| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1175
1.1 pmThe Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott) : It may be useful if I intervene to clarify the Government'sposition on the motion and the Bill to which it relates.
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry) emphasised strongly his view that the Government and the House should listen with great care to what we are told about the day-to-day experience of disabled people. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government do that and that much of the progress that we have made in providing for disabled people in recent years has been a direct result of representations, to which successive Ministers have listened, from organisations of and for disabled people. That is a practice which we intend to continue.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on his success in the ballot and on his opening speech. The hon. Gentleman's success and the early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Kingswood may not have kept me awake at night, but they have added substantially to my work load, which will no doubt be a cause of some satisfaction to both hon. Members.
I congratulate all the hon. Members who have spoken in a universally high- quality debate. Many hon. Members have spoken with direct personal experience of the impact of disability on themselves or their families or from direct constituency experience. The issue of disability affects every single constituency in the country and therefore every hon. Member, irrespective of party or region. If it is within the rules of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to draw attention to the fact that attendance in the Gallery has been higher than it usually is on a Friday. That, too, is a tribute to the interest of this important matter.
I pay tribute to the all-party disability group for its sustained efforts. Successive Ministers, from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) to myself, have found it of immense benefit to receive the advice given to us and the pressure--sometimes welcome, sometimes not so welcome--placed on us by the dedicated members of that group.
The hon. Member for Tooting and at least one other hon. Member read out a list of some of the organisations of and for disabled people which play such an important part in these discussions and identify the way forward on disability.
My opposite number, the Minister for Disability in France, Michel Gillibert, regards the pattern of voluntary organisations in the United Kingdom as one of its absolute glories. He said that he wished he had the same advantage as I have in being able to seek the advice and support of those organisations. I might have said that sometimes it was a mixed blessing--nevertheless, it is a blessing.
I reiterate the point that was made about the importance of the role of the Prince of Wales in keeping a sustained interest in the subject and persuading many others to take it much more seriously than they have previously. The son of a former Member of Parliament is the secretary to His Royal Highness's group and he is in regular contact with the Government on a range of issues.
I shall make a few general points, move on to the Bill and then put on record some of the things that the Government are doing as an alternative to legislation. To come back to the point of the hon. Member for
Column 1176
Kingswood, I do not think that anyone who has listened to the debate can doubt for a moment that there continues to be considerable discrimination against disabled people.Although the Government's approach may not have solved the problem in its entirety--nor, incidentally, do I believe that the Bill would solve the problem in its entirety--I hope to be able to show that we have made substantial progress and have plans to make further substantial progress in the future.
We have listened to a number of graphic illustrations of discrimination against disabled people of one sort or another, including the sad story of Dr. Schofield and Amber. I trust that my good friend Quellar has managed to gain access to the Gallery and is listening intently to the debate. Several other graphic examples of discrimination have been given.
Everyone who has done my job must be aware that discrimination exists. It exists and it is wrong. As I said previously, it is remarkably silly because it does not benefit society or those who discriminate against others. I shall explain and expand on that in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) stressed the tremendous pool of skills and commitment among disabled people, much of which is not been taken advantage of by employers. There is a huge market with 6 million disabled people in the United Kingdom. Cinema and theatre owners and managers and a whole range of other people who sell services or goods ignore that huge market in a short sighted way. We know about the disabled people who were turned away from cinemas showing films such as "My Left Foot" and "Born on the Fourth of July". Both films involved disability issues, yet disabled people were unable to get into cinemas to see them. It is remarkably silly and short-sighted.
We know about the aspirations of disabled people to the maximum quality of life--to be able to live independently to the greatest extent posssible and to exercise control over their lives. Looking in, as it were, from the outside, it is easy to talk about disabled people as though they were a homogenous group. But they are parents, children, athletes, artists, craftsmen and employees. They are all the things that the rest of us are. Everything that applies to us applies equally to disabled people. We should all be clear about the common humanity of which I spoke when I last addressed the issue. As the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) said, for many of us, disability is but an accident away or perhaps a few years away with the inevitable onset of the impact of age on our quality of life.
