Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill

HL Deb 16 June 1981 vol 421 cc586-623

6.52 p.m.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Masham of Ilton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[THE LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Needs of the disabled on highways]:

Baroness Darcy (De Knayth) moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 9, at end insert— ("( ) It shall be a duty of highway authorities, whenever a new pedestrian crossing or crossing of similar purpose is being constructed or laid out, to provide ramps which are constructed in accordance with B.S. Institute code of practice B.S. 5810: 1979 or such other code as the Secretary of State may prescribe.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment is self-explanatory. It simply places a duty on the highway authorities to provide ramps only at new pedestrian crossings, so no extra expense would be involved. It is very necessary because only the very agile wheelchair users can tip themselves up on to the back wheels of the chair and drop down a kerb. Some can go down backwards but many have to ask for help every time they cross the road.

Going backwards (which I do myself) can have its disadvantages. It is confusing to the traffic because it is thought that you are going back up on to the pavement and therefore drivers do not stop. Some friends of mine (both in wheelchairs) went to Rome and had the greatest difficulty in doing any sightseeing, because every time they went down the kerb on to the crossing loads of helpful Italians rushed to push them back on to the pavement, and so they could never get across the street. I feel this amendment would be useful for people pushing prams as well. I hope the Minister will feel that she can accept this amendment. I beg to move.

Viscount Ingleby

I should like to support this amendment. I experience the same kind of difficulties, that have been described. As the noble Baroness said, it would be of benefit not only to the disabled but also the elderly and those who push prams and trolleys.

Baroness Young

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I comment on this amendment at this stage. We of course accept that ramps should be provided wherever possible at pedestrian crossings to avoid the difficulty of manoeuvring wheelchairs over kerbs. This would avoid the difficulty which the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount have both mentioned. The Department of Transport's advice in Roads in Urban Areas is that in these circumstances kerb heights should be reduced to about one inch and footways ramped down in an easy slope. However, the Government would be reluctant to see either this advice or that concerning ramps in the British Standards Institution's Code of Practice on Access for the Disabled to Buildings applied inflexibly and without regard to the circumstances, because there are some pavements so narrow that to devote 30 inches or so to a ramp would create dangers, especially in icy weather, for pedestrians and the disabled using the footpaths, whether or not they were users of the pedestrian crossing.

On such narrow pavements the problem cannot, for obvious reasons, be resolved by providing a steeper ramp, and unless a solution can be found by a general lowering of the whole pavement, there may be no safe alternative to the retention of the full kerb. I am glad to say that this is a minority of cases but it is a significant enough factor to make us cautious of a statutory requirement that a ramp should invariably be provided, which would be the effect were this amendment to be included in the Bill. It might be helpful if I also say that points were made in the debate on Second Reading of the Bill about the difficulties for blind people and those with sticks or crutches. They can experience problems if there is not a clear edge to the pavement. This was a matter we all noted. There are different degrees and sorts of handicap that are affected by different circumstances.

I would ask the noble Baroness to accept that this is an instance where the highway authority should retain discretion for reaching the right solution for each particular set of circumstances, having taken full account of the needs of the disabled. I should like to give the noble Baroness an assurance and all Members who are taking part in these proceedings that this is exactly the kind of point to which we would expect to draw local authorities' attention in the circular about this Bill which we shall be issuing, and therefore I hope she will withdraw this amendment at this stage.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I put my name down to this amendment because I feel strongly about it. I do not know whether members of the Committee realise that electric wheelchairs cannot be tipped up and go up kerbs. There are more and more people now with mobility allowances buying wheelchairs for outside use. Also, I am absolutely sure that if babies could have spoken they would have lobbied Parliament a long time ago because they get shaken up and down so much when they are pushed up and down kerbs. I hope that the Government will look again at this amendment because we see no harm in it and we think the amendment would make an improvement to the Bill. Something should be written into the Bill in this connection, although perhaps this amendment is not perfect. Perhaps the Government will take this away and put down something suitable even though the noble Baroness has given us some encouragement.

Baroness Darcy (De Knayth)

First, I should like to thank the noble Baroness. I should like to point out that I read the Second Reading debate, which included the worries of the blind and the ambulant disabled. At the back of the code of practice there is listed the people on the drafting committee. The blind, the ambulant disabled and many forms of the disabled were all represented on this drafting committee. Presumably they approved the specification for the ramping of kerbs. I know that the code of practice was sent out in draft form for approval by many other organisations for the disabled. That answers that point.

I wonder whether the noble Baroness will take this amendment back and consider bringing in an amendment of her own specifying that it will only concern crossings where the pavement exceeds a certain width, which would cover her other point.

Baroness Young

I am bound to say to the Committee that I am reluctant to take something back when I feel I might be misleading the Committee and the noble Baroness into believing that something could actually be done over this amendment. There is no doubt at all that the current advice on this matter is that where possible there should be ramps. That is appropriate, as I have already indicated, and that is the Department of Transport's view on it. I am sure it is the sort of thing that local authorities would want to do; but it does lead us down a rather difficult way when we are now suggesting the width of the pavement that should be applied before a ramp could or could not be put in. If one tries to think about the different widths of pavements, for example, in old towns and new towns, the differences can be very considerable.

I think it most unlikely that I can meet the point of the noble Baroness, but as it is the Committee stage I will ask my advisers about this to see if anything further can be done. However, as I have said, I do not want to mislead the noble Baroness into thinking that we are in a position to make an amendment of this nature or to go further than we have in the guidance that we shall undoubtedly give in the circular. That is as far as I can go at present, and I hope very much that the noble Baroness will appreciate that nobody is unsympathetic about this Bill; we want to see it on the statute book and the Government will be putting forward this evening three major amendments which will strengthen the Bill and make it a better Bill than it would otherwise be. I will look at this, but I cannot give any guarantee that I shall be able to bring back something that will satisfy the noble Baroness. With the assurance that I will do what I can, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw this amendment now.

Baroness MacLeod of Borve

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder whether she could advise us whether the Department of Transport also takes into consideration the very important point of prams. I doubt whether they do, but certainly a pram being pushed along is very similar to a disabled person's wheelchair. Perhaps the noble Baroness could say whether or not the department does take notice of pram-pushers.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

As the noble Baroness is going to get us some more information, there is something which rather interests me in connection with the blind. I have watched them as they go along the street, and they tap along the pavement by "feel". When the pavement stops, as it does at a ramped kerb, I should have thought this would have been of tremendous benefit to them because they would then know that a zebra crossing was there to be crossed.

Baroness Young

I really feel on rather safer ground when I am talking about prams! I have brought up three children and pushed them up and down many kerbs, so I feel that I can speak with more confidence on this issue than on some of the others that have to be dealt with. I must be honest with the Committee and say that I have not in fact had the opportunity to read the whole of the advice given in Roads in Urban Areas. I have no doubt it does say something about this matter, in which case, should this matter come up again at a later stage, I can give the noble Baroness the answer that she wants.

On the point about the blind, it may well be that blind people would find it easier to manage a ramp rather than a kerb. I imagine that it would depend very much on circumstances: for example, age, whether the kerb is newly there and whether the ramp has been newly put there or has been there for some time. I was very struck on Second Reading by the difficulties described by the noble Baroness, which we all recognise, and the other difficulties described by my noble friend Lady Macleod—the difficulties that people experience when they are lame and require sticks and when in fact a ramp is not very helpful to them. I was trying to draw this distinction. However, these are all matters which I will certainly look at, as I have indicated, but without any commitment to accept the amendment.

Lord Molloy

I wonder whether the noble Baroness has noted one important fact. I have a great deal of sympathy with her in the submission that she made, but the amendment as I read it does say: … a new pedestrian crossing or crossing of similar purpose …". That does not mean that the Government should be apprehensive that we want to change every pedestrian crossing in the country by the end of the year, though that would be a good thing if it helped the disabled. As I understand the amendment, it means that henceforth, when this Bill is enacted, every local authority shall provide ramps. If I may speak here parenthetically, one of the first Acts that was introduced by Mr. Alfred Morris in another place had the full support of the able-bodied and the disable-bodied. I can tell you who did not support it—many laggardly local authorities. It required questions in the other place and all sorts of things, and all sorts of excuses were made. We had to listen to the appalling argument that buildings constructed 50 years ago could not be changed to put in a ramp. There was just one short answer I would have given to any civil engineer who said he could not do that: he should have been dismissed.

I can understand the point the noble Baroness made, but in the context of the future I hope she would agree that the Government would be prepared to see whether they can find words to put into legislation to the effect that henceforth, whenever we build pedestrian crossings or similar divices to aid the able-bodied across any road, we will take full cognisance to see that full safety is provided for the disabled, particularly those in wheelchairs.

Baroness Young

If I may just comment on that, the difficulties about this amendment are not in fact to do with what local authority practice is or is not; they are actually to do with the advice of the Department of Transport. In fact we would be inserting into a Bill the duty to do something with new pedestrian crossings. The difficulty is not, for once, to do with cost but is a technical matter of whether it would be possible to require this in a good many different circumstances, rather than relying on a circular.

Baroness Darcy (De Knayth)

First, I should like to thank the noble Baroness very much for the honesty of her reply. She has not given me a great deal of hope but I am most grateful to her for being so honest. While I would welcome a circular, I feel that as we are dealing only with new crossings it is not really very much to ask to put it down in black and white. I am in fact a little surprised that she cannot accept it. I will read carefully what she has said, but I am slightly at a loss to understand her argument about the width or the narrowness of pavements. I understood her first to say that it was unacceptable because certain pavements would be too narrow to be ramped because that would take all the pavement away. Presumably, if you know how narrow is too narrow, you would know how wide is wide enough to be able to do it. Therefore, I cannot see why you could not specify, for example, that all pavements above a certain width on new crossings could have this kerb which apparently the noble Baroness thought would not be possible. However, as she has undertaken to see what can be done, we will hear what she has to say at Report stage and perhaps, if I am not happy, I might bring back something on Third Reading. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.9 p.m.

Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (4) and insert— ("(4) In executing in a street any such works as are mentioned in subsection (1) above, any such authority or person as is mentioned in that subsection shall have regard to the need of blind persons to have any openings, whether temporary or permanent, in the street, properly protected.").

The noble Baroness said: This is a technical amendment which changes the wording of subsection (4) to make it clear that the duty to protect openings in a road applies when street works are being carried out. Subsection (1) of the clause imposes the general duty to have regard to the needs of the disabled and blind when carrying out works in a street. In practice, most of the works to which subsection (1) refers involve the making of openings in the road or footway; and so subsection (4), as amended, requires those undertaking the work to have openings properly protected so as to avoid accidents to blind persons. Responsible highway authorities and statutory undertakers already do this.

The deletion of the reference to "holes" reflects the fact that, notwithstanding the statutory responsibility of highway authorities for the repair and maintenance of highways and footways, which the Bill does not affect, they cannot reasonably be expected to protect minor holes and potholes as distinct from deliberate openings. I hope that the Committee will accept this amendment. It goes some way to meet a point which was raised on Second Reading, and which was of particular concern to blind persons. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 19, at end insert— ("(2) The following paragraph shall be inserted in subsection (1) of section 50 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970, after the definition of "statutory undertakers"— street", for the purposes of section 27A of this Act, means a road or footpath;").

The noble Baroness said: This is a further technical amendment which inserts a new Section 27A into the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970 referring to the execution of works in a street. The Act does not define the term "street" and it has therefore been necessary to add a definition referring specifically to the new section. The definition of "road" already in the Act covers footways which, together with carriageways, form the two traffic components of a road, the former for pedestrians, the latter for vehicles. But it is intended that the new section should apply also to footpaths which are not associated with carriageways and which are not thereby caught by the definition of "road". The definition of "street" will, therefore, refer to "footpaths" as well as to "roads". I beg to move.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I wanted to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, a question on Amendment No. 2, but as Nos. 2 and 3 are similar I shall ask it on this one. Do "openings" include holes, because it is appalling how many dangerous openings are left unprotected and open for people to fall into? This is of concern mainly to blind people, although it may affect drunken people.

Baroness Young

I am sorry if I did not make the position clear in what I said on Amendment No. 2. The deletion of the reference to "holes" recognises the fact that the Bill does not affect at all the statutory responsibility of highway authorities for the repair and maintenance of highways and footways. They cannot be expected to protect minor holes, which I think we would call potholes, as opposed to deliberate openings when a road is dug up in connection with services and when there is a very large hole. I think we are clear about the difference between general wear and tear, or an accident, and works which are being carried out and which mean that a hole is being dug. This does not cover potholes or small holes in the road, but only the others.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she tell us what is meant by "properly protected"? A blind person cannot see gates that are put around either a pothole or any other kind of hole. I wonder how such places can be properly protected for a blind person.

Baroness Young

I should have understood this to mean that there would be something which would actually prevent a blind person from falling into a hole. I quite understand that a blind person will not see it. But, as I understand it, the danger is that some public utility may have dug up a footpath for some very good purpose, left the hole unprotected and a blind person could fall into it and have a very serious accident.

The hole would be protected by having it fenced off in some way. I recognise that the blind person might walk into the fence. This is a hazard which one must accept. But that is infinitely better than that the person should fall into the hole. If the blind person had a stick, it would presumably knock against the fence. I am not suggesting that this amendment will help blind people in every circumstance, but it is intended to be an improvement on the present position.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Wrongful parking of vehicles in spaces reserved for disabled persons]:

7.14 p.m.

Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 2, line 22, at end insert— ("( ) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)— (2A) Where an order under subsection (1) above provides for the reservation of a parking place or parking places for disabled persons' vehicles, the local authority making the order shall ensure that a notice stating the maximum fine payable under subsection (3A) below is prominently displayed in the vicinity of the parking place or parking places.".").

The noble Lord said: Parking bays which are specially reserved for disabled people are rather few and far between, but many local authorities have done their very best to meet the needs of the disabled in this way. I have carried out something of a study of the extent to which these specially reserved bays are used by people who are not entitled to use them. As a result of that study, based largely on two or three bays in the neighbourhood in which I work in London, around Sloane Square, I have found, on average, that, on one day in three, a bay which is specially reserved and marked as being for disabled people only is taken by somebody who is not displaying a disabled person's badge on his or her car. Sometimes a car is parked in a bay for several days on end. One particular bay, immediately outside my office, is often in just this position.

For the last 21 years, I have employed a marvellous private secretary, who was crippled as long ago as 1936 and has never walked one step since then. Sometimes she has not been able to come to work at all, because the pavements have been icy or the roads have been wet. What I am saying applies not just to her, but to many thousands of other disabled people who, if these bays are occupied are unable to get to work, to go shopping or to have an evening out and are therefore, inhibited in many serious ways.

People who park in these bays are, no doubt, either thoughtless or careless. They have no idea of the problems that they are creating for disabled people, who, as a result of their thoughtlessness, are frustrated and have many anxieties. ft is true also—and this, too, is based on my experience—that in many cases, and much to my surprise, the parking attendants and police, when their attention is drawn to a car parked in a bay reserved for disabled people when it should not be, do nothing about it. They simply ask somebody to move on. I know of many cases when a ticket has not been given to an offending driver.

The signs in different local authorities vary in what they say. in the Chelsea area they say Disabled. Kensington and Chelsea Council. Blue permit only". But the signs do not say that wrongful parking there may lead to a heavy fine. Perhaps my amendment is wrong in suggesting that the signs on these special bays should say what the maximum fine is, because it would be irritating when the maximum fine was raised as a result of inflation, to have to keep changing them. But the signs could, at any rate, refer to the possibility of incurring a heavy fine. if that were done, the law would be far less often ignored. It would also draw the attention of police and traffic wardens to the seriousness of the offence—and it is a serious offence. The cost would be tiny and the work could be quickly carried out. It would pay handsome dividends in terms of the peace of mind of disabled people, and I urge my noble friend to give most careful thought to this amendment, which I truly believe is a simple and a sensible one.

I should like to say to my noble friend the Minister that, if she is unable to accept it now for any reason, perhaps she will be good enough—and she is a most understanding person—to give careful thought to the arguments which I have put forward so briefly, and to any others that may be put forward, with a view to putting down a Government amendment at Report stage. I beg to move.

Viscount Ingleby

I should like to support this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has just said, we are talking about a much more serious offence than an ordinary parking offence. It may mean that a disabled person will just have to go away and forgo whatever plan he or she had at that time. If there were a notice and a heavier fine, it would be most helpful.

Baroness Young

I have listened with great care to what my noble friend Lord Chelwood and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, have said on this matter and it may be helpful if I begin by saying that one of the general principles which we have to bear in mind in deciding what information should be imparted in traffic signs is that they should be immediately intelligible; they therefore contain only essential information. Parking spaces reserved on-street for disabled persons' vehicles are indicated by a traffic sign which contains the white P on blue parking symbol, the black on orange wheelchair symbol and the legend "Disabled badge holders only". This is one of the signs prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, and any variant to the prescribed traffic sign indicating a parking space reserved for a disabled person's vehicle would need to be specially approved for use.

In the interests of clarity and keeping signs uncluttered, the prescribed signs do not include any indication of the maximum penalty for contravention of the order. However, there is nothing to prevent local authorities from supplementing the signs with a separate plate indicting the maximum fine for the offence, and in their off-street car parks they are not bound to use signs prescribed in the regulations. However, the Government would be reluctant to oblige local authorities to use such plates, which we are content should remain a matter for their discretion. If there were a statutory requirement for maximum fines to be indicated, local authorities would be put to considerable expense, and this would be repeated if the maximum fine were subsequently changed.

The Government have accepted a proposal in the report of the Inter-Departmental Working Party on Road Traffic Law that the maximum fine for parking place offences should be increased from £20 to £50 in future legislation. In preparing this legislation it will be necessary to consider the maximum fine for the separate offence created by Clause 2 of illegal parking in a space reserved for a disabled person's vehicle—precisely the case which my noble friend described. This may lead to an increase in the fine to the next point on the Home Office's four-point scale of penalties for summary offences; namely, £200. We would not want to put local authorities to the expense of signing a maximum fine which may subsequently be changed.

I have gone into this matter in some considerable detail because I want to assure my noble friend that we recognise the point which he is trying to make. We believe that this would be putting extra expense on local authorities. My noble friend will himself recognise that where you have too many signs they are less likely to be obeyed. One of the good features of the signs currently in use is that they are intelligible and understood by everybody. If after reading the signs people fail to obey them, that is an offence. But at least they are understood. I am not sure that we should get better understanding by putting up more signs.

I hope that after that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I think the Bill would be improved if it contained something to encourage local authorities to make the public aware that there is a fine. There ought to be a clear differential between the fine for parking in an ordinary parking place and the fine for going into a disabled person's parking place. I hope that the noble Baroness will take back this point and look at it. It is a very serious problem. Disabled people have considerable difficulty in parking. There are not many parking places for them. It is even more frustrating when the few places that there are are taken by able-bodied people. I was therefore very pleased when the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, proposed this amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will think again.

Lord Chelwood

I am very grateful to my noble friend for what she has said. It was not my intention at any time to press Amendment No. 4, which is the only one that I have so far moved. I have not yet moved Amendment No. 5 or Amendment No. 6. It was not my intention even to think of pressing Amendment No. 4 to a Division. However, I wanted to draw attention to the fact that there is a great deal of carelessness and thoughtlessness on the part of drivers who are not disabled in the way in which they park in spaces which are specially reserved for disabled people.

