Sitting of 26 February 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITION

  Disabled Persons (Discrimination)
  9.34 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I have the honour to present a petition urging this House to make unjustifiable discrimination against people with actual or perceived disabilities unlawful. The petition reads:
  The Humble petition of people from all parts of the United Kingdom sheweth:
  That disabled people must have a right to the same equality of opportunity in all aspects of their daily life as non-disabled people;
  That people who are disabled or perceived to be disabled (for whatever reason) are continually having to face widespread unjustifiable discrimination;
  That legislation is necessary to outlaw this discrimination.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House introduce legislation to outlaw unjustifiable discrimination against people with actual or perceived disabilities as soon as possible.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  The petition is strongly endorsed by millions of others and by all the organisations of and for disabled people.
  To lie upon the Table.

Disabled Persons (Civil Rights)
9.36 am
Mr. Tom Cox: I beg to move,
That this House believes that anti-discrimination legislation is necessary to ensure equality of opportunity for people with disabilities; and calls for the early enactment of specific provisions relating to public transport and other public and private services, employment and housing.
Any hon. Member who is lucky enough to come first in the ballot must then decide on his subject. For me, that presented no problem. The motion clearly demonstrates my interest in and commitment to the civil rights of disabled people. We discuss many important issues in the House many such issues are under discussion at the moment—but I feel that they do not always directly affect our constituents. Not one hon. Member can say, "Thankfully, disablement is not an issue in my constituency."
Many hon. Members of all parties have spent the whole of their parliamentary careers campaigning for the rights of the disabled. Regardless of the party to which they belong or the region of the country that they represent, they have been united in campaigning for the rights of disabled people in this country. We know who they are —many of them are present today—and I pay the warmest tribute to them, as do disabled people throughout the country.
The following early-day motions dealing with the subject stand on the Order Paper: 330, entitled "Civil Rights (Disabled Persons)"; 615, entitled "Caring Costs Campaign"; 1161, entitled "Disability Living Allowance for Children under 5"; 1317, entitled "Disabled Facilities Grant". There are many others. Those early-day motions, which have all-party sponsorship and support, clearly emphasise hon. Members' commitment to the issue. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was introduced in the other place by Baroness Lockwood. Today, in this House, the same Bill stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). All hon. Members and many people in the country know his record as a campaigner and fighter for the rights of the disabled, and I pay the warmest tribute to him.
I and, I am sure, all hon. Members, readily accept that there has been progress, with changes being made to the law and legislation introduced. All that must be welcomed, but we must never accept that we are doing enough. We are not doing enough and we never have done enough. That is why motions in my name and in the names of two other hon. Members have been tabled for debate in the House today.
In many debates we often hear about recent economic achievements. I am prepared to say that there are some people who have done well recently. How would we equate the financial progress that some people in the community have made with that which disabled people have made, be it in personal financial terms or in the development of services or facilities for the benefit of disabled people? I suggest that there is a wide gulf between those two aspects of development.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the first 10 years of the Thatcher Government the richest 1 per cent. in Britain had tax cuts of £26.2 billion? Some of that money should have gone to the disabled. Does he agree that the Government should

1129
do one thing today—at half-past two they should tell the Whips not to shout "Object" to the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris)? In that event, we would solve not all but many of the problems of the disabled. I believe that the Government Whips should desist from shouting "Object" and stopping the Bill by almost a secret method.
Mr. Cox: I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend, especially the last part of them. I shall come to those comments later. Hon. Members will be aware of the proposals in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I am sure that they are also aware that the Bill was fully discussed in the other place, many speeches were made and it was passed in the other place. I put it to the House that if one Chamber passes a Bill after a long and detailed discussion, surely the other Chamber—this Chamber—needs to take serious account, in its discussion, of what our parliamentary colleagues in the other Chamber have decided. I hope that we will get clear evidence that that will happen in this debate.
I have received some 600 letters from people all over the United Kingdom supporting this motion, but, above all, supporting the Bill to which I have referred. Many of the letters were sad and many were painful to read, leaving a feeling of injustice, a lack of hope and, sadly, often abuse.
I have received many letters of support from organisations which work with the disabled. I shall name a few of them because I think that a tribute should be paid to them for the work that they do not only for disabled people but equally for Members of Parliament in informing us of the issues. The organisations that have written to me include the Disability Alliance, Deaf Accord, the Greater London Association for the Disabled, the National Association for Mental Health, voluntary organisations for anti-discrimination legislation, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the National League of the Blind and Disabled, the Spastics Society and the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People. I have received correspondence from other organisations.
The list of organisations that I have read out clearly shows the enormous interest in the debate and the Bill that is on the Order Paper today. That interest shows that the people who look after the disabled look in turn to us, as the law makers, to introduce legislation to help the disabled and their families.
I said—and I readily concede this—that progress has been made. However, it is clear from many letters that I have received that a great deal still needs to be done. In the next few moments I propose to refer to some of the comments that have been made to me.
In a letter dated 11 February 1993, the Greater London Association of Disabled People said:
"GLAD—
that is the organisation—
"has carried out extensive research on the difficulties disabled people experience when using public transport. Our research report 'All Change' showed that in 1986 there were over 465,000 people"—
we are talking solely about the Greater London area—
"unable to use public transport as a result of being disabled. GLAD sees this as a form of discrimination because if appropriate facilities were provided 80 per cent. of these people would be able to use buses and trains."
1130
I am sure that other hon. Members representing any part of the United Kingdom could make comments similar to those which I have made about the Greater London area. Can we say from the experiences that we have in our constituencies daily that there has been any great improvement since 1986?
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I, representing some of the people of Northern Ireland, encourage the hon. Gentleman to proceed down the road that he is travelling? There are more disabled people in Northern Ireland than unemployed-17.4 per cent. of the population are disabled. That is 20 per cent. higher than the figure in Great Britain. Is not it significant that it was the American Senate that gave us the lead in this matter? Will the hon. Gentleman join me in expressing hope that the Prime Minister will bring back from America good news on the matter?
Mr. Cox: The point which the hon. Gentleman makes is relevant. When the Prime Minister comes to the House next week—as one expects that he will—we hope that he will make a statement. Depending on what happens in the debate today, he may well be asked about his commitment. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has made an important point, as he always does in such debates. I pay him the warmest tribute for his work not only in respect of disablement but for other associations in the House.
In a letter written to me dated 24 February, Deaf Accord said:
"Deaf people are often refused jobs because of their deafness. Such discrimination is the result of employers' ignorance as to deaf people's capabilities, but without legislation we do not believe that the situation will change …
There are 4 million hearing aid wearers in the UK, but most public buildings do not have induction loops …Deaf Accord hopes very much that Parliament will respond to the overwhelming desire by deaf and disabled people to have their needs met in terms of equality of rights. Without such legislation"—
this is a relevant comment from a respected organisation—
"initiatives such as the Citizens Charter mean very little to millions of people."
The National League of the Blind and Disabled, in a letter of 22 February said:
"For many years, especially since 1981, 'The International Year for Disabled People', disabled people have campaigned vigorously for the introduction of anti discrimination legislation so as to give them the same opportunities and choice as every other citizen in the United Kingdom."
The British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, in a letter to me dated 19 February, referring to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, said:
"I cannot express to you how strongly disabled people feel about the need for this legislation. Those of us who are disabled members of society often experience open discrimination in our lives. We are particularly indebted to you in that, by giving support to the EDM"—
I referred to early-day motion 330—
"you too are aware of this."
Almost 300 Members of Parliament have signed that motion.
I have received two other letters. The first is from the Spastics Society, dated 22 February. It reads:
"More than 60 per cent. of disabled people between the ages of 16 and 64 are neither in work or training. (1992 `Wasted Opportunities' The Spastics Society) …Disabled people are 6 times more likely to be refused a job interview even if their qualifications and work experience are the same as a non-disabled applicant (1990 'Equal Chance or No Chance' the Spastics Society)".

1131
My last quotation is from MIND. In a letter to me dated 25 February, it said:
"Unjustifiable discrimination affects people with mental health problems, as well as those with visually apparent disabilities …All disabled people face discrimination when it comes to employment but with mental health problems the `disability' is always seen as relevant to the job. Education and persuasion has not worked …There are precedents for introducing civil rights legislation for disabled people all over the world."
As the hon. Member for Belfast, South intimated a few moments ago, America has had such legislation since 1973. I have given just some of the many views and comments expressed to me by organisations which work day by day with disabled people in Britain.
Mr. Terry Dicks: I am delighted with the thoughts that the hon. Gentleman is expressing this morning. I am a slightly disabled person and I find it difficult to go down stairs without bannisters. I always look for a bannister. So I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
I attended a meeting recently at which the Spinal Injuries Association presented a racegoer's guide for disabled people. The man who introduced it at Sandown said, "As usual, my wheelchair tipped over getting here because there are no facilities even at Sandown." He told another story about when he went to the races at Lingfield. Because there was no facility for him to cross the railway line, he had to go to the end of the line and all the way back. So there cannot be anyone in the House who does not believe there is a need for legislation to protect disabled people.
We have legislation on race, which I think is a waste of time. We have legislation on sex, which I think is a waste of time—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The disability obviously does not extend to the tongue.
Mr. Cox: Despite the last comment, Madam Deputy Speaker, the House will accept that the points made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) are relevant to the debate. I thank him for his intervention.
Taking up the point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, this Parliament of ours cannot hold its head with much pride. I saw disabled people coming in today. I am sure that they are now in the Strangers Gallery listening to the debate. It will not have been a very easy journey for them to the mother of Parliaments. Let us consider how long it took us to achieve improvements for entry to the Grand Committee Room where people go to attend many types of public meeting. I hope that the powers that be in the House will follow up the need to ensure that our constituents can come and see us whenever they want. We know that such a move would have all-party support.
The organisations that have written to me have said that progress has been made, which we all welcome, but we still have much more to do. My motion calls for legislation. That is undoubtedly the next step we must take. I hope that every Member will take note of one of the comments made by MIND in its letter to me. It is not my comment but that of MIND. It said:
"Education and persuasion has not worked."
All the organisations that work for and with disabled people call for legislation. Can they all be wrong? Can any hon. Member say that, we do not need to take notice of those organisations or that they are uninformed and out of
1132
touch? No one can say that, because we know how in touch and informed those organisations are. That is why today's debate is so important, on the day when the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is on the Order Paper.
The Bill outlines what is needed—legal rights in law. My motion calls attention to the civil rights of disabled people. It says that anti-discrimination legislation is necessary. Who can object to defining disability in law, introducing a code of practice and clearly explaining what discrimination means to a disabled person? Who can object to establishing a disability commissioner to whom disabled people can present their case against the discrimination that they have experienced?
Would it be wrong for Parliament to support such proposals? Surely not when the other House of this Parliament has done so, in giving the Bill to which I have referred a Third Reading on 4 November last year. Surely the House has a duty to take note of what the other House says about legislation as crucial as that referred to in my motion. That is why my motion and the motions tabled by two other hon. Members are so important.
The views of disabled people, of the organisations that work with them and of the other House of Parliament have all been clearly expressed. I hope that we will start the final stage of a process that millions of people want.
On 17 February this year, The Sun newspaper said:
"We don't want sympathy—just equal rights…Disabled people have enough problems to overcome without being treated as second-class citizens."
The Sun is often referred to in this House and it often touches the pulse of public opinion. It certainly did so on that occasion, and I thank the newspaper for its total support in the campaigns on which it has embarked in support of rights for the disabled.
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People knows a great deal about the subject, and we have known each other a long time; I have the greatest respect for him as a Minister. He knows that millions of people will follow this debate and he knows what they are expecting. I beg him not to ignore their views. The Government can win overwhelming support in the House and in the country by supporting the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe, so that it gets a Second Reading and goes into Committee, following identical progress made in another place. That is the test for the House, for the Minister and for the Government.
I beg the Minister not to destroy the opportunity to demonstrate the Government's commitment—as hundreds of Members have shown their commitment—to the rights and dignity of disabled people who live in our communities.
10.1 am
Sir John Hannam: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on promoting this extremely valuable debate and on his excellent speech, which covered the main issues in the campaign for anti-discrimination legislation, which I totally support.
When President Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, he said:
"Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down."
That Act gave civil rights protection to disabled people in the United States, yet for far too many of the 6–5 million disabled people in the United Kingdom that wall of

1133
exclusion remains as formidable as ever, despite the Government's excellent record in improving financial support for disabled people. All hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Tooting, recognise the progress that has been made.
Since I first became involved in the all-party disablement group in 1970, the range of allowances and help for disabled people has increased dramatically and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the dedication of his work while holding his present office. It would perhaps embarrass him if I were to dare to think that he would like to support anti-discrimination legislation today, but, like many of his predecessors in that office, he has had to move a step at a time within the limitations laid down by the Treasury, which always perceives potential spending explosions in the removal of barriers to employment, education, transport and access to buildings.
I am proud to join Opposition Members and my hon. Friends in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for all that he has done, and I am sure will continue to do, to help to push back the frontiers of discrimination against disabled people.
As the House will understand when I explore some of the various sectors of provision, and as the hon. Member for Tooting so forcefully said, the barriers remain despite our efforts at exhortation and education through all the different Departments. The barriers are still as formidable as ever.
There are more than 6.5 million disabled people in Britain, which is more than 10 per cent. of our population, yet they are denied basic rights that the rest of the population take for granted. Disabled people have no right to legal redress when they experience discrimination every day of every year.
The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, sponsored by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), would make it illegal for disability to be used as a reason for denying equal treatment in employment, housing, education, leisure facilities, transport and other public and private services. It will provide redress for people who have been discriminated against simply because they are disabled.
If hon. Members doubt whether such discrimination exists, I advise them to take part in the next disability awareness day organised in their constituency. On that day one becomes for a while a disabled person in a shopping centre. One chooses to become blind, by wearing a mask for an hour or so, or to become deaf by wearing ear muffs, or to sit in a wheelchair and push oneself around and one is sent off to try to do some basic shopping, make a telephone call or cash a cheque. I can assure hon. Members that it does not take long to discover what are the barriers and how difficult it is to carry out simple, normal everyday functions.
Sometimes the barriers are accidental and sometimes they are intentional. An example of direct discrimination is when a disabled person is denied entry to a cinema or other public place simply because he or she is disabled. Indirect discrimination exists when only minor or simple adaptations to buildings or premises stand in the way of a newly disabled person retaining his or her job.
1134
Research has shown that, despite legislation to encourage integrated education, the number of children in special schools in 1989 was hardly lower than in 1977. Since we introduced integration in education in the Education Act 1981, 15 local education authorities have increased the number of pupils placed in special schools —some by more than 25 per cent.
More than one third of disabled children under 16 and more than 80 per cent. of disabled students have to accept segregated special facilities. Less than one in five colleges of further and higher education has a policy on the admission of disabled students. The Education Bill certainly reflects the Government's desire that disability should not be a bar to access to education and I welcome the personal interest shown by Education Ministers in getting the legislative provisions in the Bill right for children with special needs. The gaps will, however, remain until the onus of responsibility is switched to the provider, with legal redress for any disabled person who is barred, for one reason or another, by unfair discrimination.
The evironment is another crucial area, as disabled people face inaccessible homes, transport, offices and services. More than 4 million disabled people have mobility-related problems and 1 per cent. of the population use wheelchairs. The National Wheelchair Housing Association has calculated that there is a shortfall of 330,000 wheelchair-accessible houses. As the hon. Member for Tooting said, we do not have to go far from the Chamber to come face to face with areas of this place that are totally inaccessible to people in wheelchairs—for example, the rooms off Westminster hall.
We need to get mobility housing moving again. The number of starts has dropped from 4,733 in 1980 to only 543 in 1989. Even if we are unable to keep up the progress with the number of wheelchair-accessible housing starts, we should aim to get all new housing built to mobility standards. The extra costs at the time of building are minimal, but the benefits provided by wider doorways and other improvements are of value not only to disabled people but to the elderly and mothers with children—in fact, everyone benefits from better ease of movement in their homes.
The same principle must apply to transport, because most buses, taxis and trains are inaccessible to disabled people. British Rail is trying to improve its services for disabled passengers, but stations and current practice still discriminate against them. Travelling in the guard's van with the baggage is more the rule than the exception for wheelchair users. Very few stations have top-class access and facilities for disabled travellers. Steps, heavy doors, inaccessible toilets and cobbled pedestrian areas in shopping centres with no vehicle access for orange badge holders all present great difficulties for routine shoppers and people trying to get to work.
Not only are many restaurants, pubs, theatres, galleries, cinemas and sports halls inaccessible to disabled people, but all can openly deny them the right to use and enjoy such facilities. It took 10 years of pressure from the all-party disablement group to allow guide dogs into the Strangers Gallery with their owners. Before the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) became a Member of the House, he always encountered difficulties when he came here to attend debates. It was following one of his visits that Lord Ashley and I visited the Gallery to find out where the obstacle lay to preventing guide dogs from entering the Gallery with their owners. We found

1135
that it was due to one attendant's fear of dogs. That was why it was impossible, for some 10 years, to get proper provision made to allow guide dogs into the Gallery.
If any hon. Member tries to get into a cinema in a wheelchair, he will soon see what happens: he will not be allowed in. Management can insist on advance notice or can limit the number of disabled visitors at any one time. Several concert halls insist that disabled people must be accompanied by a non-disabled person. Some do not allow disabled people in at all. I wonder what President Roosevelt would have had to say if he had attempted to visit one of those halls.
Disabled people face the greatest frustration when it comes to employment. They are three times as likely to be out of work as non-disabled people, they face barriers to professional or managerial positions and their earnings are approximately half the average weekly wage—approximately £100 a week compared with £220 plus a week.
Our employment legislation is baffling because it is all lip service and no teeth, with the 3 per cent. quota scheme brought in under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 basically impotent. The latest figures show that fewer than 5 per cent. of public sector organisations get anywhere near fulfilling that quota, yet the 1944 Act has been used to bring 10 prosecutions only. Dare I say it, but Government offices and Departments are probably at the bottom of the list of those who meet the quota, The Home Office quota of disabled employees is 0–4 per cent., the Department of the Environment employs the equivalent of 0–9 per cent. disabled people, and the Foreign Office employs just 0.3 per cent.
The argument has always been that anti-discrimination law is unworkable, that it will create a legal nightmare and give rise to huge extra costs. In November, that legal argument was shot out of the water by no less than the Law Society when its employment law committee produced a report, which concluded that
"a new law to protect people with disabilities from discrimination was needed."
The lawyers call for new legislation on principles similar to those already set out in the laws prohibiting race and sex discrimination. Using their experience of existing anti-discrimination laws and considering in particular the recent Americans with Disabilities Act, the committee members concluded that legislation here could be effective.
The lawyers' principal conclusions, which are of note to us in today's debate, were, first, that existing means of solving the problems had failed and, secondly, that education and voluntary approaches designed to improve matters were insufficient on their own.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: I pay warm tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work that he has done as joint chair of the all-party disablement group and for his work over many years for the disabled. This week I received a parliamentary answer from the Department of Employment that showed that, since 1985, no prosecution has been brought under the 1944 Act. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that central to any anti-discrimination legislation, which we all support, is the establishment of a disablement commission, because we must be able to enforce any new legislation?
Sir John Hannam: I accept that.
It is interesting to compare the changes that have been made to employment legislation for disabled people in other countries. In Germany, for example, the
1136
Government increased the employment quota to 6 per cent. and introduced financial sanctions against employers who did not reach that level. The money obtained from those sanctions was ploughed back into improving access and facilities for disabled workers in their place of employment. As a result, the Germans quickly approached a 5 per cent. quota of employment of disabled people. When one compares that with our achievements, it shows that a mixture of the carrot and stick would be the answer if we approched it with determination and vigour.
The employment law committee also concluded that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill could form a good basis for the new law that it had recommended. However, those lawyers felt that it was too significant a matter to be dealt with under the private Member's Bill procedure and that it should be dealt with by a Government Bill. When I recall what was achieved by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe when he successfully introduced the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 as a private Member's Bill, I believe that the same can be done again if necessary, if the will is there and the House and the Government are willing to accept the openings offered by the Bill.
I used to believe that the strenuous and worthy efforts of Government and Ministers to follow a path of education and exhortation with employers, architects and various other groups was the way to remove discrimination. When I look at what is happening in the world among disabled people, and when I look at the world as seen through the eyes of those people, I know in my heart that those efforts are not enough. More must be done. That is why I give my support to the campaign on behalf of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I hope that it will go into Committee and will pass through the legislative processes of the House so that we introduce legislation similar to that introduced in America. That legislation has obviously benefited disabled people. If one goes into any office or department in the United States, one sees a far greater number of employed disabled people than one does in this country. That clearly identifies for me the success of anti-discrimination legislation, and I therefore support the campaign for it.
10.17 am
Mr. Alfred Morris: I most warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on his choice of motion. We have been close parliamentary colleagues for 23 years and I have never known him to falter in conferring whatever luck he has had in private Member's ballots on people with genuine and pressing needs. His decision to make today's debate one about the urgent need to legislate on civil rights for Britain's 6.5 million disabled people will, I am sure, have won him respect and gratitude in all parts of the House and across the country.
My hon. Friend's motion calls for what the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, for which I am seeking a Second Reading later today, provides in full measure. So we are in total harmony. My hon. Friend's motion and my Bill fit like mortise and tenon.
I put it to the House that fully assured civil rights must now be seen as the defining principle of all enlightened policy making on disability. For without full civil rights, the handicapping effects of disability are made even harder to bear by social handicaps for which there is no moral

1137
justification. That is why today there is no more important issue for disabled people and those who work to improve their status and well-being than that of civil rights. They insist that this is not an idea whose time has come, but one whose time came when the Committee on Restrictions against Disabled People—CORAD—reported to the Government in 1982.
I appointed that committee of inquiry, as the then Minister early in 1979, because of the force of the evidence put to me by disabled people and their organisations about the hurtful effects of unfair discrimination against them. By then the need to go further than education and persuasion if disabled people were to achieve full social equality was already widely accepted. CORAD's report convinced many more people by its unanswerable case for legislation.
Even so, for more than 10 years one Minister after another has refused to implement the report. Criticisms of their inaction have grown stronger, year by year, vindicated by the impact of the CORAD report abroad, where it was read more widely and with more sympathy than in Whitehall. When President Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, he had the courage and intelligence to tell American employers that there are benefits as well as costs in ending unfair discrimination against disabled people. He said:
"You have in your hands the key to the success of this Act, for you can unlock a splendid resource of untapped human potential that, when freed, will enrich us all".
The American statute, which is wholly consistent with the CORAD report, and often seen as its most important product, is one of many that now give legal protection to disabled people across the world. If it is argued that the American statute will not be fully operational for some years, at least the clock has started ticking there, and the sooner we make a start here, the sooner we shall achieve full citizenship and social equality for disabled people.
As of now,
" the shameful wall of exclusion"—
which, as the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) reminded us, is George Bush's phrase—is still as high and formidable as ever in Britain. We could have led the way, as we did in becoming the first country in the world to legislate in 1970 on access to the built environment, but instead of being a world leader we now lag far behind many other countries in terms of protecting the civil rights of disabled people. The tide, however, has turned on those who argue that law has no part to play in achieving full social equality for disabled people, and the question today is not whether British Ministers will go with the tide but whether they will be the last in the developed world to do so.
Mr. John Bowis: I support the right hon. Gentleman, as I have before. Does he accept that the tide has already turned? The Education Bill now being considered in the House contains civil rights, backed by law, for children with special education needs. The principle has been established and acknowledged. Therefore, I hope that we can progress from that in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Morris: I accept that there has been progress and that further progress is being made. As I shall seek to explain in more detail, the organisations of and for
1138
disabled people are not, however, seeking only piecemeal reform. They want comprehensive reform. I welcome every initiative to nudge things forward for disabled people in terms of civil rights. But today we have an opportunity to achieve comprehensive reform that will help all disabled people.
One argument used by Ministers against legislative attempts to implement the CORAD report since 1982 was that they were defectively drafted. They said also that education and persuasion, rather than legislation, was still their preferred way forward. In the case of my own Bill —as the hon. Member for Exeter said, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill—which was given a Third Reading in another place on 4 November last, the Government could not realistically argue that it was defective, so they sat on the fence. Although I suspect, like the hon. Member for Exeter that the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) is a furtive supporter of the measure, the right hon. Member described his attitude as one of "benevolent neutrality", while a Government supporter, Mr. Robert Hayward, "talked out" the Bill when I first moved its Second Reading in this House on 31 January 1992. Five days later the former Member for Kingswood made a personal statement to the House in which he said:
"on being asked…whether I was talking out the Bill, I replied:
'I am not going to talk it out; I am going to make my views known.'—(Official Report, 31 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 1259.]
I now recognise that the effect of my words was to mislead hon. Members and that Members were entitled to assume I intended to resume my seat before 2.30 pm. I deeply regret having misled hon. Members in that way. I offer my unreserved apologies to you, Mr. Speaker, and to fellow hon. Members."—{Official Report, 5 February 1992: Vol. 203, c. 287.]
Nevertheless, the Bill was blocked in this House and disabled people all over Britain felt cheated by what happened. I am of course, most grateful to my noble Friend Lady Lockwood for having introduced my Bill with skill and success in another place, where it completed all its stages and was given a Third Reading on 4 November. Now it is back in this House and there will be a further opportunity, later today, for it to receive a Second Reading.
As the Law Society says, in its valuable recent report on discrimination against disabled people in the field of employment, the Bill is wholly viable for its purpose. I want to make it clear again today, however, that the Bill's all-party supporters are entirely open to any constructive suggestions for improving its provisions. The Bill makes it illegal for employers and service providers to discriminate unfairly against disabled people. It covers all people with physical, mental and sensory disabilities, and—as the hon. Member for Exeter said—it applies to jobs, housing, education and training, leisure faciilities, transport and access to buildings.
The Bill's sponsors, when I first presented it to this House, were drawn from every party, large and small. They included the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the hon. Members for Exeter, for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Their very names demonstrate that the argument now is not so much a clash between right and left, but one between right and wrong. If still further proof were needed that this is not a party issue it can be found in an admirable speech in another

1139
place on 4 November by Lord Renton, formerly Sir David Renton and the Prime Minister's predecessor as Member of Parliament for Huntingdon, when he appealed to the Government to find time in this House for the Bill. He said: "It is extraordinary"—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman of the tradition that there should be no such direct quotations. I am sure that he will be equal to paraphrasing the passage very nicely.
Mr. Morris: I do appreciate and accept that point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Lord Renton said that he regarded it as extraordinary and not very creditable that there had been such opposition or nonfeasance in the past. He said that when the Bill returned to the House, the Government should at least provide time for its discussion. He also added that it would be better still if Ministers could take on the Bill themselves and make it a Government Bill. Much to their honour, other Conservative peers gave the Bill their backing, just as many Conservative Members have also given it strong and consistent support.
All Members of whatever party know from their postbags that enactment of the Bill is anxiously awaited not only by their constituents who are disabled, but by all the organisations that work with and for them. I myself have had a huge correspondence in support of the Bill, from people of all parties and of none, and I want briefly to quote some of the letters sent to me by disabled people. Peter Large, whose distinguished work for disabled people all of us acknowledge, describes the Bill as providing:
"the essential foundation on which campaigns of education and persuasion can be mounted and true goodwill as opposed to 'do-gooding' can flourish."
He says as well:
"In the absence of such legislation people with disabilities will never be enabled fully to enjoy their rightful place in society."
Peter Large is uniquely well qualified to make these comments. I appointed him to chair CORAD in 1979 and he says now:
"We were right to believe that campaigns to educate and persuade are too costly and ineffective in the absence of a legislative foundation of acceptable behaviour."
I want also to quote from a letter sent to me by Sir John Wilson, than whom very few people in any country can have given more distinguished service to blind people. A blind person himself, Sir John wrote simply:
"Good luck for your Bill on anti-discrimination. We'll all be rooting for you on Friday".
Richard Wood, the executive director of the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, who is also very highly respected for his work with and for disabled people, wrote:
"I cannot express how strongly we feel about the need for this legislation."
He went on to say that it is not piecemeal, but comprehensive reform that disabled people want to see.
In this regard I want to recall again the words of Martin Luther King, when he dismissed piecemeal reform and reliance on education and persuasion to end racial prejudice. He said:
"Morality cannot be legislated but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless".
We must all insist that it is an affront to civilised values, in a country claiming to respect human rights, for a citizen with a past or present disability to suffer prejudice,
1140
exclusion and both demeaning and hurtful discrimination for no other reason than her or his disability. It is an utter disgrace that to the restrictions that disability imposes there are added the gratuitous extra handicaps that attitudinal and physical barriers create. Let no one imagine that such discrimination is a thing of the past.
Dr. Julia Schofield, a woman doctor, who has spent most of her life helping fellow blind people, was recently awarded the MBE. When she arrived at Buckingham palace for the investiture, she was ordered to leave her guide dog, Amber, outside. She said afterwards that she felt demeaned and that her day was one tinged with sadness. She said:
"Inflexible bureaucracy has marred this special day for me and harmed the cause of the blind".
She described Amber as her "independence and confidence" and said:
"A guide dog isn't a pet. Mine is a valued part of my life. We need each other at all times".
A young policewoman was turned away from a charity event because she is confined to a wheelchair. Ironically, she became disabled while displaying conspicuous bravery in tackling a gunman.
Look also at the blatant unfairness among employers who say that they will never shortlist disabled job applicants. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting was eminently right to place strong emphasis on the inexcusable attitude of some employers.
Wendy Lovatt, 21 years old, who was made severely deaf by meningitis after a serious road accident when she was seven, earned a brilliant degree at Manchester university. The only job she has had since graduating was a temporary one in a shop during the Christmas period. Her hearing aid enables her to use to a telephone and work normally, but again and again Wendy has been rejected by accountancy firms in favour of other applicants whose qualifications are inferior to her own.
"To mention you are disabled,"
she tells me,
"makes it virtually certain that you will not even be interviewed."
Is it any wonder that unemployment is three times higher among disabled than non-disabled job seekers? That statistic alone shouts the word "discrimination".
Again, who can justify the treatment of a successful candidate for a senior civilian post with a police authority who, because of her disability, but with no justification on the ground of special risk, was refused entry to its pension scheme? I speak with some experience as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension scheme.
If anyone still doubts that hurtful discrimination exists, he need look no further than a statement by the right hon. Member for Chelsea for a clear endorsement of what I am describing. He said that he had
"no doubt that some employers' recruitment practices discriminate unfairly against people with disabilities."
The right hon. Gentleman also said:
"there exists too much prejudice against disabled people in this country and that leads to unjustified discrimination."
The right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) then Secretary of State for Health, told a CBI conference on employment and mental health that
"People who suffer mental illness can find themselves discriminated against. Ancient prejudices are still to be found in the 20th century workplace."
Nowhere is prejudice and discrimination more deeply entrenched than in employment practices. In the queue for