I have been lucky recently to be closely in touch with sport and disabled people, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) referred. Yesterday I attended the opening by Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales of a new Douglas Bader centre for sporting-based rehabilitation at the Roehampton hospital. Tremendous co-operation was involved in providing the wonderful facilities at that new centre and funds were raised by the Douglas Bader Foundation.
The day before the opening--this is of particular relevance to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton--I attended the annual media awards of the British Sports Association for the Disabled. Those of us who follow such events closely are aware that, increasingly, sport for disabled people is covered along with mainstream sporting activities and is no longer
Column 1177
tucked away on some odd page. That is a tremendous help in raising the general level of awareness of disability. Anyone who enjoyed the magic and the glory of the paralympics at Barcelona will never forget the experience.The general points that I have made indicate the angle from which I approach the issue. I hope that they will not go amiss. But I now have to turn to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman addresses the Bill, I remind him that we have before us a motion. It would not be appropriate to go through the Bill in depth, although, obviously, some allusions to it are entirely in order.
Mr. Scott : I have no intention of being so disorderly as that, but the motion refers to legislation and that is the issue which I wish to address.
I suppose that my head and my heart divide on the Bill. Of course, I should like to be able to say from the Dispatch Box that we should let the Bill go forward into Committee. But my head warns me and convinces me that that would not be right. I say that with reluctance and a degree of sadness. It would not be right to allow the Bill to go into Committee and be discussed because it would arouse expectations about the outcome of progress on any such legislation which might have to be dashed in due course.
Mr. Wigley : The Minister may be about to clarify the matter, but while he says that he cannot encourage legislation that has passed through another place, can he none the less confirm that the Government accept the principle that legislation has a role in anti-discrimination?
Mr. Scott : The hon. Gentleman was present at a meeting with the all -party disability group on Tuesday this week attended by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security and myself. He will have heard the Prime Minister give me a remit to enter discussions with the group on whether and, if so, how legislation could play any part in seeking to reduce or eliminate discrimination against disabled people. I have accepted that remit with enthusiasm and I shall honour it in the full spirit in which the task was given to me.
Mr. Cox : I am pleased by the Minister's last comment, but disappointed to hear of his reluctance to allow the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill to go to Committee. Surely all hon. Members who have been in the House a while know that the difficulties can be explained to the general public in Committee. Sadly, many people will think that it is a dodge-out and if there are genuine reasons, will wonder why the Government do not want to try to explain them or discuss them openly in Committee.
Mr. Scott : We must consider the basic shape of any legislation. As the hon. Member for Tooting knows, we have legislated on various issues, such as facilities and services for disabled people. Legislation covering access and employment already exists. As issues come to the fore, there may be new directly targeted legislation. Beyond that, we must question whether anti-discriminatory legislation could be introduced without the over- arching pattern of the legislation that has passed through another place. Undoubtedly, expenses for the Government and
Column 1178
other providers would be implicit in the passage of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and we need to deal with such issues. I am sceptical and my head warns me against the principle of such over-arching legislation. I am in favour of targeted legislation, even if it is wider than that passed to date. Those are the issues that I want to discuss and which incline me to be sceptical about the common sense of allowing the Bill to pass into legislation, since its fundamental shape is not acceptable to the Government.The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which has passed through another place, is wide ranging and would imply considerable costs for employers, suppliers and the Government. The hon. Members for Tooting and for Kingswood said that the Government's approach has not worked. I cannot claim that it has had 100 per cent. success, but anyone who considers fairly what has happened under successive Governments during the past 20 years will recognise that real progress has been made.
I well understand the impatience of many hon. Members--the impatience of many disabled people is even more understandable--at the pace of progress, but there has undoubtedly been progress. Having considered the matter carefully and facilitated the meeting between the all-party disablement group and the Prime Minister on Tuesday, the Government have concluded--not without some reluctance--that a general approach would create more problems than it would solve.
Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston) : In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, does he agree that if a Standing Committee dealt with the Bill for two or three Wednesdays, it would be a good opportunity for those issues and some of the difficulties to be thrashed out? As a sponsor of the Bill I agree that it has imperfections, but it seems to be eactly the sort of Bill that needs a dummy run in Committee. If the Government listened to the objections and thrashed out the issues they could return next Session with legislation which would perhaps have a better run than would otherwise be the case.
