HC Deb 25 June 1984 vol 62 cc692-709

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 40, at end insert— '(7) The reference in subsection (2)(a) above to the transport needs of Greater London is a reference to the needs of Greater London with respect to public passenger transport service; for persons travelling within, to or from Greater London, including persons who are disabled.'

Read a Second time.

3.50 pm
Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, (a) in line 6, at end add 'and where necessary, including the provisions of special transport facilities for people with particular disabilities. '. It is unfortunate that the timing of private business may split this debate on the Lords amendments. I shall therefore try to facilitate the procedures of the House by not taking too long in considering the amendments. There is a broad measure of agreement about many aspects of the amendments. That agreement reflects much of what was said in Committee and the views which the Government accepted in another place.

We are talking about half the cake. The Committee discussed helping the disabled to be recognised as a special group of people requiring special assistance to deal with the problems which they face as a group. The disabled—I believe that there are a quarter of a million disabled people in London—believe that the amendment is essential so that their needs as Londoners are adequately met by the new London Regional Transport body and so that the LRT meets its obligations, for the time being, with regard to the transport needs of Greater London. The amendment to the Lords amendment was debated in another place and was rejected by the Government. We are now considering two parts of the same proposal. The original amendment was passed by the other place to improve the Bill.

On 2 February 1984 the Minister of State told the Committee: I have purposely resisted adding to LRT's general duties as proposed by amendment No. 16. My experience has been that this is not the best way to help these people, given all the other things that we shall be doing."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 February 1984; c. 195–96.] The general proposition put by the Minister was that it was not necessary to select the disabled for special treatment. Clause 2 deals with those matters that LRT' shall have due regard to". We note that the Government have finally accepted our arguments in Committee and on the Floor of the House that there is a special reason for LRT to take particular account of the disabled so that the required changes and atmosphere are considered in LRT's decision-making process.

One of the matters that concerned the various disablement groups—Dial-a-Ride was one of many— was whether we would fundamentally change the duties of LRT, compared with the duties of London Transport, to meet the transport needs of Greater London. At present, a duty is imposed on London Transport. Under the legisation "due regard" is to be shown by LRT. The Government constantly resisted the idea of imposing a statutory duty on London Transport. "Due regard" is a weakened interpretation of the role, and many disablement groups feel that "due regard" is all that will be taken of their needs. They feel that special measures should be adopted to ensure they are treated properly and fairly in comparison with other Londoners in whatever transport provision is made for Londoners.

The disabled refuse to accept that the relatively uncontroversial Lords amendment should be included in LRT's general duties. They feel that special transport facilities should be provided for people with particular disabilities. I welcome the fact that the Government have gone some way at least towards accepting the first part of the case that disabled people should be given general consideration.

Our amendment makes it clear that the provision of special transport facilities for those with particular disabilities should be added to the amendment from the other place. In another place, the Government took the view that it was not their responsibility to meet the needs in that way and argued that it was the responsibility of local authorities. Many of the 250,000 disabled Londoners feel that they are denied proper public transport facilities. They believe that LRT must not be able to duck out of its obligation to improve the design standard and service planning of buses and trains to meet the needs of the disabled. Such improvements benefit all public transport users.

The Government argue that the London boroughs are the proper bodies to provide transport for disabled people, but we believe that that is a fallacious argument, because it is discriminatory. All other aspects of transport are dealt with by LRT. The obligation upon LRT is to provide for the needs of Londoners. Groups representing the disabled believe that special efforts must be made to meet their needs.

The argument used in the other place against my amendment was that London local authorities had no experience of running public transport, and that is generally the case, but if we are looking to the integrated nature of London transport and to the disabled receiving proper and adequate treatment, we cannot leave it to the boroughs, whatever their political complexion, to determine the provision for the disabled in their areas. That is another argument against borough boundaries. It is felt that local authority boundaries tend to determine the services in an area. They are generally irrelevant to the transport needs of the disabled, who plainly wish to travel in areas of London beyond the immediate local authority boundaries.

The Dial-a-Ride scheme must be funded centrally if it is to survive, let alone expand. One must consider how the scheme has been financed so far. Local authorities have been providing only about 6 or 8 per cent. of the money needed—£121,000 comes from three local authorities mainly—and the GLC provides about £1.6 million. There is a precept from the local authorities and therefore they all contribute, but those local authorities which have contributed extra, such as Islington, have played a major part in establishing and maintaining the facilities which are much appreciated by the disabled.

Most of the financial support comes from the GLC, which the Government are proposing to abolish. We have had no guarantees from the Government of other sources of funding for this important scheme. It is somewhat ironic that the Government should claim that running the scheme should be a function of the boroughs, at the same time as the Secretary of State for the Environment is taking what measures he can severely to restrict the spending of those boroughs.

I have read the debates in the other place and the press notices published recently by the Department of Transport—I have one dated 22 June—and considerable sympathy was expressed in the House of Lords and by the Minister of State, who I see was speaking recently at a lunch financed by the GLC at Dean's yard, Westminster.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)

It was a press launch.

