HC Deb 08 July 1986 vol 101 cc205-18

`(1) If a person carrying on a trade or profession has on or after 1st August 1986 incurred expenditure on building works or equipment designed to facilitate access to his premises by disabled workers and an allowance or deduction in respect of the expenditure could not, apart from this section, be made in taxing the trade or profession or computing the profits or gains arising from it, Chapter I of Part III of the Finance Act 1971 shall apply as if the expenditure were capital expenditure incurred on the provision of plant or machinery for the purposes of the trade or profession, and as if the machinery or plant had, in consequence of his incurring the expenditure, belonged to him; and as if the disposal value of the plant or machinery were nil. (2) This section shall be construed as if contained in Chapter I of Part Ill of the Finance Act 1971. (3) In this section "disabled workers" means persons, being registered disabled under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, who are engaged or employed to work on the premises in question, or who could he engaged or employed to work on the premises in question but for being disabled, and whose mobility is restricted by physical injury or infirmity.'.— [Mr. Blair.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Blair

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

The clause will enable an employer to claim capital allowances for alterations to his premises or for the construction of premises designed to assist access to the workplace for disabled workers. The capital allowance given under the new clause would be 25 per cent. on a reducing balance basis. This clause is limited in scope, but it is extremely important for the rights of disabled people. It covers only access, but access is an important element in disabled people being able to obtain and retain employment. For example, it would cover the installation of wheel ramps, specially widened doors, grab rails and braille signs.

At present, capital allowance relief is given to an employer for plant and machinery. That covers everything. It could, for example, cover the installation of a lift for the use of disabled people. That is merely coincidental, because the relief is given for plant and machinery generally. Alternatively, an employer could claim an industrial buildings allowance, and that would give him some form of tax relief for the construction of a building. That simply coincides with general relief, but it may contain some element of help for disabled people. However, it does not cover, for example, shop or office units and it does not apply if an industrial building is already in use. The new clause would allow the employer to claim capital allowance relief if he was altering or constructing premises so that disabled people could gain access to them. We believe that it would be of significant benefit to disabled people.

6 pm

It is worth pointing to the items upon which employers already claim capital allowance relief. The chairman's company car is treated as an item of plant and machinery for which capital allowances are available. The chairman's cocktail cabinet, and the Wedgwood or Royal Doulton teacups in his room can be treated as items for which capital allowances are available. Apparently, even the potted plants can be designated as plant and machinery and are thus eligible for capital allowance relief. If capital allowance relief can be claimed on all those things, why should specially constructed access for the disabled fall outside the scope of that tax relief? Grants of up to £6,000 are already available to provide access for the disabled, and grants can be claimed through the disablement advisory service. Thus, some help is already given to disabled people when it comes to obtaining access to their places of employment.

Perhaps I could point to the limitations on the grant system operated through the Manpower Services Commission. First, those grants are available only if access is being specially constructed in order to retain or recruit a specific person. In other words, a grant towards constructing access to the workplace can be obtained only if a specific person is targeted, either because the employer wants to employ him or because he wants to retain him. Thus, the employer has to have a person in mind before he can apply for the grant. If the grant is obtained, the works must be carried out before the person can gain access to the workplace.

Secondly, I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary could confirm that those disablement grants can be sanctioned up to a limit of only £500 at local level. I understand that for sums above that level there must be referral to headquarters, which requires at least three estimates of the work proposed before allowing the employer to carry it out.

There is a general feeling among disabled groups that there are significant bureaucratic obstructions to access to the workplace being provided. I understand from the figures that I have obtained from the MSC that, in the last year for which figures are available, only 165 such applications were granted. We therefore believe that a more general approach is necessary.

There is a twofold advantage to using capital allowances. First, an employer can change the work premises or construct access for the disabled without having to target a particular person. In other words, he could alter his premises, and the disabled person would then compete for a job within an environment of equality of opportunity. That is an important reason for seeing the capital allowance system as a useful complement to the grants that are already available through the MSC.