Mr. Scott : I accept that that would be one way forward, but if the Bill went into Committee it would be likely to arouse expectations outside the House--inside the House poeple realise what is happening--and result in disappointment. A better way forward would be for me to accept the remit from the Prime Minister and go to the drawing board with the all-party disablement group to have a fresh look at the concept of legislation and the breadth that it might or might not have. I understand why my hon. Friend might prefer an alternative approach, but, having agreed on our plan with the all-party disablement group earlier this week, I believe that that is the best way forward.
Some comparison has been made between the proposals in the Bill that passed through another place and existing legislation against discrimination on grounds of race and gender. I know that those analogies have been drawn in support of the Bill. I believe that there is a difference, however, between anti-discrimination legislation for people with disabilities and our long- standing legislation against discrimination on grounds of race or gender. As has already been made clear, the category of people with disabilities embraces a considerable number of people with different needs and there are different sorts of
Column 1179
discrimination against people who happen to have any particular one of a range of disabilities. Broadly, we can divide the disabled population into those who are sensorily, physically or mentally impaired in one way or another. Even those wide groups have different needs in terms of accessibility to employment, transport and buildings. When we are dealing with sex and race discrimination, however, we are talking about broad groups of people whose needs can be addressed broadly. Discrimination against disabled people is more complicated and it is therefore likely to need more complicated legislation, or even separate Bills--should we decide that legislation is right--to address the different problems that arise.Dr. Berry : Does the Minister believe that the problem of alleged discrimination against disabled people is identifying that discrimination, or does he believe that the problem is identifying the action to respond to it? What is it about such legislation that makes it fundamentally different from discrimination on the grounds of race or gender?
Mr. Scott : It is perfectly possible for the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Race Relations Board to take a comprehensive view of the impact of discrimination upon those under their remit. If we were to identify discrimination against people with disabilities in terms of access, we already have the disabled persons transport advisory committee, which draws up regulations to enable transport to be properly provided. The existing building regulations advisory committees deal with problems of access to buildings. We have a range of similar organisations that are much better able to deal with practices that turn out to discriminate against disabled people than would be an over-arching commission with a remit to look at every sector where discrimination occurs. I believe that the sector -by-sector approach is likely to provide a more expert and, in the long run, more effective approach than tackling discrimination with an over- arching commission, as recommended in the Bill that passed through the other place.
Mr. Alfred Morris : There is nothing in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which conflicts with the Minister's proposition about the diversity of disabled people. All of us who were involved in the making of that Bill totally recognised that one cannot lump all disabled people together. How can we possibly reject the recommendations of a Select Committee of the House? To talk to people from all parties now leaves aside the very important point that there has been detailed discussion in a Select Committee. How can we ignore what the Law Society said? How can we ignore what was said by Lord Renton, who is a distinguished lawyer and an extremely long-serving Member of the House, as well as of the Conservative party?
Mr. Scott : I think that I have said before, both to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman, that my judgment is that it would be best for me to take the advice and expertise of the all-party disablement group, which has a tremendous body of knowledge. We can consider whether the over- arching principle makes sense or whether it would be better to tackle the problem sector by sector. That will have to remain a point of difference between the right hon. Gentleman and me.
Column 1180
I wonder whether the over-arching approach suggested in some quarters might simply turn out to be a legal bean feast for lawyers. The enthusiasm of the Law Society for it makes my eyebrows twitch a little. I have no hostility towards the Law Society, but the definitions in the Bill are extremely wide. The question of how to define a person with a disability has scope for tremendous argument. It is difficult to know whether concepts such as "reasonable accommodation" can be interpreted in an even-handed way across the board. A number of issues would be better treated using a sector-by-sector approach, without creating a vast new bureaucracy which I fear could flow from some of the suggestions made today. I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak and we have just one hour left, so I shall merely say a few words about the Government's approach to the subject. We have been trying to work with business, industry, voluntary organisations and other levels of government to bring about changes in society's attitudes, promote equality, develop services and create an environment in which people with disabilities can fully participate in our national life. I believe that we have come a long way, but I do not disguise the fact that much remains to be done if we are to achieve our ends. Spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people has trebled in this Government's lifetime. New benefits have been introduced and the scale and scope of provision for disabled people through the benefits system have improved. The Government have shown their commitment by providing extra resources for those new benefits.There has, inevitably, today been much discussion of transport. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) urged us to make a start ; we have done more than that and have gone a long way down the road, railway or canal-- whichever analogy one wants to use. About 50 per cent. of buses are now covered by the DPTAC specification. We are trying to work in partnership with industry on a range of transport issues to ensure that the needs of disabled people are taken into account at the design stage. Only recently, I saw a taxi that had been designed by a British company and could be used in all European capital cities to meet the needs of disabled people. I hope that the designers will make progress with it.