4 pm

Mr. Prescott

One to the Minister. The hon. Lady stressed at the launch of Westminster's Dial-a-Ride scheme that this was not an occasion for political dissension". I am bound to say that it is. The difference comes when one votes on the matter. The Government can accept only half the amendments, which were advocated mainly by disablement groups. The Minister probably heard at the launch words to the effect that, although the Government do not accept the amendments, there should be a general responsibility for the disabled and that the Secretary of State should recognise the needs of disabled people. The Government have gone part of the way and have recognised and picked out the disabled as a special group of workers and a special obligation is placed upon London Regional Transport to provide for their needs. It will provide the special facilities needed by the disabled which, are not usually provided.

We recognise that the measures proposed by the Minister, to which the hon. Lady, referred at the launch of the national advisory unit for community transport, will provide greater advice and co-ordination. That will be welcomed to all concerned, but the measures will create obligations and must be paid for. At the end of the day, such schemes cost money. I assume that if they did not cost money the Minister would look upon them more favourably. The hon. Lady tells us constantly, in Committee and from the Dispatch Box, that she spends much of her time dealing with disabled people, but I must tell her—the Secretary of State will know of this from a rough meeting that he attended—that the disabled are not at all happy with the way in which the Government are meeting the needs of the disabled in London.

The Government now feel—perhaps the Secretary of State has some experience of the strength of feeling among the disabled following the rough ride that he had at that meeting—that "disabled" should be written into the Bill, despite refusing to do so in Committee or even in the House on previous occasions. I hope that the Government will give further consideration to that. I do not doubt the Minister of State's commitment to doing something for disabled people, but in reality the judgment of what needs to be done must be based on the views of the disabled.

The Minister has gone so far as to say that disabled people are a special category, so we ask her to recognise that the general powers to be imposed upon the transport authority provide a strong case for giving disabled people the limited means, within their disabilities, of travelling around London. Only if we discriminate in their favour can we hope to meet their transport needs, at least in some small measure, as we have done for all Londoners in the Bill.

Mrs. Chalker

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it might be for the convenience of the House if you would agree that I should move that this House doth agree with Lords amendment No. 1 so that it can be taken in conjunction with amendment (a). That would allow for a proper debate on the whole issue.

Mr. Speaker

The amendments are linked, and the hon. Lady may talk to the Lords amendment. There is no need, at this juncture, to move the Question suggested by the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Chalker

I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your clarification.

I understand why the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has moved the amendment to Lords amendment No. 1. I shall come to that in a moment, but first I shall speak to the Lords amendment, which contains an important provision. It fulfils an undertaking that was given in another place. There has been no doubt about the strong feeling about the Bill expressed on both sides of the House that disabled people should be referred to explicitly in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East reminded us that we did not feel able to agree to the suggestion, which was made at earlier stages of the Bill, that LRT should have a duty to meet the needs of the disabled. We felt that that would have been incompatible with the rest of the amendment and, indeed, with other groups.

Lords amendment No. 1 makes it absolutely clear that the needs of disabled people, no matter how severe their disability, are included in the reference to the transport needs of Greater London and that LRT must have due regard to them in carrying out its general duty under clause 2.

Lords amendment No. 1 is backed by other provisions that were put into the Bill. LRT is required to include in its annual report to the Secretary of State a specific statement of the action that it has taken in relation to public transport services and facilities for disabled people. That amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and will ensure that LRT has a clear remit to develop and improve those services within the resources available.

I welcomed that amendment when it was introduced. There is a clear duty upon LRT in relation to the design of and access to different modes of transport to fulfil the needs of the disabled. There is also a clear duty, which will be spelt out for the members of the board in due course, to get on with all they can do to help.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I think that we must get this straight. The Minister says that LRT will have a duty, but I understand that she has resisted the use of that very word in the statute. Is she saying that "have regard" will mean that LRT has a duty to continue the Dial-a-Ride scheme to the extent, say, that the GLC is doing now?

Mrs. Chalker

I should know that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) can be very quick at twisting words. I do not think that he intended to do so. If I misled him, I must apologise.

I must tell the hon Gentleman that LRT is required by the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, which was taken on Report, to make a statement about its action in any previous year concerning its public transport services and facilities for disabled people.

I went on to say—I was not using "duty" in the sense of the words in the statute per se—that it must be incumbent upon LRT in all common sense to examine the design of and access to the different modes of transport as part of its job. Otherwise, it could not make a report that would reflect its instructions and objectives. I do not think that there is any difference between us. I shall come to the point about Dial-a-Ride in a moment.

It will be clear that LRT will work towards developing and improving services for the disabled. Some services are capable of improvement. I told the Committee, however, that some deep underground stations would not be accessible by wheelchair unless they were rebuilt completely at that point. Nobody has ever suggested that one could make the whole of the public transport system accessible to chairbound people.

LRT will have a general duty under clause 2 to have due regard to the needs of disabled people. That duty already includes care for those who depend upon the special services, as well as those who are less severely disabled but who have difficulty in using buses or underground trains. It applies equally to the elderly and to mothers with prams and small children.

I am well aware of the importance of LRT having powers to enable it, where appropriate, to offer technical assistance and advice, or even financial support if it deems that that is required, to those who provide specialist services for the disabled. Here, I include schemes such as the various Dial-a-Ride operations and the GLC's taxi card scheme for the disabled. It remains my view that it is for local authorities to identify the special needs of the severely disabled. I say this particularly because it is not reasonable to require the LRT board to identify those people and their special needs. The people who are best placed to do so are the London boroughs, which in any case deal with needs other than transport for the very same people.

