I wish to call attention to the need to promote opportunity for the disabled, and I beg to move,

That this House pays tribute to the achievements of people with disabilities and to the dedication of individuals and organisations that support them; welcomes the measures taken by the Government, by local government, by health, education, training and transport agencies and authorities and by many employers, to enable people to overcome or cope with their disabilities; believes that, whenever feasible, users of facilities and services for disabled people should be involved in decisions affecting the running of them; and calls on the Government to find ways of expanding opportunity for and removing obstacles to personal achievement and fulfilment by people of all ages and all types and degrees of disability.

I am grateful to the powers, wherever they are, that enable me to bring forward this topic for debate this morning. The powers may be on this earth, although I suspect that they are further up. They sort out the lottery that enables an hon. Member to come number one in the ballot for private Members' motions. I am delighted that it is possible to have this debate.

I have received two apologies from hon. Members who are unable to be present today. They are the heavenly twins who run the all-party group on the disabled: the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) who is today at a conference for the deaf and dumb at Gatwick and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) who has engagements in the west country. Other hon. Members have expressed their regret that they cannot be here today because it is a Friday and they have long-standing engagements in their diary. I understand that, as I am sure that the House does. I hope that the wider public understand that we are here in quality, if not in numbers, on this smallish stage.

I welcome my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who have come to support the debate. I welcome the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). We know and respect his long service for disabled people, and his experience and knowledge of the subject of our debate. I am delighted that he has found time to speak for the Opposition today on this topic.

I especially welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. He has just changed his title, appropriately, to include the words "disabled people" which acknowledges that we are concerned with people. His reputation needs no embellishment by me. As one goes round the country, one meets many disabled people and those who look after the disabled who refer to my right hon. Friend in glowing terms, and who appreciate the care and devotion that he gives to the subject. I am especially pleased that he is speaking for the Government today and I am sure that he will speak for disabled people in all aspects, rather than in just the benefit aspects of disability. It would be difficult to have a motion for and on behalf of disabled people that concentrated specifically on benefits and did not look beyond to the wider aspects. My motion seeks to look at the whole person, the whole opportunity, all the obstacles that need to be removed and all the support that needs to be given to enable people to live life to the full and to contribute to our society.

I hope that this will not be seen as a rather sombre, long-faced debate in which people speak in hushed tones. I know that disabled people are not long faced and sombre, and they do not speak in hushed tones. We should first celebrate the achievements of so many disabled people and then see how we can enable them to go on achieving. We must also discuss how those who have not yet been able to achieve can be given the opportunity to do so.

This is not a debate in which we shall say, "There but for the grace of God go I." In the football terminology prevalent at the moment, we should be saying, "Here we go, here we go, here we go." Disabled people are making progress and, with a bit of support from the House and the country as a whole, they will continue to do so.

I want to celebrate the achievements of disabled people past, present and future, because undoubtedly there are many more to come. Every day, new obstacles are removed to enable those with disabilities to go one step further.

Let us look at the drama that is unfolding here this morning. It is perhaps a somewhat intimate theatre given the cast that is assembled, but it is no less important for that. Hon. Members, however, are not the stars of our drama; the stars are disabled people themselves. We are not the supporting cast either because that is made up of carers—the people and organisations who do so much to support those with disabilities. If we have a role, it is as stage managers—Opposition Members may say sceneshifters—who work together to provide the scenery and enable the stars and their supporting casts to perform. Our script is the script ordained by Parliament and our audience is the great British and international public. We invite that public to share in the catharsis that takes place in the theatre—the tears and pleasures, the laughter and the joy. At the end of the performance they may perhaps give an ovation to the stars of the drama—those wonderful disabled people—for all that they have achieved. To complete the theatrical allusion, we must look for one or two theatrical angels from among the members of the watching public and the Government, to ensure that future productions live up to expectations.

Disabled people are not moaners. They are people of great courage, determination and humour. It is a pleasure to work with them, both individually and in organisations. All the disabled people to whom I have spoken have shown a cheerfulness and generosity of spirit that are not always as evident among other parts of the community. We should recognise and reflect that in our debate. Disabled people have an abiding pride in their achievements. Disabilities do not disappear, but they do not have to prevent someone from living life to the full. Our task should be to encourage that pride in the achievement of personal breakthrough. One immediately thinks of the achievements of disabled people long since gone who have left a heritage that we continue to enjoy. One thinks, for example, of the physical disabilities of Milton and Beethoven. They have long since left this world but their literary and musical achievements will never be taken away from us. One thinks, too, of people with mental disability—for example, the poet John Clare, who lived near Peterborough. His life was a great struggle but he left behind great poetry. One thinks of the great painter Vincent van Gogh, and the ever-increasing value that is placed on his work.

It is a pity that sometimes the value is recognised only after people have gone. It would be preferable if more rewards could go back into the world of the disabled while they are alive. We treasure the quality of work that is left behind.

I come to those artists whose achievements have struck me during my lifetime. I remember—during what were, to me, the early days of television—watching Susan Hampshire in "The Forsyte Saga". Apparently, the serial was in black and white, although, interestingly, one tends to remember things in colour. Susan Hampshire managed to learn her part although she was suffering from dyslexia and could not read the words. One would never have known that from her performance in that great serial. Richard Rogers, the great architect who is contributing so much to our environment also suffers from dyslexia.

One must salute those people whose abilities are far greater than mine—and probably greater than those of any hon. Members. One thinks of Professor Stephen Hawking, who wrote "A Brief History of Time". Brief it may be, but understandable by the likes of me it is not. Professor Hawking's intellect has risen above the severe disability from which he suffers. One thinks of Kenneth Robinson, of the National Curriculum Council, now professor of arts education at Warwick and of Patrick Nuttgens, director of Leeds polytechnic. One remembers Elizabeth Quinn's great performance in "Children of a Lesser God". All of them have reached the heights in their chosen profession and are showing us what can be achieved.

Often, people come back after a sudden disabling accident or illness, perhaps the most frequent of which is the stroke. Robert Bolt and Patricia Neal have come back into the theatre; they are writing and acting while coping with the after-effects of a stroke. Th violinist Itzhak Perlman comes up to the concert platform on crutches but gives an extraordinary performance, to the great pleasure of all those who hear him.

We must salute the famous because they give great inspiration to all disabled people but perhaps those who are not yet famous are equally important. One thinks of the gentleman by the name of Alan Edwards who was in the bottom stream of a low-achieving school in Durham and had been virtually written off by everyone in the education service in that area until someone taught him music. He was found to have an extraordinary musical ability. That young man could not think of a career in industry because he could not have read the safety signs. Now, he has found his future in music and plays in the Covent Garden orchestra. Even more incredible is the case of the deaf dancer who trained at the Rambert school and who now dances with the Portuguese national ballet. When I asked how on earth someone who is completely deaf can cope with ballet I was told that one can feel the rythym though one's feet and so be capable of contributing to that art form. To those who do not stop and think, that is unbelievable. When one stops to think and to ask, one is astounded and one admires.

I listened to the nominations for the Today programme's "Best of British Youth" awards. One of those nominated is a young girl called Kelly who suffers from cerebral palsy and has campaigned to help others as a way of overcoming her disability. She campaigned, for example, to ensure that the local nature trials had wide enough paths to accommodate wheelchairs and that tapping stones were provided so that the blind could also benefit from that great local resource. Often, such achievements go unsung, but thanks to the BBC, Kelly's achievement is now known.

When I think of the disabled I think above all of Diane Wellsbury. She has benefited from the work of the SHARE Community in my constituency. Having benefited from it, she set out to support it. She decided to carry out a sponsored wheelchair push. A wheelchair push is not someone else pushing the wheelchair; the person in the chair pushes it with their hands. I was present to see her carry out that push. I was almost moved to tears by the sight of that frail young body and her look of determination as the sweat poured from her little forehead as she pushed her wheelchair. She explained why she was doing the sponsored push in a letter in which she said:

"Please spare a moment of your time to read my letter. I am 23 years old and have always been confined to a whelchair with severe disabilities for which I have to date needed 26 life saving operations. I am a trainee at SHARE Community which helps mentally and physically disabled people. For the first time in my life I now have the opportunity to help other disabled people. I am attempting a sponsored wheelchair push. Please help me."

That girl sums up all that is best in disabled people. She does not know what the future holds, how many years lie ahead or how many more operations she may need. However, she is thinking about how to help others and not about herself. If I dedicate this debate to anyone, I dedicate it to Diane Wellsbury, to the people who look after her and to the many people like her.

Of course, there are many occasions when disabled people are not so fortunate or so able to cope. Although I was right to begin by referring to the joy, laughter, determination and courage, there is also a blacker side to disability. We hear and see the pain, depression, despair and rage that disabled people can express. Very often that is not rage at others, but rage at the disabled person himself for not being able to cope. In some cases they rage at themselves because they try and try, but do not manage to succeed. However, sometimes they rage at Governments, local government or at society which does not seem to understand or to care.

Helping other people to understand is perhaps a central theme of my debate. If we show that we understand sensitively, at least some of that pain, depression, despair and rage can be dissipated. I understand why some disabled people demonstrated about the Telethon. The Telethon was a great effort to get wide public sympathy and financial help for the disabled and organisations that help them, but I understand that some disabled people feel that it was patronising and that they believe they have a right to be treated as a full part of society and not as peep shows or as people who should be patted on the head and then forgotten about.

There is a danger that we will have two nations—the disabled and the less disabled which includes the rest of us. There is a danger that we will have "us" and "them". Although I suspect that most of us would feel that the Telethon demonstration was perhaps ungracious, because many people were genuinely trying to help, I understand the feeling behind it.

The two nations concept is wrong. The road is seamless and there is a gradual progression. There is no clear cross over to disability. If we understand how close ability is to disability, we can perhaps begin to understand the needs. We must understand that disabled people are very close to those of us who may not consider ourselves to be disabled.

Many disabilities are gradual. For example, the loss of sight can be a gradual process as the world darkens. Similarly the loss of hearing, as I have seen in my family, can be a gradual process which can frustrate someone who has always had good hearing and who has perhaps enjoyed the theatre or music. That person is frustrated as he finds steadily that he cannot hear so well.

Mental facilities can also gradually disappear. We do not appreciate many of those cross overs until we suddently realise that a tic could lead to a mental or physical disability. Perhaps a way of behaving or a routine could lead to mental illness. I recall watching a television programme about someone receiving treatment at the Springfield hospital in my borough. The woman concerned had a passion for washing her hands and everything else. It had become more than a fetish or a routine. It had become so all-embracing that it was a form of mental illness. We can all see how our personal routines could easily slip into such a form of illness if we do not keep everything in proportion.

There are also sudden cross overs to disability. Those can arise from accidents. Sadly we hear of road accidents every day, and too often we know the people involved. Such accidents can be permanently debilitating. Strokes can also cause a sudden change of life ending the ability to speak or to move. Stroke patients need to be brought back to full life once more.

Many disabilities are not visible and that is perhaps the most frightening aspect for other people. The invisible illness possibly causes the most fear and prejudice among employers. If someone has a crutch or is in a wheelchair we know their needs. However, if someone has a problem in their mind or body that is not so visible, fear can overcome common sense. In the past such fear has led to people being locked away and forgotten. Once people are locked away in their own corner or institution, society says, "That's that. Let's get on with our lives." Society forgets and if it remembers that memory is tinged with fear.

As a child in Brighton I remember going on the under cliff walk at Ovingdean. To cross the road to the walk I had to go through a tunnel close by that great institution St. Dunstan's. I remember walking through that tunnel on my own. It was dark and the lights were not working and I heard the tap tap of a blind person approaching with his stick. I was terrified. Sadly that kind of terror is capitalised on by many childrens books. They learn attitudes from their parents who may have seen someone put away. Children feel that there is something to be worried about or frightened of. I vividly recall the sound of that tap tap. Of course I know now that my fear made no sense and that that blind person was tapping his way to the fresh open air to gain the same pleasure that I gained from the under cliff walk.

We must acknowledge that fear. If we do not do that, we cannot overcome it. John Wyndham and others have much to answer for building on those fears in the books that we have all enjoyed in our youth. No doubt Hammer horror films are building on such fears now. Science fiction stories about mutants and the horrors about people who are not quite "normal" also try to build on that fear. We must overcome that and encourage writers to take that into account. We must be aware of the fear of the unknown and consider how we would cope. Perhaps that fear is behind it all.

How would I cope if I suddenly discovered that my eyesight had failed? I often muse on that matter. I wonder whether it is worse never to have had sight or to have had it and lose it. Is it better not to know what one has lost or to have at least a memory of what one has lost? At school I played the part of the Duke of Gloucester in "King Lear" who had his eyes gouged out by the Duke of Cornwall—no relation, I hasten to say, to anyone living today. As he was taken towards the cliffs that he thought he would cast himself off, he said,

"I … want no eyes;

I stumbled when I saw."

When one realises that one stumbled, made wrong decisions and took wrong turnings when one had sight, one has a little humility. There is a complex graph of abilities, disabilities, weaknesses and strengths. Often weaknesses and strengths are weaknesses and strengths of character as much as a physical or mental disability.

People with disabilities are like us. I often think of the Shylock quotation.

"If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"

The opposite of wrong is right. We can right wrongs by giving rights. The rights that we seek for disabled people are the rights to opportunity, to achieve to the limits of one's potential, and to contribute to society, and the right to support, help and love. Perhaps one cannot demand the right to love—one can only earn that, but one earns it by being understood, so let us have the right to be understood.

Understanding starts young—during or even before school days. If children understand disabled children, they will not undergo a culture shock when, as adults, they encounter people in wheelchairs, with white sticks, hearing problems and so on. I endorse the trend to integrate more disabled children into our education system. We should do so whenever possible. I acknowledge that some disabled children could not cope with mainstream education. Some would find it difficult emotionally or physically to cope, and would need the support of a special needs school and separate education with the support of people with similar disabilities. However, in some cases cost can make that impractical.

Some parents say, "We are worried that our child will be forced into integrated education and will not be able to cope. No one is listening to us." We must listen to every parent and make sure that, when children are encouraged into integrated education, they are ready for it and are able to cope.

Cost is another aspect to be borne in mind. The Oak Lodge school for the deaf in my borough has pupils from a wide area of London. The cost of wiring in that school is phenomenal, but it is of superb quality. It would be difficult to install such high-quality wiring in every school. There is a case for keeping such spectacular schools for the benefit of children with disabilities.

The great danger in accepting the right not to be integrated is that some people will say, "That's fine. People do not want to be integrated." There is a great danger that people will take an out of sight, out of mind attitude, with children being institutionalised for the rest of their lives.

My right hon. Friend the Minister will acknowledge that there have been enormous changes in the past 20 years. There has been a profound, if quiet, revolution. In the 1960s, children with severe difficulties were classified as not able to be educated. Children with physical or sensory difficulties were automatically put into special schools—often boarding schools—and taken from their parents and the communities in which they lived. Children with moderate learning difficulties were put into separate schools—possibly a separate unit or class. Children with emotional or behavioural difficulties were excluded from mainstream education. Many of the children who were excluded and put into separate schools had a wide range of abilities and potential which could not be realised in separate schools. They needed rapport with other children and the educational curriculum to be able to do so. In the past 20 years we have established the right of access to education. We must now consider how to implement it.

In my borough of Wandsworth, more than 1,000 statemented children are in mainstream schools. One of the great virtues of putting a child into a mainstream school is that he or she has access to the new national curriculum, which is crucial to the widest range of education. We must be sure that there are the right levels of testing. Testing is a crucial part of our aim to raise education standards. The testing of a child with a disability is not straightforward. We must have a flexible system so that there are no low expectations and no under-achievements. A child should aim at what he or she can achieve, but we must be sensitive to individual needs or difficulties.

The delegation of financial management of schools is a great step forward. Again, we must make sure that such delegation takes disabled children's needs into account. Local education authorities, grant-maintained schools, the Department of Education and Science, school governors, school boards, teachers, heads and so on are required to look after the interests of disabled children. Too often, they say, "No, we cannot cope".

It is good that there is much more parental involvement in education. As parental involvement expands, the parents of disabled children have a greater opportunity to have their say and to make their impact on our education service. Teacher training is beginning to improve, but there is a long way to go. Teachers must understand how to integrate a child with a disability. We do not want teachers and heads saying, "Go down the road."

Many disabled children attend mainstream schools. We cannot yet say that each school is adequately equipped, supported and serviced. I ask my right hon. Friend to pass on the message that, to get integration right, we must provide resources, support and equipment to carry out necessary adaptations.

There is a great shortage of speech therapists. People who have had strokes, for instance, need speech therapy—many people do—yet it is a Cinderella profession. Speech therapy should be given higher priority. Physiotherapy too is often not available in mainstream schools, but it is provided in special schools.

Too many schools do not have wheelchair access for disabled children. In my borough, which has just taken over from the Inner London education authority, there is not a secondary school with wheelchair access. That is the measure of the task ahead of us. There has probably been a greater advance in primary schools. Long-term planning is needed. We need long-term resources—and resources have to be long term in some cases—and we also need resources as soon as possible.

For 12 years, the education authority in Surrey has had a policy of integrating disabled children into mainstream primary and middle-school education although that has not happened at secondary schools in general. However, about eight years ago Surrey education authority tried an experiment at a school called Park Barn, and now about 22 disabled children attend that secondary school. The school buildings had to be adapted. It was a school where that was possible as it had the space, the land and the buildings. The local authority provided the necessary additional resources in capital and revenue.

The school had to provide a new ground-floor resource room, a physiotherapy room, a treatment room, a speech therapy room, two sets of toilets adapted for the use of disabled pupils, two new laboratories on the ground floor, and all the entrances and exits had to have ramps. The internal ramps made access possible to all rooms on the ground floor.

Two teachers experienced in teaching physically disabled pupils and two part-time helpers were appointed. We must not forget that authorities often have to work in tandem on such matters, and the health authority provided six hours of physiotherapy and six hours of speech therapy a week. Once that had been arranged, it was possible to bring in the children. The next stage was to install a lift in the main building, and the school now hopes to install lifts in the separate buildings. The parents, teachers and all the children in that school have worked together to provide a school bus equipped with a tail lift that can be used by children with wheelchairs.