Some 90 per cent. of new buses now contain the features recommended to help disabled people. All InterCity routes are wheelchair accessible and new rolling stock that is introduced will offer full access. I pay special tribute to Mr. Bill Buchanan, who chairs the committee that advises British Rail on accessibility. Of course, we face problems.
Mr. Harold Elletson (Blackpool, North) : While I am sure that we all welcome the improvements in InterCity services that guarantee accessibility to disabled passengers, that is not much good when InterCity services are withdrawn--as they have been from London to Blackpool. Will my right hon. Friend join me in pressing British Rail to restore those links, particularly for the benefit of disabled passengers, many of whom usually visit Blackpool on holiday every year, but will be unable to do so?
Mr. Scott : My hon. Friend has made his point and I doubt whether he needs my support to make his case. I am
Column 1181
sure that he will be highly effective as he goes about achieving it, but I should be glad to have a word with him later.All new licensed taxi cabs in London must now be wheelchair accessible and another 60 licensing authorities have adopted the same policy. All this has happened without the need for legislation ; education, persuasion and awareness have brought it about. I welcome the interest expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) in this aspect as it relates to buses--taxis tend to be expensive. The next stage must therefore be to develop fully accessible buses. There are to be trials in two areas later this year. London Transport will try out 68 vehicles in north and west London and Go-Ahead Northern-Coastline is to run vehicles in north Tyneside.
Access to buildings is immensely important, too. I will not go into detail except to express my strongly held view that the work carried forward by the building regulations advisory committee, which is looking into the design of new housing, should be given a fair wind. We all know how expensive it is to adapt a house once it has been built. The extra expense of building accessible houses from scratch is likely to turn out to be minimal.
Hon. Members have discussed loops. Part M of the new building regulations, which came into effect a few months ago, specifies the need for induction loops or infra-red hearing systems in booking and ticket offices, large reception areas, auditoriums and meeting rooms above a certain size. That shows that we have made a certain amount of progress.
I take the point about the Palace of Wesminster. We shall be discussing that. Some Members of the House and of the other place have suffered from disabilities and we are all conscious of the need for members of the public with disabilities to be given proper access to their Parliament. A consultant is looking at the pattern of provision in the Palace, with the idea of making recommendations. As for access to employment, there has been a growing realisation of the inadequacies of the quota system to tackle the problem of employment of disabled people. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has this under review and I hope that we may hear from her in the not-too-distant future.
I know that I will have disappointed many in the House and elsewhere by our attitude to legislation. I am certainly not complacent about the Government's achievements. We have done well, but we can do better. Education and persuasion remain important parts of the way forward, but I reiterate my commitment, given to the all-party disability group earlier this week, to enter, with the Prime Minister's encouragement, into constructive discussion of any possible way forward that involves legislation.
1.33 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) : I rise with some apprehension to speak in a debate which has, in a sense, been going on since long before I had responsibility for these matters. The debate illustrates a degree of expertise and commitment matched by no other subject that comes before the House for discussion, so I approach it with humility.
Column 1182
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) ; as ever, he appears to be as lucky at drawing the number one spot for debate as he is with horses. I also congratulate him on choosing for debate such an important subject.However, the persistence and patience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), in his efforts to focus our attention on this enormously important subject, cannot be praised too highly. His Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has been much discussed today and remains, in the view of the Opposition, the one realistic hope for an early and dramatic improvement in the circumstances of disabled people.
The debate has been wide ranging. It has reminded me of a jolly good party, with all of us having a glass of whatever pleases us, coming almost to a crescendo, when in walks someone who is usually a reasonably welcome guest, but who announces that the bar is closed or that the festivities must end. We should be grateful that the Minister waited so long to make his contribution because, when he did, he dampened the atmosphere of the debate.
