that most seriously because he is one of many thousands of people who are affected. I hope that the Minister will take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Battersea and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe. I appeal to him, even at this late stage, to reconsider my simple, one-clause Bill, which would bring a great deal of comfort and pleasure--and, information being what it is, a great deal of value--to those who, by reason of their disability, are cut off from vital sources of information.

11.44 am

Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on his good fortune in winning the ballot and on his excellent choice of topic. I am delighted to be able to be here today, and I am only sorry that the Liberal Democrats have not seen fit to attend this important debate. They go on at length about how much they care for the disabled, but not one of them was here at the start of the debate and, to the best of my knowledge, there is not one here now. I suppose that they may all be sitting there en masse but if they are, they are invisible as usual.

It is a sad fact that many people today pay no heed to the problems of the disabled unless they themselves are disabled or have relatives or friends who are. Those facts bring home to ordinary people the great needs of the disabled. I have a relative who suffers from multiple sclerosis. Another relative, who died recently, suffered a major stroke and lived for 10 years after it which I gather is quite unusual. He was a man of very strong constitution. He found that he could just about cope with his disability although, unfortunately, he had lost the ability to read and write. He managed by using talking books, watching the television and conversing with others. But he found particularly difficult a little operation of which most people would think nothing : he could not cut his toe nails. That caused him more anxiety and difficulty than almost anything. Often, people find that they are able to deal with most things and they find it difficult to ask for help with an everyday operation such as that. Also on a personal note, my father suffered from Alzheimer's disease for several years. It is a truly horrific and terrible disease. My mother did sterling work looking after him and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Dr. Bennett, the local doctor, and to Rose Fortune, the district nurse in the area of Inverness-shire where my parents lived. They were both marvellous in looking after my father. Personal contact with disability brings home to one how important the subject is and one perhaps gets some idea of the problems that the disabled face.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea had done his research well and covered most of the subjects that I wish

Column 623

to mention. I congratulate him on that. He has done extraordinarily well. In my brief intervention in his speech, I said that many prospective employers are not prepared even to consider someone if he has a disability of some sort. I do not know why they should do that, but they are doing themselves out of people whose brain power may be much better than theirs. I plead with employers to widen their scope when they want to fill job vacancies. They should consider the claims of disabled people because they can do those jobs very well. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea referred to the difficulties of getting to work. He also referred to the achievements of many notable disabled people. I can think of many examples of disabled people who have achieved a great deal. For example, Nelson won the battle of Trafalgar with only one arm and only one eye. That was a great achievement. The French may not have thought so at the time and they probably do not think so now. Sir Douglas Bader was legless when he flew Spitfires in the battle of Britain. Professor Stephen Hawking has already been referred to. I briefly dipped into his book "A Brief History of Time" and quickly out of it again. That book requires the summer recess to do it justice.

Some great composers also suffered disabilities and in that regard I think of Delius. I am not necessarily convinced that he was a great composer, but some people think so. Nevertheless, he found ways of overcoming his illness and he wrote music. Beethoven was so deaf that when he attended the first performance of his ninth symphony he was completely unable to hear it. He did not know when it finished and his friends had to turn him round so that he could see the cheering and applauding crowd.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea mentioned Itzhak Perlman. I remember attending a concert at the Royal Festival hall some years ago at which Mr. Perlman performed Mendelssohn's violin concerto. That was a notable occasion and one of the concerts that has stuck in my mind. It was a great performance by Mr. Perlman, who followed the violin concerto with Bruckner's seventh symphony which made the concert even better. We must also think of Jacequeline du Pre , that great cellist and a wonderful music maker. Tragedy overtook her, but she rose above it and passed on her talents and knowledge to young musicians in her wonderful master classes.

Disabled people in wheelchairs take part in the London marathon. From time to time I have thought that I might enter the London marathon, but I unthought it pretty quickly. The prospect of pounding around 26 miles is a little too much for me. However, I pay tribute to the people in wheelchairs who take part. It is incredible that they do so well.

We have recently debated Bills on abortion. I hope that such legislation does not lead to circumstances in which a baby which shows signs of being disabled before it is born is automatically aborted. That would be disgraceful. I have spoken to people born with disabilities who have told me that it is the only form of life or view of themselves that they have known. They believe that they have a right to live their lives in whatever form they were born. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea also referred to building design. At election time we visit polling stations which all too often are in places that have no access for the disabled. Often polling booths are set up in small village halls or in odd corners here and there. Disabled people cannot get into those places. It is fundamentally important

Column 624

to our democracy that all people should have the right to vote, and it is wrong that some may be put off exercising their democratic right simply because they cannot get into a polling station. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider that point. Many buildings were not designed with the needs of the disabled in mind. That applies not simply to access to buildings, but to lifts. Someone in a wheelchair might be able to get into a lift, but be unable to reach the buttons to get to the required floor. The designers must bear in mind small things like that when they design buildings and the services in them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea has already mentioned trains. It is very difficult to adapt a train to the needs of the disabled once it has been built. However, if a little thought was given to the design in the earliest stages, every disabled person who wanted to travel by train would know that he could do so. Occasionally disabled people may decide not to bother even setting off on the journey because they know that they will not be able to get on the train. A little thought would go a long way.