The result is that not only the school, but the school curriculum is acessible to disabled children. It is necessary for the timetabling to be arranged to ensure that the physiotherapy and speech therapy do not interfere with examinations. All that enables disabled children to participate to the full. They participate in all the extra-curricular activities as well as the curriculum. That means field trips, trips abroad, drama and arts festivals and competitions. All the activities that children enjoy become possible. The reverse of the coin is that the clubs and activities, which were technically just for disabled pupils, have become popular with all the pupils. The PHAB club and the lifeskills class soon attracted all the children, irrespective of disability. That integration can and has worked.

I accept that there must be a balance. We should like to have everything tomorrow. We want access to every school eventually, because otherwise our policy of integration of education cannot be meaningful to the parents of the disabled children. However, if we tried to do everything tomorrow, the funds would have to be taken from resources available for other purposes. That is the balance that we must get right.

Sometimes access to a school is not just for the pupils—often children have disabled parents who want access to the school so that they can feel a part of that school community. All that should be possible, but it will take time. Perhaps we should press for all new school buildings to provide full access, so that full opportunities become a reality every time.

Children leave school and, it is hoped, go on to higher education. My daughter is a student, and I asked her about the access for disabled students. She said that that was fine and that everything was done to enable the student to study his or her course properly. She said that the only problem was that she did not know how to make contact with the blind students. She did not know when they wanted her to say "Hello" or to bring them into conversation, because there was no eye contact. She had had no experience of working with blind children in her school, so in the student world she did not know how and when to say, "Hi, hello, can I help? Why not come and do this with us?" That is something that society must learn, and if it can learn it early, it will stand us in good stead.

I pay tribute to the recent decision to give additional benefits to disabled students. There is now more assistance for sign language interpreting, note-taking and other areas. We still need to consider the benefits for deaf students because many of them face problems in obtaining holiday jobs. I hope that the Government will consider some additional benefit for them.

Britain has about 6 million people with disabilities, according to all the assessment and surveys. It would be impossible to sum up all the many and different needs in one debate. If I go through a typical day, we might begin to understand some of the problems and how they might be overcome. We get up, wash, dress, make a cup of tea and listen to the radio. Perhaps we trip over, pick ourselves up, get ready, go out, go down the street, get on the bus or the underground train and go to work.

I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend. I hope that my question to him will not pre-empt something that he might be about to mention. Does he agree that many employers are forgoing excellent work by not considering disabled people for employment?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I intend to mention employment after I have dealt with the travel-to-work stage. Employers have a large part to play in providing jobs for the disabled. When they have jobs, they cease to be a burden on the community, which then gives them greater self-confidence to play their part in society.

Sometimes, a disabled person needs help to get up in the morning. He may need a dressing changed. Perhaps it is the weekend, when no one comes to give help. In order to wash, he may need taps with longer handles because he might not have sufficient grip to fiddle with the small taps that do not cause us any problem. When dressing, he may find it difficult to cope with zips, shoes and socks. He may want to make a cup of tea, but perhaps the kitchen level is not right for the wheelchair and needs to be adapted. He may want to listen to the radio, but his arthritic fingers may mean that he cannot cope with the knobs on the radio or, perhaps, the control on his hearing aid.

If he falls, there may not be bars fitted to prevent him collapsing to the ground or to help him get up again There may not be an alarm system to summon help from a friendly neighbour.

If he goes out, the door must be wide enough for his wheelchair. In the street, he may find that cars are blocking the ramps from the pavement to the road. Or he may try to take a bus, only to find that it is one-man operated and that there is no one to help him board it. The result may be that he has to return home and think again. I refer only to the everyday tasks that we all take for granted but which others cannot perform.

As we develop the Griffiths recommendations, we should bear in mind the need to consider co-operation between district health authorities and social services departments. Very often, social services do not provide weekend services, whereas district nurses will call in to change dressings or to help people get up in the morning. Social workers tend to work only from Mondays to Fridays. If certain functions are transferred to social services departments, they must be provided to the standard currently provided by district health authorities.

Social and health care are indivisible. Whoever takes the lead in community care, everyone should work together to ensure that there are joint ventures for everything, including equipment stores.

When people return to the community from institutions, careful consideration should be given to their housing needs. We must not provide homes in houses or hostels that are so much like institutions that the individual ceases to enjoy the benefit of returning to the community. Equally, such people should not be placed in isolated houses, separated from the care that can be provided. If they are accommodated in clusters of houses, staff can be shared among them.

There has been much publicity lately about the Government's attemps to help people who have to sleep rough. Such efforts tend, rightly, to concentrate on young people who sleep in boxes or doorways, and it is only proper that they should be taken off the streets and given some form of accommodation. However, many who suffer from a mental illness do not congregate, and are not to be found with other groups sleeping in boxes or doorways. They may be found wandering on waste ground, and they, too, must be helped.

When society discharges people from hospital and returns them to society, it should take care to consider the accommodation that is provided. In my part of London, the tower block is the most common form of housing. To put a person suffering from mental illness in a flat in such a block does no one any favours. There is an absence of neighbourly care, so the individual becomes more upset, cannot cope mentally or socially, and starts behaving in a way that antagonises other residents. The mentally ill can find themselves not just discharged from hospital but losing the housing provision made for them, with the consequence that they are left walking the streets. Much more must be done to assist such people.

Social services departments are willing to provide the right kind of washing and bathing facilities in a disabled person's home eventually, but all too often it takes a long time. There is a long wait for assessment, and another long wait before implementation. I hope that pressure can be put on social services departments to speed up that process.

The question of clothing for the disabled was dealt with in a recent Adjournment debate, when it was pointed out that often special clothes are needed that cannot be obtained off-the-peg. Special clothing incurs special costs, and therefore requires special financial assistance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has been pressing for all new houses to be constructed in such a way that they can accommodate the disabled, because any of us can find ourselves disabled at any time. If building regulations can be geared up with that requirement in mind, we shall start getting our housing policies right.

A recent report from the Leonard Cheshire Foundation on standards of special seating found that severely disabled people with multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy or similar disabilities are provided with inappropriate wheelchairs and seating by the NHS, causing them pain, deformity and pressure sores. It is believed that the situation can only get worse. A survey of 1,370 residents in the foundation's centres showed that more than one third of them were badly seated or could be seated better. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will study that report to see whether better seating can be provided for those who need it. There is little point in spending money on seating that actually makes the patient's condition worse. Money would be better spent on getting that aspect right.

People with arthritic fingers have problems in operating hearing aids. I have mentioned on more than one occasion the lady whom I found watching television with the sound off. When I asked her why, she explained that she was unable to hear the television even with the sound up because her arthritic fingers made it impossible for her to operate the volume control on her hearing aid.

I asked the hearing aid industry whether something could be provided in such cases and was delighted to learn from one firm that there are ways of solving the problem using either a remote control that eliminates the need for the user to be fumbling at ear level, or a device that incorporates a new concept in volume control, simply using touch. The main problem for someone lacking manual dexterity is adjusting a manual volume control that is difficult to feel. An electronic system enables the user simply to touch the surface of the hearing aid to adjust the volume automatically. That is another improvement which would make a big difference to the lives of our deaf fellow citizens.

Happily, alarm systems are growing in number. They have the support of the police and of many local authorities. A scheme was recently launched in my constituency that provides a panic button alarm system involving neighbours trusted with keys, so that they can enter the home of a person whose alarm has been activated to see what has happened. Such a system can save lives, and it provides enormous reassurance to those living alone, upstairs or downstairs.

I refer again to the problem of cars parked across corners or over pavement ramps. If one is in a wheelchair or is blind, such obstacles can present enormous difficulties, particularly in London. Thoughtless parking should be the subject of a publicity campaign by the Ministry of Transport, urging drivers to park carefully and to think before they park. Parking bays for the disabled are often abused, sometimes by people who have moved into a house where a bay was provided for a previous occupant and think that they can go on using it. That gives the whole system a bad name. I know that parking in London's narrow streets can be a particular problem. One either loses a wing mirror or parks on the pavement and risks causing an obstruction.

Blind people in particular have problems with pavement obstacles apart from badly parked cars, motor bikes or bicycles—though those who ride bicycles on the pavement are as much a menace as those who leave them parked there. Those who ride bicycles at dusk without lights also cause additional hazards to people with vision problems. A lady who is partially sighted wrote to me saying that the obstructions on pavements

"are numerous and varied, seeming to multiply daily. Advertisement boards, twirling vanes, shop furniture and goods, abandoned shopping trolleys … unfenced building sites, unguarded holes, unmarked scaffolding, builders tools, equipment and materials, the list is endless."

The list is endless because people are endlessly thoughtless. I hope that we can persuade them to think first. In addition, stray dogs can be a danger to disabled people. The mess that dogs leave on pavements can be extremely unpleasant.

The orange badge scheme has been abused and has a bad name. The public increasingly resent it because people who have no right to a badge use one. I hope that soon we can introduce regulations to make it a criminal offence to use an orange badge to which one is not entitled.

All forms of transport are important. One-man-operated buses cannot cope with disabled people. Bus routes could be better planned to cater for disabled people. Minibuses can follow routes that other buses cannot. They are being used, and I pay tribute to London Buses for that. Bus design could be improved no end. In particular, the omnibus has a facility to lower the front to the ground to enable a wheelchair to roll on. The omnibus may be the way forward for buses in future.

We have endless battles about rail services. Access to Clapham Junction in my constituency is down or up steps. There are no lifts or other forms of access for disabled people. There is no platform flush to the train for the wheelchairs of those who are carried down. It is high time that British Rail and whoever else is responsible got together to enable our disabled public to travel. Waterloo has many more facilities for the disabled.

Clapham Junction is a great junction for people not just from that part of London, but from all over the south of England to change trains to reach their destination. If only we could get British Rail to put up the money for lifts for the disabled. When it says that it would provide money if somebody else also paid, okay, let us see whether we can persuade the local community to contribute a bit. However, when it says that the local community must contribute most, I am not sure. The junction is a national asset and should be provided nationally. My youngest son has just returned from a school visit to Lille, where there is a new metro system comparable to the Tyne and Wear system. Trains are flush to platforms and wheelchair travel is no problem. That should be our task and target.

The problems of people requiring special needs transport are even greater. Taxi card users hope that some day there may be central funding to assist local funding and that there may be an opportunity to hail a taxi in the street, so that they do not have to endure long waits. Perhaps we could restore the incentive bonus for taxi drivers who pick people up in the street.

I will hear no ill of dial-a-ride. It is a great service. I have a great service in my borough of Wandsworth which is being mucked about by planners who want to force local services into a central or regionalised network. I ask my right hon. Friend to put pressure on London Regional Transport to say that people who use the service should have priority, rather than the wishes, efficiency-based or otherwise, of the transport authorities to have a system which fits neatly into their pattern. Alas, 70 per cent. of my 1,000 members' journeys are local and 30 per cent. are over five miles. LRT has disputed the figure of 30 per cent. and we cannot get the extra bus that other dial-a-ride groups are getting until we fit into the pattern. That is wrong and canot be tolerated.

Benefits are to provide back-up and they show the strength of society's feeling that we should be doing just that. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister can claim a good record on the increase in and extension of benefits since 1979. Nearly twice as many people receive severe disablement allowance, twice as many receive invalidity benefit, three times as many receive attendance allowance and six times as many receive mobility allowance. Expenditure has doubled to £8 billion and may be even more now.

A survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' showed a degree of satisfaction among disabled people, but not when age was taken into consideration. If 6 million people are disabled, 70 per cent. of them are over 60 and 50 per cent. over 70. Some 3.3 million of those over 60 have locomotion problems. We must not assume that because a person reaches a certain age, disability is a normal fact of life. If somebody becomes disabled at 64, he or she qualifies for mobility allowance. At 65 the person does not. Yet all the additional costs can be the same. We need to look at that and to square the discrepancy in the definitions of disability of the World Health Organisation, which was used by the OPCS, with that of the Department of Social Security, which does not refer to the ability to move about. The White Paper made no mention of transport needs and I hope that my right hon. Friend will refer to them when he replies.

In January when we had a debate initiated by the Opposition my right hon. Friend said that a review of disability benefits was to take place. I hope that it will. I hope that consideration will be given to the evidence of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux that some tests are unnecessarily cruel, such as when people are forced to go through pain to see whether they qualify for mobility or attendance allowance. One should accept the GP's evidence as good enough. Attendance allowance can be confusing. If it is withdrawn, it can lead immediately to the withdrawal of invalid care allowance. That is a double penalty and we need to consider it. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can refer to the Simon Crompton, Down's syndrome case about benefits payable to people who live at home. That needs to be looked at sympathetically, and I know that my right hon. Friend will do so.

All those benefits are to help with the extra costs which people with disabilities face. It is partly that they are less likely to earn, partly that they are likely to earn less and partly that they are less likely to earn promotion. One third of disabled people are at work which means that two thirds are not. Those who are, work fewer hours on lower pay rates. If, through benefits, people can work, it means that they can pay tax and cease to need other benefits. In the long run that is helpful to all of us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) referred to employers. I hope that we can send a message to them on behalf of the 2.5 million disabled people of working age. They should be patient as it may take some time for someone with disabilities to settle into a job.

A report has been published today on the vexed question of the 3 per cent. target for the employment of people with disabilities. Some 25 per cent. of firms fail to meet that target—sadly that includes many Government Departments, no doubt this place and probably the national health service. I accept that many people with disabilities are not registered, but are working and that, therefore, the 3 per cent. target may not be accurate. Many firms and buildings could not cope with some forms of disability, but many others could. We should consider the system that operates in Germany and in other countries. In Germany, firms that do not meet the employment target are fined the equivalent of that target in salary terms. If they fail to meet the target in the next year the fine is doubled. The money recouped goes into training and the provision of access for disabled people. If we operated such a system I am sure that many firms would say yes to employing people with disabilities. I accept that it is not as straightforward as that, but we should encourage the enforcement as well as the provision of such employment opportunities.

I hope that we can get rid of some of the bogus excuses for non-employment or lack of promotion. The other day I met someone with a visual disability who works on computers in a Government Department—I had better not name it. He cannot get promotion because that would mean working on a different type of computer based on the eighth floor, but he is not allowed to work above the fifth floor as that might be a fire hazard. He cannot get promotion for that reason, which is nonsense. I hope that we can get rid of such problems.

The biggest obstacle to employment is training. People must be trained to take up the vacancies as they occur. The uncertainties affecting training establishments are legion. I have already referred to Diane Wellsbury of SHARE and the problems that it is facing. That organisation has done a great deal for people who have come to the end of the line. It provides them with the opportunity to train, and many people's achievements have been extraordinary. Some have gone to university and many are now working in Government Departments, local government and other firms.

Jasminda is severely disabled with Ehlers Danlos syndrome. She can hardly walk and has little use of her hands. SHARE was able to train her in office skills, and she was approached by the local council who took her on in its housing department. She has now worked there for more than a year and it is the first job that she has had. She is proud of the fact that she now pays income tax—not many of us share that pride. It is a great achievement for someone with her disabilities to pay such tax.

Between 1978 and 1988 SHARE was funded by the Manpower Services Commission. From September 1988 it has been funded by the Training Agency. Thousands of people have benefited from the organisation, but since SHARE joined the employment training scheme it has had to negotiate five contracts with the Training Agency. In theory each contract lasts for 12 months and it is just about to re-contract. All the bureaucracy involved in that hinders the ability of that organisation to provide for people who are desperately in need.

Under the new training schemes the amount of money available has been reduced. The allocation is geared to the number of people looking for training, but among the disabled increased expectation means that many more are coming forward for such training. We should meet that demand. However, the allocations to SHARE were cut by 10 per cent. in March and it is expected that a further cut will be made next year. If there are any further cuts that organisation risks having to close on 31 March 1991. That must not happen. We are dealing with vulnerable people who need opportunities. Training provides such an opportunity and it should be at the forefront of what we offer to people with disabilities.

The arts can provide a precious opportunity—the ability to find oneself. People gain self-confidence and self-respect when they discover that, whatever they cannot do, they can do something artistic. The contribution made to the arts by many people with disabilities is staggering. We are aware of organisations such as the Graeae, the London Disability Arts Forum and its Movin' On festival. Those organisations and events enable people to discover themselves and more support for them would be welcomed.

I am a great believer in participation as the first objective of arts policy. However, we must also enable people to enjoy the arts and it is important to support programmes such as Adapt, which is designed to adapt buildings to enable people with wheelchairs to get in and ensures the provision of hearing loops for those with hearing difficulties.

It is also important to consider how the arts present the disabled to see that a more positive image is shown on soaps such as "Coronation Street", or whatever my right hon. Friend the Minister watches every night. The soaps are extremely popular and it is important that the public should see a more positive image of disabled people.

It is time that the remaining sections of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 were enacted. In the National Health Service and Community Care Bill a complaints procedure has been put in place and surely it makes sense for disabled people to have the right to be represented. The missing sections 1 and 2 of the 1986 Act would fulfil that obligation. Section 3 relates to consultation about the needs of the disabled and written statements about them. Section 7 relates to people discharged from institutions with mental disorders. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend may not be able to say, "Eureka, we can do that today", but I hope that those sections will be implemented soon.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will also refer the legal difficulties encountered by some local authorities in making payments directly to disabled people. Some authorities pay money directly to people to enable them to buy their own care and personal assistance. That gives those people more choice and we should support that. Other local authorities say that such payments are illegal. We must sort that out so that there is genuine consumer choice across the country.

Carers work alongside our disabled fellow citizens. It is estimated that there are 6 million carers for our 6 million disabled. That figure covers those who are aged 16 and over and represents 3.5 million women and 2.5 million men. A quarter of them spend more than 20 hours per week providing care. For the carers caring in their own home, the figure of 25 per cent. for those who spend more than 20 hours a week caring and providing a service goes up to 63 per cent.; 45 per cent. spend 50 hours a week or more doing so and 54 per cent. give up work to care. Therefore, because of the lack of support that they have so often had in the past, it is not surprising that one in 20 carers admit to some form of violence towards their dependant. That shows the pressure and tension that can build up.