Being something of an historian, I want to go back and look at the reasons why we are discussing the subject today and why we do not already have a Bill setting in place civil rights for disabled persons. Many people might have thought that such a Bill would already be part of our legislation. The Opposition have long believed that civil rights for disabled people are extremely important. My right hon. Friend's Bill, which he has been trying to get through the House for a long time, is the one way forward. A disablement commission that would defend, protect and advance the interests of disabled people is the right route to follow.
Let me first examine the struggle for civil rights for disabled people and suggest some reasons why, in 1993, we still do not have effective anti- discrimination legislation. The case for it has been made, more eloquently than I can make it, by hon. Members on both sides of the House. They have quoted not only an enormous range of statistics but the heartfelt and most important personal experiences of people with disabilities, including friends, families and even colleagues.
I shall not bombard the House with statistics, but we have to go back a little way to look at what happened in the 1970s. After all, it was nearly 20 years ago, in 1975, that the Equal Opportunities Commission was established. The Commission for Racial Equality followed a little later, in 1977. Those legislative innovations were profoundly important milestones in the campaign against discrimination on the ground of race or sex. They do not deliver everything, and they are not an all-purpose panacea, but they are the bedrock and foundation of many advances in our society.
Logically, one might have expected a similar innovation in the rights of disabled people to follow pretty quickly. Unfortunately, a rather different atmosphere was created, partly as a result of the new Government in 1979, and partly because a change in philosophy permeated society throughout the 1980s. I expected the Minister to be the harbinger of good news ; I hoped that the spirit of the 1980s was changing and that a thrust towards the acceptance of disability rights legislation would mark the beginning of the real thaw in Government attitudes. However, judging by the Minister's remarks, civil rights legislation for the disabled is not likely to come about
Column 1183
quickly. As a disabled friend of mine said, it seems, sadly, that after sexism and racism, equal opportunities cease to exist. That seems to be the situation. That is the opinion of many disabled people in our society. They feel strongly that progress since the late 1970s has not been fast enough and that we have not moved forward far enough.The case that I shall present contrasts with the position that was adopted during the 1970s and the 1980s. If we put disablement in context, we have not moved ahead as fast as we should have done because of the attitude adopted throughout the 1980s that community and society do not have a legitimate place. The example is slightly tired, but I revive the remarks-- they are now infamous--of the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher. She said that society did not exist. She said that in an interview with a woman's magazine. She added :
"And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves". That was a summation of the feeling that prevailed in the 1980s. I could not help thinking of Baroness Thatcher's remarks when I was on the other side of the river at the national theatre this week. Some of us were let off the leash, and it was a most enjoyable evening as we watched "An Inspector Calls". It was interesting to hear the remarks that J. B. Priestley gives to the father of the family for a crucial period of the play. The father is giving advice to his son and potential son-in- law. He says :
"I don't want to lecture you two young fellows again. But what so many of you don't seem to understand now, when things are so much easier, is that a man has to make his own way--has to look after himself--and his family too, of course, when he has one--and so long as he does that he won't come to too much harm."
That is redolent of the attitude of Baroness Thatcher throughout the 1980s, which permeated the Government throughout that period. To put it in another way, people were saying, "Look after yourself and nobody else matters very much." The father in the Priestley play also says :
"But the way some of these cranks talk and write now, you'd think everybody has to look after everybody else, as if we were all mixed up together like bees in a hive--community and all that nonsense." The permeation of self interest is something with which we are all familiar. There is nothing new about it because it comes straight from 19th century liberals such as Herbert Spencer and those other intellectuals of laissez-faire liberalism. It is a highly individualistic view of society. Its highest motivation was to inspire men and women to opt for self interest first, and the philosophy was brilliantly encapsulated by J. B. Priestley very much later. I do not want to labour my experience at the theatre too much, but I shall return to Priestley. I have had the opportunity to educate some of the Whips, who do not often have a chance to go to exceptional places of culture.
