| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : I support the right hon. Gentleman, as I have before. Does he accept that the tide has already turned? The Education Bill now being considered in the House contains civil rights, backed by law, for children with special education needs. The principle has been established and acknowledged. Therefore, I hope that we can progress from that in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Morris : I accept that there has been progress and that further progress is being made. As I shall seek to explain in more detail, the organisations of and for
Column 1138
disabled people are not, however, seeking only piecemeal reform. They want comprehensive reform. I welcome every initiative to nudge things forward for disabled people in terms of civil rights. But today we have an opportunity to achieve comprehensive reform that will help all disabled people.One argument used by Ministers against legislative attempts to implement the CORAD report since 1982 was that they were defectively drafted. They said also that education and persuasion, rather than legislation, was still their preferred way forward. In the case of my own Bill--as the hon. Member for Exeter said, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill--which was given a Third Reading in another place on 4 November last, the Government could not realistically argue that it was defective, so they sat on the fence. Although I suspect, like the hon. Member for Exeter that the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) is a furtive supporter of the measure, the right hon. Member described his attitude as one of "benevolent neutrality", while a Government supporter, Mr. Robert Hayward, "talked out" the Bill when I first moved its Second Reading in this House on 31 January 1992. Five days later the former Member for Kingswood made a personal statement to the House in which he said : "on being asked whether I was talking out the Bill, I replied : I am not going to talk it out ; I am going to make my views known.'--[ Official Report, 31 January 1992 ; Vol. 202, c. 1259.] I now recognise that the effect of my words was to mislead hon. Members and that Members were entitled to assume I intended to resume my seat before 2.30 pm. I deeply regret having misled hon. Members in that way. I offer my unreserved apologies to you, Mr. Speaker, and to fellow hon. Members."--[ Official Report, 5 February 1992 : Vol. 203, c. 287.]
Nevertheless, the Bill was blocked in this House and disabled people all over Britain felt cheated by what happened. I am of course, most grateful to my noble Friend Lady Lockwood for having introduced my Bill with skill and success in another place, where it completed all its stages and was given a Third Reading on 4 November. Now it is back in this House and there will be a further opportunity, later today, for it to receive a Second Reading.
As the Law Society says, in its valuable recent report on discrimination against disabled people in the field of employment, the Bill is wholly viable for its purpose. I want to make it clear again today, however, that the Bill's all-party supporters are entirely open to any constructive suggestions for improving its provisions. The Bill makes it illegal for employers and service providers to discriminate unfairly against disabled people. It covers all people with physical, mental and sensory disabilities, and--as the hon. Member for Exeter said--it applies to jobs, housing, education and training, leisure faciilities, transport and access to buildings.
The Bill's sponsors, when I first presented it to this House, were drawn from every party, large and small. They included the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the hon. Members for Exeter, for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for
Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Their very names demonstrate that the argument now is not so much a clash between right and left, but one between right and wrong. If still further proof were needed that this is not a party issue it can be found in an admirable speech in another
Column 1139
place on 4 November by Lord Renton, formerly Sir David Renton and the Prime Minister's predecessor as Member of Parliament for Huntingdon, when he appealed to the Government to find time in this House for the Bill. He said : "It is extraordinary"--Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman of the tradition that there should be no such direct quotations. I am sure that he will be equal to paraphrasing the passage very nicely.
Mr. Morris : I do appreciate and accept that point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Lord Renton said that he regarded it as extraordinary and not very creditable that there had been such opposition or nonfeasance in the past. He said that when the Bill returned to the House, the Government should at least provide time for its discussion. He also added that it would be better still if Ministers could take on the Bill themselves and make it a Government Bill. Much to their honour, other Conservative peers gave the Bill their backing, just as many Conservative Members have also given it strong and consistent support.
All Members of whatever party know from their postbags that enactment of the Bill is anxiously awaited not only by their constituents who are disabled, but by all the organisations that work with and for them. I myself have had a huge correspondence in support of the Bill, from people of all parties and of none, and I want briefly to quote some of the letters sent to me by disabled people. Peter Large, whose distinguished work for disabled people all of us acknowledge, describes the Bill as providing :
"the essential foundation on which campaigns of education and persuasion can be mounted and true goodwill as opposed to do-gooding' can flourish."
