HL Deb 15 July 1994 vol 556 cc2090-103

11.36 a.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor)

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People. The Statement is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We believe the right should apply only to people who have a substantial disability which is long-term or recurring. We are seeking views on how best to define this group in a clear and practical manner.

"The new right, like the quota scheme, should not apply to employers with fewer than 20 employees. "Where individuals believe they have been unjustifiably discriminated against, they would have a right to complain to an industrial tribunal. However, it might be possible to provide as an alternative to full tribunal proceedings a less formal but more practical and more speedy process to resolve such issues.

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

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

"Making buildings physically accessible is of little use to disabled people if they are excluded by prejudice or groundless fears for their safety. We are therefore seeking views on making it unlawful for any person providing goods or services to the public to treat people unfavourably because of disability. Discrimination would be ruled out in a variety of areas including access to public places, accommodation, entertainment facilities such as cinemas, theatres and restaurants as well as facilities for transport and travel.

"The new right of access would not apply where existing physical barriers prevented access or where compliance may create insurmountable safety problems.

"Where access was wrongly denied, a disabled person would be able to take civil proceedings. He or she would be able to recover damages for any financial loss suffered as well as damages for injuries to feelings. In the latter instance, it might be a fixed sum or an amount subject to an upper limit. The Government could vary the sum or limit in future years. Depending on the level of damages for injury to feelings, claims could be subject to the small claims procedure where proceedings are informal, simple and the cost relatively low.

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

"We have received little evidence of discrimination in the provision of financial services. Nonetheless, we are inviting the Association of British Insurers, the British Bankers Association and the Building Societies Association to develop and issue Statements of Good Practice on the treatment of disabled customers, including clear advice on how to pursue complaints and, in the case of banks and building societies, explain the role of their ombudsmen. The Association of British Insurers, for example, will be asked to include in their Statement of Good Practice the need to be aware of the main forms of disability and their relevance in assessing the size or probability of an insurance claim; insurers should ask only for medical information which is demonstrably related to the additional risk associated with insuring the disabled person; and the need for insurance companies to have a clear mechanism for the investigation of complaints from disabled people, and for those complaints to be handled sensitively and speedily.

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

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

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

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

"A new Programme for Action on employment of disabled people in the Civil Service, launched in conjunction with this document, will provide a strategic framework and detailed "action checklists" to help departments and agencies recruit and retain disabled people. Many government departments and agencies have already improved the accessibility of their buildings and the quality of service they offer to disabled people. To encourage this approach throughout the public service, a checklist on how the Citizen's Charter principles apply to service provision for disabled people will also be published shortly.

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

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

11.48 a.m.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I am sure that I speak for all Members of the House in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement today. The degree of attention with which he was listened to was, I believe, expected in this House, which has a proud record of being concerned to promote the rights of and facilities for disabled people.

However, let us ask why we are having the Statement. It is about blocking the Berry Bill, which was introduced into this House by my noble friend Lord Ashley. That Bill proposed a comprehensive Bill of Rights for disabled people enforced by a commission. Such was its support in the Commons that it had an unopposed Second Reading. The Minister, Nicholas Scott, chose not to amend the Bill in Committee. When Tory Back-Benchers suddenly tabled 80 amendments at Report stage, the Minister denied responsibility for them. When he had to accept responsibility for them, and to his dismay his amendments were accepted, he had to oppose his own amendments, and himself to talk out and defeat the Bill.

Such was the outrage, not only in both Houses, not only among the disabled, but among the community at large at such disreputable and dishonourable behaviour, that the Government have been forced to come forward with the Statement today.

Instead of a comprehensive Bill, such as that introduced by my noble friend Lord Ashley which would invest disabled people with rights enforceable by a commission, we have in this Statement a grudging series of one-off concessions to disabled people. Of course, they are welcome as far as they go, but they are piecemeal and inadequate and they are not enforceable by any body other than the disabled person.

None of us will deny that the proposals offer piecemeal improvements but they do not go far enough. As regards employment, we share the Government's recognition that the quota system may be inadequate because many disabled people do not register. We know that disabled people are three times more likely to be unemployed and six times less likely to be interviewed. But here we have a code of practice which is not enforceable by a commission. The remedy is only that of an industrial tribunal, which is lengthy and cumbersome. How effective will that be in ensuring that disabled people have full rights in their employment?

