HC Deb 15 July 1994 vol 246 cc1296-307

11 am

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott)

With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement regarding the publication today of a consultation document on measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people. The document addresses five key areas affecting their lives. The Government would welcome comments on the proposals in the course of the next three months.

The Government give a high priority to helping disabled people to live with dignity and independence. Over the last 15 years, much has been done to further that aim. This document seeks to build on that record, offering wider opportunities for disabled people to partake in and contribute to the life of our community.

As the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister welcomed the fact that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was to be examined and discussed in more detail-in Committee. This and subsequent debates also provided the opportunity for other voices to be heard in addition to those of the supporters of the Bill—employers, small businesses and other service providers, the very people on whom the burden of any additional cost would be likely to fall. The Government's consultation document will ensure that all those affected will have the opportunity to comment on the next steps.

The first issue addressed in the document is that of employment. The quota system, which requires that registered disabled people should make up at least 3 per cent. of larger work forces, is increasingly recognised as unworkable. Only one third of those in the work force eligible to register do so—about 1 per cent. Therefore, the quota scheme as it stands cannot be sustained and the approach is, in my view, inappropriate to today's needs.

Many employers, of course, adopt good and sensitive practices when employing disabled people, but the Government recognise that some employers may discriminate unjustifiably against them. We are therefore inviting views on how that unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people can be tackled in this important area.

One option might be to strengthen the quota scheme itself, but it is hard to see how its underlying problem of low registration could be overcome. Another approach might be simply to repeal the quota scheme and replace it with an entirely voluntary system.

The Government are aware, however, that there is now widespread support for the present system to be replaced by a statutory right for disabled people not to be unjustifiably discriminated against in employment. Such a right would replace the quota scheme. We are consulting on ways in which such a right might be framed, but the Government would be prepared to consider the position again if there were substantial support for a workable and effective alternative.

The introduction of such a right would have to take into account the fact that some people would be unable to do some jobs because of their disability. Employers would also have to consider whether it was reasonably practicable —taking account of cost and other factors—to make an adjustment to the working environment or practices or to provide specialist equipment to enable a disabled person to do his job. A code of practice would be issued to provide guidance on those matters. We would draw on the experience of employers and disabled people when developing the code.

We believe that the right should apply only to people who have a substantial disability that is long term or recurring. We are seeking views on how best to define that group in a clear and practical manner. The new right, like the quota scheme, should not apply to employers with fewer than 20 employees.

Where individuals believe they have been unjustifiably discriminated against, they would have a right to complain to an industrial tribunal. However, it might be possible to provide, as an alternative to full tribunal proceedings, a less formal but more practical and more speedy process to resolve such issues.

Disabled people not only want jobs—important though that ambition is—they also want to be able to participate, to the greatest extent possible, in the full range of activities open to the able-bodied population. It is important, therefore, to make the environment increasingly more accessible to them. The building regulations have done much to make new non-domestic dwellings accessible as well as most extensions to such buildings.

We are considering whether the regulations should also apply to the design of new domestic dwellings so that they would take greater account of the needs of disabled people. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering advice in that area from the building regulations advisory committee. He aims to consult on detailed proposals before the end of the year. That will promote an informed debate on the extent to which new dwellings should be made more accessible to disabled people. There will be a similar consultation exercise in Scotland.

Making buildings physically accessible is of little use to disabled people if they are excluded by prejudice or groundless fears for their safety. We are seeking views on making it unlawful for any person providing goods or services to the public to treat people unfavourably because of disability. Discrimination would be ruled out in a variety of areas, including access to public places, accommodation, entertainment facilities such as cinemas, theatres and restaurants, as well as facilities for transport and travel. The new right of access would not apply where existing physical barriers prevented access or where compliance may create insurmountable safety problems. Where access was wrongly denied, a disabled person would be able to take civil proceedings. He or she would be able to recover damages for any financial loss suffered as well as damages for injuries to feelings. In the latter instance, it might be a fixed sum or an amount subject to an upper limit. The Government could vary the sum or limit in future years. Depending on the level of damages for injury to feelings, claims could be subject to the small claims procedure where proceedings are informal and simple and the cost relatively low.

However, the disabled person might often prefer that the situation which had originally caused offence should be rectified without recourse even to the small claims court. To facilitate the resolution of cases without recourse to legal action, the Government are considering whether to institute a mechanism to help the parties concerned reach a mutually acceptable solution. For example, that might be done by funding a voluntary body to provide an advice and conciliation service for disabled people.

