§ Lady Olga MaitlandI beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert—
' "disabled person" means a person who—and "disability" shall be construed accordingly;'.
- (a) is blind, deaf or without speech;
- (b) suffers from mental disorder of any description; and
- (c) is substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury, congenital abnormality or such other disability as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1, line 20, leave out from
'means' to end of line 23 and insert—
', in relation to—
"employment" means employment under a contract of service or Crown service, Crown service being for this purpose—
- (a) any employment under a contract of service, the employer or, in the case of an application for such employment, the person who would be the employer, and
- (b) Crown service, or an application for appointment to Crown service, the Crown;
No. 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out from 'disability' to end of line 28.
- (a) service for purposes of a Minister of the Crown or government department, other than service of a person holding a statutory office, or
- (b) service on behalf of the Crown for purposes of a person holding a statutory office or purposes of a statutory body, but does not include service in the naval, military of air forces of the Crown;'.
No. 38, in clause 6, page 6, leave out line 29.
No. 81, in page 6, line 31, leave out ', sea or air' and insert 'or sea'.
No. 39, in page 6, line 38, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 39.
No. 40, in page 6, line 46, at end insert—
'()This section does not apply to the sale of any interest in land on the open market as between a willing seller and a willing buyer.'.No. 41, in page 6, line 46, at end insert—1006
'() Nothing in this Act shall be taken to affect the operation of paragraph 10 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 (execptions to right to buy) or paragraph 11 of that Schedule (sheltered accommodation).'.No. 61, in clause 13, page 9, line 16, leave out "'or deaf" and insert
'or deaf or are without speech".'.No. 63, in page 9, line 17, leave out "disability" and insert "abnormality"No. 62, in clause 17, page 9, line 36, at end insert—'
No. 78, in schedule, page 13, line 22, leave out 'in any other field' and insert
- (2A) Part IV of this Act—
- (a) does not apply to the provision of goods, facilites or services outside the United Kingdom except as mentioned in subsections (2B) and (2C) below; and
- (b) does not apply to facilites by way of banking or insurance or for grants, loans, credit or finance, where the facilities are for a purpose to be carried out, or in connection with risks wholly or mainly arising, outside the United Kingdom.
- (2B) Part IV of this Act applies to the provision of facilities for travel outside the United Kingdom where the act of exclusion, denial or discrimination occurs in the United Kingdom or on a ship, aircraft or hovercraft to which subsection (2C) applies.
- (2C) This subsection applies to—
even if the ship, aircraft or hovercraft is outside the United Kingdom at the material time.
- (a) any ship registered at a port of registry in the United Kingdom; and
- (b) any aircraft or hovercraft registered in the United Kingdom and operated by a person who has his principal place of business, or is ordinarily resident, in the United Kingdom,
- (2D) Nothing in this Act shall render unlawful an act done in a country outside the United Kingdom, or in or over that country's territorial waters, for the purpose of complying with the laws of that country.'.
'in contravention of Part IV of this Act'.
§ Lady Olga MaitlandThe amendments refer to the new definition of "disability". They recognise that the word "disability" can have many different interpretations. There is always a danger of using a form of words that is so woolly as to be virtually useless or so narrow as to exclude many of the people whom one is trying to help. The definition in clause 1 is a brave attempt to cover the variety of conditions as a result of which discrimination may be encountered. However, it strikes me as being too broad and, in some respects, far too uncertain in its scope. I am not convinced that there would be widespread agreement on the meaning of "major life activities".
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been to the Library to collect a copy of the compliance costs assessment on the Bill, of which only two copies were published. We tried to establish on what basis the document was placed in the Library.
I have been referred to a reply to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 13 October last year which deals with the placing of these documents in the House of Commons. I notice that, because the Bill is primary legislation, the document should have formed part of the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. At no stage does the reply say that the document should have been placed in the Library immediately prior to the Report stage. My inference from the reply is that the document should have been made available to Parliament substantially earlier than last night because no hon. Member has had the opportunity of seeing its fairly remarkable findings. In the 1007 light of that—it is clear that our rules have been abused —is it in order for us to proceed with the Bill? Would it perhaps be in order if the Bill were to—
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. It is quite in order to proceed with the Bill. The Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said; it is a matter for the Minister.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursMy point is that perhaps the sitting should be suspended and that additional time should be given to the Bill so that the matter of the compliance cost assessment, which is critical to the Government's case —the Government are putting a high cost on the implementation of the Bill—can be fully considered by the House before it takes a decision on the future of the Bill.