1141
jobs, disabled people are the tail-enders in the longest queue in Britain today. Yet for them unemployment is a double handicap and leads to double despair. They seek not sympathy but social fairness; not the dependence of state benefits but the dignity and independence of becoming taxpayers; not expressions of compassion but practical concern for their right to become full citizens in a society about which one highly skilled disabled person wrote to me recently:
"It would be an exaggeration to describe my present status as that even of a second-class citizen".
All of us know that the 3 per cent. quota scheme is now a dismal failure. More than three quarters of employers subject to its requirements do not meet the quota. There have been no prosecutions of defaulting employers since 1979. Large numbers of employable disabled people aged 16 to 64—perhaps as many as 1.2 million—are excluded from official unemployment statistics. Although they are very much out of work, they are hidden by the Government's figures. At present only 1 per cent. of the work force is registered as disabled; yet, according to official surveys, well over 3 per cent. are registrable.
For their part, Ministers take the same view of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 as they do of my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. They prefer education and persuasion to legal requirements, but the more repetitively they state their view, the more tragically unemployment grows among employable disabled people. That is not, however, the clinching argument against the Government's preferred way forward. If education and persuasion alone can achieve equal opportunities for disabled people, why is the Government's own record as an employer so poor? They are huge employers and if education and persuasion are better than legal requirements, why have they neither educated nor persuaded themselves to employ more disabled people? How persuasive is the advocate who cannot persuade himself? That is the clinching argument against what has been the Government's preferred view of the way forward.
In 1991, the Department of the Environment had 0.9 per cent. of its employees who were registered as disabled; in 1989 the figure was 1 per cent. The Department of Health employed 0.7 per cent. registered disabled, the same figure as for 1989. The Home Office employed 0.4 per cent. in 1991 compared with 0.3 per cent. in 1989; and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office employed 0.3 per cent. in 1991 compared with 0.5 per cent. in 1989. With figures like that to explain, Ministers are being told, not only by disabled people but by many employers, that it is not what they say that impresses those whom they lecture about education and persuasion, but what they do. I must make it clear that my figures about the record of Government Departments came from the Cabinet Office in December.
None of the sponsors of my Bill has ever claimed that it can be a magic wand to remove all discrimination over night. We know that we cannot right the wrongs of centuries in a moment of time but we insist that attempts to educate and persuade that are not founded in fundamental rights set by law will end in failure. To succeed, any educational process requires a sound and rational base. That was one of the reasons for legislating on sex and race discrimination, and it applies with the same force now to disability. That is why the Employment
1142
Select Committee in its report on employment and disability of December 1990, commended the case for equal opportunities law to the Government. The Select Committee argued, quite rightly, that no amount of voluntary codes of good practice, or public relations exercises like the lamentable "two ticks" scheme, can be sufficient to make employers recognise the need for justified change to which they are resistant.
Practical social gains will result from enacting civil rights legislation, other than for its direct beneficiaries. The greater integration of disabled people into the mainstream of our national life—as workers, consumers and taxpayers—adds to wealth by reducing their dependence on benefits and increasing the economic contribution that they can make. This is no academic point. When the Americans with Disabilities Act was passing through Congress, the realisation of that effect secured the support of more and more of its former critics. They began to talk not only of its possible cost, but of its undoubted economic and social value.
There will no doubt be references in the House today to the costs of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill [Lords], but, of course, the Bill cannot become law without direct Government involvement in quantifying and determining its costs. What disabled people ask is why those who speak only about the costs of legislating never seem to reflect on the costs to them of leaving the law as it stands. How do commentators who preoccupy themselves with costing legislation quantify the economic loss to the country of unemployment on the present grievous scale among disabled people seeking work'? By common consent, they are among the least fortunate and most distressed of all the victims of the jobs famine.
Employers and others who now so hurtfully discriminate against disabled people argue that they are doing nothing illegal, but where does that leave young Wendy Lovatt and other disabled people who yearn for an opportunity to show that they have abilities as well as disabilities? What they say is that if the injustice they have to endure is allowed by existing law, then the law must be changed. In other words, if the law permits palpable wrong, there is manifest need for new law. Again, if piecemeal or ad hoc reform is suggested as an alternative to the Bill, disabled people will want to know how and within what time scale it will remedy the suffering that they endure. Their most earnest wish is that the House should take the further opportunity that we have today to support the Bill, and I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to accept Lord Renton's eloquent plea by giving the Bill their backing.
The Bill's passage through another place was an important milestone. Never before has a Bill to end discrimination against disabled people been approved by either House of Parliament. The Law Society's support is also most heartening, as is that of so many Conservative Members for the early-day motion sponsored so successfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry). Our purpose is solely and simply to secure for 6.5 million British people the rights that everyone else takes for granted.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman with great attention, interest and sympathy. Before he finishes, may I let him and the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) know, as they have both taken such a keen interest in transport for

1143
disabled people, that London Transport has come up with a new bus that is specially adapted for disabled people? I hope that it will be just right for them. I shall unveil the first next month. Let us hope that that will be a move forward for disabled people travelling in London.
Mr. Morris: I very much welcome that important initiative for disabled Londoners. I rejoice in the launch to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will, I am sure, want to send congratulations on, and all good wishes for, the success of that important initiative.
Our purpose today is simply and solely to secure for 6.5 million British people the rights that everyone else takes for granted. If the concept of citizens' rights means anything, it must mean that disabled people can now no longer be denied full social equality.
I am reminded again of that striking and very moving photograph of two baby girls, widely displayed by the Spastics Society, with the caption:
"One of them has cerebral palsy, the other will grow up with full human rights".
That is what the motion and the Civil Rights Bill are all about.
10.47 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on coming top in the ballot and on introducing such an important motion. I add to that congratulations to my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and for Blackpool (Mr. Elletson). The latter was sitting next to me, but, when he realised that I was about to speak, went off to get a cup of coffee.
Disabled people are an enormous cohort in our society and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) said, 6 million to 7 million people are deemed to have some form of disability. That is approaching 10 per cent. of our population. No society or Government could ignore a group as large as that, with specific and identifiable needs. Some 2.5 million of that total are disabled people of working age and that represents a large problem. During the International Year for Disabled People in 1981, the BBC commissioned a Gallup survey, which showed that around one third of the population was seriously affected in one way or another, either personally or as a result of family connections with disability in some shape or form.
Today, we refocus on the problems of disabled people and more specifically on their civil rights. There have been many debates over the past few years, both in the House and in the other place, on these very topics. I noted that a private Member's motion on disabled people was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who I am delighted to see in his place this morning. I have no doubt that he will make his usual important contribution. In March 1991, an Adjournment debate on these matters was initiated by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). The Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill took place in January 1992. The Bill was introduced by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshaw (Mr. Morris), who is renowned as one of the most important Members in terms of supporting the disabled.
The same Bill was introduced by Baroness Lockwood in the other place in February 1992. It fell because of the
1144
general election, but it was reintroduced and obtained its Second Reading in June that year. The Bill now stands on today's Order Paper. Our attention was drawn to that fact by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who made his usual sort of intervention, got his usual sound bite on the record and then disappeared for his coffee.
It is not only the involvement of Members in the problems of disabled people that is important. The interest that is shown by Members is clear from the good attendance in the Chamber this morning. We should be very much concerned, however, with the aspirations of disabled people. They wish to lead as normal a life as possible. Naturally, they want a fulfilled life. They want to live independently. They hate being labelled as disabled or handicapped because that denotes some sort of inferiority or second-rateness. They wish to be free to choose what they want. They do not wish to be dictated to by Members, by the Government or by public authorities on what is best for them.
Disabled people want the right to a job. They want to be allowed to undertake productive work that gives them fulfilment and yields a tangible result. They reject sympathy and condescension. They certainly resent being patronised. They need the dignity that we enjoy from our employment and our lives and they wish to achieve it by determining their own destiny.
Those are tall orders and they present a great challenge to both disabled people and society as a whole. My experience with disabled people began about 10 years ago when I was mayor of a small town in my constituency, Wisbech, and I was introduced for the first time to the voluntary sector. It was a revelation. I pay tribute to the many thousands, if not millions, of people who day by day devote their time and energy to the disabled. It is sad that many people do not realise how much work goes on behind the scenes. So much work is unrecognised, but tremendous help is being given to make the lives of the disabled people more acceptable.
I pay tribute to the many organisations in my constituency that are engaged in helping the disabled, including the Fenland Association for Community Transport, the local physically handicapped and able bodied enterprise, the St. Raphael club, the talking newsletter, the Alzheimer's Disease Society and many others.
Later, having been mayor of Wisbech, I became the chairman of the local social services committee of Cambridgeshire county council. I was introduced for the first time to the public sector involvement in caring for disabled people and in providing social services across the board. The local committee was an extremely useful organisation because it regularly brought together the public, the private and the voluntary sectors. That process involved carers and the cared for, including disabled people. It gave them a say in the range and quality of the services on offer. There were regular inspections of establishments and the committee received reports. I found it a vital liaison between the providers and their customers. I advocate that sort of local organisation as a model of best practice and I have no doubt that it has been adopted elsewhere. In Cambridgeshire, I found it an extremely important experience.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Wythenshaw, has been extremely important. My own experience brought this home to me when, about two years

1145
ago, a wheelchair-bound young lady, Miss Helen Brown, who resides at the Octavia health centre at Wisbech, wrote to tell me that she found it extremely difficult to get into the town centre to do her shopping and other normal things. She challenged me to push her into town and back. I take note of the recommendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that when we next have a disability awareness day we should become involved. I had my experience of involvement, as I have said, two years ago.
Most carers are probably women and probably most of them weigh about 10 stone. Most wheelchairs seem never to go in the direction in which one wishes to send them. I am no 10-stone weakling but a 14-stone—overweightex—rugby player. Even so, I found it extremely difficult to negotiate the footpaths into town from the Octavia health centre. As a result of that experience and the determination of the wheelchair-bound young lady, we caused the council to make the necessary changes en route so that in future those being pushed in wheelchairs would not have negotiate a nasty pavement edge every few hundred yards.
My experience brought to light the problems that arise with pedestrianisation. Most of us welcome the process of releasing our town centres to the pedestrian so that he or she can shop properly, but it causes immense problems for disabled people, especially those who need to get their cars close to a shop and those who rely on wheelchairs. There are several problems in my constituency in this regard. It is important that local authorities, especially planning authorities, take into account the needs of the disabled when they are considering pedestrianisation. There are far more people who need to get close to shops than is generally recognised.
It is clear from our personal experiences and our postbags that there are disadvantages for disabled people in almost every area of daily life. They are to be found in housing, education and training, transport and employment. The disabled experience difficulty in gaining access to buildings as well as to leisure and arts facilities and public services. The hon. Member for Tooting said that the consequences of the problems faced by disabled people embrace every Member of this place and that is true. Not a week passes without our receiving correspondence on the matter.
What is the Government's record? Have they responded to the problems? Since 1979, total spending on benefits, both for disabled people and those who care for them, has increased from £3 billion to about £15 billion in the last financial year. That is an increase of about £9.9 billion, or 300 per cent. in real terms. It would be churlish to suggest that that is not a commendable record. Next year, an extra £300 million will be made available. There will be two new benefits—the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance. The DLA will give extra help for the first time to about 250,000 less severely disabled people. Some problems have arisen, as we all know from our postbags, because of the volume of the claims that are being made. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister has taken this problem on board. We now have a special streamlined service to ensure that claims are processed as quickly as possible.
The Government have an influence on employment, leisure and living in the community. There has been talk
1146
this morning about the 3 per cent. quota for employers. Many people think that the system is extremely flawed. It deals only with the recruitment of disabled people. In other words, it does not promote effective employment policies. It also depends on people registering as disabled, which in many cases conflicts with their self-image. They would not prefer to see themselves as individuals, not as some kind of stereotype.
Many people would agree with the Public Accounts Committee's comment that the quota scheme is "ineffective, outdated and unenforceable". The problem is that, although it is imperfect, to abolish it would probably weaken the position of the disabled by sending the wrong signals to employers. I urge the House and the Government to examine every alternative before that legislation is thrown out or replaced.
Over the years, the Employment Service has been tasked with examining more carefully the needs of the disabled and I am pleased to report that it is now exceeding its target of placing disabled people in jobs. All Employment Service training schemes and others to help people back into work are available to the disabled. Financial help is available to employers to help with special difficulties and applications under that heading are increasing all the time.
As to leisure, the two main considerations are access to arts facilities—particularly theatres—and sports. In the Second Reading debate on 15 June 1992, Lord Rix spoke of the problems of access to London theatres and arts functions generally. The ADAPT fund, started in 1989 and run jointly by the Government and the Carnegie Trust, provides resources to help arts establishments, including theatres, to make their premises more accessible to those with disabilities. Although that fund exists, an enormous amount of work remains to be done in London theatres alone.
In 1991–92, the Sports Council spent £1 million promoting sport for people with disabilities—money extremely well spent. That was brought home to me when I watched the paralympics last year, which were a revelation in more ways than one. I refer not only to the standards achieved by the disabled people, but the tremendous joy of fulfilment that the participants experienced from participating in sport at that high level. That was an example to us all of what can be done with determination and with facilities provided through Government funding. That event was massively helpful in bridging the perceived gap between the disabled and their needs and the general public. The more money that can go into sport and be used to involve the disabled in that mainstream human activity, the better.
As to living in the community, the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Act 1992 comes into effect in April. The total community care transition grant for the next financial year will be ring-fenced at £565 million—an enormous sum. There was lengthy debate in the Chamber about whether the fund should be ring-fenced and I am delighted that the Government ultimately saw fit to ensure that.
The independent living fund will be replaced by two successor bodies. One will maintain cash payments to all existing beneficiaries and the other, for those aged 16 to 65, will help the most severely disabled to live independently in the community. That arrangement will provide services

1147
at the same cost of residential home or nursery home care and councils have been allocated an extra £26 million for that purpose.
The motion in the name of the hon. Member for Tooting and the Bill both relate to discrimination, which is difficult to define because no relevant legislation or monitoring body exists. There is certainly evidence of disadvantage, to which I have already alluded. There are two types of discrimination. Evidence of the positive form is, unfortunately, mainly anecdotal, but obviously there is and will continue to be discrimination—particularly against those seeking employment. Passive discrimination can be the unthinking actions that we all take without giving any consideration to the needs of the disabled. Because we do not give them enough thought, we effectively bar them from participating or using facilities. I have in mind access to buildings, transport and educational facilities.
The Bill deals not only with those matters but homes in on anti-discrimination employment legislation. A plus point is that any such measure would send a positive message to employers. The problem is that disability can be relevant to job performance and it could be problematical to a prospective employer, who needs to fit the talents of the interviewee with the job, to bear in mind any legislation pertaining to the disabled.
Such legislation is also difficult to draft, because the definition is so uncertain. If uncertainty exists, employers may be more reluctant to hire disabled people and the relationships that we have tried to foster between employers and the disabled over the years could be damaged—and produce a result contrary to that which we envisaged.
The commission that would have to be established would be expensive. The Equal Opportunities Commission established in 1990 cost £4.6 million and it is expected that a commission to protect the civil rights of the disabled would cost more.
I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members present in the Chamber are extremely supportive of the purpose behind both the motion and the Bill that was originally introduced by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. The nub of the question is whether we go for gradual and piecemeal reform, much of which has already been achieved, as against comprehensive and overarching legislation. Although I sympathise with the Bill's sentiments, it has serious and wide-ranging cost implications for employers, the transport industry and the construction and property industries. For example, the cost of installing a lift in an underground station would be £750,000. If one replicated that expense across the whole London Underground network, the capital cost would be in the region of £500 million. Perhaps the Bill seeks to achieve too much at a single stroke. It has experienced difficulty up to now in that regard and we will have to wait until my hon. Friend the Minister speaks before we know whether attitudes have changed in respect of attracting Treasury support.
Mr. Bowis: I would not want the House to be confused. My hon. Friend is right that costs will be incurred in adapting underground stations for use by the disabled. We must weigh up that cost, but I hope that we will accept it as right, proper and necessary. That is why those of us who represent London constituencies constantly press London Underground and British Rail to do more. As to
1148
employment, I trust that my hon. Friend does not believe that the Bill would do anything absurd. It aims to ensure that, other things being equal—a phrase used time and again when the Bill last came before us—there should be no discrimination against a person simply on the ground of his disability.
Mr. Moss: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and entirely agree with his remarks. I certainly did not misunderstand that point. The problem is that it would be extremely difficult to make that case hold in law, were the Bill to get on to the statute book.
11.9 am
Ms. Liz Lynne: I express my support and that of my party for the motion and for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for enabling us to debate this important issue; it is only a pity that we are not debating the Second Reading of the Bill.
The first attempt to improve the position of people with disabilities in this country was made in 1968. Unfortunately, it was unsuccessful, but it led to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which gave local authorities various functions to assist disabled people and made particular reference to transport and access to buildings.
More than 20 years later, many people with disabilities still have great difficulty in gaining access to all buildings. The one that we are in at the moment is a prime example which has already been given by many hon. Members. Some 63 per cent. of disabled people in London rely on public transport, but can often use the services provided only with much difficulty. A further 29 per cent. are unable to use public transport. People with disabilities need the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. More than that, they have the right to expect their Parliament to respond to their demands and enshrine their rights in law.
My party would go beyond that and would say that all British people should have their rights enshrined in a Bill of Rights. We are talking not about an insignificant but vocal minority of the population who are clamouring for special treatment, but about a large section of the population who should be heard and, even more important, listened to.
A Gallup poll published during the International Year of Disabled People in 1981 showed that 29 per cent. of the population were affected by disability, either directly or by family ties. The precise number of people with disabilities in this country is hard to determine accurately, but it is thought to be about 6.5 million. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf estimates that about 7.5 million people have some form of hearing loss. That is not an insiginficant minority. Furthermore, it is clear that those people are not asking for special treatment but are demanding the same rights as the rest of us enjoy. For example, a survey in the south-east showed that 40 per cent. of employers thought that disabled people were unsuitable for employment. This is clearly unacceptable and a law must be introduced to protect disabled people's rights.
The response that is often made is that legislation will not change people's attitudes. My reply is that surely some things in society are unacceptable and hon. Members should say so. One of those things is discrimination in any form, but in particular against people with disabilities. I

1149
grew up in a home for people with disabilities which was run by my mother and encountered discrimination daily. One of my best friends was four or five years older than me. She and I used to go all over the place together and people spoke to me but never to her. That was one form of discrimination. If we had a civil rights or anti-discrimination Bill, it would at least give a signal to the country that people with disabilities are human beings and have the same rights as everybody else. That was one of the things that inspired me to go into politics.
Enshrining those rights in law will help people to think about the issue of disability and discrimination. Many members of the public and employers may be unaware of the level of discrimination that is experienced by people with disabilities. Many points that may seem obvious to us taking part in this debate may not be thought about by other people. An example of that was access to polling stations at the general election. I am sure that no one intended to prevent people with disabilities from voting, but none the less it was reported that only 12 per cent. of polling stations at the last election were accessible to all and as a consequence some disabled people were unable to vote. I hope that that will be considered before the local elections in May.
Mr. McMaster: The Government provide a 50 per cent. grant to make polling stations accessible by providing temporary ramps. Why not offer the option of a permanent ramp, if that is more suitable, thereby giving schools, churches and many other community buildings permanent access?
Ms. Lynne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly the point that I was trying to make. It is a disgrace that buildings are not accessible on a regular basis so that people have a right to use them and do not have to say, "I have a disabled person with me. May we have a ramp?" Again, that discriminates against disabled people.
Another fine example comes from the Government. The Railways Bill makes no provision for groups representing people with disabilities. Most notably, the disabled persons transport advisory committee was not properly consulted about the services that were to be provided. If education and exhortation are so effective, why have they not reached the Department of Transport?
The case for a comprehensive civil rights Bill for people with disabilities is overwhelming. No doubt hon. Members will have received much briefing material on this issue and many will have seen some of the statistics, which highlight why the Bill is so important. As the hon. Member for Tooting and many others have said, there continues to be massive employment discrimination against people with disabilities. They are six times more likely to be refused a job interview and two and a half times more likely to be unemployed than the overall population. No doubt, discrimination in employment is a major reason why two thirds of people with disability live below the poverty line.
Why has there been an almost 100 per cent. increase in homelessness among physically disabled people? We should not think of all disabled people as having mobility problems or being in a wheelchair. Wheelchair users account for only 5 per cent. of disabled people. We should not assume that other people with disabilities do not meet discrimination. The Royal National Institute for the Blind
1150
has catalogued examples of discrimination, including a partially sighted person who was asked to leave a gallery when she used an magnifiying glass to view a work. A blind man was barred from a conference because he was not accompanied. A deaf and blind man was denied use of leisure facilities if he was unaccompanied. Much has to be done and the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is a significant step forward. It will give people with disabilities the confidence that they have Parliament and the law behind them in their struggle for equality.
I urge all hon. Members to support the motion and, most important, if it is carried, to allow the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill to have a formal Second Reading later this afternoon so that we may proceed with the debate in Committee.
11.18 am
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on introducing this debate. The subject benefits greatly from a public airing, whatever our views on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I endorse many of the comments made and I contribute to the debate in that spirit. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne). She, like other speakers in the debate, produced moving and sincere examples of unacceptable discrimination against disabled people. I join her in deploring those.
I am reticent about speaking in the debate. I am white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, healthy, white and male and I may be educated—although others might have a different opinion about that. All that makes me a little reticent about speaking for those who are so much less fortunate than I am, especially as I shall not take up the cry of the many and respected disability lobby groups which are pressing for general legislation in the area.
I am wary of a general legislative solution, although I do not rule it out completely. I doubt whether the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was presented to the House for Second Reading on 31 January 1992, would have had my support, although I remain open minded.
I start from the position held by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. He said on Second Reading:
"There is much common ground between the parties in the House. We all know that there is still too much unjustified discrimination against disabled people. We know that that is wrong and often has a cruel impact on the quality of life of disabled people. It is also remarkably stupid, because the wealth of ability and talent that disabled people have to offer —a variety of enterprise in society—is significant, and it is a waste of those talents if they suffer unjustifiable discrimination."—[Official Report, 31 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 1251.]
The main reason for legislation is to change attitudes. Only by changing attitudes shall we achieve the non-discriminatory society that we all seek. Legislation on its own cannot create equality. We have learnt that from the introduction of non-discriminatory legislation in other areas.
Another argument against the case for legislation is the huge and disproportionate cost that may result from the implementation process. There is no way in which we can ensure that the public and private sectors allocate resources to the objectives of the Bill in the most effective way.
The costs involved in, for example, converting all public transport to satisfy the requirements of such legislation could far outweigh the benefits. It would cost about £500 million to put lifts into every tube station in London and

1151
that money could be used to provide free transport by taxi for disabled people in London. That might be a better use of resources and the remaining money could be used elsewhere.
There is a danger that general legislation will simply create an orgy for the lawyers, no doubt funded by the already burgeoning legal aid bill. I became more wary when my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) drew attention to the fact that the Law Society was in favour of non-discrimination legislation. To paraphrase the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, "It would say that, wouldn't it?" The lawyers are the people likely to benefit financially from all the litigation that would be likely to ensue. I remain open minded on the subject, but I am doubtful about the efficiency of such legislation.
The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill would also impose an additional burden on business through the proposed regulations. I had the privilege and luck to present my own private Member's motion on small businesses earlier this Session. One of our great concerns is that small, medium and large businesses increasingly bear the huge cost of legislation that has laudable aims, but which imposes costs of implementation that run far beyond the benefit.
I give the example of nursery schools. We introduced regulations for nursery schools and town hall officials rushed round trying to force expensive improvements on village hall enterprises which would simply have put them out of business. I am glad to say that the rottweiler of the Department of Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corportate Affairs, who is responsible for deregulation, managed to get a handle on that and to get the regulations revised so that the enforcement was more reasonable. That highlights the danger of the big bang approach.
I shall not go through the details of the Bill and explain how they might cause public authorities and private businesses to spend disproportionate amounts. I am sure that the House is familiar with those dangers. I simply draw the attention of the House to the rules about accessibility for shops, hotels, restaurants, banks and other public buildings. Laudable as those aims are, the deluge of requirements on already strained public and private enterprises at a time of recession could be extremely damaging for jobs and might eventually be damaging for the prospects of disabled people.
Mr. Harry Derbyshire: I have details of a specific area of discrimination in the hon. Gentleman's constituency which has been documented in a report on the general election produced by the Spastics Society, entitled "Polls Apart". It was discovered that there was a lack of accessibility in polling stations in Colchester, North. Would the hon. Gentleman be in favour of legislation that sought to tackle that problem? Such legislation would not have the problems that the hon. Gentleman has listed. It is difficult for disabled people to exercise their right to vote in general elections.
Mr. Jenkin: I note the point that the hon. Gentleman draws to my attention and I should be interested to find out further details. The matter has not been drawn to my attention until now. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have a system of postal voting. All the parties in my
1152
constituency, including my own, and the local authority went to great trouble to ensure that disabled people received a postal vote.
Mr. Barnes: That is not good enough.
Mr. Jenkin: I realise that the hon. Gentleman does not think that that is good enough. However, he should consider how much it would cost to put a ramp into every polling station in every constituency. Would that honestly be the best way to spend money when there are so many other demands and so many other ways in which we can help disabled people and which disabled people might choose for themselves?
I favour the step-by-step approach adopted by the Government. It can target the limited resources of both the state and private enterprise so that they can be used more effectively. In employment, the Government ensure that all their employment training schemes are open to those with disabilities. The entry criteria are often skewed in favour of disabled people.
We were the first country in Europe to produce a code of good practice for employers which gave them guidance on the best way in which to seek to achieve the 3 per cent. target. We have recently introduced PACTS—placing and assessment counselling teams—to advise individuals and employers. In 1991–92, the teams helped more than 85,000 disabled people into employment. There are special grants available to employers to help them with the difficulties involved in employing particular disabled people.
We are committed to the idea that education should not be a barrier for disabled people, but should provide further opportunities for them so that they can participate in society to the full. The Further Education Funding Council and local education authorities have specific duties to have regard to the requirements of students with learning disabilities. In the Education Bill, the special needs category has been updated and strengthened compared with the Education (Schools) Act 1991. About 2 per cent. of children are categorised as having special needs and we send some of them to special schools. I pay tribute to Kingswood Hoe and other special schools in my constituency, which do a marvellous job under difficult circumstances. The Education Bill will increase the right of parents to choose their children's school. Moreover, if the LEA refuses a statement to a parent who has exercised his right to ask for one, that parent will have the right of appeal to a new special educational needs tribunal.
In transport, improvements have been made to the orange badge parking scheme to enable more disabled people to park their vehicles close to important facilities and services. We are also allowing increased parking times on yellow lines. Badges are now available for drivers with severe upper limb disabilities as well as those who have difficulty walking.
British Rail is committed to providing disabled access to all Inter-City services and BR has its own guidelines on the refurbishment of its stations. By the year 2000, all London taxis will be suitable for use by disabled people. Already, nine out of 10 new buses have recommended features for disabled persons. The Department of Transport is encouraging low-floor buses.
The new building regulations, which came into force in 1992, provide that disabled people should have full access to all floors of new public buildings. Provision is also made for those with sensory impairments. The Department of

1153
the Environment is considering whether to extend those requirements to non-domestic buildings undergoing alterations and possibly also to new housing.
In the national health service, £1·1 billion per annum is spent on the disabled and long-term sick. The number of occupational therapists in the national health service has increased by 76 per cent. to nearly 6,000 since 1982. The number of local authority occupational therapists has increased by 146 per cent. to more than 1,700. The number of physiotherapists in the health service is up by 28 per cent. and the number of speech and language therapists is up 57 per cent.
In addition to everything that I have mentioned is all the financial help that is given to disabled people. Total Government spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled has trebled since 1978–79—an increase of £9.9 billion in real terms. More than 2 million people are in receipt of disablement benefits of one kind or another, compared with only 360,000 in 1978–79. An additional £300 million is expected to be made available during 1993–94 as we introduce the two new benefits—the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance. The invalid care allowance has also been improved. Premiums are paid on income support and we are, of course, extending the independent living fund.
I wish to end my remarks on a note of caution. Out of a total Department of Social Security budget of £74 billion, which is rising inexorably—to around £90 billion within three years, according to a speech by the Secretary of State—we spend £14–9 billion a year on the disabled. That is three times more than we were spending in 1978–79. That must be set against the background of a public sector borrowing requirement that will rise to perhaps £50 billion in the next year.
I am pleased that the Department is putting in work on the fraud issue. The Government are extending the funding of fraud work by £10 million and that is expected to produce a return of £100 million. It is hoped that the total fraud identified and stopped will increase to nearly £1 billion-worth each year. That is surely a good use of resources because it means that we shall have more money to spend in other areas.
We must ensure, however, that the resources that we devote to the cause of the disabled are used to the best of possible effect. We should not be afraid of asking questions about the whole system by which we deliver those resources. The Department of Social Security spends £3.5 billion merely running itself. Is there no scope for increased efficiency? The average employee costs £41,000 a year, compared with only £33,000 in the Inland Revenue. What is so different about the handling of problems in the DSS and the Inland Revenue? What makes the employee costs of the DSS so much more expensive?
When the system attempts to reform itself by simplifying the benefits structure, as with the introduction of the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance, the management system proves unable to cope and incapable of adapting to change in the way in which Ministers intended it to—as we all know from our constituency mail bags—leaving people vulnerable and without the money that they need. Moreover the so-called
1154
simplified system involves a form consisting of 40 pages and specifying 11 grades of assessment. That is not in the least bit conducive to efficient administration.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Gentleman has presented a fairly rosy picture of how well disabled people have been doing. He has looked back to the 1970s and examined what has happened since. Will he accept from me that what disabled people say is that, whereas average earnings have increased by more than 20 per cent. since 1979, disability benefits have increased by only 1 per cent? For disabled people and their organisations, that is the centrally important fact. Much of the increased expenditure has come from the increase in the number of beneficiaries of allowances that go back to the 1970s. That is what they argue to me and I am sure that it is what they will say to the hon. Gentleman. I ask him to pay careful attention to what disabled people themselves are saying.
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which gives me the opportunity to emphasise that I do, indeed, listen to disabled people. I am in touch with the Colchester Society for the Mentally Handicapped. I have received its petition about the Bill and have discussed these matters with it. I do not, however, think that we can escape from the problem, to which I am drawing the attention of the House, that there are finite resources. The corollary of what the right hon. Gentleman says may be that we are spreading the resources too widely and too thinly and that we need to concentrate them on areas of greatest need.
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): My hon. Friend has touched on two or three matters that are important to him and certainly to the Department, although they may fall outside the main theme of our debate. I do not want to go over the reasons for our early problems with the implementation of DLA, except to say that we have now largely dealt with those problems and a proper service is being delivered.
There is a real difference between the activities of the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue is based largely on well-established and clear-cut rules. Much of the administration of social security benefit depends on adjudication officers, reviewing officers and appeals officers, who use their discretion in determining the benefits to which disabled, elderly and needy people are entitled under the system. That is bound to be a more expensive system than one running on strict legislative lines.
My hon. Friend mentioned the length of the DLA form. I understand why some people find that form daunting. I can only say that it is the price that we pay for the prize of self-assessment. Until now, access to disability benefits has depended on medical examinations which have often been intrusive and offensive to those claiming the benefits. The move to a system whereby disabled people themselves can assess the impact of their disability on their lives and the quality of their lives is a great prize, but has inevitably required us to ask for more information from the disabled customer than we have asked for hitherto.
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I hope that he does not mind my asking questions in a spirit of genuine inquiry and to further the debate.