I shall quote from a published letter from "Jessie"—I do not think that is her real name—whose husband, Tom, is an Alzheimer's patient. She wrote:

"I didn't know anything about Alzheimer's disease then but I made it my business to find out all I could—and I didn't like what I heard. By trial and error I have learnt to cope although it is a very hard and uphill road … From a placid, even-tempered, quitely-spoken man, Tom has changed into a different person … looking after the needs of someone with AD is like having a child in the house. They follow you around; if you nip to the bathroom or bedroom, anywhere where they can't see you, they are calling for you … The hardest time for me was when he forgot who I was—where did I fit into his life? The same questions over and over again. When he gets so very confused, I sit with him and I take him back down his memory to his childhood and his years in the army.

"I have become very good at hiding my feelings, but no one knows of the tears shed in the silence of the night—the heartbreak of the way our lives have changed."

Being who she is, Jessie went on to say:

"when the morning dawns, I lie and count my blessings and there are so many of them."

There are blessings in caring, but carers have needs. Those wonderful people are, according to the Select Committee on Social Services, saving us £24 billion a year. I do not know whether that figure is acknowledged, but it must be somewhere near the truth. We must do more to help carers through carer's premiums and invalidity care alllowance. Above all, we must provide them with a respite, let them get away occasionally, catch their breath and get their second wind so that they can go back to help. In helping, they are helping us all.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to put into inadequate words some of my feelings about disabled people. Getting to know disabled people and their organisations has given me a great deal. It has certainly added an extra dimension to my life. They are people with so much to offer us, each other and the world. Their achievements stir our emotions. I hope that in this debate we shall also feel that they appeal to our heads as well as our hearts. It makes economic and social sense to ensure that their disability is not a bar to full participating citizenship. Our task is to enable them to continue to bridge the gap between what they could achieve if they did not have their particular disability and what they constantly astound us by achieving despite it.

I shall end by returning to the beginning of my speech and looking at the little brochure sent to me about a disabled child going to school, using an electronic wheelchair and all that happens to her at school. It describes all the help, support and participation, and the true friendships of the child with other children right the way through the school. At the end it states:

"This school does not yet exist, and nor does the story teller exist as a single person. But everything in it has already happened in a school somewhere, and all the thoughts and feelings have already happened to somebody … True integration means … acceptance of equality of all people, regardless of ability or needs."

The booklet is entitled "nothing special". When it is nothing special to be disabled because society accepts that one is a full member of the community, when we give support in such a way that ambitions can be met and striven for, then disabled people will have the opportunty that my motion seeks to promote.

10.55 am

This is a highly unusual debate. In fact, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) has achieved an important first, as I cannot remember when there was last a general debate on the problems and needs of people with disabilities that was not held on an Opposition Supply day since the present Government came to power. So I congratulate him on using his good fortune in winning time for a debate, on his choice of subject and on the range and quality of the, at times, moving speech with which he opened the debate. We readily accept, of course, much of his motion.

The House is often at its best in debates on disability, not least because of the success of the all-party disablement group in keeping right hon. and hon. Members so well informed about the concerns of disabled people and their organisations. Like the hon. Member for Battersea I am, therefore, extremely sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who chairs the all-party group, cannot be with us today. He is honouring commitments made before this debate was announced and his voice will be sadly missed, as will that of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), the group's very hard-working secretary.

The Minister, like his immediate predecessors with responsibility for disabled people, often tells them from the Front Bench how extremely well they have fared under this Government. However, that is certainly not how they and their organisations view the Government's record. They say that almost all the extra spending about which Ministers speak is due not to any improvements in benefits, but to the increased number of disabled people now claiming attendance allowance, mobility allowance, invalid care allowance and other benefits that were introduced before this Government came to power. In fact, the vast majority of disabled people have fared much worse than most other people in terms of their living standards. Their organisations compare the Government's claims about their performance with their consistent refusal to find time for it to be debated in the House.

The dispute about the Government's record is very much one between Ministers and disabled people. They and their organisations strongly refute the Government's claims. They say not only that disabled people have fared worse than other people, but that in a huge number of cases they are poorer in real terms than they were 11 years ago, due to the social security changes of April 1989.

There is not enough time today, or in any single parliamentary debate, for us to review all the restrictions on opportunity for disabled people; but there is one that I must briefly raise at the outset. Barnardos recently arranged a "Parents' Forum" in a Committee Room of the House. Those of us who went were told by the parents of severely disabled young people that their sons and daughters can lose their severe disablement allowance if they enter youth training and then fail to find work. I am sure that they left all who heard them with the feeling that to withdraw severe disablement allowance from young people who try so bravely to triumph over severe handicap is a form of refined cruelty that Ministers must urgently stop.

The savings made by the Government from withdrawing SDA in those cases are very small compared with the £1.9 billion given in a single Budget to the richest 1 per cent. of taxpayers. The present rule is a tax on hope—that of young people who passionately want to exchange the dependence of social security benefits for the independence of gainful employment. All that severely disabled youngsters who receive training—even those who succeed as trainees—can possibly have today is hope.

Unemployment among disabled job-seekers is more than twice as high as among able-bodied people. Only 31 per cent. of all disabled adults of working age work, compared with 69 per cent. of the population as a whole. The ratio for men is even worse; 33 per cent. compared with 78 per cent. The earnings of disabled people who find work are substantially lower than those of non-disabled employees, and the same is true of parents of disabled children. Moreover, the Government's record in terms of jobs offered to disabled people is among the worst of all employers. So the Government's review of employment services for disabled people is of considerable parliamentary importance.

Yet I understand that, at the very moment when this debate began, a press conference was timed to take place for the release outside this House of the outcome of the review. While the Minister for Disabled People may allude here later to a document that has already been given to the press, I must strongly complain to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, about what will be widely seen as contemptuous treatment of this House. A planted parliamentary question for written answer is no substitute for full parliamentary scrutiny. This has already been described to me by people in the media as a shabby manoeuvre to avoid parliamentary questioning. The House deserved a statement yesterday in the normal way, with opportunities to question the Minister about the outcome of the review. As my speech proceeds, I shall return in detail to employment problems.

Meanwhile, I wish to emphasise that all Government policy in relation to people with disabilities, especially young people, should be directed to a single end: to enable them to participate in society on an equal basis with their fellow citizens. That requires the closest possible co-ordination between all Government Departments, but particularly between the Departments of Health, Employment, Education and Science and Social Security. Too often over the past 11 years we have witnessed a total failure to co-ordinate in Whitehall, with Departments thwarting each other's efforts. I offer one example. For severely disabled young people one of the keys to greater independence is to secure personal assistance which is under their control and which will help them do what they want to do when they want to do it. After much campaigning by Members of Parliament and others, not least the all-party disablement group, the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced a new package for disabled students, including a grant of up to £4,000 a year for non-medical support staff—Hansard, 19 March, c. 417. But what will happen when they leave college to seek employment and when their need of personal assistance will be just as pressing?

Ministers continue to sloganise about independent living, but continue to miss opportunities to put good intentions into practice. In another place last Monday, the Government succeeded in defeating by five votes the addition of a new clause to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill which would explicitly have given local authorities the power to make grants to people with disabilities to purchase their own care or personal assistance services.

Ministers have seldom been made to look so inconsistent and crass. They commend schemes that exist, but say that they are advised that these schemes are technically unlawful so they cannot openly obtain information about them, let alone encourage others. Local authorities support voluntary organisations of and for people with disabilities in arguing that this is a power that they should have; but Ministers have the cheek to claim that locally elected people would act unwisely and that the administration of public funds would be at risk. As one of the least welcome parts of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill is the Government's insistence that public money should be thrown at the private sector, it is extraordinary that the Government will not allow modest sums to go to people with severe disabilities who want only to win more control of their own lives. Paradoxically, the independent living fund already acts in this way without ministerial misgivings. If new awards from the ILF are abolished from next April, as is now feared, and if local authorities are not empowered to make direct grants to people with disabilities, all the Government's fine words about supporting the independence of disabled people will be shown to be so much hot air.

The Government have already resisted attempts to give disabled people the same legal rights to an assessment for respite care as they have to services under section 2 of my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. A notable recent report by Crossroads—entitled "Caring for Carers"—shows that caring is a full-time job, with only 17 per cent. of carers having some form of employment. The survey also shows that 10 per cent. of carers have no free time at all and 52 per cent. have only between one and five hours each week. Four out of 10 carers said that they were often at breaking point and I am glad the hon. Member for Battersea spoke so movingly in support of that finding.

Crossroads has clearly shown that one of the key demands of carers is for more respite care, especially in the home. To this effect, Peter Large of the Disablement Income Group, a widely respected figure in this House, has pointed out:

"Where it exists, respite care almost invariably involves moving the disabled person out of his or her home, leaving the regular helper temporarily free of any responsibility for the disabled person. Indeed, the White Paper defines respite care in these terms."

In the recent survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, 83 per cent. of adults in the two most severe categories of disablement had not received any respite care in the previous year. The percentages of people receiving such help in the home as night sitting were negligible.

Section 8 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 for the first time gave carers a statutory right to have the local authority consider their ability to provide care. Yet a recent report from the social services inspectorate shows that, two years after the implementation of that section, only one-fifth of councils had a written policy.

The full impact of section 8 will not be apparent until Ministers stop dragging their feet and implement section 3, not least the vital subsections on disabled people, or their carers, who need communication assistance. Is it not utterly disgraceful that this and other crucial sections of the 1986 Act, which was so ably promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)—with support from both sides of the House—still await implementation four years after they became law? May we now have a clear and definitive statement about the Government's intentions? It was good to hear the endorsement of the hon. Member for Battersea of the now general view that the Government must act now and very urgently.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that when my predecessor supported what I tend to call the Clarke Act, it was made clear that it would be implemented as and when resources became available. We have now implemented all the important parts of the Act except for sections 1, 2 and 3, and, as I told the House on an earlier occasion during oral questions, we are now consulting local authorities about the implementation of those sections. Local authorities have a crucial role in their implementation and it is important that we have their views and reactions. We have now initiated consultations with them with a view to implementation in due course.

I well recall the statements in the House by the Minister's predecessor. None of us, on either side of the House, thought that there would be a delay of four years in implementing crucial provisions of the Act. To govern is to choose; many people will say, not least in the voluntary sector, that there clearly have been resources since 1986 for full implementation of all the purposes of the Act. I do of course, appreciate the importance of the role of local authorities. They need to be consulted regularly and in detail. However, local authorities are themselves complaining strongly about the delay in implementing a statute that is so important for disabled people.

A recent report in The Times said that the Secretary of State for Health is preparing the ground for delay in implementing the community care parts of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Given the unpardonable rejection by the Government of ring-fencing and the vastly increased burdens that the poll tax has imposed on local authorities, I fully endorse the fears of Crossroads, of which I have the honour to be patron, that without significant resources carers will see no service improvement under the new system. Crossroads argues:

"Hard-pressed councils have to prioritise need in the face of scarce resources and it is quite understandable that people who are now looked after by a carer will be of lower priority than those living on their own."

Another key component of independent living is social security for which the Minister has direct responsibility. As he knows, his policy statement "The Way Ahead" has been greeted with dismay by almost all the voluntary organisations of and for people with disabilities. Peter Large has described it as a cul-de-sac and says that ministerial talk of a more coherent system of benefits is "a sign of delirium."

The Government's proposals for the new so-called disability allowance will help only those with mobility or care needs. The Government claim that this reflects the findings of OPCS, but the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—RADAR—in its response to "The Way Ahead" told the Minister:

"The OPCS report downgraded many conditions which proved to cause significant extra expenses. Although only 18 per cent. of adults reported extra expenditure on food (OPCS 2 Table 4.7) this was, at £6.20 per week, by far the single most expensive item; and expenditure was almost identical in all severity categories (OPCS 2 Table 4.9). Equally the small number of children with digestive disorders cost their parents four times as much as others".

RADAR went on to criticise the Government's total failure to replace the extra help with special diets that was available before April 1987 for people with AIDS. The Royal Association said that restricting help to those with less than six months to live—by the extension of attendance allowance to the terminally ill—is insulting to those whose lives can be prolonged by sufficient help at an earlier stage of their illness. This example of digestive disorders and diets is used by RADAR to illustrate flaws in the OPCS's methodology which have led the Government to ignore the needs of a significant number of people with disabilities.

Is there nothing that the Minister can do to help people who are so demonstrably in the direst need? I ask him urgently to review the scandalous plight of people with AIDS to whom RADAR drew his attention and also to give today the Government's response to the social security commissioners' decision, reported this week, on the important case, to which the hon. Member for Battersea referred, of Simon Crompton, who has Down's syndrome and lives with his retired parents in Tameside in Greater Manchester. It is estimated that the decision in that case could benefit 30,000 other disabled people. What action are the Government taking to identify them, and do they accept the social security commissioners' decision?

Mr. Crompton had been refused severe disability premium, worth £28.20 a week, which is available under the income support system. The Department of Social Security says that the premium is designed for people who live on their own, although the regulations allow for it to be paid in cases where a claimant "jointly occupies" a property with other adults. The case turned on whether this wording implied a stake in ownership or tenancy of a property, as the DSS maintained, or merely a sharing of a property, as Mr. Crompton successfully claimed. He stands to receive almost £2,000 in benefit arrears.

Will the Minister concede that it would be shameful for his Department now to seek to deny benefit to severely disabled people on the grounds that they are living in the same house as elderly parents? Will he now admit that the Government's policy is a complete shambles with wholly inadequate provision in income support, the independent living fund in suspended animation, social services departments unable to give grants to people such as Simon Crompton, poll tax demands that disabled people cannot afford to pay, and "The Way Ahead" offering nothing to the most severely disabled members of our society who wish to live independent lives?

I should now like to turn to three aspects of the employment services for disabled people. First, there is a widely supported demand, not least from the organisations that speak for disabled people, for stricter enforcement of the quota scheme. As less than a quarter of firms satisfy their 3 per cent. quota obligations, and as the employment service has stated that work with disabled people is of low priority, will the Department now enforce the quota system? What will be done about people with disabilities which severely affect their employment prospects and who now languish in job shops with scant, if any, prospect of ever finding a job?

Secondly, will the Government expand the sponsored placement scheme to provide more integrated work opportunities at all levels for disabled people? Voluntary organisations were dismayed by the reply on 12 March to the chairman and secretary of the all-party disablement group, which baldly stated that no new SPS places would be available during 1990–91. That reply is at column 136.

Will the Minister also respond to the criticisms in the excellent recent report by Mainstream that the subsidy is too low and that SPS employees are disadvantaged by being ineligible for the same benefits and terms of employment as others with whom they work because they are not employed directly by the host firm?

Thirdly, will the Government now belatedly emulate the United States Congress, which has passed the Americans with Disabilities Act? That Act extends to the private sector in the United States the anti-discrimination provisions of the Rehabilitation Act 1973, which have proved so effective in combating discrimination in the public sector and among firms receiving federal funds. Since anti-discrimination legislation has been on the statute book in the United States for 17 years and is now being extended, how can Ministers here possibly claim that it would be ineffective?

We could have led the world in outlawing discrimination, as we did in 1970 when we legislated on access to buildings, if the Government had acted on the report in 1982 of the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People, which I appointed as the then Minister in 1979, or had not shamelessly blocked successive private Members' Bills aimed at giving the report legislative effect.

I shall give one example from Manchester of the vital importance of legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people. A deaf young woman employed by the Greater Manchester Coalition for Disabled People is unable to enjoy the same employment rights as others because the Department of Employment will provide communicators only for deaf trainees and not for employees. Kevin Hyett, the chairman of the GMCDP, has said:

"The Government provide blind people with readers and disabled people generally with a wide range of high-tech equipment, so you have to say that this is blatant discrimination."

The Government often single out deaf people for special hardship. As in that case, their needs are ignored by the social security system and often their severe disability makes it practically impossible for them to obtain even their basic entitlement. Happily, in another place, an amendment to the Social Security Bill has been passed to allow deaf students to retain entitlement to social security benefits. I trust that the Minister will announce today that the Government have no intention of seeking to overturn that amendment when the Bill returns to this House. I urge him unequivocally to do so when he speaks in this debate.

I hope also that the Minister will explain what actions he will take to end the chaos which is threatening employment training schemes run by voluntary organisations. Only this week, I heard that the "Black Country Talking Magazine for the Blind", which is manned by ET workers, has to close because of lack of funds. The Spastics Society, which provided 429 training places, decided on 30 April to withdraw from the ET scheme when the Government altered the terms of the contract. If the society had not withdrawn, it would have faced a deficit of over £200,000 in the coming year. What possible justification is there for that huge tax on voluntary effort?

This morning, the Spastics Society released a valuable report which reflects deep concern about the Government's employment policies. The report says that discrimination against disabled job applicants has not diminished in the past four years. As the Minister knows, the Spastics Society is in the forefront of organisations now demanding anti-discrimination legislation, to which Labour Members are fully committed.

The motion moved by the hon. Member for Battersea pays equal tribute to Government and voluntary organisations. I hope he is now persuaded that he should have been more selective in his praise.

There are very few voluntary organisations of or for people with disabilities which do not have a long catalogue of examples of how the Government continue to cut the ground from under their feet and, while leaving no platitude unspoken, enact policies which reduce the equality and independence of people with disabilities. Yet the House must recognise that independence is the biggest prize of all for Britain's 6.5 million disabled people. It has become the common objective of this House as a whole.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on his success in the ballot and his choice of subject. I came third in the ballot, but I do not resent that fact because of the subject that he chose and because he treated it with such sensitivity and understanding.

I appreciate the experience and commitment of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), but I do not intend to follow him down the path of the financial and economic resources that should be available to disabled people. I shall look at the wider issues set out in the motion.

When talking about the disabled, we are in danger of confusing several issues. we are inclined to group many diverse talents and limitations. To name the broad categories, there are physical disabilities, mental disabilities and psychological difficulties, from which many people suffer. To consider those people as a cohesive group would be to misunderstand their problems and not recognise their contributions.

