Civil Rights (Disabled People) (Hansard, 26 May 1994)

§ Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich)
I want to deal with this issue in three parts. The House recently considered a Bill which, had it been passed, would have secured civil rights for disabled people. I wish to review the way in which the Government approached that remedy. I intend also to consider the general issue of rights for disabled people and the argument for legislation in addition to education and persuasion. I shall also examine the costs of providing civil rights for disabled people in this country.
The Government are aware that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members are in favour of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Because of that, the Government ran away from the issue and deployed a series of delaying tactics to prevent a Bill which would have afforded civil rights for disabled people from becoming law.
Yesterday Madam Speaker had the task of rebuking the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) —and rightly so—for denying that the source of her amendments was other than herself. The House is well aware that those amendments had been drafted by parliamentary counsel on Government instructions.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
Order. The subject of the hon. Gentleman's debate is civil rights and disabled people; it is not meant to be a re-run of events surrounding a Bill which aroused a certain amount of controversy. I therefore ask him not to stray into matters which have already been fully debated.

§ Mr. Austin-Walker
I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my understanding is that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is still before the House and that there will be another opportunity for the House to return to it.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot refer to that Bill.

Several hon. Members
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not want to stifle debate, but the hon. Gentleman can refer to the Bill only incidentally. I trust that the hon. Gentleman understands me.

§ Mr. Austin-Walker
It is clear that disabled people in this country believe that they are denied their civil rights. There have been repeated attempts in the House to secure those rights. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) was a Minister, he established a committee to examine the issue. That committee reported 12 years ago. Since then, there have been repeated attempts to introduce legislation, including that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe in the last Parliament.
More recently, a Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), which was also debated. In accordance with your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not debate the way in which that Bill was obstructed. However, I shall examine the difference in the approach of the supporters of that Bill and that of the Government.
Until recently, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People had earned the respect and confidence of 484 many disabled people and organisations for the disabled, and it is tragic that he has become the fall guy in the blocking of a measure which could have given civil rights to disabled people when responsibility in fact rests not with him but with his senior colleagues and, ultimately, the Prime Minister.
On 12 April, the Prime Minister told me that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill would provide an opportunity to examine the practical implications of such legislation in Committee. I regret that that did not happen and I want to discuss the reasons that the Government give for not embracing comprehensive civil rights legislation.-For the Prime Minister's commitment to be honoured, it would have been necessary for the Government to put their view in Committee, but they did not do so.
In the last Session of Parliament, the Minister said that he did not want the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe to proceed because we were coming to the end of the parliamentary Session and the Bill required detailed examination during a good long run in Committee. In the short period before the summer recess the House may, if it wishes, debate in detail and pass into legislation—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. There is no opportunity today for such a discussion. The hon. Gentleman should return to the subject of the debate. We are discussing civil rights and disabled people. Most of his speech has dwelt on the Bill.