1155
In the longer term, I believe that we need to look again at the whole system and to consider how to free resources not only to reduce the national debt but to maintain and improve provision for those in real need—not least for the disabled, who need state help to give them their dignity, their rights and their place as full members of society.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The line of my hon. Friend's argument in terms of releasing resources does not take into account the purpose of the Bill, which is that, in terms of employment opportunities for people with disabilities, there is a specific log jam. The amount of resources that the state spends on keeping people who are extremely able and who have tremendous talents to offer sitting at home day after day and year after year would be available to others if only we could persuade them of the opportunity that they would offer in the workplace. I ask my hon. Friend to take that into account when he puts the economic argument.
Mr. Jenkin: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point. I emphasise that the Bill, which is the subject indirectly of the motion, covers a wide area. If specific employment measures were put in place, it would be better to deal with the issue on a piecemeal basis rather than create general rights which may not necessarily be enforceable except at disproportionate cost.
I was finishing my point about the whole system of social services as it relates to disabled people. The consequences of the shortage of resources may mean that we need to examine specific parts of the system that do not relate to disabled people and parts of the system in which the present public provision can be substituted by methods of private provision. But that is another debate for another time.
I wish to end by quoting the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. On 31 January he said:
"may I say with all possible passion that disabled people are not a race apart from the rest of society. They are of us and we are of them, and we owe them a duty to ensure that unfair discrimination is reduced and eventually, we hope, eliminated. Our common humanity, whether we are able or disabled, should transcend the differences between us. I say to people who are still blinkered to the potential contribution of disabled people to out society, 'Recognise and utilise that potential on behalf of your enterprises, whatever they may be'."—[Official Report, 31 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 1256.]
Perhaps that is the best epitaph and the best response to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning).
11.42 pm
Mr. Gordon McMaster: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for winning the ballot and choosing this important private Member's motion. He has done the House and the country a great service this morning.
I am grateful that I am following the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). As he developed his speech, I watched the Minister—for whom many of us have some respect—become more and more uncomfortable. That was the sort of support which the hon. Member for Colchester, North could have done without.
The whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech reminded me of someone who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. He started by telling us that he was reticent in speaking in support of disabled people because he was an Anglo-Saxon white white—I think he was white
1156
twice—male and educated. He should not have been reticent at all because he did not support disabled people and what the 6.5 million disabled people in the United Kingdom are saying.
The hon. Gentleman argued that legislation would not end discrimination. I have not heard any Labour Member argue that legislation would end discrimination. The hon. Member for Colchester, North did not go on to explain how no legislation would end discrimination and that is the issue which is before us today.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful that I have caught your eye in the debate because I want to participate in it. I believe that I have perhaps a valuable contribution to make and I think that I have some of the skills that allow me to make that valuable contribution. I have the right to make that contribution, not only because of your courtesy in calling me but because all of us in the House are equal.
One can imagine how it would have felt to arrive at the door this morning and be told by the Doorkeeper, "We know that you are able to participate and we know that you want to participate, but you will not be allowed to participate. You will not have any rights to make a contribution." That is exactly what disabled people are told daily in all spheres of their lives. Doors are closed in their faces both metaphorically and literally in many ways —metaphorically when employers do not short-list disabled people simply because they are disabled, and literally when pubs and restaurants turn disabled people away simply because they are disabled.
Many people have championed this cause for much longer than I have, not the least of them being my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and many noble Lords. Our friends Lord Ashley and Lord Rix are among those who have done a great service.
I think that some Conservative Members have misunderstood the Bill. It is about unjustifiable discrimination. There is no doubt that there is discrimination and that it is unjustifiable. I am not speaking simply on behalf of one political party, although that is the view of the Labour party. The all-party disablement group of which I am secretary widely holds that view. We have also heard views expressed well this morning by Conservative Members.
This is the last point in the triangle of discrimination which must be dealt with. We have equal opportunities legislation and race relations legislation, but we still do not have legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people and give them some rights. In 1989 Lord Strathclyde said:
"The Government prefers to rely on securing a voluntary commitment of employers through providing information, advice and, where necessary, practical and financial help".
I am often told that I look like Lord Strathclyde. I hope that I do not sound like him if that is the sort of nonsense which he talks in the other place.
There is no doubt that we need anti-discrimination legislation. The Government's policy depends solely on education to change attitudes. As has been said, centuries of education have not yet reached some Government Departments. It is clear that education has not worked and that it will not work.
No one who supports anti-discrimination legislation is kidding himself that, if such legislation were implemented, discrimination would disappear overnight. However, if

1157
such legislation were implemented, attitudes would change for the better over a period. What is just as important is that such legislation would be enforceable.
The Government's line is that anti-discrimination legislation would take away the good will that disabled people enjoy. What good will? Why should disabled people have to depend on good will? The Bill is about rights. It is fundamental and deserves the support of all hon. Members.
Disabled people do not ask for good will, sympathy, paternalism or philanthropic gestures from on high: they ask for rights and we should listen to them. There is discrimination in many fields, and employment has been referred to many times this morning. The 1988 report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys showed that 31 per cent. of disabled adults were in employment while 69 per cent. of able-bodied people, the general population, were in employment.
Discrimination against disabled people is worse than that in terms of employment. As we have heard, disabled people are less likely to be short-listed for a job, interviewed or given the job even when they are often the best candidates. If they get the jobs, they are more likely to be lower paid because those are the sorts of jobs which employers offer them.
I refer to the first report of the Select Committee on Employment for the 1990–91 Session which recommended that anti-discrimination legislation was the right way forward. The Committee called on the Government to explore urgently the possibility of equal opportunity legislation for the employment of people with disabilities and report to Parliament on the potential effect and costs in the labour market. To the best of my knowledge, that has still not been done. It needs to be done urgently. It could be done by simply allowing the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill to go through this afternoon and move on into Committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that although that may be a nice point—using the phrase in the old-fashioned sense—we are debating a motion. The Bill is further down the Order Paper.
Mr. McMaster: I certainly accept that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was concentrating on stopping discrimination against disabled people and making the point that the Bill would help. I shall put myself back on the tracks now.
Discrimination happens in many ways, not least in the provision of access. We all have anecdotes about injustices suffered by disabled people. They may turn up at a restaurant and be told, "It is not for people like you." They may find that guide dogs are refused entry to public places. People in wheelchairs are refused entry to some buildings. They are physically unable to enter other buildings because the buildings are not adapted.
Disabled people are also denied access to facilities such as training. If disabled people are to find work, they must have proper access to training. For deaf people, that could mean the provision of interpreters or scribes. Blind people may need braille services. Such provision is necessary.
We have heard about discrimination in transport provision. Access is bad. Sometimes when it is difficult for a disabled person to get on to a train because of steps, he or she suffers the indignity of being manhandled on to the
1158
train. I do not apologise for supporting legislation that would help to deal with such problems. There is a rumour abroad that the Government are planning targeted legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people in employment matters. But disabled people have to get to work. They cannot do so unless proper transport links are provided.
There is also discrimination in housing. When people become disabled after being able bodied they may have to move away from the Community in which they have lived all their lives because all the disabled and special needs housing is elsewhere. Some housing authorities believe that they know best and tell disabled people which house will suit them best. We all know of people who become disabled, having adapted their house when they were able bodied, and find that their house is no longer suitable or that they need further major adaptations.
I remind all hon. Members that disability for the most able bodied among us is only an accident away and any of us could face the problems that I describe at any time. The most fundamental right, which is enshrined in the Bill that the motion supports, is the right of disabled people to be full and equal citizens. They should have the right to be treated with dignity. They should have the right to be as independent as they possibly can and to be as dependent as necessary on the services that they require. That cannot be achieved without anti-discrimination legislation.
We have heard the argument that anti-discrimination legislation would be difficult to draft. Those arguments have been effectively destroyed this morning. Other countries have achieved such legislation. America has the Americans with Disability Act 1990. We could improve on the Bill. If drafting is a problem, let us allow the Bill to go into Committee where we can improve it and perhaps make it perfect or more perfect.
We need not only to legislate but to enforce. The 1944 Act was an important piece of legislation. It introduced the 3 per cent. quota. It is a law which is more honoured in the breach than in the adherence. Only 24 per cent. of employers achieve the quota. Most Government Departments do not achieve it. Many achieve less than 1 per cent. I understand that the Prime Minister's office achieves 0 per cent.—not one disabled person is employed there. We have the spectacle of the Department of Employment awarding local authorities and other employers which achieve a quota of 1 per cent. The Department responsible for enforcing a law awards people for breaking that law by two thirds.
Sections of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 remain to be implemented. The Government have made it clear that they do not intend to implement them at least for some time. They intend to watch what happens with community care. That is foolish because the remaining sections of the Act would have been invaluable in implementing the community care arrangements that will be put in place in April.
It has already been said that most of the available evidence on discrimination is anecdotal. In preparation for this morning's debate I looked into that. The House of Commons Library has provided me with some information. A research note states:
"The extent to which disabled people are discriminated against in the community is difficult to assess, other than through anecdotal evidence"—
so it is true that the only evidence available is anecdotal—

1159
"since there is no legislation outlawing such discrimination, such as there is for race and sex discrimination."
So the reason why only anecdotal evidence exists is that there is no legislation. The note continues:
"Further, there is no body appointed by the Government to work towards the elimination of discrimination a nd to monitor cases of discrimination, as do the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission"—
and as would the disablement commission proposed in the Bill. If we want to get our hands on the evidence that hon. Members have said does not exist, the way to do so is to create a disablement commission so that it can do that job.
If anyone is in any doubt about why we need a disablement commission, I bring to their attention an article written by Richard Ingrams in the Observer on Sunday 21 February. It said:
"One of the more amusing"—
mark that word—
"stories to come out of the crazy city of New York concerns the attempt by the authorities there to provide public urinals for the citizens …After much lobbying from activists the mayor eventually drew up plans for a number of urinals to be erected throughout the city. Then the powerful disabled lobby intervened, protesting that the loos were too small to admit wheelchairs. It now looks as if the New Yorkers will not get their urinals after all. The story illustrates the tyranny wielded by American campaigners for the disabled. And there are signs that the same kind of thing is starting to happen here."
So it seems that disabled people in New York are blamed for people being unable to relieve themselves in public urinals there.
I drew a different conclusion from the story. Later in the article, Richard Ingrams suggests:
"It is surely obvious, however much one sympathises, that disabled people (by which is generally meant people in wheelchairs) cannot enjoy the same freedom of movement and opportunity as the rest of us".
He uses the story about the loos to support his argument. One could arrive at his conclusion that the tyranny of disabled people stopped the loos being built. Or one could conclude that the loos should have been made more suitable for disabled people. Such discrimination is not exclusive to America. It happens here all the time.
There is a groundswell of opinion in favour of the legislation. I am aware that many other hon. Members wish to speak and I want them to do so because the groundswell of opinion is fast reaching the House of Commons. I have much more that I could say, due largely to the excellence of the briefings from the officers of the all-party disablement group and from Victoria Scott, our researcher, but I shall conclude my remarks. I urge the Government not to object to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill later today. I was here when a similar Bill was talked out and I shall take careful note of anyone who objects and along with other hon. Members, I shall ensure that other people know who they are.
I advise any Conservative Member planning to use the word, "Object", to telephone Bristol and ask the fellow who talked out the last Bill on the subject exactly what happened. I am not glad that that Bill was talked out, but I am glad that he lost his seat because he has been replaced by an excellent Member of Parliament who has supported the disabled.
If the House does not support anti-discrimination legislation today we shall be disappointed, but I assure the House that its day will come.
12 noon
Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate and, with other hon. Members, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for giving us the chance to air this important subject.
The crux of the matter seems to be whether there is a need for legislation. I say unequivocally that there is. We are trying to give disabled people civil rights and opportunities consistent with those of other citizens and to establish a mechanism, through a commission, to deal with discrimination. The background to the debate is that people have questioned whether discrimination exists and, if it does, to what extent it impedes the day-to-day activities and opportunities of disabled people.
If I may paraphrase the speech by Lord Henley, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, in a Second Reading debate in the Lords, when he expressed certain sympathy with the underlying aims of people who wish to put on the statute book legislation to deal with discrimination, he said that the crux of the matter was the manner in which that was achieved. He expressed a preference for education and, although education is welcomed and should be an on-going part of the life of everyone who is trying to get across the need and realities of disabled people, frankly it is not enough.
I also pay tribute to the Government's record, as they have tried to improve the quality of life for people with disabilities in a range of measures, and especially through the benefits system. However, we must question whether that is enough. Will education fill the gap? No, it will not.
If we simply rely on educating the public and employers, or anyone who could have an active role in enhancing the opportunities and rights of people with disabilities, it will be a very long-term exercise. That will take too long and I want to speed up the process. I want us to be proactive and to try to bring about the equality for which hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed a preference.
Anecdotal evidence about discrimination has been mentioned and how it applies and influences people's thinking. There is sufficient evidence in certain areas, especially in the media, to show that discrimination still exists. Discrimination within the media has a strong influence because it reaches so many people, and I shall give the House two examples. I do not intend to name on the Floor of the House the two publications concerned because I took the matter up directly with their editors, who have apologised and assured me that it will not happen again, so I believe that it would be unfair to name them. However, it is important to share with the House what I consider to be a monstrous example of discrimination in the media.
A cartoon appeared in the colour supplement of a national Sunday broadsheet in October last year. In the background, one could see a notice which said:
"Welcome to the double-arm amputees therapy group."
The cartoon depicted standing underneath the notice three double-arm amputees and a tearful lady with arms and with a handkerchief, saying, "I want a hug". The facial expressions of the amputees show bewilderment because they are unable to offer her the solace that she seeks from their therapy group. One could comment on the pure bad

1161
taste of such a cartoon, but, frankly, if there were anti-discrimination legislation the cartoon could not have been printed.
I am on record as having an interest in a group of people who come under the heading of disabled—people with learning difficulties or mental handicap. Perhaps that is the most difficult area because discrimination against such people is not always perceived by the general public. Often it is not apparent on first sight that a person has a difficulty. None the less, prejudice exists and such people experience the pain of discrimination.
A disgraceful one-page article about young people who suffer from autism appeared in a bi-monthly magazine for people with interest in a particular area of transport. I shall go no further as I do not want to name the magazine. The article sent up the condition, and the editor had apparently only just discovered that people with autism take a particular interest in certain types of transport, and began by saying that the information for the article came from a lecture given by an eminent doctor on the subject, and said:
"One member of the staff is literally on the floor in hysterics—he has just discovered what he has been suffering from for years".
The article goes on to say that perhaps "we can all claim" a reduction in the poll tax as "confirmed mental defectives". The mocking article ends with a pseudo help-line number of about 12 digits and an invitation to phone Auntie Nora if people think that they are suffering from the condition.
One of the most worrying aspects of that disgraceful article is that it was almost certainly read by people who are suffering from autism.
Mr. Dicks: I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument, but will she please bear in mind that disabled people are all different? My colleagues take the mickey out of me and I like it. I would rather have that than people feeling sorry for me. Will she bear that in mind when discussing such articles?
Mrs. Browning: As my hon. Friend has challenged me, I hope that the House will not mind if I give some personal detail. I am the mother of a young man who suffers from the condition, and when I read that article I wept, so I hope that my hon. Friend will understand my concern that people with the condition, which is a life-long handicap, may read that rather jokey article which says that they are suffering from a "terminal illness"—a pun on the word terminal. I assure my hon. Friend that the pun would not have been within the rationale of people suffering from the condition.
When I spoke to the editor of the magazine and asked whether he would have written a similar article about race, he said no. If people suffering from autism had had legislative protection, that editor would not have printed that article without consulting lawyers. He would have been told that he was infringing statutory legislation and, therefore, the article would not have been printed.
Such articles represent painful discrimination, bad taste and certainly do nothing positive for people with disabilities; they can only do damage. They put into the public arena the idea that such discrimination is somehow
1162
okay and acceptable. If we are to educate people in terms of employment practice and social policy, such articles do nothing to help that process.
Mr. Jenkin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her moving and powerful speech and the case she is making for civil liberties legislation for people with disabilities. Does she agree, however, that it does not put an individual beyond the pale of civilisation simply to question the efficacy of general legislation and the cost involved? Perhaps she will take the opportunity to distance herself from the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), who seemed to exemplify the tyranny of certain lobby groups and how their lobbying can be misused.
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend kindly accepted my intervention on the subject of costs and the economic factors involved in introducing such legislation. I shall deal with that matter later when I consider training and workplace opportunities. I fully support the need for legislation, but most people would accept that a certain amount of pragmatism must be exercised. No one is suggesting that every public or private building should spend thousands of pounds to improve access to people with disabilities. We must view any change in a practical manner, but we must try to move forward because at the moment there is a sense of frustration as a result of stagnation. People cannot see how we will progress fast enough to meet the needs of disabled people.
It has been suggested that employment rights should be enhanced to facilitate disabled people to join the mainstream in the workplace. Given my particular interest in learning difficulties, I would be the first to acknowledge that that often presents a problem to the potential employer. In America, which has been mentioned many times today, that problem has been met by the employers themselves who are actively seeking ways to facilitate the employment of people with learning difficulties. They are not waiting for state-imposed suggestions.
Hon. Members may be aware of the American "buddy" system whereby someone works alongside the person with learning difficulties while he settles in. That buddy also acts as a mediator between him and other employees who may initially find his behaviour a little strange. The buddy will help that person to enhance his communication skills.
One of the difficulties for people with disabilities is that the initial time at work can be most traumatic. It is so frustrating when one finds an employer who is prepared to employ a person with disabilities to see that initiative break down after a few weeks because certain problems were not anticipated. The Americans have overcome that difficulty with a positive attitude and we have a lot of good practice to learn from them. It is good to see that instead of new regulations being imposed on employers, those employers are acting as catalysts and looking at ways to make the initiative work. That is the healthiest approach.
I should like to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) the economic arguments in favour of employing people with learning difficulties. In that connection, it is also important to consider the role of education and training. Reference has already been made to the Education Act 1981 and to the Education Bill before the House and the enhanced opportunities that it gives for statementing, integrated

1163
education and various other measures. I support totally such changes, but for what purpose? Is it right that we should take such active measures that give children with disabilities and their parents heightened expectations?
We are now providing more specialist education for such children to bring their natural talents and skills to the fore—my goodness, they have many to offer society. But after that, they hit the buffers. It is a good thing to bring more and more of those young people on, but we should at least consider what will happen to them when their education and training is finished. It would be a cruel trick to provide enhanced education and training programmes and to raise expectations only to realise that we have not moved any further in terms of providing employment opportunities. We must give that group of people the opportunity to take their place in the work force.
I cannot cite specific figures to demonstrate the economic savings, but we are aware of the amount of money that the Government spend on benefits. Surely it makes economic sense for people who are able to take their place in the work force on a full or part-time basis to be able to do so. In that way they can make a contribution, the same as anyone else. That is not only a civil right which any individual should enjoy, but it makes economic sense given the amount of money that the state now has to spend to support people with disabilities. Very often those people are isolated and lonely and that causes added anxieties and problems.
It is a tragedy for people with disabilities, and those close to them, when they are unable to fulfil their potential to work. But that also leads to those people suffering from other medical conditions, particularly of a psychological nature such as depression and a hundred and one other things. At the end of the day all those things cost the taxpayer money. It must make good sense to consider the economic argument in favour of providing work for people with disabilities, but we must also consider it in terms of the cost of not allowing them to work. In humanitarian terms alone, we can do more for such people, but in terms of the economic argument it must make sense to provide more employment opportunities for them.
Hon. Members have already mentioned the 3 per cent. target set for employers who employ more than 20 people. Many areas in the public sector, regretfully, do not get anywhere near that 3 per cent. target. It is interesting to note that district councils have a good record of meeting the quota, but the Department of Health and county councils do not have such a good record. I cannot understand why. Surely the Government could consider how we could improve good practice and share that good practice.
People who take on the challenge and make it work have a wealth of experience that could be shared with other potential employers, whether in the public or private sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North spoke of the burden on business. I know of many small businesses that employ fewer than 20 people who actively go out of their way to employ—I do not mean that they create artificial work—people with disabilities. I believe that information about how they overcome their practical problems and their approach to them should be shared. If people shared such information with their local chambers of commerce and were more vocal, it would lead to great improvements.
1164
I support the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill because it will concentrate minds. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said, the Bill will not change the world but it will raise the profile of people with disabilities. It will concentrate minds and it will lead to best practice in the public arena which others can emulate. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I welcome the Bill, which has my wholehearted support.
12.20 pm
Mr. Datydd Wigley: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), whose personal testimony and persuasive arguments in the Chamber today will, I hope, be heard and heeded by Ministers. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for introducing the debate and to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for the fact that there is a Bill before the House, albeit not for debate.
It is significant that December 1992 marked the end of the decade for disabled people, launched by the United Nations. Late last year, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, said of the decade:
"When the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 1981 the International Year for Disabled Persons, few realised that this would herald a whole new era for those with disabilities. So successful was the Year that it has come to be regarded as a milestone in the long struggle of disabled people for equal rights. During 1981, the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons was drawn up, based on the principles of human rights, self-determination and equalization of opportunities. The World Programme sets forth a new and challenging approach that can open the way to a future in which disabled people may participate fully in society."
The Secretary-General continued:
"I wish to invite Governments …to renew their support for the World Programme of Action, which will in turn improve the quality of life for people with disabilities around the world."
That gives us an appropriate context in which to ask the Minister what the United Kingdom Government are doing in response to the challenge of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Earlier, some of my colleagues had a meeting with the Minister and the Prime Minister. I was glad that there were signs that the Prime Minister acknowledged, at least in principle, the need to consider using anti-discrimination legislation. That would be a step forward. We hope that we shall achieve more than that today and that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill will be given its Second Reading—I realise that we cannot discuss that Bill in detail in this debate.
It is disappointing that more progress towards anti-discrimination legislation has not been made. There are 379,000 disabled people in Wales—twice the number of unemployed people in Wales—which puts the disability dimension into perspective. I have received representations from the Wales Council for the Disabled, which drew my attention to cases of which it is aware. It stated:
"Pubs, cafes and restaurants do refuse disabled people because 'they upset the other customers'. Offices are deliberately designed with floor areas just below Building Regulation criteria requiring full access. Theatres and cinemas have turned away disabled people because they are a `fire risk'."

1165
Howard John, the director of the Wales council for the Disabled, continued:
"While discrimination on the basis of gender and race has rightly been outlawed in Britain, there is no legislation to protect disabled people from the effects of public and institutional ignorance, fear and prejudice. Our experience shows that, however much we may wish, goodwill will never be enough. The rights of disabled people must be enshrined in policy and in law."
That encapsulates the argument.
Only 12 months ago a Bill was blocked in the House, which was highly regrettable, and many hon. Members have drawn attention to that action. Although the rules that will be effective at 2.30 pm theoretically allow one hon. Member to shout "Object", I believe that as we shall have had a debate on the subject for five hours, the rationale of allowing one hon. Member to shout "Object" to stop a Bill is incorrect and should not be allowed. The fact that we have had a debate to air the matters should enable the motion to proceed and one hon. Member shouting "Object" should not constitute a reason to stop the Bill proceeding.
Although there may be difficulties with the Bill—I accept that there are some practical problems and I listened with care to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin)—if it is allowed to proceed, amendments could be tabled in Committee. If some aspects of the Bill have high expenditure implications, they could be phased, with orders to introduce measures at different times.
The House has clearly shown its wish for the legislation to make progress. Early-day motion 330 has been signed by, I believe, 286 hon. Members. If we add the Opposition Front-Bench team, who do not sign early-day motions, we see that almost half the House has formally signified support for such legislation. If the number of names on the motion exceeded 325, how would the Government respond, in view of the traditions of giving a positive response in such circumstances?
A number of examples of discrimination have been given. The physical layout of the House and the electoral process—we all know examples of polling booths that make it impossible for the disabled to gain access—present problems. Employers often have a subconscious prejudice. They do not want to be deliberately nasty to disabled people, but their reasoning contains a subconscious element. At the back of their minds they wonder whether a disabled person might be a nuisance or an embarrassment or might cause an adverse reaction among customers, suppliers or fellow workers. So many such attitudes are based on ignorance and must be confronted. We need the framework of law, not for good employers who are already conscious of their responsibilities, and possibly not for the evil employers who will not be persuaded of their responsibilities even if laws are introduced, but to upgrade the argument so that there is an awareness equal to that which now exists in the context of race and sex.
I have examples from my constituency and my own experience in the world of employment. I know of young, disabled people who have undergone training, only to be told by fellow workers at the end of the course that, although up to the job, the disabled people will not even
1166
reach the shortlist. There is little doubt that such decisions are based on a prejudice against disabled people which closes opportunities to them.
Requirements exist in education, but they must be stepped up. So often, schools and colleges are without adequate facilities for disabled people. It is a disgrace that many local education authorities, universities and colleges have shown so much inertia. There are also many difficulties involving the integration into ordinary schools of disabled children and those with learning difficulties. Practices vary greatly in different parts of Britain.
There is also discrimination in the world of leisure. I am aware of a club in my constituency to which a father used to take a girl with learning difficulties. He was told not to take her as she might embarrass the others who came to the discos and other events. That is disgraceful, but such practices occur—I see that hon. Members are nodding their heads to show that they know of such incidents. Therefore, we must define in law the civilised standards that we should expect as a norm so that people have a measuring rod.
A case was highlighted in Cardiff in a report in the South Wales Echo of 11 February 1993.
The headline reads:
"Disabled Andrea is shown the door".
The story goes as follows:
"Disabled council clerk Andrea Rowe was ushered out of a city centre cinema when staff saw her in a wheelchair. The 31-year-old spina bifida sufferer says she was 'totally humiliated' when asked to leave the MGM cinema in Cardifi's Queen street as she and a group of four friends queued to see Whitney Huston and Kevin Costner in 'The Bodyguard—.
Speaking of the person who asked her to leave, Andrea said:
"He did not even speak to me—he told my friends. And when he was told to speak to me he said, 'I'm sorry, we don't have the handicapped in here.'"
When Andrea asked why she could not go to see the film like millions of other cinema goers throughout the couintry she was told, "It is our policy." That is why we need anti-discrimination legislation. How long must people like Andrea wait for a new law?
Legislation of this sort will not cost a great deal and there must be a monitoring system to keep an eye on its progress.
We have heard about housing and transport already. I agree that there are large cost implications for transport and the measures that we seek will have to be implemented over time—but the sooner we start, the sooner matters will be improved.
There is even discrimination in the benefits system. People with similar impairments receive vastly different amounts, for instance, according to their work records, age or marital status. An unemployed disabled person on a war pension can get up to four and a half times as much a week in benefits as someone with a similar impairment who has not worked or lived in the United Kingdom for the past 20 years. That is discrimination.
As for the NHS, Mencap has drawn our attention to the fact that disabled people with learning difficulties have been banned from giving blood by the blood transfusion system even though nothing in their conditions can justify that sort of discrimination.
An even worse form of discrimination is that against depression associated with mental illness. Often, people who have suffered from depression are stigmatised as having a mental illness and all the unnecessary

1167
connotations that go with it. That stigma opens a Pandora's box of prejudice against them and blocks their job opportunities—all for no reason at all.
Other countries have introduced anti-discrimination legislation. Why on earth cannot Britain follow the example of the civilised countries that have moved in this direction and found it helpful? We need legislation to establish civilised standards.
It is not a question of legislating to create the right attitudes; of course we need more than legislation for that. But we need legislation as the basis on which the right awareness can be built. We can then create an atmosphere in which prejudice is seen for what it is.
The legislation that will soon be commended to the House contains many provisions: the duties of a commission to eliminate discrimination, to carry out general investigation and to investigate specific complaints; the provision of assistance for people with disabilities so that they can obtain their rights; and the review of the working of the Act and published codes of practice. Those are all practical measures that can be introduced under the legislation.
The Government plead cost implications, but they must also consider the price that disabled people are paying because of the lack of this sort of legislation.
I conclude with a reference drawn to my attention by Deaf Accord, which says that it hopes
"that Parliament will respond to the overwhelming desire by deaf and disabled people to have their needs met in terms of equality of rights. Without such legislation initiatives such as the Citizens Charter mean very little to millions of people".
I hope that that message will go back to the Prime Minister via the Minister of State. I hope that the Government will allow the legislation to make progress today. If for any reason they cannot do that, I hope that they themselves will introduce and find time for legislation very soon, so that these rights can be enshrined for the millions of people who need them.
12.33 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: This is one of those occasions when the whole House is united on the need to do more to help disabled people. I share some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) sound a note of political correctness for the first time in this debate. It reared its ugly head in his remarks about my hon. Friend, and he should regret them. Threats to those who disagree not about the objectives that we all share but about the tactics required to meet them are quite unacceptable.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), whose motion we are debating, rightly said that this issue touches every constituency, and I should like to begin by discussing the issues that confront the people of Worcester. I pay tribute to the city and county councils for their enlightened attitude to these matters. The county social services department works tirelessly for those with learning difficulties and provides excellent rehabilitation and education facilities. The city council is always quick to provide planning permission when it is necessary for the needs of local disabled people. Dropping kerbs for wheelchairs and appropriate road crossings are always forthcoming if asked for, and we welcome that.
1168
However, the private sector has a rather less proud record. I fear that all too few of the shops, offices and factories in my constituency have doors and steps that are properly accessible to wheelchairs, and there are not enough toilet facilities for the disabled both in those places of work and shops. Out of the scores of bars and restaurants in the city of Worcester, only three provide large print or braille menus for those with visual handicaps.
Let me pay tribute to the Royal National Institute for the Blind's New College for the Blind, which is based in my constituency and to its principal, Rev. Bob Manthorp. For many years, it has had remarkable success with its pupils, and that proves that integration is not always the best way forward for people with disabilities. I have been constantly impressed by the success of those pupils and the approach that they take to their disabilities, which they bear with great courage and—here I think of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks)—with great good humour. I find that particularly moving.
We are often quick to blame the public services for their failure to provide adequate services, so I pay particular tribute to the West Mercia constabulary. My local police force recently won the "Fit for work" award because of its disability employment policies. It has seven blind switchboard operators in my constituency and has invested considerably in the machinery necessary to make it work.
I shall deal now with some of the specific problems of blind people. I agree strongly with the comments of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) about the difficulties that disabled people experience in voting, particularly the physical problems of simply casting one's vote. I was one of the hon. Members who recently had the privilege of participating in the RN IB awareness exercise about the difficulty of voting with a visual handicap. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary should look carefully at that problem, and in particular at the size of print on ballot papers.
There are some I million blind or partially sighted people in the country, many of whom have serious mobility problems, so I welcome the extension of the disability living allowance, which has done much to enhance their civil rights. However, if one is registered blind, one gets a discount of £1.25 in the television licence, fee. That is an insultingly low figure, which I hope will be increased in the Government's review of the charter of the BBC.
The motion deals with financial assistance to, as well as the physical needs of, the disabled because financial assistance is a crucial part of the civil rights of disabled people. I welcome the growth that we have seen, under the Government, in the provision of funding for disabled people. Last week I was told, in answer to a parliamentary question:
"By the end of 1992–93, we expect expenditure on benefit for long-term sick and disabled people to have risen by more than 170 per cent. in real terms to £13.7 billion."—[Official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 100]
That is a remarkable record.
I know that there has been much controversy about the implementation of the disability living allowance and the unacceptable delays experienced in the early stages of its introduction. It is right that we should also pay tribute to the hard-working staff of the Benefits Agency, who are now putting superhuman efforts into addressing problems.