He says as well :
"In the absence of such legislation people with disabilities will never be enabled fully to enjoy their rightful place in society." Peter Large is uniquely well qualified to make these comments. I appointed him to chair CORAD in 1979 and he says now :
"We were right to believe that campaigns to educate and persuade are too costly and ineffective in the absence of a legislative foundation of acceptable behaviour."
I want also to quote from a letter sent to me by Sir John Wilson, than whom very few people in any country can have given more distinguished service to blind people. A blind person himself, Sir John wrote simply :
"Good luck for your Bill on anti-discrimination. We'll all be rooting for you on Friday".
Richard Wood, the executive director of the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, who is also very highly respected for his work with and for disabled people, wrote :
"I cannot express how strongly we feel about the need for this legislation."
He went on to say that it is not piecemeal, but comprehensive reform that disabled people want to see.
In this regard I want to recall again the words of Martin Luther King, when he dismissed piecemeal reform and reliance on education and persuasion to end racial prejudice. He said :
"Morality cannot be legislated but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless".
We must all insist that it is an affront to civilised values, in a country claiming to respect human rights, for a citizen with a past or present disability to suffer prejudice,
Column 1140
exclusion and both demeaning and hurtful discrimination for no other reason than her or his disability. It is an utter disgrace that to the restrictions that disability imposes there are added the gratuitous extra handicaps that attitudinal and physical barriers create. Let no one imagine that such discrimination is a thing of the past.Dr. Julia Schofield, a woman doctor, who has spent most of her life helping fellow blind people, was recently awarded the MBE. When she arrived at Buckingham palace for the investiture, she was ordered to leave her guide dog, Amber, outside. She said afterwards that she felt demeaned and that her day was one tinged with sadness. She said :
"Inflexible bureaucracy has marred this special day for me and harmed the cause of the blind".
She described Amber as her "independence and confidence" and said :
"A guide dog isn't a pet. Mine is a valued part of my life. We need each other at all times".
A young policewoman was turned away from a charity event because she is confined to a wheelchair. Ironically, she became disabled while displaying conspicuous bravery in tackling a gunman. Look also at the blatant unfairness among employers who say that they will never shortlist disabled job applicants. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting was eminently right to place strong emphasis on the inexcusable attitude of some employers.
Wendy Lovatt, 21 years old, who was made severely deaf by meningitis after a serious road accident when she was seven, earned a brilliant degree at Manchester university. The only job she has had since graduating was a temporary one in a shop during the Christmas period. Her hearing aid enables her to use to a telephone and work normally, but again and again Wendy has been rejected by accountancy firms in favour of other applicants whose qualifications are inferior to her own.
"To mention you are disabled,"
she tells me,
"makes it virtually certain that you will not even be interviewed."
Is it any wonder that unemployment is three times higher among disabled than non-disabled job seekers? That statistic alone shouts the word "discrimination".
Again, who can justify the treatment of a successful candidate for a senior civilian post with a police authority who, because of her disability, but with no justification on the ground of special risk, was refused entry to its pension scheme? I speak with some experience as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension scheme.
If anyone still doubts that hurtful discrimination exists, he need look no further than a statement by the right hon. Member for Chelsea for a clear endorsement of what I am describing. He said that he had "no doubt that some employers' recruitment practices discriminate unfairly against people with disabilities."
The right hon. Gentleman also said :
"there exists too much prejudice against disabled people in this country and that leads to unjustified discrimination."
The right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) then Secretary of State for Health, told a CBI conference on employment and mental health that
"People who suffer mental illness can find themselves discriminated against. Ancient prejudices are still to be found in the 20th century workplace."
Nowhere is prejudice and discrimination more deeply entrenched than in employment practices. In the queue for
Column 1141
jobs, disabled people are the tail-enders in the longest queue in Britain today. Yet for them unemployment is a double handicap and leads to double despair. They seek not sympathy but social fairness ; not the dependence of state benefits but the dignity and independence of becoming taxpayers ; not expressions of compassion but practical concern for their right to become full citizens in a society about which one highly skilled disabled person wrote to me recently : "It would be an exaggeration to describe my present status as that even of a second-class citizen".All of us know that the 3 per cent. quota scheme is now a dismal failure. More than three quarters of employers subject to its requirements do not meet the quota. There have been no prosecutions of defaulting employers since 1979. Large numbers of employable disabled people aged 16 to 64-- perhaps as many as 1.2 million--are excluded from official unemployment statistics. Although they are very much out of work, they are hidden by the Government's figures. At present only 1 per cent. of the work force is registered as disabled ; yet, according to official surveys, well over 3 per cent. are registrable.
