House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Feb 1993

Hansard

House of Commons

Friday 26 February 1993

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 (Manchester, Wythenshawe) : 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.

Column 1128

Disabled Persons (Civil Rights)

9.36 am

Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting) : 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 (Bolsover) : 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

Column 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."

Column 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 (Belfast, South) : 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)".

Column 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 (Hayes and Harlington) : 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

Column 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 (Exeter) : 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

Column 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.

Column 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

Column 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--approxi-mately £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 (Paisley, South) : 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

Column 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 (Manchester, Wythenshawe) : 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

Column 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.

Next Section

Home Page