What my noble friend has said makes absolute sense. I hope local authorities will use their discretion. This is exactly what my noble friend the Minister has said. They do not use it enough. I hope that local authorities will think that the suggestion made in the amendment is a good one and will draw attention to the fact that a heavy fine is attached to the abuse of these specially reserved parking places. I see no reason why they should not. I cannot see that the extra expense involved should be more than quite tiny. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.24 p.m.

Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 37, leave out ("£50") and insert ("£100").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 go together and I am sure that I have permission to talk about them as briefly as I did about the last amendment. This is an amendment upon which my noble friend Lady Young touched when she replied to Amendment No. 4. This amendment is self-evident, essential and in line with the Government's own thinking, as evidenced by Amendment No. 7, where the fine for the wrongful use of disabled persons' badges on cars is going to be put up to £200. That is a serious offence. So indeed is parking in a bay specially reserved for disabled people.

The maximum fine of £50 which is in the Bill at present was laid down when the maximum fine for an ordinary parking offence was only £20. This is a differential in the ratio of five to two. But the £20 has been so eroded by inflation since 1975, when that figure was set, that the report of the Inter-Departmental Working Party on Road Traffic Law, dated 20th May 1981, which is right up to date, recommends in paragraph 13 that the maximum fine for ordinary parking offences should be put up to £50. At the end of the paragraph, they say: Such an increase for parking offences would have implications for the maxima in respect of a number of other offences". No doubt they had particularly in mind this offence of parking in a bay which is specially reserved for disabled people.

It gave me great pleasure to read in the foreword to this report, which is signed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Transport, that: The Government accept the other recommendations in the report". In particular they propose to increase the maximum fine for parking offences from £20 to £50 and to increase the fixed penalty under the existing powers from £6 to £10. The fixed penalty cannot be more than half the maximum fine. This has always been the case.

I am sure that here I am pressing on an open door. The question arises as to whether the maximum fine should be £125, preserving the five to two differential, or £100. I went for £100, simply because it is a round figure and because I wished to draw attention to the fact that, as drafted, the Bill has been overtaken by events, or at any rate by inflation. Presumably the Home Office will at some time bring all fines up-to-date so as to bring them into line with current thinking and current costs. Just how long it will take them to do that I do not know. However, it appears to me from the report from which I have just quoted that it has taken since 1977 to bring this particular fine into line with inflation. That is four years, which would be much too long.

How hard we press this amendment, either now or later during the course of the Bill, depends, first, on whether it is acceptable now. It may well not be acceptable, for one reason or another. If it is not acceptable now, all of us who are interested in this matter would want an assurance that if it is to be left to the Home Office there is not going to be an unconscionable delay. I should have thought that a delay of 12 months was about the maximum which would be acceptable to anybody. It would be a ridiculous situation if this differential were not maintained and there was only a maximum £50 fine for parking in a bay specially reserved for disabled people and exactly the same maximum fine for any ordinary parking offence. I feel very strongly about this matter and I look forward very much indeed to hearing what my noble friend has to say in reply.

Viscount Ingleby

I should very much like to support this amendment. Obviously there is a great deal of common sense in maintaining the differential.

Baroness Young

I hope that I shall be able to say something about these two amendments which my noble friend Lord Chelwood and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, will feel is helpful.

The position is that, following the Criminal Law Act 1977, the Home Office established a four-point scale of penalties for summary offences. The prescribed penalties are £50, £200, £500 or £1,000. All new offences introduced since 1977 have penalties which are consistent with this scale. Since £100 is not a point on that scale, I must ask my noble friend not to press his amendment.

However, I should like to assure my noble friend that when, as a result of the review of the traffic law recommendation that the maximum fine for parking place offences should be increased from £20 to £50, the maximum fines for the offences, including that created by Clause 2, are reconsidered, the Government will wish to retain a distinct and higher rate of maximum fine for this offence. I think this would bring it into line with an amendment I shall move shortly. We recognise the force of the point that the noble Lord has made, and that this kind of parking offence is something rather separate from what I might call (for want of a better word) an ordinary parking offence. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

We welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, but I hope that some means of letting the public know about this will he found.

Baroness Young

Clearly we have not got as far as considering the circular to follow the Bill, but in any circular the Bill and the new offences will be described, and I have no doubt that one of the ways in which the public will be informed is by being affected themselves by the higher penalties when they come into force. If I may say so, I think that concentrates the mind as nothing else does.

Lord Chelwood

I am very pleased indeed, as I am sure the whole Committee is, with my noble friend's reply. It seems to imply quite clearly that the maximum fine for this particular offence—in other words, an able-bodied person parking his car in a bay specially reserved for disabled people—will in fact rise to £200, which is a lot better than £100 because;this is a serious offence and the punishment should fit the crime. There is nothing between £50 and £200 in the four-point scale of summary fines introduced by the Criminal Law Act of 1977, to which my noble friend has referred. So on the assumption that I am right in saying that, it only remains for me to ask my noble friend to be good enough to indicate whether this is to be left to the Home Office for what might be quite a long time and, if so, whether there is any objection to putting the fine into the Bill as it is. I see no objection to that, and I hope my noble friend can reassure me on the timing and perhaps make it absolutely clear that the figure which the Government have in mind as the maximum fine for this offence is £200.

Baroness Young

I can give the noble Lord the assurance that we entirely accept the principle of what he is trying to do. This is a serious offence and it ought to carry a heavier fine. I wonder whether he will accept that perhaps I might get in touch with him before the next stage of the Bill, about just what is the timing of this. I have not got the information on that point this evening and I hope he will accept that we may discuss this matter, having accepted the principle of what it is that he wishes to do.

Lord Chelwood

With great pleasure. I should be very appreciative indeed if my noble friend would be good enough to let me know what figure the Government have in mind and what timing they have in mind; and assuming that that is, in essence, what she has just said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]

7.34 p.m.

Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 3, line 11, after ("£50";) insert— ("(bb) the following section shall be inserted after section 86:— Wrongful use of disabled person's badge. 86A.—(1) A person who is guilty of an offence in relation to a motor vehicle under a provision of this Act other than this section ("the first offence") is also guilty of an offence under this section if the conditions specified in subsection (2) below are satisfied. (2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) above are that at the time of the commission of the first offence—

1. (a) a disabled person's badge was displayed on the motor vehicle;
2. (b) he was using the motor vehicle in circumstances where a disabled person's concession would be available to a disabled person's vehicle; and
3. (c) the vehicle was not being used either by the person to whom the badge was issued or under section 21(4) (institutional use) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200. (4) In this section— disabled person's badge" means a badge of a form prescribed under section 21(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and disabled person's concession" means—

1. (a) an exemption from an order under this Act given by reference to disabled persons' vehicles; or
2. (b) a provision made in any order under this Act for the use of a parking place by disabled persons' vehicles.".").

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to penalise the misuse of disabled persons' parking badges, generally known as orange badges. This amendment is in fact the amendment that I promised at Second Reading that the Government would bring forward. These orange badges are issued to people with severe mobility problems, and the blind, who are entitled to park for up to two hours on yellow lines, without charge or time limit at meter bays and without time limit where limited waiting only is allowed. Additionally, many local authorities provide special parking facilities for badge holders both on the street and in off-street car parks. These valuable concessions, which are intended to allow disabled people to park close to their destinations, unfortunately give rise to the temptation for unscrupulous people who are not disabled, but who have access to a disabled person's orange badge, to pass themselves off as disabled, or to pretend to be carrying a disabled passenger when they are not in fact doing so, by displaying the badge in order themselves to take advantage of the concessions. This anti-social conduct not only makes it more difficult for people who are disabled to find parking space close to where they need to be, particularly in town centres, but it also tends to bring the whole orange badge scheme into disrepute in the eyes of ordinary motorists when they see able-bodied people taking advantage of orange badges when there is no disabled person being carried in the vehicle.

At the moment people who use orange badges under false pretence cannot normally be proceeded against other than for an ordinary parking offence, which in most cases means that they simply get a fixed penalty notice. The Government consider that this abuse of a most valuable system, which amounts to fraud or deception, should be made a separate offence, as well as being a parking offence, in order that its seriousness should be brought home to those who perpetrate it.

The amendment before your Lordships will make it an offence for any person who is not a badge holder to use a vehicle displaying an orange badge in circumstances where the orange badge concessions would be available to disabled persons, but where in fact no badge holder is using the vehicle. The offence will carry a maximum penalty of £200, which the Government feel is justified, given the nature of the deception that is practised by those who masquerade as disabled people, and which in many cases can ultimately deprive people who genuinely need the parking facility of a parking space.

I should perhaps make it clear that the offence will apply to wrongful use of the various exemptions or facilities provided for disabled people under traffic regulation orders. There are, of course, many private car parks, for example commercial concerns and other organisations to whose premises the public has access who provide special parking facilities for the disabled. But abuse of the privileges conferred where traffic regulation orders apply is the problem which has been of primary concern to the Government, to the police and to local authorities.

It may be helpful if I underline the difference between the offence created by Clause 2 of the Bill as it stands, and the offence which this amendment would add. The clause as it stands deals with misuse of parking spaces reserved for the disabled. It will apply to misuse of these spaces irrespective of whether the offending vehicle displays an orange badge. The offence created by the amendment is an additional offence, and applies only when the orange badge is misused; it is not confined to offences in spaces specifi- cally reserved for the disabled but to any use of the badge under false pretences, for example on a yellow line, or at a meter.

The amendment before your Lordships is not however the only action that is proposed to improve the operation of the orange badge scheme. It forms part of a wider package of measures which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has in mind to reduce abuse of the scheme and to win back the respect of ordinary motorists for orange badge holders as people genuinely in need of the facilities which the scheme provides.