For their part, Ministers take the same view of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 as they do of my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. They prefer education and persuasion to legal requirements, but the more repetitively they state their view, the more tragically unemployment grows among employable disabled people. That is not, however, the clinching argument against the Government's preferred way forward. If education and persuasion alone can achieve equal opportunities for disabled people, why is the Government's own record as an employer so poor? They are huge employers and if education and persuasion are better than legal requirements, why have they neither educated nor persuaded themselves to employ more disabled people? How persuasive is the advocate who cannot persuade himself? That is the clinching argument against what has been the Government's preferred view of the way forward.
In 1991, the Department of the Environment had 0.9 per cent. of its employees who were registered as disabled ; in 1989 the figure was 1 per cent. The Department of Health employed 0.7 per cent. registered disabled, the same figure as for 1989. The Home Office employed 0.4 per cent. in 1991 compared with 0.3 per cent. in 1989 ; and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office employed 0.3 per cent. in 1991 compared with 0.5 per cent. in 1989. With figures like that to explain, Ministers are being told, not only by disabled people but by many employers, that it is not what they say that impresses those whom they lecture about education and persuasion, but what they do. I must make it clear that my figures about the record of Government Departments came from the Cabinet Office in December.
None of the sponsors of my Bill has ever claimed that it can be a magic wand to remove all discrimination over night. We know that we cannot right the wrongs of centuries in a moment of time but we insist that attempts to educate and persuade that are not founded in fundamental rights set by law will end in failure. To succeed, any educational process requires a sound and rational base. That was one of the reasons for legislating on sex and race discrimination, and it applies with the same force now to disability. That is why the Employment
Column 1142
Select Committee in its report on employment and disability of December 1990, commended the case for equal opportunities law to the Government. The Select Committee argued, quite rightly, that no amount of voluntary codes of good practice, or public relations exercises like the lamentable "two ticks" scheme, can be sufficient to make employers recognise the need for justified change to which they are resistant.Practical social gains will result from enacting civil rights legislation, other than for its direct beneficiaries. The greater integration of disabled people into the mainstream of our national life--as workers, consumers and taxpayers--adds to wealth by reducing their dependence on benefits and increasing the economic contribution that they can make. This is no academic point. When the Americans with Disabilities Act was passing through Congress, the realisation of that effect secured the support of more and more of its former critics. They began to talk not only of its possible cost, but of its undoubted economic and social value.
There will no doubt be references in the House today to the costs of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill [Lords] , but, of course, the Bill cannot become law without direct Government involvement in quantifying and determining its costs. What disabled people ask is why those who speak only about the costs of legislating never seem to reflect on the costs to them of leaving the law as it stands. How do commentators who preoccupy themselves with costing legislation quantify the economic loss to the country of unemployment on the present grievous scale among disabled people seeking work? By common consent, they are among the least fortunate and most distressed of all the victims of the jobs famine.
Employers and others who now so hurtfully discriminate against disabled people argue that they are doing nothing illegal, but where does that leave young Wendy Lovatt and other disabled people who yearn for an opportunity to show that they have abilities as well as disabilities? What they say is that if the injustice they have to endure is allowed by existing law, then the law must be changed. In other words, if the law permits palpable wrong, there is manifest need for new law. Again, if piecemeal or ad hoc reform is suggested as an alternative to the Bill, disabled people will want to know how and within what time scale it will remedy the suffering that they endure. Their most earnest wish is that the House should take the further opportunity that we have today to support the Bill, and I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to accept Lord Renton's eloquent plea by giving the Bill their backing.
The Bill's passage through another place was an important milestone. Never before has a Bill to end discrimination against disabled people been approved by either House of Parliament. The Law Society's support is also most heartening, as is that of so many Conservative Members for the early- day motion sponsored so successfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry). Our purpose is solely and simply to secure for 6.5 million British people the rights that everyone else takes for granted.