I come now to financial services. We have received little evidence of discrimination in the provision of financial services. None the less, we are inviting the Association of British Insurers, the British Bankers Association and the Building Societies Association to develop and issue statements of good practice on the treatment of disabled customers, including clear advice on how to pursue complaints and, in the case of banks and building societies, to explain the role of their ombudsmen. The Association of British Insurers, for example, will be asked to include in their statement of good practice, first, the need to be aware of the main forms of disability and their relevance in assessing the size or probability of an insurance claim; secondly, that insurers should ask only for medical information that is demonstrably related to the additional risk associated with insuring the disabled person; and thirdly, the need for insurance companies to have a clear mechanism for the investigation of complaints from disabled people and for those complaints to be handled sensitively and speedily.

The ABI will also be invited to set up an independent advisory committee, comprising representatives of insurers and the disability organisations, to monitor the effectiveness of the statement of good practice.

The banks and building societies already follow the code of practice, "Good Banking". That code has, as one of its guiding principles, that banks and building societies should act fairly and reasonably in all their dealings with their customers". The Government are committed to tackling discrimination against disabled people. There is a strong case for setting up an independent body that could closely monitor that area and advise the Government on the effect of existing efforts to combat discrimination. The body would work closely with existing bodies representing the interests of disabled people.

The new body might be called the National Disability Council. In particular, its duties would include monitoring discrimination against disabled people and advising the Government on general issues and measures relating to the elimination of discrimination and progress towards those aims; drawing up codes of practice when requested by the Government; reviewing the effect of the new right of access on business; and reporting annually to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who would be required to lay its report before Parliament.

The Government, in their triple role of policymaker, employer, and service provider, can and should provide a strong lead. I am now co-ordinating a programme of action developed to build upon the many positive initiatives that are already taking place. Later this year, the Government will be launching a major publicity campaign designed to change attitudes and actions that adversely affect disabled people. We will also seek to involve organisations of and for disabled people in wider public consultations and to increase the representation of disabled people on public bodies.

A new programme for action on employment of disabled people in the civil service, launched in conjunction with this document, will provide a strategic framework and detailed action checklists to help Departments and agencies recruit and retain disabled people. Many Government Departments and agencies have already improved the accessibility of their buildings and the quality of service they offer to disabled people. To encourage this approach throughout the public service, a checklist on how the citizens charter principles apply to service provision for disabled people will also be published shortly.

The Government have an impressive record in helping disabled people, but more needs to be done. This document outlines the Government's proposals for further action designed to release the untapped potential of disabled people in our society.

I commend the document to the House and ask that hon. Members and all those who share our concern to improve the quality of life of disabled people by removing barriers and expanding opportunities, to respond in a constructive and forward-looking way to its proposals.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)

It was with some sadness that I listened to the Minister's statement on what could possibly be his last appearance at the Dispatch. Box. His words add very little to what was said in the previous debate in the House, and in his subsequent letter to me on 26 May.

The Minister knows that there are two ways of evaluating the Government's performance before the statement—it is either malevolence towards disabled people and their rights or it is incompetence. Those of us who have been here Friday after Friday know which it is.

It is clear to us that the Government did not have the honesty or integrity to oppose publicly and openly a Bill offering civil rights to disabled people, and that they did not have the courage to allow the House to make its own decision on such a Bill. That is the background to today's statement. But for the Government's total embarrassment on recent Fridays, there would have been no statement, however inadequate.

We received a copy of the statement very late—only a few minutes before the Minister spoke. I thank him for giving us a copy, but I see that it refers to codes of practice; we hear "voluntary" "advisory" and, unfortunately, "citizens charter", but we do not hear about "power" to disabled people. Nor did we hear about a commission, which is the only effective way to deliver rights to disabled people.

Will the Minister confirm that the statement says nothing about important matters such as education and transport, which seriously affect the lives of disabled people? The statement runs to five pages of guff, but contains nothing about education or transport. [Interruption.] If I am allowed to be heard, I shall continue. I know that there are certain sensitivities on the Conservative Back Benches—we have certainly witnessed a discreditable performance Friday after Friday. Once again, Conservatives would like the Opposition's voice not to be heard on this important issue.

Why does the statement fail to address various aspects? It is clear that the Government believe that education and persuasion are all that is necessary, workable, affordable and practical. Suitable legislation that meets all the criteria and which would deliver power to disabled people has already been before the House.