1169
Hardly a Saturday morning goes by without a telephone call to my home from a member of the staff sorting out a problem for one of my constituents. To have calls from a public servant on a Saturday morning is almost unprecedented, and I have had some moving success stories, thanks to the hard work of that agency in recent weeks.
I do not entirely share the confidence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State about the problem over the forms. I understand the need for self-assessment, but I have heard of too many cases when it has resulted in forms being badly filled in, resulting from inadequate offers of advice from the Benefits Agency. In one case, the mother of a child in my constituency is being denied DLA. The child suffers from leukaemia and she takes him to a regular clinic in the Birmingham children's hospital. All the other mothers and children get the benefit, but this child does not simply because the mother made a small and fully understandable mistake in filling in the forms. The form for DLA should be looked at carefully.
Mr. Scott: We shall be producing a new form for DLA in April, having consulted widely with the organisations of and for disabled people. I hope that my hon. Friend will find the new form an improvement.
Mr. Luff: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. It will be similarly welcomed by all my constituents and those of all other right hon. and hon. Members.
I do not deny for a moment—my earlier remarks have illustrated, I think, that I understand the problem clearly —that there is significant discrimination against disabled people. I am reluctant, however, to support omnibus legislation to address that discrimination. I am concerned that the Bill that is to be considered later today takes something of a blunderbuss approach. Instead, we need more precise rifle fire.
Much has been said about the experience of the United States and the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990. It seems from the evidence of some of my friends in the United States that there is the beginning of a backlash against that Act and against the disabled people it is designed to help. There is increasing evidence that litigation is the only real result of that legislation. Professor Kira, the professor of architecture at Cornell university, who has been a leading exponent of the needs of disabled people in terms of the built environment, has been expressing just such concerns about the 1990 Act.
Changing attitudes may be more difficult than producing legislation, but I believe that we should proceed without compulsion, which too easily breeds resentment.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: As I know the professor, both in this country and at Cornell—he will be in this country shortly—I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us what particular features of the American legislation are causing a backlash. Most of the real impacts of the Act have barely started to take effect. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give us some examples to nail down his assertion.
Mr. Luff: It is true that it is only recently that the Act has been fully implemented. I think that only this year was there some of the primary impact. I can only say that I have spoken to several of my friends. They are disabled
1170
and they have extensive contacts with similarly disabled people in the United States. They have expressed concern that there is a new sense of resentment almost towards the disabled in many areas of the United States.
I agree that these are early days, but I want to flag the concern that I have heard expressed by disabled people here on behalf of their disabled friends in the United States. The American legislation is not producing the advantages for which they looked. Instead, it is producing some serious disadvantages. I cannot refer to specific instances, but I can say that there is concern about the attitude that is being developed as a result of the implementation of the Act. I recognise that these are early days when it comes to saying what the final result will be, but it would be premature for the House to assume that the legislation proves the case for introducing similar legislation in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Dicks: The information given to me by friends in the United States is that the 1990 Act is being influenced and gradually overtaken by the AIDS lobby. That is one of the issues to which we should give careful consideration.
Mr. Luff: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which I note.
I do not oppose legislation per se. In many instances legislation is appropriate. Several hon. Members have referred to the Education Bill, which will provide examples of specifically targeted legislation. There may be a case for specific employment legislation. It would seem that it is acknowledged generally on both sides of the House that the quota system has not been a success. It may be that we should introduce more anti-discrimination-based employment legislation.
Several hon. Members have talked about the need of disabled people to gain access to houses, and that need is not confined to ladies and gentlemen in wheelchairs; mothers pushing prams would also benefit. It is clear that building regulations would have a major part to play. There would be a spin-off of advantages beyond the disabled. But do we need the paraphernalia of the Bill to achieve the advantages that we all want to see? For example, access to cinemas raises legitimate and proper concern, but I cannot help feeling that a slightly more enlightened view of the enforcement of health and safety rules by local fire brigades might be the way forward.
I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and the hon. Member for Rochdale when it comes to public transport, and especially British Rail. There is a great deal to be proud of in British Rail's approach. I pay tribute to the work of Mr. Bill Buchanan, who is himself disabled, who is an adviser to the British Railways Board on disability matters. The improvements that we have seen within the railway system owe a great deal to him.
No legislation imposes any duty on British Rail, yet it is the leading railway in the world when it comes to making provision for disabled people. One hundred per cent. of InterCity train carriages are now fully accessible to the disabled and their wheelchairs. There is also specific provision for the partially blind, which is also a small step forward—the provision of coloured grab handles on the outside of InterCity carriages which enable them more easily to see where they can board the train. Ninety per cent. of regional railway rolling stock is similarly adapted. There is a problem with Network South East—an intensely

1171
used commuter service—but all stock now entering service on British Rail is adapted to the needs of the disabled. I am told that there are more toilets for the disabled on British Rail trains than those of the rest of Europe put together.
Other improvements have been achieved without major legislation. In the arts, loops for the deaf are now the norm in theatres rather than the exception, and that was achieved by voluntary action. All that is happening without legislation because of changing attitudes.
Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a target market that commercial operations may be missing? If they can understand the message that they can sell to another group of people, the logic of improving access and making changes is, for them, a commercial exercise.
Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes a powerful point. One should not assume that, when organisations take measures to assist the disabled, they do so as an act of charity; it is often in their own enlightened self-interest.
I pay tribute to someone who has played a leading role in advancing the cause of the disabled—His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. After the International Year of the Disabled in 1981, of which the Prince of Wales was patron and Lord Snowdon was president, His Royal Highness formed the Prince of Wales advisory group on disablement whose extremely good work should not go unrecorded in this debate.
There is also the Prince of Wales's work with his school of architecture, in respect of enhanced provisions in new buildings, a charter with 75 employers that had the endorsement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last year, and efforts involving medical students—particularly with the help and assistance of Lady Warnock, who is playing a special role in seeking to improve understanding among medical students of the needs of the disabled.
Later, we shall have an opportunity to consider whether the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill should receive a Second Reading. From what I have heard so far, I hope that it will not necessarily receive a Third Reading, but there is something to be said for allowing the Bill to progress to a Committee so that the issues can be debated in detail. That may then inform subsequent Government legislation in specific areas of legitimate concern.
I hope that no one misakes my reservations about giving the Bill a Second Reading, for they do not reflect any doubt about the need to help the disabled. It is just that I believe that education, changing attitudes and pragmatic legislation offer the best way forward.
12.47 pm
Dr. Roger Berry: I am delighted to speak in support of the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), and to congratulate him on raising the issue of civil rights for the disabled. However, I am saddened and a little appalled that, in 1993, we still have to debate the issue in the way that we do. Soon after I entered the House, I tabled early-day motion 330, which was co-sponsored on a cross-party basis:
"That this House believes that anti-discrimination legislation is necessary to ensure equality of opportunity for people with disabilities; and calls for the early introduction of a Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill."
1172
I believe that each and every party represented in the House contributed a sponsor to that motion, which has the support also of the all-party disablement group. At the last count, the number of right hon. and hon. Members who had signed the motion totalled 288—the largest number of signatures lent to any of the 1,500 early-day motions tabled this Session. As a new Member of Parliament, my knowledge of the conventions of the House are limited, but I calculate that if one takes into account right hon. and hon. Members who, by tradition and convention, would not consider signing an early-day motion, mine has already achieved a majority. The motion and the sentiment behind it has genuine substantial cross-party support.
More important, the motion and the campaign for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has massive support outside the House, and we should do well to remember that. The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) referred to the tyranny of lobby groups. I am aware of the actions of lobby groups, and I cannot be the only hon. Member who is proud to have been educated by their actions.
Mr. Duncan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) is not present because he has to deal with a constituency matter, but it is only fair to put in context what he said following the comments by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) about Members doing well to listen to lobby advice because of the security of their seats. That was the measure of what he considered to be his threat—not that they would not educate, help or assist. I hope that that puts the matter straight.
Dr. Berry: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, which I note.
Many hon. Members have learnt much from the efforts of lobby groups. It is invidious to list organisations for fear of omitting important ones. Nevertheless, the activities in recent years of the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, Mencap, the National Association for Mental Health, Arthritis Care, the Spastics Society and many others deserve the compliments of hon. Members. Their work in promoting the interests of disabled people should be a matter of record. I know of no organisation concerned with the welfare of disabled people that fails to support the Bill that we are discussing today.
I tabled the early-day motion for two reasons. The first and foremost reason is my long-standing belief that the law should be used to tackle discrimination against disabled people in the same way as it is used to try to tackle discrimination on grounds of race or gender.
My second reason is slightly more personal and it has been alluded to already today. On 31 January 1992, the House debated the Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I place on record my admiration for the work that he has done over many years. At 2.16 pm, my predecessor started to speak against the Bill. At 2.20 pm, he assured the House that he would not talk it out, but, unfortunately, at 2.30 pm he did so.
I do not mention that to score points. It is a matter of history and in one sense it does not matter any more, but it matters in the effect that it had on my constituents. There

1173
was anger beyond comprehension that their Member of Parliament had talked out the Bill. The chair of the Kingswood Council for the Disabled said:
"Perhaps he would like to come to our meeting and explain why he has done this to us."
The Avon Coalition of Disabled People said:
"The reality is we experience discrimination everywhere we turn. On Friday Robert Hayward justified and condoned such discrimination. His actions will subject disabled people to continued denial of our human rights and civil liberties."
I could go on with public statements by the regional director of South West MIND, from the Bristol Royal Society for the Blind, the Avon disability advice centre, the Spastics Society, West Region and Avon County group of Mencap societies. Organisations in my part of the country were angry that one of their Members of Parliament had talked the Bill out and were anxious to dissociate themselves from that action.
Mr. Bowis: I, too, regretted that the Bill was talked out that day. However, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that Robert Hayward had the courage then to apologise. He said that he had got it wrong. We should also remember that Robert Hayward served the House while suffering from multiple sclerosis. He was a person of great courage who coped with that disability while serving his constituents and we should recognise that.
Dr. Berry: Nevertheless, the point is that people in my area expressed great public anger when the Bill was talked out. One of the commitments that I made in the general election was to do all that I could as quickly as possible to give support to legislation to promote civil rights for disabled people. That has been a motivating force behind what I have done.
The one point that I want to make above all today is that the House must listen when it is told about the daily experiences of the 6·5 million disabled people in this country who have one or more physical, sensory or emotional disability. That number will grow, as we all know, and, unless something is done, so will the number of people who regularly face discrimination in all aspects of their lives.
Disabled people have to face employers who refuse to employ them even when they have the relevant qualifications and skills. They have to face cinema proprietors and managers who, astonishingly, ban disabled people on the ground that they, rather than the building in which the cinema is located, are a fire risk. A blind person who is fortunate enough to be invited to Buckingham palace will find that guide dogs are banned. We have all come across such discrimination and we must listen to what people say.
A few weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister what action he intended to take on the matter. He said:
"For a year I was, of course, the Minister of State responsible for disability, and I am well aware of the Government's excellent record in increasing the benefits for disabled people and providing a much wider range of facilities for them."—[Official Report, 21 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 496.]
I did not get that impression from the Government when, three weeks ago, a Government Whip from a sedentary position talked out my private Member's Bill —the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill—which would have provided day
1174
services and respite services—[HON. MEMBERS: "Objected."] I should have said "objected". As a new Member of Parliament, I am always grateful for friendly advice from Conservative Members. I think that the Government would have talked out the Bill if they had had the opportunity. As it was, the Whip objected from a sedentary position to legislation that would have provided day services and respite services for disabled people and their carers. Again, that proposal had cross-party support. I do not get the impression that the Government are anxious really to promote the interests of disabled people as they show continued hostility to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
Most people agree that it is nothing short of a scandal that disabled people are denied the opportunities that non-disabled people have. It is nonsense in the circumstances for the Prime Minister to dream about a society at ease with itself. On the contrary, we have a society that actively disables people; a society in which discrimination against disabled people is widespread and institutionalised.
There is, therefore, a long overdue need to outlaw discrimination in employment, in transport, in leisure facilities and in education and training. There is, above all, a long overdue need to be honest about what is going on. There is a long overdue need to ensure that the 6·5 million people who are disabled have the rights that everyone else has.
In essence, we need to consider only three questions. First, does discrimination against disabled people exist? Of course it does. We all agree on that.
Secondly, has the Government's preferred option of voluntary action delivered? Has it worked? I think that it is manifestly clear to us all that it has not.
Thirdly, and finally, will legislation assist? I repeat that if the law can be used to act against sexism and racism, there is no reason why it cannot be used against discrimination on the ground of disability. If such legislation can operate in other countries—the United States, Canada and Australia—it can certainly operate here.
If the Law Society, which has been maligned this morning, confirms that view, the Government must surely take the matter seriously. As we have already heard, on 4 November last year, the Law Society launched its report "Disability, Discrimination and Employment Law", which concluded:
"There is a need for the creation of a new statutory civil right to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities in the workplace … the employment provisions appearing in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill indicate precisely the direction in which the law should move."
I have been invited to attend a meeting of disabled people from the south-west of England and south Wales in Bristol tomorrow to discuss how to further the struggle for civil rights for disabled people. I very much want to be able to tell that meeting that progress was made today. I have no doubt that the view of that meeting and of disabled people throughout the country will be that it is an outrage that it is taking so long to secure basic civil rights. Equally, I have no doubt that the message to opponents of anti-discrimination legislation will be the same as mine: is it not about time that they ceased to be part of the problem and instead became part of the solution?
1.1 pm
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): It may be useful if I intervene to clarify the Government's position on the motion and the Bill to which it relates.
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry) emphasised strongly his view that the Government and the House should listen with great care to what we are told about the day-to-day experience of disabled people. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government do that and that much of the progress that we have made in providing for disabled people in recent years has been a direct result of representations, to which successive Ministers have listened, from organisations of and for disabled people. That is a practice which we intend to continue.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on his success in the ballot and on his opening speech. The hon. Gentleman's success and the early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Kingswood may not have kept me awake at night, but they have added substantially to my work load, which will no doubt be a cause of some satisfaction to both hon. Members.
I congratulate all the hon. Members who have spoken in a universally high-quality debate. Many hon. Members have spoken with direct personal experience of the impact of disability on themselves or their families or from direct constituency experience. The issue of disability affects every single constituency in the country and therefore every hon. Member, irrespective of party or region. If it is within the rules of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to draw attention to the fact that attendance in the Gallery has been higher than it usually is on a Friday. That, too, is a tribute to the interest of this important matter.
I pay tribute to the all-party disability group for its sustained efforts. Successive Ministers, from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) to myself, have found it of immense benefit to receive the advice given to us and the pressure—sometimes welcome, sometimes not so welcome—placed on us by the dedicated members of that group.
The hon. Member for Tooting and at least one other hon. Member read out a list of some of the organisations of and for disabled people which play such an important part in these discussions and identify the way forward on disability.
My opposite number, the Minister for Disability in France, Michel Gillibert, regards the pattern of voluntary organisations in the United Kingdom as one of its absolute glories. He said that he wished he had the same advantage as I have in being able to seek the advice and support of those organisations. I might have said that sometimes it was a mixed blessing—nevertheless, it is a blessing.
I reiterate the point that was made about the importance of the role of the Prince of Wales in keeping a sustained interest in the subject and persuading many others to take it much more seriously than they have previously. The son of a former Member of Parliament is the secretary to His Royal Highness's group and he is in regular contact with the Government on a range of issues.
I shall make a few general points, move on to the Bill and then put on record some of the things that the Government are doing as an alternative to legislation. To come back to the point of the hon. Member for
1176
Kingswood, I do not think that anyone who has listened to the debate can doubt for a moment that there continues to be considerable discrimination against disabled people.
Although the Government's approach may not have solved the problem in its entirety—nor, incidentally, do I believe that the Bill would solve the problem in its entirety —I hope to be able to show that we have made substantial progress and have plans to make further substantial progress in the future.
We have listened to a number of graphic illustrations of discrimination against disabled people of one sort or another, including the sad story of Dr. Schofield arid Amber. I trust that my good friend Quellar has managed to gain access to the Gallery and is listening intently to the debate. Several other graphic examples of discrimination have been given.
Everyone who has done my job must be aware that discrimination exists. It exists and it is wrong. As I said previously, it is remarkably silly because it does not benefit society or those who discriminate against others. I shall explain and expand on that in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) stressed the tremendous pool of skills and commitment among disabled people, much of which is not been taken advantage of by employers. There is a huge market with 6 million disabled people in the United Kingdom. Cinema and theatre owners and managers and a whole range of other people who sell services or goods ignore that huge market in a short sighted way. We know about the disabled people who were turned away from cinemas showing films such as "My Left Foot" and "Born on the Fourth of July". Both films involved disability issues, yet disabled people were unable to get into cinemas to see them. It is remarkably silly and short-sighted.
We know about the aspirations of disabled people to the maximum quality of life—to be able to live independently to the greatest extent posssible and to exercise control over their lives. Looking in, as it were, from the outside, it is easy to talk about disabled people as though they were a homogenous group. But they are parents, children, athletes, artists, craftsmen and employees. They are all the things that the rest of us are. Everything that applies to us applies equally to disabled people. We should all be clear about the common humanity of which I spoke when I last addressed the issue. As the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) said, for many of us, disability is but an accident away or perhaps a few years away with the inevitable onset of the impact of age on our quality of life.
I have been lucky recently to be closely in touch with sport and disabled people, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) referred. Yesterday I attended the opening by Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales of a new Douglas Bader centre for sporting-based rehabilitation at the Roehampton hospital. Tremendous co-operation was involved in providing the wonderful facilities at that new centre and funds were raised by the Douglas Bader Foundation.
The day before the opening—this is of particular relevance to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton—I attended the annual media awards of the British Sports Association for the Disabled. Those of us who follow such events closely are aware that, increasingly, sport for disabled people is covered along with mainstream sporting activities and is no longer

1177
tucked away on some odd page. That is a tremendous help in raising the general level of awareness of disability. Anyone who enjoyed the magic and the glory of the paralympics at Barcelona will never forget the experience.
The general points that I have made indicate the angle from which I approach the issue. I hope that they will not go amiss. But I now have to turn to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman addresses the Bill, I remind him that we have before us a motion. It would not be appropriate to go through the Bill in depth, although, obviously, some allusions to it are entirely in order.
Mr. Scott: I have no intention of being so disorderly as that, but the motion refers to legislation and that is the issue which I wish to address.
I suppose that my head and my heart divide on the Bill. Of course, I should like to be able to say from the Dispatch Box that we should let the Bill go forward into Committee. But my head warns me and convinces me that that would not be right. I say that with reluctance and a degree of sadness. It would not be right to allow the Bill to go into Committee and be discussed because it would arouse expectations about the outcome of progress on any such legislation which might have to be dashed in due course.
Mr. Wigley: The Minister may be about to clarify the matter, but while he says that he cannot encourage legislation that has passed through another place, can he none the less confirm that the Government accept the principle that legislation has a role in anti-discrimination?
Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman was present at a meeting with the all-party disability group on Tuesday this week attended by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security and myself. He will have heard the Prime Minister give me a remit to enter discussions with the group on whether and, if so, how legislation could play any part in seeking to reduce or eliminate discrimination against disabled people. I have accepted that remit with enthusiasm and I shall honour it in the full spirit in which the task was given to me.
Mr. Cox: I am pleased by the Minister's last comment, but disappointed to hear of his reluctance to allow the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill to go to Committee. Surely all hon. Members who have been in the House a while know that the difficulties can be explained to the general public in Committee. Sadly, many people will think that it is a dodge-out and if there are genuine reasons, will wonder why the Government do not want to try to explain them or discuss them openly in Committee.
Mr. Scott: We must consider the basic shape of any legislation. As the hon. Member for Tooting knows, we have legislated on various issues, such as facilities and services for disabled people. Legislation covering access and employment already exists. As issues come to the fore, there may be new directly targeted legislation. Beyond that, we must question whether anti-discriminatory legislation could be introduced without the over-arching pattern of the legislation that has passed through another place. Undoubtedly, expenses for the Government and
1178
other providers would be implicit in the passage of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and we need to deal with such issues.
I am sceptical and my head warns me against the principle of such over-arching legislation. I am in favour of targeted legislation, even if it is wider than that passed to date. Those are the issues that I want to discuss and which incline me to be sceptical about the common sense of allowing the Bill to pass into legislation, since its fundamental shape is not acceptable to the Government.
The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which has passed through another place, is wide ranging and would imply considerable costs for employers, suppliers and the Government. The hon. Members for Tooting and for Kingswood said that the Government's approach has not worked. I cannot claim that it has had 100 per cent. success, but anyone who considers fairly what has happened under successive Governments during the past 20 years will recognise that real progress has been made.
I well understand the impatience of many hon. Members—the impatience of many disabled people is even more understandable—at the pace of progress, but there has undoubtedly been progress.
Having considered the matter carefully and facilitated the meeting between the all-party disablement group and the Prime Minister on Tuesday, the Government have concluded—not without some reluctance—that a general approach would create more problems than it would solve.
Sir Richard Body: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, does he agree that if a Standing Committee dealt with the Bill for two or three Wednesdays, it would be a good opportunity for those issues and some of the difficulties to be thrashed out? As a sponsor of the Bill I agree that it has imperfections, but it seems to be eactly the sort of Bill that needs a dummy run in Committee. If the Government listened to the objections and thrashed out the issues they could return next Session with legislation which would perhaps have a better run than would otherwise be the case.
Mr. Scott: I accept that that would be one way forward, but if the Bill went into Committee it would be likely to arouse expectations outside the House—inside the House poeple realise what is happening—and result in disappointment. A better way forward would be for me to accept the remit from the Prime Minister and go to the drawing board with the all-party disablement group to have a fresh look at the concept of legislation and the breadth that it might or might not have. I understand why my hon. Friend might prefer an alternative approach, but, having agreed on our plan with the all-party disablement group earlier this week, I believe that that is the best way forward.
Some comparison has been made between the proposals in the Bill that passed through another place and existing legislation against discrimination on grounds of race and gender. I know that those analogies have been drawn in support of the Bill. I believe that there is a difference, however, between anti-discrimination legislation for people with disabilities and our long-standing legislation against discrimination on grounds of race or gender.
As has already been made clear, the category of people with disabilities embraces a considerable number of people with different needs and there are different sorts of

1179
discrimination against people who happen to have any particular one of a range of disabilities. Broadly, we can divide the disabled population into those who are sensorily, physically or mentally impaired in one way or another. Even those wide groups have different needs in terms of accessibility to employment, transport and buildings. When we are dealing with sex and race discrimination, however, we are talking about broad groups of people whose needs can be addressed broadly. Discrimination against disabled people is more complicated and it is therefore likely to need more complicated legislation, or even separate Bills—should we decide that legislation is right—to address the different problems that arise.
Dr. Berry: Does the Minister believe that the problem of alleged discrimination against disabled people is identifying that discrimination, or does he believe that the problem is identifying the action to respond to it? What is it about such legislation that makes it fundamentally different from discrimination on the grounds of race or gender?
Mr. Scott: It is perfectly possible for the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Race Relations Board to take a comprehensive view of the impact of discrimination upon those under their remit.
If we were to identify discrimination against people with disabilities in terms of access, we already have the disabled persons transport advisory committee, which draws up regulations to enable transport to be properly provided. The existing building regulations advisory committees deal with problems of access to buildings. We have a range of similar organisations that are much better able to deal with practices that turn out to discriminate against disabled people than would be an over-arching commission with a remit to look at every sector where discrimination occurs. I believe that the sector-by-sector approach is likely to provide a more expert and, in the long run, more effective approach than tackling discrimination with an over-arching commission, as recommended in the Bill that passed through the other place.
Mr. Alfred Morris: There is nothing in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which conflicts with the Minister's proposition about the diversity of disabled people. All of us who were involved in the making of that Bill totally recognised that one cannot lump all disabled people together. How can we possibly reject the recommendations of a Select Committee of the House? To talk to people from all parties now leaves aside the very important point that there has been detailed discussion in a Select Committee. How can we ignore what the Law Society said? How can we ignore what was said by Lord Renton, who is a distinguished lawyer and an extremely long-serving Member of the House, as well as of the Conservative party?
Mr. Scott: I think that I have said before, both to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman, that my judgment is that it would be best for me to take the advice and expertise of the all-party disablement group, which has a tremendous body of knowledge. We can consider whether the over-arching principle makes sense or whether it would be better to tackle the problem sector by sector. That will have to remain a point of difference between the right hon. Gentleman and me.
1180
I wonder whether the over-arching approach suggested in some quarters might simply turn out to be a legal bean feast for lawyers. The enthusiasm of the Law Society for it makes my eyebrows twitch a little. I have no hostility towards the Law Society, but the definitions in the Bill are extremely wide. The question of how to define a person with a disability has scope for tremendous argument. It is difficult to know whether concepts such as "reasonable accommodation" can be interpreted in an even-handed way across the board. A number of issues would be better treated using a sector-by-sector approach, without creating a vast new bureaucracy which I fear could flow from some of the suggestions made today.
I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak and we have just one hour left, so I shall merely say a few words about the Government's approach to the subject. We have been trying to work with business, industry, voluntary organisations and other levels of government to bring about changes in society's attitudes, promote equality, develop services and create an environment in which people with disabilities can fully participate in our national life. I believe that we have come a long way, but I do not disguise the fact that much remains to be done if we are to achieve our ends.
Spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people has trebled in this Government's lifetime. New benefits have been introduced and the scale and scope of provision for disabled people through the benefits system have improved. The Government have shown their commitment by providing extra resources for those new benefits.
There has, inevitably, today been much discussion of transport. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) urged us to make a start; we have done more than that and have gone a long way down the road, railway or canal—whichever analogy one wants to use. About 50 per cent. of buses are now covered by the DPTAC specification. We are trying to work in partnership with industry on a range of transport issues to ensure that the needs of disabled people are taken into account at the design stage. Only recently, I saw a taxi that had been designed by a British company and could be used in all European capital cities to meet the needs of disabled people. I hope that the designers will make progress with it.
Some 90 per cent. of new buses now contain the features recommended to help disabled people. All InterCity routes are wheelchair accessible and new rolling stock that is introduced will offer full access. I pay special tribute to Mr. Bill Buchanan, who chairs the committee that advises British Rail on accessibility. Of course, we face problems.
Mr. Harold Elletson: While I am sure that we all welcome the improvements in InterCity services that guarantee accessibility to disabled passengers, that is not much good when InterCity services are withdrawn—as they have been from London to Blackpool. Will my right hon. Friend join me in pressing British Rail to restore those links, particularly for the benefit of disabled passengers, many of whom usually visit Blackpool on holiday every year, but will be unable to do so?
Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend has made his point and I doubt whether he needs my support to make his case. I am

1181
sure that he will be highly effective as he goes about achieving it, but I should be glad to have a word with him later.
All new licensed taxi cabs in London must now be wheelchair accessible and another 60 licensing authorities have adopted the same policy. All this has happened without the need for legislation; education, persuasion and awareness have brought it about.
I welcome the interest expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) in this aspect as it relates to buses—taxis tend to be expensive. The next stage must therefore be to develop fully accessible buses. There are to be trials in two areas later this year. London Transport will try out 68 vehicles in north and west London and Go-Ahead Northern-Coastline is to run vehicles in north Tyneside.
Access to buildings is immensely important, too. I will not go into detail except to express my strongly held view that the work carried forward by the building regulations advisory committee, which is looking into the design of new housing, should be given a fair wind. We all know how expensive it is to adapt a house once it has been built. The extra expense of building accessible houses from scratch is likely to turn out to be minimal.
Hon. Members have discussed loops. Part M of the new building regulations, which came into effect a few months ago, specifies the need for induction loops or infra-red hearing systems in booking and ticket offices, large reception areas, auditoriums and meeting rooms above a certain size. That shows that we have made a certain amount of progress.
I take the point about the Palace of Wesminster. We shall be discussing that. Some Members of the House and of the other place have suffered from disabilities and we are all conscious of the need for members of the public with disabilities to be given proper access to their Parliament. A consultant is looking at the pattern of provision in the Palace, with the idea of making recommendations.
As for access to employment, there has been a growing realisation of the inadequacies of the quota system to tackle the problem of employment of disabled people. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has this under review and I hope that we may hear from her in the not-too-distant future.
I know that I will have disappointed many in the House and elsewhere by our attitude to legislation. I am certainly not complacent about the Government's achievements. We have done well, but we can do better. Education and persuasion remain important parts of the way forward, but I reiterate my commitment, given to the all-party disability group earlier this week, to enter, with the Prime Minister's encouragement, into constructive discussion of any possible way forward that involves legislation.
1.33 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I rise with some apprehension to speak in a debate which has, in a sense, been going on since long before I had responsibility for these matters. The debate illustrates a degree of expertise and commitment matched by no other subject that comes before the House for discussion, so I approach it with humility.
1182
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox); as ever, he appears to be as lucky at drawing the number one spot for debate as he is with horses. I also congratulate him on choosing for debate such an important subject.
However, the persistence and patience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), in his efforts to focus our attention on this enormously important subject, cannot be praised too highly. His Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has been much discussed today and remains, in the view of the Opposition, the one realistic hope for an early and dramatic improvement in the circumstances of disabled people.
The debate has been wide ranging. It has reminded me of a jolly good party, with all of us having a glass of whatever pleases us, coming almost to a crescendo, when in walks someone who is usually a reasonably welcome guest, but who announces that the bar is closed or that the festivities must end. We should be grateful that the Minister waited so long to make his contribution because, when he did, he dampened the atmosphere of the debate.
Being something of an historian, I want to go back and look at the reasons why we are discussing the subject today and why we do not already have a Bill setting in place civil rights for disabled persons. Many people might have thought that such a Bill would already be part of our legislation. The Opposition have long believed that civil rights for disabled people are extremely important. My right hon. Friend's Bill, which he has been trying to get through the House for a long time, is the one way forward. A disablement commission that would defend, protect and advance the interests of disabled people is the right route to follow.
Let me first examine the struggle for civil rights for disabled people and suggest some reasons why, in 1993, we still do not have effective anti-discrimination legislation. The case for it has been made, more eloquently than I can make it, by hon. Members on both sides of the House. They have quoted not only an enormous range of statistics but the heartfelt and most important personal experiences of people with disabilities, including friends, families and even colleagues.
I shall not bombard the House with statistics, but we have to go back a little way to look at what happened in the 1970s. After all, it was nearly 20 years ago, in 1975, that the Equal Opportunities Commission was established. The Commission for Racial Equality followed a little later, in 1977. Those legislative innovations were profoundly important milestones in the campaign against discrimination on the ground of race or sex. They do not deliver everything, and they are not an all-purpose panacea, but they are the bedrock and foundation of many advances in our society.
Logically, one might have expected a similar innovation in the rights of disabled people to follow pretty quickly. Unfortunately, a rather different atmosphere was created, partly as a result of the new Government in 1979, and partly because a change in philosophy permeated society throughout the 1980s. I expected the Minister to be the harbinger of good news; I hoped that the spirit of the 1980s was changing and that a thrust towards the acceptance of disability rights legislation would mark the beginning of the real thaw in Government attitudes. However, judging by the Minister's remarks, civil rights legislation for the disabled is not likely to come about

1183
quickly. As a disabled friend of mine said, it seems, sadly, that after sexism and racism, equal opportunities cease to exist. That seems to be the situation. That is the opinion of many disabled people in our society. They feel strongly that progress since the late 1970s has not been fast enough and that we have not moved forward far enough.
The case that I shall present contrasts with the position that was adopted during the 1970s and the 1980s. If we put disablement in context, we have not moved ahead as fast as we should have done because of the attitude adopted throughout the 1980s that community and society do not have a legitimate place. The example is slightly tired, but I revive the remarks—they are now infamous—of the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher. She said that society did not exist. She said that in an interview with a woman's magazine. She added:
"And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves".
That was a summation of the feeling that prevailed in the 1980s.
I could not help thinking of Baroness Thatcher's remarks when I was on the other side of the river at the national theatre this week. Some of us were let off the leash, and it was a most enjoyable evening as we watched "An Inspector Calls". It was interesting to hear the remarks that J. B. Priestley gives to the father of the family for a crucial period of the play. The father is giving advice to his son and potential son-in-law. He says:
"I don't want to lecture you two young fellows again. But what so many of you don't seem to understand now, when things are so much easier, is that a man has to make his own way—has to look after himself—and his family too, of course, when he has one—and so long as he does that he won't come to too much harm."
That is redolent of the attitude of Baroness Thatcher throughout the 1980s, which permeated the Government throughout that period. To put it in another way, people were saying, "Look after yourself and nobody else matters very much." The father in the Priestley play also says:
"But the way some of these cranks talk and write now, you'd think everybody has to look after everybody else, as if we were all mixed up together like bees in a hive—community and all that nonsense."
The permeation of self interest is something with which we are all familiar. There is nothing new about it because it comes straight from 19th century liberals such as Herbert Spencer and those other intellectuals of laissez-faire liberalism. It is a highly individualistic view of society. Its highest motivation was to inspire men and women to opt for self interest first, and the philosophy was brilliantly encapsulated by J. B. Priestley very much later. I do not want to labour my experience at the theatre too much, but I shall return to Priestley. I have had the opportunity to educate some of the Whips, who do not often have a chance to go to exceptional places of culture.
Since 1979 we have had plenty of experience of people looking after themselves. Perhaps that explains the appalling situation in which many disabled people find themselves and the Government's reluctance to endorse a Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. There have, of course, been determined efforts by a noble band of campaigners. Somewhere in the House there should be a roll of honour for them. They stretch from Lord Ashley and his attempt in 1982 to get such a Bill on the statute book. There was Donald Stewart, my hon. Friend the Member for
1184
Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), Lords Longford and Campbell, John Hughes and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe. They all campaigned in an extremely cold climate.
At the very time that they were campaigning in our cold climate, the temperature in the rest of the world was warming up—as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) pointed out, with the International Year of the Disabled in 1981, and the launch of the decade for the disabled person in 1983. The British Government saw to it that such issues remained in a veritable permafrost. In those years, positive progress for the disabled was made in many parts of the world, but Britain stood still and has since been overtaken.
Now well into the 1990s, do we detect the possibility of a thaw? I prepared two versions of the central part of my speech. One responds positively and warmly to the Minister's conversion. I thought that we might have seen a Pauline conversion because on 30 January 1992, the Minister said that he was "benevolently neutral". Everyone knows that the country was then moving towards a general election and that there was little time for any new legislation, but most of us believed the Minister's statement that he was "benevolently neutral".
Some of us have supported the Minister since he first entered the House. We thought that we were protecting an endangered species. Sometimes we thought that his ministerial career was a bit precarious because he appeared to be on the side of the angels. Some of us on this side of the House nearly started a club to support his continuity of office. It is a good job that we did not, but I approach a serious point lightly.
This morning's debate has been rather sad, in that we have witnessed a struggle between the two modern Conservative parties. One is that represented by the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin)—and I told him before he left the Chamber that I would mention him in my remarks. That hon. Gentleman invited the House to compare him with a disabled person. We are seeing whether the modern Conservative party is that which I used to think of as a party of Chelsea and Tiverton, or is it the part of St. Albans and Colchester?
I fear that the Minister's remarks at the Dispatch Box a few moments ago confirmed that the party of St. Albans and Colchester rules. It is the party that says, "There will be no movement in this area." I refer to the Minister's remarks last year, when he spoke of his "benevolent neutrality". We were given a fascinating insight into the Government's reasons for not taking action last year. The Minister was eloquent and, using dramatic phrases that I will not repeat today, clearly emphasised the need for action. Using a clever and classic technique, for he is a great exponent of the doctrine of unripe time, he said that he was not against legislation on principle, but it was a question whether education and persuasion had been tried long enough. He still held out the hope that they would work and that legislation would not be needed just yet. "Give me a little bit longer," he said.
The right hon. Gentleman also said something worrying, and he said something today that will worry the disabled and those who lobby for them. He stated that there was no unanimity among the disabled or groups for the disabled. He said that there was no unanimity in the disabled community—an interesting phrase—and those who support it. I found that interesting. How often have hon. Members introduced legislation about which there is