§ Lady Olga MaitlandTo recap, I was raising the issue of definition. I am not convinced that there would be widespread agreement about the meaning of "major life activities" in clause 1.
§ Mrs. Irene Adams (Paisley, North)I wonder about the hon. Lady's mentality when she describes definitions. As I was coming to the Chamber today along Grange road in Bermondsey, I had to stop my car in the middle of the road while my daughter got out to help an elderly man in a wheelchair along the road who could not negotiate the kerbs on to the pavement. That was for a stretch of a mile. I challenge the hon. Lady to take that same journey. She should get into a wheelchair and negotiate her way up and down the kerbs on such a road and then see how she would determine severity.
§ Lady Olga MaitlandI thank the hon. Lady for her remarks, but perhaps she should be reminded that the authority for the area to which she refers is Labour controlled. She should look to her own kind. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. McMasterThat is a disgrace.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. That is enough. I repeat for the third time that both I and my predecessor have been very indulgent. The debates have at times gone rather wide of the new clause and amendments that we are debating. That is the end of it. We will stick to the amendments that we are debating.
§ Lady Olga MaitlandThank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is appropriate that we should concentrate on the main issues.
§ Mr. Alan HowarthMay I put it to my hon. Friend that she is not under any obligation to make a speech? She can withdraw her amendments and, if my other hon. Friends who have tabled amendments are willing to do likewise, it is still not too late for us to proceed to Third Reading and vote. I put it to her that many millions of people in this country wish her to follow that course.
§ Lady Olga MaitlandThank you very much. I have to tell my hon. Friend that I intend to carry on with my 1008 explanation because I feel that it would be an error of judgment to skate over problems in the Bill which it would be a great folly to ignore. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will continue if I may. I am not convinced—
§ Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey)Has the hon. Lady considered that if she carries on with her amendments she will kill the Bill? Will she tell the House what payment has been made to her for the favour that she has been doing the Government Whips today?
§ Lady Olga MaitlandI call on the hon. Lady to withdraw her remarks.
§ Mr. SternOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has just accused my hon. Friend of accepting a bribe. That must surely be withdrawn.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI did not hear the hon. Lady do that. If she did, I am sure that she would want to reconsider.
§ Ms EagleI did not refer to money at all. I did not accuse the hon. Lady of accepting a bribe. If Conservative Members felt that that was the implication, of course I am happy to set the record straight. I asked what the hon. Lady was to receive in return for talking out a Bill that many people in this country want to see passed today.
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will it be helpful to the Chair and to the hon. Lady to know that we have no great difficulty about amendment No. 1, which the hon. Lady is moving now? In fact, if I accuse the Government of anything in regard to their amendments it is plagiarism. I redrafted the definition quickly and received praise from the Minister for doing it so quickly in the Standing Committee. On that understanding, can we now proceed? There is no point in the hon. Lady ignoring our willingness to accept amendment No. 1.
§ Lady Olga MaitlandI shall proceed. After all, it is the will of the House that I should do so. I am trying to concentrate on definitions. I am not convinced that there would be widespread agreement on the meaning of "major life activities". It means different things to different people. Not all of us—
§ Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton)My hon. Friend has a reputation on these Benches for being a doughty fighter. I have to say to her today that she is in the wrong battle on the wrong side. In many matters connected with disability, people have to define general terminology. We have no difficulty with it in matters such as the disability living allowance, which covers a range of both physical and learning disabilities. Does she accept that the people who will have to make judicial decisions or judgments about the definition or the wording of the Bill will have no more difficulty than when doing so for other matters associated with social security and health?
§ Lady Olga MaitlandI thank my hon. Friend for bringing that matter to the attention of the House. I am trying to point out that if we go for generalised terms, such 1009 as those in the Bill, it could lead to endless legislation and argument. That would not help the people whom we are trying to help.
For example, the term "major life activities" is very ambiguous and means different things to different people. Not all of us want to climb mountains, but a one-legged man—who perhaps had a leg amputated—who wants to climb mountains and previously derived tremendous pleasure from doing so will probably consider that his major life activity has been substantially limited.