Since 1979 we have had plenty of experience of people looking after themselves. Perhaps that explains the appalling situation in which many disabled people find themselves and the Government's reluctance to endorse a Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. There have, of course, been determined efforts by a noble band of campaigners. Somewhere in the House there should be a roll of honour for them. They stretch from Lord Ashley and his attempt in 1982 to get such a Bill on the statute book. There was Donald Stewart, my hon. Friend the Member for
Column 1184
Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), Lords Longford and Campbell, John Hughes and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe. They all campaigned in an extremely cold climate. At the very time that they were campaigning in our cold climate, the temperature in the rest of the world was warming up--as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) pointed out, with the International Year of the Disabled in 1981, and the launch of the decade for the disabled person in 1983. The British Government saw to it that such issues remained in a veritable permafrost. In those years, positive progress for the disabled was made in many parts of the world, but Britain stood still and has since been overtaken. Now well into the 1990s, do we detect the possibility of a thaw? I prepared two versions of the central part of my speech. One responds positively and warmly to the Minister's conversion. I thought that we might have seen a Pauline conversion because on 30 January 1992, the Minister said that he was "benevolently neutral". Everyone knows that the country was then moving towards a general election and that there was little time for any new legislation, but most of us believed the Minister's statement that he was "benevolently neutral".Some of us have supported the Minister since he first entered the House. We thought that we were protecting an endangered species. Sometimes we thought that his ministerial career was a bit precarious because he appeared to be on the side of the angels. Some of us on this side of the House nearly started a club to support his continuity of office. It is a good job that we did not, but I approach a serious point lightly.
This morning's debate has been rather sad, in that we have witnessed a struggle between the two modern Conservative parties. One is that represented by the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin)--and I told him before he left the Chamber that I would mention him in my remarks. That hon. Gentleman invited the House to compare him with a disabled person. We are seeing whether the modern Conservative party is that which I used to think of as a party of Chelsea and Tiverton, or is it the part of St. Albans and Colchester?
I fear that the Minister's remarks at the Dispatch Box a few moments ago confirmed that the party of St. Albans and Colchester rules. It is the party that says, "There will be no movement in this area." I refer to the Minister's remarks last year, when he spoke of his "benevolent neutrality". We were given a fascinating insight into the Government's reasons for not taking action last year. The Minister was eloquent and, using dramatic phrases that I will not repeat today, clearly emphasised the need for action. Using a clever and classic technique, for he is a great exponent of the doctrine of unripe time, he said that he was not against legislation on principle, but it was a question whether education and persuasion had been tried long enough. He still held out the hope that they would work and that legislation would not be needed just yet. "Give me a little bit longer," he said.
The right hon. Gentleman also said something worrying, and he said something today that will worry the disabled and those who lobby for them. He stated that there was no unanimity among the disabled or groups for the disabled. He said that there was no unanimity in the disabled community--an interesting phrase--and those who support it. I found that interesting. How often have hon. Members introduced legislation about which there is
Column 1185
unanimity? Why should every last man Jack and Jill agree before we legislate to ensure equal opportunities for disabled people? Why do we need the unanimity rule for disabled people?Interestingly, this morning the Minister changed his ground. He said : "Forget what I said last year. I have looked at it again and it will be far too heavy-handed. We should adopt the over-arching approach." What is the over-arching approach? What does that mean?
Mr. Scott : The hon. Gentleman's description is a parody of my speech. He was not present when the Prime Minister met the all-party disablement group, but a number of Labour Members were. They will recall the sympathetic and constructive discussion with the Prime Minister about discrimination against disabled people, at the end of which I was given a clear task to liaise constructively with the all-party disablement group. My basic instinct is to continue to tackle discrimination with a sector-by- sector approach, rather than one where the costs are unquantifiable and which is likely to lead to excessive bureaucracy and a beanfeast for the legal profession.
Mr. Sheerman : I am interested that the Minister thinks that my description of his speech was a parody. I was not invited to the meeting with the Prime Minister. The impression that I have formed this morning is not of a Minister who has gone to his Prime Minister and Secretary of State, made his case and won. I assume that what has happened, although the Minister cannot admit it, is that the Prime Minister and Secretary of State have told him to toe the line. He has been told to go back to the House of Commons and the all-party group.
Sir John Hannam indicated dissent .