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman with great attention, interest and sympathy. Before he finishes, may I let him and the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) know, as they have both taken such a keen interest in transport for
Column 1143
disabled people, that London Transport has come up with a new bus that is specially adapted for disabled people? I hope that it will be just right for them. I shall unveil the first next month. Let us hope that that will be a move forward for disabled people travelling in London.Mr. Morris : I very much welcome that important initiative for disabled Londoners. I rejoice in the launch to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will, I am sure, want to send congratulations on, and all good wishes for, the success of that important initiative. Our purpose today is simply and solely to secure for 6.5 million British people the rights that everyone else takes for granted. If the concept of citizens' rights means anything, it must mean that disabled people can now no longer be denied full social equality. I am reminded again of that striking and very moving photograph of two baby girls, widely displayed by the Spastics Society, with the caption :
"One of them has cerebral palsy, the other will grow up with full human rights".
That is what the motion and the Civil Rights Bill are all about. 10.47 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss (Cambridgeshire, North-East) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on coming top in the ballot and on introducing such an important motion. I add to that congratulations to my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and for Blackpool (Mr. Elletson). The latter was sitting next to me, but, when he realised that I was about to speak, went off to get a cup of coffee.
Disabled people are an enormous cohort in our society and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) said, 6 million to 7 million people are deemed to have some form of disability. That is approaching 10 per cent. of our population. No society or Government could ignore a group as large as that, with specific and identifiable needs. Some 2.5 million of that total are disabled people of working age and that represents a large problem. During the International Year for Disabled People in 1981, the BBC commissioned a Gallup survey, which showed that around one third of the population was seriously affected in one way or another, either personally or as a result of family connections with disability in some shape or form. Today, we refocus on the problems of disabled people and more specifically on their civil rights. There have been many debates over the past few years, both in the House and in the other place, on these very topics. I noted that a private Member's motion on disabled people was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who I am delighted to see in his place this morning. I have no doubt that he will make his usual important contribution. In March 1991, an Adjournment debate on these matters was initiated by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). The Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill took place in January 1992. The Bill was introduced by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshaw (Mr. Morris), who is renowned as one of the most important Members in terms of supporting the disabled. The same Bill was introduced by Baroness Lockwood in the other place in February 1992. It fell because of the
Column 1144
general election, but it was reintroduced and obtained its Second Reading in June that year. The Bill now stands on today's Order Paper. Our attention was drawn to that fact by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who made his usual sort of intervention, got his usual sound bite on the record and then disappeared for his coffee.It is not only the involvement of Members in the problems of disabled people that is important. The interest that is shown by Members is clear from the good attendance in the Chamber this morning. We should be very much concerned, however, with the aspirations of disabled people. They wish to lead as normal a life as possible. Naturally, they want a fulfilled life. They want to live independently. They hate being labelled as disabled or handicapped because that denotes some sort of inferiority or second- rateness. They wish to be free to choose what they want. They do not wish to be dictated to by Members, by the Government or by public authorities on what is best for them.
Disabled people want the right to a job. They want to be allowed to undertake productive work that gives them fulfilment and yields a tangible result. They reject sympathy and condescension. They certainly resent being patronised. They need the dignity that we enjoy from our employment and our lives and they wish to achieve it by determining their own destiny.
Those are tall orders and they present a great challenge to both disabled people and society as a whole. My experience with disabled people began about 10 years ago when I was mayor of a small town in my constituency, Wisbech, and I was introduced for the first time to the voluntary sector. It was a revelation. I pay tribute to the many thousands, if not millions, of people who day by day devote their time and energy to the disabled. It is sad that many people do not realise how much work goes on behind the scenes. So much work is unrecognised, but tremendous help is being given to make the lives of the disabled people more acceptable.
I pay tribute to the many organisations in my constituency that are engaged in helping the disabled, including the Fenland Association for Community Transport, the local physically handicapped and able bodied enterprise, the St. Raphael club, the talking newsletter, the Alzheimer's Disease Society and many others.