The second advantage may seem somewhat esoteric to my hon. Friends, but it is important. At present, the grant system operated through the MSC is advertised in a series of booklets put out by the MSC or by the Department of Employment. But there might be more of an incentive if accountants knew that capital allowance relief was available to employers if they wanted to take advantage of it. If an employer was thinking of altering his premises, the accountant might suggest that special access for the disabled could he included as plant and machinery. That employer would then create the premises that would enable a disabled person to compete for a job on equal terms with a person who does not suffer from any disability. There would also be an advantage in the byproduct for the customer.

It is worth noting the number of people who suffer from some disability. The 1983 household survey showed that about 19 per cent. of working people reckoned that they were limited in some way through disability. I understand that the number of those registered disabled under the 1944 Act is well in excess of 400,000. That puts into perspective the 165 applications for special grants made through the MSC.

Some of my hon. Friends may raise the question of quotas, so I shall say only that it is extraordinary that there have been 10 prosecutions since 1944 for breaching statutory obligations in relation to the quota system. Since March 1979 there has not been a single prosecution for breach of the quota regulations. Therefore, one is entitled to say that we must not be complacent about the incentives given to disabled people.

Thanks in great measure to the activities of my hon. Friends, the profile of the disabled and public awareness of the problems that they face have been heightened. I make no apology for saying that this is the right time for this new clause. Today, Royal Assent has been given to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). There is no more fitting time to move this new clause. It is an earnest of our good intentions towards the disabled, and I have pleasure in commending it to the House.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

I am pleased to support the new clause. If I had seen it early enough, I would have added my name to it. It represents a step in the right direction, although its scope within this Bill must of necessity be limited.

The question of developing policies to help to integrate disabled people into the workplace has been underlined over the years. It was highlighted in section 8(2)(a) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) did so much work to promote. It was also highlighted in the Snowdon report on integrating the disabled. It is worth quoting the recommendations of the Snowdon working party. No. 20 says: The premise on which our Sub-Committee's philosophy is based is that employment itself is crucial to the integration of disabled persons of employable age within the life of the community, and that such employment should, so far as is practicable, be as similar as possible to that of able-bodied people in respect of conditions of work, status and pay. Recommendation No. 37 stated: There is need to improve the access of places to work for disabled people. In some instances the provision of hostel accommodation is advocated—in others financial assistance to make it easier for the disabled people to move nearer to their place of work. Obviously, the ability of disabled people to get to their places of work and to be taken on was a major factor in the working party's thinking. The report was published in 1976, yet we have made relatively little progress.

There have been changes in building regulations, and so on, but there is a general feeling that the time may be right to look to the carrot as well as to the whip of regulations and restrictive legislation. Whether the carrot consists of grants or tax incentives, it must be considered. The legislation that has been put on the statute book in recent years has largely dealt with existing factories, offices or shops, and has sought to ensure that new buildings provide access for disabled people.

However, we have not been able to attack in as meaningful a way as we should have the problem of existing buildings. As they represent 95 per cent. of all construction, we must consider ways of improving access to them for disabled people. That may be one important way to help, although it is not the only way. If the allowances which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) referred to when moving the new clause arc available for the range of expenditures that he highlighted, both sides of the House would feel that the grants should be available to improve facilities for disabled people.

The point made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield about the need to get this right before individuals' specific problems are highlighted is most important. It is wrong that disabled people should be helped only when the problem arises. By definition, that makes disabled people abnormal. We should have met their needs before a question of non-discrimination or discrimination arose.

I have drawn the attention of the House previously to the slogan used in Sweden and I make no apologies for referring to it again. In Sweden they say that handicap is a relationship between a disabled person and his or her environment, be that the physical environment, social environment or the psychological environment. We may not be able to do much about a disability, but by tackling the physical environment in the context of the new clause we can do something to prevent that disability from becoming a handicap. We have an opportunity in the Bill to do something about this problem. There is a need for an attack on the problem in existing buildings, and I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)

I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will not be misled by his officials in this matter. Some of us have lived with this problem for 22 years. We are surprised when these matters are brought before us and the interpretation of these problems by officers and officials differs from our own. That is why it is important that we should accept the new clause. The Minister of State, Treasury, who handles VAT problems in the Treasury, can relate alarming cases where VAT has applied to appliances and building regulations in relation to disability. I pay tribute to the Financial Secretary's colleague for his efforts to undo the evil that has been done by officials misinterpreting the regulations in that respect. That is why the problem must be countered by a copper-bottomed new clause as part of the Bill.