§ Mr. Austin-Walker
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that we need legislation to secure the civil rights of disabled people. The Minister told us that he favours a process of education and persuasion. We need education and persuasion to assist in the fulfilment of civil rights for disabled people, but if we rely on that alone, thousands of disabled people will endure years of frustration, unemployment, poverty, low incomes and the denial of dignity and basic human rights. Disabled people are not asking for preferential treatment. They are seeking equality of opportunity. They are asking for the right not to any and every job but to be considered fairly for any job.
Sometimes a disability may prevent a person from doing a particular job. In those circumstances if the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood had become law, an employer would not have been guilty of discrimination by not employing a disabled person. More often than not, however, if the disabled person has the skills to carry out a job, some obstacle will be placed in the way. Often the barrier to a disabled person doing a job can be cheaply and easily removed.
Much has been made in past debates, not only in this Session, about the cost of securing civil rights for disabled people. At no stage, however, have the Government costed the benefits of people moving from dependence to independence and the savings which result for the community if disabled people are in work contributing to its wealth rather than receiving benefit.
Employers' research clearly shows that their perceptions of disabled people in work are flawed. Disabled people are far from being a burden. Statistical evidence shows that the job performance of 91 per cent. of disabled workers is average or better than average and that the attendance of 93 per cent. of them is average or better than average compared with able-bodied people.
485 Direct discrimination is a problem, but institutional discrimination is probably a greater problem and more difficult to tackle. Anti-discrimination legislation is the only effective way to tackle that. Institutional discrimination can be addressed only by changing organisational, social and individual behaviour. That requires legal prescription. The Government recognise that in terms of racial discrimination, but not in terms of disability. Martin Luther King dismissed the case for relying on education and persuasion alone to end racial discrimination. He said: Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless. Attitudes need to change, but in the meantime behaviour and practices need to be regulated to ensure that disabled people enjoy their full basic human and civil rights.
Disabled people are fed up with charity and with paternalism. They want rights. A disabled person who has been refused a job or denied access to a restaurant does not want to wait for the Minister's favoured course of education and persuasion to take effect. In employment, we have had education and persuasion for more than 50 years. We have had ineffective legislation with virtually no penalties since 1944. There is a power to prosecute under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, but the Government have not embarked on a single prosecution since they took office, preferring the path of education and persuasion; yet today, 50 years after the legislation was introduced, only 20 per cent., or one fifth, of employers comply with it. We are approaching the year 2000, but at the current rate of progress we shall be two centuries into the next millennium before all employers comply. However, even that is not what disabled people want.
The 1944 Act imposes quotas, a concept that is specifically unlawful in other forms of legislation such as the Race Relations Act 1976. Quotas are, by their very nature, discriminatory. Disabled people do not want quotas or tokenism and they do not want to be patronised. They want rights. The Morris Bill and the Berry Bill would have provided basic civil rights for disabled people.
One objection to such all-embracing legislation is the cost involved. The Government have argued that those who produced—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in such a short debate, but I must draw his attention to the rules of the House. "Erskine May" states: In general, matters which would entail legislation must not be discussed on a motion for the adjournment". The hon. Gentleman must not refer to legislation.

§ Mr. Austin-Walker
Perhaps it would be appropriate to refer to the Select Committee on Employment, which in 1991 called on the Government to explore urgently the possibility of equal opportunity legislation for the employment of people with disabilities and report to Parliament upon the potential effect and costs in the Labour Market.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)
Perhaps my hon. Friend could also discuss the point that many people make as to why it is argued that this country cannot afford civil rights for disabled people on grounds of cost when so many other countries can afford full civil rights for their people.

§ Mr. Austin-Walker
I agree with my right hon. Friend.
486 We have not yet seen the report so urgently called for by the Select Committee on Employment in 1991 to examine the cost and the effects on the labour market of equal opportunity legislation for people with disabilities. Before comprehensive legislation was introduced in the United States, there were suggestions that it would place enormous burdens on industry and small businesses in particular. However, the evidence from the United States, which has pursued a policy of all-embracing equality legislation and adopted the civil rights approach, shows that those forebodings have not been realised. Industry has not been crippled and firms have not gone out of business as a result of civil rights measures.
The Government said that giving civil rights to disabled people would cripple industry and the competitiveness of small businesses. Will the Minister tell us how many businesses in the United States were brought down by the cost of complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act? In fact, most employers found that the rhetoric in this country—from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment—is true, and that compliance with the ADA in America has benefited them because they have been able to tap a previously unknown market. There has also been a massive shift in public attitude and a massive improvement in accessibility, and the public and the media have become more aware of disabled people and their rights. The ADA works in America and it is based on the concept of civil rights. The same pattern has been followed in New Zealand, Canada and Australia, but not in Britain. The Government simply trot out the old adage, "We can't afford it."
I deal now with the Government's assessment of the cost of compliance if the Berry Bill—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Measure."]—if the Berry proposals had been accepted. The £17 billion that has been quoted is wildly unrealistic. It assumes that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe wanted the legislation implemented, with full compliance, from day one when that was certainly not the case. I believe that there is also an element of double costing in the Government's assessment as they have already made available £2 million per annum for the private sector through the new access to work scheme. I do not think that they took account of that in their calculations. I also do not believe that they have made full and effective assessments of the benefits to this country.
During the debates in the House there has been some discussion about the terminology that we should use to describe disabled people. I always felt that we should use the term that disabled people themselves wish to be used. I am pleased that we used the term "disabled people" rather than "people with disabilities". The term "people with disabilities" suggests the concept that a person has a problem and we cannot do anything about it. If we use the concept "disabled people" we can perhaps consider what society does to people. Society can close doors or it can open them. Society can disable people or it can enable them. I believe there is time in this Parliament to reconsider the civil rights of disabled people and to ensure that we are an enabling rather than a disabling Parliament.