However, what we are after is getting LRT to play an active part in any provision that is subsequently made, to the extent that is appropriate in discharging its general duty. I believe that that is realistic in the light of the resources available and that it is the best that we can do to help those who are disabled, because——

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Chalker

I should like to finish what I am saying. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak.

It is absolutely clear that LRT will not be set up to identify the need, but the London boroughs can and should identify the need. At a later stage, the various ways of fulfilling that need can be considered by both the London boroughs and LRT. There is no reason why that cannot happen.

The hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned Dial-a-Ride straight away, which is understandable. There are good schemes, not just in, but outside, London. Some of them are very much more expensive than others, and I think that the hon. Gentleman realises that. A fund of good experience is available. The reason that I agreed to set up the London branch of the national advisory unit for community transport was to bring together the best practice and knowledge so that they can be used for all disabled people in London as well as outside and so that there is an exchange of that information.

Hon. Members might have lost sight of the fact that the money that the GLC is currently using to fund the Dial-a-Ride services has come from the boroughs through the GLC precept. That resource will be available to the individual boroughs, and they can—I am certain that they will—allocate on the basis of their assessment of the needs and priorities.

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

Really.

Mrs. Chalker

However much the hon. Gentleman may tut-tut, I know full well that the London boroughs that are concerned about the issue and have Dial-a-Ride schemes in their areas are looking to the future of those schemes in a positive sense. For that reason the House would be well advised to agree with the Lords in amendment No. 1, but to resist the addition, which imposes an extra duty on LRT, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said. There is no way in which that can be fully carried out by a nationalised industry, but there is every way in which the boroughs should identify the need. LRT can work, through design and access to its own modes of transport, towards increasing the number of people who can use its public transport over the years. If there were small adjustments in the facilities, many people would be able to use public transport in future.

Therefore, I advise my colleagues to agree with the Lords in amendment No. 1, but I do not believe that we would serve any good purpose, other than raising expectations in a way that, practicably, cannot be fulfilled, by agreeing to amendment (a). Therefore, I advise the House to resist amendment (a), moved by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.

4.15 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

The fundamental reason why the Liberal party supports the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is—the Secretary of State often used to disagree with our interpretation of what might happen—that we do not trust LRT to do things that, in statute, it is not bound to do or have due regard to. In Committee, on a regular basis, members of the Labour party and of my party, including my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), sought to move amendments that would write into the statute duties and considerations for LRT to bear in mind. One of the most important areas in which we sought to tie down the body that is to become LRT was in relation to the disabled.

It has already been correctly established that we are talking not about a statutory duty but about a consideration that the board must take into account. We know that, as the Bill stood before it was amended in the other place, it was a fairly broad-brush approach and the duty on LRT was much less demanding than all of us in the Opposition wished. It limited the new LRT to the least duty any transport authority has ever had in London, when catering for the needs of its people. LRT simply had to have due regard to—

  1. (a) the transport needs for the time being of Greater London; and
  2. (b) efficiency, economy and safety of operation."
The latter is the dangerous thin end of the wedge.

The Lords added that the first words should be interpreted specifically as a reference to the needs of Greater London with respect to public transport services for persons travelling within, to or from Greater London, including persons who are disabled. The amendment seeks to make sure that there is provision of special transport facilities for people with particular disabilities. The tragedy is that the Minister's resistance to the amendment flies in the face of the logic of the argument that she advanced throughout the earlier stages of the Bill. The specific reason is this. The Government eventually accepted that if local authorities did not agree on a single concessionary fares scheme, there would have to be a reserve power in LRT—for the Secretary of State—to implement a single unitary scheme. The Government accepted that 32 boroughs plus the City of London could not have separate schemes.

The Minister said that, in transport matters, she believed that it was proper that the local authorities should take into account and therefore seek to provide for the needs of the disabled. That is inconsistent because, first, they are not the transport authority and, second, it is ludicrous for one borough to be planning without regard to what the other boroughs are doing. We have all received letters from the Federation of London Dial-a-Rides. In my borough of Southwark, as in all other boroughs, there are disablement associations. Those bodies talk to each other, surprising though it may seem. They can agree on what they need and want on behalf of those with different types of disability across London. It is irrelevant and inconsistent—I exclude reasons of economic constraint, which have been alluded to—for the Government to say that the boroughs alone must be allowed to make provision.

It is clear to all of us that borough boundaries are normally irrelevant for disabled as well as able people, when they are travelling. People do not decide to get off public transport if they know that they will cross from Southwark to Lambeth, Lewisham or Greenwich. They have work to do and friends and relatives to visit across London. That is why London Transport has grown to be a united transport system. Therefore, it is appropriate that the transport authority, whatever it be and whatever reservations many of us have about the new authority, has a co-ordinated approach, which is established in statute.

I ask the Minister to think again and to apply logic to her case. Boroughs, through their social services departments or otherwise, will always arrange additional facilities, if they have the money. Where they can, they will support facilities for the disabled through grants, as they do for other groups in respect of which they have a duty. However, that does not mean that they exclusively must have that job. Amendments were accepted by the Government in Committee that stated that as long as the GLC existed—the Bill will come into force when the GLC is still in existence, whatever happens later—we must take account of the fact that that body is there and plan for its continuation, unless and until the House of Commons and the other place decide otherwise. It is inconsistent for the Government to anticipate that after the GLC is abolished, only the boroughs will be involved. It is inconsistent with what the Minister eventually accepted as proper as a result of amendments tabled by her hon. Friends in Committee and, because it will not assist the coordination of transport facilities for the disabled in London.