Other forms of abuse, such as those which occur in the issuing of badges, will be tackled by means of changes in the regulations under which the scheme operates, by tightening up the guidance given to local authorities and by a number of administrative measures. My right honourable friend hopes to consult interested bodies shortly on the form of the new regulations; among other things, the regulations will seek to define more clearly the categories of disabled people entitled to badges. I can assure the Committee that, in drawing up the new regulations, my right honourable friend will be looking closely at the points that have recently been raised on this last amendment by my noble friend and indeed those that were raised at Second Reading. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Croy

I should like to welcome straight away the clause that my noble friend has moved on behalf of the Government. No doubt some questions will be put about parts of it, but very briefly I should like to take up the general point which my noble friend has made because I know that a review is taking place to bring about improvements in the orange badge scheme. Improvements certainly are needed because, as she has said, there are abuses and the abuses can be carried out very easily because the badge remains on the car even though a disabled person is not using it.

In order to reduce the abuse of the scheme by able-bodied people, I suggest that the following points need to be taken into account by the review being carried out by the Department of Transport: First, every orange disc should have the name of the disabled person on it. This has been done from the beginning, in the early 1970s, in many local authority areas, and notably in Scotland, but it is not done everywhere. That means that an orange disc which does not have a name on it can easily he used by other people. Secondly, every disc should be removable from the windscreen, and the disc should only be in place when the car is being used by a disabled person, either as the driver or as a passenger. The simplest method is one used, and this again is used in Scotland—I hope noble Lords will forgive my speaking from knowledge of my own area—in certain local authority areas. A little holder is provided which is stuck to the windscreen; the orange badge can be lifted out, but put in when a disabled person is travelling, and that person's name is upon it.

The third point is that the degree of disablement which qualifies for an orange badge should be revised and, if possible, standardised. I welcome what my noble friend said about the various kinds of disablement which were being looked into again in relation to this scheme. When the scheme started some local authorities very generously issued badges to people in the category of 50 per cent. disablement and above. I think it should be more than 50 per cent. I think it should be more like 70 per cent., and it should also be related directly to mobility. There is no point in giving an orange badge to someone who is deaf; he may be severely disabled with deafness, but it does not arise in the case of parking.

The fourth point is that the square badge stuck to the rear window of a vehicle should be abolished, or else it should have no meaning or validity. That square badge is not removable at the moment and it should not have any validity as regards parking. My suggestion is that it should be removed altogether, because it is the orange disc at the front which is the one that matters.

The fifth point is that wardens and police should be encouraged to check who is using a vehicle, who is dismounting from it and who is getting in, to check whether they are the person whose name is on the orange badge. The sixth point is that there should be a standard acceptance that a single yellow line can be parked upon when parking places in the area where the disabled person is trying to park are not available. At the moment this is not standard and some wardens apply tickets, even though there is an orange badge, if the car is parked on a yellow line. Those are six points I would ask should be taken into account. I think these would greatly improve the acceptability of the system.

I am very glad to hear that the review is taking place. I realise that the Department of Transport must sponsor the review, but of course other departments who deal with the local authorities are the ones who will have to sell it and make sure that it is carried out. Those include the Department of the Environment for England, the Scottish Office for Scotland and the Welsh Office for Wales. I do welcome what my noble friend has said, but I think we ought not to think that this will simply mean that the system will be improved out of all recognition. This is an improvement, but a great deal more needs to be done in order to get it accepted by the country as a whole.

Baroness MacLeod of Borve

I warmly welcome what my noble friend Lady Young has put forward this evening. What worries me very much indeed is this. As she implied by the words "many local authorities", it is the undoubted fact that many other local authorities do not at all consider parking for the disabled. My local town is one of them, although they have plenty of room. I am wondering whether the Government, perhaps during the course of this review, could possibly make it mandatory for all local authorities to provide some parking places for disabled people's cars. It seems to me to be very unfair that some towns are helpful while others are not.

I would make perhaps two other points, commenting on the fact that there are many abuses. One does not need necessarily to have a disablement which is visible, either blindness or deafness or even impaired mobility. There are many people who suffer severe heart conditions who have the orange badge, and I feel that they should continue to have the badge. I think the idea of having the name on the disc is a particularly helpful one. I should like to thank my noble friend for this amendment.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I should like to support this amendment and thank the Government for bringing this very difficult matter to the fore. There has even been a black market in badges, with people selling on their orange badges when they no longer use them. I should like to ask the noble Baroness: what is going to happen to the badges when they have been given out to people with a temporary disablement and who no longer use them? This is a problem. And will the Government make quite clear who gives out the badges? Is it the local authority or the GP or both?

I would agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, says about the name being on the badge, because then one can check up on who has the badge and who it belongs to. I think it is very important as far as the disabled passenger is concerned that the badge should be easily removable. I would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about not having a badge on the back window. I had a very personal experience when my car suddenly stopped on a busy part of the A1 one evening. I had to sit for about three-quarters of an hour with my hand out of the window trying to get help. It was in the end a lorry driver who stopped to help me, and he said the only reason he had stopped was that he had seen on the back of my car that I was a disabled driver. He had to stop two other articulated lorries, and there were three parked beside me in the end. One of the leads in my car had broken off and he had not got a penknife; so he had to stop another lorry, and in the end there there were three of them.

Lord Campbell of Croy

If I may intervene, I think the noble Baroness has made a very good point and I do not think we are in disagreement. I think people in her situation should have some sort of sign on the back of the car for that kind of difficulty. But that has nothing to do with parking, and the parking problem has to be dealt with by the orange disc.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I would agree with the noble Lord, but I think the cars of severely disabled people should be marked clearly back and front. That was the point I was trying to make. I also think it is of help to the police and traffic wardens when there is a row of cars and they can see clearly from the back, because, as we all know, the police are so very busy. I know that there is a lobby against the marking of the car at the back, but I still think it is necessary.

Lord Campbell of Croy

For the severely disabled, but not for everybody else.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

But I do not think the not severely disabled should have the orange badge. I think it should go, as the noble Lord himself said, only to those who are severely disabled. I would agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, that it should go to those who have severe disabilities; it may be heart, it may be asthma, it might even be cancer.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

If I could just take issue with my noble friend on the question of the rear badge. I do not think there is any way you can ban it, because it gives you no legal permit; it is just a sticker like any other sticker that anyone can put on the back window. But I think this is something which does mislead the public. Even if you have the front orange badge removable and a non-badge holder takes the car and parks it somewhere, this is where the public will be misled because they will see this rear badge and think that they are abusing it. I think it is essential to have the name on the proper orange badge, and to issue it with a pocket so that it is easily removable, so that anyone else using the car, particularly now these fines have been introduced, can remove it easily.

Lord Winstanley

I have no wish to prolong discussion on an amendment which I am quite sure is wholly acceptable to each and every one of us. But I should like briefly to support the words of warning, as I think they were, put by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. This is a matter to which I referred in earlier discussions, when I perhaps took issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and I think we substantially agree with one another. There is, I think, a problem in relation to the person who is not visibly disabled. At an earlier stage in our proceedings in your Lordships' House today we were discussing the take-up of various benefits. There is no question that there are certain disabled people who are not particularly anxious to carry about a badge, despite the fact that the badge is very helpful, and who do not like somehow to be labelled as disabled.

As a general practitioner, I have had occasion to persuade someone that it is worth his while applying for a special badge and special assistance in this way and that. General practitioners find this a difficult subject. It is not very easy for a general practitioner to exercise responsibility as between one of his patients and another and say that one patient is so disabled that he requires an orange badge, whereas another patient is not. That is why general practitioners tend, so far as possible, to refer these people to the community physician and feel that the responsibility ought to rest in hands which are rather more detached than those of the general practitioner himself.

The point that I wish to emphasise is that it really is the case that there are some people who experience some embarrassment at having this kind of a badge, and particularly people of the kind referred to by the noble Baroness. I had a patient—I think that I have referred to this example in your Lordships' House already, but it is absolutely true—with a cardio-vascular complaint of some severity which severely limited his ability to walk. Nevertheless, he was adjudged by consultants to be a person wholly fit to be the holder of a driving licence. He looked extremely fit. It so happened that he parked his car outside our local chemist at a time when I was coming out of the chemist. Another patient of mine who had been refused an orange badge turned to me and said, "Isn't it disgraceful that this fit chap should be walking in there and have an orange badge on his car". As I said earlier, this particular holder of the orange badge then rather obligingly collapsed and died in the chemists' shop, thereby providing, I should have thought, pretty clear evidence of his entitlement to the badge. I merely mention that as a graphic illustration of the fact that it is not necessarily only people with wheelchairs who are disabled or only people with white sticks and dogs who are blind. We should be very cautious about phrasing anything or using words in any way which might discourage people who ought genuninely to be the recipients of this kind of help from seeking this kind of help.

I accept that there is abuse and I wholly accept that that abuse should be stamped out. I entirely accept the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Cambell of Croy, that the name of the holder should be on the badge and that the badge should be removable so that it cannot easily be used by somebody who is not the holder. I entirely accept that we should do those things. I also accept that we should do the things which are contained in the amendment of the noble Baroness. Let us stamp out abuse by all means, but in stamping it out we should take great care not to discourage people who could rightfully be the holders of these badges from seeking to obtain them.

Baroness Young

I am, of course, very grateful for the welcome that this Government amendment has received, and I shall try to answer the various points that have been raised during discussion on it. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, raised six points about the orange badge scheme where he felt that there could be improvement. I should like to assure him that I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the points that he has made. All points relating to entitlement to badges, concessions, the design or types of badge and the withdrawal of badges are matters for the regulations and can be raised by interested bodies when they are consulted on the draft regulations in the near future. So it will be very helpful for my right honourable friend to have these points drawn to his attention and I shall certainly see that that is done.

The noble Lord also raised the point about who issues the badges. I should like to confirm to him and to my noble friend Lady Macleod, who raised this point, that the administration of the scheme is by local authorities—usually social service departments—who issue badges to those who satisfy the eligibility criteria laid down in the regulations. Those include that the badges are issued only to those people suffering from a permanent disability which causes difficulty in walking, and the blind are entitled to a badge as well. I think that that answers the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who asked about temporary disablement. Of course, it does not apply in that particular case—only to a permanent disability. The last census of badges in 1976 showed that some 220,000 were issued in Great Britain. The figure is now thought to be around a quarter of a million.