Later, having been mayor of Wisbech, I became the chairman of the local social services committee of Cambridgeshire county council. I was introduced for the first time to the public sector involvement in caring for disabled people and in providing social services across the board. The local committee was an extremely useful organisation because it regularly brought together the public, the private and the voluntary sectors. That process involved carers and the cared for, including disabled people. It gave them a say in the range and quality of the services on offer. There were regular inspections of establishments and the committee received reports. I found it a vital liaison between the providers and their customers. I advocate that sort of local organisation as a model of best practice and I have no doubt that it has been adopted elsewhere. In Cambridgeshire, I found it an extremely important experience.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Wythenshaw, has been extremely important. My own experience brought this home to me when, about two years
Column 1145
ago, a wheelchair-bound young lady, Miss Helen Brown, who resides at the Octavia health centre at Wisbech, wrote to tell me that she found it extremely difficult to get into the town centre to do her shopping and other normal things. She challenged me to push her into town and back. I take note of the recommendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that when we next have a disability awareness day we should become involved. I had my experience of involvement, as I have said, two years ago.Most carers are probably women and probably most of them weigh about 10 stone. Most wheelchairs seem never to go in the direction in which one wishes to send them. I am no 10-stone weakling but a 14-stone--overweight-- ex-rugby player. Even so, I found it extremely difficult to negotiate the footpaths into town from the Octavia health centre. As a result of that experience and the determination of the wheelchair-bound young lady, we caused the council to make the necessary changes en route so that in future those being pushed in wheelchairs would not have negotiate a nasty pavement edge every few hundred yards.
My experience brought to light the problems that arise with pedestrianisation. Most of us welcome the process of releasing our town centres to the pedestrian so that he or she can shop properly, but it causes immense problems for disabled people, especially those who need to get their cars close to a shop and those who rely on wheelchairs. There are several problems in my constituency in this regard. It is important that local authorities, especially planning authorities, take into account the needs of the disabled when they are considering pedestrianisation. There are far more people who need to get close to shops than is generally recognised.
It is clear from our personal experiences and our postbags that there are disadvantages for disabled people in almost every area of daily life. They are to be found in housing, education and training, transport and employment. The disabled experience difficulty in gaining access to buildings as well as to leisure and arts facilities and public services. The hon. Member for Tooting said that the consequences of the problems faced by disabled people embrace every Member of this place and that is true. Not a week passes without our receiving correspondence on the matter.
What is the Government's record? Have they responded to the problems? Since 1979, total spending on benefits, both for disabled people and those who care for them, has increased from £3 billion to about £15 billion in the last financial year. That is an increase of about £9.9 billion, or 300 per cent. in real terms. It would be churlish to suggest that that is not a commendable record. Next year, an extra £300 million will be made available. There will be two new benefits--the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance. The DLA will give extra help for the first time to about 250,000 less severely disabled people. Some problems have arisen, as we all know from our postbags, because of the volume of the claims that are being made. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister has taken this problem on board. We now have a special streamlined service to ensure that claims are processed as quickly as possible. The Government have an influence on employment, leisure and living in the community. There has been talk
Column 1146
this morning about the 3 per cent. quota for employers. Many people think that the system is extremely flawed. It deals only with the recruitment of disabled people. In other words, it does not promote effective employment policies. It also depends on people registering as disabled, which in many cases conflicts with their self- image. They would not prefer to see themselves as individuals, not as some kind of stereotype.Many people would agree with the Public Accounts Committee's comment that the quota scheme is "ineffective, outdated and unenforceable". The problem is that, although it is imperfect, to abolish it would probably weaken the position of the disabled by sending the wrong signals to employers. I urge the House and the Government to examine every alternative before that legislation is thrown out or replaced.
Over the years, the Employment Service has been tasked with examining more carefully the needs of the disabled and I am pleased to report that it is now exceeding its target of placing disabled people in jobs. All Employment Service training schemes and others to help people back into work are available to the disabled. Financial help is available to employers to help with special difficulties and applications under that heading are increasing all the time. As to leisure, the two main considerations are access to arts facilities--particularly theatres--and sports. In the Second Reading debate on 15 June 1992, Lord Rix spoke of the problems of access to London theatres and arts functions generally. The ADAPT fund, started in 1989 and run jointly by the Government and the Carnegie Trust, provides resources to help arts establishments, including theatres, to make their premises more accessible to those with disabilities. Although that fund exists, an enormous amount of work remains to be done in London theatres alone.