§ Mr. Roger Berry (Kingswood)
I shall be brief so that the Minister can speak for 10 minutes. He is not used to such brevity, so I shall do my best to assist him.
487 For a reason which escapes me, in the past six months we have had many debates on civil rights and disabled people. Both in the Chamber and outside, every 'time we have debated the need for disabled people to have their civil rights, disabled people and their supporters have always won the arguments. Every vote on the issue has been won without any opposition whatever. At the end of the day, one thing remains clear. Once and for all we have seen a clear recognition by everyone that the time will come very soon when disabled people will be guaranteed their civil rights. Nobody now doubts that. That has been one of the features of the debates over the past few months; all the arguments have been won.
The second feature of the debates on civil rights over the past few months has been disabled people's feeling that the House has not treated their concerns properly and with due respect. Numerous devices have been employed against those campaigning for civil rights for disabled people. I shall not describe those devices now. They are well known, and it is clear who has been responsible for them. The feelings of disabled people, too, are a matter of record.
The one major argument against ensuring that disabled people have their civil rights relies on the costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) referred to that argument. Indeed, it is the only argument left. Only two days ago the Prime Minister said that the Bill to ensure civil rights for disabled people would impose costs of £17 billion on private industry".—[Official Report, 24 May 1994; Vol. 244, c. 180.] That is not even what the Government's own document says, and it is a further example of the House being deliberately misled. The Government's document refers to time scales for implementing the legislation which are not being suggested by disabled people or by their supporters in the Chamber. A totally spurious time scale has been invented to give rise to totally spurious cost estimates. Everyone in the House knows that.
The inevitability of measures to secure civil rights for disabled people is recognised. There is still an opportunity this Session for that recognition to be translated into legislation. The Government still have an opportunity to rescue what, to date, has been a rather shabby performance on this matter.

§ The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) on his good fortune in securing time, albeit brief, once more to help to keep what all of us who have been involved in the issue over the years recognise as an important matter high on the political agenda. Some people have come somewhat lately to the matter and may have used it for their own particular purposes—

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

§ Mr. Scott
The hon. Member for Woolwich, who initiated the debate this afternoon, has a long-standing interest and commitment in this area. He has always taken a most serious interest in the subject and he has taken part in our debates. I recognise his contribution—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) wishes to intervene, I am perfectly happy to give way to him.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
The Minister has had a long-standing interest in these matters, but he let the side down by deliberately misleading the House and the country—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
The Minister should be ashamed of himself—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House and he has already heard—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
The Minister has no honour—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is the last time that I shall say "Order". The hon. Gentleman has long experience in the House and he knows full well that his intervention was out of order.

§ Mr. Scott
I was paying a sincere and well-deserved tribute to the hon. Member for Woolwich, who has played such a valuable part in our processes. He was a valuable member of the Standing Committee.
For seven years, as Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, I have sought, as I hope will be tolerably widely recognised in the House, to voice and to demonstrate the Government's commitment to the principle of seeking to eliminate discrimination against disabled people and to widen the opportunities available to them fully to participate in our national life. My personal belief in the work that needs to be done remains as strong as ever. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reaffirmed the Government's commitment to that principle when he said recently that the Government share the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people."—[Official Report, 12 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 15.] Recent events, welcome in some aspects, have raised the profile, to use a modern expression, and the rightful expectations of disabled people in our society. They have probably enjoyed rather more coverage in our national media in recent days than they have ever achieved before. I sometimes wonder how many of those who have uttered so strongly and firmly on the issue have employment or access practices that reflect today's needs for disabled people.
What I have done and what I shall continue to do, whatever legislation we have, as Minister with responsibility for disabled people is to seek to raise the profile of the issue and to ensure that more and more people take account of the needs and legitimate aspirations of disabled people.
I deny categorically that the Government have ever sought to mislead people about their attitude towards the approach taken recently in the House by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry)—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope that the Minister will not stray on to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which has been the subject of controversy recently. I have already made my point clear. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask you to take into account on this matter the words following the passage which you quoted from page 320 of "Erskine May". It says: 489 In general, matters which would entail legislation must not be discussed on a motion for the Adjournment; but under Standing Order No 29 Mr. Speaker may permit such incidental reference to legislative action as he may consider relevant to any matter"—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is exactly what the Deputy Speaker has been doing.