The definition does not catch disabilities which not merely limit people but totally prevent them from carrying out the activity in question. Nor can anyone say with certainty what having
a reputation as a person who has or had such an impairment",is intended to mean and whether the impairment is physical or mental. Presumably the wording is not meant to deal with a person who cannot get a job or be provided with a service because people have heard that he or she has chronic asthma, because that is already covered. Therefore, it is intended to cover a person who does not have a condition, but is alleged to have it and consequently suffers the same disadvantage. That is probably the case, but one cannot say so with any certainty.The definition is also too loose because it includes people with a history of an impairment. It could cover an impairment that did not lead to a substantial loss of function and therefore did not result in any disability. It could include someone with a short-term disability, which subsequently cleared up completely.As for "having a reputation" as a person with an impairment, I find it impossible to predict how those applying the provisions in the Bill might interpret those words, or how courts might decide cases brought under that part of the Bill.
The amendments offer alternative means of dealing with those problems, by providing replacement definitions of disabled people and disablement. The replacements would have the merit of drawing on existing defintions which have been shown to work in practice.
§ Mr. Tom ClarkeHas the hon. Lady finished?
§ Lady Olga MaitlandNo, I was giving way.
§ Mr. ClarkeOpposition Members have got the point, so the hon. Lady is free to sit down and let us move on to a decision.
§ Lady Olga MaitlandThat was a totally irrelevant intervention and it was certainly not helpful to the discussion.
Disability or disabled persons can be defined along the lines used in the National Assistance Act 1948, but without using some of the terminology in that Act which would nowadays offend disabled people. For example, the suggested definition should not use the words "dumb" or "deformity". In all essential respects, however, the new definitions reproduce ones that we already know work in that Act.
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisMy hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) could not have been more relevant. Did the hon. Lady hear me say that we are prepared to accept amendment No. 1? Will she now allow 1010 us to move forward to consider other parts of the Bill? We could not do more than accept the amendment. Has she heard what we have said?
§ Lady Olga MaitlandI have heard the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I choose to carry on with my explanation, for the benefit of the House.
§ Mr. John Cummings (Easington)You shabby person.
§ Lady Olga MaitlandWill the hon. Gentleman withdraw that remark?
§ Lady Olga MaitlandBecause of the experience built up since 1948, those alternatives would offer a more secure start for the provisions in the Bill and would provide greater clarity about the scope of the groups covered. I commend the amendment to the House.
I shall now deal briefly with amendment No. 3, which is listed in the group. The amendment is intended to clarify the definition of employer and expands the definition of the Crown as an employer.
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that when the hon. Lady said she was turning to amendment No. 3 she was turning to an amendment that has not been selected?
§ Lady Olga MaitlandThank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment also exempts the armed forces from the scope of the Bill.
The Bill's present reference to the Crown as an employer causes me some unease, because I am not sure that that term is strictly accurate. The amendment would offer a more familiar definition, similar to those used previously—for example, in section 85 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. I am sure that the House will understand why our fighting forces must be in perfect physical condition—that surely speaks for itself. Those personnel are expected, at short notice, to be at the front line of battle anywhere and at any time. It would obviously be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for disabled people to be part of that fighting force. I know that the Ministry of Defence employs more than 1,000 disabled civilian staff, so disabled people already play an important role in supporting the armed services.
For the reasons that I have given, it is impossible for disabled people to take part in direct conflict.
§ Mr. Alfred Morrisrose—
§ Mr. MorrisOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerNo. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Order. I do not answer to that word. I have not accepted the closure and that is that.
§ Mr. SternI should like to speak briefly to the amendments in my name.
Amendment No. 39 would delete the inclusion of legal services from the Bill's provisions. I am worried about that 1011 inclusion, because, in many cases, the legal profession is organised on the basis of small, often one-man, firms. It strikes me that those firms would have great difficulty in complying with the provisions of the Bill, even on a time-delayed basis.
Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 62 would delete other services from the terms of clauses 6 and 17. The provisions of those clauses go too far without adequate consideration for the providers of those services, because they outlaw what might, in certain circumstances, appear to be discrimination even if it was not.
Amendments Nos. 61, 63 and 70 are technical and are designed to improve the wording of the Bill.
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisI have said to the House that we are prepared to accept amendment No. 1. In Committee, the Minister accepted that, on the question of definition, the sponsors of the Bill could not have been more helpful. We were concerned to rectify problems over section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948, which has been used by successive Ministers and Governments since then. I could not be more reasonable; I again ask the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) to proceed on the basis of our acceptance of the amendment.
§ Mr. SpringI shall speak briefly to amendment No. 8 and clause 2(c). I applaud that measure in principle, but I have doubts about its workability in practice.