In 1991-92, the Sports Council spent £1 million promoting sport for people with disabilities--money extremely well spent. That was brought home to me when I watched the paralympics last year, which were a revelation in more ways than one. I refer not only to the standards achieved by the disabled people, but the tremendous joy of fulfilment that the participants experienced from participating in sport at that high level. That was an example to us all of what can be done with determination and with facilities provided through Government funding. That event was massively helpful in bridging the perceived gap between the disabled and their needs and the general public. The more money that can go into sport and be used to involve the disabled in that mainstream human activity, the better.
As to living in the community, the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Act 1992 comes into effect in April. The total community care transition grant for the next financial year will be ring-fenced at £565 million--an enormous sum. There was lengthy debate in the Chamber about whether the fund should be ring-fenced and I am delighted that the Government ultimately saw fit to ensure that. The independent living fund will be replaced by two successor bodies. One will maintain cash payments to all existing beneficiaries and the other, for those aged 16 to 65, will help the most severely disabled to live independently in the community. That arrangement will provide services
Column 1147
at the same cost of residential home or nursery home care and councils have been allocated an extra £26 million for that purpose. The motion in the name of the hon. Member for Tooting and the Bill both relate to discrimination, which is difficult to define because no relevant legislation or monitoring body exists. There is certainly evidence of disadvantage, to which I have already alluded. There are two types of discrimination. Evidence of the positive form is, unfortunately, mainly anecdotal, but obviously there is and will continue to be discrimination--particularly against those seeking employment. Passive discrimination can be the unthinking actions that we all take without giving any consideration to the needs of the disabled. Because we do not give them enough thought, we effectively bar them from participating or using facilities. I have in mind access to buildings, transport and educational facilities. The Bill deals not only with those matters but homes in on anti-discrimination employment legislation. A plus point is that any such measure would send a positive message to employers. The problem is that disability can be relevant to job performance and it could be problematical to a prospective employer, who needs to fit the talents of the interviewee with the job, to bear in mind any legislation pertaining to the disabled.Such legislation is also difficult to draft, because the definition is so uncertain. If uncertainty exists, employers may be more reluctant to hire disabled people and the relationships that we have tried to foster between employers and the disabled over the years could be damaged--and produce a result contrary to that which we envisaged.
The commission that would have to be established would be expensive. The Equal Opportunities Commission established in 1990 cost £4.6 million and it is expected that a commission to protect the civil rights of the disabled would cost more.
I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members present in the Chamber are extremely supportive of the purpose behind both the motion and the Bill that was originally introduced by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. The nub of the question is whether we go for gradual and piecemeal reform, much of which has already been achieved, as against comprehensive and overarching legislation. Although I sympathise with the Bill's sentiments, it has serious and wide-ranging cost implications for employers, the transport industry and the construction and property industries. For example, the cost of installing a lift in an underground station would be £750,000. If one replicated that expense across the whole London Underground network, the capital cost would be in the region of £500 million. Perhaps the Bill seeks to achieve too much at a single stroke. It has experienced difficulty up to now in that regard and we will have to wait until my hon. Friend the Minister speaks before we know whether attitudes have changed in respect of attracting Treasury support.
Mr. Bowis : I would not want the House to be confused. My hon. Friend is right that costs will be incurred in adapting underground stations for use by the disabled. We must weigh up that cost, but I hope that we will accept it as right, proper and necessary. That is why those of us who represent London constituencies constantly press London Underground and British Rail to do more. As to
Column 1148
employment, I trust that my hon. Friend does not believe that the Bill would do anything absurd. It aims to ensure that, other things being equal--a phrase used time and again when the Bill last came before us--there should be no discrimination against a person simply on the ground of his disability.Mr. Moss : I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and entirely agree with his remarks. I certainly did not misunderstand that point. The problem is that it would be extremely difficult to make that case hold in law, were the Bill to get on to the statute book.
11.9 am
Ms. Liz Lynne (Rochdale) : I express my support and that of my party for the motion and for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for enabling us to debate this important issue ; it is only a pity that we are not debating the Second Reading of the Bill.
The first attempt to improve the position of people with disabilities in this country was made in 1968. Unfortunately, it was unsuccessful, but it led to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which gave local authorities various functions to assist disabled people and made particular reference to transport and access to buildings.