We come up against disability either personally or by recognising it in others. I discovered this early in life when I studied law at university. My tutor had been blind from birth, but he went on to hold one of the foremost chairs in jurisprudence. There is no doubt that I learnt much from him about understanding the law and I could in no way emulate the way he understood attempts to contribute in seminars and tutorials. One of the tasks I was first invited to perform—rather than being a chore, turned out to be a happy duty—was to read the law reports and other documents. One simply had to gabble away, but the way in which he anticipated the result before the end of the argument was amazing. Although he suffered one disability, he did not see it as such. A compensating achievement more than ruled out any disability he might have felt.

The motion has given us an opportunity to look at this matter in the broad sense. By considering the challenge that disability brings to those who suffer from it and to those of us who have no obvious psychological, physical or intellectual disability, we have an opportunity to think about where we can bring pressure to bear, place emphasis and give support.

The key concept in the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe was "access". It is clear that those with disabilities in any of the three broad categories that I have suggested suffer because of access difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea spoke of the problems of wheelchair access to schools in inner-city areas. We recognise the problems of people who wish to go to the theatre or wish to sit in the House or the other place. We should ensure that there is easy access in newly designed buildings and that, as far as possible, existing premises are adapted so that embarrassment is not caused and obstacles do not exist.

Physical access may be connected with the intellectual or educational access to which my hon. Friend referred. If children cannot get into a school because they are wheelchair-bound, the opportunities that they might enjoy and might properly claim are obstructed. Those two aspects deny people access to opportunities in the wider community. As the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said, access to independence must be the key for any person who suffers from a disability, allowing that person to fulfil himself and achieve his potential.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea has opened up a debate that challenges the attitude of the public and our attitude as individuals. It has presented us with the challenge not to look at disability as an obstruction or inhibiting factor, but to consider the opportunities for fulfilment of those who perhaps have limitations in one sense but have great potential in another. I have visited the Cheshire home and Athan house. When one is in the presence of members of the Southwark branch of Mencap or one sees the wheelchair race in the London marathon, one's attitude to the problems of incapacity and disability is changed.

The problems of a person with a physical disability sometimes come rather closer to home. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea described the day of a physically disabled person. A year or so ago, while I was gardening, I pricked my hand on a rose and had to have my hand in a sling for a week. I suddenly had a greater understanding of what incapacity and disability meant. I could not tie a tie or a shoelace, I had difficulty doing up buttons and I could not drive a car. I was suddenly made aware of what disability means even in its most trivial form. That gave me even greater admiration for the courage, grit and determination of the disabled who succeed in achieving, whereas those of us who are reasonably able most of the time and suddenly come up against disability find life difficult.

Disability is a matter of attitude as well as of resources. Resources must be available and properly deployed. However, the attitude of those of us who take an interest in these matters must inform and reflect itself on the rest of the community. Those who, in one sense or another, are regarded as disabled have an important role to play in decision-making. Our debate today offers the opportunity to open up the subject for a wider discussion and for wider understanding. I welcome the choice of topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea.

Order. I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Act 1990

2. Greenwich Hospital Act 1990

3. Pakistan Act 1990

4. Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Act 1990

5. Food Safety Act 1990

6. Australian Constitution (Public Record Copy) Act 1990

7. Computer Misuse Act 1990

8. National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990

9. Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Act 1990

10. South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Act 1990

I wish to concentrate on a specific aspect of disability. I was especially interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who addressed a wide and important range of problems facing disabled people. I shall not deal with those points or with the matters raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) as they have been dealt with adequately already. If the views of the hon. Member for Battersea were shared and acted on by the Government, there would be little, if any, need for today's debate.

As the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) said, we are all aware that many hon. Members have attempted, through private Members' Bills, to bring these matters to the attention of the Government, but most attempts have failed. Hon. Members have attempted to introduce legislation covering the range of matters raised today but in almost every case the Government have turned their face against the Bill. They have resisted the opportunity presented to them to make progress.

I was fortunate enough to be drawn in the ballot and I attempted to introduce a simple private Member's Bill, the Local Government (Access to Information) (Disabled Persons) Bill. All the points raised this morning are vital. A problem which affects many disabled people is their lack of access not only to buildings, but to information. My simple, one-clause Bill sought to bring to the Government's notice the fact that disabled people were disadvantaged by not having access to information. There are many examples of that problem. We are all aware of the tremendous impact of information technology. Information is power, and information means that one has the knowledge to deal with matters affecting one's life and the lives of others. In many ways, disabled people are deprived of information which could bring a solution to their problems or relieve the problems in their day-to-day lives.

It is only since the creation of the national health service that disability and disabled people have been brought out of the shadows of the pre-war and early post-war period, when in almost all instances the problems of the disabled were ignored by Governments and by society in general. The national health service did a great deal to make us aware that disabled people were people like ourselves who suffered from a disability which often prevented them from leading what would be considered a normal life. Progress has been made in many directions, thanks to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and of many other hon. Members who have constantly attempted to draw the Government's attention to the various problems faced by disabled people.

I want the Government to act on the single issue raised in my Bill and I appeal to the Minister to take its provisions on board. That would not be a costly exercise. My Bill sought to make local authorities and other agencies responsible for ensuring that disabled people, such as blind people, who have great difficulty in obtaining information about themselves, about the world in which they live, about their local authority and about the agencies, have access to information. Little or no provision is made by local authorities to make such information available to blind people or to deaf people who suffer particularly as a consequence of a lack of information.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his private Member's Bill was widely welcomed by disabled people and their organisations? It is still not too late for the Bill to be enacted. I hope that the Minister will respond as helpfully as he can to my hon. Friend's important plea.

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's useful intervention. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will relent and move away from the attitude adopted by his predecessor. I hope that he will at least consider the Bill, which will not cause financial problems for the Government but will make local authorities and agencies responsible for reporting annually. The Bill is not intended merely to leave the matter as a piece of legislation, but to bring the issue alive. Every year, reports would be produced to show whether local authorities and other agencies were implementing the provisions on access to information for the blind, for the deaf and for other disabled people. That information is vital.

We must remember that disabled people pay their rates and taxes just like everyone else. As ratepayers, we have access to local authority information on a whole range of issues that affect our lives. We can obtain that information reasonably easily by going to the local authority and obtaining a leaflet or some advice. Disabled people cannot make those simple approaches. We must take into account the need for local authorities and other agencies to find ways of providing information to blind and deaf people in particular.

That task would not present local authorities with problems. Information technology provides the means to let deaf people know what is going on when they visit their local council chamber. How many councils provide sign language at their meetings to enable deaf people to understand and appreciate what is happening? The answer is very few. How many blind people are given the opportunity to know what is happening in their council and its committees, which take decisions that affect their daily lives? The answer, again, is that very few, if any, are trying to provide disabled people with access to information that is vital to them.

I came to understand the enormity of the problem when I first introduced my private Member's Bill. I received a video letter from a constituent in his early 20s. I had to find a means of translating that letter, which was in sign language, and I used the resources of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, which provided me with the translation that I sought. That young man went to the trouble to point out that that was his only means of communication and it made an impact on me. He pointed out that often when he could not hear what was happening on television he asked his parents, who were sometimes annoyed or could not understand him. That may appear, on the face of it, to be a minor problem but it means a great deal to that young guy.

Attempts are being made to provide sign language on television to help deaf people. Now that our proceedings are televised, sign language should be provided, because people regard this place as an important feature of life in this country. It is essential that they should have access to what happens here and in the other place. Sign language should be used so that deaf people can join all those who gain their information from the television.

I was greatly encouraged by the fact that the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and my young constituent went to the trouble to do what they did. I sent a video sign language reply to his message which was a simple one. He asked, "Have you forgotten our problems of communication and information? Are you aware of them?" I knew then that the video letter was the only means of communication that that young man had. We should consider that most seriously because he is one of many thousands of people who are affected.

I hope that the Minister will take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Battersea and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe. I appeal to him, even at this late stage, to reconsider my simple, one-clause Bill, which would bring a great deal of comfort and pleasure—and, information being what it is, a great deal of value—to those who, by reason of their disability, are cut off from vital sources of information.

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on his good fortune in winning the ballot and on his excellent choice of topic. I am delighted to be able to be here today, and I am only sorry that the Liberal Democrats have not seen fit to attend this important debate. They go on at length about how much they care for the disabled, but not one of them was here at the start of the debate and, to the best of my knowledge, there is not one here now. I suppose that they may all be sitting there en masse but if they are, they are invisible as usual.

It is a sad fact that many people today pay no heed to the problems of the disabled unless they themselves are disabled or have relatives or friends who are. Those facts bring home to ordinary people the great needs of the disabled. I have a relative who suffers from multiple sclerosis. Another relative, who died recently, suffered a major stroke and lived for 10 years after it which I gather is quite unusual. He was a man of very strong constitution. He found that he could just about cope with his disability although, unfortunately, he had lost the ability to read and write. He managed by using talking books, watching the television and conversing with others. But he found particularly difficult a little operation of which most people would think nothing: he could not cut his toe nails. That caused him more anxiety and difficulty than almost anything. Often, people find that they are able to deal with most things and they find it difficult to ask for help with an everyday operation such as that.

Also on a personal note, my father suffered from Alzheimer's disease for several years. It is a truly horrific and terrible disease. My mother did sterling work looking after him and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Dr. Bennett, the local doctor, and to Rose Fortune, the district nurse in the area of Inverness-shire where my parents lived. They were both marvellous in looking after my father. Personal contact with disability brings home to one how important the subject is and one perhaps gets some idea of the problems that the disabled face.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea had done his research well and covered most of the subjects that I wish to mention. I congratulate him on that. He has done extraordinarily well. In my brief intervention in his speech, I said that many prospective employers are not prepared even to consider someone if he has a disability of some sort. I do not know why they should do that, but they are doing themselves out of people whose brain power may be much better than theirs. I plead with employers to widen their scope when they want to fill job vacancies. They should consider the claims of disabled people because they can do those jobs very well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea referred to the difficulties of getting to work. He also referred to the achievements of many notable disabled people. I can think of many examples of disabled people who have achieved a great deal. For example, Nelson won the battle of Trafalgar with only one arm and only one eye. That was a great achievement. The French may not have thought so at the time and they probably do not think so now. Sir Douglas Bader was legless when he flew Spitfires in the battle of Britain. Professor Stephen Hawking has already been referred to. I briefly dipped into his book "A Brief History of Time" and quickly out of it again. That book requires the summer recess to do it justice.

Some great composers also suffered disabilities and in that regard I think of Delius. I am not necessarily convinced that he was a great composer, but some people think so. Nevertheless, he found ways of overcoming his illness and he wrote music. Beethoven was so deaf that when he attended the first performance of his ninth symphony he was completely unable to hear it. He did not know when it finished and his friends had to turn him round so that he could see the cheering and applauding crowd.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea mentioned Itzhak Perlman. I remember attending a concert at the Royal Festival hall some years ago at which Mr. Perlman performed Mendelssohn's violin concerto. That was a notable occasion and one of the concerts that has stuck in my mind. It was a great performance by Mr. Perlman, who followed the violin concerto with Bruckner's seventh symphony which made the concert even better. We must also think of Jacequeline du Pré, that great cellist and a wonderful music maker. Tragedy overtook her, but she rose above it and passed on her talents and knowledge to young musicians in her wonderful master classes.

Disabled people in wheelchairs take part in the London marathon. From time to time I have thought that I might enter the London marathon, but I unthought it pretty quickly. The prospect of pounding around 26 miles is a little too much for me. However, I pay tribute to the people in wheelchairs who take part. It is incredible that they do so well.

We have recently debated Bills on abortion. I hope that such legislation does not lead to circumstances in which a baby which shows signs of being disabled before it is born is automatically aborted. That would be disgraceful. I have spoken to people born with disabilities who have told me that it is the only form of life or view of themselves that they have known. They believe that they have a right to live their lives in whatever form they were born.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea also referred to building design. At election time we visit polling stations which all too often are in places that have no access for the disabled. Often polling booths are set up in small village halls or in odd corners here and there. Disabled people cannot get into those places. It is fundamentally important to our democracy that all people should have the right to vote, and it is wrong that some may be put off exercising their democratic right simply because they cannot get into a polling station. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider that point.

Many buildings were not designed with the needs of the disabled in mind. That applies not simply to access to buildings, but to lifts. Someone in a wheelchair might be able to get into a lift, but be unable to reach the buttons to get to the required floor. The designers must bear in mind small things like that when they design buildings and the services in them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea has already mentioned trains. It is very difficult to adapt a train to the needs of the disabled once it has been built. However, if a little thought was given to the design in the earliest stages, every disabled person who wanted to travel by train would know that he could do so. Occasionally disabled people may decide not to bother even setting off on the journey because they know that they will not be able to get on the train. A little thought would go a long way.

Buses and conductors have also been mentioned. These days we have those horrible things called OPOs—one-person operated buses. We often see people struggling with babies or shopping trying to get on to them. The disabled have no chance of getting on. Buses should be designed in such a way as to allow the disabled to board them. The fare-paying public would be willing to pay a little extra to have a conductor. The modern double-decker buses in London are not a patch on the old Routemaster which was one of the best buses ever designed or built.

A pavement is something which most hon. Members simply walk along. If a paving stone is sticking up a little, one might trip over it, utter an oath and walk on. The incident is quickly forgotten. But for disabled people, particularly the blind, such a paving stone could cause a crashing fall. Very often there are holes in pavements. The utilities come along and dig them up. That is fair enough; they probably have to do that. But more often than not, the hole is left inadequately guarded. There may be only a couple of cones on either side of the hole or a couple of rods stuck in the ground with a little sticky tape wound round them. The assumption is that most people will see the cones and ribbon and will take avoiding action. But a blind person cannot see the cones, ribbons or rods. Blind people have fallen into holes and hurt themselves seriously. It only needs a little thought. It is not very difficult to erect something slightly more rigid so that a blind person can knock against it with his stick and thus be warned of the obstruction.

Parked cars also constitute dangerous obstructions. If people park their cars on pavements there may not be enough room for a person in a wheelchair to pass and he may be forced out into the road. Blind people cannot always anticipate such obstructions. They will walk into parked cars or catch themselves on wing mirrors and hurt themselves. Again, it is a matter of a little thought, not only by those who are responsible for the design and layout of roads and pavements but by those who park their cars there. They see a gap, park their car and do not notice—they probably do not want to notice—that they have blocked ramps that were specifically constructed to enable someone in a wheelchair to get over the kerb. All too many of us are remarkably selfish. I appeal for a little thought for those who are less fortunate than we are.

All too often those of us who can see do not spot dog mess on the pavement. A blind person has no chance at all. The first that he or she knows about treading into something revolting is when he or she get home and smells it. By that time they have trodden it into their carpet. That is horrible. Many thoughtless people let their dogs out at the start of the day. Some dogs are almost latchkey dogs; they know that if they return at 6 o'clock their owners will be back to let them in. They spend the rest of the day running about. I am sure that you would rapidly rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I spoke at length about a dog registration scheme. Nevertheless, such a scheme would cause people to look after their dogs better. If people looked after their dogs better, that sort of incident would be less frequent.

Some organisations in my constituency are doing marvellous work. ARMS—Action for Research into Multiple Sclerosis—has a facility that I have visited several times. It has all sorts of technology to help people who suffer from multiple sclerosis. One machine is almost like a diving chamber in which people can breathe pure oxygen at a higher pressure than normal. They find that helpful. Dial-a-ride has already been mentioned. I take this opportunity to take a swipe at London Regional Transport's regionalisation proposals. Dial-a-ride is presently organised on a local basis, and that is how local people want it to remain. They want to use it to visit local shops and visit friends locally. The vast majority do not want it to go miles away—they want it specifically for local activities. I hope that LRT will reconsider its proposals.

Dial—not to be confused with dial-a-ride—is devoted to the needs of disabled people and the resources that are due to them. Whitefield school in Walthamstow has acquired an excellent reputation for looking after children with all types of disability, especially autistic children. The parents of autistic children have great difficulties.

I congratulate my hon. Friend. This has been a marvellous occasion to discuss the disabled and the opportunities that should be open to them if people gave a little more thought and care. That message should go out from the House today.

The motion pays tribute to people with disabilities. I shall mention the achievements of one of my constituents, Melvyn Wall, who lives at Delves road, Killamarsh. Two years ago, he had a foot removed, and subsequently both legs were amputated below the knee. He now has artificial limbs and does his best in the circumstances. The motion pays tribute to

"people with disabilities and to the dedication of individuals and organisations that support them."

The two organisations that support Melvyn Wall at the moment are the Sheffield Area Limbless Association and the Mosborough citizens advice bureau. The motion welcomes

"the measures taken by the Government, by local government".

North-East Derbyshire district council is to be complimented on moving Melvyn Wall from a house on a hillside, because it was impossible for him to move around and about, to an old person's bungalow—although he is only 44—on flat ground opposite a supermarket and a newsagent. When he looks out of his window and sees that there is hardly anyone in the supermarket, he does his shopping. Because of his disability he cannot stand in a long queue waiting to be served. The bus stop is also nearby, which would add considerably to his mobility if it were not for the Government's action in removing his mobility allowance. I have mentioned that matter previously. If he had the mobility allowance, he could involve himself in activities within the community, just as he did before his legs were removed.

Melvyn Wall's home is only two miles from the Rother Valley country park. A disabled person needs to be able to transfer by bus or taxi to reach the artificial lake at the centre of the park. If Melvyn could get there, he could spend the day moving slowly from seat to seat around the lake, as he often did when he was able bodied. However, that is beyond him because it has been decided that his mobility allowance should be taken away.

Melvyn Wall occasionally visited Sheffield, which is nearby, but he has been able to do so only once recently. He has depended on his brother collecting him and taking him in his car. He used to watch local cricket matches at Killamarsh junior school. He now finds it difficult to move out of his house and get around readily and easily. Many activities are beyond him. Even to visit relatives he is dependent upon others collecting him.

In the current circumstances, Melvyn Wall cannot afford a holiday, which would be of considerable benefit to him. It takes him an hour or so to do what I found to be an eight-minute journey to the post office. It is then impossible for him to walk back up the hill, yet it has been decided by the Department of Social Security that Melvyn Wall is quite able to get around.

