| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North) : 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
Column 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 Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : 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
Column 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
Column 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
Column 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 areimportant 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.
. 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, accesto 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 caassess the impact of their disability on their lives and the qualityof 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.
Column 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 (Tiverton) : 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 (Paisley, South) : 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
Column 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
Column 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
Column 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
Column 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 and 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.
Column 1160
12 noonMrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton) : 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
Column 1161
taste of such a cartoon, but, frankly, if there wereanti-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
| Next Section
| Home Page |