I hope that the Financial Secretary will not turn down this new clause on the ground that it is unnecessary. That was the excuse used when we tried to get on to company records the provision that a statement by the directors must be contained in the annual report as to what they are doing on behalf of disabled people. The Financial Secretary is a kindly man and will think that my remarks are unnecessary. I can assure him on behalf of my hon. Friends and on behalf of his Conservative colleagues that the interpretation happens far too often to the disadvantage of the disabled.

I should like to define the nature of the problem for the benefit of the Financial Secretary. Unemployment among young people with handicap is twice that of their non-handicapped peers. The national child development study found that over a two-year period 10 times as many young handicapped people had been out of work for six months or more than had their non-handicapped fellows.

I am wearing the Rehab International tie. The symbol on the tie has become the symbol of disability in Britain. In truth, when Rehab International developed this symbol it was meant to be a symbol of access. Access is the most important factor involved in obtaining a job. There is the main problem of access to premises and the problem of access to toilets. There is also a problem about providing training areas and training equipment.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury may do his right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General a favour if he allows the new clause to be passed because it may relieve the pressure on the quota system for the employment of disabled people. That might indirectly help the Paymaster General to sustain the quota and so avoid attacks from both sides of the House because the 3 per cent. rule is not being implemented.

My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr Clarke) has asked me to apologise to the House for his absence. He had a great success today as the Royal Assent was given to his Bill. I gather that he has been asked to account for that in another place. I hope that the House will accept his profuse apologies. I would like to deal briefly with the problem of access for mentally handicapped people.

MENCAP has a scheme called the Pathway employment services. That accounts for a substantial number of new jobs for mentally and physically handicapped people. MENCAP argues that the new clause is absolutely essential for that purpose. Let me quote what Mary Holland of MENCAP said in a letter to me: Physical barriers to employment for people with handicap can be overturned: social barriers created by ignorance and myth will take longer. The first step must be to ensure that people with disabilities are encouraged positively to take their place in the work force. Financial incentives will help employers to provide suitable working environments which will in turn ensure that we practise rather than preach the reality of finding work for disabled people. 6.15 pm

The new clause encapsulates the feelings of many of us about the opportunities of work for disabled people. The Government have contributed to that and the Council of Europe has produced a coherent policy for the rehabilitation of disabled people. Experts from this country and Northern Ireland have played a part in this.

MIND states that if we are to encourage employers and workers to help disabled people to enter employment and rehabilitation, we have to encourage employers generally to facilitate the rehabilitation of disabled workers by making suitable work available to them, if necessary after making adaptations to machinery or equipment and by giving them the opportunity to return to suitable types of employment as soon as they are medically fit for work, although not necessarily fit enough to resume their former occupation. I do not know what messages the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is receiving from elsewhere in the House. However, I hope that those messages do not encourage him to turn down the new clause. Many of us, as you are aware. Mr. Speaker, must try, with heavy hearts, to influence Ministers who mean well but who are told by their advisers that they cannot do something because it is not in the Act. The new clause offers the Financial Secretary the chance to get this provision in the Act.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)

I am sure that the new clause will be commended by all the organisations representing disabled people as a much needed clause to enable the 3 per cent. quota under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 to be more readily achieved. At present, more than 65 per cent. of firms in this country are outside of the law. They are not taking the 3 per cent. quota. Indeed, not one Government Department abides by the quota set in the 1944 Act.

One of the arguments often put forward by the Government when disabled people are discussed and efforts are being made to help them is that the term "disabled workers" needs to be defined. It is defined on this occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has said that there are 430,000 registered disabled, but there are more than 5.5 million who are either physically or mentally handicapped. At present, there is no incentive to register. Nothing is gained by registering. If the new clause were accepted and implemented, it would provide encouragement to register if nothing else.