1185
unanimity? Why should every last man Jack and Jill agree before we legislate to ensure equal opportunities for disabled people? Why do we need the unanimity rule for disabled people?
Interestingly, this morning the Minister changed his ground. He said: "Forget what I said last year. I have looked at it again and it will be far too heavy-handed. We should adopt the over-arching approach." What is the over-arching approach? What does that mean?
Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman's description is a parody of my speech. He was not present when the Prime Minister met the all-party disablement group, but a number of Labour Members were. They will recall the sympathetic and constructive discussion with the Prime Minister about discrimination against disabled people, at the end of which I was given a clear task to liaise constructively with the all-party disablement group. My basic instinct is to continue to tackle discrimination with a sector-by-sector approach, rather than one where the costs are unquantifiable and which is likely to lead to excessive bureaucracy and a beanfeast for the legal profession.
Mr. Sheerman: I am interested that the Minister thinks that my description of his speech was a parody. I was not invited to the meeting with the Prime Minister. The impression that I have formed this morning is not of a Minister who has gone to his Prime Minister and Secretary of State, made his case and won. I assume that what has happened, although the Minister cannot admit it, is that the Prime Minister and Secretary of State have told him to toe the line. He has been told to go back to the House of Commons and the all-party group.
Sir John Hannam indicated dissent.
Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but I must tell the truth as I see it. I listened patiently to him. I understood the Minister to say this morning that there is no way forward. We have been given yet another fudge instead of allowing the Bill to be considered in Committee. The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir. J. Hannam), for whom I have much admiration and who is one of the supporters of the Bill, pleaded with the Minister, "Give us a few Wednesdays and the opportunity to get the Bill in Committee." My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe has guaranteed that the Bill is open to amendment because he realises that it has imperfections. He is willing to scrutinise it in Committee, where he will give the Minister every assistance to ensure that the Bill is right.
We are debating a very important Bill for disabled people. It is supported by almost 300 Members of Parliament, 23 of whom are Conservative Members. It is good to have some Conservative support, but we are thoroughly discontented and we cannot accept an all-party approach when the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People comes here and kicks disabled people in the teeth. [Interruption.] The Minister does not like my comment; I did not expect him to—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members do not like me bringing an element of abrasiveness to this debate.
The Opposition are appalled that the Minister, in his usual melliferous tones, has given us hard news to take to our constituents. We shall have to tell disabled people that
1186
there is no hope that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill will be passed, although it seeks to give ordinary disabled people the opportunity to show that they are not just disabled and that they are able in mind and in body in so many ways.
Disabled people have potential. Time and again, in employment, in access, in education and in training, they are not given the opportunity to show that they have talent. The reason why I am so angry and why I refuse to kowtow to a quiet, all-party agreement is that the Minister has sold out disabled people today—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members think that I am being too hard and they do not like it.
I have not held my present position for long, but I have already noticed that the Government have a great advantage. The Government take a strong line when they speak about the absence of community and about the absence of society. They refuse to help people as we urge them to. However, the Government have the great advantage of a Minister for Social Security and Disabled People who is charm itself at the Dispatch Box.
Everyone finds it difficult to cross swords with the Minister because he presents an unacceptable case eloquently and diplomatically. That is not good enough. He charmingly tells the House that he intends to block the Bill, and he speaks with an air of resignation and in tones of sorrow. That is not good enough. In some ways, it would be more acceptable to have the Secretary of State for Social Security here. He puts the Government's view far more aggressively, so we should understand exactly where the Government were coming from in their treatment of disabled people.
I understand that some hon. Members do not like the tone that I bring to the debate. We had high hopes this morning that we would make progress, and that a Whip would not shout "Object!" at 2.30 pm and thus block the opportunity to bring a ray of hope to disabled people.
In speeches inside and outside the House, the Minister has emphasised that he believes that there has been progress for disabled people. He almost always points to a change in benefits. We could have a long argument about how benefits have shaped and changed over the past 13 years. My analysis would be different from the Minister's. The Government have shaped and changed benefits rather than improved them. I take a longer view of benefits. Disabled people and those in the disability lobby believe that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill represents an alternative to the idea that disability is just about benefits.
Many disabled people tell me that they feel as though their whole world is hedged about by talk of benefits. They want to be released from that feeling. They need benefits for certain things, but ultimately they want an environment that allows them access to training, education, good jobs and good pay and in which benefits are not the only subject about which they talk to politicians. That is the difference between us. The Minister cannot understand—
Mr. Scott: With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman must have been pretty selective in his reading of my speeches. Each and every one of the issues to which he has referred is an issue which I have tackled during the six years for which I have been holding my present responsibilities.
Mr. Sheerman: I will certainly not withdraw. As I have explained, ordinary people who have a disability feel that the emphasis is always placed on their disability. We hoped for the opportunity to establish a bedrock of rights—a foundation on which to build. If disabled people felt that their rights had been infringed, they could voice their aggravation and hurt. If they felt that an injustice had been done—if they felt that they had been denied access to transport or education—they could take it to the commission in the hope of gaining satisfaction. Of course they would not always win, but they could move forward towards attaining rights in the fullest sense.
The strong language that I use is absolutely correct to describe the feeling that exists not just among the disability lobby but among ordinary disabled people. As the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) said, disability affects 25 per cent., of families in one way or another. Today, those families will feel that they have been cheated, and they will have been cheated because the Minister has done the bidding of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security rather than standing his corner and standing up for the rights of disabled people in Britain.
2.2 pm
Mr. Terry Dicks: Rarely have I heard such a disgusting and deplorable speech. The unique talent of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is to misread the House every time he speaks —whether it be on law and order or on disability. The debate to which I have been listening since 9.30 am has been about caring and concern and about how best to proceed on the question of disability. The hon. Gentleman has done nothing to enhance the debate. I am a disabled person and I can say that if I belonged to a lobby, I should be ashamed to approach that man for any kindness or consideration.
I wish that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) or the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) were sitting on the Front Bench and that the dreadful man who made that speech was sitting elsewhere. I feel so angry about what he has done. He should be damn well ashamed of himself. He referred to a visit to the theatre and mentioned disabled people looking to themselves. If there is one thing that disabled people want to do it is to look to themselves—as best they can and as far as they can—and, in suggesting otherwise, the hon. Gentleman shows a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the needs, wishes and, most important, the aspirations of disabled people. The sooner he goes out and finds out what it is all about, the better.
I shall now calm down, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the issue of race and sex discrimination legislation, I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister that there is a significant difference, although I acknowledge that they are different categories. If anything, that should be a reason for taking action through legislation. Everyone has said that the quota system does not work. Many years ago, I worked at a labour exchange, where the disability officer had beside him a big pile of exemption vouchers and spent more time reaching for them than ringing up companies to ask why they were not employing their 3 per cent. quota of disabled people.
I get concerned when we talk about money because we subsidise the pleasure of going to the theatre through the
1188
royal opera house by about £30 to £35 a seat. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) looks at me with her questioning eyes. If we can subsidise the pleasure of people going to the opera house by £30 to £35 a seat, why do we wonder about the Government spending money to introduce legislation to give disabled people the right of access? What is the good of subsidising the arty farty types, the great and the good, when we are sorry that we cannot find the money to introduce legislation to give disabled people the sort of access to the theatre which they might need?
Let me talk briefly about the Spinal Injuries Association to which I am loosely connected. I hope to become more involved with the association later. In an intervention that I made this morning—it seems like yesterday—I said that the latest idea of the Spinal Injuries Association is to introduce a disabled racegoers guide to tell them the best places to gain access and the places to be careful when trying to get in.
The man who was talking about the guide was in a wheelchair. He had a colleague with him who said, "I have arrived at Sandown Race course today and, as usual, the wheelchair has tipped over and I am flat on my face in the mud." He was brushing the mud off his clothes. He loves his racing, but having his wheelchair tip over is the reality that he faces regularly.
As I said earlier, the man was going to a race meeting at a course which had no access across the railway line. He had to go to the end of the journey, which was about another 45 minutes to an hour, to get off at a station at which they could take his wheelchair across the line. He had to get on another train to come back and get off on the right side of the track. That is absolutely wrong for disabled people. Why should not they enjoy racing and all the other sports? Like everybody else, they should be able to get on and off the train when necessary.
My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned access to money. Gaining access to money through the various benefits is not the only thing that matters. It is the right to have one's views, wishes and abilities respected—limited though the abilities might be. My dispute with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) is that some disabled people laugh at their disabilities. They are not all deadly serious. They are not pushing for everything.
As I said, my disability is a small one. If I say the wrong thing, which I do most of the time, my colleagues threaten to kick my good leg away. That is not something to get upset about or react to. When I made an intervention this morning which was rather too long, Madam Deputy Speaker said that, obviously, my disability did not affect my tongue. I thought that that was quite funny and no insult was meant or taken. However, we must be careful not to think that all disabled people are so serious about life that they cannot see the funny side of their disability occasionally.
We need legislation that prevents discrimination against people. I simply wonder how many wheelchairs are in the Gallery. My guess is not many, given the steepness of the Gallery and the stairs. We have luxury offices at Derby Gate for some of my colleagues and, dare I say it, the Serjeant at Arms. We can provide those facilities for Members of Parliament, but we cannot give the public easy access to this place. It is a strange place.
To meet the costs that my right hon. Friend mentioned, why not do away with the Department of National Heritage immediately and all the savings that that would

1189
incur, including the subsidy to the arts of £600 million? That could go a long way. Indeed, we could make every station on the London Underground fit for disabled people if we took away the subsidy for the arts tomorrow.
I suggest discontinuing the prison building programme. In the past 11 years, we have spent £2 million on two prisons to provide leisure pursuits for prisoners. What a nice sum we could have to make some places accessible for disabled people. We give all the money and leisure facilities to the thugs and rogues of this world to help them out, yet we say that we are very sorry but it is difficult to find money for the disabled. I could go on, but I shall not.
Let me leave hon. Members with one thought in terms of Government spending. There is a move to increase spending on nursery schools and creches for working mothers. Those are needs which come from choice. Mothers choose to have children and they choose to go back to work early. Disability need does not come from choice. It comes because disabled people have no choice. That is another thing we must remember. The Government's policy of opposition to legislation is clear.
It is dictated by the Treasury; aimed at standing still; made without understanding; and not acceptable to disabled people. The first letter of each of those statements makes up the word "damn". Disabled people in Britain will remain damned to some extent unless and until we introduce legislation to give them the protection that they need.
I support the motion. I conclude by going back to the beginning of my speech. If I ever hear another speech about disabled people of the sort that I heard from the Opposition Front Bench, that will be the last time that I shall speak on the issue. It was the most appalling thing that I have ever heard.
2.9 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Minister said that he could not accept that the Bill should go into Committee because that would raise hopes that would be squashed. We should turn the argument round. Preventing the Bill from going into Committee will depress many people. Some of the avenues that they would otherwise seek to use may become less appropriate as a result of their considerable disillusion. There will be considerable hurt throughout the country.
All hon. Members have received representations from hosts of disabled organisations. A group came here yesterday from the Derbyshire Disabled Forum. The members of that group had all the problems of access to the building which have been highlighted. They had high hopes about what would occur today, but their hopes have been dashed. There will be deep anxiety about that.
I support the comprehensive measures that the Bill proposes. However, I hope that hon. Members will excuse me for talking about a limited and specific matter which could be regarded as a footnote to the debate. I hope that the Minister will examine the matter and discuss it with Ministers in the Home Office.
As Members of Parliament, we should be worried about access for the disabled to polling stations to exercise their right to vote. It has been said that disabled people can make use of postal and proxy vote facilities, but that misses the point. Disabled people wish, as far as humanly
1190
possible, to have open to them the methods of voting that are available to able-bodied people. Many people wish to use their right to vote at polling stations, as they have done throughout their lives and see other people do. They believe that it is the correct way to exercise their civic duty.
We should take effective action to give disabled people the opportunity to vote at polling stations. Action has been taken by the Home Office—circulars have been issued to returning officers and action has been taken to improve access to polling stations—but it is woefully inadequate.
The Spastics Society produced a report on arrangements made at the last general election. It examined 50 constituencies and more than half the polling stations in 26 of them–846 in total. It was said earlier that many of the details about disabled people came from anecdotal stories and information. The Spastics Society report is a piece of detailed research which illustrates the considerable problems experienced.
The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) spoke earlier. In his constituency, 11 polling stations—more than half—were examined and only two were accessible according to the criteria used by the Spastics Society. Four had multiple access problems, while the rest had one or two serious problems, which should cause us considerable concern.
The conclusion to the Spastics Society report states:
"Disabled people were 'polls apart' from the rest of society in the 1992 General Election. Many voted separately, either by post or outside the polling station or on a table set aside within the polling station, or they didn't vote at all."
People have a right to a secret ballot and to use the facilities contained in polling stations to exercise that right. Some disabled people cannot manage to get into polling stations and separate arrangements have to be made, which by no means meet the criteria for the operation of a secret ballot.
The report concludes:
"Disabled people's issues were 'polls apart', rarely taken up by the political parties or the media. Disabled people's involvement in the election campaign was 'polls apart', many felt ignored by politicians and disillusioned by the whole process."
We have a responsibility in such matters.
The hon. Member for Colchester, North did not understand the problems that exist in his constituency, which are mentioned in the report. No survey took place in my constituency, which might have more serious problems, as some of the area is rural and it is therefore likely to be more difficult to find suitable facilities. We should all face up to the problem. If we bother about anything, it must be about getting our own house in order —getting the House of Commons in order to provide acccess for disabled people and getting the arrangements by which we arrive here in order.
The motion mentions the civil rights of disabled people and the need for anti-discrimination legislation dealing with access to public services, and one such service is clearly the right to vote. Today we have discussed the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in great detail and a fortnight ago I introduced the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill to the House, which dealt—in part II and schedule 2—with physical access to polling stations and the problems reported by the Spastics Society and other organisations.
Mr. Sheerman: Was not the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) wrong, because disabled people want to be treated like any other citizens? They

1191
want to be able to come here as of right. They do not want special arrangements but the same access as every other citizen in our democracy. They also want to be able to go to the polling booth. The hon. Member for Colchester, North missed the point when he said that they were entitled to a postal vote, because they want the same rights as anyone else in a democracy and not different rights.
Mr. Barnes: That is correct. Disabled people should be able to have a choice. If they want a postal vote, they should be able to have one—as can able-bodied people if they are going to be away on holiday or if they feel that that is how they want to act. Do they wish to go to the polling station because they see it as a civic duty? Because many disabled people have had to fight with that disablement and against discrimination in society, they have a heightened sense of civic duty. If they gain appropriate employment, the employer usually gets a good bargain, because disabled people are dedicated to their jobs.
Ms. Glenda Jackson: My hon. Friend has drawn a precise analogy of what I regard to be the central flaw in the Minister's argument about the Bill. The Minister said that he rejected an over-arching concept of providing civil rights for disabled people and that he preferred to approach it in a compartmental way. Able people do not live in compartments; our lives interact, mix and melt. One of the difficulties that disabled people frequently raise with me is the way in which their lives do not meet their needs. Too often they are excluded from those blurred edges where able people constantly meet others as they conduct their lives in the public arena. The over-arching concept, which is intrinsic in the Bill that the Labour party would like to become law, would make that interaction possible for everyone.
Mr. Barnes: I agree with the over-arching concept and its essential nature. There will be a great sense of disappointment today that it has not been taken on board. Perhaps specific provisions should be introduced to meet specific problems in certain areas, just as I am pressing for specific provision now. The logic of acting on any specific provision, however, is that we can then tackle the whole range of problems that disabled people face.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Further to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson), does my hon. Friend agree that what will puzzle and concern disabled people is the impression that has been given about an alternative to the Bill? I am sure that they will ask how and on what time scale that alternative will help them to combat the discrimination from which they suffer. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is the unresolved question that will be in the minds of disabled people after the debate?
Mr. Barnes: This is not the first time that we have debated the issue, because my right hon. Friend introduced a version of the Bill in an earlier Session. The Bill before us has come from another place and there has been time for the Government to take action and for some plans and proposals to be put forward. The Government are attempting to push the Bill aside with promises of various discussions taking place here and there. At the same time, many people feel a growing sense of disillusionment.
1192
Although we have only a few minutes left, it would be valuable if the Minister had second thoughts and gave us the chance to get the Bill through the House after 2.30, so that it can go to Committee for further investigation. Short of that, if the Minister is not willing to consider the over-arching concept, other more limited measures exist. What will be done, for example, about access to polling stations?
Mr. McMaster: Is not it the case that the voices to which we should be really listening are those of the 6·5 million disabled people and their carers who have expressed their strong support for the Bill and their desire for it to be enacted quickly? No arguments that have come from the Government will satisfy those of us who support the Bill or those 6·5 million people.
Mr. Barnes: I was presented with a petition about those 6·5 million people yesterday by the Derbyshire Disabled Forum, which wanted me to pass it to the Prime Minister. It called on the Government to give the Bill fair weather and asked for prime ministerial support. At the very least, the Minister could have reflected that prime ministerial support, but he failed to do so. There is deep concern.
Many favourable comments are made about the Minister and about how he responds in humanitarian terms. However, there have been many problems during the many years that he has been doing his job. There were difficulties about the way in which the disability living allowance fund operated and the establishment of the Benefit Agency. He is now presenting us with a problem by saying that he will not allow the Bill to proceed.
Mr. Skinner: Is not the basic reason why the rotten, lousy Tory Government will not help the disabled that they believe in the philosophy of letting the tall poppies grow tall and of people standing on their own two feet? That means that people who are born disabled cannot compete with those who make it to the top. The Government are prepared to shed crocodile tears by the bucketful because they believe in the market force philosophy of allowing people to tread on anybody else's neck in order to get to the top. The idea of giving rights to minorities, including the disabled, cuts across the Government's philosophy. That is why 250,000 people are not being paid their disability living allowance. The Government blame that on a computer—why is it that the income tax computer always works on time, but the computer for paying out benefits has caused a delay of nine months in payment? That comparison spells out the hypocrisy of this rotten, lousy Government.
Mr. Barnes: Political theorists talk about the vigorous virtues and propound individualism, the family and the notion that everyone should be able to stand on their own two feet—a particularly poignant phrase when one is dealing with disablement. There are a number of disabled people who cannot do that, but who should be able to gain access to everything on the same basis as able-bodied people.
As time is running out, I shall not be able to expand in detail on the subject of access to polling stations and the Spastics Society's report, but I shall mention one of the five key problems that it outlined. It highlighted problems inside the polling stations, including the number of steps, poor lighting and slippery floors—which accounted for 22

1193
per cent. of the problems. It said that there were narrow corridors and doors which people could not get through. Such problems must be taken seriously.
The Bill that I introduced was designed to improve electoral registration techniques, but such improvements are of little use to disabled people if, once they are included on the register, they cannot get into the polling stations to exercise their voting rights. The Minister should take that matter on board. He should carefully examine the report and the other matters raised by disabled organisations. He should hold discussions with the Minister of State, Home Office, with responsibility for electoral registration, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), so that we can perhaps nudge forward.
Although there are important issues before the House, civil rights for disabled people must be considered by the Government. They should have responded to the issues, but they have not. Therefore, we must try to gain something from today's debate—perhaps the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People would like to make a quick intervention now to say that he will at least meet the Minister of State, Home Office to discuss the possibility of making progress.
Mr. Scott: In the few seconds remaining, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I will take it up with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Barnes: I thank the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that anti-discrimination legislation is necessary to ensure equality of opportunity for people with disabilities; and calls for the early enactment of specific provisions relating to public transport and other public and private services, employment and housing.

Disabled Persons (North-West)
2.29 pm
Mr. Harold Elletson: I beg to move,
That this House notes the 173 per cent. real increase in public spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people since 1979; welcomes the extra help made available this year to 300,000 disabled people nationally, many of whom live in the North West; recognises the importance of the promotion by the Government of greater access to new buildings both in the North West of England and nationally, and recognises the need to continue to build a partnership between Government, business and the voluntary sector to improve further the quality of life of disabled people.
I do not want to take up any more of the House's time. I am well aware of the dangers of so doing, given the fact that a similar Bill was talked out last time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down then."] That should not be allowed to happen again.
It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Private Members' Bills

  CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred until Friday 26 March.
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Noting the objection by the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), I have had to nominate 26 March, but I should like to raise a further point of order at a conventient moment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I thank the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the general election last year a similar Bill was before the House and was talked out by a Tory Member who then lost his seat in the election. What has happened today is an utter disgrace. We have debated the disabled for several hours, yet the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) has objected to the Bill. It is time that this hypocrisy was ended—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not a matter for the Chair.

  EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (PARENTAL LEAVE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred til Friday 26 March.

  REGULATION OF WHEEL-CLAMPING BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred til Friday 26 March.

  LICENSING (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read the Third time on Friday 12 March.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 March.

  EUROPEAN UNION (PUBLIC INFORMATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 March.

  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES
  Resolved,
  That the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees), paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) shall apply to the draft Undertaking by the Secretary of State for Scotland with the consent of Her Majesty's Treasury and of Orcargo Limited as if it were a draft statutory instrument; and that the said draft Undertaking be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.[Mr. MacKay.]
  Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While the Select Committee on Procedure will always make its own choices, is there not a case for the Chair to request an examination of this problem? The hon. Member who blocked a private Member's Bill made a personal statement of apology to the House after the event, yet today the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has been blocked again by a single person. Ought not the Select Committee to look at this disgraceful case? Disabled people feel badly cheated. Is there anything that the Chair can do to persuade the Select Committee?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for nearly 30 years. With his experience, he knows the procedures of the House and where representations can be made. I am bound by the procedures as they exist.
  Mr. Tom Cox: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You and your colleagues in the Chair repeatedly tell us that you are the guardians of our rights as Back-Bench Members. When there has been adequate debate on a measure which has widespread support and for which there is a general willingness that it should go into Committee, but the Government Whip, acting under instructions, has deliberately attempted to kill it off, to where do we go for protection as Back-Bench Members—or do we not have any protection?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has the protection of the Chair under the procedures of the House as they exist, and he knows that it is up to the House to change those procedures if it so chooses. I am duty bound to enforce the procedures as they exist.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Labour Members blocked item No. 7 on today's Order Paper—the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill —in a similar way—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot now make a plea for, or a speech on, that Bill.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We seek your protection. The Minister, in the debate on the motion, clearly said that the Government would instruct the Whip to say "Object" even after a long debate in which not one hon. Member said that he would vote against the Bill. Should we not throw ourselves on your mercy, as you are the Deputy Speaker, and ask you to ensure that the Minister says that he is the person who is objecting to the Bill rather than the poor Whip, who will take the rap?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members know full well that I am not responsible for what any hon. Member says. I cannot take responsibility for matters of policy.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that, when an hon. Member objects at this stage of the private Members' Bill procedure, technically he is objecting to the Bill being given a Second or Third Reading without debate? When a Bill has received a whole day's debate, whether in this House or another, and it is held up by a single person objecting to it, is there any way whereby that hon. Member—he is a Member of Parliament and has been voted for in his constituency, whatever other office he may hold—can tell the House why he is doing so? If he cannot do that, is there any way in which his reason can be made public outside the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for many years, and he is aware that this morning we debated a motion, not a Bill.
  Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to your ruling. I think that you should initiate a full inquiry into the procedures for private Members' Bills on Friday afternoons when we come here either to object or agree to the Second Reading of a Bill. I ask you to do that in the interests of Back Benchers, who rarely have the opportunity to promote private Members' Bills. When they have that opportunity, the Government then try to stall a Bill's progress. We object strongly when, at the end of a debate on such an emotive subject as the rights of disabled people, which has gone on from 9.30 am to 2.30 pm, the House cannot come to a decision. In all probability, the Bill would have been supported by all hon. Members; nobody disagreed with it. Had it got on to the statute book, it would have introduced into legislation important rights for disabled people.
  If the House is not prepared to act on behalf of disabled people, all right hon. and hon. Members should be in the Chamber on a Friday to object to all the other Bills that might be before the House but are less deserving of finding their way on to the statute book than a measure that would protect the disabled. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask Madam Speaker to conduct an inquiry to ascertain whether we can properly resolve the issue and enable the House, at the end of a Friday sitting, to have its way and to make the decision it wishes to make.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member, too, has been a Member of the House for many years. He must know that the issue that he has raised is one for the Procedure Committee. If hon. Members feel strongly about the matter, as they clearly do, they should write in their
  1198
  numbers to that Committee to make the point. I shall be happy to have a copy of whatever submission they make. I hope that we can now leave that matter.
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this a new point of order?
  Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They are all new, are they not?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not necessarily.
  Mr. Skinner: For the past 23 years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have heard you and others tell Back-Bench Members on a Friday that they can go to the Procedure Committee and, somehow or other, get these matters resolved. Let us talk in this place as if we are grown-ups. The truth is that the Procedure Committee has refused to do anything to change the system whereby a Government Whip can object to a Bill by using one word, and one word only. By that means he is able to kill off a Bill that would help 6·5 million inhabitants of this country.
  We know that the Procedure Committee has done nothing. It is no use talking like belly warns and saying, "Go to the Procedure Committee." We know that nothing is happening. I think that something should be done. Members who are now in the Chamber, headed by my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), should make their proposals clear to the Procedure Committee. It would be helpful, Mr. Morris, if you were to give us a chuck-on —a helping hand. It would be helpful if you were prepared to join us and to say that the procedure should be changed. It is not good enough for us to keep complaining and for the occupant of the Chair to say, "Go to the Procedure Committee."
  The result is that for 14 years or more this Tory Government have been stopping the disabled from enjoying the benefits that would flow from the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Let us make a fresh start. Instead of telling us what to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why do you not—you are an elected Member—join in the campaign to stop a daft routine that is used to attack many of our constituents every Friday?
  Mr. Michael Jopling: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall talk while wearing two hats: I shall speak as a former Government Whip who perhaps killed more private Members' Bills on the Floor of the House than any other Member who is now present and as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, which reported almost exactly a year ago.
  I wish to put the matter into perspective. When the Committee was set up, I thought that it would receive many complaints about the way in which private Members' Bills were handled. I think that I am right in saying that virtually no suggestions were put to the Committee by hon. Members, and I and the members of it wrote to every Member to ask for their views on the sittings of the House. It would have been extremely relevant to raise the issue with which we are now concerned. As I have said, virtually no one wrote to us to propose changes in the handling of private Members' Bills. Let us remember that.
  Mr. Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that the water is becoming rather muddied. The Chair has a responsibility to protect Members. Surely it has a responsibility also to protect the ability of Members properly to represent their constituents. The situation with which we are faced on a Friday afternoon is not something that we want to take to a Committee. We want it to be known that when someone, say a Whip, shouts, "Object" behind his hand, our constituents, including disabled people, know that the order went from the Prime Minister to the Minister to the Whip. The procedure should be above board and clear, not hidden in a subterfuge, as we have seen this afternoon.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is certainly not a point of order for the Chair.