Two days before the European elections, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and I visited an institution called Lambeth Accord, which was set up with funding from the European Community. It is temporarily housed in a hospital building in Lambeth and is about to move to its own premises. It seeks to allow the disabled to work and to provide the transport facilities necessary for them to get to work, and to get home easily. The disabled are an enormous resource for London in terms of services, work and provision, and they form a large group of people whose needs we should recognise more than we have done in the past.

Generally the Minister has a good record on the disabled. Will she agree that it is consistent with what she accepted that we should do, with the Government's attitude in Committee and with trying to give the new nationalised industry a human face, that she should accept amendment (a) and not divide the House on it?

Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting)

I give my full support to amendment (a). In Committee there were many debates about the provision of services for disabled people in London. Our country can take credit for the fact that recently much progress has been made in the development of a wide range of services for disabled people. That is how it should be. Disabled people have the same rights as able people. Many of them are taxpayers, almost all of them are ratepayers, and they therefore have a right to seek improved services to help them enjoy life more fully.

However, I must remind the Minister, who talked about the role of local authorities in the development of transport services for the disabled, that in many debates on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill hon. Members from all parties argued time and time again that if those services were left to certain local authorities to provide, nothing would ever be done. We know that for a fact. Throughout the country some authorities, irrespective of their political points of view, have provided services, but sadly many Conservative authorities have made only token improvements and done little to improve those services. Successive Governments have believed that services should be improved, but when they were pressed—as the Minister is being pressed—to include specific provisions in a Bill, those provisions were rejected. The outcome of that has been that authorities have said, "We have sympathy, but we cannot do anything about it."

The weakness of the Minister's argument lies in leaving it to the 32 London boroughs to organise an economical service for the disabled. Although the hon. Lady is not a London Member, she is familiar with the London scene and has lived here for many years. She cannot believe in her heart of hearts that those 32 boroughs of different political persuasions will agree that there is no need to write a particular provision into the Bill because they are committed to helping the disabled.

It is to the credit of the Greater London council that it has made progress in providing services for the disabled, especially the Dial-a-Ride service. It does not operate in all boroughs, but that is no reason to criticise it, because services must be developed. Where it does exist, it has brought great benefits to the disabled. For the first time they have been able to leave their homes and travel across London to see friends and relatives. It has given them a great feeling of independence. Sadly, they know that the provision is now under threat. They cannot use the bus and underground services. I have received letters—many hon. Members who represent London constituencies will also have received letters—which have spoken in glowing terms of that service. That is why it is so tragic that we are still fighting the Minister for a provision which gives a clear commitment to the continuation of such services.

Hon. Members need only look at the record of the 32 London boroughs to have the gravest doubts whether this service will continue. Many of them will say, "We are sympathetic, but because of the Government's policies on rate capping, we shall have less money available to spend on our responsibilities and we shall not have sufficient funds to continue to pay for a service such as Dial-a-Ride."

The borough of Wandsworth, where the Minister once lived, even before we ask what contribution it will make to the continuation of the Dial-a-Ride service, is cutting its grants to services for the elderly, such as those provided by Age Concern and Taskforce. Those organisations have proved themselves in their work for the elderly. and their grants, which are essential if they are to provide the services needed by the elderly, are being cut. If that borough were asked to contribute, we know what its answer would be.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that the GLC contributed about £1,600,000 to the Dial- a-Ride service from its rate precept. Because the GLC had the funds, it had the commitment to develop this service. Even if the GLC had not received the money by the rate precept and the money ramained in the hands of the local treasurers of the local authorities, the boroughs would not have met and said, "The GLC could have levied the rate precept on us to provide a service, but it did not, so we shall do it ourselves." The Minister of State knows that that is impossible. The record clearly shows that.

4.30 pm

This is our opportunity to write into the Bill a provision that will not only continue the existing service but allow for its development. If no such provision is inserted, there is no doubt that the service will begin to break down and that, in a matter of months, the service as we know it will no longer exist. Recently, the Federation of London Dial-a-Rides said: London-wide services are the only way of providing us with the special services that many of us need and with the integration that all of us need, and on the basis of a lower overall cost than fragmented borough services. We need public transport services at public transport fares, not an approach which regards us as social service cases. That organisation is in daily contact with those who use the Dial-a-Ride service, and it strengthens the point that I made earlier: since the service was introduced, many people are now independent enough to leave their homes and visit their friends, which was impossible for them previously.

We spend enormous amounts of money on space development and employ many highly qualified people in it. Are we really saying that we cannot provide a properly integrated transport service for London that will meet the needs of the disabled? That is what we are being told by the Minister today. Anyone can become disabled—I hope that it does not happen to any of us in the House—and Members of Parliament constantly come across cases of people who were fit and active suddenly, through illness or an accident, becoming disabled. What right do we have to say to them, "Now that you are disabled you cannot expect services similar to those which you enjoyed when you were fit and active."? If the Government do not move towards obliging the new transport authority to provide those services, it will not be long before they disappear.