§ Mr. Scott
Certainly, I was not seeking to stray into the merits or otherwise of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, but was talking about the approach advanced by Opposition Members. As I have said on a number of occasions, and I shall reiterate what I have just said, we share the overall aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people. I unashamedly and fiercely defend the record of the Government, because of the significant achievements that have been made over the past 15 years by the Government, and in the private sector with the encouragement of the Government, to eliminate discrimination, to reduce discrimination against disabled people and to expand the opportunities available to them. Frankly, although I well understand the narrow political reasons that lead Opposition Members to take such an attitude, I think that it is rather churlish of them—[Interruption.]—rather churlish of them to dismiss the progress that has already been made.
We have made a number advances in the field of employment, the most recent being the access to work announcement of my right hon.—

§ Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, during this debate, for the Minister to attempt to rescue a reputation that is in tatters over this very matter?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order for the Chair.

§ Mr. Scott
I believe that the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a really positive step in the right direction to remove the many barriers that we all acknowledge face disabled people in their efforts to obtain employment in this country. We all know that the quota system, which has been in existence for many decades, is not an appropriate or effective way in which to achieve equality of opportunity or to remove discrimination against disabled people.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
What pride does the Minister take in the fact that the Department of Health employs only 0.7 per cent. of disabled people, the Home Office employs 0.3 per cent., or a tenth of the 3 per cent. quota, and that there is not a single disabled employee in No. 10 Downing street?

§ Mr. Scott
If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman should know better, because he was the first person to hold the job that I hold at the moment. He knows that failure to meet those quotas or failure to prosecute those who fail to meet them was the same under previous Administrations. We all know the fact about the quota is that there are not sufficient registered disabled people—the number to which the percentage figure applies—for employers to match. In my Department, the Department of Social Security, as I have said to the House on previous occasions, 1.5 per cent. of our employees are registered as disabled, but 5 per cent. of our employees identify themselves as being disabled in one way or another. I believe that that is a more realistic measure of the willingness of Government as a whole to employ and give opportunities to disabled people. We have already said that we shall continue to build on the work that the Government have already done in that important area. I recognise its importance and its sensitivity. We need to ensure that it is taken forward at a pace.
We have already announced our proposals— [Interruption.]—to consult widely in the following key areas affecting the quality of life of disabled people in our society. The first area is the removal of discrimination in employment. We know the importance of that, but anybody who has had my responsibilities or has taken an interest in the matter knows that employment for many disabled people is not a realistic ambition. More and more will be able to avail themselves of that opportunity as a result of technological advances and steps that the Government are considering taking and will be consulting on in the near future.
Employment is a key area, but access to goods and services is also very important for those who experience disabilities in our society and that, too, is a matter on which we shall be consulting. We shall also be considering the possibility of codes of practice for the financial services industry where I know—[Interruption.]—I know that disabled people have to face non-actuarially based discrimination in insurance, banking and so on. That is another area that we need to tackle.
We also know about the impact of building regulations on the lives of disabled people and on their access to buildings, whether domestic or non-domestic. We need to consult on the possibility of creating a new advisory body to discuss those matters and investigate matters of discrimination against disabled people. That is the range of issues on which the Government are determined to consult in the coming months. At the end of that consultation process, the Government will consider the best way forward. I believe that that is much more sensible, realistic, practicable and affordable than the concepts embraced in the proposed legislation that was recently discussed.