Secondly, the Statement refers to access to goods, services, buildings and financial services. Again, these proposals are welcome but inadequate. There are approximately 4.25 million disabled people but only 80,000 accessible homes. The rate of homelessness among disabled people is twice that of non-disabled people. This Statement will allow enforcement only through civil proceedings and not by a commission. It falls far short of what this House and disabled people are entitled to and demand.

Above all, this Statement is incomplete because it says nothing about the two preconditions for employment and access; it says nothing about education, and therefore access to jobs and employment; and it says nothing about transport, without which most disabled people are denied access to a full life in the community. Why have those two crucial areas of concern, which were covered in the Ashley-Berry Bill, been omitted from this Statement today? Will the Minister please tell us?

I presume that the reason relates to the question of cost. Certainly, that was the issue in debate on 22nd June until Members all round your Lordships' House demolished the Government's figure of £17 billion as being entirely bogus. It was shown that the basis of those figures was the shoddiest piece of research that it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. It had been assumed that all taxis, buses and trains had to be replaced in five years when the Ashley-Berry Bill precisely stated up to 25 years, by which time existing transport facilities will have come to the end of their natural life. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, did a splendid demolition job on those transport figures but after hearing this Statement it is as though that demolition job and the debate in your Lordships' House never happened.

Finally, the Statement announced the appointment of an advisory body to monitor, review and report. In other words, it has a power to do everything except enforce and a power to do anything except make a difference. On 25th May the Minister in another place wrote in a letter to my honourable friend Mr. Sheerman that he wanted proposals that were, "necessary, workable, affordable and practicable The Ashley-Berry Bill, comprehensive and enforceable by a commission, is precisely that. This Statement is piecemeal, partial, grudging, belated, inadequate and incomplete. After 17 years of trying to get a Bill for the disabled, this Statement will not do.

11.54 a.m.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am pleased that parliamentary time has been found for it, although many noble Lords and many people outside this place would wish that parliamentary time could be made for legislation. Instead, we are spending time on legislation which is in ping-pong fashion going between this House and another place, and many of your Lordships feel that it is unnecessary or, in many cases, unwelcome.

I was unaware that the Statement was to be made this morning. Indeed, I was unaware until I sat on this Bench some 18 minutes ago. My immediate reaction was that the rights of disabled people are being approached in a crab-wise fashion. Without a Bill of Rights and fundamental civil rights for all our citizens, we need to address rights for particular groups. However, that immediately leads to a list which, because it does not address the fundamentals, is almost by definition partial.

As regards employment, will the Minister explain how job applications from disabled people can be encouraged? The Statement appears to deal entirely with the reaction to action or inaction taken by employers. I believe that a change of culture is required but that will not happen unless disabled people are encouraged to make job applications in the first place. I welcome the reference to speedy proceedings but unless they are regarded as a real sanction against employers they will be meaningless.

The Statement referred to current building regulations with regard to new non-domestic buildings. That is, however, on the fringe of the issue because efforts must be made to make existing buildings accessible. And they must not be accessible merely by a ramp somewhere round the back, which immediately classifies disabled people as somehow second class. After all, as a matter of environmental sustainability, we should be looking at improving existing buildings, not knocking them down and rebuilding in their place. Indeed, that point applies to domestic dwellings too.

A reference to increased grants for aids and adaptations to existing homes would have been welcome. Perhaps even more welcome would have been increased grants for the housing associations, which do a good job in providing homes for disabled people. However, I hate the "ghettoisation" which this type of approach is sometimes prone to produce.

As regards remarks about access to goods and services, there is a reference to civil proceedings and the recovery of damages by the person who has been affected. Again, I make the point that the sanction must be real. It may be a more real sanction if there is the possibility of a declaration rather than something which deals with the personal position of the individual. There must be the possibility of proceedings which will create change.

There is also a reference to an advice and conciliation service. It is described as being a conciliation service for disabled people but should we not be talking about a conciliation service between those who regard themselves as having been discriminated against and those who are doing the discriminating? It is not a conciliation service for disabled people somehow to persuade them that they should be a little quieter, go away into a corner and not pursue the matter. The language used in the Statement indicates that the Government are still looking at the issue from one point of view; that is, not from the point of view of disabled people. The question of funding for the advisory body will be most important.