There is a wide variety of housing grants available to the disabled but there is no comprehensive scheme available to the employers of the disabled, and that is what the new clause will provide. Capital grants of up to £6,000 are available for adaptions and special equipment. Unfortunately, the take-up has been abysmal. In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 9 February 1983, at column 392, it was revealed that there was no year between 1971–78 arid 1981–82 when the estimate of the capital grant that should be made available was equalled by the level of take-up. For example, £500,000 was allocated in the Estimates of 1977–78 and the take-up was only £11,040. Only 21 firms were involved. In 1981–82, there was a much reduced estimate by the Government of £150,000. However, only £71,469 was taken up by 93 firms. There are more than 93 firms within a mile of this building.

The sum that is allocated each year is underspent and the reasons are simple. There is a lack of knowledge, just as in our previous debate it was said that many of those who are taking redundancy pay and setting up their own small businesses are not au fait with the problems or difficulties that will confront them and with what will be available to them.

A company which wants to take on a worker will want to employ him or her as soon as possible, and it will need to ascertain what will be available to it if it decides to take on a disabled worker. If the firm is asked to make an application, it will have to supply estimates of the cost of any construction work or equipment that will be required if the disabled worker is to be taken on before it is informed of the size of the grant that will be made available. This process involves an inordinate amount of delay, and fairly often the job will be taken by someone else who is not disabled—that is discrimination against the disabled—or the firm will go out of business by the time that the grant is awarded.

The quota scheme can be made more effective without even changing the law. If the House were to accept the new clause and it were incorporated in the Bill, the law would be changed only slightly.

In 1976, the Snowdon working party on the integration of the disabled recommended the levying of a disablement employment tax, the revenue from which would go into a disablement employment fund. It was proposed that the fund should be used to compensate employers for the expenditure entailed in assisting disabled workers. It was a form of capital tax relief. The new clause is in the spirit of that recommendation of the Snowdon working party. It would provide real encouragement to employers not to discriminate against the disabled. Instead, it would encourage employers to take them on. The clause would not incur any additional expenditure. If the Minister reads the answer that was given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, which appeared in Hansard some years ago, he will find that the grants are not taken up. There is plenty of leeway to enable the Government to provide the wherewithal to counteract any possible loss in tax as a result of the implementation of the new clause.

The new clause would encourage the disabled to register and would provide much needed statistics. We would know the number of handicapped people within the community. That statistic is needed for many vital purposes. For most firms the clause would involve only a once-and-for-all expenditure. That is because the capital tax relief would not accrue every year. The Government are always prating that we should widen and extend choice, and here is an opportunity for them to widen the choice of employment that is available to the disabled. The new clause would give employers the chance to show their good will towards the disabled community, which constitutes a sizable constituency. The Government are being given the opportunity to demonstrate their good will be accepting this proposal.

Mr. Cohen

This a sensible new clause and will facilitate access to employment for the disabled. The clause is well drafted. I understand that its wording follows quite closely the provisions on fire precaution expenditure in section 17 of the Finance Act 1974. It has sound antecedents, which should encourage the Government to adopt it.

The tax laws that relate to the disabled are a mess. If a lift is installed, the expenditure will probably qualify for a grant or allowance, but the provision of ramps and widened doors to permit wheelchair access will not. The cost of constructing a new factory that has design features to permit access to the disabled will qualify for grant, but alterations to an existing building will not.

It has already been said that perks often have little connection with the real interests and activities of a business. Two examples are the chairman's new Rolls-Royce and the managing director's cocktail cabinet. Such perks qualify for an allowance from the Revenue but the provision of access for disabled workers will not. That is a gross contradiction. Why should the chairman of a company enjoy tax relief on the purchase of a Rolls-Royce to facilitate his mobility when disabled workers do not get any relief of that sort? The managing director receives a cocktail cabinet, but many disabled workers will not be able to enter the place of work, let alone reach the room where the cocktail cabinet is sited.

The new clause is a sensible provision to counter the discrimination against disabled workers that stems from access problems. The recent survey of the National Child Development Council reveals that young people who are handicapped are 10 times more likely to be unemployed for six months or more than their counterparts who are handicapped. That is shocking. The Government should be doing much more directly to counter discrimination in employment against the disabled. At least the new clause would provide a small encouragement to employers and I hope that it will be accepted by the Government.