The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), also raised a number of points on the shape and the form of the badges, and, of course, I shall be drawing the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport to this debate and the points that she has made will be included in that.

Finally, both the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raised the point about the difficulty for people who are not visibly disabled. My goodness me! the story which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has told us is one that should stand as an awful warning on this matter. I am certain that the noble Lord has a real point and that there might well be people who would not wish to have a badge. However, it seems to me that this must be very much a matter for good practice by both doctors and social services departments which would be considering whether or not somebody was eligible to have one of these badges.

I should like to conclude with a number of points relating to the administration of the scheme. This is essentially a matter for local authorities, including local authorities providing parking spaces. The Department of Transport is considering what further and improved guidance might be given to local authorities and to GPs to assist them in the task of determining the entitlement or otherwise of applicants and of administering the scheme generally.

The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, raised a point about local authorities which do not have parking spaces. It is not quite the same point but, of course, the orange badge scheme is not applicable in central London and the concessions do not apply in parts of central London because of the pressure on parking space, and because traffic congestion is particularly acute in those areas. However, as the Committee may know, the authorities concerned operate their own schemes for people living and working in their areas. I hope that that covers all the points that have been raised on the amendment.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

Before the Minister sits down, I should like to ask whether the Government could possibly persuade, as well as encourage, all local authorities outside Greater London to provide parking spaces for disabled people. They do not do so at present and it would be helpful if all local authorities could possibly be persuaded to do so.

Baroness Young

I do not have either the circulars or the regulations in front of me, but I should have thought that all local authorities were aware of the need to provide parking spaces for the disabled. I am aware that some do this better than others and certainly where I live, my local authority provides a number of spaces for the disabled. I would suggest that if that is not so in the area where the noble Baroness lives, then she would be well advised to take the matter up with them direct. No one, I am sure, could be more persuassive than the noble Baroness on these matters. I hope very much that, when the circular comes out after this Bill, any reluctant local authorities will make provision if they have not done so in the past.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

7.59 p.m.

Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 3, line 18, at end insert— ("(2) Subsection (1) above shall not have effect in relation to offences committed before the commencement of this section".).

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 8, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to a slight change in the wording of the amendment as it appears on the Marshalled List. The word "Act" at the end of the amendment should read "section". This is a purely technical change and I put it to your Lordships in the confident expectation that you will agree to it.

The amendment itself is a technical one. Clause 2 creates a new offence of wrongfully parking in a space reserved for a disabled person's vehicle, with a maximum penalty of £50 as opposed to the maximum penalty of £20 for other parking place offences. The amendment provides that the increased maximum penalty will apply only to offences committed after the date when the Bill comes into effect. The amendment is necessary because prosecutions under existing parking regulations could come to court after the Bill has received the Royal Assent. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Planning (England and Wales)—Access for the disabled to buildings etc.]:

Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 9: Page 3, line 19, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9 and at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 16, Clause 3 provides that developers have their attention drawn to the relevant provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and to the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings when they receive planning permission from the planning authority. The effect of the amendment is to substitute the Department of Education and Science Design Note 18, Access for the Disabled to Educational Buildings, for the code of practice in respect of educational buildings on grounds of appropriateness.

This amendment may appear substantial, but I believe that its effect is quite simple. Clause 3, as drafted, as I have indicated, provides that the attention of developers will be drawn to the relevant provision of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings when they receive planning permission from the planning authority. The amendment merely substitutes for the code of practice a design note published by my own department in respect of educational buildings, including universities.

The design note is comparable to the code of practice but has the added advantage that it was drawn up specifically with educational buildings in mind. It takes into account, for example, that the majority of the occupants of a primary school are clearly smaller in stature than adults. The design note also refers to means of escape in case of fire on which great stress is, quite properly, always laid in designing school buildings. I beg to move this amendment.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I am very worried about this amendment. I can understand the reason for having the design note but I am concerned about not having the code of practice. The noble Baroness has said that it is geared to the needs of pupils; for example, in a primary school you have children of small stature. But what about the disabled teacher in a primary school or visiting disabled parents? Their needs will not then be catered for. I think that it is very important to have disabled teachers in education when we have integrated education.

The noble Baroness said that the design note included universities. So far as I remember, the design note only caters for people who have locomotive disabilities and not, for example, the deaf or the blind; but the noble Baroness may correct me over that. I think that the deaf would be very disillusioned if, for example, they found that in a university hall there was no induction loop system for them. I hope that there has been some oversight here. I think that we need both the code of practice and the design note. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to consult on this matter.

Lord Campbell of Croy

Before my noble friend replies perhaps I could raise this point. Clause 3 applies to England and Wales and this amendment applies to England and Wales. I know that we are now approaching the stage where the Government's Scottish Bill, which has been passing through the House, also has application because we are discussing with Amendment No. 9, Amendment No. 16 in which the Government propose quite a large new clause, which has the heading: Duty to draw attention to certain provisions for benefit of disabled—educational buildings". That of course applies to England and Wales. Can my noble friend indicate how this relates to the equivalent provisions being made for Scotland?—which may well be found in the Local Government Bill for Scotland and not in this Bill. There seems to be a difference between the way in which this is being applied in Amendment No. 16 and what is being proposed for Scotland.

Baroness Young

I should be very disturbed if it was felt in any way that the Government were retracting on any promises that have been made, and I should like to give an assurance to the Committee that this amendment in no way takes away any of the agreements that have been reached and which we shall debate when we come to Amendment No, 16.

It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal with the particular point raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. With the substitution of Design Note 18 for the BSI Code of Practice in respect of educational buildings, the provisions in the Bill now differ from the similar provisions which relate to Scotland. The Government have tried to make these provisions as sensible as possible and Design Note 18 is, as I have described, more appropriate guidance for educational buildings. There is currently no equivalent document for Scottish educational buildings, and therefore in the amendment introduced at the Report stage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill the BSI document was the only guidance formally available for all classes of building. However, I understand that the BSI Code of Practice will probably need to be revised and no doubt its applicability to educational buildings will be among the points that will be under consideration.

Perhaps I may now turn to the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has just raised. There may well be some differences between Design Note 18 and the BSI Code of Practice, but the design note, which applies to all educational building, has many similarities with the BSI Code of Practice and is considered the more appropriate document overall, that is, for educational buildings. In particular it deals with means of escape as well as of access. Escape provisions in the design of schools and colleges are just as vital as means of access. The BSI Code of Practice itself advises that guidance about access to and emergency escape from maintained educational establishments should be sought from the Department of Education and Science. In other words, the code commends Design Note 18, implying that for educational building it is the note's advice which is appropriate.

Both of these documents will probably need revision to make them suitable vehicles for statutory requirements. Each is presently couched as advice and guidance. In the course of such revision the opportunity can be taken to refine and improve the provisions in each document. I have no doubt that on this matter the Government would seek the advice of organisations on what should be included in it. With that reassurance, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to support the amendment which I have just moved.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her assurance. We had a meeting this afternoon with some colleagues from outside your Lordships' House who represent disabled organisations, but as the amendment had only just been tabled (as your Lordships can see, Amendment No. 16 has a star attached to it) no one had seen Design No. 18, and therefore there was worry about what it includes. Universities cater for adults and, therefore, there was concern that the code of practice was not included.

I think that everyone would have been happier if both Design Note 18 and the code of practice could have been included and used, where appropriate, in both cases. I personally know several severely disabled teachers, both teachers in schools and also lecturers at universities, quite apart from disabled students. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness can let us see Design Note 18 before the next stage.

Baroness Young

I should be very happy to give that assurance. If it would be helpful to the noble Baroness, I should like to give her an opportunity to discuss, with any of the department's advisers on this matter, the design note or put any questions that she or her colleagues might have, because it would be helpful to clear up any misunderstanding before the next stage of the Bill.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

May I just come back to the noble Baroness? I accept what she says that the design note may in many cases be more appropriate, but would she not agree that if you were constructing a new primary school and you followed the design notes whereby the handrails, the "loo", everything was suitable for a disabled child of that age, you would not be catering for the needs of, say, the wheelchair disabled teacher or the ambulant disabled parent visiting the school?

Baroness Young

I would find it very difficult to comment on that particular instance that the noble Baroness has raised. Clearly, if one is looking at the needs of the disabled in a school it might be necessary to provide lavatories suitable for use for a disabled member of the staff if you are putting up a new school. Clearly, this would be a factor in the school. But it is also important that the other provisions should be suitable to school use.

I do not think there is any disagreement in principle between us in that we want to achieve what is the best for the disabled, whether it is on educational buildings or on any other buildings. I think that it would be more helpful to us all if we perhaps discussed this matter rather than debated it at present, when the noble Baroness has not had the opportunity to see the design note and I was unaware, until they were raised, of the difficulties she was going to raise at this Committee stage. If there is something further, we could come back to it on Report. In the meantime, I think it would be better to study the design note and have this further discussion.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.12 p.m.

Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 10: Page 3, line 23, after ("premises") insert ("to which section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 applies (buildings or premises").

The noble Baroness said: This is a technical amendment. As Clause 3 is drafted paragraph 1(a) of the new Section 29A to be inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 would have overlapped with paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c). This would have been undesirable and the amendment will make clear that paragraph 1(a) applies only to premises to which Section 4 of the 1970 Act applies. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Young moved Amendments Nos. 11 and 12:

Page 3, line 26, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 36.

Page 4, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 17.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 13: Page 4, line 19, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 7 and").