There appears to be no mention in the Statement of accessibility to transport. Without access to transport —in other words, without mobility—much of the rest is meaningless. I hope that the Government will bring forward proposals to make transport truly accessible to those who currently do not have that.

Finally, I say again that checklists may often be useful, but they may often also be dangerous. They may be incomplete. We need—to coin a phrase—to go back to basics.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, during the passage of the Berry Bill in another place, and of course during the passage of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, in this House, the Government always made it clear that we did not support comprehensive legislation. And we were very clear about the reasons that we did not support that Bill—because of the costs, and because of the difficulties of implementation. We have always said quite clearly that we believe that targeted legislation would be much more effective and would be in the interests of those people with disabilities.

I understand the reasons why the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, does not welcome the Government's proposals. She has made it clear on a number of occasions that she welcomes comprehensive legislation. We disagree on the best way to go forward. But I believe that there is agreement on both sides of this House on what the problem is; and we are trying to find a solution. Therefore I hope that all noble Lords, whether or not they support comprehensive legislation, will play a full part in the consultation process that will take place, so that out of that consultation process we will be able to go forward to do the many important things that are necessary.

Perhaps I might respond briefly to some of the questions that were put. I was asked about education and about, as it were, a right of access to education. Nobody has a right of access to a particular school or college. There is already much education legislation in this field for identifying, assessing and making provision for all children with such needs. Pupils with special educational needs should be educated in mainstream schools wherever possible where it is appropriate for a particular pupil. The wishes of parents and the particular needs of the child must also be taken into account.

Both noble Baronesses mentioned transport. We feel that blanket anti-discrimination legislation is not the most effective way to achieve more accessible transport systems. Targeted initiatives, including specific pieces of legislation and the setting of technical standards, have been introduced over the past few years and have been shown to be the best way to achieve workable and sustainable access improvement. We are already well on course to achieving full accessibility in most areas of public transport over the next 20 to 25 years. For example, all new rolling stock that is built is being made accessible as a matter of course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about building regulations. The important point here is that we want to take forward some of the many improvements that have been made in legislation for certain buildings and consult on whether we need to look at the building of new dwellings—that is, of people's houses, and not only at offices, to which the regulations have been largely related—including, say, at the size of the external or internal doors, whether there is enough space and whether the switches and sockets are accessible. The Department of the Environment aims to consult on the detailed proposals for new dwellings before the end of the year in a separate consultation with organisations (as I have said) representing disability interests, public and private house building sectors, design professions, local authorities and others.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also asked how we can encourage applications for jobs from disabled people. The Employment Service will continue to work with disabled people to ensure that they know about the help and services that are available and to encourage them to apply for jobs. The use of the disability symbol by employers will also help and encourage job applications.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked about the need for a commission. The consultation document describes a number of ways of helping to reduce disputes without recourse to a full tribunal hearing: through good advice, guidance and conciliation. We want to have a system which is easily accessible, which is not expensive and which will produce the results for disabled people—that is, one which will encourage people to make any changes that they need to make: for example, to make buildings accessible, or indeed jobs accessible.

12.5 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I hop; that my noble friend will answer one or two questions. I should like, first, to thank him for the very clear Statement that he made, notwithstanding the somewhat uncharitable observations of the noble Baroness opposite.

First, there is the question that my noble friend touched on in almost his last sentence, that for a disabled person access to the place of work is often the decisive factor. Where a company decides to improve the access to its working areas in order to facilitate the arrival of disabled people and where a company incurs expense in altering the access so that it is easier for disabled people, would it not be a sensible provision to allow the company concerned to offset the cost of those improvements for tax purposes—in other words, while not asking for a subsidy, to allow that work to be done without tax being incurred, and indeed, with an allowance being made for the cost of it against the tax payable? I hope that that will be considered. It is a very important factor in this matter.

Perhaps my noble friend could do something else. I know it is difficult, but can he give us some idea of the number of people who are affected by this Statement? Obviously, very seriously disabled people are not affected, because they will be incapable of work anyhow. But the vast majority—those with some disability who are capable of work—are directly affected. Although I appreciate that it is not easy for my noble friend to quantify exactly the numbers concerned, can he give me some idea as to the approximate numbers that are involved? The whole handling of this matter will be very much affected by the numbers that we seek to help here.