Mr. Sheerman : The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but I must tell the truth as I see it. I listened patiently to him. I understood the Minister to say this morning that there is no way forward. We have been given yet another fudge instead of allowing the Bill to be considered in Committee. The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir. J. Hannam), for whom I have much admiration and who is one of the supporters of the Bill, pleaded with the Minister, "Give us a few Wednesdays and the opportunity to get the Bill in Committee." My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe has guaranteed that the Bill is open to amendment because he realises that it has imperfections. He is willing to scrutinise it in Committee, where he will give the Minister every assistance to ensure that the Bill is right. We are debating a very important Bill for disabled people. It is supported by almost 300 Members of Parliament, 23 of whom are Conservative Members. It is good to have some Conservative support, but we are thoroughly discontented and we cannot accept an all-party approach when the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People comes here and kicks disabled people in the teeth. [Interruption.] The Minister does not like my comment ; I did not expect him to-- [Interruption.] Some hon. Members do not like me bringing an element of abrasiveness to this debate.
The Opposition are appalled that the Minister, in his usual melliferous tones, has given us hard news to take to our constituents. We shall have to tell disabled people that
Column 1186
there is no hope that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill will be passed, although it seeks to give ordinary disabled people the opportunity to show that they are not just disabled and that they are able in mind and in body in so many ways.Disabled people have potential. Time and again, in employment, in access, in education and in training, they are not given the opportunity to show that they have talent. The reason why I am so angry and why I refuse to kowtow to a quiet, all-party agreement is that the Minister has sold out disabled people today-- [Interruption.] Some hon. Members think that I am being too hard and they do not like it.
I have not held my present position for long, but I have already noticed that the Government have a great advantage. The Government take a strong line when they speak about the absence of community and about the absence of society. They refuse to help people as we urge them to. However, the Government have the great advantage of a Minister for Social Security and Disabled People who is charm itself at the Dispatch Box.
Everyone finds it difficult to cross swords with the Minister because he presents an unacceptable case eloquently and diplomatically. That is not good enough. He charmingly tells the House that he intends to block the Bill, and he speaks with an air of resignation and in tones of sorrow. That is not good enough. In some ways, it would be more acceptable to have the Secretary of State for Social Security here. He puts the Government's view far more aggressively, so we should understand exactly where the Government were coming from in their treatment of disabled people.
I understand that some hon. Members do not like the tone that I bring to the debate. We had high hopes this morning that we would make progress, and that a Whip would not shout "Object!" at 2.30 pm and thus block the opportunity to bring a ray of hope to disabled people.
In speeches inside and outside the House, the Minister has emphasised that he believes that there has been progress for disabled people. He almost always points to a change in benefits. We could have a long argument about how benefits have shaped and changed over the past 13 years. My analysis would be different from the Minister's. The Government have shaped and changed benefits rather than improved them. I take a longer view of benefits. Disabled people and those in the disability lobby believe that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill represents an alternative to the idea that disability is just about benefits.
Many disabled people tell me that they feel as though their whole world is hedged about by talk of benefits. They want to be released from that feeling. They need benefits for certain things, but ultimately they want an environment that allows them access to training, education, good jobs and good pay and in which benefits are not the only subject about which they talk to politicians. That is the difference between us. The Minister cannot understand--
Mr. Scott : With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman must have been pretty selective in his reading of my speeches. Each and every one of the issues to which he has referred is an issue which I have tackled during the six years for which I have been holding my present responsibilities.
Column 1187
Mr. Sheerman : I will certainly not withdraw. As I have explained, ordinary people who have a disability feel that the emphasis is always placed on their disability. We hoped for the opportunity to establish a bedrock of rights--a foundation on which to build. If disabled people felt that their rights had been infringed, they could voice their aggravation and hurt. If they felt that an injustice had been done--if they felt that they had been denied access to transport or education--they could take it to the commission in the hope of gaining satisfaction. Of course they would not always win, but they could move forward towards attaining rights in the fullest sense. The strong language that I use is absolutely correct to describe the feeling that exists not just among the disability lobby but among ordinary disabled people. As the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) said, disability affects 25 per cent., of families in one way or another. Today, those families will feel that they have been cheated, and they will have been cheated because the Minister has done the bidding of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security rather than standing his corner and standing up for the rights of disabled people in Britain.