Why has not the Minister produced a document that delivers civil rights? That is what the debate is all about, but the Government are terrified of delivering them to disabled people. Why has not the Minister made a statement of intention that delivers on holistic and integrated approach? The House and disabled people outside know that the statement is piecemeal, partial, pathetic, grudging, belated and inadequate. Disabled people and their supporters will not accept it.

Mr. Scott

I recall a story about a parson who from time to time used to write in the margins of his sermons the initials "AWSL". They stood for "argument weak: shout loudly". Nothing better typifies the hon. Gentleman's approach than those initials.

The previous Labour Government's record bears no comparison with that of this Government in meeting the needs of disabled people over the past 15 years. We have trebled the amount of money provided to disabled people through the benefits system; we have introduced the disability living allowance, the disability working allowance and the independent living fund; carers' income has increased one hundredfold; and I believe that our record bears comparison with anything that has gone before.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) listened with great care to the statement, and that he will respond in his usual constructive manner when he has had time to reflect. I believe that it contains another major step in the right direction. We do not believe in the concept of rights in the sense that it was embraced in the Bill. We prefer to tackle the key issues affecting the lives of disabled people in a practical, workmanlike and affordable manner. We will continue that approach.

Mr. Alan Howarth (Stratford-on-Avon)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that his own abhorrence of discrimination is widely recognised and appreciated and that it is welcome that the Government are undertaking consultation? But will he further accept that the extent of the consultation needs to be increased and that it must be conducted, so to speak, without prejudice?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government owe it to all of us who are concerned about this immensely important issue to make a balanced and realistic analysis of the benefits as well as the costs to the economy, and that it will not do to assert again in the consultation document that the cost of anti-discrimination legislation is £17 billion? We appear to have a dialogue of the deaf in this regard—not with my right hon. Friend, but with the economic Departments.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the consultation needs to cover all the relevant fields and that it is for the Government to lead in the introduction of legislation to establish civil rights for disabled people on a comprehensive basis as a decent society requires, while safeguarding the reasonable interests of employers and service providers?

Mr. Scott

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks and I appreciate his concern. I sought to set out in the statement what we have identified as the key issues. However, it will be open to those who read the consultative document to respond on a range of matters affecting the lives of disabled people. The document contains some assessment of the costs that flow from action in these spheres and, if we move in due course to relevant legislation, compliance cost assessments will be introduced.

I understand the point that my hon. Friend has raised more than once about the need to balance costs with the benefits that might flow to society.

Manifestly, it is more difficult to quantify those benefits in financial terms than to quantify the costs, but undoubtedly there are benefits from greater employment of disabled people and from putting greater purchasing power into the hands of disabled people. That purchasing power can then flow out. We ought to recognise those: to quantify them is a much more difficult task.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

Is not the Minister still up the river without a paddle? Does he recall my hour-long meeting with the Prime Minister, when it was made clear that the Government could not accept any Bill on this subject with cost implications? Is that still his policy?

Is he aware that the promoters of the civil rights Bill have consulted very widely already? Indeed, is he aware that, ever since I first published the Bill in 1991, the response has been strongly positive? Is he also aware that it would be a further and gross betrayal of Britain's 6.5 million disabled people to abandon a Bill which they say is so crucially important to them, and which has a parliamentary majority? Will there be a debate in this House on the document on an amendable motion?

Mr. Scott

It is certainly not open to me to deal with the last point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but I have no doubt that he can make his views known in other quarters.

The manifest flaw in the approach taken by the Bill which we recently discussed is that the costs that were inherent in it were unquantifiable and unpredictable. It is important when the Government come to legislate that they have a clear view not only about the costs that they intend to accept themselves but about those that they intend to impose on business and other providers in our society. That was not taken into account by the Opposition in their approach to the issue. I believe that to create a concept of some over-arching right for disabled people leads one all to easily into the dangers that we have observed in other such legislation.

Mr. Sheerman

Name one.

Mr. Scott

I look particularly—I make no criticism of anyone involved in the process—

Mr. Sheerman

Pregnant ex-service women.

Mr. Scott

If the hon. Gentleman will let me complete the sentence—yes, precisely that. I find few people in my constituency who do not react with astonishment and dismay to the prospect of pregnant ex-service women receiving grants and compensation vastly in excess of those serving members of the armed forces who have been injured in the course of their duties.