The noble Baroness said: Clause 5 of this Bill will extend the provisions of Section 7 of the 1970 Act so that signs must be provided indicating that provision is made for the disabled on buildings where there is provision and which come within the scope of Sections 8 and 8A of the 1970 Act. This amendment will ensure that the attention of developers is drawn to this requirement when they receive planning permission for such buildings. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 14: Page 4, line 21, leave out (", subject to subsections (3) and (4) of this section,").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 15. Again this is a technical amendment to alter the provisions enabling the definition of the Code of Practice on Access for the Disabled to Buildings to be amended by order. The new clause which is being inserted after Clause 5 of the Bill amends Section 28 of the 1970 Act to give a power to amend the definition of the code of practice. This amendment applies Section 28 to the new Clause 29A which is being inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The power under Section 28 of the 1970 Act will thus be sufficient to amend the definition of the code of practice for the purposes of Section 29A of the 1971 Act. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 4, leave out lines 25 to 37 and insert— ("(3) Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (power to define certain expressions for the purposes of provisions of that Act) shall have effect as if any reference in it to a provision of that Act included a reference to this section.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 16: Page 4, line 37, at end insert:

Duty to draw attention to certain provisions for benefit of disabled—educational buildings.

29B.—(1) When granting planning permission for any development which will result in the provision of a building intended for the purposes—

1. (a) of a university, university college or college, or of a school or hall of a university; or
2. (b) of a school within the meaning of the Education Act 1944, a teacher training college maintained by a local education authority in England or Wales or any other institution providing further education pursuant to a scheme under section 42 of that Act,

the local planning authority shall draw the attention of the person to whom the permission is granted—

1. (i) to sections 7 and 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and
2. (ii) to the Design Note.

(2) In subsection (1) of this section "the Design Note" means Design Note 18 "Access for the Disabled to Educational Buildings", published on behalf of the Secretary of State.

(3) Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (power to define certain expressions for the purposes of provisions of that Act) shall have effect as if any reference in it to a provision of that Act included a reference to this section.".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

8.16 p.m.

Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 17: After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:

("Access for the disabled to sanitary appliances at places of entertainment.

The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (10) of section 20 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (provision of sanitary appliances at places of entertainment)—

"(11) A notice under this section shall draw the attention of the person on whom it is served—

1. (a) to sections 6(1) and 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and
2. (b) to the code of practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings.

(12) In subsection (11) of this section "the code of practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" means, subject to subsections (13) and (14) of this section, the British Standards Institution code of practice referred to as BS.5810: 1979.

(13) Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (power to define certain expressions for the purposes of provisions of that Act) shall have effect as if any reference in it to a provision of that Act included a reference to this section.".").

The noble Baroness said: The new clause provides that a notice served under Section 20 of the 1976 Act shall draw the attention of the owner or occupier to Sections 6(1) and 7 of the 1970 Act. Such a notice could itself include a requirement to make particular provision for the disabled. In that case, a reference to the relevant sections of the 1970 Act would give added justification to the requirement. In other cases, such reference in a Section 20 notice would remind the owner or occupier of his own obligations under the 1970 Act. The clause also requires that Section 20 notices shall also draw attention to the British Standard Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings. This standard includes recommendations on the layout and fitment of lavatory facilities for the disabled. The Secretary of State is empowered to order that references to the standard by local authorities shall allude instead to any later edition of it, or to any amendment to it. I beg to move.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I should like to welcome this new clause. I should just like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whether this extends to Scotland, because some of this Bill does and some does not. I should just like her to confirm that.

Baroness Young

No, the amendment does not relate to Scotland. The new clause to be inserted in the Bill after Clause 3 requires that a notice under Section 20 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 should draw the attention of the owner of the building to Section 6(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and to the code of practice.

However, in Scotland where a local authority makes an order under Section 11(4) of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 requiring the owner of an existing building to make the building conform to specified provisions of the building standards regulations, the form of the order can be prescribed by the Secretary of State for Scotland under Section 24 of the 1959 Act and if prescribed must be used.

Such a form is at present prescribed. This prescribed form has various notes attached which must be incorporated in the order, and there should be no difficulty under existing powers in prescribing a new form to include a suitable reference to Section 6(2) of the 1970 Act and the British Standards Code of Practice. I hope this explains the position in Scotland. The noble Baroness may like to read this point in the report. It means that it applies in Scotland but it applies in a different way. That is why this particular amendment does not apply to Scotland.

Lord Campbell of Croy

As it is a new clause I would just raise an editorial point which no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will take into account. If this new clause does not apply to Scotland then there ought to be something added at the bottom of it to say that this section does not apply to Scotland, because in the form of the Bill at present Clause 7 of the Bill simply says: This Act does not extend to Northern Ireland. Unless a section has something at the end stating that it does not apply to England, Scotland, or Wales, it would be read as if it did apply to all three.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

If it is already being done in Scotland would it not be simpler just to include Scotland in the Bill?

Baroness Young

I am not a lawyer, but I think it is extremely difficult to apply one set of laws to Scotland where the law in many instances is different, and in this particular instance we know that it is different. The point that my noble friend Lord Campbell has raised is important and I shall, in consultation with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, see if there is a further amendment that we should introduce to put the matter in order.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 [Planning (Scotland)—Access for the disabled to buildings etc.]:

On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?

8.20 p.m.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I wish to remove from the Bill Clause 4, which amends the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 in the same way as Clause 3 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Sections 36 and 37 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act, which received the Royal Assent on 11th June, have the same effect in relation to Scotland as Clause 3 and the new clause being moved today have in relation to England and Wales. Clause 4 of the Bill is therefore no longer necessary.

Baroness Young

I am glad to accept that suggestion which the Government fully support.

Clause 4 disagreed to.

Clause 5 [Signs indicating provision for disabled]:

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 6, line 34, at end insert— (.(4) All signs provided for by this section shall accurately denote the different types of handicap for which provision has been made.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment is designed to cope with the sort of situation described by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, on Second Reading when he spoke of a beautiful loo for the disabled being built, with a wheelchair symbol displayed, and then the loo was found to be down nine steps. There is another case in a town where a wheelchair symbol is displayed several streets away from the loo; one pushes along for miles, it seems, following the arrows to get there, getting more and more frantic all the time, and finally one gets to the loo only to find that it is underground.

Most such examples are due to lack of thought and understanding. Clause 5 tries to help by stating that there should be signs indicating facilities for the disabled displayed at various places, such as outside buildings, in car parks, and so on, and I think this would be a convenient place in the Bill to have it stated in black and white that the signs should accurately denote the type of handicap for which provision has been made, so that people are not misled. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will be able to accept the amendment.

The Earl of Swinton

I support the amendment and, having been thinking about the matter since Second Reading, I feel that perhaps it would be wrong to try to penalise people, who, after all, have tried hard to provide something, simply because they have made a boob of it, as in the cases the noble Baroness mentioned. I think the key here lies in the use of the word "accurately"; if that were inserted in the Bill I think it would do a lot to stop the damage that is done by people who shove up signs all over the place when some of the facilities being provided are quite incapable of being used by the people whom they are supposed to benefit.

Baroness Young

I am sure we all have great sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), particularly after the stories that were given on Second Reading to illustrate the difficulties which the disabled can experience, and we can understand therefore why she has tabled the amendment. The fact is that at present only two emblematic signs to indicate disabled facilities have been accepted nationally or internationally; the wheelchair sign and a newer sign to show equipment for people with defective hearing. It may be reasonable and convenient to sign some facilities by name, but not all. For instance, access for some people may be best effected by well designed stairs with a convenient handrail, but to show every such route of travel by signs would produce a clutter of signs which might not necessarily inform but could have the effect of confusing and might be regarded by developers as unreasonable.

The British Standard code of practice on access contains advice on suitable signs and symbols that, used in conjunction with the proposed new Section 7 of the 1970 Act, should produce a reasonable compromise. The Government are sympathetic, but we have concluded that this further amendment would not achieve an acceptable result. I would add that it is very difficult to get agreements on signs. There is really no agreed pattern and it would probably involve at any rate a national, if not an international, conference to agree designs for these signs and it is important that the signs should have national agreement, and preferably international agreement, so that those travelling about see the same signs and recognise them at once wherever they are. This is not being put up as a debating point, as it were, to speak against the amendment because, as I say, the Government are sympathetic to it. But we think it would be difficult at the moment to go further than we have done in the Bill because of the great difficulty of getting agreement on signs and on whether there should be more signs.

Baroness Masham of Eton

Disabled people are very complicated to provide for because they are such individuals and their needs are so individual. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Young, would try to put something in the circular which is to be sent out to bring this matter strongly to the notice of the people who will be putting up signs, so that access for disabled people is handled in such a way that the right thing is done. I say that because much money is wasted by over-keenness; people sometimes go ahead and do too much, and, for example, make lavatories which are supposed to accessible totally inaccessible simply because they have done too much, perhaps blocking it off with rails fixed on either side. In some instances they do all the wrong things, not because they mean to but because they are over-keen. Therefore, it is important that the right thing is done and the right sign is used. While I support the amendment, I see the problems which the Minister raised. Nevertheless, the matter needs looking into, with advice being given, otherwise wastage and the wrong outcome will continue to occur.

Viscount Ingleby

I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said. I remember driving along a major road and coming across a place with a disabled sign displayed; it was a lavatory for the disabled, but with a step down about six inches, and that of course made the whole thing pointless.

Baroness Young

As I said at the outset, it is not that the Government are unsympathetic to the proposal; it is the difficulties of definining the different types of disablement by more badges. I shall certainly look at the points that have been raised and, where it is possible to include something in the circular, of course we shall look most sympathetically at doing that. After the Bill is on the statute book there will be many opportunities to comment on the circular and, as has already been indicated, that will be an occasion when the Government will seek not only comments from local authorities in relation to the circular, but comments from other interested bodies, particularly those representing the disabled, and I hope the kind of point that has been made in this debate will be met by that means. I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Winstanley

Before the noble Baroness comes to a decision in regard to the amendment, I wish to underline something the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said when she referred to the various organisations which represent the disabled. A number of them have done quite extraordinary work in bringing out guide books, catalogues and advice for the disabled as to facilities in rest rooms, hotels and so on in different areas. They have done a remarkable job in investigating, inspecting, cataloguing and publishing documented information available to the disabled telling them precisely what happens and where.