Mr. Norman Lamont

We have had an informed debate, not least because several of those who have spoken, especially the hon. Members for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), take an extremely long-term and consistent interest in the subject. Their remarks today were interesting and informing. I appreciated the spirit in which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) moved his new clause. I certainly appreciate his motives for doing so, because obviously the question of access is of great importance to disabled people.

6.30 pm

The purpose of the new clause, as the hon. Member for Sedgefield outlined, is to give tax relief through the capital allowance system to employers who would not otherwise get relief for expenditure incurred on or after 1 August 1986 on building works or equipment designed to facilitate access to their premises by disabled employees.

The underlying question raised by the clause is, what is the best way to help and encourage provision and access for the disabled? Is it by grants, tax relief, or a combination of the two, bearing in mind the statutory obligation imposed on people in the construction of new buildings to which the hon. Member for Caernarfon referred? The Government believe that we should do so by both methods, but that the first line of assistance should be by grants and, after they have been taken into account, the normal tax rules should apply—that is to say, the rules for machinery and plant, industrial buildings, hotels, buildings in enterprise zones, and so on. Those allowances can help in certain ways.

I shall deal with the question of grants, to which the hon. Member for Sedgefield referred. The Manpower Services Commission can pay grants of up to a maximum of £6,000 to eligible employers, who are the great majority, who make essential adaptations to their premises or equipment to enable them to engage and retain specific disabled employees.

The hon. Gentleman referred to restrictions on the grants. As I understand it, those restrictions are there because until the nature of the specific disability is known it cannot be known what precise alterations are needed. As I understand it, that is the nature of the restrictions to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

I think that the hon. Gentleman referred to the bureaucracy in the MSC procedures. I do not mean to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, but I thought I heard him refer to that. I shall draw the attention of Ministers at the DHSS to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have not been advised of such complaints, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten me.

Mr. Alfred Morris

The Minister will be aware that I was involved in legislating for the grants to which he referred. Can he tell me how much has been spent in the past few years on publicising those grants to improve the take-up?

Mr. Lamont

I do not know the answer to that question. I intended to refer to what the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for West Derby said. He said that the grants have been undersubscribed, even by the amounts that the Government have put by. That is an important point. I shall draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security to what 1 think has been the feeling in the debate that if we are to rest the argument of grants, the grants should be publicised. There has been a poor uptake of the grants in the past few years.

Perhaps it is worth mentioning, in passing, the job introduction scheme which is run by the MSC, under which grants of £45 a week can be paid to employers to take on a disabled person for a trial period giving him a chance to prove that he can do the job. Under that scheme, nearly 8,500 disabled people have been helped over the past five years by way of grants totalling about £2.7 million. There are other schemes of assistance for the disabled.

The normal tax reliefs apply on top of the grants to the net amount—the cost, less any grant, of the employer's expenditure; that is, the normal rules for machinery and plant and the fabric of qualifying buildings apply to the expenditure which the employer incurs. If, for the purposes of his business, an employer spends money on equipment for the benefit of his disabled employees which consists of machinery or plant, the equipment will qualify for an annual allowance of 25 per cent. on the reducing balance basis. The hon. Member for Lcyton (Mr. Cohen) spoke on that point. The capital allowance system already provides relief at the rate proposed by new clause 4 for an employer's expenditure on, for example, lifts, other types of mechanical hoist and special toilet facilities. The relief extends to the cost of any alterations to an existing building which are incidental to the installation of such equipment. So, for equipment, it is unlikely that new clause 4 would represent a new relief.

Mr. Carter-Jones

Very often, an employer buys standard equipment and the opportunity comes along to employ a disabled person. Is the Financial Secretary spelling out to the House that whatever modifications are made to such equipment which allows a disabled person to operate it they will count under the category?

Mr. Lamont

I was saying that if an employer buys a piece of captial equipment, it will qualify for the 25 per cent. allowance. The cost of any alterations to the building that are incidental to the installation of that equipment that qualifies for the 25 per cent. would qualify for the 25 per cent. I am not saying that alterations to buildings for the purpose of access qualify for 25 per cent. That was the point on which I wished to develop my remarks.