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an excellent statement, which is welcomed on the Conservative Benches as a positive way forward for providing additional opportunities for Britain's disabled people. I particularly welcome his proposals for the Government's own lead. The Government are a big player as an employer. I urge my right hon. Friend to produce the action checklist and act on it as soon as possible.

Mr. Scott

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose record in disability matters is well known and highly respected. As I said in my statement, if we are to encourage others to take action in this important area, the Government must set a lead and an example.

Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale)

Is the Minister aware that, although his statement is all very well and good, it does not go far enough? Disabled people want to have their civil rights entrenched in law. They want to be treated like ordinary human beings, because that is what they are.

Why are there no details about transport in the statement? The Minister says that he wants to get more disabled people into employment. Does he not realise that without accessible transport, they cannot get to that employment? He mentioned action in the document. Is he now saying that education and persuasion have not worked?

Mr. Scott

No—I do not agree with the hon. Lady's last point. Increasingly, in terms not only of physical provision but of attitudes towards disabled people, we have made a great deal of progress. However, I recognise that I would not be making this statement today if I did not recognise that we needed to do better and go further in the future.

In a way, I believe that transport has been a good example of how significant progress has been made in recent years without the need for some over-arching legislation. On the railways, all new rolling stock is now accessible for disabled people. We already have in London and in other parts of the country pilot projects for properly accessible buses.

All new taxis in London have to be accessible to wheelchairs, and 80 other local authorities around the country are following the same rules that were started in London. Anyone who looks at what has happened in terms of accessible transport in Britain over the 10 years should recognise the substantial progress that has been made.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)

Is it not a parliamentary fact that private Members' Bills are frail craft, ill suited for highly controversial and expensive legislation? I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on presenting a document that talks in terms of what is practical and affordable. I congratulate him on getting money out of the Treasury for that purpose at a difficult time.

Mr. Scott

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has also contributed a great deal on disability matters. [Interruption.] We shall have to see. This is a consultation document. I know that it may be an unfamiliar concept to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) to publish suggestions and then listen to what people outside have to say about them. We will listen to the representations that are made to us and then make firm decisions on the way forward.

Mr. Roger Berry (Kingswood)

I thank the Minister for giving me, as the most recent promoter of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, early sight of his statement and the consultation document. There have been many such Bills, and I hope that it will not be necessary for there to be many more.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the very reason why he has made the statement here this morning is that there is overwhelming support throughout the country for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? If the Minister is saying that the Government cannot accept the principle of rights-based legislation, will he tell please tell the House why neither he nor any of his colleagues voted against the Second Reading of the Bill and why he did not oppose a single clause of the Bill in Committee?

Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the one option for progress that has the overwhelming majority support of Members of this House is, indeed, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? In the spirit of consultation —I share his view that it is necessary to consult—will the Minister circulate with his documents for consultation the one proposal that a majority of Members of Parliament are on record as supporting?

Mr. Scott

I recognise the proprietorial interest that the hon. Gentleman has in his piece of legislation.

Mr. Sheerman

Don't be so patronising.

Mr. Scott

I am not being patronising. I genuinely understand the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the concept behind his Bill. I do not happen to agree, and the Government do not agree, that it is the way forward. I believe that much of the swell of support for his Bill came about because of a general wish in our society to meet the needs of disabled people. I believe that, when people understand what we propose in a practical and affordable manner, they will support us in the work that we are doing, and look forward to the action that will flow from the process.

Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst)

I commend my right hon. Friend for both the tone and the content of his statement, and for the positive steps that he has taken in issuing the consultation document. It is far more in character than his attitude to the private Member's Bill, which some of us found rather disappointing, and which seemed to alternate between ambivalence and a negative approach. Will he assure me that, during the consultation process, full account will be taken of the needs and problems of those who suffer what has been described as the invisible disability—the deaf and hard of hearing?

Mr. Scott

It will certainly be our intention to take account of those needs as we go forward. I hope that the House as a whole, rather than harking back to the approach of the Bill so recently discussed, will look forward in a constructive way to the future. Anyone who has held my job knows that the largest group of disabled people n our society is the deaf and hard of hearing. We will certainly not neglect their needs.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

In his reference to the financial aspects and how disabled people could have access to finance, the Minister referred to the "main forms" of disability. Does that mean that he is talking about the categorisation of disability? Disability comes in many forms, and each is distressing, and we certainly would not like to see any categorisation. As to monitoring discrimination, the Minister indicated that a much closer watch will be kept on that. Who will be appointed to do the monitoring and to whom will they be accountable? Finally, what budget limit has been placed on the exercise by the Treasury?