I thought the last point made by the noble Baroness was particularly important; it could be helpful if the Minister and her department would have discussions with the different organisations which represent the disabled. I would expect much good to flow from them because some of those organisations might come forward with simple systems of signing which might prove helpful to those for whom the signs are intended. If the noble Baroness were to initiate such discussions, perhaps there would be found a simple way to cope with what is a very complicated matter.

Lady Kinloss

Can the noble Baroness, Lady Young, consider the placing of a ramp sign under the wheelchair sign where there is a step in, say, a lavatory and a ramp has been fitted?

Baroness Young

The question of whether or not a sign is put up would be very much for local discretion. So far as I understand it, there would be nothing to prevent a local authority from doing precisely what the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, suggested. But I do not feel that one could legislate in the Bill for something of this kind. This is not something that I feel the Government would wish to oblige local authorities to do if they felt that they had some other, and better, solution to the problem. That is why I feel that this is the kind of matter that is much better left to be dealt with in a circular, rather than to be included in primary legislation.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I must say that I have all along seen some difficulties. I should be grateful if the Minister does deal with the matter in a circular, but I felt that it would be better to have something in black and white. Perhaps my wording could be amended so as to appear in a less strong form, such as: shall have regard to their accurately denoting the type of handicap for which they are intended". The chief difficulty is that there is no international sign for the ambulant disabled. The wheelchair sign is OK; it covers the ambulant disabled, in that basically what is all right for the wheelchair-bound people is all right for the ambulant disabled. But what is all right for the ambulant disabled may not be all right for the wheelchair-bound. I hope that there will be discussions about this matter and that a circular will be issued. I hope, too, that this point will be firmly drawn to the attention of those involved in constructing buildings, so that they will be clearly aware that a wheelchair cannot go down a number of steps. I do not know what my noble friend (who added his name to the amendment) feels about this, but I am rather convinced.

The Earl of Swinton

I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment. I am very sympathetic to what the noble Baroness the Minister said. I think that the way to do it is by circular. However, I still do not know whether my particular point has been covered. I have in mind buildings where wheelchair signs are displayed but it is impossible to get in with a wheelchair. I want to stop this kind of thing. It is extremely frustrating, time-wasting and annoying. I certainly do not feel that the imposition of a penalty would be the way to deal with it, and I am equally fairly certain that the amendment is not the right way to deal with it, either. There are circulars and circulars, and I feel that a fairly strong circular must be the answer. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I agree that there are circulars and circulars, and I hope that some firm advice will be given in relation to this matter.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, I wish to raise a point with the noble Baroness the Minister. My noble kinsman has mentioned instances of incorrect signing, and I wonder whether this could not be penalised under the Trade Descriptions Act. Sometimes hotels insert in the AA handbook signs indicating facilities for the disabled. My noble kinsman is well aware of this situation because on one occasion I am thinking of he booked the hotel. The room was suitable for disabled people, but it was up a flight of steps, and so was absolutely useless. Yet in the AA Handbook there was a wheelhcair sign beside the hotel entry, indicating that it was suitable for access by wheelchair. Such an instance might come under the trade descriptions legislation. I wonder what the noble Baroness thinks about that.

Baroness Young

I would hesitate to pronounce off the cuff on the Trade Descriptions Act, though I doubt whether the matter to which the noble Baroness refers would apply, because in many instances it is not a question of trade that is involved. If I may say so to the noble Baroness, this is raising a point that is somewhat separate from that covered in the amendment which in itself covers two points.

The first is the question of whether, under the provision that is made there should be different types of sign for different types of handicap, and I have explained the complexities of this. The other point was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. As I understood him, the idea would be to prevent developers wasting money simply because they had not thought through all the requirements for the disabled before installing facilities designed for the disabled. That was really the point behind the complaint about the hotel. I would hope that this kind of matter would be covered, at least in relation to new buildings, by means of developers having to satisfy the authority on the question of access. That would mean that the point would have to be looked at in relation to the code of practice that we have been discussing.

So I believe that there are here two points, one of which could be satisfied under other parts of the Bill; and I hope that I have answered the other point. I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), will feel happier about this matter and will he prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 agreed to.

8.36 p.m.

Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 19: After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:

("Further provision as regards the needs of the disabled

.—(1) In each of sections 4(1), 5(1), 6(1), 8(1) and 8A(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which impose on persons undertaking the provision of public buildings etc. certain duties as regards the needs of the disabled)—

1. (a) for the words "provision, in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable" there shall be substituted the words "appropriate provision"; and
2. (b) at the end there shall be added the words "unless such body as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State is satisfied, after carrying out any procedures which may be so prescribed, that in the circumstances it is either not practicable to make such provision or not reasonable that such provision should be made; and different bodies and different procedures may be prescribed for different classes of buildings or other premises to which this subsection applies".

(2) After the said section 4(1), there shall be inserted the following subsection— (1A) In subsection (1) above "appropriate provision", in relation to any case, means provision conforming with so much of the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings as is relevant to that case and "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and in the foregoing provisions of this subsection "the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" means the British Standards Institution code of practice referred to as BS 5810: 1979.".

(3) After the said section 5(1) the following words shall be inserted as section 5(1A)— Subsection (1A) of section 4 of this Act shall apply in relation to the interpretation of the last foregoing subsection of this section as the said subsection (1A) applies in relation to the interpretation of subsection (1) of that section."; and the same words shall be inserted as sections 6(1A) and 8A(1A) of the said Act of 1970.

(4) The following subsection shall be inserted after the said section 8(1)— (1A) In subsection (1) above "appropriate provision", in relation to any case, means provision conforming with so much of the Design Note as is relevant to that case and "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and in the foregoing provisions of this subsection "the Design Note" means Design Note 18 "Access for the Disabled to Educational Buildings", published on behalf of the Secretary of State.".

(5) In section 28 of the said Act of 1970 (which empowers the Secretary of State to define certain expressions appearing therein), after the word "Parliament" there shall be inserted —(a)"and at the end there shall be added the words "; or (b) amend—

1. (i) the definition of "the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" in section 4(1A) of this Act; and
2. (ii) the definition of "the Design Note" in section 8(1A) of this Act.".

(6) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument.

(7) This section extends to England and Wales only.").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 21. During consideration of the Local Government (Miscellanous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill in your Lordships' House, an amendment was made to strengthen the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, dealing with access for disabled people to buildings. That amendment related only to Scotland, but the Government gave a commitment at that stage—and I repeated it during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill—that a similar amendment relating to England and Wales would be introduced during the Committee stage. The amendment fulfils that commitment, and I am very pleased to be able to commend it to your Lordships' Committee. It differs only in minor points of detail from the amendment relating to Scotland.

The arrangements for prescribing a body to adjudicate in cases where a developer does not propose to make provision for the needs of disabled people in accordance with the code of practice, and the details of procedures to be followed, will need to be considered carefully. It is our intention to consult all interested parties on these matters and to take full account of their views before determining the content of the regulations. The timing of the regulations will depend on the progress of these consultations. I think that this matter was gone into very thoroughly on a previous occasion. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Croy

It would be less than civil of me not to express gratitude to the Government and to my noble friend for moving the new clause. As she has recorded, a new clause was added to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which has just been enacted. I was responsible for drafting and tabling the new clause in the Scottish Bill, which the Government accepted virtually in toto. Therefore I am naturally very gratified and pleased, particularly as chairman for Scotland of the International Year of Disabled People, to see this provision being extended to England and Wales. It has been recommended by the bodies which have been studying the question of access for disabled people. This further step was their main recommendation, and it should make the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 much more effective where the access sections are concerned.

The body prescribed by the Secretaries of State in England and Wales and in Scotland will determine whether an excuse that access arrangements cannot be included because they are impracticable and unreasonable is a relevant excuse, and whether it can be sustained. The advance being made is that a body prescribed by a Secretary of State will be able to determine whether or not the excuse about reasonableness and practicability is upheld. It does not go further than that—and I must draw attention to this point. To have gone further than that would probably have meant bringing in a new kind of offence and prescribing penalties. That would perhaps have been too much to try to include in a Private Member's Bill.

What I hope is that when a situation arises where one of these bodies finds that access arrangements should be carried out and that the developer is not meeting the difficulties of practicability and reasonableness, then there will he a great weight of public opinion which will shame the developer into carrying out something, which will not be a costly business—the cost is negligible. So I must draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that it is in the last analysis the weight of public opinion which is going to have effect. But this important stage of a test being made and a decision by a responsible body coming out and stating whether or not something is practical and reasonable will enable the weight of public opinion to be concentrated upon a developer who is clearly not carrying out his duties.

This should therefore be a considerable advance in the whole area of designing new public buildings to make sure that there are proper access arrangements for severely disabled people. There have been too many cases since 1970, in all parts of the United Kingdom, where buildings to be used by the public have not included the arangements prescribed by the 1970 Act, and in many of those cases it has not been deliberate; it has simply been an oversight. An aspect has just been overlooked until it is too late. I hope that this amendment will help to put the matter right.

Lord Chelwood

As I was involved in the arguments about this particular question in a small way, I, too, should like to take this opportunity to say how greatly I welcome the Government's change of heart and mind, which was announced by my noble friend Lord Mansfield on 2nd June during the passage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. I do not want to waste the Committee's time for one moment, but I must just look back to 1970, when the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill was going through both Houses and when the Government of the day flatly refused to consider doing just what we are doing now: and, indeed, when successive Governments of both parties equally flatly refused to do any- thing about it, were totally deaf to reason, and trotted out contradictory and unconvincing arguments. However, that is all in the past, and now the Government have gracefully given way. They are in fact doing the right thing. I am absolutely convinced. I should like to suggest to your Lordships' Committee that Parliament, especially your Lordships' House, has been at its best in this matter.