Reference has been made to Douglas Bader and his achievements. Melvyn Wall has achieved much. His financial circumstances mean that the ordinary requirements of life are beyond him.

At one time, he worked in opencast mining and, before that, he was a farmer. He used to be quite interested in gardening. Luckily, the council cuts his grass, but the remainder of his garden is looked after by his 80-year old neighbour, out of the goodness of his heart. Melvyn cannot employ him to do the sorts of work that, otherwise, he would find beneficial. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the case that has been put to him several times by myself, by the citizens advice bureau at Mossborough and by the Sheffield Area Limbless Association, which is well aware of the difficulties and problems that Melvyn faces.

If we do not deal correctly with disabled people and give them the right to be fully and actively involved in society, we do not just damage and harm them, we damage and harm society. There are many people with considerable abilities who could contribute towards the well-being of communities, but who are kept away from jobs, social activity and involvement with us. We would be better people if we associated with them in terms of their abilities—which are quite normal abilities—and had some understanding of their capacity to overcome their considerable disabilities.

It has already been mentioned that the televising of the House should provide some form of signs so that deaf people could benefit. I have spoken about the poll tax in many areas, but the meeting that I remember most was held in a deaf club in Chesterfield. A signer stood by my side. The full involvement of the deaf audience, the way that they discussed the issues through the signer, and their interest in the debate were quite astonishing. People who did not have access to information about the poll tax had the opportunity to discuss it with someone who had served on the Standing Committee that considered the poll tax Bill. That was of considerable benefit to me, as well as being a valuable meeting for those who attended. Involvement with disabled people is beneficial for us, as well as for them.

I wish to bring a second case to the attention of the House; it concerns Ken Davis, a constituent of mine who lives in Clay Cross. He has been involved in a campaign to maintain access for disabled people in the centres of towns that have introduced pedestrian areas—which might be a great boon for able-bodied people, but which cause considerable problems for disabled people who are excluded from taking their vehicles into those areas.

The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) mentioned the abuse of the orange badge scheme. However, we must remember what it is used for and the fact that many disabled people are dependent on its operation. Therefore, any action on that scheme must ensure that those who are entitled to use it are given a full opportunity to do so.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My point was that some people who are not disabled use the orange badge, which gives the whole scheme a bad name. We should pursue such people and make that abuse a criminal offence. Those to whom the hon. Gentleman rightly referred could then use the scheme to obtain access to exactly the places he mentioned.

Disabled drivers are dependent on the scheme as it currently operates. They often have great difficulty in handling situations in the middle of towns.

The campaign has been running in Chesterfield—a neighbouring constituency of mine—which has a fine town centre and a fine market with cobblestones. The cobbles create a problem for disabled people, but it is an even greater problem if they are excluded from the area by what might be considered a very progressive scheme for able-bodied people.

Ken Davis felt so strongly that he disobeyed the byelaws arid had to appear in court. In fact, he wanted to go to prison to highlight the campaign. He did not go to prison because someone paid his fine, against his wishes. He still does not know who that person was.

That led me to table a number of written questions about disablement to the Minister. One of the central problems is that of disabled people who have to appear in court. Of course, there is also the question of facilities in prison if a disabled person ends up there because of his actions.

I was sent Prison Report—the quarterly review of the Prison Reform Trust. It had published an article by Baroness Masham called "Disabled access to the gaols". She said:

"One young man I came across while visiting a young offenders institution could not turn his wheelchair round in the cell because it was so narrow. He was allowed to spend his sentence in the hospital after he appealed to me, as a member of the Board of Visitors, for help. The prison staff, however, felt he would feel more 'normal' in a cell. One can imagine the utter frustration he felt at not being able to turn his chair—he became a prisoner in more ways that one".

Baroness Masham suggested a number of provisions within prisons so that proper access facilities would be available for disabled prisoners so that they could live as normal a life as possible.

Disabled people are as varied as able-bodied people. Some may be imprisoned for offences that we may criticise, and they will serve their sentences. However, some highly principled people may be in prison because of stances that they have taken on certain issues. Ken Davis is one such person, and there could well be many more because of the Government's unwillingness to consider disability and severe physical handicap in setting poll tax rebates. A number of people might pursue their protest against, or inability to pay the poll tax to a stage where they become open to court action. There cannot be an attachment of earnings because they have no earnings to attach. The bailiffs cannot be sent in because they do not have furniture that they can take. They only have furniture that cannot be taken because it is essential to their needs. The only avenue left for many disabled people who have not paid their poll tax might be imprisonment.

I hope that the concern of Ken Davis and those who campaigned with him about pedestrian areas will be seriously considered. It is not adequately taken into account in Government documents such as "Getting the right balance"—guidance on vehicle restrictions in pedestrian zones—which seeks to deal with that issue. It seeks to deal with the problem by giving guidance on vehicle restrictions in pedestrian zones.

The Government are given some praise in the motion, yet they have been given many opportunities to assist the disabled. It is not just a matter for the Department of Social Security. I served on the Standing Committee on the 1989 Employment Bill, on which the question of dismissal notices arose. The Government decided in their wisdom that instead of being given written notice of the reason if one is dismissed within six months, the period should be extended to two years.

The Opposition tabled an amendment providing for disabled people to receive such notification at whatever time they were dismissed, because of their special circumstances. Mention was made of the problems that the disabled have in finding work and because of the improper operation of the quota provision. A disabled person might find himself removed from a job because of the pressure that it imposes, but even if he is dismissed for reasons that may be entirely beyond his control and which have nothing to do with his disability, he still needs a dismissal notice for his own benefit and to confirm to potential employers the reasons why he had to leave his previous job.

The London information and advisory service for disabled people on arts and entertainment feels that legislation should include a stipulation that once a year, employers should receive a visit from the Disability Advisory Service, for the purpose of inspecting access facilities, identifying possible adaptions to help the disabled, and reviewing progress with the employer's recruitment policies and practices. Perhaps one of that service's first visits should be to the House of Commons. Other right hon. and hon. Members have experience of meeting deputations of the disabled and of trying to take them to Committee rooms, when the greatest difficulty is encountered. One wonders also what arrangements there are for disabled people wanting to enter Strangers Gallery, or even approaching the building or standing outside it. It would be appropirate for the House to get its own priorities right, to serve as a marker for others.

I thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members for not having been present at the start of the debate as I had to deal with urgent constituency matters. None the less, I have received reports from my hon. Friends of the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), and I add my voice to those who have congratulated him on his initiative with a carefully thought-out motion. He may have spoken for a record amount of time for a Friday morning—79 minutes—but I am sure that it was pure gold all the way. I shall certainly read the whole of my hon. Friend's speech in Hansard to catch up with all his points, although I am aware of the main ones and of some of the ideas that he advanced.

This is one of those Friday debates in which the House often comes into its own in terms of common sense and a high degree of wisdom because party issues are set aside. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for his work over many years and for the expertise that he has shown us all. In naming him first, I pay no less tribute to my own right hon. and hon. Friends and to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. He is a politician of great compassion, he knows a vast amount about his subject, and he has done a great deal of work on behalf of the Government. That shows that the Government themselves attach great importance to the problems confronting the disabled, as do all civilised members of society. There is a feeling that, as the British Rail slogan goes, we are getting there, but one must inevitably add that it is happening only gradually.

My interest in the subject stems from being a member of the old board of governors of the royal national orthopaedic hospital in Stanmore—both the country and the town hospital—and president of its league of friends. I am also chairman of the Save the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital Action Group, so I had the privilege of gaining, as an amateur, a great deal of knowledge about various mental and physical disabilities.

The problems confronting the disabled are enormous, and the demand for improving provision is, by definition, limitless. Government must order things in accordance with competing priorities for public expenditure, and the same is true of the legitimate use of private money. The irony and frustration is that as one proceeds along that complicated road, the demand for a 100 per cent. quality of life for the disabled, so far as it can be achieved in everyday living and working, rises exponentially.

For example, we are much more used these days to buildings being equipped with ramps—automatically in the case of new buildings, in accordance with Government requirements in respect of public buildings, with the private sector following suit. However, many disabled people complain to me that at the top of the ramp there is often a forward-opening door that they somehow have to open and then get through in their wheelchairs. If ramps are installed for the benefit of wheelchair users, they should be supplemented with electric doors—though they are more expensive and need special maintenance. A new sports centre being constructed in this country is, because of budget cuts, unable to incorporate electric doors. One of the most difficult tasks for a person in a wheelchair to perform is getting through a door. Everything else in that sports centre is fantastic and marvellous, yet there is that example of society trying to grapple with budget problems and limitations.

Demand for improvements is being made not only by the articulate lobbies for the disabled of which many right hon. and hon. Members have experience in their own constituencies and to which we pay tribute, but by the public at large. We should inculcate consideration for the needs of the disabled early in the education process. I regret that when I was at school I was not brought up to work and play alongside the disabled, so that it would become for me a matter of routine to know almost instinctively the assistance that they need. Often, the mentally and physically able person unwittingly adopts a condescending attitude towards the disabled. We all do that. On how many occasions do we, on meeting someone in a wheelchair, shout at them as though they were deaf as well? The techniques and the information need to be put into people's minds at a young age. The most adaptable person is the child. In that way, children will treat disabled people normally, and not condescendingly as though there were something strange about them. The "Aren't I good and gracious because I am dealing patiently with you, a disabled person, although I am a busy important person" attitude drives disabled people mad. I would put able-bodied schoolchildren in wheelchairs so that they experience the problems of trying to get about in one.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson). He knows that access to and in stations is a nightmare for disabled people. The costs of rebuilding and adaptation are enormous. Even if it were possible to get disabled people on to the platforms—many stations and tube stations have long flights of stairs—they face the nightmare of getting on and off the train. How can a guard keep the train waiting longer on the off-chance that a disabled person may be trying to get on? These are huge problems.

I reiterate the plea—Ministers have justifiably become thoroughly sick of hearing it because I have been making it for so many years and I therefore apologise in advance—that the royal national orthopaedic hospital must be saved. I believe that the Government are committed to doing that. Complex discussions and negotiations about its inclusion in the relevant future structure of services will take place. Its work is fantastic. There is no other word for it.

Many institutions throughout the country pursue similar work. You will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, why I am so intensely proud of this fabulous institution and what it has done. If hon. Members doubt that and say, "Yes, yes, we have heard all that before", I invite them to visit the hospital either with or without me—preferably without me because I shall drive them mad by going on about it all the time while they go through the corridors and wards and see the work done there, particularly on spinal injuries, implanting metal pieces into broken limbs, and so on.

My right hon. Friend the Minister has a standing invitation to visit. I would even tempt him by saying that if he comes soon, we could arrange for a Nicholas Scott plaza to be named or whatever he wants.

Or a Nicholas Scott avenue.

Or a Nicholas Scott avenue. There are various possibilities and it would be worth while. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health will come shortly. He has made it clear that he will. It is a vital national institution for many people. Over the years, we have been inundated with letters from all over the world.

A cloud hangs over the hospital. There is an erosion of morale and a lack of confidence because of the closure of certain facilities. I know that the hard-faced bureaucrats in the Department—they must be hard-faced because if they were sentimental they would make bad decisions—do not like gardens outside hospitals. They think that gardens are too expensive. They like to see rationalisation and square concrete buildings which are easy to administer and pay for. In reality, this hospital deserves the support of society, like others such as Stoke Mandeville, for which the Jimmy Saville campaign has done so much.

May I invite my hon. Friend to turn his attention to another institution—the House of Commons? My hon. Friend will be aware of the scheme for tax-exempt payroll giving to charities which the Government introduced recently. Is he aware that only a tenth of hon. Members use it and give to charity in that way?

I note what my hon. Friend says and thank him for his interesting point. I am sure that more hon. Members will note it when they return on Monday.

My hon. Friend mentioned multiple sclerosis in his excellent speech. It is one of the worst of the terrible diseases and disabilities, mental and physical, to contemplate. The staggering everyday heroism of individual cases moves us all to tears. Spasticity is a different condition. I recall a moving part of the biography of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the former Labour Chancellor. He and his wife invited a young boy who was completely paraplegic and spastic to No. 11 to have a look round. The young man became famous for writing poetry and won a special prize from the Spastic Society. That formed the theme of a later story.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned the case of Jacqueline du Pré, who attended the equivalent of my multiple sclerosis unit in Harrow. Once again, one must pay tribute to her courage.

It is also important to record the difficulty of able people to appreciate the horror—I am not sure that "disease" is the right word—and the terrible affliction of MS for which there is no-known cure. Treatment can, to some extent, appease MS but that depends whether the pattern of the disease is horizontal or growing. In the latter stages of the disease, Jacqueline du Pré displayed amazing courage which moved us to make greater efforts to help those with it. I understand that the Government are under pressure on all their budgets, entitlements and requirements, particularly on health, but I hope that the Minister will take on board the need to use more public money in research on MS. I know that considerable research is now being undertaken and presumably there will be a breakthrough one day.

I know that the national health service was a little ambiguous about the use of oxygen cylinders, but I am pleased that the Government are positively encouraging their use. There are still people who believe they are not the right way to go about it, but they provide great physical relief. For that reason the local unit at Harrow is doubling in size. Local schools have raised staggering amounts of money—the money has come mainly from sixth form colleges, but other schools are also involved. Such fund-raising shows that society wants to get involved and does not want to shut away those suffering from MS and other diseases. Society has a psychological need to be involved to help people with that terrible affliction as well as other disabilities.

I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is also psychologically committed and I wish him well in his future work. He will understand when I say that it is not just private effort that is needed, but Government help to fund the research that will find a cure.

I am pleased that we are having this debate this morning. I apologise for being absent for part of it, but I had to receive some important guests who are now in the Gallery.

The debate centres on the question of society's attitude to people with disabilities—the language people use emphasises that. I know that it is unwitting, but many people drop into the vernacular and talk about disabled people. Those people are not disabled as people, but are people with disabilities and there is a big difference. We should always try to use the term "people with disabilities", especially as the effects on many can be mitigated or overcome with different attitudes or support. It is clear that society's attitude towards people with disabilities are still wanting. Consider the number of people with disabilities who suffer unemployment through no fault of their own, live in inadequate or unsuitable housing, and have difficulty travelling round and pursuing their careers.

I shall add one example to the many that have been quoted. A good friend of mine, Nabil Shaban, who is a fine actor, performed the part of Ayatollah Khomeini in a Howard Brenton play about "The Satanic Verses". My friend has also give a number of good performances on television. Two years ago he was offered the part of Micro Man in a Christmas show on Granada television. He was then taken off the show; it was thought to be a bad idea to have someone with such disabilities appearing on a children's programme because it might upset children. That was an absolutely disgraceful decision. I was pleased to join Nabil and a number of his friends in a demonstration outside the offices of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to demand that that decision was reversed. Nabil was demonstrating not for himself, but for all actors with disabilities of all types and the attitude adopted towards them by television companies and commerce.

It is right to talk about the media image of people with disabilities. Often people with disabilities appear on television or radio programmes to talk about other people with disabilities. Why are not the television announcers people with disabilities? Why do advertising agencies in general go for the young, fit and mobile to promote their goods? We must include those people in society. I understand the points made about education, and I favour as much integration as possible. We must be careful that the future of special schools is not decided solely on financial grounds, but on the grounds of the greatest benefit for children suffering from disabilities. If children with disabilities are offered places in what one would call ordinary schools, a couple of factors must be borne in mind. First, as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) rightly said, there must be full disabled access throughout each of those buildings. We must not wait until someone in a wheelchair arrives at the college before tackling the problem.

A constituent of mine who is fully wheelchair-bound tried to get into a college. We thought that we had secured her a place on a suitable course and then found that she could not enter the building, apart from the ground floor. She did not see why she should have her lectures in the staff room because she could not get upstairs into the lecture theatre where the other students went. She was right. Why should she be treated in that way? There must be an acceptance of the need for full facilities.

Where there are hearing, sight or mobility-impaired children in a school, there must be sufficient allocation of resources to that school to ensure that they are not left out of events and are given support and individual tuition where required. If not, integration becomes integration for ambulant and able-bodied children but not for those with disabilities. Integration becomes its opposite and those with disabilities become separated from the rest of the school.

It is sad that although many local authorities have worked hard to try to improve facilities for those with disabilities, build better and improved housing and encourage the movement of people to ground floor accommodation where appropriate, far too often they have insufficient resources. My authority has just been poll tax-capped, as have a number of others, and people with disabilities will suffer because of the cuts in local authority expenditure. Similarly, the enormous cut in house building means that there are fewer places for people in desperate need of converted flats. The sale of council and housing association property means that the possibility of good housing for people with disabilities is rapidly diminishing, which is serious. We cannot keep saying, "We admire what everybody is doing", if the Government are not prepared to provide the necessary resources for local authorities to carry out the policies required.

I shall concentrate mainly on mobility and public transport. Clearly, those who suffer from disabilities of any sort find it extremely difficult to get around—that is fairly obvious. Their position is often made much more difficult because of simple factors such as the design of pavements, kerb let-downs and pedestrian crossings, and the difficulties of crossing roads. There is also a problem with the provision of vehicles and public transport. An interesting and important debate is being conducted in London about the provision of facilities by London Regional Transport and local authoritis.

The chairman of the London Dial-a-Ride Users Association, Keith Armstrong, who is a good friend of mine, has done an enormous amount of work on the subject. When Parliament was lobbied the other week, hon. Members were treading over themselves to get outside the building to be photographed with people entering in wheelchairs. It is just as well that they were being photographed outside the building because those in wheelchairs could not have come inside to take part in a proper lobby.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) said, it is absolutely disgraceful that in a building, in which legislation is passed about employment facilities and access to buildings for those with disabilities it is impossible for people in wheelchairs to get around. They can do so only via a circuitous route round the top of the car park and through Star Chamber Court. Only if their chairs can be squeezed into the lift, can they then get into the gallery to see and hear debates. Exactly the same applies to other parts of the building.