If the Minister rejects the amendment, she and the Secretary of State should bow their heads in shame. By rejecting the amendment, they will serve a sentence on the disabled to be confined to their homes indefinitely. What the Minister will not accept is that once the provision is written into the Bill it will be the financial responsibility of an authority with the overall ability to run and develop services. Left to the boroughs, there can be no doubt—many Opposition Members can speak from experience of what already happens in their boroughs—that the service will be killed off. It will be a damning indictment of the Government if the services which the disabled wish to see extended and developed are allowed to die.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Brent, South)

This debate is on a short amendment and, with other hon. Members, I welcome Lords amendment No. 1. When pressure is put upon Members of Parliament by their constituents and by organisations, in many cases it results in us seeking to make it imperative for the Government to act. There are two classic ways out for the Government, one of which we are discussing now. Instead of using words such as "impose a duty", they prefer to use "have regard to". The other classic way out is that if an Act puts a statutory responsibility upon bodies, the Government's plea is to make that duty not obligatory but voluntary. More escape routes have been found with that plea than with any other.

I must be telepathic because I start with a point similar to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). I draw a parallel between this amendment and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 on which, like every other Bill concerned with health for the past 25 years, I served in Committee. This amendment seeks to do precisely what we sought to do in Committee and on Report of that Act with regard to local authorities catering for the needs of the disabled when granting planning permission. At that time a Labour Government were in power and they resisted their own Back-Bench amendment just as the Minister is resisting ours this afternoon. That is not a critical point, because Departments and Ministers tend always to resist such amendments, whichever party is in power.

In the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act we sought to oblige local authorities to provide facilities for the disabled in every public place, but when the Act came onto the statute book it contained a phrase similar to the ones put forward by the Minister this afternoon—"take into consideration" or "have regard to". That Act was passed 14 years ago, but planning permission is still given for supermarkets, stores and other public buildings without adequate consideration being given to the needs of the disabled. The Minister has come once again to the Dispatch Box and said things like, "We shall keep this in mind." I trust the hon. Lady and, with my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting, I hold her in high regard. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) appealed to her to use her logic. I hope that she will do that, and I believe that I can rely on her compassion. But she will be applying neither logic nor compassion to this amendment. She will apply the Whips, and we cannot win because when the Division is called the party vote will be mobilised against the amendment.

I have been proud to be associated with the Greater London Association for the Disabled, which has the good fortune to have the acronym GLAD. I am even more proud of the association in Brent. Unfortunately its initials are BAD, but there is nothing bad about the Brent Association for the Disabled. It does a tremendous job of work. There is profound concern in both organisations about London Transport's facilities for those who are unfortunate enough to be disabled in one way or another and about the improvement of those facilities which is so necessary in a compassionate and affluent society.

Let me give one example. Invariably, when we think of the disabled we think of those who are paraplegic or about access to places such as lavatories by those in wheelchairs. I am much involved with another group—the blind. As the House knows, I have introduced a number of measures in the House in order to help those people. Mobility for them creates a different set of problems. It is no good "having regard to" those problems. We have a duty to blind people. As has been mentioned, the disabled pay both taxes and rates. More important, such people should not be put into ghettos. As long as they can work, they should be treated as normal members of the community. The ability of the blind to work depends upon their mobility. Unfortunately, given the present unemployment, twice as many blind people are unemployed compared with the national average in every area where statistics are available. One reason for that is that when there is unemployment the disabled or the blind are likely to go to the wall first. Such people cannot continue in employment unless they can get there. Therefore, to talk about "having regard to" is no good. A duty must be laid upon the new London Transport organisation if we are to get what we want.

I draw the attention of the House to the innovation just opposite St. Margaret's, where a section of the pavement has been altered. I give credit to the Minister because she had much influence in getting that experiment underway. If that experiment is a success for the blind—I believe that it will be—is it not incumbent upon the new LRT to take similar steps to assist people on underground stations so that they know where they can board the train?

For 50 years my constituency built London Transport buses. Unfortunately, as a result of BL's mismanagement, although we were making £4 million a year profit, that factory had to be closed in order to make way for Minis. The London Transport Board was directly involved in the design of buses for the disabled, not just for the disabled of one borough but for the disabled all over London. There were two major centres. One was the making of buses at Park Royal in my constituency and the other was at Chiswick, where buses were repaired, altered and adapted. There, time after time, I had some small influence in the building of buses, backed by organisations for the disabled and the trade unions. I was able to bring together the people who made the buses, the Vehicle Builders Trades Union, those who controlled them—the London Transport Executive—and the disabled who needed the services. That cannot be divided between 32 boroughs.

The Minister chose her words carefully. I always listen to her with great care. She does not drop many bricks; like all of us, she drops a few from time to time, but rarely. She made it abundantly clear that diagnosis is the responsibility of 32 London boroughs but that treatment is for the centre. If one applied the logic of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that would not exist. Information should be correlated with those who have responsibility for building and running a transport system in order to produce treatment for the needs diagnosed.

As I said, this has been a classic debate. I know of a number of statutes which have been passed by the House which include a similar escape clause, making something desirable but not obligatory. I was a member of the Committee which dealt with the legislation establishing the GLC, as was the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I understand that he is now engaged in disestablishing it. Precisely the same problem arose then. A centralised expertise was needed to deal with disabled people because there are areas which cannot be dealt with in a small community. Once the GLC was established there had to be liaison with local boroughs in order to marry the needs of the disabled in between six and 10 local boroughs. Why have more and more liaison committees? Like most hon. Members, I have my prejudices. One is against liaison committees which seem to create more and more work, minutes and administrators. If only one went to the heart of the problem they would not be needed.