Holiday Hotels
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
2.44 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this important subject in an Adjournment debate, and delighted that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is to reply.
I am privileged to represent Eastbourne, along with Willingdon and Polegate. In large measure due to the foresight of successive Dukes of Devonshire, Eastbourne is an elegant and gracious resort which has retained its distinctive character and charm up to the present day. The seventh Duke, in particular, had a great influence on the planned development of the town.
Eastbourne has truly been described as conceived
"by a gentleman for gentlemen",
and as the
"Empress of Watering Places".
It was voted top resort only a couple of years ago, and in 1992 attracted some 2·;25 million visitor nights and 1·35 visitor day visits. Total visitor spending was £95 million. It was rightly described recently by my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage as
"one of the country's premier tourist resorts".
The purpose of this debate is to highlight a problem that affects a great number of resorts in this country. In some places, it has already had a major effect. As I have already made clear, Eastbourne is a quality resort. The local council, my constituents and I intend to keep it that way.
Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, any material change in the use of buildings or land is deemed to be "development", which must be preceded by a grant of permission. However, that requirement may be eliminated in certain cases by the Secretary of State for the Environment. He is authorised by that Act to issue a statutory instrument, known as a class use order, which defines certain classes of use of buildings and land. Thereafter, if a landlord proposes to change the use of a property, but the proposed use falls within the same class of use as the existing use, the change is deemed not to constitute "development" and is accordingly exempted from the need to obtain planning permission from the local authority.
In simple terms, the order has the effect of streamlining the operation of the planning legislation where a specific change in use leaves the use class unaltered. The implication is, according to the Department of the Environment circular 13/1986, that the change is
"unlikely to have planning impact".
A few years ago, the Government expressed their intention to broaden certain use classes to reduce the number of classes to a minimum, while retaining specific control over changes of use that substantially affect the environment or other uses, or that damage amenity. Under the resulting Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 (SI 1764) there are two categories relevant to this debate:
C1—HOTELS AND HOSTELS:
Use as an hotel, boarding or guest house, or as an hostel where, in each case, no significant element of care is provided.
C2—RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS:
Use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care …

1201
Use as a hospital or nursing home.
Use as a residential school, college or training centre.
Thus, the use classes distinguish between a hostel without a significant amount of care and a hostel with a significant amount of care, rather than between a hotel and a hostel.
The previous legislation was the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1972—SI 1385. The relevant classes in that order were as follows:
CLASS XI
Use as a boarding or guest house, or an hotel providing sleeping accommodation.
CLASS XIV
Use as a home or institution providing for the boarding, care and maintenance of children, old people or persons under disability",
—and so on.
In planning law, the definition of the word "hotel" normally includes the notion of a transient population. As was stated in the case of Mayflower Cambridge v Secretary of State for the Environment in 1975
"The basic feature of a hotel, as the word is used in the English language, is that it contains a transient population because it is there to serve people travelling who require short stays only."
On the other hand, a hostel has been taken to mean a building in which people either live or stay and which provides communal facilities. I cite the case of Commercial and Residential Property Development Co. v Secretary of State for the Environment and Kensington and Chelsea Royal Borough 1982. There can be little doubt from a legal point of view that use as a hotel has consistently been regarded as different from use as a hostel. Under the previous rules—that is, prior to 1987—planning permission was certainly required. It must follow that class C1 includes within its ambit a range of different uses of particular properties.
The practical problem is that since the introduction of class C1 a significant number of resorts throughout the country have been powerless to prevent what they regarded as wholly unsuitable conversions of hotel accommodation into hostels. This may occur for more than one reason. A landlord, particularly in recessionary times, may feel that he will be better off by converting his hotel or guest house into a hostel, and seeking DSS residents. At least, he may consider that his income will be guaranteed by the welfare state. Sometimes a hotel is obliged to close and is then bought by a charity or similar organisation for conversion into a hostel for people with a range of social difficulties.
The British Resorts Association has been at the forefront of raising this problem. I can do no better than quote from a recent letter written to me by Mrs. Linda Jones, the BRA's administrator:
"Whilst unemployment in many resorts is already at a high level, the use of tourist accommodation to house the homeless, especially the homeless from other areas, reduces the availability of good class tourist accommodation and downgrades the amenities of the Resort, thus leading to greater unemployment … this is a serious problem, as a continual raising of the numbers of unemployed in a resort area merely creates a downward spiral for a resort in that it discourages holiday makers thus making even more people redundant."
I can only endorse those sentiments. The "downward spiral" of which Mrs. Jones speaks is already painfully evident in some resorts around our country. The BRA has kindly provided me with correspondence showing that a
1202
considerable number of resorts are worried about this problem, including Margate, Blackpool, Bridlington, Great Yarmouth, Newquay, Ilfracombe, Weston-super-Mare and Weymouth, to name but a few.
The town of Margate and Thanet district council have been particularly energetic in bringing to light the inadequacies of the use classes order. Last August, they produced an excellent report on the problem, called "B & B Alert".
I shall describe two recent cases in my constituency, and I can provide my hon. Friend with full particulars should he so wish. In one of the cases, a pleasant street with some successful hotels along its length is located in a "tourist accommodation area", as designated in the draft borough plan. By way of parenthesis, I should remark that the purpose of designating areas of Eastbourne in this way was to reduce the loss of financially viable tourist accommodation in the town. In a previous appeal, the Secretary of State also recognised that this street provides tourist accommodation which is well related to the seaside, recreation facilities and conference centres, and that such accommodation should be retained.
Two hotels in the street were found on investigation by the council to provide permanent accommodation. The majority of tenants in the properties were in receipt of state benefits. It was felt that absentee landlords provided inadequate management, and in one of the properties the owners had appointed one of the tenants as their "manager". The council received many complaints from local residents about the activities of the tenants in the two properties. Their activities included loud music and shouting, often at unsocial hours, anti-social behaviour including making threatening and insulting comments to residents and tourists, and a deterioration in the appearance of the properties. The council's officers and the local police became frequent visitors to these hostels. Local residents and businesses banded together to form an association to combat what they called the "deteriorating quality of life" in the street.
Naturally, council officers had to draw the relevant committee's attention to the provisions of class C1 and the failure to distinguish between hotels and hostels. In due course, enforcement notices were served on the owners of the properties, both of whom have appealed to the Secretary of State.
The other case I shall recite concerns a pleasant, small street just off the sea front. Many of the properties are small hotels and guest houses, pretty and well maintained, with owners who work hard to give a good service at a reasonable price. The dominant property in the street is a hotel which unfortunately had to close down. It remained empty for some time. It was then bought by the Carr Gomm Society, an apparently reputable and well-run charity. It intends to reopen it as a hostel. It is perhaps instructive to quote from the society's allocation policy:
"Applicants will be suffering loneliness and may have lost or never had their own homes. They may have suffered from psychiatric or addictive illness; from physical or mental handicap or from other personal problems; some may be ex-offenders."
The local residents were horrified and complained both to the local council and to me. Council officers investigated the matter, and particularly the extent of care that would be provided for the residents. Apart from a resident support worker, it appeared that there would not be a significant element of care. The council concluded that the

1203
proposed hostel came within class C1 and that no planning permission was required. In other words, it was powerless to act. This is so even though the proposed use is clearly contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the draft borough plan.
I have met the local residents affected. They are neither narrow-minded nor selfish. This is not a question of NIMBYism. The aims and objectives of the charity involved are worthy and important, but that is far from being the point at issue here. I have already mentioned that the site concerned is the dominant site in this particular small road. It is bound to affect the character of this pleasant little community. There are other locations in the area where the hostel would be less obtrusive.
I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have received many representations not only from the BRA, but from individual resorts around the country. Some of them may feel reticent about raising the matter too publicly, fearing some effect on their local tourist industry. Therefore, it is perhaps appropriate that I should raise the matter on behalf of Eastbourne, which I am pleased to say has not yet been affected to anything like the degree that other resorts have. The matter is undoubtedly one of wide concern.
We have had well over five years in which to monitor the effectiveness or otherwise of the use classes order. That is ample time to be able to get a fair assessment of whether class C1 is working, and I have to say that there is mounting evidence that it is not working. There can be no doubt that in reality there is a significant difference between a hotel and a hostel, and that can and should be recognised in planning law. A sub-division should be established of C1a and C1b.
Are there other ways in which to address the same problem? It is true that local authorities have powers to control houses in multiple occupation—HMOs—including the setting up of registration schemes under section 346 of the Housing Act 1985. Eastbourne borough council has operated an informatory and regulatory HMO registration scheme since 1988. The council also applies HMO management regulations where appropriate. However, neither of these legal devices is appropriate for true holiday accommodation. If they were applied to true hotels, they would irrevocably convert the land use from holiday accommodation to houses in multiple occupation. This is the very result which councils such as my own wish to avoid.
As a final fall-back position, it has been suggested by the authorities that this is really a question about the identity of residents, which cannot be a planning matter. However, I firmly believe that the problem of including hostels with guest houses and hotels directly relates to land use. The existing C1 class allows land use for holiday accommodation to become converted into land use for properties in multiple occupation. By definition, holiday guests are transient, having a permanent address elsewhere. Tenants of HMOs are permanent with no other home. I shall be very interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend, who, I know, takes a close and informed interest in such matters. I hope very much that he will institute a full review into the working of the use classes order 1987, with a view to bringing such changes of use fully into the planning process.
2.59 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has expressed his concerns and those of his constituents about the effects on the character of Eastbourne of the establishment of certain hostels and the increasing use of hotels by housing benefit claimants.
My hon. Friend clearly believes that those concerns can best be met through changes in the planning system. It may help if I make it clear that the purpose of the planning system is to regulate the use and development of land in the public interest. Many uses of land are interchangeable, because their impact on the local environment and amenity are broadly similar.
The use classes order groups together comparable uses and confers the freedom to change between them without planning permission. The order in general is designed to help relieve local planning authorities of the burden of having to determine a large number of unnecessary applications by excluding from the statutory definition of "development"—and hence from the need for planning control—changes of use within the same class.
The order is essentially an instrument of flexibility which enables the planning system to respond to changing patterns of demand for land uses. It helps to minimise the burden on property owners and planning authorities alike and is at the vanguard of deregulation of planning controls. It is, as my hon. Friend made clear, a device for ensuring that we can streamline planning.
Class C1 comprises use as a hotel, boarding or guest house, or as a hostel where no element of care is provided. Hostels include probation and bail hostels. The flexibility that enables hotels to become hostels without the need for planning applications is particularly beneficial to small hoteliers because it allows them to adapt more readily to changing market trends.
The introduction of the present order in 1987 followed extensive consultations about changes needed to reflect a different environment since the predecessor order of 1972. It is important to note, however, that the changes to what is now class C1 were minimal. Other than to define what was meant by "care", so as to distinguish between classes C1—hotels and hostels—and C2—residential institutions —the grouping remained the same as in 1972. Hotels and hostels have been within the same use class—and there has not been a requirement for planning permission in respect of a proposed change of use from a hotel to a hostel—for a quarter of a century.
Mr. Waterson: When I checked this very point with my borough council's chief planning officer this morning, he assured me that, before 1987, the borough council required a planning application to be made and adjudicated upon in respect of any proposed change of use from a hotel to a hostel and that he understood that that was also the practice of other authorities. What is more, if that were not the case, one wonders why it was necessary to change the rules to exclude unnecessary applications.
Mr. Baldry: As that point goes to the nub of my hon. Friend's concerns, let me deal with it. The use class orders generally were updated; it was not just the C1 class. Clearly, some use class orders were changed more than others. As regards the C1 order, what was done by way of clarification was to define what was meant by "care",

1205
which was clearly important. Otherwise, there was no change in the order. If any local authorities were requiring planning applications in respect of the conversion of a hotel to a hostel before 1987, on the face of it, that would have been ultra vires. Certainly, looking at the 1972 order and the present order, it is clear that they remain the same. Hotels and hostels were within the same use class and no change was brought about by the new order in 1987.
The use classes order is concerned only with considerations material to planning. It is the nature of the use of the land which is relevant. Land use is not about social, ethical or moral issues. The age, occupation and social background of residents are not material planning considerations. It would serve no useful purpose in land use terms to require a property owner to apply for planning permission in order to accommodate residents of a particular status. There could be no justification for differentiating between different sorts of people who find themselves living in hostels. To insist that hoteliers make a planning application before accommodating certain clients would place an undue burden on attempts to market rooms flexibly.
As I said earlier, it is the Government's view that hotel and hostel uses have essentially similar effects in land use terms. It is also worth bearing in mind that the provisions of the use classes order in their present form allow those premises that have changed to hostel accommodation to revert to use as a hotel without further consent when there are changes in demand.
The effects of the use classes order were the subject of a report commissioned by my Department from independent researchers, Wooton Jeffreys Consultants, which was published in 1991. The researchers found that, in general, planning authorities welcomed the clarification that the 1987 order brought. They also made a revealing comment about the C1 class, noting that in traditional resort towns
"the hotel trade has been affected by changing patterns in holidays, with a decline in visitor numbers for other than short stay trips."
Where traditional locations are no longer popular holiday destinations, hoteliers will clearly want to consider and seek new markets. I appreciate the concerns of local residents about preserving the character of family holiday resorts. My hon. Friend has put that point extremely well.
In principle, applications for new hotels are the same as any other development proposals and are subject to the same development control procedures as any other planning application. It is, therefore, open to local planning authorities to consider whether to impose conditions regulating the development or use of any new hotel or hostel. But, in doing so, they must guard against placing unjustifiable burdens on the applicant.
The guidance issued by my Department makes it quite clear that, in order to be acceptable, conditions must be necessary, relevant to planning and the development in question, enforceable, precise and reasonable. The identity of the persons who will occupy premises is rarely a planning consideration. Conditions restricting occupancy to a particular person or people who meet certain criteria should therefore be used only when special planning considerations can be clearly demonstrated.
Occasionally, it may be acceptable to limit the use of land for a particular purpose to certain seasons of the year,
1206
but, in general, conditions of that sort will be acceptable only if they apply to premises or sites that are clearly unsuitable for permanent occupation.
Alternatively, it may be reasonable to impose a condition specifying that certain buildings may be used only as holiday accommodation. Again, that is likely to be acceptable only in exceptional cases, for example, where there is a need to reconcile the demands of the holiday market with policies to protect the countryside.
I turn to my hon. Friend's concerns about benefit claimants in bed-and-breakfast accommodation because that is part of the thrust of his concerns. The Government have made it clear for some time that local authorities should seek to minimise the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is why, in our revised code of guidance to local authorities on homelessness legislation, my Department advises:
"It is essential that authorities should explore all alternatives to bed and breakfast hotels or other specialised bed and breakfast establishments, and use this type of accommodation only as a last resort".
Local authorities have made some real progress in reducing their use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Latest available figures for England show a fall of 23 per cent. I am glad to say that, instead, authorities are making greater use of other forms of temporary accommodation —in particular, housing on lease or licence from the private sector. So I reassure my hon. Friend that we are keen that everything should be done to reduce to the absolute minimum the use by any local authority of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It is an expensive and ineffective way of meeting the needs of the statutory homeless.
For housing benefit purposes, it makes no difference whether a customer lives in a hotel, hostel or any other form of rented accommodation. The important factor is the amount of rent that is paid and the personal and financial circumstances of the recipient. I am aware that some people are worried that housing benefit is meeting excessive rents for sub-standard accommodation.
I am aware that some seaside hoteliers and guest house owners are letting their accommodation out to recipients of benefit on a long-term basis and that there are worries that the anti-social behaviour of some occupants is damaging the tourist trade. My hon. Friend has expressed those anxieties today. I appreciate those concerns, but I am sure that my hon. Friend and others would agree that it would be wrong to force people to live in certain places or certain types of accommodation. To do so would restrict freedom of movement, which forms an essential component of the labour market.
However, we have a duty to ensure that the social security system is not exploited. So local authorities, which administer the housing benefit scheme, have powers to prevent abuse. Benefit may be refused if it is felt that a tenancy has been created with the express intention of taking advantage of the housing benefit scheme. Local authorities also have powers to restrict the level of rent on which benefit is calculated if people occupy accommodation that is either larger or more expensive than is required. Vulnerable groups such as the elderly or families with responsibility for dependent children are exempt from this restriction unless it is reasonable to expect them to move to suitable alternative accommodation.
Local authorities are, naturally, best placed to know their local housing market and to assess benefit levels,

1207
taking into account individual circumstances. We encourage local authorities to take a positive attitude and fully to exercise their judgment in the matters in which they have the most scope to do so, with the twin aim of avoiding excessive benefit spending, while ensuring that help is available to those people who have genuine difficulties in paying their rent.
The other group that may have caused anxiety to, if not my hon. Friend, other Members for resort towns, is occupants of bail and probation hostels. I can understand that local residents may be worried about the change of use of an hotel to an approved bail or probation hostel. The purpose of approved hostels is to provide an enhanced level of supervision to enable certain bailees and offenders to remain under supervision in the community.
Hostels are placed in ordinary communities so that residents can maintain their contacts within the community and with their families. Hostel residents are also encouraged to continue or seek employment, or to attend training courses or treatment facilities in the community. There are some 113 bail hostels and probation hostels in England and Wales.
Under recently issued standards for the supervision of offenders in the community, hostels are required to
1208
provide a "structured and supportive environment". This includes promoting a responsible and law-abiding lifestyle, including respect for others; encouraging and enabling residents to use facilities available in the local community and, in doing so, to develop their ability to become self-reliant; and establishing and maintaining good relations with neighbours and the community in general. Indeed, if someone on bail behaved in an anti-social way, that would almost certainly put him in breach of his bail conditions and he could be brought back before the court. Approved hostels provide a supportive and structured environment within which residents can be supervised effectively. If there are concerns about them, they are more management concerns than planning concerns.
We have undertaken to look at the use classes order again in the coming years. I assure my hon. Friend that his anxieties and those of other hon. Members who represent resort towns will be fully considered, although they will have to relate to planning matters in terms of the nature and use of land.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Three o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much the numbers of unemployed claimants have changed since June 1987 in(a) London constituencies and (b) constituencies where a colliery has closed in the past five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on colliery closures by parliamentary constituency is available only for the financial years from 1987–88 to 1991–92.

  In the London parliamentary constituencies claimant unemployment has risen by 109,603 since June 1987. This compares with a fall of 28,134 in the parliamentary constituencies where a colliery has closed.

  These figures are on the unadjusted basis and are therefore affected by both seasonal influences and by changes in the coverage of the count.

  Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the contracts awarded by her Department to(a) Coopers and Lybrand management consultants, (b) Touche Ross management consultants, (c) Price Waterhouse management consultants, (d) Ernst and Young management consultants, (e) Chrichton Roberts Ltd., (f) KPMG management consultants and (g) Leopold Joseph management consultants, with the total cost of the contracts with each contractor, for (i) the past 12 months and (ii) 1991–92.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information in the precise form requested is available only at disproportionate cost. However, I am able to provide some limited information relating to contracts for 1992–93.

  Coopers and Lybrand Management Consultants

  Two contracts for Management of Change seminars following a review of the Department's Training Enterprise and Education Directorate.

  Five contracts related to case studies and evaluation for learning initiatives and aspects of training.

  A socio-economic overview towards a co-ordinated strategy for the Department's Office for Wales.

  A review of the implications of contracting out to Careers Service providers.

  Three contracts related to market testing in some branches of the Department.

  Touche-Ross Management Consultants

  Advice on aspects of market testing for part of the Department

  Two contracts related to dissemination of information for flexible and open learning.

  Price Waterhouse Management Consultants

  Four Contracts related to some organisational issues in the Department's Training, Enterprise and Education Directorate, the Employment Service and Training Enterprise Councils (TECs).

  Consultancy on tax issues arising from budget proposals

  720
  Ernst and Young Management Consultants

  Three contracts related to strategy reviews and evaluation for information systems and TECs.

  Four contracts related to market testing in some branches of the Department.

  Chrichton Roberts Ltd.

  None.

  KPMG Management Consultants

  A review of the training development arrangements in the Department's Training, Enterprise and Education Directorate.

  A feasibility study on output related funding for TECs.

  Two contracts related to market testing in two divisions of the Department.

  A study of the distribution of the Health and Safety Executive publications.

  A review of the roles and functions SEOs/business managers in the Department.

  Two contracts for production and dissemination of extensions for manuals on key skills for the training of trainers.

  Presentation of a training workshop on agencies.

  Consultancy on a corporate plan for the Department's staff development branch.

  Leopold Joseph Management Consultants

  None.

  Details of costs cannot be disclosed for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many contracts for consultancies were awarded by his Department over(a) the last 12 months and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Restart Scheme
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people have taken part in the Restart scheme in the Durham city area; and how many went on to full-time employment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 26 February 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question about Restart. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  It may help if I explain the scope and purpose of the Restart programme which was launched nationally in 1986. All people who have been unemployed for six months or more are asked to attend regular, six monthly, interviews with one of my Client Advisers. The aim of the programme is to ensure that all long-term unemployed people know about and get access to the employment and training opportunities available locally to them.
  At each Restart interview the client will discuss with the adviser their individual situation and circumstances with the aim of reaching an agreement on the best way to return to work. This could be directly by submission to a job vacancy or else through a course of action which will improve their chances of finding work. For example training, a place in a Jobclub, the opportunity of self employment or a place on a Restart course which they can attend at any time. If people

  721
  remain unemployed for two years or more and decline or fail to take up an offer of help at a Restart interview they are then required to attend a Restart Course.
  We collect statistics on the number of Restart interviews and the outcomes of those interviews through our Area Offices. It is not, therefore possible to provide the figures you have requested for Durham City. However, for the period between April 1992 to January 1993 we conducted 28,525 Restart interviews in the County Durham Area and as a result 1,391 people subsequently started on a Restart Course.
  Restart Courses arc not simply about applying for jobs. Research has shown that many people suffer a loss of confidence and motivation after a long spell of unemployment. The Restart Course, which normally lasts one week, aims to help such people set new and realistic goals for themselves, to feel confident about achieving them and to develop an action plan. This will help them apply for jobs or other employment or training opportunities to help them back into work. A Restart Course should be seen as a stepping stone often a very necesary one towards more help.
  Restart Courses have a proven track record of helping people. During the year April 1992 to December 1992, some 78,000 people nationally completed a Restart Course and of these 70,000, 90 per cent. went on to apply for a job or were referred to another opportunity. The figures for people who attended courses in Durham City are not available. However, in the County Durham Area for the period April 1992 to January 1993 1,289 people completed a Restart Course and of these 1,211,94 per cent. applied for a job or were referred to another opportunity.
  We do not collect regular information on the numbers of people who subsequently start jobs. However, a recent national survey showed that 9.4 per cent. of the respondents were either in a job or waiting to start one. Many more had, of course, gone on to join another programme such as Jobclub or training.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administrative Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this reply in the Library of the House.

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  England and Wales

  236

  269

  299

  342

  377

  Scotland

  234

  210

  237

  253

  268

  Northern Ireland

  181

  185

  178

  223

  246

  Separate figures for England and for Wales are not available.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Civil legal aid certificates

  England and Wales

  67·1

  63·8

  61·7

  69·2

  75·2

  Scotland

  57·2

  69·1

  69·3

  76·3

  69·4

  Northern Ireland

  74·0

  77·0

  78·0

  76·0

  85·0

  Criminal legal aid orders

  England and Wales

  91·6

  92·3

  92·7

  93·1

  92·8

  Scotland (summary proceedings only)

  86·7

  92·6

  88·7

  92·5

  91·2

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Northern Ireland (grants by magistrates' courts only)

  96·7

  96·8

  97·0

  97·6

  98·1

  Separate figures for England and for Wales are not available. Criminal legal aid in Scotland is granted in the first instance by the courts and in appeal cases by the Scottish Legal Aid Board. In Northern Ireland all criminal

  Summerfield Ltd.
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when Summerfield Ltd. was granted a licence as an employment agency.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Summerfield Limited has not applied for a licence to operate as an employment agency under the Employment Agencies Act 1973.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Divorce
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the timetable for the implementation of the Law Commission's proposals to reform the law on divorce.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has no immediate plans for implementation of the Law Commission's recommendations for reform of divorce law. He continues to welcome views on these recommendations and will consult further before any measures on this subject are introduced.

  Legal Aid and Advice
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average payment for legal aid and advice during each of the last five years in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The average payment for legal aid and advice during each of the last five years was as follows:

  applications for legal aid were successful in each of the last five years in (a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of applications for legal aid granted in each of the last five years, in percentage terms, were as follows:

  legal aid is granted by the courts. The information requested is held centrally in Scotland and in Northern Ireland only in respect of applications and grants of legal aid at summary level.
  723
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average expenditure per head of the population on legal aid in each of the last five years in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Average expenditure per head of the population on legal aid in each of the last five years was as follows:

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  England and Wales

  8·85

  9·69

  11·51

  13·88

  18·50

  Scotland

  8·46

  10·61

  10·59

  12·59

  15·27

  Northern Ireland

  5·57

  7·77

  7·38

  8·24

  9·47

  Separate figures for England and for Wales are not available.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of the legal aid granted in R.v. Ward; and what was the value of the overseas assets shown by Mr. Ward.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The cost to legal aid of this case has yet to be determined. Information as to personal means is confidential.

  County Court Judgments
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to inform hon. Members and the general public of the conclusions he reaches after his evaluation of the question of county court judgments carrying interest has been completed.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As is the usual practice of the Lord Chancellor's Department, any proposals arising out of the July 1991 initiatives to extend the provision of interest on county court judgments would be widely circulated and views sought from interested parties including the legal profession; county court user groups; advice agencies; business organisations and the judiciary. Again, following our usual practice, respondents to consultation would be informed directly of the outcome of the consultation exercise before implementation and there would be widespread general publicity.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Textiles
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what studies were carried out by his Department into the market for polyester textiles in the United Kingdom and the EC prior to authorisation of financial assistance for the Indonesian textile group Texmaco; and what were the conclusions of these studies.

  Mr. Atkins
  In February 1991 and again in February/March 1992, IDB carried out specific research into the European market for micro-denier polyester fabrics. These studies established that:

  1. the world textile market is expected to show consistent growth through to the year 2000; and

  2. there was an excess of imports over exports in the European Community market for micro denier polyester fabrics, the products which the company proposes to manufacture in Northern Ireland.

  724
  It was concluded, therefore, that with a competitive cost base in Northern Ireland the company could achieve its forcast share of the European Community market, primarily at the expense of imports.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of planning applications received in the last 12 months for each district council in Northern Ireland; how many of these were approved by the planning department; and how many were rejected.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information relates to the number of applications received and the number determined in the period in question and is as follows:

  Period January 1992-December 1992

  District Council Area

  Number of applications received

  Number of applications approved

  Number of applications refused

  Antrim

  563

  503

  61

  Ards

  859

  782

  133

  Armagh

  818

  844

  49

  Ballymena

  750

  715

  53

  Ballymoney

  327

  336

  8

  Banbridge

  510

  471

  26

  Belfast

  1,777

  1,880

  142

  Carrickfergus

  284

  1269

  138

  Castlereagh

  390

  342

  42

  Coleraine

  757

  718

  31

  Cookstown

  509

  437

  42

  Craigavon

  809

  683

  88

  Derry

  932

  900

  60

  Down

  1,054

  906

  91

  Dungannon

  715

  632

  47

  Fermanagh

  1,152

  1,027

  69

  Lame

  336

  305

  34

  Limavady

  417

  388

  26

  Lisburn

  1,060

  932

  171

  Magherafelt

  635

  578

  74

  Moyle

  193

  210

  10

  Newry and Mourne

  1,278

  1,176

  58

  Newtownabbey

  533

  477

  40

  North Down

  643

  581

  62

  Omagh

  749

  688

  46

  Strabane

  469

  442

  41

  Total

  18,519

  117,222

  11,542

  1 Excludes December Figures.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many requests were received by the planning department for article 31 inquiries in the last 12 months for each district council in Northern Ireland; and how many of their requests were accepted.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1992 six requests were received from Castlereagh borough council and in one instance article 31 was applied and one was received from Belfast city council which was refused.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many appeals were made to the planning directorate for each district council in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months; and on how many occasions the planning directorate supported the council's view.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information is as follows:
  725

  Period January 1992—December 1992

  District council area

  Number of appeals

  Number supporting councils view

  Antrim

  3

  1

  Ards

  6

  —

  Armagh

  2

  —

  Ballymena

  15

  —

  Ballymoney

  2

  —

  Banbridge

  1

  —

  Belfast

  2

  —

  Carrickfergus

  5

  —

  Castlereagh

  5

  2

  Coleraine

  —

  —

  Cookstown

  1

  —

  Craigavon

  2

  —

  Derry

  2

  —

  Down

  —

  —

  Dungannon

  8

  —

  Fermanagh

  10

  —

  Larne

  2

  —

  Limavady

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  15

  1

  Magherafelt

  21

  3

  Moyle

  1

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  1

  —

  Newtownabbey

  1

  —

  North Down

  7

  3

  Omagh

  12

  1

  Strabane

  3

  —

  TOTAL

  1127

  11

  1 A decision has yet to be made in respect of 23 of these appeals

  Electricity Disconnections
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of incidents where domestic electricity supply has been disconnected in each constituency in Northern Ireland, in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Atkins
  Northern Ireland Electricity does not hold information on electricity supply disconnections by parliamentary constituency.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of incidents where domestic water supply has been disconnected in each constituency in Northern Ireland, in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Atkins
  The water supplied to a property which is used solely for domestic purposes is not metered and is not subject to disconnection for non-payment of an account.

  The water supply to a property which has mixed domestic and other use may be metered and would be subject to disconnection where an account remains unpaid.

  A number of metered supplies which include a domestic content have been disconnected during 1992. Details are shown in the table.

  DOE (NI) water executive division and sub-division

  Number of disconnections

  Northern

  Coleraine

  4

  Ballymena

  6

  Cookstown

  1

  Antrim

  6

  Magherafelt

  1

  726

  DOE (NI) water executive division and sub-division

  Number of disconnections

  Total

  18

  Southern

  Armagh

  7

  Dungannon

  11

  Craigavon

  2

  Newry

  1

  Total

  21

  Eastern

  Lisburn

  7

  Downpatrick

  5

  Total

  12

  Western

  Enniskillen

  2

  Omagh

  16

  Total

  18

  Grant total

  69

  Information on disconnections is not held by parliamentary constituency and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Money Lenders
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to assess the extent of problems being created by the existence of illegal money lenders; and what steps are being taken to combat these problems.

  Mr. Atkins
  In Northern Ireland the Department of Economic Development's trading standards branch shares enforcement responsibility for the Consumer Credit Act 1974 with the Director General of Fair Trading.

  The branch actively enforces this Act throughout the Province and takes appropriate enforcement action where breaches of the legislation are detected and supporting evidence is available.

  Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many contracts for consultancies were awarded by his Department over(a) the last 12 months and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 24 February 1993]: A total of 852 contracts for consultancies were awarded from April 1991 to March 1992 and 491, excluding figures for the Department of Economic Development which are not yet available, from April 1992 to date.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many incidents involving the reportable release of radiation from British Nuclear Fuels' Sellafield site have taken place since 1979; and what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to improve(a) safety and (b) speed of reporting of accidents at Sellafield to the appropriate authorities.
  727
  Mr. Maclean
  Current criteria for reporting incidents at nuclear sites were most recently revised by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy on 30 April 1987,Official Report, column 203.

  Information about reportable incidents prior to November 1986 is not immediately available. Since then, my Department has recorded four reportable incidents involving off-site releases of radioactivity from the BNF Sellafield site. A statement of reportable incidents at nuclear sites is published quarterly by the nuclear installations inspectorate, and copies are held in the House Library.

  (a) Responsibility for the safety of nuclear licensed sites is a matter for the operator. The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate ensures compliance with nuclear site licence conditions, and has a range of measures available to rectify and failure to meet the high standards of safety it requires.

  (b) The Goodlad criteria, which are reviewed periodically, stipulate that incidents shall be reported within 24 hours.

  Plague Pits
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the location of plague pits for buried corpses in urban areas.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England holds records on archaeological sites which include some details of burial sites of plague victims. Any such sites discovered in the course of archaeological excavations must be reported to the Health and Safety Executive.

  Community Charge
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost of administration in percentage terms of the community charge to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Charging authorities in England budgeted to collect about £23.5 billion of community charges in total for the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93. The estimated cost to authorities of collecting this sum is about £1.4 billion, which is 6 per cent. of the estimated yield.

  Departmental Publicity
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the actual expenditure on departmental publicity to planning matters for each year since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  The information in respect of publicity relating to planning matters, excluding staff costs, is as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure £

  1987–88

  118,000

  1988–89

  51,000

  1989–90

  104,000

  1990–91

  65,000

  1991–92

  122,000

  1992–93

  1143,000

  1 Forecast.

  728
  It is not possible to identify related staff costs. Expenditure figures for 1979–80 to 1986–87 are not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Floating Helipads
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the provisions governing the granting of planning permission for floating helipads on rivers.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are no provisions governing the granting of planning permission which are specific only to floating helipads on rivers, as distinct from other development proposals.

  Partnership for Change Conference
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the partnership for change conference to be held in Manchester later this year.

  Mr. Howard
  We intend to hold an international conference, "Partnership for Change", in Manchester in September on the implementation of the earth summit agreements. I have invited a small number of eminent people to join an international advisory group to advise me on the preparations for the conference, and in particular on themes, outputs and participants. The group is chaired by Dr. Martin Holdgate, director general of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The members are: Mr. Delmar Blasco, Mr. Claude Fussier, Dr. Hiroya Ichikawa, Mrs. Yolanda Kakabadse, Dr. Ashok Khosla, Ms. Rachel Kyte, Mr. Warren Lindner, Mr. Michael Ndubiwa, Professor Michael Scoullos, Mr. Youba Sokona and Mr. Jan-Olaf Willums.

  The group held its first meeting on 8 and 9 February and I am considering its detailed recommendations. A report of the group's discussions is available from my Department.

  Manchester city council also intends to host a complementary international event, Global Forum, for all sectors concerned with sustainable development and the environment. Manchester city council and I have agreed that "Partnership for Change" should go ahead in September and that Global Forum should follow in the first half of next year, thus maximising the opportunities for an exchange of experience of the implementation of sustainable development.

  Partnership for change will be a working conference of invited participants primarily from the local government, business and voluntary sectors on 20–22 September. Global Forum will be an open-access event encompassing many different activities over several days. My Department and Manchester city council will be working together closely in planning the two events.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent eligibility for the single person discount for council tax purposes is affected by the receipt of income from the independent living fund.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 23 February 1993]: From 1 April 1993, payments to all those people who

  729
  currently receive money from the independent living fund will be made from a new body, the independent living (extension) fund. Receipt of income from the fund will not affect eligibility for a single person discount for council tax purposes. A discount will apply to any single adult dwelling regardless of the resident's income.

  Payments from the independent living (extension) fund will be fully disregarded for council tax benefit purposes.

DEFENCE

  Standing Orders
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the standing orders of each unit in all branches of the armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are over 2,000 ships and establishments within the armed forces and each is required to produce standing orders relevant to its own particular location and role. We have no objection in principle to publishing the standing orders for a specific ship or establishment, subject to security considerations, but to do so for every ship and establishment would entail disproportionate cost and effort.

  UNPROFOR II
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current number of British soldiers deployed with UNPROFOR II; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  On 23 February 1993 there were 2,426 British soldiers deployed with UNPROFOR Bosnia-Herzegovina command.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, column 255–56, to the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), what is the total number of personnel who will be replacing the forces currently deployed as part of UNPROFOR II in May.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The total number of personnel who will be replacing the British units currently deployed with UNPROFOR Bosnia-Herzegovina command is 2,188.