Mr. Scott

It would clearly be wrong to go into the consultation process with some predetermined financial limit on what action might follow, and no such thing has been done. We will be going out genuinely to consult on the proposals in the document, and then looking to see what action can be taken. We do not enter this with predetermined attitudes, and we look forward to receiving and involving all the organisations of and for disabled people, as well as hon. Members. Of course, we are not forgetting that there are many other people whose businesses and other activities will be affected by any legislation that we pass in this sensitive area.

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement successfully balances the special needs of disabled people with the reasonable ability of a Government to pay, unlike the past rhetoric of Opposition Members?

Mr. Scott

I am sure that that is right; it is the correct approach for us to take in this area. Having said that, I am convinced—I am sure that all those who have held my post are convinced—that there is still discrimination against disabled people. Of course, this involves some expenditure, but it also involves changing many people's attitudes towards disabled people and recognising the immense untapped potential there still is for disabled people to contribute in a whole variety of ways to our society.

Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting)

The credibility among disabled people of the consultation that the Minister wants will depend on what happens after that consultation. The Minister referred to the three-month period. Can he tell the House a little more about what will happen?

Will there be a Bill, or will there be a debate initiated by the Government, which would give hon. Members a proper opportunity to discuss all the points raised in the consultation? If that is the case, can he assure the House that we will not be treated as we were, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) was, over the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, when we did not have a proper allocation of time? May we have an assurance that, after the consultation, something constructive will happen and there will be adequate time for the House to discuss that?

Mr. Scott

I would not have produced a document, as I have today, unless I was looking forward to positive action following the consultation process. I very much hope that, during the three-month period, we will get a good and positive response to the ideas in the document. Legislation is referred to in the document. We will have to see how to carry that work forward when we return.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes (Wimbledon)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difficulty in this saga is not a question of principle but the practical application to help the disabled, in which he has such a singularly distinguished record? Is there not a stark contrast between the practical help offered by the Government in the instant help given to those on the disability living allowance introduced by this Government, compared to the Labour Government's mobility allowance introduced in 1976, which was phased in over a long period? Does that not demonstrate the differences between posturing and practical application?

Mr. Scott

Of course, Labour Governments suffer when they seek to introduce measures in this area—and, indeed, in a whole range of other areas—from their total and proven inability to run a successful economy. The controls of the International Monetary Fund always play a significant part in their activities.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Is not the reality that the Government have been dragged kicking, screaming and protesting into introducing the consultation document? May I take the Minister back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), about what might happen in terms of legislation? May we have an assurance that, in so far as the consultation period ends in three months' time, at the end of October, we will have legislation before July next year? I give the Minister notice that Labour will seek substantially to amend that legislation if it does not meet our objectives.

Mr. Scott

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not in a position to give that assurance, but I can tell him that we are approaching the consultative exercise, on which we are now embarking, in a positive way, and looking forward to a positive outcome as a result.

Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

Is not the only pathetic thing about the statement this morning the ridiculous rant of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), and the fact that so many Labour Members have singularly failed to welcome what is an important step forward for the disabled?

Is it not a fact that this Government have achieved more for the disabled than the Labour party could ever have dreamt of 15 years ago? Is it not both presumptuous and impertinent for Labour Members to arrogate to themselves the monopoly of caring for the disabled, and the belief that they have the only practical and sensible system for achieving the sort of end for the disabled that all of us in the House want?

Mr. Scott

With his long experience of advocacy and presenting effective cases, I do not think that I can do better than simply say that I agree with my hon. and learned Friend.

Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)

If, as the Minister said, the costs of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill are unquantifiable, how have the figures which I have heard, which range from £15 billion to £18 billion, been arrived at, and why was there no detailed definition of such costs in the Bill? Further, with whom will the Minister consult? All we have heard from Tory Members is an attitude to the disabled which suggests that they are constantly looking for patronising help. It is not help the disabled want; it is civil rights.

Mr. Scott

The document is being distributed across the whole range of those who are interested in this matter. Of course, it involves the organisations of and for disabled people, as well as hon. Members. It will also be of particular interest to those on whom any costs may fall, either in the public or the private sector. I look forward to receiving a whole range of views about the way forward, but the Government certainly intend to approach the matter in a constructive and forward-looking manner.