4.45 pm

The Minister is resisting the opportunity to impose a duty upon the centre rather than having a series of liaison committees. I fear that the dreaded lurgi of the House—the Whips' Office—will impose the whip. The Prime Minister, with her majority in the country, will say that the Government have a mandate. But people do not want the facilities for the mobility of the disabled to be affected in such a way as to exclude them from the community. As far as possible, we try to treat both the mentally and physically disabled exactly the same as everybody else. I urge the Minister to have a rapid talk with the Chief Whip and to tell him that she cannot stand it any more and will concede the amendment.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

I had hoped that some Conservative Members would have spoken on this matter. I cannot believe that every Conservative Member is opposed to amendment (a). It makes a lot of sense. We have had many such arguments in Committee. Then and again during the brief debate this afternoon, Labour Members have paid due credit to the Minister for her great concern for disabled people. Before I join in that chorus I want to suggest that the Minister cannot will the ends without also willing the means. If she really wants to go down in transport history as the person who had so much regard for the disabled, she should do something more positive about it by writing into the Bill a statutory provision, to be imposed upon LRT. As far as I can see, the Minister wants it all ways. She wants to use the honeyed words but does not want to be seen to be delivering the goods—or perhaps she cannot. I certainly accept her good intentions, but, as has been said before, Ministers change.

The Act is what we are then left with, and it has to be interpreted. Within a short space of time—who knows?—the Minister might become the Secretary of State for the Environment—I understand that the Government are looking round for one at the moment—and the new person in the Ministry of Transport might not have the current Minister's concern for people with disabilities. Thus there is no substitute for having this written into the Act. All the good intentions and words in the House amount to nothing when the Act is read at a later date. The Minister said that LRT will be required to make a statement on what it has done. However, as Opposition Members have said, a statement might amount to the fact that it has done nothing, or has considered the problems but found that it cannot afford to do anything.

The Minister said that local authorities would have the responsibility of identifying the needs of the seriously disabled and those with disability in their areas. This will vary markedly from borough to borough. In any case, the boroughs are not transport authorities. People with disabilities have a right to have access to public transport. This should not be a bit of charity that is handed out to them as a concession. It is therefore the responsibility of the transport authority to identify the demands upon it by people with disabilities, and to provide transport resources accordingly. It is not the responsibility of the boroughs. A statutory obligation should be placed on the transport authority to preserve the schemes that already exist in London and to continue to develop them. In London, as elsewhere, it is clear that we do not do enough for the transport needs of people with disabilities. We compare unfavourably with countries and cities abroad. To its credit, the GLC launched a major programme of experimental initiatives in 1982. This has made great advances in the provision of transport facilities for people with disabilities. Little, if anything, was done previously. Much remains to be done.

Opposition Members are concerned that all the work that has been done will begin to disappear as the individual boroughs are given responsibility. It is the responsibility of the transport undertaking to cater for the needs of all Londoners, including those with disabilities.

The Minister said that the boroughs will consider ways of maintaining the various schemes. We know the difference in the attitude of the boroughs. The Minister said that, if the GLC is abolished, the boroughs will have that much more money in hand to maintain the schemes, thus making a crude trade-off between precept and extra balances in hand. It will not work out like that. The Minister ignores the redistributive effect of having a regional authority like the GLC. It is not just a question of taking from one borough in precept and giving it back by way of a scheme for people with disability. The GLC precepts across the whole of London, and some boroughs have greater problems than others. The GLC is able to use that large rate base provided by the City, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Camden to redistribute across London as a whole. The boroughs will not have that much more money in hand to meet services that the GLC will no longer provide if and when it is abolished. In addition, there is the prospect of rate capping, which will impose burdens upon the boroughs. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) represents Wandsworth in this House, and I represent that borough at county hall. We know what that local authority is like. I can assure the House that any extra money that Wandsworth can get will go not towards providing transport schemes for the disabled or for the elderly, but towards reducing the rate demand.

Mr. John Maples (Lewisham, West)

The hon. Gentleman says that London boroughs will not have additional funds to meet such obligations, but the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" makes it clear that the rate equalisation scheme will be adjusted to take account of the redistributive effect of the GLC rate, and no borough would be financially disadvantaged as a result of the change.

Mr. Banks

I will believe that when I see it. The White Paper says nothing about rate-capping, because it was not envisaged at that time, but it must be added into the equation.

Mrs. Chalker

With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. I do not think that any hon. Members, however generous and determined to help severely disabled people and disabled people to use London transport in its various forms, can lose sight of the fact that resources have to be made available and that the best people to decide what the needs of the disabled people are must be the local authorities nearest to them. I will not enter the discussion that started between my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). If the GLC ceases to exist, the money that is precepted by it from the boroughs at present will be available for the boroughs to allocate on the basis of their assessment of the priorities.

I fully accept that Dial-a-Ride in the many different areas provides a valuable service, but the costs vary greatly between one area and another. That is one reason why I set up the London branch of the national advisory unit for community transport, to try to make better use of the resources that are already going into it. If its work comes to the fruition that I know that it can, many schemes will be able to bring down their costs, which will make the boroughs even more willing to carry on the schemes, and give them a long-term future.