I must say that I had some anxiety when I looked at the Marshalled List of amendments and saw Amendment No. 16, which makes special arrangements in the light of the design note for buildings used for educational purposes; and my suspicious mind made me wonder whether the requirements on local authorities to provide access for disabled people to educational buildings as defined in the 1944 Act were less stringent than where other public buildings are concerned. However, my noble friend has set my mind at rest completely on this score now, and I therefore simply want to say how delighted I am with this outcome and how many hundreds of thousands of people will be equally delighted.

Viscount Ingleby

I should also like to welcome this amendment and to thank the Government most sincerely. I notice two changes in this provision from that which was in the Scottish Bill, which perhaps the noble Baroness would be kind enough to explain a little more. At the bottom of page 5 of the Marshalled List there are the words, and different bodies and different procedures may be prescribed for different classes of buildings or other premises to which this subsection applies This is an addition, and I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she would tell us a little more about why these words have been included.

Also, on the following page there is reference both to the British Standards Institution code of practice BS 5810 and to Design Note 18. One wonders, if they are both mentioned as being relevant in this particular case, why they could not both be mentioned as being relevant in the clause relating to educational buildings. I hope the noble Baroness will include in her consultations—I am sure she will—CORAD in England, who have done so much valuable work on this. I should like to ask her: Is there going to be any final right of appeal on this? One trusts the local authorities, obviously, to exercise their good judgment, but they are not Solomon and they may not be right in every case. Will there by any right of appeal from their decision?

Baroness Young

First of all, I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have so kindly commended this amendment and have said how glad they are to have it in the Bill. I should like to try to answer the particular points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. He asked why there was this difference in the wording in subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause, it being slightly different in this English Bill from the provision for Scotland in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. This Bill, in the last four lines of the new clause, in paragraph (b), permits different bodies and different procedures for different classes of buildings. Scotland does not have these four lines.

The reason is that this clause has been, as it were, further tidied up—that is not a very good legal expression, but I hope the noble Viscount will understand what I mean—since a similar provision was made for Scotland. The legal advice we have received was such that such a provision could make more sense—for example, for educational buildings, where special expertise might be needed—than in the provisions of the other Bill. Scotland, I now undertsand, are considering whether they should do the same in their provision. I think the noble Viscount will recall the circumstances in which the debate took place, and that events have moved very rapidly; and as so frequently occurs, I think, when lawyers look at these matters, nobody is going against the principle. Indeed, an attempt is being made to improve the drafting, so that it tightens it up and makes it clearer to those who have to implement it. I can assure the noble Viscount that there is absolutely nothing sinister in it at all; it is, I hope, and improvement on the other Bill.

The noble Viscount also asked me a point about sanctions against developers. I should like to say that the views of the prescribed body which is to be established will have considerable status, in the same way as, for example, a report by the Ombudsman. As the clause stands, no penalties for non-compliance are provided. If it turned out that developers were flouting these prescribed bodies it would be open for consideration whether penalties for non-compliance should be provided. I do not myself think that this is likely to happen, and I hope that penalties will not be necessary. I do not think they are necessary at the present time. If indeed one looks at the achievements of the access provisions of the 1970 Act, I do not think that these should be under-estimated; they have been very considerable. I have no doubt at all that these new provisions will make a great deal of difference, coming as they will to augment the provisions of the 1970 Act.

Lord Winstanley

Having taken some part in the earlier discussions on this matter, I am sure it would be remiss of me to allow us to take this decision without first expressing my gratitude, and that of my noble friends on these Benches, to the noble Baroness for what she has done. I say without hesitation that we regard this new clause as immensely helpful and wholly acceptable. I honestly think that the noble Baroness and her colleagues really have gone as far as they possibly could.

Speaking purely personally, I should have liked to find a way of avoiding subsection (6), but the very nature of the whole procedure, with the discussions and with the other steps which have to be taken, makes it absolutely essential to have subsection (6), which, as noble Lords will know, says: This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument". I should have liked to avoid that, but I see the very nature of things is such that we have to have that kind of procedure. I should merely like to assure the noble Baroness that we are deeply grateful. I really believe that she has gone as far as she possibly could go, and the measure she proposes is wholly acceptable and very helpful.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I should like to thank the noble Baroness for this amendment. There is no doubt that it makes the Bill much better. I asked some questions in the course of the Scottish Bill, and I should like to repeat them. The noble Baroness may have answered them already. I will study Hansard tomorrow. The questions are these. Who will be the prescribed body? What will be the appeals procedure? Will the individual be able to take the body to court? And will they have the status of building regulations? I hope the noble Baroness will be able to answer these questions. In subsection (4) she has gone a long way to try to tell us that all is well; but I am still worried that the code of practice is not written in for places of education.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

I should like to extend a very warm welcome to the clause as a whole, but I should like to say, even more strongly than did my noble friend, that I am very concerned about the inclusion of subsection (4) which treats schools and university buildings differently. I concede that the design note is excellent; but we need the code of practice as well. I hope that we will be having consultations over this.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

Before the noble Baroness replies, I hope that she will be able to give the undertaking and the hope that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, gave to us on the Scottish Bill. He hoped that this could come into operation in 1981, the International Year of Disabled People.

Baroness Young

Again, I am glad of the welcome that this clause has received. I will try to answer the questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked four separate questions. May I say to her that these matters—the prescribed body and the appeals procedures—are not yet resolved. They are important questions and they will all be the subject of consultation. The Government have not yet taken decisions and we have no view as to how the provisions under this clause should be implemented. It is our intention to consult with all interested parties, including local authorities and representatives of disabled people. My honourable friend in another place mentioned various possibilities for the prescribed bodies; that is, local authorities, independent bodies such as the Institute of Arbitrators, specially-established bodies or voluntary organisations. But I should like to say that we have not taken any decisions on these or any other possibilities and will be seeking views.

On the implementation of the new arrangements, wide-ranging consultation and the drafting of regulations will inevitably take time. I hope that no undue delay will occur. It is not possible to predict how long this will take, but I think noble Lords will be justified in some complaint if they are not given adequate time to submit views on a consultation paper, or if their views were given only a cursory examination or, more important, if the regulations were deficient because of hurried drafting. The Government support this Bill. We are glad to do so, particularly in the International Year of Disabled People, I should like to give an assurance that there will be no unnecessary delay; but we want to get it right and to have adequate consultation.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 20: After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:

("Extension to Northern Ireland

An Order in Council made under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 which contains a statement that its purposes correspond to those of this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament instead of the order or a draft of the order being subject to the procedure set out in paragraph 1(4) or (5) of that Schedule.").

The noble Baroness said: During the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and myself asked about the position of Northern Ireland. In reply, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, confirmed that a suitable Northern Ireland amendment would be introduced at Committee stage. I consider it most important, especially in the International Year of Disabled People, that Northern Ireland should also benefit from the advantages of this Bill which relates to England, Wales and Scotland. I therefore have tabled this amendment which will insert a clause into the Bill to enable a Northern Ireland Order in Council to be made subject to the negative resolution procedure. Apart from the technical differences, the Northern Ireland order will replicate the provisions of this Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Blease

I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for including Northern Ireland in her very noble effort suitably to amend this Bill. I know that many in Northern Ireland will with me welcome and be grateful for her thoughtful interest. I couple that remark with the earlier words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, when he invited the Minister to consider the position of Northern Ireland in this respect. I have not had the opportunity to consult about the legal technicalities which may arise from this clause. If the noble Baroness, Lady Young, can be satisfied that this meets the requirements and procedural arrangements in the Northern Ireland Act 1974, then I should wish warmly to support it from this side of the Committee.

Baroness Young

I should like to say, as I indicated on Second Reading, that the Government fully support this amendment and are happy that the Bill should extend to Northern Ireland, and that this will meet the point that was raised.

Lord Blease

I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for that. I know that it will be warmly received on the other side of the water.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, has welcomed this amendment. I hope that such other places as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands will do likewise.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 21: Page 7, line 29, leave out ("This") and insert ("Subject to section (Further provision as regards the needs of the disabled) (6) above, this").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 22: Page 7, line 32, after ("(3)" insert ("with the exception of section (Extension to Northern Ireland) above,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

In the Title:

Baroness Young moved Amendments Nos 23 to 27: Line 3, after ("disabled") insert ("and blind") Line 4, leave out from ("to") to first ("to") in line 9 and insert ("amend the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 in relation to persons who improperly seek to avail themselves of concessions provided for disabled persons") Line 9, after ("authorities") insert ("in England and Wales Line 13, after ("public") insert ("to require local authorities in England and Wales when serving a notice under section 20 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to draw the attention of the person on whom it is served to certain statutory and other provisions relating to the needs of disabled persons;") Line 18, after ("premises") insert ("to amend the law relating to the duty to make provision for the needs of disabled persons using certain buildings and premises; to facilitate the making of corresponding amendments to the law of Northern Ireland;").

The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 23 to 27 en bloc. These are ail technical amendments that are necessitated by the amendments which have already been agreed. I beg to move.

(thousands)
	1974–75	1975–76	1976–77	1977–78	1978–79	1979–80
Total school leavers	691.8	707.4	751.1	768.5	781.2	795.9
of which with—
1 or more A level pass	106.1	112.2	117.3	118.7	119.8	123.7
No A level but one or more higher (1) grade O level or CSE	235.1	242.8	269.2	275.5	287.0	289.5
No higher (1) grade but one or more other grades	215.4	231.9	248.0	259.1	269.4	279.9
No CSE or GCE qualifications	135.2	120.6	116.6	115.2	105.1	102.8
(1) Higher grades are O level passes or grades A-C for examinations taken since 1974 and CSE grade 1. Other grades are O level grades D or E and CSE grades 2–5.