It is high time that those responsible for the administration of the House stopped pussyfooting round and ensured that all the necessary alterations are done immediately to allow full access to all with disabilities. We need braille signs and easy access ramps throughout the building. It smacks of hypocrisy that Parliament of all places does not have access for people with disabilities. We cannot go on like this; no one will take seriously what is said here about disability if people with disabilities cannot get round the building.

Keith Armstrong also said:

"Because buses and trains are mostly inaccessible to anyone not fully able bodied, we have to rely on Dial-A-Ride as our bus service. With insufficient funds, Dial-A-Ride can only offer on average, one trip every eleven weeks to our users—we are therefore demanding sufficient finance for Dial-A-Ride to enable us to offer every user just one trip a week. A modest demand, compared to the variety of journeys normally available on buses and trains for most people."

Keith is right. Although some local authorities take great pride in their provision of dial-a-ride and in the pioneering work done in setting it up—not least in Islington, where we have a good service which is a great inspiration to many, run by people with disabilities who manage the system to make it work as well as it can—those services are grossly underfunded. The dial-a-ride lobby asks for much wider provision of facilities.

The London Committee on Accessible Transport sent out a circular on 7 June, only three weeks ago, containing this proposal:

"That further work be undertaken to adopt a strategic approach to various transport schemes in London, and so as to draw the various funding agencies together. In this context, consideration should be given to the suggestion that members of Dial-A-Ride schemes who would be entitled to concessionary fare permits should be permitted to use them to obtain free travel on Dial-A-Rides."

At the moment fares on dial-a-ride are quite high. The committee is asking for interchangeability between London Regional Transport's concessionary fares and dial-a-ride. That is an excellent suggestion.

I hope that the Minister will assure us that his Department is prepared to offer sympathetic assistance in this matter, if necessary by leaning on the Department of Transport, which is the Ministry responsible for LRT. I hope that he will also assure us that the concessionary fare scheme is not about to go under. Every time LRT puts up its fares someone has to pay, and the money comes from the London boroughs, some of which have been poll tax-capped and thus find it increasingly difficult to meet these bills. It is crucial that we keep the concessionary fares scheme in London; without it, pensioners and people with disabilities will suffer a great loss of mobility.

Recently, a policy statement emerged from the London Regional Passengers Committee about the provision of transport for people with disabilities. Section 9, which deals with overcoming disabilities and which warmly welcomes the growing public and political awareness of the problems of transport for people with walking difficulties, for the visually or hearing-impaired, and for people pushing wheelchairs, states:

"But, even given the requisite resources and political will, many years will elapse before full accessibility to London's public transport system becomes a reality. In the interim, parallel 'para-transit' systems such as dial-a-ride and taxicard will have an essential part to play. At present they are desperately under-resourced, and able to meet only a fraction of the suppressed level of demand. If only one trip a week for each subscriber is still far beyond the capacity of the dial-a-ride service, then to offer its users the freedom to travel with the same ease and frequency as passengers on conventional public transport systems may seem an ambition wholly incapable of attainment. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that nothing less will satisfy the aspirations of those who are dependent on these services, and that a determined effort must be made to enhance the scale of their provision."

Such a determined effort means first examining the funding arrangements of LRT. One problem is that a financial regime has been imposed upon London Regional Transport and it has to make a return on capital. No other public transport system in Europe has to make such a return and none has the slightest intention of doing so because the philosophy in other parts of Europe is that public transport is essential for a civilised city.

London fares are high and the service is inadequate. In some cases, because of the obsession with a return on capital rather than the provision of service, the service is downright dangerous. As a result, everything must be carefully costed and simply because of the costs involved there is resistance to providing the service necessary for disabled people. It should be accepted that those with disabilities should be able to travel openly and freely on the public transport system. To bring that about we need a change in bus design.

I am a great admirer of the Routemaster bus, which is probably the finest bus ever made. However, although it is by no means the worst bus to which to gain access, it requires modification. The Volvo is probably the worst bus to get on and off because there are several steps at the door. The Routemaster should have a lower step at the back to make it easier for disabled people to get on. If all the thought that goes into designing buses such as those in the Careline range was put into the general design of buses, we would have a much better system.

The buses used at airports to take people from aeroplane to customs and immigration have low steps and it is easy to get in and out of them. I timed the loading and unloading of 60 ambulant people on such a bus at Heathrow. It took one and a half minutes to fill the bus and one and a half minutes to empty it. Surely it is possible to use such buses to transport disabled people who would find them easier to get on and off? There seems to be a resistance by the bus industry to provide such public transport. Perhaps the Department should put pressure on the industry to overcome that resistance.

There is a badly publicised but nevertheless enforced policy by London Underground Ltd. that those in wheelchairs or people who are not ambulant cannot go on the deep tube lines. Such people are not allowed on the Picadilly, Victoria or Northern lines and that presents a major difficulty. Disabled people who want to travel round London and who do not have a car must use the bus or the tube. At busy times it could take an hour or more to get a bus from Finsbury park where I live to central London. That journey would take just 20 minutes on the underground, but disabled people are not allowed to use the deep lines.

The journey from Finsbury park to here by tube and bus entails going down about 35 steps at Finsbury park station. If the traveller wishes to get a bus at Leicester square, he has to get off the tube there, walk up the steps and then take the escalator. It is almost impossible for disabled people to do that. Our underground system should not deny access to such people.

I was one of the people who blocked the London Underground (Victoria) Bill promoted by London Underground Ltd. I did so because I thought that LRT was paying insufficient attention to the need for people in wheelchairs to move between Victoria underground station and the British Rail station there. I warn LRT that if it brings forward a Bill for the construction of a Chelsea to Hackney line, many of us will block it unless it contains detailed provisions for disabled people. We will do that to encourage London Underground to come forward with serious proposals about mobility on the system. There is no point in bringing in a Bill for a line that will move people rapidly round London if consideration is not given to those with disabilities.

Underground stations now have the notorious mechanical rottweilers, otherwise known as ticket barriers. Their introduction was ludicrous because they are a danger to people with disabilities, people pushing prams or pushchairs, people carrying heavy shopping and those who have difficulty in walking. People get trapped by them every day. Why cannot we adopt the system that operates in Paris and in other cities where there are no barriers at exits but only at entrances? It is ludicrous that one has to get a ticket to get off the train as well as on. Clearly, if one has a ticket to get on a train, it is possible to get off it. We could easily get rid of all the barriers in zone 1, which would ease passenger movement and make travelling much safer.

A person who uses a wheelchair and who wants to travel on InterCity or other British Rail services is well advised by British Rail to book a seat. The seat can be taken out and the wheelchair manoeuvered in. I understand the difficulties with that operation, but it means added difficulties with wheelchair-bound people in moving around the country. We must think about these matters more, and transport organisations should be encouraged to do much more.

The most recent edition of "Transport Innovation" includes a petition for accessible buses. It gives a good example of the pressure that has been put on British Rail and London Transport. "Transport Innovation" states:

"700,000 people in London … are barred from using public transport due to thoughtless design. Of these, 20 per cent. cannot use buses, 33 per cent. cannot use the tube and one quarter cannot use British Rail."

Many people are therefore prevented from travelling on those modes of transport. I hope that there will be some improvements.

I am not filled with great hope. I have quoted extensively from journals the views of those representing people with disabilities. The "London Transport Annual Business Plan 1990–91"—a glossy document—devotes just one column on one page to "Facilities for Disabled Passengers." It states:

"On the Underground, features such as improved stairs, better handrails and more seats on platforms will be included wherever possible in new and modernised stations. Both new and refurbished Underground trains will also include better handrails and improved passenger operated door controls.

Particular attention will be given to the needs of passengers with sensory handicaps. Improved audible information, clearer signs and better lighting are of particular benefit. The 'bus stopping' signs and the installation of dot matrix indicators on Underground platforms are of great value, and hearing-aid users benefit from the installation of 'induction loops' at all station ticket office windows."

I agree with all that—it is splendid. I wish, however, that the plan went further and that I had more confidence that London Regional Transport will introduce the measures with the necessary speed.

The Association of London Authorities produced an interesting 10-point charter on "Accessible Transport in London". I do not want to detain the House long, but this is an important element in transport. Point 1 states:

"London needs a strategic transport authority, accountable to representatives from all boroughs, administered, financed and controlled by them."

That is essential. As I said, the problem with LRT is that it is given a commercial set of targets which are impossible to marry up with the needs of London people and the social needs of London as a whole. We need a different attitude in the administration of transport.

Secondly, the charter says that existing forms of conventional transport must be targeted towards improvements, such as shelters, seating, grab handles, colour coding on vehicles and information signs. I am glad to say that, by and large, London Underground Ltd. has largely taken that on board. I hope that it will be done quickly. I hope, too, that guard dogs for the blind will be allowed to travel on deep-level tubes. Unless I am mistaken, blind people are asked not to take their dogs on deep-level underground trains. That is extremely unfair and unnecessary. Obviously, there is a difficulty with the use of escalators, but it could be overcome if there were sufficient staff at stations to assist people with guide dogs.

Point 3 refers to the planning of new public transport vehicles to take account

"of the needs of disabled and elderly passengers."

Fourthly, the charter states:

"Funding of the London Taxicard Scheme should be continued".

It should be continued because it is necessary to provide mobility. Fifthly, the charter refers to the expansion of Dial-a-Ride as a whole and states:

"There are now 29 Dial-a-Ride schemes throughout London, which are funded by central government through London Regional Transport. The budget for 1989–90 is £7.6 million for 29 separate schemes. Approximately 50,000 Londoners are members of Dial-a-Ride schemes. The current level of funding only permits an average of one trip per user each fortnight … 200,000 Londoners are eligible to be Dial-a-Ride members, but cannot be served because the demand already outweighs available resources."

That means that 200,000 people in London are denied mobility because they cannot get on the dial-a-ride schemes which are insufficiently funded and cannot, therefore, provide the necessary service.

Point 6 of the charter is important. It would not require a lot of money, but is a question of attitude. It advocates the prohibition of pavement parking, which is a menace throughout London. Many people thoughtlessly park their car on pavements because they are going to buy a packet of cigarettes or a newspaper from the newsagent. They do not think about the difficulties for people in wheelchairs who want to get past, for those pushing children in prams or for people with sight difficulties who, although not necessarily completely blind, may bump into the cars. I have frequently had disagreements with builders who have wantonly dropped piles of bricks on pavements. That is extremely dangerous. People should think about the dangers and there should be strict enforcement of the legislation on pavement parking. The enforcement of the legislation on the obstruction of pavements should be as strict as that on the obstruction of roads.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East spoke about pavement surfaces. Cobblestones may look attractive, but they are a menace for people trying to negotiate them in wheelchairs. Something should be done about that. There should also be dropped kerbs and textured pavements so that people with sight difficulties know when they are getting near the edge of the pavement.

Point 7 of the charter refers to the expansion of transport services to provide "equal transport opportunities" for disabled Londoners. Point 8 says:

"The shop-mobility scheme should be viewed as part of a transport network which enables disabled and elderly people to make full use of their local shopping facilities."

Point 9 says:

"Local authorities should operate a central brokerage scheme to ensure full use of accessible Council vehicles by local residents and groups."

That is important. Local authorities often have good vehicles for transporting people with disabilities, but they are in use only during the seven-hour or eight-hour working day and they are often not available to other groups at weekends. Such vehicles are a public asset and should be as readily available as possible at weekends. That proposal should be carried out. Point 10 of the charter refers to support for the orange badge scheme, despite some of the abuses suffered in recent years.

Running through all 10 points is a question of attitude. Finance is relevant, but equally relevant are the management of social services departments, transport schemes and other facilities. I am not happy that London Regional Transport proposes to appoint a committee if the Dial-a-Ride Users Association does not agree with its strategy and does not make nominations to the committee. Dial-a-ride users are the best people to manage the dial-a-ride scheme. They understand the difficulties of the schemes and are the best qualified to manage them. All transport undertakings should have places reserved on the management board for representatives of organisation of people who suffer from disabilities.

We pay a great deal of lip service to the problems of people with disabilities. There is far too much talk about charities to help them. We should move far more towards the idea of the right to mobility, the right to work and the right to independent living, with sufficient publicly financed resources to make those rights available. Those who suffer from various disabilities do so through no fault of their own, but because a great misfortune has befallen them. It is up to the rest of society to grant them the independence and normality of living that we expect for ourselves. I am grateful for this debate today because it has at least given an opportunity for some of the points to be put forward.

The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) made a thoughtful and knowledgeable speech. He will not expect me to follow him on his many points about transport in London. However, I want to underline the importance of two of his general points. The first was about attitude and terminology. He advocated the use of the term "people with disabilities" rather than the term "disabled people", which is too often used. He also made the point, extremely well, that the House should respond to the needs of people with disabilities who come to lobby their elected representatives.

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for not being here for his speech. As you may know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the First Scottish Standing Committee, which is considering the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill sat rather late last night and put some of our programmes a little behind. Nevertheless, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on the terms of the motion and I understand that he made an excellent and comprehensive speech on a subject which is of great and increasing interest to the country.

As I am a Scottish Member, it is perhaps appropriate that I should pay tribute to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for all his work on the private Member's Bill that he successfully steered through the House during the previous Parliament.

The debate has concentrated to a considerable extent on access—in particular, access to transport facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) summarised the position correctly when he said that we have made progress—that is undoubtedly true—but that we have a great deal further to go.

I pay tribute to British Rail in Scotland for the genuine efforts that it has made. It has improved access to Barrhead station in my constituency for people with transport handicaps. A long campaign was conducted by local people. I should explain that Barrhead is a fairly substantial town about half an hour away from Glasgow with a very good rail service, so access to the station is important to the community. The campaign was conducted throughout with a great deal of good will on both sides, and access for those with transport handicaps has been substantially improved.

In addition, new stations are being built in the Greater Glasgow area as part of the reopening of stations programme, which is encouraging generally. I am particularly encouraged by the fact that ScotRail is to open a new station at Dumbreck which is about five minutes away from where I live. I recently went to look at the proposed provision. A great deal of thought had undoubtedly been given to the design of that station which I do not think would have happened many years ago.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East was right to refer to practical problems. It is all very well to have a proper ramp, but if there are difficulties with the door at the top of that ramp, many of the benefits will be taken away. The local authorities are facing those difficulties. My constituency covers the whole of the Eastwood district council area and part of the Renfrew district council area. Both councils are concerned about the matter and Eastwood district council has received an award for its particularly well-designed council building, the Carmichael hall.

Progress has also been made with attitudes and that theme is clear from this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East made an important point about attitudes in schools and that was underlined very well by the hon. Member for Islington, North.

We have been talking about access to transport facilities. The hon. Member for Islington, North referred in particular to dial-a-ride and other facilities. I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister about the design of taxis, a matter which has been raised with me by my constituents. I understand that alternative designs of taxis are available and local authorities have powers to insist on designs that are helpful to those with access problems. I understand that Edinburgh district council is ensuring over a period of time that its taxis are better designed. Clearly we cannot move on that problem overnight because there is a difficulty with the taxis that are currently being used.

Taxis are not as important as buses and trains when we consider public transport as a whole. However, many disabled people who perhaps live away from established bus and train routes must depend on taxis. Therefore, the design of taxis is important.

We should all recognise that people with disabilities of whatever form consistently depend on other people. They depend on friends, relatives and neighbours to enable them to continue to live within the community. We are all aware of friends, neighbours and relatives who have given up a great deal to care for people with disabilities. The Government have received many comments from carers and their organisations which make it clear that extra resources must be allocated to those people. This week I had an opportunity, with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), to discuss the matter with the new secretary of the carers group in Scotland.

The Government decided to help carers before the publication of "The Way Ahead". I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues on the important changes that were announced last October. They have been welcomed by many people involved in caring and by the relatives and friends of people with disabilities. The changes include the introduction of a carer's premium and income support and housing benefit for people receiving invalid care allowance. The invalid care allowance earnings limit is to be raised from £12 to £20 a week. Invalid care allowance, as I understand it, will become available for the first time to many carers as a result of the Government's proposals to extend attendance allowance to the under-twos and to the terminally ill. A family with one parent staying at home to care for their severely disabled baby could have an increase in benefits of more than £65 a week as a result of the Government's changes. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the way in which they have responded to representations.

There should be as much assistance as is possible and reasonable for disabled people who want to achieve independence and want to go into the normal labour force. The lack of earned income is often a major cause of the gap between the average income of people with disabilities and that of the rest of the population. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea mentioned certain figures. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys statistics show that only about 31 per cent. of disabled non-pensioners are in the normal labour market. There is a widely perceived need for a benefit that will correct that problem.

The Government have responded by introducing the new disability employment credit from April 1992 to make it easier for disabled people to take up jobs. It will help disabled people on low earnings. Disability employment credit is not a completely new idea, because it works in much the same way as family credit, which helps families on low earnings. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on what they have done to reduce disabled people's worry about what would happen if they tried to go into the labour force, were unsuccessful, and were subsequently temporarily worse off. That can be a problem. I do not claim to be an expert on the details of the various benefits and allowances, but, as I broadly understand the matter, the benefit system has been changed to eliminate that worry.

I hope that hon. Members will understand that I may need to depart for Scotland before the end of the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea on introducing this important debate. As so often happens on a Friday, the debate is an opportunity to contribute constructively and in a non-partisan way. I have no doubt that many people will find our proceedings of considerable interest.

I am grateful for the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), I apologise because I shall shortly have to go back to my constituency. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will forgive me.

I agree with every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood said, especially about the role of the carers, including relatives and neighbours, being fully recognised at long last. My right hon. Friend is not just the Minister for Social Security, he is the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. That shows a very welcome trend.

We should certainly not apologise for our record. Our spending has increased substantially. It is now about £8 billion, whereas a decade ago the amount was very much smaller and probably could not even have been separately analysed.

My right hon. Friend has been kind in our correspondence about the Guild of Disabled Homeworkers. Its members operate from the enterprise aid centre at Stag house, Woodchester, near Stroud in my constituency. The organiser is Mr. Francis Halton—a man of exceptional ability who has given much assistance to fellow disabled workers. It might be of interest to my right hon. Friend if I quote one or two sections from the guild's annual report. Thanks to my right hon. Friend, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to the guild, as a result of which the annual report begins:

"The Prime Minister shares your concern that the initiative of disabled people needs to be rewarded and encouraged."