I understand the analogy that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) sought to make. To the extent that there is an analogy with concessionary fares, I would make the same comment that I made earlier on the subject. Local authorities should have the prime responsibility. The equivalent provision would have to be a fall-back scheme for the severely disabled, which is considerably different from what amendment (a) proposes. Even if such an amendment had been tabled, we could not have supported it. Provision for the severely disabled is not like concessionary fares, where the nature of the need is a simple financial one. The nature of the needs of severely disabled people is much more complicated. That is what I sought to say earlier.

Disabled people are far better qualified to judge—and that means contact at the local authority level—how the money should be spent upon them. I want the boroughs that have been pioneers to continue to take the lead. Perhaps one day a scheme will be organised jointly by the boroughs, but the Bill is not the place to introduce such a provision, let alone to introduce it as a duty on London regional transport. That is where the analogy falls down.

The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) knows the reality of the situation. He made some kind remarks for which I thank him. I understand the anxieties of the Greater London Association for the Disabled and the Brent Association for the Disabled, and the anxieties of other severely disabled people. The hon. Gentleman made some valuable points. He gave an example of something which, thanks to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, we are using in Westminster—the tactile pavement. It is for London Regional Transport at least to have knowledge of what can be done. We shall be encouraging it to do that. It is not for London Regional Transport to have a duty towards the severely disabled when the boroughs know best what can most assist the severely disabled.

I suppose that it is not surprising in such a debate that the Opposition have ignored the positive advances that the Bill makes on transport for the disabled in London. For the first time, London Regional Transport, unlike LTE, will have to report annually on the steps that it has taken in respect of the disabled.

Mr. Cohen

rose——

5 pm

Mrs. Chalker

I shall not give way, as I know that the hon. Gentleman is anxious for me to conclude.

I have already announced that the London Regional Passengers Committee will have representatives on it to put forward the needs of the disabled both to British Rail and LRT, whom it will serve. In Lords amendment No. 1, we take yet a further step to help the disabled. In addition, a member of the LRT board—that main board of 12 people—will be given the responsibility of paying due regard to the needs of the disabled as well as those of the rest of the travelling public. It is not a statutory requirement, but I have decided that what is proposed is reasonable. We have taken several very positive steps forward in providing a service for the disabled. It is unreasonable to add amendment (a), and I ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Prescott

With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.

The Minister has given us a lot of tea and sympathy. All the amendments, including the latest proposal that she has just mentioned, were moved by the Opposition in Committee, and rejected by her. All of the amendments and recommendations about the London Regional Passengers Committee having some responsibility for the disabled were debated at length in Committee. They were all rejected, with the support of Conservative Back Benchers. Now, without a murmur, they are put forward as being a successful aspect of the Government's policy and we are criticised for not understanding what the Government have done.

It is difficult to understand, because no one knew anything about the latest proposal. In reality, none of the proposals costs the Government a penny. Those involved with the Dial-a-Ride scheme want money, organisation and support. If their needs are to be met, the Bill must first recognise them. The Minister has gone part way towards recognition. It will now be recognised that due regard must be given to the transport needs of the disabled. Our amendment says that, given that there is a group of people to whom special attention should be given, it logically follows that the means should be provided with which to meet their special needs. In that way the obligation to meet all the needs of Londoners can be fulfilled.

In this debate, every hon. Member has shown great concern and has recognised the problem for local authorities if the GLC is abolished. Even if, as the Minister says, the local authorities are pushed to fulfil the obligation, they will tell her—particularly with the rate-capping proposals—that they need the money with which to do so. Local authorities have plenty of duties imposed on them, but insufficient resources to carry them out. The Minister will be asking them to carry out a new duty, and none of us sees much sense in following that route.

The disabled are the most important group in this regard, and I am very sorry that the Minister has not accepted our amendment. It should be realised that, however she feels, the hon. Lady cannot accept it because the Government are desperately rushing the Bill through. If any amendment is accepted tonight it will have to be dealt with in the other place, and that will delay the Bill. That factor is having a powerful effect in concentrating the Government's mind.

The Minister says that the local authorities should look to the needs of the disabled, but she should recognise that LRT can do that job quite adequately. Indeed, the National Bus Company and some of the community schemes offer organisational and financial support in some of the areas in which bus trial area schemes have taken place. Thus, it is not unique for a nationalised body to assist. In the circumstances, to ask local authorities to undertake that duty is quite unacceptable.

We cannot accept the Minister's rejection of our amendment. Many fine words have been spoken about her concern for the disabled, and it is true that she spends a considerable amount of time looking at the problems, but although her face may be the more acceptable face of Tory women, that will not be demonstrated in the Lobby tonight. Tonight she will be voting on as hard a line as any Conservative Member and will be denying the disabled people of London the opportunity of some basic mobility to meet their needs as a basic right. Without any hesitation, I ask the House to support our amendment.

Question put, That the amendment to the proposed Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 208.