  Government Contracts (Report)
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the report by the review board for Government contracts on its seventh general review of the profit formula for non-competitive government contracts.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Government have accepted the overall target rate of return on capital employed as recommended by the review board in its report. The new rate will be 19 per cent. compared with the current rate of 21 per cent., both on the basis of historic costs. It will be effective from 1 March this year. There are other points in the report which officials will be discussing with the CBI as part of our continuing drive to secure maximum value for money from our defence contracts. The report is now being printed and copies will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Secondary Medical Care
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the review of United Kingdom secondary medical care in the armed forces has now been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The review of future requirements for secondary care in the armed forces has now been completed. It confirmed that the primary purpose of military hospital beds was to train armed forces medical services personnel for their roles in war. It concluded that around 1,500 hospital beds will be required in the United Kingdom. We aim to provide 1,100 to 1,200 of these in service hospitals and the remainder in wards staffed by armed forces personnel in NHS hospitals, subject to discussions with the NHS authorities concerned. There would then be a requirement for only four service hospitals in the United Kingdom.

  Our aim in these discussions will be to examine the feasibility of establishing wards manned by armed forces personnel in hospitals in Salisbury and East Anglia, and at Plymouth, where such discussions are already in hand. we shall also be exploring the possibility of co-operating with the NHS in Catterick. In the light of the outcome of these discussions, we would aim to modernise and possibly extend the existing facilities in the service hospitals at Gosport, Aldershot and Wroughton. We would no longer require the service hospitals at Woolwich and Halton; or at Plymouth where we are well on the way towards establishing the joint venture with the NHS.

  It is too soon to be certain of the implications for employment at the hospitals concerned but every effort will be made to reduce redundancies to a minimum and ensure offsetting employment wherever possible. We shall now consult the trades unions on details of our plans.

  Somalia
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom military contribution to the United States-led coalition operation in Somalia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the light of the significantly reduced requirement for relief flights, following the major improvement in the humanitarian situation in Somalia, it has been decided that the two RAF C130 aircraft deployed in support of the US-led humanitarian relief operation in Somalia should cease flying operations in theatre with effect from 28 February and return to the United Kingdom as soon as practicable thereafter. This decision reflects the scaling down of the US presence in Somalia in preparation for the formal handover to UNOSOM II and follows consultation with the US authorities. The RAF operation, which involved the delivery of some 3,000 tonnes of aid, was highly successful and played a key part in alleviating a major humanitarian problem. Those involved, both in theatre and in support, can be congratulated on the professionalism and effectiveness of the United Kingdom effort.

  Helicopter Support
  Sir Jim Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the management of defence helicopter support.
  731
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Specialist offices providing support for the helicopters used by the armed forces are currently located in London, Yeovilton, Harrogate and Andover. Following consultation with the trades unions I have concluded that these should now be brought together at Yeovilton to form the Defence Helicopter Support Authority. The new authority, which will comprise some 170 staff, will be in operation by April 1994. This rationalisation will bring both operational and financial advantages and will place the authority within the area of main military helicopter activity and closer to the helicopter industry. Just under 80 civilian posts will move to Yeovilton from the other locations. We wish to retain skilled staff where possible and steps will be taken to avoid or minimise redundancies. Where these prove unavoidable staff affected will receive the appropriate compensation and will be eligible for the services provided by the MOD redundancy counselling and outplacement service.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what practices have been agreed by the immigration Ministers of the EC states on burden of proof and interpretation of particular articles of the Dublin convention in relation to asylum.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Immigration Ministers of the member states of the European Community meeting in London on 30 November 1992 noted a report from officials on work towards the implementation of the Dublin convention and asked that work on outstanding matters should be taken forward. In current work under the Danish presidency particular attention is being given to means of proof.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what agreement has been reached by the immigration Ministers of the member states of the European Community on the calculation of time periods under the Dublin convention in relation to asylum.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Immigration Ministers of the member states of the European Community meeting in Lisbon on 11 June 1992 agreed conclusions on the calculation of periods of time under the Dublin convention. These stipulate that Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays are to be counted.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the address and the name of the director of the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum; which persons will have access to information supplied by the United Kingdom to CIREA; what information is to be held by CIREA; and what assessment CIREA has prepared of countries of origin of asylum seekers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  CIREA has no director. Its meetings are serviced by the General Secretariat of the Council. The information it receives is at present passed only to participants representing other member states of the European Community. Consideration is still being given to what information it should receive and circulate: it has concentrated initially on statistics and changes in 732
  national legislation. CIREA has not itself prepared any assessment of countries of origin of asylum seekers but will in due course discuss joint evaluations.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration has been given by EC immigration Ministers to the preparation of a manual of practice for applying the Dublin convention in relation to asylum; and what aspects such a manual is intended to cover.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Consideration is currently being given to the preparation of a manual covering a range of practical questions.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions have been reached by the immigration Ministers of the member states of the European Community on the transfer of asylum applicants and their applications under the Dublin convention in relation to asylum.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Immigration Ministers of the member states of the European Community meeting in London on 30 November agreed conclusions on the transfer of asylum applicants and their applications. All transfers are to be carried out in accordance with national laws and procedures. An applicant who is liable to transfer to a second member state may travel on his own initiative or accompanied by an official of the first member state.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the document requested by the Strasbourg European Council of Home Affairs Ministers meeting on 8 and 9 December 1989, relating to the substantive law and procedural law of asylum in the EC states.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. This was a working document not intended for publication, and some of its contents are now out of date.

  Bail Offenders
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the report to his Department by Patricia Morgan on offending while on bail; a survey of recent studies, in respect of the Northumbria police research into the subject; and what changes he proposes to make in Government policies as a result of the report.

  Mr. Jack
  The report referred to, published early in 1992 as paper 65 in the Home Office research and planning unit series, drew together and reviewed research into offending on bail carried out by a number of police forces, including Northumbria.

  The report referred to the desirability of establishing agreed methods of producing reliable data, on a national basis, about the incidence and extent of offending on bail. This point is currently being pursued by the Home Office in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Northumbria police are also involved in this work.

  As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) on 28 January at column 789, the incidence of offending on bail is, of course, a matter for concern and work is in hand to tackle the problem, including action research in five areas which

  733
  is designed to identify the scope for improving the bail decision-taking process, thus minimising the risk of offending on bail.

  Domestic Violence Units
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many domestic violence units there are in south Wales.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are three family protection units covering the force area, which are responsible for both domestic violence and child abuse.

  Criminal Records
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress with the establishment of the national criminal records system; and when he proposes to publish the consultation document on the use of information to be held by the NCRS.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Progress is well in hand towards the implementation of the first phase of the national criminal records system—the updating and retrieval of criminal records on the police national computer—in the spring of 1994. My right hon. and learned Friend expects to publish by the summer of this year a consultation document on the use of criminal records for employment and related purposes.

  Firearms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to establishing a national firearms board; and when he expects to reach a decision.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A public consultation paper was issued last year proposing that firearms licensing should be administered by a new civilian firearms control board. My right hon. and learned Friend is currently in the process of consulting ministerial colleagues and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Know-how Funds
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list of the current application of the know-how funds by(a) cost, (b) purpose of each project, (c) country where funds are to be used and (d) the British firms or institutions involved.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A regularly updated list of know-how fund activities by country, cost, purpose and project status is already available from the libraries of the House. To break this down further to include details on each participating British firm and institution would involve disproportionate cost.

  Privatisation Programmes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have received or will receive advice on privatisation programmes through the British aid programme.
  734
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Advice on privatisation is provided in response to Government requests and no central records are kept. However, the main beneficiaries of this advice have been and are likely to continue to be in eastern and central Europe and the former Soviet Union. Advice has been provided to Bulgaria, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia and Ukraine.

  Advice on privatisation to developing countries has been on a smaller scale. Countries benefiting in recent years include Guyana, Jamaica, Pakistan, Tanzania and Zambia.

  It is not possible to predict which countries will request advice in the future.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of his reply dated 16 February to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West concerning the auditing arrangements of the Commonwealth development corporation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I am arranging for the letter to the hon. Member from my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Slovenia
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amounts of aid have been given to the Slovenian Government for the assistance of displaced people and refugees(a) as part of general European Community aid and (b) as direct British aid.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 23 February 1993]: Figures for direct European Community aid to the Slovenian Government for the assistance of displaced people are not readily available. The United Kingdom has not provided any direct aid to the Slovenian Government for the assistance of displaced people but we have instead provided support to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees who co-ordinates the international community's response to the humanitarian crisis in the former Yugoslavia. In 1992 the UNHCR provided a total of US$10,137,464 for the assistance of displaced people and other victims of the conflict in Slovenia.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of displaced persons and refugees in Slovenia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 23 February 1993]: The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is responsible for co-ordinating the international relief effort to the former Yugoslavia. Her most recent report, dated 10 February, shows that there are about 75,000 displaced people and refugees in Slovenia.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Cycling Holidays
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if his Department will establish a campaign to promote cycling holidays.
  735
  Mr. Key
  My Department does not fund promotional activities itself. However, boosted by Chris Boardman's gold medal at the Barcelona Olympics, cycling is growing rapidly as a sport and leisure activity. The Manchester velodrome and national cycling centre are under construction. It is for the English tourist board to decide how Government funding of promotional activities is allocated.

WALES

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current estimate of the size of waiting lists in Wales for hospital treatments; and what it was at the equivalent period in 1990. 1991 and 1992, respectively.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available information for waiting lists as at 31 March in each year is published in table 4.1 of "Welsh Hospital Waiting List Bulletin 1992 No. 2" a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  A similar table, giving figures as at 30 September was published in "Welsh Hospital Waiting List Bulletin 1993 No. 1" on 24 February 1993.

  Dentists
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the Welsh family health services authorities concerning requests for help and information in relation to access to NHS dentists from April; what information he has on the total number of requests received by Welsh family health services authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Secretary of State for Wales met chairmen of family health services authorities and district health authorities on 7 July 1992 when general dental services were discussed. A further meeting is planned for 15 April 1993.

  According to the fortnightly returns submitted by family health service authorities the number of people seeking assistance in finding dental treatment is as follows:

  Fortnight ending

  Number of Patients contacting FHSAs

  14 August 1992

  742

  28 August

  754

  11 September

  715

  25 September

  644

  9 October

  681

  23 October

  673

  6 November

  714

  20 November

  632

  4 December

  569

  18 December

  582

  1 January 1993

  183

  15 January

  766

  29 January

  777

  12 February

  733

  The information given in these fortnightly returns is intended for general managerial purposes and is not statistically validated.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the current levels of outstanding community charge payments for each authority in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available information for arrears of community charges relates to the position at 31 March 1992, and is given in the table.

  Arrears of community charges at 31 March 19921

  £000

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,866

  Colwyn

  1,148

  Delyn

  983

  Glyndwr

  890

  Rhuddlan

  1,069

  Wrexham Maelor

  2,711

  Carmarthen

  467

  Ceredigion

  801

  Dinefwr

  393

  Llanelli

  978

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  439

  South Pembrokeshire

  521

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,395

  Islwyn

  1,046

  Monmouth

  1,229

  Newport

  3,734

  Torfaen

  1,115

  Aberconwy

  596

  Arfon

  1,117

  Dwyfor

  230

  Meirionnydd

  353

  Ynys Mon

  1,113

  Cynon Valley

  1,072

  Merthyr Tydfil

  547

  Ogwr

  1,130

  Rhondda

  498

  Rhymney Valley

  1,822

  Taff Ely

  1,676

  Brecknock

  279

  Montgomeryshire

  325

  Radnorshire

  113

  Cardiff

  6,560

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1,131

  Port Talbot

  704

  Lliw Valley

  449

  Neath

  804

  Swansea

  3,057

  1 Including arrears for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the total cumulative sales of local authority dwellings for each authority in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of sales, following the reorganisation of local authority boundaries in 1974, is given in the following table.

  Total Sales of local authority dwellings1

  Welsh Districts

  1974-September 1992

  Aberconwy

  1,778

  Alyn and Deeside

  2,048

  Arfon

  1,496

  Blaenau Gwent

  2,556

  Brecknock

  1,507

  Cardiff

  9,079

  Carmarthen

  1,464

  Ceredigion

  1,668

  Colwyn

  1,042

  Cynon Valley

  1,618

  737

  Welsh Districts

  1974-September 1992

  Delyn

  1,945

  Dinefwr

  960

  Dwyfor

  418

  Glyndwr

  1,292

  Islwyn

  3,813

  Llanelli

  3,562

  Lliw Valley

  2,020

  Meirionnydd

  957

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2,364

  Monmouth

  2,571

  Montgomeryshire

  1,636

  Neath

  2,620

  Newport

  5,387

  Ogwr

  4,827

  Port Talbot

  4,046

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  2,524

  Radnorshire

  603

  Rhondda

  810

  Rhuddlan

  972

  Rhymney Valley

  3,937

  South Pembrokeshire

  1,106

  Swansea

  4,628

  Taff-Ely

  4,256

  Torfaen

  4,044

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3,724

  Wrexham Maelor

  3,795

  Ynys Mon

  1,728

  Wales2

  94,852

  1 Excludes sales from New Towns.

  2 Includes 51 dwellings sold in 1977 which cannot be attributed to a district.

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to use unemployment statistics from December in each year when making assessments associated with his Department's review of assisted area status in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Because seasonal factors have differing effects in travel-to-work areas, the unemployment statistics used in the review of assisted areas are annual averages.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many contaminated land sites identified by his Department will also appear on the proposed new register of contaminated land sites.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government are currently considering the outcome of the consultation exercise on contaminated land registers which was undertaken last year. An announcement on the way forward will be made as soon as possible. In advance of this it would not be appropriate to attempt to provide the information sought.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the current levels of outstanding rents on council dwellings for each authority in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Local authorities' own forecasts of rent arrears for 31 March 1993 are as follows:
  738

  Local Authority

  Aberconwy Borough Council

  55,000

  Alyn and Deeside District Council

  210,000

  Arfon Borough Council

  97,000

  Blaenau Gwent Borough Council

  96,201

  Brecknock Borough Council

  65,400

  Cardiff County Council

  1,000,000

  Carmarthen District Council

  172,000

  Ceredigion District Council

  140,000

  Colwyn Borough Council

  95,000

  Cynon Valley Borough Council

  22,500

  Delyn Borough Council

  137,000

  Dinefwr Borough Council

  129,587

  Dwyfor District Council

  33,320

  Glyndwr District Council

  215,000

  Islwyn Borough Council

  110,000

  Llanelli Borough Council

  240,243

  Lliw Valley Borough Council

  174,000

  Meirionnydd District Council

  42,000

  Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council

  75,500

  Monmouth Borough Council

  185,000

  Montgomeryshire District Council

  80,000

  Neath Borough Council

  217,000

  Newport Borough Council

  620,000

  Ogwr Borough Council

  812,000

  Port Talbot Borough Council

  130,000

  Preseli Pembrokeshire District Council

  270,000

  Radnorshire District Council

  26,000

  Rhondda Borough Council

  281,000

  Rhuddlan Borough Council

  95,000

  Rhymney Valley District Council

  530,000

  South Pembrokeshire District Council

  177,000

  Swansea County Council

  1,299,915

  Taff Ely Borough Council

  427,000

  Torfaen Borough Council

  408,000

  Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council

  164,000

  Wrexham Maelor Borough Council

  292,000

  Ynys Mon Borough Council

  158,000

  Source: Housing Revenue Account Subsidy Second Advance Claim Forms 1992–93.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning council tax single occupancy discount; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have received several representations.

  Council tax bills are determined by the valuation band of dwellings, based on their market value at 1 April 1991. Bills also take account of the number and status of adult residents. It is thus a property tax with a personal element.

  The personal element represents 50 per cent. of the full bill. If there are two adult residents, there is no reduction in the personal element. But if there is just one adult resident, there is a reduction of 50 per cent. in the personal element, which equates to 25 per cent. of the full bill.

  These arrangements are a considerable advance on those which existed under rates, where single adult households received no discount at all.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to increasing the single occupancy discount for council tax.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None, since Parliament approved the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

  TECs
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the members of training and enterprise councils presented to him when TECs were originally set up.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  TEC members at the 'TECs operational dates are shown in the following table.

  North West Wales TEC

  Mr. Tefor Jones OBE

  Mr. Barry Baynham

  Mr. R. Hefin Davies MBE JP

  Mr. Geoff Drake

  Mr. Dilwyn Evans

  Mr. Gwilym Humphreys

  Mr. John R. Jones

  Mrs. Sioned Llywelyn

  Mr. Roy Luff LBE

  Mr. George Newson MBE

  Mr. loan Bowen Rees

  Mr. Dafydd Roberts

  Miss Enid H. Rowlands

  Mr. Hugh Williams MBE

  North East Wales TEC

  John Troth

  Kevin Lyden

  Roland Blackburn

  Pat Mansfield

  Godfrey Williams

  David Schwarz

  Bett Symonds

  Mike Pickering

  Mervyn Phillips

  Keith Evans

  Harvey Davies

  Charles Hogg

  Tim Harris

  Powys TEC

  David Margetts BA

  David Baird-Murray DL

  Alan Barnish BComm IFPA

  Mike Exton

  Trevor Jones

  Hon. Lindy Price

  Mike Smith

  Peter Swanson JP

  Bernard Wakely BA

  John Walker

  Cyril Whitehurst

  Roger Williams

  Clair Coats BA

  Gwent TEC

  Geoffrey Canning

  Geoffrey Drought

  Jeremy Hallett

  Steve Hoselitz

  Roger Leadbetter

  Allan Martin

  Michael Perry

  Pat Phillips

  Stan Jackson

  Bruce McDowell

  Roger Jones

  Alan Carr

  Don Corbett

  Leighton Quinn

  Mid Glamorgan TEC

  J. W. Phillips

  J. Cornwall

  D. W. Free

  D. Morgan R.

  J. Tree

  R. Webster

  R. Wilson

  H. Thomas

  Alderman R. Newman

  740

  E. Morgan

  D. Jessop

  W. Bailey

  E. Roberts

  Sir Donald Walters

  P. Morgan

  West Wales TEC

  Peter Allen

  Carl Hadley

  David Davies

  Wynfford James

  Peter Scott

  Bob Hastie

  Peter Hancock

  John Button

  Mike Davies

  Mike Rush

  John Foley

  Bob Donaldson

  Michael Reilly

  Huw Richards

  Beverley Pold

  Pamela David

  South Glamorgan TEC

  Roger Helliwell

  David Jenkins

  Barry Lane

  Geoff Metcalf

  John Soulsby

  Robert Watts

  Rita Austin

  Laurence James

  Michael Boyce

  Joachim Burkhardt

  Eric Crawford

  Steve Dolan

  Pupils (Expenditure)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the expenditure on each(a) primary school pupil, (b) secondary school pupil and (c) average for all pupils, for the last financial year for which information is available.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In 1990–91 the expenditure on each nursery and primary school pupil in Wales was £1,308 and on each secondary school pupil was £1,953. The average expenditure on all pupils in nursery, primary and secondary schools was £1,570.

  School Orchestras
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has had about the future funding of school orchestras in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To date I have received 13 written representations from Members of Parliament and in excess of 500 from organisations and members of the public about the funding of the school music service in Wales.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  "One Girl's War"
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the current legal status of "One Girl's War" by Joan Millar; and what are the legal costs incurred to date by the Treasury Solicitor.

  The Attorney-General
  The injunctions granted in England on 28 November 1986 to prevent publication of
  741
  the book "One Girl's War" by Joan Millar were discharged by consent on 21 October 1992. In proceedings in the Republic of Ireland, although an injunction was originally granted against the publishers, it was discharged on 2 December 1986. The legal costs incurred to date by the Treasury Solicitor are estimated to be £35,000.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Allowances
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the turn-round of correspondence relating to disability allowance applications met his targets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The arrangements for replying to correspondence relating to operational questions on disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 25 February 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the targets for the turnround of correspondence on Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
  The Benefit Agency's published target is to respond to all letters from Members of Parliament on all subjects within an average of 20 working days of receipt. Whilst this target is generally being met for letters on matters other than DLA it is currently not being achieved on all letters about DLA and I accept that regrettably some very long delays have been experienced before a reply has been sent. I apologise for this. The delays are due to the backlog of correspondence that has built up in the DLA Unit following the greater than expected workload faced by the Unit in the early months of the DLA scheme.
  A recovery plan for clearing the backlog of correspondence is in operation at the DLA Unit and I am pleased to say significant progress is being made. The correspondence sections, both at the DLA Unit and centrally, have been strengthened and our aim is to complete the clearance of the backlog during early March. Thereafter it will be our intention to respond to all future correspondence on DLA within the Agency's target of 20 working days. We have been meeting this target for the majority of letters on DLA received since the start of the year, and I can assure you that I am monitoring the position very closely.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines he has established for the Benefits Agency to respond to requests for the release of medical records to unsuccessful applicants for disability living allowance and attendance allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The information used to decide a claim for disability living allowance or attendance allowance is made available to the claimant on request. Only medical evidence that is considered, on the advice of a medical practitioner, to be harmful to a person is withheld.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to(a) reduce the number of consecutive days on which the temperature must be 0°C or below in order for severe cold weather payments to be made or (b) increase the ceiling on savings which can be held without disqualification for severe cold weather payments.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to change any of the fundamental elements of the scheme.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Refreshment Facilities
  Sir Harold Walker
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee why the Smoking Room was excluded from the scope of the inquiry into the House's refreshment facilities conducted by Food Services Associates.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  The consultancy brief issued to Food Services Associates was"to examine food production and food service systems"

  and to
  "develop a strategic plan…for the re-organisation of food production and food service systems in the House of Commons".

  Bars, including the Smoking Room, were excluded from the scope of the study except where changes proposed by the consultants for food service areas impinged on areas used for bars.

  Sir Harold Walker
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what estimate he has made of the cost of implementing the proposals contained in the report of Food Services Associates to reform the refreshment facilities of the House.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  The Food Service Associates report, which the Committee is currently considering, estimated the cost of equipment at £2.8 million. Before the Committee reports to the House, an estimate will be required of the total cost of any proposals, including equipment, building works, electrical and mechanical works, installation and ventilation.

EDUCATION

  London Schools (Freehold Transfers)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for ensuring the transfer of the freeholds from the London residuary body to the dioceses of London and Southwark, of former voluntary maintained schools with the Inner London education authority whose freeholds transferred to the London residuary board on the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Forth
  Following the abolition of the Inner London education authority there was no general need to transfer land used for the purposes of voluntary schools since it would have remained in the hands of the appropriate voluntary school trustees.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the latest statistics on the number of disabled students in further and higher education; and what future resources will be allocated to encourage more disabled people to enter these.

  Mr. Boswell
  A total of 42,000 students with learning difficulties and disabilities enrolled on further education courses on 1 November 1991. Information on the number of such students in higher education is not held centrally. My right hon. Friend's initial guidance to the further and higher education funding councils emphasised the need to facilitate access to further and higher education for students with learning difficulties and disabilities. Both the councils are taking account of the particular needs of these students in their allocation of resources to institutions.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of young people who are or have been excluded or suspended from school also have a statement of special educational needs; and of those, what proportion have statements which refer to emotional and behavioural difficulties.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on permanent exclusions has been collected by the Department over a two year period beginning with the summer term 1990 under the national exclusions reporting system (NERS). A preliminary analysis of year one returns showed that 12·5 per cent. of pupils permanently excluded had statements of special educational needs. We have no information as to how many of those statements refer to emotional and behavioural difficulties.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many of the young people who have been excluded or suspended from school and who are also statemented, have had to wait more than(a) three months, (b) six months, (c) nine months and (d) one year before appropriate placement and funding were provided.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many young people, by local authority area have been(a) suspended and (b) excluded from school in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has been monitoring permanent exclusions from English maintained schools over a two-year period beginning with the summer term 1990 under the national exclusions reporting system (NERS). A preliminary analysis of year one NERS data shows that some 3,000 permanent exclusions were reported. It is not possible to provide an area breakdown of the figure because of assurances given as to confidentiality. The Department does not collect information on temporary exclusions.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Disabled Civil Servants
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the employment of people with disabilities in the civil service.
  744
  Mr. Jackson
  The annual report on progress in the employment of people with disabilities in the civil service is presented in the magazine Independent published today.

  The report shows that during 1992, 8,336–1·5 per cent—registered disabled people were employed in civil service departments and agencies, an increase of 312 people over 1991. In addition to this, the civil service employs many more people with disabilities who choose not to register as disabled.

  I am arranging for copies of Independent to be placed in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Hospitals (Alcohol Sales)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of hospitals have bars on hospital premises which sell alcohol for consumption by doctors.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Psychiatric Patients
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the cost to each health authority in England and Wales of providing psychiatric patients with beds in the private sector; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 23 February at column 555. The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Information concerning Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mesothelioma
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been diagnosed as having mesothelioma in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of patients who were first diagnosed as having mesothelioma in each of the last five years for which statistics are available is shown in the table.

  The number of patients first diagnosed as having mesothelioma in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987, England and Wales.

  Year

  Number

  1983

  506

  1984

  567

  1985

  545

  1986

  642

  1987

  671

  Dentistry
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she will take to ensure that patients presenting themselves for treatment at dental surgeries are made aware of(a) the cost of the treatment prior to its commencement and (b) whether this treatment is available under the NHS.
  745
  Dr. Mawhinney
  General dental practitioners are already required by thier terms of service to provide a treatment plan to patients registered with them under continuing care of capitation arrangements when they examine them for the first time. This treatment plan includes any treatment to be undertaken, an estimate of any national health service charge and any proposals for private care and treatment, including the cost to the patient.

  The additionally required to provide a new or revised treatment plan when they propose to undertake complex treatment, the details of which are listed in regulations, and on any occasion when the patient so requests.

  Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation Services
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been done to inform residential alcohol and drug rehabilitation services that they are included in local authority purchasing plans.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is the responsibility of each local authority to assess the needs of its population for community care services, including for residential services for problems associated with the misuse of alcohol and drugs and to enter into appropriate contractual arrangements with service providers.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential alcohol and drug rehabilitation services she expects to close within the first four months of community care.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government and the local authorities have made clear the high priority they attach to the provision of services for people who misuse alcohol and drugs. The funds being made available to local authorities through the community care special transitional grant fully reflect existing levels of service provision and there is therefore no reason why services which appropriately meet the needs of this important client group should not be maintained. Special monitoring arrangements for independent sector residential services for people who misuse alcohol and drugs are being established in the first three months after the full implementation of the community care reforms on 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what decision has been reached on fast track assessment by the working group convened to discuss residential alcohol and drug rehabilitation services.

  Mr. Yeo
  At our request, the local authority associations have convened a working party, on which independent sector service providers are represented, to prepare good practice guidance on fast track assessment and on out-of-area referrals, which will enable them to issue advice to their members. It is expected that this will be available during March.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment the authors of her Department's discussion document, "The Effect of Tobacco Advertising on Tobacco Consumption" came to in respect of the specific study of the effect of an advertising ban in the United Kingdom, as opposed to the review of studies from elsewhere in the world; and whether she will make a statement.
  746
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department of Health's discussion document "Effect of Tobacco Advertising on Tobacco Consumption" did not make any estimate of the effect of an advertising ban in the United Kingdom.

  Anaemia
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines she has issued to health authorities and family health services on the monitoring and detection of iron deficiency anaemia in children;

  (2) what information she has on the number of children under the age of five years suffering from iron deficiency anaemia.

  Mr. Sackville
  No guidelines have been issued. Iron deficiency anaemia is a recognised risk in this age group but the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, in considering dietary reference values for the population in 1991, reported that more information was needed on the iron status of different groups of the United Kingdom population, including infants and children.

  The Government have set up a national diet and nutrition survey to monitor the nutritional status of representative groups of the population in an eight year cycle. A survey of pre-school children is currently underway. An expert group on the weaning diet is now considering the nutritional needs of infants and young children and is expected to report by the end of 1993. We will then review the need for guidelines to the national health service.

  Respite Care
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the extent of charging by local councils for respite care; and if she will provide more funds for community care to councils so that they can provide this service free of charge.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally.

  The Government take the view that local authorities should seek to recover the economic cost of providing a service wherever this can be done without causing hardship to the service user. In residential settings local authorities are required, by section 22 of the National Assistance Act 1948, to make charges, including the discretion to make a reduced charge to residents for the first eight weeks of their admission. Where non-residential respite care is provided, local authorities have discretionary powers under section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 to charge.

  We are making available in 1993–94 a ring-fenced special transitional grant of £565 million to local authorities. This also includes £140 million for authorities' new responsibilities which makes allowance for improved respite care services to support carers.

  Child Protection Services
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has been taken on the recommendation of the second report of the Health Committee of Session 1990–91 on child protection services that her Department and local authorities should conduct an urgent review of the relationship between changing levels of need and of resources in London with a view to establishing the
  747
  validity of the standard spending assessment formula in relation to the capacity of London authorities to meet their responsibilities; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The standard spending assessment formulae are being reviewed with the help of the local authority associations to take into account new information derived from the 1991 census and data from other sources. The review will be completed by autumn 1993 and is likely to affect standard spending assessment formulae for the financial year 1994–95. The review will take into account the outcome of research sponsored by the Department into avoidable and unavoidable factors affecting unit costs in London.

  Suicide
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the five most common occupations of people committing suicide; what information she has on the number of farmers who have committed suicide in each year since 1979; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 23 February 1993]: The most recent information available from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys concerns the numbers of deaths which have occurred during the period 1979 to 1990, combined, and is shown in table 1. The numbers, however, are simply numbers of deaths where the stated occupation was of a particular type and consequently do not take any account of the actual numbers employed in those occupations. A large number of deaths in a particular occupation therefore may simply indicate that more people are employed in that occupation rather than that employment in that occupation may lead to an increased likelihood of suicide.

  As a consequence of the limitations of working with numbers of deaths, without reference to the numbers employed in the occupation group, or groups, of interest, the OPCS favours the use of proportional mortality ratios. A PMR gives an indication of how a particular occupation's mortality from a specific cause differs from the collective experience of all occupations for that specific cause. To cite the case of male farmers aged 16 to 64 years of age for the period 1979 to 1990, inclusive, the PMR of 187 suggests that the number of deaths was nearly twice that which would have been expected, 100 being taken as the experience of all males aged 16 to 64 regardless of occupation. Table 2 shows the five highest PMRS by occupation.

  In the case of both tables the information refers to males only aged 16 to 64 years. Information for both males and females, many of whom do not state a specific

  Number of deaths from suicide (E950 to E959) for each county in England and Wales, 1979 to 1985

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  ENGLAND AND WALES

  4,195

  4,321

  4,419

  4,279

  4,279

  4,315

  4,419

  Greater London

  648

  644

  707

  627

  652

  610

  585

  Greater Manchester

  269

  244

  281

  258

  251

  217

  257

  Merseyside

  110

  95

  131

  112

  125

  125

  87

  South Yorkshire

  83

  55

  68

  72

  97

  69

  94

  Tyne and Wear

  119

  85

  122

  103

  84

  81

  72

  West Midlands

  202

  221

  203

  235

  216

  215

  211

  West Yorkshire

  231

  219

  164

  184

  155

  172

  161

  Avon

  68

  66

  67

  67

  52

  61

  59

  Bedfordshire

  29

  28

  33

  40

  34

  35

  32

  Berkshire

  44

  59

  59

  46

  41

  64

  62

  748
  occupation, for the same period could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Both tables show the corresponding numbers of deaths and PMRs for comparative purposes.

  Table 1

  The five most common occupations (ranked according to the number of deaths) of males aged 16–64 years recorded as having committed suicide or where the death was undetermined (E950—E959 and E980—E989, 1979–90 (combined) England and Wales.

  Occupation

  Deaths

  PMR

  Clerk and cashier (not retail)

  1,342

  97

  Occupation not stated (to include those seeking employment)

  1,323

  136

  Driver of road goods vehicle

  1,029

  82

  Machine tool operator

  927

  106

  Metal working production fitter and fitter/machinist

  790

  82

  Table 2

  The five most common occupations (ranked according to Proportional Mortality Ratio) of males aged 16–64 years recorded as having committed suicide or where the death was undetermined (E950—E959 and E980—E989), 1979–90 (combined) England and Wales.