Dr. Ian Twinn (Edmonton)

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement today and for the opportunity it gives the country as a whole for constructive consultation on this matter. Is he aware that the 60 per cent. increase in funding for the London dial-a-ride has been warmly welcomed in London since the demise of the Greater London council? Is that not a good example of how the Government have taken positive and constructive action throughout their time in office to help disabled people and not relied on adding burdens on industry which may in fact harm the interests of disabled people?

Mr. Scott

The whole point of the consultation document is to be able to balance a whole range of factors —some leaning one way, some another way. I certainly reinforce my admiration for the progress that we have made in terms of dial-a-ride. But in a whole range of other areas, surely those who have open rather than closed minds recognise the tremendous progress that has been made over the past 15 years.

Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield)

Does the Minister recall that, when the National Health Service and Community Care Bill was discussed in the House, assurances were given by the right hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), who is now the Secretary of State for Health, that the advocacy provisions in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 were overtaken by the provisions in the 1990 Act? Obviously, that is now nonsense to all disabled people in the country.

The Minister made no mention whatever of advocacy provisions this morning. What steps will the Government take within the review to ensure that proper advocacy provisions for disabled persons are introduced in Britain?

Mr. Scott

Manifestly, those matters are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and, undoubtedly, the hon. Gentleman will take an opportunity to raise that matter with her. We certainly do not want closely to define the consultative process on the document. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has points that are relevant to it, he is welcome to put them forward.

Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar)

My right hon. Friend talked about financial services and suggested that a code of voluntary practice is appropriate. Given the change in those financial services, that is probably better than primary legislation. In his discussions with the industry, and bearing in mind the fact that one of our larger institutions recently had to withdraw some of its employees from work because it got the guidelines wrong, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the guidelines, when they are issued, receive wide publicity and are aimed at customers of those financial institutions?

In addition, will my right hon. Friend stress to the industry the fact that, should it decide to place additional sums on a client's costs because he or she is disabled, it will have to be demonstrably proven that that extra cost relates to the disability and that there is a strong reason why such a cost should not be absorbed generally within the services?

Mr. Scott

I am sure that my hon. Friend's latter point will be taken seriously by those who take part in the consultation—the organisations that represent banking, insurance and building societies.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)

The document contains few international comparisons, which does not surprise me. In 1981, I was the rapporteur in the European Parliament for the International Year of the Disabled, which involved making comparisons between European countries on the situation of disabled people. At that time, the United Kingdom was very near the bottom of the pile on rights for disabled people, and it is still at the bottom of the pile. This document is the mark of a weak Minister, who has failed to make his case with the Treasury.

On the quota system, it has been suggested that the system ought to be voluntary. In other European countries, a financial levy is imposed on employers who do not meet the quota system. The Minister should consider that carefully, as its strength has already been established. The Department of Employment is one of the few Government Departments to have reached its 3 per cent. quota. Is he suggesting that, if there is a voluntary scheme, Departments will be able to throw the quota system out of the window?

Mr. Scott

I described earlier the new actions being taken throughout the civil service to encourage the employment and retention of disabled people. We will be approaching that matter very positively throughout Government.

The hon. Lady's recollection of the pattern of provision in other European countries may or may not be correct. I have visited a number of them since I was given my present responsibilities. In this country, we have nothing to be ashamed of in our provision for disabled people. She mentioned the concept of imposing a levy on employers if they fail to reach their quota, as happens in one or two European countries. Many employers in those countries prefer to pay the levy rather than employ a disabled person.

Mrs. Angela Knight (Erewash)

As part of his consultation, will my right hon. Friend explore better ways to promote best practice and effective practical help, such as the excellent decision by Trent Buses, which operates in my constituency, to replace its existing bus fleet with so-called "kneeling buses", to the great benefit of disabled people and the elderly?

Mr. Scott

I very much agree. Opposition Members often deride good practice as an ineffective approach. Of course I recognise that law has to play a part in our approach to meeting disabled people's needs, but I am sure that good practice, and a deeper understanding of the contribution that disabled people can make and the extent to which we can voluntarily overcome obstacles to their doing so—in a way that encourages good practice—also have an important part to play.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Madam Speaker

Order. I am now going to bring questions on the statement to a close. Hon. Members will understand that we shall be returning to the subject of disability. Today is the last day for private Members' Bills and I cannot deny those Members with Bills on the Order Paper the opportunity to reach their Bills.