Division No. 380] [5.05 pm
AYES
Alton, David Buchan, Norman
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Caborn, Richard
Ashdown, Paddy Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) Cartwright, John
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Barnett, Guy Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Barron, Kevin Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret Cohen, Harry
Benn, Tony Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) Corbett, Robin
Blair, Anthony Corbyn, Jeremy
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Boyes, Roland Crowther, Stan
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N) Cunliffe, Lawrence
Dalyell, Tam Marek, Dr John
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) Meadowcroft, Michael
Deakins, Eric Michie, William
Dobson, Frank Mikardo, Ian
Dormand, Jack Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Duffy, A. E. P. Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Eadie, Alex O'Brien, William
Eastham, Ken Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Ellis, Raymond Park, George
Evans, John (St. Helens N) Patchett, Terry
Fatchett, Derek Pavitt, Laurie
Faulds, Andrew Pike, Peter
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) Prescott, John
Fisher, Mark Radice, Giles
Flannery, Martin Redmond, M.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Fraser, J. (Norwood) Richardson, Ms Jo
Freud, Clement Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
George, Bruce Rogers, Allan
Golding, John Sedgemore, Brian
Gould, Bryan Sheerman, Barry
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Harman, Ms Harriet Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Heffer, Eric S. Skinner, Dennis
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) Snape, Peter
Howells, Geraint Soley, Clive
Hoyle, Douglas Spearing, Nigel
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Steel, Rt Hon David
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) Stott, Roger
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Janner, Hon Greville Thorne, Stan (Preston)
John, Brynmor Tinn, James
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) Wainwright, R.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Leadbitter, Ted Wareing, Robert
Leighton, Ronald Welsh, Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Wigley, Dafydd
Lewis, Terence (Worsley) Williams, Rt Hon A.
Litherland, Robert Winnick, David
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
McCartney, Hugh Tellers for the Ayes:
McDonald, Dr Oonagh Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Don Dixon.
McWilliam, John
NOES
Adley, Robert Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Aitken, Jonathan Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Alexander, Richard Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Cash, William
Ashby, David Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. Chapman, Sydney
Batiste, Spencer Chope, Christopher
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Bellingham, Henry Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Bendall, Vivian Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Benyon, William Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Biffen, Rt Hon John Cockeram, Eric
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Coombs, Simon
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Cope, John
Boscawen, Hon Robert Cormack, Patrick
Bottomley, Peter Couchman, James
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Cranborne, Viscount
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) Critchley, Julian
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Crouch, David
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Currie, Mrs Edwina
Braine, Sir Bernard Dickens, Geoffrey
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Dicks, Terry
Bright, Graham Dorrell, Stephen
Brinton, Tim Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Browne, John Dover, Den
Bruinvels, Peter Dunn, Robert
Buck, Sir Antony Durant, Tony
Budgen, Nick Dykes, Hugh
Bulmer, Esmond Emery, Sir Peter
Burt, Alistair Evennett, David
Butterfill, John Eyre, Sir Reginald
Fallon, Michael Neubert, Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Nicholls, Patrick
Fletcher, Alexander Norris, Steven
Forman, Nigel Ottaway, Richard
Fox, Marcus Paisley, Rev Ian
Franks, Cecil Parris, Matthew
Freeman, Roger Pawsey, James
Gale, Roger Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Galley, Roy Price, Sir David
Garel-Jones, Tristan Proctor, K. Harvey
Goodlad, Alastair Rhodes James, Robert
Gorst, John Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Gow, Ian Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Gower, Sir Raymond Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Gregory, Conal Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Grylls, Michael Roe, Mrs Marion
Gummer, John Selwyn Rowe, Andrew
Hanley, Jeremy Sackville, Hon Thomas
Hannam, John Sayeed, Jonathan
Hargreaves, Kenneth Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Harris, David Shelton, William (Streatham)
Harvey, Robert Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Haselhurst, Alan Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) Silvester, Fred
Hawksley, Warren Sims, Roger
Hayhoe, Barney Skeet, T. H. H.
Hayward, Robert Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Heathcoat-Amory, David Speed, Keith
Henderson, Barry Speller, Tony
Hickmet, Richard Spencer, Derek
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Hind, Kenneth Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Stanbrook, Ivor
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) Stern, Michael
Holt, Richard Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Hooson, Tom Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Hordern, Peter Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Howard, Michael Stradling Thomas, J.
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) Sumberg, David
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) Tapsell, Peter
Hubbard-Miles, Peter Taylor, John (Solihull)
Hunt, David (Wirral) Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Temple-Morris, Peter
Hunter, Andrew Terlezki, Stefan
Jackson, Robert Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Jones, Robert (W Herts) Thornton, Malcolm
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Thurnham, Peter
Kershaw, Sir Anthony Tracey, Richard
Key, Robert Twinn, Dr Ian
King, Rt Hon Tom Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Knowles, Michael Viggers, Peter
Latham, Michael Waddington, David
Lawrence, Ivan Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Lee, John (Pendle) Walden, George
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Lester, Jim Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant) Warren, Kenneth
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) Watson, John
Maclean, David John Watts, John
Major, John Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Malins, Humfrey Wheeler, John
Maples, John Wiggin, Jerry
Mather, Carol Wolfson, Mark
Maude, Hon Francis Wood, Timothy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Woodcock, Michael
Mayhew, Sir Patrick Yeo, Tim
Merchant, Piers Young, David (Bolton SE)
Meyer, Sir Anthony Young, Sir George (Acton)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) Tellers for the Noes:
Montgomery, Fergus Mr. Tim Sainsbury and Mr. Archie Hamilton.
Moynihan, Hon C.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Back to
Forward to