Mr. Carter-Jones

The Financial Secretary has now come into the cloudy area which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends and his right hon. and hon. Friends have come across from time to time. Will the Financial Secretary clear the cloudy area, which seems to give officials the right to make interpretations which he never intended?

Mr. Lamont

I shall see whether any further clarification can be given. I shall look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has made to me. I wanted to be careful not to use other than the precise words which 1 know represent the position legally. I follow the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. I shall look at it further. I can see that it can give rise to a grey area and that it may be difficult to draw the line as to where the end of the 25 per cent. allowance comes. If I can give any further clarification, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I shall write to him anyway.

We have said that the grant is the first line of assistance. However, if the premises to be adapted are industrial or agricultural buildings, capital expenditure on altering them will qualify for an annual allowance of 4 per cent. The same will apply in the case of certain hotels. If the premises are used for the purposes of scientific research or are in an enterprise zone and qualify for the special allowances there, capital allowances of 100 per cent. will be available.

I recognise what hon. Gentlemen wish to do. I am afraid that I cannot go as far as they would like, but I hope that they recognise that the existing arrangements, which are primarily outside the tax system although some are within it, provide a degree of assistance and encouragement to employers to take on disabled people.

Mr. Wigley

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly? Is he saying that adaptations to buildings to 'meet the needs of disabled people—for example, ramps —would qualify for a 4 per cent. rate but could not qualify for 25 per cent.? Are the Government against changing that 4 per cent. to 25 per cent. as a matter of policy, not because there is a technical reason why it should not be changed?

Mr. Lamont

The position is as I have said with regard to industrial and agricultural buildings, hotels, premises used for scientific research or buildings in an enterprise zone. There have not been capital allowances for commercial buildings, as I am sure the hon. Member for Caernarfon appreciates, for obvious reasons. Capital allowances have, in general, been provided on assets that depreciate rather than on those that appreciate. That is the distinction which has been drawn between commercial buildings and other buildings.

I should like to draw attention to one point concerning the new clause, although I make no complaint about it. As drafted, the new clause would give employers capital allowances at the 25 per cent. rate in respect of qualifying expenditure on adapting commercial buildings, because capital expenditure on such buildings outside enterprise zones does not attract tax relief. On the other hand, similar expenditure on industrial and agricultural buildings and hotels would not qualify for allowances at this rate under the new clause, because it is likely that the expenditure already qualifies for allowance, but at 4 per cent. There is a difference of treatment in the present system. The new clause is a move towards greater differences in tax allowances on buildings. I drew that point to the attention of the hon. Member for Sedgefield because I was not sure that that was his deliberate intention.

Although there are points which I shall pursue and points to which I will return— in the case of the hon. Member for Eccles—and others to which I shall draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security, especially those concerning publicity for the grants system, we think that we should look largely to the grants in respect of conversion of buildings. We think that the existing arrangements both outside and inside the tax system provide a degree of assistance.

Mr. Blair

This point should be clarified because some Opposition Members may have misunderstood it. As I understand it, there are no allowances for alterations to industrial buildings for disabled people.

Mr. Lamont

If industrial buildings are adapted, capital expenditure on altering them qualifies for an annual allowance of 4 per cent., as I said to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alfred Morris

This is an important debate for people with disabilities. The starting point, for both sides of the House, should be the undoubted entitlement of disabled people to count as a part of and not apart from society, which is impossible if buildings in which they could work are inaccessible to them. They want, wherever possible, to enjoy the dignity of being taxpayers, not the dependence of supplementary benefit. That means allowing them access to far more places of work than are accessible to them now. Not to do everything within our power to improve access is to pile handicap on handicap for disabled people.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury cited some statistics on the employment of disabled people. In most parts of Britain, unemployment among disabled people who are looking for work is twice as high as it is among people generally. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said, the same is grievously true of disabled school leavers who, in so many cases, now go straight from school to scrap heap. Unemployment is bad enough among the able-bodied, but among disabled people it is a scandal which should be of surpassing concern to the House.