I tried to follow him, but I could not be quite sure as to whether he had in mind under these proposals laying down, in the case at any rate of larger companies, a provision that they must employ a specified percentage of staff who have some disability. Is that now intended; and if so, what exactly would be the classification of disability for the purposes of complying with that?

Finally, in relation to the whole of this vastly important matter and the very considerable human considerations, do the Government intend, after the consultation to which my noble friend referred has taken place, to introduce legislation? I know that for protocol reasons he cannot say that they intend to legislate in the forthcoming Session, but he could give us a hint.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, perhaps I could deal, first, with the last point made by my noble friend about legislation. Obviously, the Government will have to look very closely at what the consultation document produces. If it is felt at one point that legislation is the way forward, the Government will have to look very closely at how that might best be achieved. My noble friend will understand if I am not drawn any further at this stage as to how that might come about.

My noble friend asked me about employers and whether they would have to employ a percentage of disabled people. We all recognise that the current quota system does not work. It does not work for a number of reasons, the first and most important of which is that there are not enough people with disabilities who register as disabled. There are quite a number of people with disabilities who are working and therefore are not registered. As my noble friend will appreciate, when the quota system was brought in, it stood at quite a high figure of 3 per cent. We believe that that figure is probably too high. It is not practical because there are not enough people with disabilities to go round, as it were. So those issues have to be considered. We must see whether we wish to have a new statutory right for disabled people in employment and whether that would replace the quota scheme.

As mentioned in the Statement, we are considering a statutory code of practice which will be issued to provide guidance on matters associated with the new right. The experience of employers and disabled people will be drawn upon when developing that code.

My noble friend also asked about numbers. It is very difficult to tell what the effects might be on numbers. The easiest way to answer is to say that perhaps there are about 6 million people with some degree of disability. But it is important to remember that there are about 2 million such people of working age. My noble friend will appreciate that many more disabled people are retired, because age affects disability, though it is not a disability in itself.

My noble friend asked, if businesses and companies spend money on improving their buildings, access or equipment to facilitate the employment of disabled people, whether they might have some form of deduction made against their tax. That is an important point which I shall bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who naturally has an interest in these matters.

Lord Ashley of Stoke

My Lords, I want to attack the message rather than the messenger. Does the Minister feel that it is a bit rich that this Government should now begin consultation, 12 years after the first Bill was introduced into another place? Why has it taken 12 years for the Government to begin to consult with disabled people and disability organisations? Is he aware that the sponsors of the first Bill 12 years ago and every sponsor since then, including those of the Bill now before the House, have consulted widely? So consultations have in fact taken place. The Government are not only 12 years behind; they are now duplicating the efforts of other people.

The present carefully prepared Bill, as mentioned by my noble friend, is supported by the majority of Members of the other place, Members of this House and, above all, the vast majority of disability organisations and disabled people themselves. Will the Minister please take on board that the Statement is pathetically inadequate as a substitute for the Bill? It is totally unacceptable to me and, I am sure, to the many people who sponsor the Bill and seek urgent Government action. It will not deter the campaigners from pressing for the Bill. Perhaps he could explain to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the comments made by my noble friends, including the noble Baroness, were to the effect that the Statement is uncharitable to disabled people. It is not my noble friend who is uncharitable; it is the Statement by the Government that is uncharitable.

I am sorry to have gone on at length. Let me conclude by saying that we simply must have a comprehensive disability Bill. Human rights are indivisible. The Government cannot be selective about the kind of rights that they accord to disabled people. Disabled people in this country are entitled to the same rights as those obtaining in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France and Sweden. They are entitled to them and the Statement is pathetically inadequate.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, let me say at the outset that I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he wished to attack the message and not the messenger. I very much agreed with him when he said on a television programme which took place before we dealt with the Bill that it was a matter about policies and not personalities. The noble Lord is very much in favour of comprehensive legislation and therefore I understand why he is perhaps a little uncharitable himself in describing the Government's proposals as uncharitable. I do not believe that to be the case. As I said, we have come forward with suggestions that will lead to improvements in the lives of people with disabilities in this country.