Buses and conductors have also been mentioned. These days we have those horrible things called OPOs--one-person operated buses. We often see people struggling with babies or shopping trying to get on to them. The disabled have no chance of getting on. Buses should be designed in such a way as to allow the disabled to board them. The fare-paying public would be willing to pay a little extra to have a conductor. The modern double-decker buses in London are not a patch on the old Routemaster which was one of the best buses ever designed or built.

A pavement is something which most hon. Members simply walk along. If a paving stone is sticking up a little, one might trip over it, utter an oath and walk on. The incident is quickly forgotten. But for disabled people, particularly the blind, such a paving stone could cause a crashing fall. Very often there are holes in pavements. The utilities come along and dig them up. That is fair enough ; they probably have to do that. But more often than not, the hole is left inadequately guarded. There may be only a couple of cones on either side of the hole or a couple of rods stuck in the ground with a little sticky tape wound round them. The assumption is that most people will see the cones and ribbon and will take avoiding action. But a blind person cannot see the cones, ribbons or rods. Blind people have fallen into holes and hurt themselves seriously. It only needs a little thought. It is not very difficult to erect something slightly more rigid so that a blind person can knock against it with his stick and thus be warned of the obstruction.

Parked cars also constitute dangerous obstructions. If people park their cars on pavements there may not be enough room for a person in a wheelchair to pass and he may be forced out into the road. Blind people cannot always anticipate such obstructions. They will walk into parked cars or catch themselves on wing mirrors and hurt themselves. Again, it is a matter of a little thought, not only by those who are responsible for the design and layout of roads and pavements but by those who park their cars there. They see a gap, park their car and do not notice--they probably do not want to notice--that they have blocked ramps that were specifically constructed to enable someone in a wheelchair to get over the kerb. All too many of us are remarkably selfish. I appeal for a little thought for those who are less fortunate than we are.

Column 625

All too often those of us who can see do not spot dog mess on the pavement. A blind person has no chance at all. The first that he or she knows about treading into something revolting is when he or she get home and smells it. By that time they have trodden it into their carpet. That is horrible. Many thoughtless people let their dogs out at the start of the day. Some dogs are almost latchkey dogs ; they know that if they return at 6 o'clock their owners will be back to let them in. They spend the rest of the day running about. I am sure that you would rapidly rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I spoke at length about a dog registration scheme. Nevertheless, such a scheme would cause people to look after their dogs better. If people looked after their dogs better, that sort of incident would be less frequent.

Some organisations in my constituency are doing marvellous work. ARMS-- Action for Research into Multiple Sclerosis--has a facility that I have visited several times. It has all sorts of technology to help people who suffer from multiple sclerosis. One machine is almost like a diving chamber in which people can breathe pure oxygen at a higher pressure than normal. They find that helpful. Dial-a-ride has already been mentioned. I take this opportunity to take a swipe at London Regional Transport's regionalisation proposals. Dial-a-ride is presently organised on a local basis, and that is how local people want it to remain. They want to use it to visit local shops and visit friends locally. The vast majority do not want it to go miles away--they want it specifically for local activities. I hope that LRT will reconsider its proposals.

Dial--not to be confused with dial-a-ride--is devoted to the needs of disabled people and the resources that are due to them. Whitefield school in Walthamstow has acquired an excellent reputation for looking after children with all types of disability, especially autistic children. The parents of autistic children have great difficulties.

I congratulate my hon. Friend. This has been a marvellous occasion to discuss the disabled and the opportunities that should be open to them if people gave a little more thought and care. That message should go out from the House today.

11.54 am

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : The motion pays tribute to people with disabilities. I shall mention the achievements of one of my constituents, Melvyn Wall, who lives at Delves road, Killamarsh. Two years ago, he had a foot removed, and subsequently both legs were amputated below the knee. He now has artificial limbs and does his best in the circumstances. The motion pays tribute to "people with disabilities and to the dedication of individuals and organisations that support them."

The two organisations that support Melvyn Wall at the moment are the Sheffield Area Limbless Association and the Mosborough citizens advice bureau. The motion welcomes

"the measures taken by the Government, by local government". North-East Derbyshire district council is to be complimented on moving Melvyn Wall from a house on a hillside, because it was impossible for him to move around and about, to an old person's bungalow--although he is only 44--on flat ground opposite a supermarket and a

Next Section

Home Page