More than 20 years later, many people with disabilities still have great difficulty in gaining access to all buildings. The one that we are in at the moment is a prime example which has already been given by many hon. Members. Some 63 per cent. of disabled people in London rely on public transport, but can often use the services provided only with much difficulty. A further 29 per cent. are unable to use public transport. People with disabilities need the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. More than that, they have the right to expect their Parliament to respond to their demands and enshrine their rights in law.
My party would go beyond that and would say that all British people should have their rights enshrined in a Bill of Rights. We are talking not about an insignificant but vocal minority of the population who are clamouring for special treatment, but about a large section of the population who should be heard and, even more important, listened to.
A Gallup poll published during the International Year of Disabled People in 1981 showed that 29 per cent. of the population were affected by disability, either directly or by family ties. The precise number of people with disabilities in this country is hard to determine accurately, but it is thought to be about 6.5 million. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf estimates that about 7.5 million people have some form of hearing loss. That is not an insiginficant minority. Furthermore, it is clear that those people are not asking for special treatment but are demanding the same rights as the rest of us enjoy. For example, a survey in the south- east showed that 40 per cent. of employers thought that disabled people were unsuitable for employment. This is clearly unacceptable and a law must be introduced to protect disabled people's rights.
The response that is often made is that legislation will not change people's attitudes. My reply is that surely some things in society are unacceptable and hon. Members should say so. One of those things is discrimination in any form, but in particular against people with disabilities. I
Column 1149
grew up in a home for people with disabilities which was run by my mother and encountered discrimination daily. One of my best friends was four or five years older than me. She and I used to go all over the place together and people spoke to me but never to her. That was one form of discrimination. If we had a civil rights or anti-discrimination Bill, it would at least give a signal to the country that people with disabilities are human beings and have the same rights as everybody else. That was one of the things that inspired me to go into politics.Enshrining those rights in law will help people to think about the issue of disability and discrimination. Many members of the public and employers may be unaware of the level of discrimination that is experienced by people with disabilities. Many points that may seem obvious to us taking part in this debate may not be thought about by other people. An example of that was access to polling stations at the general election. I am sure that no one intended to prevent people with disabilities from voting, but none the less it was reported that only 12 per cent. of polling stations at the last election were accessible to all and as a consequence some disabled people were unable to vote. I hope that that will be considered before the local elections in May.
Mr. McMaster : The Government provide a 50 per cent. grant to make polling stations accessible by providing temporary ramps. Why not offer the option of a permanent ramp, if that is more suitable, thereby giving schools, churches and many other community buildings permanent access?
Ms. Lynne : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly the point that I was trying to make. It is a disgrace that buildings are not accessible on a regular basis so that people have a right to use them and do not have to say, "I have a disabled person with me. May we have a ramp?" Again, that discriminates against disabled people.
Another fine example comes from the Government. The Railways Bill makes no provision for groups representing people with disabilities. Most notably, the disabled persons transport advisory committee was not properly consulted about the services that were to be provided. If education and exhortation are so effective, why have they not reached the Department of Transport?
The case for a comprehensive civil rights Bill for people with disabilities is overwhelming. No doubt hon. Members will have received much briefing material on this issue and many will have seen some of the statistics, which highlight why the Bill is so important. As the hon. Member for Tooting and many others have said, there continues to be massive employment discrimination against people with disabilities. They are six times more likely to be refused a job interview and two and a half times more likely to be unemployed than the overall population. No doubt, discrimination in employment is a major reason why two thirds of people with disability live below the poverty line.
Why has there been an almost 100 per cent. increase in homelessness among physically disabled people? We should not think of all disabled people as having mobility problems or being in a wheelchair. Wheelchair users account for only 5 per cent. of disabled people. We should not assume that other people with disabilities do not meet discrimination. The Royal National Institute for the Blind
Column 1150
has catalogued examples of discrimination, including a partially sighted person who was asked to leave a gallery when she used an magnifiying glass to view a work. A blind man was barred from a conference because he was not accompanied. A deaf and blind man was denied use of leisure facilities if he was unaccompanied. Much has to be done and the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is a significant step forward. It will give people with disabilities the confidence that they have Parliament and the law behind them in their struggle for equality.I urge all hon. Members to support the motion and, most important, if it is carried, to allow the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill to have a formal Second Reading later this afternoon so that we may proceed with the debate in Committee.
11.18 am
| Next Section
| Home Page |