Not long ago, I saw a deputation from the organisations of disabled people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They told me that, in many parts of all three, unemployment among disabled people who are registered for work is now more than 80 per cent. That is the sombre backcloth to the debate and the justification for the new clause. How can the Government possibly justify resistance to a measure that can help to change for the better that shocking statistic from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? For a disabled person, unemployment is a double handicap which can lead to double despair, and reducing it should be one of our highest priorities.

6.45 pm

The Treasury is keen enough to cost any and every claim for a new benefit. I know that as a former Minister for the Disabled. What costing has the Treasury done in relation to the new clause? What does it estimate the net cost would be? The aim of the new clause is to take people off social security by making them taxpayers. The net cost could well be negligible, while the good it can achieve will be crucially important to people with disabilities. Rejection of the measure would be seen not only as self-defeating but as hurtful to some of the most needful people in Britain today.

In granting capital allowances for expenditure on building works to provide access for disabled workers, the new clause could well have been more than self-financing. How can the Financial Secretary possibly reject the proposition which we are making in the new clause when there are tax allowances for the managing director's cocktail cabinet and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, for the Royal Doulton in the directors' dining room?

The justification for the new clause is self-evident and its drafting closely follows that of other legislation. The Financial Secretary questioned the drafting of the new clause. If there are defects, I am sure that the combined ingenuity of both sides of the House will overcome any problem that may stand in the way of carrying through this important reform for disabled people.

The new clause is about improving access not only for physically disabled people, but for the sensorily disabled, especially the deaf and the blind. They, too, have daunting, not to say intimidating, problems of access to many public and social buildings.

The Government never tire of expressing their concern about the totally unacceptable level of unemployment among disabled people, but what is needed is practical concern and meaningful help, not the customary mixture of sympathy and sloganising. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield made a compelling case for a measure that is of the first importance if we are further to improve the well-being and status of people with disabilities. The new clause is not about compassion; it is about equal rights. I am delighted to support it. If, as the Financial Secretary said, this is but a modest improvement, why on earth can he not accept the new clause?

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 215.