2.2 pm
Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington) : Rarely have I heard such a disgusting and deplorable speech. The unique talent of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is to misread the House every time he speaks-- whether it be on law and order or on disability. The debate to which I have been listening since 9.30 am has been about caring and concern and about how best to proceed on the question of disability. The hon. Gentleman has done nothing to enhance the debate. I am a disabled person and I can say that if I belonged to a lobby, I should be ashamed to approach that man for any kindness or consideration.
I wish that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) or the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) were sitting on the Front Bench and that the dreadful man who made that speech was sitting elsewhere. I feel so angry about what he has done. He should be damn well ashamed of himself. He referred to a visit to the theatre and mentioned disabled people looking to themselves. If there is one thing that disabled people want to do it is to look to themselves--as best they can and as far as they can--and, in suggesting otherwise, the hon. Gentleman shows a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the needs, wishes and, most important, the aspirations of disabled people. The sooner he goes out and finds out what it is all about, the better.
I shall now calm down, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the issue of race and sex discrimination legislation, I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister that there is a significant difference, although I acknowledge that they are different categories. If anything, that should be a reason for taking action through legislation. Everyone has said that the quota system does not work. Many years ago, I worked at a labour exchange, where the disability officer had beside him a big pile of exemption vouchers and spent more time reaching for them than ringing up companies to ask why they were not employing their 3 per cent. quota of disabled people.
I get concerned when we talk about money because we subsidise the pleasure of going to the theatre through the
Column 1188
royal opera house by about £30 to £35 a seat. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) looks at me with her questioning eyes. If we can subsidise the pleasure of people going to the opera house by £30 to £35 a seat, why do we wonder about the Government spending money to introduce legislation to give disabled people the right of access? What is the good of subsidising the arty farty types, the great and the good, when we are sorry that we cannot find the money to introduce legislation to give disabled people the sort of access to the theatre which they might need?Let me talk briefly about the Spinal Injuries Association to which I am loosely connected. I hope to become more involved with the association later. In an intervention that I made this morning--it seems like yesterday --I said that the latest idea of the Spinal Injuries Association is to introduce a disabled racegoers guide to tell them the best places to gain access and the places to be careful when trying to get in.
The man who was talking about the guide was in a wheelchair. He had a colleague with him who said, "I have arrived at Sandown Race course today and, as usual, the wheelchair has tipped over and I am flat on my face in the mud." He was brushing the mud off his clothes. He loves his racing, but having his wheelchair tip over is the reality that he faces regularly.
As I said earlier, the man was going to a race meeting at a course which had no access across the railway line. He had to go to the end of the journey, which was about another 45 minutes to an hour, to get off at a station at which they could take his wheelchair across the line. He had to get on another train to come back and get off on the right side of the track. That is absolutely wrong for disabled people. Why should not they enjoy racing and all the other sports? Like everybody else, they should be able to get on and off the train when necessary.
My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned access to money. Gaining access to money through the various benefits is not the only thing that matters. It is the right to have one's views, wishes and abilities respected-- limited though the abilities might be. My dispute with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) is that some disabled people laugh at their disabilities. They are not all deadly serious. They are not pushing for everything.
As I said, my disability is a small one. If I say the wrong thing, which I do most of the time, my colleagues threaten to kick my good leg away. That is not something to get upset about or react to. When I made an intervention this morning which was rather too long, Madam Deputy Speaker said that, obviously, my disability did not affect my tongue. I thought that that was quite funny and no insult was meant or taken. However, we must be careful not to think that all disabled people are so serious about life that they cannot see the funny side of their disability occasionally.
We need legislation that prevents discrimination against people. I simply wonder how many wheelchairs are in the Gallery. My guess is not many, given the steepness of the Gallery and the stairs. We have luxury offices at Derby Gate for some of my colleagues and, dare I say it, the Serjeant at Arms. We can provide those facilities for Members of Parliament, but we cannot give the public easy access to this place. It is a strange place.
To meet the costs that my right hon. Friend mentioned, why not do away with the Department of National Heritage immediately and all the savings that that would
| Next Section
| Home Page |