Dr Geoff Busby, chairman of the BCS Disability Group, interviews Maria Eagle MP.

As I was conveyed through the corridors of power in Richmond House to meet Maria Eagle, our current minister for disabled people, I began to wonder what kind of person I was about to interview and how she would differ from her predecessors.

I entered her office and was presented to a rather petite lady with smiling, welcoming eyes and after a few icebreaking remarks about the demise of Liverpool and Crystal Palace football clubs, our respective
teams, I began.

Q. What part do you think the IT Industry, both at corporate and individual level, could play in increasing the quality of life for people with impairments?

There are two things they can do. Employ disabled people, which would be a start. I try to encourage all employers to look at their employment practice. The ICT industry, like all other industries with more than 15 employees, is already putting in the requirements of the DDA.

Access is often one of the big problems. The IT industry has solved some of the problems for people with impairments through design for all. Those companies that don't think in this manner will lose out.

Whether it is Government, or individuals, or campaigning organisations that represent disabled people, all have to face the problems of attitudes inherent within society. Such assumptions are based on people's disability rather than what they can or can't do. We need a change of culture, which has begun, but there's still a lot to do.

Q. What do you perceive as the dangers of future technologies?

There are many issues to be discussed here. One we have already touched on, in the sense that they are obviously rapidly moving. Innovation today is old and past it tomorrow.

Another issue is that access is rarely built into design, becoming a barrier rather than an opportunity to help disabled people.

Then there is an issue with people who haven't generally lots of money and can¹t keep up with and have access to the latest technology.

Another potential danger not only for disabled people, I think, but for ICT, is that people will get left behind because they are forgotten in the rush to innovate. The Government is having a big drive to make government issues accessible on the internet. We do our best to make everything accessible.

Q. Would the Government be disposed to financing research to overcome these dangers?

It's always difficult when it comes to research. Being in government is about sorting out where your priorities lie. We need to be aware of the dangers and hope that we can overcome them. We believe in evidence-based policy making. We don't just pluck things out of the air. There are a lot of things out there that need doing without having to do research. We could do worse than ask the BCS Disability Group what it thinks.

Q. In a similar vein, do you think the funding would be forthcoming to research ways in which current assistive technology could be integrated or interfaced into mainstream products?

Here I'm particularly thinking of environmental controls as a prime example. This would represent a two-edged-sword in that, by achieving the same, Government would save much of its limited budget and the IT Industry would be assisted in meeting Part 3 of the DDA plus being presented with the opportunity to increase its market area.

The government is very committed to making people independent in their own homes. However, it is not just technological innovation itself. It's important that engineers, entrepreneurs and inventors are aware that there is a massive market, but whether the government can promote that I'm not quite sure.

The keyword is awareness: manufacturers need to exploit the opportunities presented to them by producing innovative products. The more we can raise awareness about the spending power and the rights of disabled people, the more we can make it clear that discrimination is not going to be tolerated any longer.

Innovation has to, and indeed is, coming from industry. I don't think the government role is to get involved in research. We don't have grants for complying with part 3 of the DDA.

Q. One of my main interests is to discover if invasive nano technology into the human nervous system could improve the quality of life for some people. For example, stimulating movements or minimising uncontrolled movement. Similarly, behavioural problems may be overcome through neuro-networks. Could the Government stimulate interest in this area?

This was science fiction 20 years ago, but it's not any more. I think it's important for Government to keep abreast of innovation and also that disabled people, both as individuals and collectively, have a voice in the ethical issues and how society deals with and regulates these issues, as they have a personal interest in the outcome.

It's interesting that an institution like Parliament is able to take on and debate highly complex questions such as you raise, regarding the ability of technology to intervene with the human body. I believe that in recent time, when debating questions of genetics, parliament has demonstrated that it is extremely able to perform this task.

Q. Access to work, in my opinion, is one of, if not the best, initiative to assist people with impairments into the work place. New Deal for Disabled People has a much larger budget and, statistically, is far less successful. Would you not think it appropriate to equalise these two budgets?

These are two separate initiatives designed to assist people with a whole
range of impairments into the workplace. They are very different in their
remit but are designed to complement each other by being as sensitive as
possible to people's various needs.

New Deal for Disabled People has been piloted in several areas and went live last year. Understandably it has taken job brokers time to acclimatise to the programme: for many of them it was a whole new experience.

Access to Work is there to assist people, who are already in, or trying to remain in work. It aims to overcome the barriers presented by their impairment, while New Deal is about assisting people to get into the labour market. Essentially, Access to Work is there for everyone and there is no reason why people on New Deal cannot receive help through it.

I don't think you can have a 'one size fits all' approach where we are knocking square pegs into round holes and it's not easy to come up with a scheme that will achieve this without trying it out. I do think that through the two initiatives we are maximising the numbers of people we are able to assist. If you are asking me whether I intend to change New Deal for Disabled People in any way, at present I see no need.

Q. How do you perceive the work of the BCS Disability Group helping the Government in meeting its goals towards creating an inclusive and equal society?

It is tremendously important for us to hear from groups like yours about your experiences because such groups have a lot of expertise. It's invaluable for us to be able to tap into such expertise when we are making or adjusting policy, or thinking about where we should be going in the longer term. As a result of that two-way interplay between special interest groups and ourselves, we end up with best policies.

I could sit in this office and come up with many ideas, but there's little point in my doing this as I don¹t want to impose my perceptions on the
country. I would rather talk to people about what's needed and have an
interchange. I think that one of the great advantages and importance of
groups like yours is that their expertise is made available to my office.

My officials are always happy to meet your committee to discuss particular issues. I'd welcome a good dialogue.

Posted: 3 July, 2002