Division No. 248] [6.47 pm
AYES
Adams, Allen (Paisley N) Ewing, Harry
Alton, David Fatchett, Derek
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Faulds, Andrew
Ashdown, Paddy Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Ashton, Joe Fisher, Mark
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) Flannery, Martin
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Barnett, Guy Forrester, John
Barron, Kevin Foster, Derek
Beckett, Mrs Margaret Foulkes, George
Beith, A. J. Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Bell, Stuart Freud, Clement
Bidwell, Sydney Garrett, W. E.
Blair, Anthony George, Bruce
Bray, Dr Jeremy Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) Gould, Bryan
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Gourlay, Harry
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N) Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Bruce, Malcolm Hancock, Michael
Buchan, Norman Hardy, Peter
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) Harman, Ms Harriet
Campbell-Savours, Dale Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Canavan, Dennis Heffer, Eric S.
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Home Robertson, John
Cartwright, John Howells, Geraint
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Hoyle, Douglas
Clarke, Thomas Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Clay, Robert Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Clelland, David Gordon Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S) Janner, Hon Greville
Cohen, Harry John, Brynmor
Coleman, Donald Johnston, Sir Russell
Cook, Frank (Stockton North) Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Corbett, Robin Kennedy, Charles
Corbyn, Jeremy Kirkwood, Archy
Craigen, J. M. Lambie, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence Leighton, Ronald
Cunningham, Dr John Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Dalyell, Tam Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) Livsey, Richard
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I) Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Deakins, Eric McCartney, Hugh
Dewar, Donald McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Dixon, Donald McGuire, Michael
Douglas, Dick McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Duffy, A. E. P. McKelvey, William
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Eadie, Alex McWilliam, John
Eastham, Ken Madden, Max
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE) Marek, Dr John
Evans, John (St. Helens N) Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Maxton, John Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Meadowcroft, Michael Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Michie, William Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Skinner, Dennis
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) Spearing, Nigel
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Steel, Rt Hon David
O'Neill, Martin Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Straw, Jack
Park, George Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Parry, Robert Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Pavitt, Laurie Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Pendry, Tom Tinn, James
Penhaligon, David Torney, Tom
Pike, Peter Wainwright, R.
Radice, Giles Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Randall, Stuart Wareing, Robert
Redmond, Martin Welsh, Michael
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S) Wigley, Dafydd
Richardson, Ms Jo Williams, Rt Hon A.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) Wilson, Gordon
Robertson. George Winnick, David
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) Woodall, Alec
Rogers, Allan Wrigglesworth, Ian
Rooker, J. W.
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W) Tellers for the Ayes:
Rowlands, Ted Mr. Frank Haynes and
Sheldon, Rt Hon R. Mr. Ray Powell.
NOES
Adley, Robert Galley, Roy
Aitken, Jonathan Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) Garel-Jones, Tristan
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Batiste. Spencer Glyn, Dr Alan
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Goodhart, Sir Philip
Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic Gow, Ian
Best, Keith Gower, Sir Raymond
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Greenway, Harry
Blackburn, John Gregory, Conal
Boscawen. Hon Robert Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) Grylls, Michael
Bruinvels, Peter Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. Hampson, Dr Keith
Burt, Alistair Hanley, Jeremy
Butterfill, John Hargreaves, Kenneth
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Harris, David
Carttiss, Michael Harvey, Robert
Chope, Christopher Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Churchill, W. S. Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Hawksley, Warren
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Hayes, J.
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Clegg, Sir Walter Heathcoat-Amory, David
Cockeram, Eric Heddle, John
Colvin, Michael Henderson, Barry
Conway, Derek Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Simon Hickmet, Richard
Cope, John Hicks, Robert
Corrie, John Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Critchley, Julian Hind, Kenneth
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Hirst, Michael
Dunn, Robert Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Dykes, Hugh Hordern, Sir Peter
Emery, Sir Peter Howard, Michael
Farr, Sir John Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Favell, Anthony Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Hunter, Andrew
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey Irving, Charles
Fookes, Miss Janet Jessel, Toby
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Forth, Eric Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Fowler. Rt Hon Norman Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Fox, Sir Marcus Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Fraser, Peter (Angus East) Key, Robert
Freeman, Roger Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Gale, Roger Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Knowles, Michael Ryder, Richard
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman Sackville, Hon Thomas
Latham, Michael Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Lawler, Geoffrey Sayeed, Jonathan
Lawrence, Ivan Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) Shelton, William (Streatham)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lester, Jim Shersby, Michael
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) Sims, Roger
Lilley, Peter Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Speed, Keith
Lord, Michael Spencer, Derek
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
McLoughlin, Patrick Stanbrook, Ivor
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) Stanley, Rt Hon John
Major, John Steen, Anthony
Malins, Humfrey Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Marland, Paul Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Marlow, Antony Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Sumberg, David
Mather, Carol Tapsell, Sir Peter
Maude, Hon Francis Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mellor, David Temple-Morris, Peter
Merchant, Piers Terlezki, Stefan
Meyer, Sir Anthony Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mills, Iain (Meriden) Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Moate, Roger Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S) Thornton, Malcolm
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) Thurnham, Peter
Moynihan, Hon C. Townend, John (Bridlington)
Murphy, Christopher Twinn, Dr Ian
Neale, Gerrard Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Nelson, Anthony Viggers, Peter
Neubert, Michael Waddington, David
Newton, Tony Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Nicholls, Patrick Wall, Sir Patrick
Norris, Steven Waller, Gary
Onslow, Cranley Ward, John
Osborn, Sir John Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W) Watts, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath) Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Pawsey, James Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Wheeler, John
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian Whitfield, John
Pollock, Alexander Whitney, Raymond
Portillo, Michael Wiggin, Jerry
Powley, John Wilkinson, John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg Winterton, Mrs Ann
Proctor, K. Harvey Winterton, Nicholas
Raffan, Keith Wolfson, Mark
Renton, Tim Wood, Timothy
Rhodes James, Robert Yeo, Tim
Ridsdale, Sir Julian Young, Sir George (Acton)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Robinson, Mark (N'port W) Tellers for the Noes:
Roe, Mrs Marion Mr. Tony Durant and
Rowe, Andrew Mr. Gerald Malone.
Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to