The noble Lord made an important point when he asked why we needed to consult. He said that these issues have been on the agenda for some years and asked what was the point of further consultation? The answer is quite simple. There has been consultation in the past and that consultation brought about many of the improvements that now exist. For example, in the past we consulted on employment and that produced the Disability Working Allowance in 1990. The Government have a good record in this area. Spending on disability benefits rose to £17 billion in 1993–94—an increase of two-thirds in real terms since 1978–79. So it is not as though the Government have not consulted in the past. They have brought forward legislation and indeed benefits where necessary.

We are now taking that process further forward. I hope—indeed I am sure—that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will take part in the consultation process, so that we shall be able to improve the lives of those people in our country who suffer from disability.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, I welcome the proposals and in particular the proposal to reform the quota system. The need for such reform was emphasised in the debate that I initiated on 13th April. There was support from all sides of the House for the fact that the quota system was not working adequately.

With regard to Private Member's Bills, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is my noble friend aware that Labour Governments faced similar situations? The first such Bill was introduced by me in 1968. That was not 12 years ago but 26 years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, was one of the sponsors of that Bill. He had joined the other place two years earlier. That Bill, introduced by me after success in the Ballot, was narrowly rejected after the Second Reading debate in a Division forced by the Labour Whips. We have been through that kind of thing before as regards Private Member's Bills.

Is my noble friend aware that some of us recognise the problems arising in the latest Bill, as explained in our extensive debate on 22nd June? Many disabled people are now unfortunately under the impression that with the enactment of what is called a "civil rights" Bill their lives will suddenly be transformed overnight, though we in Parliament know that that is not possible and that it must take years in various sectors of life. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned 25 years in relation to transport. That is not what many people outside in wheelchairs understand. That is one of the problems which not only governments, but also we in Parliament, must face.

I was partially disabled 49 years ago in the Second World War, and I have been trying, with disabled organisations and disabled people—many of whom have been in touch with me for many years—to explain that the civil rights Bill, which I supported in principle, cannot suddenly transform life for them, though the principles are ones which we all accept and should like to promote. I hope that the consultations will lead to much greater agreement than there has been in the past and that later this year we shall be able to look forward to some proposals.

Viscount Astor

First, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on all the work that he has done over many years for disabled people. As he said, he brought forward a Bill 26 years ago which was then rejected by another place.

Perhaps I can come forward to the debate that was held in relation to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. That showed clearly that there was great support in your Lordships' House for the cause and we were all agreed on that. However, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will agree, the Bill did not receive unanimous support in your Lordships' House. My noble friend made clear points on what he felt regarding the problems of comprehensive legislation. On an initial view that may look to be the way to go But when one looks at the practical realities of taking matters forward, it is not the answer.

Much has been done by governments—all governments over the past 26 years—the voluntary sector and many other people towards improving the lives of people with disabilities. The consultation document will take that one stage further forward.

Lord Monson

My Lords, perhaps I can touch upon one small matter contained in the Statement repeated by the noble Viscount. The proposal that damages for injuries to feelings are to be capped is welcome. But should not that principle be extended logically right: across the board, not least to damages for injury to feelings awarded to servicewomen dismissed for becoming pregnant? They knew perfectly well when they enlisted what the rules of the game were and their feelings therefore cannot be supposed to have been genuinely injured.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, makes an interesting point, not necessarily in relation to disability. However, I am sure that he too will study the consultation document and respond to it.

Lord Renton

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the largest group of disabled people are those who are mentally handicapped? Will he confirm that the; consultation document will bear that in mind and take due note of the discrimination which exists at present against mentally handicapped people, especially with regard to accommodation?

Returning to the question of legislation, I support my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Campbell of Croy, and other noble Lords. Is the Minister aware that very little can be achieved in this field without legislation? We must be realistic about that. I suggest that the Government should aim to introduce their own Bill in the next Session of Parliament.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton makes an important point in relation to legislation. As I said earlier, after the consultation; period we shall look closely to see what is the best way forward. He made some extremely important remarks in regard to those who are mentally handicapped. We shall be consulting on the definition of "disability", and looking at the problems of the mentally handicapped will be included within that.

It may be helpful to your Lordships to point out that apart from the 20,000 copies of the consultation document that will be issued, it will also be available in Braille, signed and subtitled videos, audio cassette and audio cassette for people with learning difficulties.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I welcome the Statement: but one point has not yet been covered.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, I believe that the House agreed to the Procedure Committee recommen dation that there should be a time limit of 20 minutes for supplementary questions.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

It shows how wrong that was!