  Occupation

  PMR

  Deaths

  Vet

  364

  35

  Pharmacist

  217

  51

  Dental practitioner

  204

  38

  Farmer

  187

  526

  Medical practitioner

  184

  152

  Using data on occupational collected at death registration for the years 1979–90 the Proportional Mortality Ratios (PMRs) for men aged 16–64 years have been calculated. The PMR gives an indication of how a particular occupation's mortality from a specific cause (in this case E950—E959 and E980—E989) differs from the collective experience of the same age-group as a whole for that specific cause and regardless of occupation. Thus a PMR of 364 for Vets suggests that this particular occupation group experiences more than 3½ times the number of deaths from suicide and undetermined deaths (E950 —E959 and E980—E989) than would have been expected.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of registrations of deaths with a verdict of suicide ICD E950 to E959 in each county in England and Wales in each year since 1979; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 23 February 1993]: The exact information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the number of deaths from suicide—E950 to E959—is readily available by county of residence and is as follows.
  749

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Buckinghamshire

  36

  47

  51

  52

  47

  54

  57

  Cambridgeshire

  49

  49

  51

  34

  46

  47

  59

  Cheshire

  82

  80

  79

  72

  72

  70

  88

  Cleveland

  42

  61

  33

  49

  41

  32

  43

  Cornwall and Isle of Scilly

  43

  35

  46

  41

  40

  50

  58

  Cumbria

  31

  44

  32

  45

  28

  44

  49

  Derbyshire

  56

  66

  48

  46

  67

  71

  70

  Devon

  85

  101

  89

  84

  98

  126

  97

  Dorset

  57

  64

  67

  57

  46

  72

  74

  Durham

  48

  62

  62

  49

  49

  54

  60

  East Sussex

  50

  67

  98

  75

  93

  85

  81

  Essex

  117

  124

  136

  140

  145

  123

  165

  Gloucestershire

  41

  36

  50

  43

  40

  38

  47

  Hampshire

  117

  122

  145

  144

  114

  130

  139

  Hereford and Worcester

  45

  61

  63

  49

  56

  56

  68

  Hertfordshire

  55

  71

  72

  75

  69

  66

  76

  Humberside

  66

  70

  73

  86

  71

  71

  86

  Isle of Wight

  10

  18

  15

  12

  12

  11

  6

  Kent

  109

  138

  128

  116

  132

  122

  133

  Lancashire

  151

  158

  139

  157

  133

  148

  135

  Leicestershire

  73

  59

  78

  66

  65

  81

  88

  Lincolnshire

  47

  43

  50

  50

  50

  56

  51

  Norfolk

  61

  66

  85

  72

  62

  76

  71

  Northamptonshire

  50

  52

  21

  13

  37

  60

  42

  Northumberland

  19

  24

  21

  27

  28

  20

  30

  North Yorkshire

  53

  61

  69

  57

  84

  60

  68

  Nottinghamshire

  93

  96

  91

  99

  88

  99

  102

  Oxfordshire

  33

  41

  39

  31

  38

  33

  41

  Shropshire

  27

  27

  35

  16

  34

  26

  35

  Somerset

  30

  35

  53

  36

  43

  47

  46

  Staffordshire

  89

  86

  59

  64

  71

  74

  87

  Suffolk

  51

  58

  51

  54

  61

  54

  70

  Surrey

  77

  64

  63

  69

  79

  85

  89

  Warwickshire

  41

  42

  52

  39

  50

  40

  49

  West Sussex

  64

  64

  57

  74

  62

  72

  81

  Wiltshire

  42

  62

  58

  49

  48

  53

  48

  Clwyd

  26

  41

  26

  40

  30

  35

  37

  Dyfed

  43

  35

  29

  41

  33

  32

  11

  Gwent

  31

  19

  27

  33

  31

  33

  23

  Gwynedd

  20

  18

  25

  20

  16

  22

  25

  Mid Glamorgan

  38

  43

  39

  47

  51

  40

  36

  Powys

  4

  10

  11

  10

  17

  13

  10

  South Glamorgan

  53

  44

  35

  45

  53

  50

  30

  West Glamorgan

  17

  26

  21

  35

  25

  24

  22

  Outside England and Wales1

  20

  15

  12

  22

  17

  11

  16

  1 Deaths of individuals not normally resident in England and Wales.

  Number of deaths from suicide (E950 to E959) for each county in England and Wales, 1986 to 1991

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  ENGLAND AND WALES

  4,126

  3,986

  4,220

  3,717

  3,950

  3,893

  Greater London

  526

  536

  564

  479

  506

  456

  Greater Manchester

  247

  224

  234

  204

  197

  243

  Merseyside

  115

  104

  124

  98

  106

  85

  South Yorkshire

  87

  76

  80

  75

  78

  97

  Tyne and Wear

  78

  58

  63

  68

  66

  65

  West Midlands

  214

  167

  222

  191

  192

  190

  West Yorkshire

  159

  167

  168

  147

  149

  161

  Avon

  50

  64

  70

  52

  59

  61

  Bedfordshire

  37

  31

  38

  34

  36

  44

  Berkshire

  54

  37

  46

  51

  60

  51

  Buckinghamshire

  43

  60

  48

  53

  42

  49

  Cambridgeshire

  70

  57

  63

  61

  53

  60

  Cheshire

  62

  61

  59

  60

  63

  66

  Cleveland

  40

  39

  62

  36

  31

  42

  Cornwall and Isle of Scilly

  37

  49

  53

  43

  51

  43

  Cumbria

  39

  48

  32

  29

  40

  40

  Derbyshire

  59

  74

  72

  66

  57

  77

  Devon

  115

  105

  103

  121

  88

  106

  Dorset

  59

  60

  42

  56

  70

  43

  Durham

  57

  49

  54

  50

  42

  38

  East Sussex

  88

  60

  70

  65

  78

  83

  Essex

  132

  129

  157

  121

  133

  124

  Gloucestershire

  36

  33

  61

  32

  44

  37

  Hampshire

  129

  122

  124

  110

  125

  146

  750 751

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Hereford and Worcester

  56

  63

  46

  56

  62

  52

  Hertfordshire

  78

  71

  58

  60

  53

  61

  Humberside

  86

  80

  92

  63

  66

  58

  Isle of Wight

  3

  8

  7

  7

  13

  6

  Kent

  116

  115

  108

  109

  136

  108

  Lancashire

  160

  140

  109

  108

  128

  122

  Leicestershire

  73

  63

  68

  76

  63

  63

  Lincolnshire

  42

  55

  61

  48

  59

  52

  Norfolk

  64

  74

  68

  59

  66

  64

  Northamptonshire

  43

  46

  54

  54

  69

  56

  Northumberland

  30

  14

  24

  23

  18

  12

  North Yorkshire

  59

  69

  55

  58

  55

  47

  Nottinghamshire

  76

  88

  98

  76

  72

  79

  Oxfordshire

  36

  29

  45

  54

  58

  38

  Shropshire

  41

  32

  34

  23

  27

  28

  Somerset

  49

  43

  37

  41

  61

  46

  Staffordshire

  66

  67

  65

  45

  65

  55

  Suffolk

  50

  52

  59

  46

  69

  53

  Surrey

  77

  82

  96

  75

  68

  82

  Warwickshire

  41

  45

  40

  46

  31

  33

  West Sussex

  55

  54

  86

  45

  52

  59

  Wiltshire

  43

  45

  49

  41

  53

  49

  Clwyd

  16

  31

  32

  30

  26

  45

  Dyfed

  32

  28

  25

  25

  32

  31

  Gwent

  31

  27

  30

  22

  27

  23

  Gwynedd

  25

  26

  13

  20

  26

  25

  Mid Glamorgan

  59

  46

  44

  33

  33

  43

  Powys

  17

  7

  14

  7

  19

  15

  South Glamorgan

  32

  34

  42

  35

  30

  38

  West Glamorgan

  22

  33

  41

  18

  28

  25

  Outside England and Wales'

  15

  9

  11

  12

  19

  18

  1 Deaths of individuals not normally resident in England and Wales.

TRANSPORT

  Disabled Drivers
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of road accidents involve disabled drivers; and what proportion of the overall driving population are disabled drivers.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Statistics are not available for disabled drivers.

  Cycle Helmets
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has commissioned on the safety benefits of cycle helmets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Transport Research Laboratory report, "Pedal Cycle Accidents—A Hospital Based Study", indicates that if helmets were universally worn over 4,000 casulaties would be prevented and the severity of over 3,000 serious casualties would be reduced. Child cyclists, in particular, would benefit from wearing helmets.

  The Department is also carrying out further research into the design of protective headgear for pedal cyclists and motorcyclists.

  Puffin Road Crossings
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the success of the experimental puffin road crossings scheme; what was 752
  the cost of establishing the scheme; how these costs were met; and what plans he has to extend the puffin road crossings scheme to other areas of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Assessments at two trial sites have shown puffin crossings to be successful in allowing more time for pedestrians to cross, particularly disabled and elderly people, without increasing delays to traffic. The Department is currently funding installations at 25 sites in England at an average cost of 8,800 each. They will begin to come into operation this spring. Further installations are expected later in the year and early next year. Regulations will be laid to enable local authorities to install puffins.

  Road Building
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the use of porous asphalt in road building; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Since I announced in July 1992 that the Department would be taking steps to reduce road noise, I have received many representations from local authorities, representatives and from the general public for the use of porous asphalt on road schemes. Assessments are being carried out to establish whether the conditions for the use of porous asphalt are suitable and the benefits outweigh the higher cost including the need for more expensive winter maintenance and more frequent surfacing.

  Minibuses
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how minibuses are treated as a category in the compilation of accident statistics; and if he will make a statement;
  753
  (2) if the Government will in future treat minibuses as a separate category in the compilation of accident statistics.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Since 1989, it has been possible to link the vehicle registration mark of vehicles involved in personal injury road accidents recorded by the police to vehicle data held at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority in Swansea. This link allows the identification of minibuses involved in road accidents according to vehicle construction definitions held at DVLA.

  Twyford Down (Private Detectives)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of hiring Bray private investigators to examine the background of persons protesting against the road through Twyford Down.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My Department has not employed Bray's Detective Agency (Southampton) Ltd. to examine the background of persons protesting against the M3 through Twyford Down. They have been employed to serve papers on people who have trespassed on the Department's land and to photograph trespassers. To date the agency has been paid approximately £7,000 for this work.

  A1 (M) Bypasses
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the operational costs of the bypasses for the A1(M) for(a) Bartley, (b) Chester le Street, (c) Darlington, (d) Durham and (e) Newton Aycliffe.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The 27-mile, 43 km, A1M from the North Yorkshire County Durham boundary to south of Tyneside was built as a single strategic route, not as a series of bypasses and opened in sections over the period between 1965 and 1969. The average annual route maintenance cost over the last five years was £0·5 million per year. The average major maintenance over the same period was £2 million per year.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what charges are payable to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for renewing a personal driving licence; and when these charges were introduced.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Since 1 February 1992, the fee for the three-yearly renewal of an ordinary motor car driving licence from age 70 has been £6. The fee to renew large goods and passenger-carrying vehicle licences at age 45 and five-yearly thereafter up to age 60, when annual renewals are required is £21.

  There is no charge for licences renewed for medical reasons.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Valued Added Tax
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to revise VAT leaflet 701/10/85 explicitly to include printed educational matter designed to be stored on ring binder collections as one of the zero-rated items.
  754
  Sir John Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has no such plans. Revision of VAT leaflets, including VAT Leaflet 701/10/85, is a matter for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise as part of their responsibilities for care and management of the tax. I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to his other question of today's date on the VAT liability of printed educational matter.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if VAT applies to printed educational matter designed to be stored on ring binder collections; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Collections of printed matter including that of an educational nature supplied with ring binders in their complete state are zero-rated as loose-leaf books, but the relief has not hitherto extended to such items when supplied in instalments. Customs and Excise has recently reviewed the position and now considers that such products should be within the zero rate. It has taken administrative action by extra-statutory concession to allow this.

  Ministers' Cars
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the provisions of Inland Revenue booklet 480 of 1992 apply to Ministers of the Crown in respect of(a) availability of a car for private use, (b) provision of a chauffeur in connection with a car made available for private use and (c) provision of any amount of petrol for private use of a car; what steps are taken to ensure that such fringe benefits for Ministers of the Crown are correctly entered on P11D forms; what was the approximate aggregate yield for each available year since 1988–89 of each of those benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Ministers of the Crown are subject to the same tax provisions as other employees. The rules for cars, chauffeurs and petrol apply to them in the same way as to others. It is the responsibility of each employer to give the Inland Revenue at the end of each tax year particulars of any benefits in kind provided to employees. Departments are aware of their obligations as employers. The Inland Revenue reviews their compliance with these obligations as it does with other employers. The yield from benefits in kind provided to Ministers of the Crown is not available.

  Sovereign Debts
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes to the regulations used in determining the provisions allowable for tax purposes against sovereign debts held by banks.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The original regulation made in December 1990 which set out the rules to be used in arriving at the maximum tax deduction available for doubtful sovereign debt follow broadly the existing Bank of England guidelines, commonly known as the Bank of England matrix. The Bank intends to make certain improvements to the matrix to make it simpler and easier to operate; these changes are to have effect for periods ending on or after 30 June 1993. We have decided that similar changes should be made to the regulations used for tax purposes.

  The Inland Revenue is today making available in draft form the amending regulations. I am placing a copy in the

  755
  House of Commons Library. Further copies are available on request from the Inland Revenue, to which representations on the draft regulations should be sent by 8 April 1993.

  The amending regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and will be brought before the House in the usual way in due course.

  Economic Recovery
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has established a programme to utilise the additional Community funds for economic recovery agreed at the Edinburgh European Council; and if he will list the projects to be submitted for funding.

  Sir John Cope
  The Edinburgh declaration covered many national and Community measures, the cumulative effect of which is intended to boost confidence, growth and jobs, so as to promote recovery. Such recovery would bring with it many new projects, particularly in the private sector, but it is of course impossible separately to identify all those arising as a direct result of the proposals agreed at Edinburgh. One particular proposal agreed was the establishment of a special 5 billion ecu facility within the European investment bank to provide finance for infrastructure projects within the Community. The EIB has already approved a number of loans from this facility, including some projects in the United Kingdom.

  Agricultural Partnership Tenancies
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress the Inland Revenue has made in resolving the jurisdictional problems over the valuation of agricultural partnership tenancies and the role of the special commissioners; and if he will make a statement on the current practice of the Revenue in such cases.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue is awaiting the judgment from the lands tribunal on one such case. This judgment may help to clarify the question of jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the Inland Revenue is, when requested, deferring action on similar cases.

  A number of representations have been made about this issue and we are keeping the position under review.

  Consultants
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many contracts for consultancies were awarded by his Department over(a) the last 12 months and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury introduced a new computerised system for purchasing goods and services during 1991–92. The records for that year are incomplete. Sixteen consultancy contracts are recorded as having been awarded in 1991–92; 47 have been awarded so far in 1992–93. Comprehensive information for 1991–92 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Savings Accounts
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements now exist for individuals to invest in savings accounts separate sums below £20.

  Mr. Nelson
  A large number of financial institutions offer savings accounts which allow customers to invest less than £20.

  European Investment Fund
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to revise the terms of the EC treaties to take account of the decision at the Edinburgh European Council relating to a European investment fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Council of Ministers has agreed that an intergovernmental conference should be called for the purpose of agreeing an amendment to the statute of the European investment bank which will enable the governors of the bank to establish the European investment fund. The statute of the European investment bank is a protocol to the treaty of Rome. Once agreed, the amendment will need to be ratified by member states.

  Currency Trading
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made about the percentage of currency trading in the London financial markets which is necessary for settling accounts in traded goods and services.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Bank of England has estimated, in the November Quarterly Bulletin, that daily turnover of foreign exchange trading in London is around $300 billion. However, it is not possible to estimate the value of trade in goods and services to which this is related because a large but indeterminate proportion of foreign exchange trading in London is connected with trade between third countries. Furthermore, it would be misleading to suggest that the only foreign exchange transactions necessary for trade in goods and services are those settling accounts; much trade would not take place at all were the foreign exchange markets not able to facilitate the hedging of currency risks associated with trade and with investment.

  White-collar Civil Servants
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to control the growth in the number of white collar staff in Government Departments.

  Mr. Portillo
  Departments' use of staff resources is controlled through limits placed on their running costs expenditure. Running costs provision and staffing plans are set out in the statistical supplement to the 1992 autumn statement (Cm. 2219). These imply a fall from 569,000 civil servants in 1992–93 to 553,000 in 1995–96. The Government have also announced, in the "Citizen's Charter: First Report" (Cm. 2101), market-testing targets covering activities currently performed by over 40,000 civil servants.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, columns 545–58, concerning the proportion of households of different types within each quintile group of equivalised disposable income, if he will publish similar figures for decile groups.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: The figures are given in the table:
  757

  Percentage of household types within each decile group of equivalised disposable income, 1979 and 1989

  Decile groups of equivalised disposable income

  Household type

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  5th

  6th

  7th

  8th

  9th

  Top

  All

  1979

  One adult with children

  7

  4

  4

  3

  3

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Two adults with children

  15

  16

  27

  37

  46

  40

  38

  28

  20

  16

  28

  Non-retired without children

  15

  8

  18

  28

  29

  36

  45

  56

  69

  76

  38

  Retired

  62

  69

  45

  21

  11

  10

  4

  5

  4

  3

  23

  Three or more adults with children

  2

  3

  6

  10

  11

  13

  11

  10

  6

  4

  8

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1989

  One adult with children

  11

  10

  7

  5

  3

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  Two adults with children

  18

  13

  12

  27

  34

  32

  31

  27

  23

  20

  24

  Non-retired without children

  21

  17

  18

  29

  37

  44

  51

  59

  63

  72

  41

  Retired

  47

  57

  59

  32

  21

  13

  10

  8

  9

  5

  26

  Three or more adults with children

  3

  4

  4

  7

  6

  9

  7

  6

  4

  2

  5

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  The figures in the table are rounded and may not add up to 100.

  Source: Central Statistical Office, based on Family Expenditure Survey.

  Family Expenditure
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the average expenditure by a family with one earner and two children on(a) average earnings, (b) 50 per cent. of the average earnings and (c) 150 per cent. of the average earnings on (i) food, (ii) domestic fuel, (iii) newspapers and books, (iv) fares, (v) children's clothing and footwear and (vi) all items which are currently zero rated for VAT, giving the most recent available data.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: The estimates given in the table are derived from the 1991 family expenditure survey. The estimates are based upon a sample of 50 households grouped around each level of earnings. Because of the small sample size the figures are subject to considerable sampling variations. The figures are rounded to the nearest 10p.

  Average expenditure of households with one earner and two children from the 1991 family expenditure survey

  £ per week

  (a) Average earnings £

  (b)50 per cent of average earnings £

  (c)150 per cent of average earnings £

  i Food

  55·80

  41·50

  64·20

  ii Domestic Fuel

  11·70

  13·40

  13·20

  iii Newspapers and books

  1·60

  1·40

  6·40

  iv Fares

  1·00

  3·00

  2·20

  v Children's clothing and footwear

  6·80

  6·20

  8·40

  vi All items1 zero-rated

  79·70

  66·90

  97·30

  1 Item (vi) includes items (i-v), NHS prescription charges and payments for NHS medical appliances and Water and Sewerage. Expenditure on 'Construction of new dwellings' which is also zero-rated, is not included as no figures are available.

  Income Tax
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for how many(a) working and (b) non-working people who do not pay income tax in the United Kingdom.
  758
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: The latest estimate is that about 21·2 million people over 16 do not pay income tax in 1992–93, of whom about 4·1 million have some earnings.

  Banks (Winding-up Orders)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to require banks to declare annually the number of winding-up orders they have obtained.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 23 February 1993]: I have no such proposals.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent on official entertainment in his Department during 1991–92 and 1992–93 to date.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 24 February 1993]: Expenditure on official entertainment for 1991–92 was £86,162. For 1992–93 expenditure to date is £253,609. The large increase in 1992–93 results from a number of one-off events, including ECOFIN meetings during the United Kingdom presidency.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) Coopers and Lybrand management consultants, (b) Touche Ross management consultants, (c) Price Waterhouse management consultants, (d) Ernst and Young management consultants, (e) Chrichton Roberts Ltd, (f) KPMG management consultants and (g) Leopold Joseph management consultants, with the total cost of the contracts with each contractor, for (i) the past 12 months and (ii) 1991–92.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The tables list the contract for consultancies awarded by the diplomatic and aid wings of the Department during 1991–92 and during 1992–93 up to 31 January 1993.

  Coopers and Lybrand

  (a) DIPLOMATIC WING

  1991–92

  Strategic Study—Value=£61,000
  759
  1992–93

  (i) Market Testing General

  (ii) Long Hours and Working Practices

  (iii) Market Testing Support on Information Systems

  Total Value in 1992–93 £71,000.

  (b) AID WING

  1991–92

  Former Soviet Union: St. Petersburg Free Enterprise Business Plan

  Ghana: Integrated Personnel/Management Payroll Database Study

  South Africa: Municipal Finance Consultant: World Bank Urban Sector Mission

  Anguilla: Annual Audit

  Guyana: Assistance to Divestment Programme

  Czechoslovakia: Advisory Assistance to Prague and Bratislava Stock Exchanges: Phase II

  Tanzania: Accounting Assistance

  Tanzania: Industrial Sector Credit: Privatisation Workshop

  Zambia: Accounts Team Phase II: Technical Assistance to the Bank of Zambia

  Czechoslovakia: Assistance to the Prague and Bratislava Stock Exchanges

  Poland: Study of Options for Tax Incentives

  Zambia: Technical Assistance to the Bank of Zambia

  Nepal: Civil Service Reform

  Hungary: Electricity Pricing, Regulation and Industry Restructuring Consultancy

  United Kingdom: Market Testing of ODA Headquarters

  Total Value in 1991–92=£1·71 million.

  1992–93

  Ghana: Health Sector Preparatory Consultancy: Human Resource Development

  Former Soviet Union: Property Privatisation Project: Supervisor: Russia

  Hungary: Phase II: Support for the Hungarian Electricity Sector

  Poland: Conduct of Council Business: Loan Government Assistance Project

  Egypt: Project Review: Egyptian National Institute of Transport

  Czechoslovakia: Advisory Assistance to Prague and Bratislava Stock Exchanges

  United Kingdom: Review of Office Services: Market Testing

  Kenya: Parastatal Reform: Preparation and Appraisal: Phases I, II and III

  Bangladesh: Short Term Consultancy: Project Support

  Bangladesh: Bangladesh Power Development Board Action Plan

  Turks and Caicos Islands: Review of Revenue Study

  United Kingdom: Privatisation Proposals.

  Ethiopia: Structural Adjustment Reform Programme: Public Sector Retrenchment

  Tanzania: Tanzania Railways: Information Technology Strategy Study

  Tanzania: Tanzania Railways: Asset Revaluation Study

  Tanzania: Tanzania Railways: Support to Finance and Supplies Department

  Poland: Financial Management for Local Government

  Tanzania: Personnel Control Study: Personnel Controls and Information Systems

  Tanzania: Chief Advisor: Parastatal Reform

  United Kingdom: Market Testing: Service Specification: Overseas Pensions Department

  Zambia: Assistance with the Establishment of a Revenue Board

  United Kingdom: Review of Crown Agents (I) and (II)

  Total Value is 1992–93=£6·0 million

  Touche Ross

  (a) DIPLOMATIC WING

  1991–92 Nil

  1992–93 Nil

  (b) AID WING

  1991–92
  760

  Hungary: Assistance to Budapest Stock Exchange in the Establishment of New Trading

  Zambia: Adviser: Privatisation of Public Enterprises

  Romania: Climate Change Study

  Global: Management and Operational Plan to Interim Multi Ozone Fund

  Total Value=£0·43 million

  1992–93 Nil

  Price Waterhouse

  (a) DIPLOMATIC WING

  1991–92 Finance Accounts System—Value=£0·27 million

  1992–93 Finance Accounts System—Value=£0·21 million

  (b) AID WING

  1991–92

  Czechoslovakia: Organisation and Business Review of Agrobank — Value=£39,000

  1992–93

  Malawi: Further Assistance to Department of Statutory Bodies

  Tanzania: Tanzania Railways: Review of Pensions

  Total Value=£0·33 million

  Ernst and Young

  (a) DIPLOMATIC WING

  1991–92

  Heavy Baggage Contract—Value=£20,000

  1992–93

  Overseas Estates Procurement—Value=£59,000

  (b) AID WING

  1991–92

  Czechoslovakia: Slovak National Insurance Co. Privatisation

  Czechoslovakia: Voucher Privatisation—Secondary Market Study: Consultant Advisor

  Czechoslovakia: Voucher Privatisation Programme

  Czechoslovakia: Assistance with Privatisation Policy: Stage 2

  Total Value=£1·74 million

  1992–93

  Czechoslovakia: Voucher Privatisation—Secondary Market Study II

  Total Value=£0·18 million

  Chrichton Roberts Ltd

  (a) DIPLOMATIC WING

  1991–92—Nil

  1992–93—Nil

  (b) AID WING

  1991–92—Nil

  1992–93—Nil

  KPMG Management Consultants

  (a) DIPLOMATIC WING

  1991–92—Review of Career Planning—Value=£0·35 million

  1992–93—Nil

  (b) Aid Wing

  1991–92

  Guyana: Public Service Review Phase III

  Ghana and Kenya: Country Studies: Climate Change

  Uganda: Civil Service Reform

  Guyana: Public Service Review Phase II

  Tanzania: Debt Reconciliation

  Czechoslovakia: Privatisation of the CESKA Insurance Company

  Poland: Assistance to Insurance Division of Ministry of Finance

  Total Value=£2·03 million

  1992–93

  Poland: Agricultural Development Fund

  St. Kitts: Offshore Financial Services Consultant

  761

  United Kingdom: Review of Services Provided by OACD

  Romania: Procurement Advice for Information Systems

  India: Singareni Colliery Spares Management/Incentive Study

  United Kingdom: Market Testing of Natural Resources Institute

  United Kingdom: Development of Costing Module at Natural Resources Institute

  Total Value=£0·38 million

  LEOPOLD JOSEPH MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS

  (a) Diplomatic Wing

  1991–92 Nil

  1992–93 Nil

  (b) Aid Wing

  1991–92 Nil

  1992–93 Nil

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many contracts for consultancies were awarded by his Department over(a) the last 12 months and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The numbers of contracts for consultancies awarded by the diplomatic and aid wings of the Department in 1991–92 and 1992–93 to 31 January 1993 are as follows:

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Diplomatic wing

  396

  482

  Aid wing

  948

  883

  Total

  1,344

  1,365

  Haiti
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government in support of the restoration of human rights and democracy in Haiti.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We continue to support the efforts of the United Nations and the Organisation of American States to broker a settlement. Along with EC partners we issued a statement on 15 December 1992 condemning continued human rights abuses and demanding a return to constitutional order; and on 21 January 1993 issued a further statement in support of United Nations-Organisation of American States efforts and rejecting recent elections in Haiti as invalid and undemocratic.

  Iraq
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the time scale for the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; and what steps are being taken to ensure that the location of such weapons becomes known to the United Nations inspectors.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Special Commission on Iraq and the International Atomic Energy Agency are charged with the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. They will continue to conduct inspections until they are satisfied that all prohibited weapons, components and facilities have been destroyed, removed or rendered harmless.

  The international community continues to press Iraq to comply with its obligation to make full declarations of all
  762
  WMD-related items. Individual Governments provide further information as to the possible location of such items.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many contracts for consultancies were awarded by his Department over(a) the last 12 months and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows:

  Period

  Number of consultancy contracts awarded

  1 March 1992–23 February 1993

  880

  1 April 1991–31 March 1992

  1,179

  Note: The figures do not include contracts issued by those executive agencies which have delegated authority to engage consultants.

  Airline Product Development Subsidies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what provision in the US/EC agreement on limitation of airline product development subsidies is made for spillover effects from defence programmes; and what monitoring mechanisms for this agreement are in place.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The agreement limits all indirect Government support which benefits the development or production of civil aircraft, whether or not such support was originally directed towards military projects. These limits are 3 per cent. of annual commercial turnover of the civil aircraft industry, or 4 per cent. of the turnover of any one firm.

  The agreement provides for an annual exchange of information between the parties and twice-yearly meetings.

  Most-favoured Nations
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what countries have most-favoured nation status with the European Community; what trading advantages this provides; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Article I of the general agereement on tariffs and trade requires GATT contracting parties to apply their external trade regimes, including customs tariffs, to all other contracting parties in the same way and without discrimination. The advantages of this so-called most-favoured nation provision are clarity and certainty of rights and obligations in international trade. The European community grants basic most-favoured nation status to all countries, although a number of countries, particularly developing countries, enjoy preferential trading status with the Community under special arrangements for that purpose.

  Coal Research Establishment
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had about the future of the coal research establishment.

  Mr. Eggar
  Clean coal technology and the future role of the coal research establishment in developing this technology is under discussion as part of our work on the coal review. My Department's chief scientific adviser on science and technology has visited the coal research establishment.

  Leyland DAF
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 17 February,Official Report, column 313, when was the contact of the Minister of State with his Dutch opposite number to which he referred; which Dutch Minister he contacted; and if the contact was by meeting or by telephone.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 24 February 1993]: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry spoke to his opposite number, Mr. Koos Andriessen, the Dutch Economic Affairs Minister, by telephone on 4 February 1993.

  Mineworkers' Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the current mineworkers' redundancy terms will also apply to miners at the 21 pits in the coal review if any are made redundant after 27 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 February 1993]: As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made clear to the House on 20 January, the issue of redundancy after March 1993 will be dealt with in the White Paper.

  Textiles
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he has taken to implement the RETEX scheme of European Community assistance to regions heavily dependent on textile and clothing employment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: The United Kingdom has sent to the European Commission two programmes under the RETEX initiative for the eligible textile areas of Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively. The Commission has not yet replied.

  A call for applications has already been made and once the Commission agrees the programme, projects will be considered by the RETEX programme monitoring committee for approval.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department has received from the apparel and textile industry on export promotion issues; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: Ministers and officials have many contacts with a wide range of industry bodies which give rise to discussions on export promotion issues and we always take careful note of their views.
  764
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures are being taken by the European Community to combat fraudulent evasion of quotas on textiles; what estimates are available on the extent of fraudulent trade; what similar information is available on measures taken in the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: The European Community has agreed, for the first time, a budget of 500,000 ecus to deal with suspected fraudulent trade in textiles and clothing. It will fund the activities of EC anti-fraud squads which will pursue cases on the basis of information supplied by member states to the Commission. In addition, the EC has agreed with certain supplier countries intensified monitoring of trade in goods where fraud is suspected. There are no official estimates of fraudulent textiles trade involving the European Community. As regards the USA, my Department has recently passed to Her Majesty's Customs and the European Commission an indication from the United States customs service that it would welcome co-operation in tackling fraudulent textiles trade.

  Spring Ram Factory, Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the first payment was made for the development of the Spring Ram factory in Bradford.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 9 February 1993, Official Report, columns 568–69.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received concerning the impact of the European single market on the retail tobacco trade; what is his assessment of its impact; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: My right hon. Friend has not received any specific representations about the impact of the European single market on the retail tobacco trade. The Government are well aware of the concerns of the trade, and the United Kingdom producers, about the possible implications of the single market and are keeping a close watch for any abuses. However, it is too early to be sure what impact there may have been on the retail trade.

  Expo '92
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has received for the future use of the British trade pavilion used at the Expo '92 exhibition in Seville; and what decisions he has taken.

  Mr. Needham
  [pursuant to the reply, 16 February 1993, Official Report, col. 135]: I am pleased to announce that contracts to sell the pavilion were signed today, Friday 26 February 1993. The purchasers are Asiansky TV, who will dismantle the pavilion and relocate it in Brent as the key feature of an Asian centre development.

  Somerset University
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 563, when he approved the use of the name

  765
  "Somerset University" under the Business Names Act 1985; and whether the statement submitted to him by the owner of that business stated that a written request for an opinion had been made to the Secretry of State for Education.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The use of the name was approved on 9 November 1988. The regulations which specified the 766
  word university as requiring the approval of the Secretary of State did not come into effect until 1 January 1983, and did not apply to names in use before that date. Since there was evidence that the name had been in use before that date there was no requirement for the owner of the business to submit a statement from the Department of Education and Science.