The report then states:

"This recognition of the need for the work of the Guild in a Downing Street letter confirming a prospect of grant aid was most notable among many expressions of moral support which brightened the Guild's difficult and troubled 21st birthday year."

That also put the year into perspective by reviving memories of the bad old days when the guild's founders reported to previous incumbents of No. 10 that many local authorities and charities were exploiting disabled people by taking for themselves rewards that those who used initiative and skill in making saleable items at home were not allowed to earn. We must remember that at that time the disabled were limited to earning £1 a week before loss of state benefit. Before the coming of this Government, social services and charities bought the items as cheaply as possible, sometimes paying less than the cost of the materials. Sometimes they charged commissions, and then resold for profit or reward that they kept for themselves as payment for services.

The guild states, in its encouraging report:

"To relieve the distress caused by this regressive trading of years ago the guild volunteers set out to provide free marketing for disabled people and thereby give them fair access, which they now receive, to the rewards and the encouragement of the enterprise."

Later in the report, the guild further discussed the benefits of the free markets. As the earnings limit has now been raised from only £1 a week a decade ago to about £30 a week for many disabled people, the guild's volunteers have this year travelled further round the country than ever before giving free market displays and finding approval of their cause everywhere. Indeed, at Alexandra palace in London the free market exhibition was visited by thousands of professional carers. The general approval was underlined by the number of offers to assist in setting up a guild enterprise aid centre in or near London. I hope that that can be done.

The exchange of letters with my right hon. Friend related to the premises occupied by constituents. They are first-floor premises, so the stairs are a problem and there is no possibility of installing a lift. The guild described that in its report as a "premises crisis". It has also had a demand for an increase in rent. Its small work force is attempting to cope with an increasing flood of orders from throughout the country—much of it from charities and social services departments. It is now likely that the guild will lose its spacious headquarters, and a more affordable and accessible replacement will be needed.

It might assist the House if I explained the nature of the services provided by the guild. Its aid service continues to prove useful and the free markets have established their viability under experienced management. They have become well known for attractive displays of imaginative and well-made products at reasonable prices. I and my wife have visited the guild's premises on several occasions and can confirm that. The free material service continues to thrive with a plentiful supply of surplus materials willingly given and readily used to boost members' rewards. Both those services have helped to eliminate shoddy work by allowing slow workers to take more time and care.

One guild member has designed and developed new products and tools for making worktrays that are then fitted to wheelchairs. That project alone offers great possibilities for helping paraplegics and others, but unfortunately it is short of initial funding.

My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that there are 117 members of the guild in the Stroud area, which shows the considerable contribution that it makes. He will be aware through our correspondence that the guild, because it is well organised, looks to the future with confidence—but faces the one difficulty of finding new headquarters.

Because of my right hon. Friend's comments, increased monetary support is in prospect, but it is important the guild relies only on building up its own strength. That means that the front-running volunteers must generate more support from distant members and their friends, by finding ways for them to share more fully in the charity's work, including fund raising. The report concludes:

"If the Prime Minister's reported concern becomes official policy"—

in view of recent announcements, we can say with certainty that it will—

"The revolution started by the Guild will be complete in the foreseeable future. This can be expected to mean that the initiative of disabled people, which was fair game for exploitation only a decade ago, would at last be allowed unrestricted access to the rewards and encouragement of free enterprise."

I hope that the guild will continue to thrive. I referred to its one main problem. It is fashionable to criticise local authorities, but I received considerable help from Stroud district council and in particular Mr. David Ashley, its director of planning, leisure and tourism until he entered into well-earned retirement a few weeks ago. His successor is also helping me. Mr. Ashley wrote to me last December saying that he had met Mr. Halton to ascertain precisely the guild's requirements for premises. He said that when he visited its headquarters, he learnt much more about the organisation and its history—and he, like me, was impressed by its efforts and products. He pointed out that the guild receives goods made by disabled people all over the country which are then sold in the free market, and that the guild makes no charge to the vendor for that service. He added:

"This enterprise obviously offers the disabled person working at home an outlet for the products, which were extremely well made and reasonably priced."

I confirm that that is true.

In 1976 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister again took an interest in the guild. It has been greatly encouraged by that interest over the 21 years of its history—or at least over the past 11. As a token of the guild's appreciation, Mr. Halton wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently:

"Since your office wrote to me on January 12 1976 that those disabled persons who wish to work should be encouraged to do so, much has been done by your Government to improve the lot of disabled people generally."

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister should have a share of that praise. He will receive an additional slice of praise if he will just look into the one small issue that I have raised.

The guild has been promised assistance for 1991, but given its problems with premises, it needs assistance preferably within the next few months. It may be that if the guild takes a lease on new premises, it will have to pay a form of premium.

I have described at length the work of the guild, and I am sure that none of us doubts its value. The guild has a temporary crisis. My right hon. Friend the Minister has been most kind and generous with his time in his exchange of correspondence with me, and is well aware of the problems to which I have referred. I should be grateful if he would keep them at the forefront of his mind.

We have had a good debate with little acrimony across the Floor of the House. Most hon. Members, no matter what their position, have spoken with the interests of disabled people in mind. I shall seek to reflect that in my remarks.

I pay the warmest possible compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), whose constituent I happen to be, on choosing this subject for debate today. I pluck at random three particular points from the motion. First, he pays warm tribute to the achievements of people with disabilities and to the dedication of individuals and organisations that support them. I am sure that I carry the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) with me—he was the first person to hold this office—when I say that one of the most rewarding aspects of the job is to meet the individuals who suffer from a disability of one sort or another and those who care and organise support for them. It is inspirational. At least once a week I try to get away from the piles of paper at the Department of Social Security to visit disabled people and those who care for and support them. It is much the most rewarding aspect of my work in Government.

Secondly, my hon. Friend said that wherever feasible the services that disabled people receive should be decided after consultation with the disabled people concerned. They should be involved in the process, not treated with condescension as objects of pity, and delivered services. They should be actively involved in the process of decision making. I shall return to that in a slightly light-hearted manner later.

Thirdly, my hon. Friend recognised, as we all do, that whatever progress has been made—substantial progress has been made in the past 20 years, embracing Governments of both parties—there are still too many obstacles confronting disabled people in various aspects of the lives that they would like to lead and have a right to lead. Those obstacles are being removed progressively and so long as I hold this office, I shall do my best to ensure that further progress is made.

I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) about the Guild of Disabled Homeworkers. As he said, we have been in correspondence about it. I have noted his remarks and shall have another urgent look at the matter.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea for choosing this subject and for the elegant and compassionate style in which he introduced it. It has been a wide-ranging debate. I say in no partisan sense that this is the first debate in which I have taken part as Minister for disabled people rather than Minister for the disabled. I know that the change in my title does not go as far as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) would like, but it is a question of getting the title on the notepaper. We have struck a balance.

I am extremely glad that at last we have managed to get away from the condescending term, "the disabled". I have received several letters from individual disabled people and organisations for disabled people that have warmly welcomed the change. Some people may think that it is rather a trivial matter, but for many disabled people it is an important step and a recognition of their status. We want to underline the crucial fact that people with disabilities are first and foremost people and individuals, who happen to suffer from a disability.

Some people outside Westminster believe that the Minister for disabled people has an executive role across the whole of government. Would that it were so, but it is not. My job as Minister for Social Security and Disabled People is largely concerned with benefits for disabled people. I like to think, as I know that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe did when he held this office, that one has a role to encourage, cajole, bully and snap at the heels of other Departments to ensure that in developing policy initiatives they never forget the needs of those in our society who suffer from a disability. I pursue that role as actively as I can.

Before I comment on the debate, I publicly apologise to the staff at the orthotic research and locomotor assessment unit at Oswestry, which I should have been visiting this morning. Alas, it is the second time that I have had to postpone a visit to that unit. It does splendid work. In 1981 it won a Design Council award for its swivel walker and it is now working on the development of parawalkers. I hope that I can make good my omission today by visiting that unit in the near future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said that we should not be too sombre when we talk about disabilities—there is an awful tone that sometimes creeps into people's voices when they talk about disability. I have been able to visit various places and have seen the steps taken by children suffering from cerebral palsy or by accident-injured teenagers. We who are able-bodied, temporarily at least, may consider such tiny steps trivial, but when one sees the sheer joy and sense of achievement felt by those disabled people, it is immensely rewarding. We should not be sombre, but we should be concerned to do our best to ensure that public and private policy is as well tuned to their needs as possible. We, too, should share some of the joy that those people are able to achieve in life.

A number of important points have been made in the course of the debate and I shall seek to deal with as many as possible. There are a range of matters that interact in terms of the quality of life that disabled people are eventually able to enjoy. Today my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has published a consultative document called "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities". That follows his Department's review of services for people with disabilities. The review will carry forward a number of themes that have been established in the past decade. It aims to maximise the participation of people with disabilities in the mainstream non-specialist services, particularly the training programmes. It welcomes the flexible approach that the newly established training and enterprise councils, the TECs—can take in that regard. It looks to improve the quality of the specialist services for disabled people through assessment, counselling and rehabilitation and to draw better on the contributions that the voluntary and private sectors can make.

In essence, the document is about increasing the opportunities for severely disabled people to be placed in firms alongside the non-disabled. It looks to strengthen the promotion of good practice to employers. It is a substantial document that I have not yet had the opportunity to study in depth.

I am sure that hon. Members who have taken part in this debate will want to look carefully at my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals. For the purposes of the debate, I shall summarise the main proposals. The document considers legislation and particularly the requirement that employers employ a quota of registered disabled people equal to 3 per cent. of the work force. The document analyses the weaknesses of the present quota system and also considers the weaknesses of the alternative approaches that have been advanced. At the same time, however, the document acknowledges that the retention of the quota may be necessary, at least for the time being, to prevent the wrong signals being sent to employers and others. The document invites comments on those specific proposals.

The Minister is summarising a document that hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel that they should have seen. I have just been handed a press release of today's date issued by the Department of Employment. It states:

"The Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Michael Howard, has today announced in a written reply the publication of a Consultative Document on employment and training services for people with disabilities … The Consultative Document reports on a review by the Employment Department of its programmes and services for people with disabilities."

Is it not serious that a consultative document is still unavailable from the Vote Office? Will the Minister urgently ensure that the document, which I understand was released to the press several hours ago, is made available to hon. Members before the conclusion of this debate? It is surely discourteous to hon. Members from both sides of the House that a document of such importance and relevance to the debate has been made available outside the House for some hours while we have still not seen it. I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I think that it was important to make that point.

I understood that the document would have been made available in the Library and the Vote Office by 11 o'clock this morning. If it was not, I apologise to the House. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that investigations are being carried out into what has happened. I anticipated that the document would be available to hon. Members so that as I assessed it they would have the opportunity of commenting on it.

We believe that the best results will be achieved by the effective education and persuasion of employers. The document makes proposals for that. It also suggests that, over five years, we should reach the position whereby most assessment is done by locally based employment department teams covering the whole country. Comments on how such teams could be supported by outside organisations are being sought by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Much greater use of voluntary and other appropriate organisations to deliver rehabilitation is also proposed.

The document also suggests improving the departmental specialist counselling and assessment, management and training of staff, and bringing together those whose main concern is people with disabilities into an integrated specialist service. My right hon. and learned Friend has affirmed his intention to move over a period, the balance of the sheltered employment programme for people with severe disabilities towards the more cost-effective sheltered placements with employers. Of course, sheltered workshops and factories will still have an essential role to play for those for whom sheltered placements are unsuitable.

The document also proposes better use of non-specialist services. Some 15 years ago, help to most people with disabilities was provided through special services. In the 1980s that pattern changed and the advantages of integration are now fully recognised. Full access for people with disabilities is an important feature of youth training and jobcentre services. My right hon. and learned Friend proposes to carry that further and provide better training for those involved in the specialist services, encourage TECs to use imagination to help people with disabilities and introduce audits of non-specialist programmes against the needs of clients with disabilities.

Most importantly, as a Government we are determined to secure the commitment of employers. Whatever legislative framework we put in place, we need effective ways of persuading employers to adopt good practice. The 1980s saw major innovations, including a code of good practice and the establishment of the disablement advisory service. My right hon. and learned Friend wants to carry that further. Proposals and issues raised include better training for the disablement advisory service, greater involvement by the employers' organisations and the introduction of a symbol for employers to use to express their commitment to good practice. That will be discussed further with the relevant interested parties before final details are decided.

Taken together with the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security in January, in "The Way Ahead" for a new structure of disability benefits, these proposals make an important contribution to the removal of obstacles to personal achievement at work for people with disabilities, to which I alluded earlier. Comments on the proposals are being invited from a wide range of interested parties and decisions will be taken at the end of a six-month consultation period.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea mentioned the education of young people who suffer from disabilities. The Education Act 1981 established a new framework for special education in England and Wales; it was implemented in 1983. In essence, it abolished statutory categories of handicap as the basis for special education. The emphasis of the Act is on identifying the special education needs of the child, then deciding the appropriate special education provision he requires to meet those needs.

Special education needs are defined as covering all learning difficulties which are significantly greater than those experienced by the majority of children of the same age. The term also covers any child with a disability that prevents him or her from making use of the educational facilities provided in schools. I do not believe that this is the time to go into great detail about how this policy is being pursued, but in January 1988 there were about 140,000 children with statements of special education needs in English schools.

A balance must be struck. There will always be some young people who will need special education, but I believe that the more we can educate children with special education needs in the regular school system, the better. That is better for the children, because although I admire many of the special schools in this country, some of them tended in the past to be slightly over-protective towards children in their care. Children with special education needs benefit from being in the same classrooms as those who do not have these needs, and from competing with them and achieving with them. It is also better for able-bodied children to come into contact with youngsters with special needs of one sort or another. The policy is working well at the moment.

As the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said earlier, the more disabled children can enjoy the society of non-disabled children, and vice versa, the better it will be for them later in their lives. Society is very reluctant to see the visible problems of handicapped people simply because opportunities were missed in the school years.

I totally agree. The right hon. Gentleman has emphasised the point that I, perhaps less eloquently than he, was trying to make. Only 10 days ago I was with a boy of about 13 who suffers from cerebral palsy. His mother had to fight for 18 months to get him into a regular school; the local education authority was determined that he should go to a special school. His mother—a formidable character—dug her heels in, and now he is heading for GCSEs and O-levels. Of course, he will then face other obstacles, on which I shall touch in my speech.

The timetable at the boy's school has to be arranged with him in mind—the school was built in Victorian days, and he cannot cope with the stairs. He has a full-time assistant with him; his computer has to be lugged around the school. I am sure, however, that that happy and well-adjusted young boy has benefited considerably from being in regular school—as have the pupils who have shared lessons with him. They have seen his disability. It is a theme of my job to persuade people to look behind the disability that they see first to the abilities that frequently lie behind it.

I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about primary and secondary education. A constituent of mine went through a series of special schools under the Inner London education authority throughout his school life. In some cases ILEA did well for him, in others, less so. He has now returned home and it is proving impossible to find day care facilities for him. He is severely disturbed, and is now stuck at home with his parents, one of whom is unemployed. They have great difficulty looking after him. They do not want him to go into a long-stay institution but would prefer him to have a degree of independence at home. To do that, they need the support and respite which day-care facilities and day centres can offer. There is an enormous waiting list for such centres, not just in my borough but throughout London. I am sure that the Minister is also aware of that problem. Can he direct greater resources to such day centres for those who are severely disturbed?

A range of day-care facilities is provided by local authorities and voluntary organisations. I have visited many of them. I cannot promise extra resources, but I pay a warm tribute to those who operate in this field. We face problems when young people move from primary to secondary education and have to be integrated into the system. We must also smooth their path to higher education and later I shall discuss what can be done to provide them with employment. I would welcome the further development of day-care facilities, some of which are good and some of which are not so good. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have seen both types of day centre. However, centres have a great contribution to make to the quality of life of many disabled people.

While on the subject of education, perhaps I could speak about conductive education. As the House knows, many British families make enormous sacrifices so that their children, mainly those with spina bifida or cerebral palsy, can travel to the Peto Institute in Budapest for conductive education. I am anxious to see the benefits of conductive education delivered as soon as possible to children here. I would not want totally to separate work that is carried out here from the work that is carried out in Budapest because that is where the whole idea was conceived and developed. It would be increasingly to the advantage of many British families if they could avail themselves of conductive education here rather than having to go to Budapest, where they would face language and social difficulties.

We continue to value the education provided in Budapest, and we are currently finalising an agreement with the international committee there to contribute some £5 million over the four years for the capital cost of a new building for the international foundation in Budapest. In September 1989 I announced our commitment to that new institute and I also said that we hope to supplement the Government's contribution towards Peto with a similar amount of money raised from non-government sources.

It seems clear that conductive education will be brought to this country, primarily because of the action of the several voluntary organisations that are working in this field in a number of different ways. We plan to have discussions with some of those organisations in the near future. I am optimistic that we can produce a joint approach to fund raising which will ensure an acceleration of funds for the new institute in Budapest and for developments in this country based on links with the Peto institute.

I have in my office a marvellous video starring Bob Hoskins and a young lady called Dawn. It shows how conductive education can benefit young people and I shall ensure that anyone who gets in touch with me receives a copy of that video.

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe paid a warm tribute to the all-party group on disabilities. I also pay tribute to that group. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) work immensely hard on that group. They do not always make my life as comfortable as I would like, but I never cease to welcome their attentions and persuasion.

I acknowledge the importance of carers. The plight—that is not too strong a word—of many informal carers will attract increasing attention in the future. As the House knows, we are introducing a carers' premium within income support in recognition of the work of carers and, of course, invalid care allowance also makes an important contribution. I acknowledge the importance of respite care, which enables the disabled person to go away and gives the carers a holiday. Several organisations offer facilities and encourage the provision of respite care.

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said that severe disablement allowance was taken from disabled people if they could not find employment after training. I think that the House will agree that SDA is a benefit for people who are incapable of work and have not paid the national insurance contributions necessary to get invalidity benefit. If we paid it to people who were capable of work but could not find employment after finishing training, it would cut across the basic principles underlying SDA, which we recently brought closer to invalidity benefit. There are, however, arrangements for former recipients of SDA who complete a training course but who, at the end of it, are incapable of work. If they claim SDA within eight weeks of the end of the training, they will requalify immediately. In essence, they retain their underlying entitlement to SDA. So long as they are incapable of work and claim it within eight weeks of the ending of their training, they can continue with their former entitlement to SDA. I hope that that will be some reassurance—if not total reassurance—to the right hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) referred to one of his constituents, Mr. Melvyn Wall. I cannot comment on individual cases. The decisions on all these claims for mobility allowance are made by independent adjudicating authorities on the basis of the medical evidence put before them. The basic criterion is that someone must be unable or virtually unable to work. There are no special provisions for amputees. Another notable case recently raised this issue. Inability or virtual inability to work are not the only criteria. When we introduce disability allowance in 1992, we plan to extend the mobility component to a lower level. The benchmark will be lower and it will be a question of whether people are independently mobile. The precise details are still being worked out. We are broadening the scope of what is now called mobility allowance and will be called the mobility component of the disablement allowance.

Some categories of people who are limbless have great difficulty in moving around. They work hard, and Melvyn Wall is one of those people who do not like to swing the lead when people are investigating their cases. He tries his best, but he is in considerable difficulty. Perhaps that category of limbless people should have a special provision. Common sense shows that they have great difficulty when they are virtually or entirely immobile. If the district council had not moved Melvyn Wall from one address to another to make life easier, a case for continuing mobility allowance might have been established. I do not believe that those factors should be taken into account.

Order. Interventions should be brief.

I was going to ask the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East to give way to me. I take his point. I am concerned about a number of these cases. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any promises today, but during our consideration of the new disability allowance, we shall look at assessment and adjudication procedures. We shall note his point.

The next 10 years will see tremendous advances in the way in which disability is regarded. Several hon. Members have made the point that whatever Governments, local government or employers do, it is the attitude of society towards people with disabilities that lies at the heart of many of our problems. Integrated education and increasing employment opportunities for disabled people will progressively change attitudes in society and I look forward with optimism to the next 10 years.

Once we have completed our policies in 1992, we shall have a more rational benefits system. The new disability employment credit will help people who are disabled and who may not be able to work to the full extent of an able-bodied person to obtain employment, which will be a big step in the right direction. The disability allowance will expand the coverage of the present mobility and attendance allowances. Overall, the changes we announced last October—most of which we implemented in April—and the new arrangement in 1992 will benefit about 850,000 disabled people. That will be a step towards a more rational and coherent structure of benefits.

Unlike the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, my experience is not that the majority of disability organisations are unappreciative of many of the steps that we have taken. However, many of them are campaigning organisations. I well understand that they want more and that they want it sooner. However, I believe that most people who look carefully at our proposals recognise that we are putting in place the building blocks for an improved structure of benefits, especially as we are shifting the emphasis in the benefit system towards those who have been disabled since birth or early in life and who have not, therefore, had the opportunity to build up contributory benefits, savings and occupational pensions. Those who have become disabled later in life may have been able to build up such funds. Our proposals are a step in the right direction.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea urged me to look again at the age limit beyond which people cannot qualify for mobility allowance. The latest estimate of the cost of introducing such a change is about £1 billion, which will probably rule it out. One has to assess priorities and make choices. If I were fortunate enough to have £1 billion, I am not sure that my hon. Friend's proposal is the first choice that I should make. However, I understand that there is concern about this. Anyone who qualifies for the benefit before the age of 65 can continue to receive it for life.

Several hon. Members raised points about adjudication procedures. As I said earlier, I have looked at the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report. It is fairly anecdotal rather than definitive, but I have looked at it with great care. I shall take account of its views and those of other organisations as we look at adjudication and assessment procedures for the disability allowance and for the disability employment credit.

Benefits are one aspect of the quality of life for disabled people. The delivery of services at local level is also an important aspect. Most of us who have had any experience in this area will recognise that the delivery of services tends to be uneven across the country. However, social services departments are increasingly considering the needs of disabled people and consulting disabled people about their perception of their needs.

I want to tell the House a slightly light-hearted story. I was at Totnes in Devon where a new system has been established for assessing the needs of disabled people and for consulting them about their needs. The social services department approached one elderly pensioner and asked her to say what single step could most improve the quality of her life. She said that if the social services department could deliver a case of Guinness every Monday morning, that would be the best thing that could happen to her. The judgment of professionals may not be so perceptive as we think.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) made a point about the importance of information for disabled people. It is no use having benefits, services and support for disabled people unless they can find out about them and their availability. The Government have supported the development of a data base for the Disabled Living Foundation and are supporting the EC's Helios programme to provide information about aids and services for disabled people.

Hon. Members have also referred to access. I commend to them a recent Film 90 programme about access to cinemas, and how disgracefully bad our record is. Ironically, a constituent of mine in a wheelchair was refused access to the cinema to see "Born on the Fourth of July", although he had telephoned the night before to warn that he would be coming and had been told that arrangements would be made. A cinema showing "My Left Foot", the film about Christie Brown growing up in Dublin, is also inaccessible to those suffering from disabilities. We must encourage the cinema authorities to make cinemas more accessible. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, in co-operation with—

I agree that cinemas ought to be accessible to people with disabilities, but will the Minister also turn his attention to access to this House and ask the Leader of the House when he intends to bring forward proposals or to implement arrangements to make this building fully accessible to people with disabilities?

There are, of course, problems with historic buildings. We all accept that, as does the National Trust. I am not being in the least light-hearted about this, but when I arrived at the building which houses the Department of Social Security and therefore the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, which had been thoroughly refurbished, I found that no disabled person could get to my office. Something has since been done about that, but we must make those who design, refurbish and update buildings much more aware of the needs of disabled people. I take the point about the Palace of Westminster, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that there are constraints. In any case, I shall certainly raise the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.

I welcome the Minister's remarks about the progress that has been made on access to information. Will he consider access to information from the local authorities—which should be the dispensers of information—for the blind and the deaf, through the provision of braille and sign language in their committees and council chambers? That would be very simple and would not be costly to the Government or the local authorities.

If the hon. Gentleman is fair and if he looks around he will have to admit that increasingly those facilities are being provided. I am delighted at the experiment to provide signing for deaf people to accompany transmissions from the House. These days, one is increasingly likely to find signing facilities at conferences, including those of the major political parties. We need to consider the provision of signing and perhaps the installation of induction loops in theatres, council chambers, and so on. All such moves are warmly to be welcomed because they will enable those who suffer from sensory disabilities to play a full part in our society.

We are making progress on the transport front. I know that the hon. Member for Islington, North feels strongly about that, as do I. We are making substantial progress with London taxis, although the gradual replacement of the vehicles, which will make every taxi accessible to wheelchair users, will take 10 years. About 50 other local authorities have now made the mandatory London system applicable to their areas.

British Rail is making substantial progress with access to trains. Standards for coaches are being looked at on a Europe-wide basis and we expect substantial progress to be made on that, too. I am keen to ensure that house builders design houses—

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of transport, will he turn his attention to the funding of dial-a-ride systems and the design of underground trains and other transport systems in the capital. As I pointed out, some 200,000 people with disabilities in London are denied any real mobility either because of the inadequacy of the provision on the public transport system or because of the unavailability of dial-a-ride.

London Underground is looking carefully at that matter. The most important single factor in the underground's ability to adapt to the needs of disabled people is the presence of escalators. Stations that are only accessible by means of escalators present particular problems. However, I know that London Underground is considering the issue.

I have referred to benefits, services, information and briefly—perhaps too briefly—to access. Over the next 10 years as we see the diminution in the number of l8-year-olds entering the job market, employers will be compelled to seek out the abilities that lie behind the disabilities of the people about whom we are concerned today. The demographic trend will be a very important factor in opening up employment opportunities for disabled people in the next 10 years or so. The determination of disabled people will also be important. They should say, "We are not prepared to be portrayed merely as objects of charity and pity. We have a contribution to make to society and we are jolly well going to make it." Their determination will help to improve the quality of their lives.

I am aware that many disabled people resent the way in which some national charities portray them in order to raise money. So often they are portrayed as objects of pity instead of as people with abilities who, if given half a chance, could make a real contribution to our society. Technology will increasingly make it possible for disabled people to maintain independent living and to gain employment.

The Government want to encourage all that as much as possible. Other hon. Members want to speak, so I will conclude by saying that the services and benefits for disabled people and the changes in society that will benefit them will not suddenly stop and stand still. There will be substantial further progress and the Government will do their best to support that as much as possible. The privilege of being the Minister responsible for disabled people is indeed a real privilege and an inspiration to me. I know that all those who have the privilege of working with disabled people experience the same feelings.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on his motion. Almost everyone would want to be associated with the thanks that he offered to people who do so much work, usually, voluntarily and usually unpaid, to care for and provide opportunities for the disabled.

I shall refer briefly to the experiences of the Greater London council between 1981 and 1986. We established a commitee that included representatives of disabled Londoners and of organisations that work with the disabled in London. In a small way we began to approach the problems of people with disabilities in a city like London.

It is important that such a committee should include a major voice from the disabled. In that respect I am not sure whether the GLC committee was entirely successful. Many voluntary organisations do excellent work, but for too many of them it is impossible to find a director or member of the managing body who is disabled. I do not intend that to be a criticism of the people serving on such bodies, but voluntary organisations and local authorities must ensure that they give a voice and power to the disabled instead of relying on other people to speak for them.

The last few lines of the motion introduced by the hon. Member for Battersea call on the Government to remove obstacles facing the disabled to allow them to achieve their full potential. That is the crux of the matter. I have never come across a disabled person who asked me for a special benefit or special advantage over people who are not disabled. Disabled people want to remove the blocks that prevent them from achieving their full potential in society.

When we discuss this matter we inevitably consider some cost or some investment. When the Labour party was in opposition in the GLC, we drew up our manifesto. I chaired the transport working party. We looked at what could be done to help people with disabilities to get round London. Obviously, we went straight to London Regional Transport to find out the cost of converting the London transport system. It was horrendous. Even if we had decided to pledge to make London transport accessible to people with disabilities, the time and the large sums of money involved would have meant waiting a decade or two before we could achieve a change.

The underground was created at a time when people with disabilities were expected to disappear into the background. Work would have had to be undertaken on almost every means of access into the tube system. It would have meant a major capital programme running into millions of pounds by the time it was finished and the virtual replacement of all existing rolling stock. There was no money to do it. Even if there had been, the necessary time scale involved would not allow immediate relief to people with disabilities.

We looked at the most obvious compromise, which involved the private and the public sector, and we obtained some relief immediately. We devised two things. First, we added support to something that was already in operation, the dial-a-ride system, which we had helped to build into a London-wide network of a small number of mini-vans that picked people up and took them to their destinations. Secondly, and most important, we involved the private sector and created the GLC taxicard system. The GLC would give a card to every disabled person in London. They would then be able to call a taxi on what were then the three main circuits, pay £1 for their journey, and the GLC would pay the rest.

That system represented a tremendous improvement in disabled people's ability to get round the city. It harnessed the existing private sector network. The taxi drivers' response was magnificent, and I regret that the system has not been built on. It is far more effective than any major programme of capital replacement of works and so on. Following the abolition of the GLC, I had hoped that the Government would give some guidance, perhaps by launching a programme to put every taxi on a radio circuit so that more people could enter the scheme. Perhaps central Government funds could have been provided to help London local authorities, many of which find it impossible to balance their books. Labour and Conservative authorities have either frozen their lists or have waiting times, so people with disabilities might have to wait months before they can get their cards. It would be helpful if the Government would step in.

LRT now administers the taxicard system. About 750,000 trips were taken last year, so the system is operating effectively.

I agree that the system is operating effectively, but demand is still building. Many local authorities are caught in problems. They are introducing restrictions and waiting times before people can get passes. That factor should be borne in mind in debates on the annual public spending carve-up, when we argue about the amount of money that is made available to local authorities. The system should be extended throughout the country. It is a basic right.

My hon. Friend must be aware of the zoning arrangements that have been brought in for dial-a-ride in London and how unpopular they are with people with disabilities because they prevent them from having real mobility around London. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to examine the zoning arrangements again so that we may revert to the system that existed under the GLC when there was real mobility all over London?

I thank my hon. Friend. I spend much time thinking how nice it would be to go back to the GLC—no doubt many of my colleagues will agree. I have not the slightest doubt that the present zoning arrangements imposed on dial-a-ride are unpopular. That brings me back to the point that I made earlier. If dial-a-ride was under the control of people with disabilities rather than being part of the London Transport democracy bureaucracy, I doubt whether it would have come up with such a scheme. I and many hon. Members have written to London Transport complaining about that.

I repeat that we are talking about money. The only time in my life that I have experienced the problem of some disability was when, with remarkable stupidity, I broke my leg in San Francisco. It was just after the last general election. The immediate thought is that San Francisco must be the worst possible place to be in a wheelchair. But because of the very hilly nature of that city, people who depend on wheelchairs have lobbied effectively for years as a political movement and they have browbeaten each mayor or administration into doing something about it. The building regulations in San Francisco make it clear that a public building cannot be opened, whether municipal offices or a cinema, without excellent access for people in wheelchairs.

I was in a wheelchair for about two weeks while in San Francisco. One of the few things that I was able to do was to visit the cinema, and I must have gone a dozen times. There was not one occasion when I had a problem getting in. If San Francisco can do it, London can do it.

I also noticed that there were dropped kerbs on every street, and on every corner. That is a city with a political will to do it.

If we want to give effect to the sentiments of the motion, the Government must step in and provide the legislative framework so that people are forced to comply and create a society in which people in wheelchairs and other people with disabilities can exercise their right.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I shall curtail my remarks because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has been waiting to make his contribution.

I join in the congratulations that have been extended to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for tabling this important motion. The first line of the motion mentions promoting opportunities for the disabled. The one fundamental opportunity that we appear to be denying the disabled is the opportunity to be born at all. It is significant that my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea, for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), and for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and, trying very hard for his constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr.Leigh), who are here to participate in the debate, have also played major arid leading roles in the pro-life movement.

I find it hard to reconcile saying that we must spend more on the disabled, that we must take greater care of their needs, that we must recognise them as a special category needing extra help, that there should be no recognisable difference, as far as possible, between their opportunities and the opportunties of their able-bodied fellow humans, and at the same time saying that, before their birth, we create two classes of citizen, the healthy and the able-bodied, who will enjoy protection from the 24th week, and the unhealthy and the disabled who will have no protection at all.

If we create two classes of citizenship before birth, we inevitably create the sort of society and social attitudes that will lead to two classes of citizenship after birth.

For the last four or five years I have taken Order of Malta Volunteers groups of disabled people to Lourdes every summer. It is not the enormous courage of the disabled people that is so apparent but the good that it does for young, often selfish and privileged people actually to look after disabled people. They should not be swept under the carpet. It is important that the disabled people are among us. Therefore, what my hon. Friend has said is very important.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. I can only repeat what I have said: two classes before birth must inevitably lead to the social attitudes that will lead to two classes after birth.

We live in an age that makes a god of physical perfection and in which the emphasis is not only on being healthy and active—with which I do not quarrel—but on looking and appearing perfect. We live in an age in which a two-year-old child is removed from a playgroup because he has a severe birthmark that is said to disturb and frighten other children and an age in which women who are already beautiful spend fortunes correcting some minor imperfection while the rest of the world starves.

I recall the words of Celeste Hind, a very wonderful woman, who took her child to Canada for surgery because apparently we in this country begrudge major surgery for children suffering from Down's syndrome. The most distressing aspect for her was the attitude of people in this country, including doctors who said, "Oh dear. How did this one get through the net? Didn't you have the test?" If that is our attitude to the disabled when they are very small or young, that will assuredly be our attitude later.

Those of us who were born in the post-war years grew up knowing people who were limbless, and we respected their condition because they sustained those appalling injuries and deformities while preserving the freedom of our nation. When medicine was less well-developed than it is today, most of us remember going to school with children who had to wear leg-irons after contracting poliomyelitis. We accepted them as normal, as part of society, as something everyday. Today, the emphasis is on physical perfection, not letting such people be born, and on insisting that every last finger and toe is in place and that there are no even minor deformities. That insistence is creating two classes of citizens.

At the same time, we are living in an age in which, thanks to the Government, there are better carers' benefits, better facilities for the disabled, and more awareness of the need to provide access for them. But while we pay all that lip service to the disabled, we are creating a social attitude that says, "It would be very much better if we didn't have those people among us at all." That is fundamentally wrong and exceedingly dangerous.

The decision of the House last week will lead not to a better deal for the disabled but to a much worse one. They will increasingly become not only a minority but one of which we say, "Oh dear. How did they get through the net?"

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on the way in which he introduced his motion, and I agree with many of his ideas, but I shall immediately comment on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). I was appalled by the decision taken by the House last week to allow abortion up to birth in the case of disability. I am still deeply shocked by that decision, and I wonder how it will work out in years to come. It is quite appalling.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea spoke of a wide range of disabilities that exist. In my own family, I have relatives who are blind or deaf—and, as a tiny child, I was taught for three years by a speech therapist in West Ham, and I am grateful for that education.

Under a Labour council.

I do not know the politics of the person who taught me, but I endorse my hon. Friend's comments about the importance of speech therapists.

My right hon. Friend the Minister has had some dealings with foot and mouth artists, and it is an experience when one's host uses her feet to eat the meal. I applaud and pay tribute to the work of the organisation concerned.

Five years ago a young man called Andrew Faulkner was struck down by a virus which left him blind. I am delighted to say that he is taking a training course which will lead to his City and Guilds. He is the first British person to benefit from this scheme at a cost of £60,000 over the past seven months. That certainly shows how much the Government are prepared to invest in training such people.

The Basildon disabled sports group is achieving marvellous results. A young man who was in the British paraplegic swimming team, represented us in Seoul in 1988 and won the gold medal for the 50m freestyle. He will represent us in basketball and the national wheelchair competition.