Disabled people do not form a homogeneous group and there is no viable statistical base from which one could determine whether direct or indirect discrimination was taking place.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursMay I tell the hon. Gentleman that an organisation called FAR in his constituency is very worried about what he is doing now, because in the next few minutes he intends to talk out a Bill which will affect 6.5 million people and he, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, will be responsible, against the wishes of those very disablement organisations in his constituency which are worried.
§ Mr. SpringThe hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has taken up a great deal of time in making interventions. I would leave it at that.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister commented earlier, there is a distinct difference between the case of minority and racial groups, for which anti-discrimination legislation can be implemented and is easier to tackle, and, for example, women. Therefore, I think that it will be unwise to proceed with that part of the clause.
Clause 2(c) deals essentially with the burdens on small business. During the recession, many small businesses were under considerable pressure. A small and perhaps struggling company with three or four employees may be unable to make the arrangements for the accommodation of disabled people that are suggested in the Bill. Although in principle I think that it is correct, in practice I believe that that would be unduly burdensome for the small business community.
§ Mr. JenkinIt gives me very little pleasure to rise so late in the debate. [Interruption.] It is unfortunate that so much time has been taken up by bogus interventions and bogus points of order, raised by the Opposition. I have one amendment in my name, amendment No. 81, and that is what I wish to discuss.
1012 It is incumbent on people who feel strongly in favour of the Bill that they recognise that those people who oppose the Bill, such as myself, are behaving in as public spirited a way as they are, because the Bill, as currently drafted, without amendment No. 81, is contrary to the interests of the people of the country and contrary to the interests of disabled people. It is sad that the hopes of disabled people have been so falsely led by expectations that the Bill might become law as currently drafted.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who intervened earlier and put up with an enormous amount of bitterness and barracking with great courage and fortitude. The Bill seeks to apply all its measures to air transport, and I wish to comment on that briefly, as there is little time.
Aircraft are not like trains. They have little spare room and a requirement to accommodate disabled people would require a large number of charter airlines to remove large numbers of seats. That may well be desirable and most airlines do their best to accommodate disabled people, but there are important practical safety measures that cannot be incorporated and, if incorporated, would not be adequate. Many civil airline companies might well lose their right to operate if they were subject to that legislation.
§ Mr. JenkinI am happy to read the Bill.
The problem is the broad definition of disability and the way in which that is likely to be subject to endless litigation. I also believe that the measure is incompatible with European Community law because, if it were sought to apply the legislation to all airlines, it would apply to airlines operating into the United Kingdom and that would represent a restraint on trade.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House proceeded to a Division—
§ Mr. Campbell-Savours(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I object strongly to having to wear this rubbish—
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursAll right—I shall wear the hat. Wearing such nonsense makes us the laughing stock of the western world.
Will Hansard record that the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) was the Member of Parliament who talked out the Bill this year? He was on his feet when the Division was called. Will that be recorded?
§ Mr. Jenkin(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With your permission, may I say that I was not on my feet when the Division was called.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThat was a totally unnecessary point of order as I had already said that—[Interruption.] Order below the Gangway.
§ Mr. Alan Howarth(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that there is a proposal that this Parliament should give procedural advice to the new South African Parliament on how it should be run. Some further careful reflection is needed on our procedures for private Members' Bills; we are not yet in a position to provide any model.
§ Mr. Dicks(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that we were discussing private Members' business today, not Government business. Could the message be passed back to the appropriate quarter that hon. Members, especially Back-Bench Members, expect private Members' days to be private Members' days?
§ The House having divided: Ayes 1, Noes 54.
| Division No. 230] | [2.30 pm |
| AYES | |
| Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Lady Olga Maitland and | |
| Mr. Michael Stern. | |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Mrs lrene | Lynne, Ms Liz |
| Austin-Walker, John | McCartney, Ian |
| Benton, Joe | McMaster, Gordon |
| Berry, Roger | Miller, Andrew |
| Booth, Hartley | Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe) |
| Bowden, Andrew | Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley) |
| Browning, Mrs. Angela | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E) |
| Clapham, Michael | Raynsford, Nick |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Roche, Mrs. Barbara |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Cohen, Harry | Sheerman, Barry |
| Congdon, David | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | Sims, Roger |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Skinner, Dennis |
| Dicks, Terry | Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury) |
| Dover, Den | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Eagle, Ms Angela | Soley, Clive |
| Gerrard, Neil | Spearing, Nigel |
| Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) | Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W) |
| Hannam, Sir John | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Hinchliffe, David | Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold |
| Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A) | Waller, Gary |
| Hoyle, Doug | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Jackson, Glenda (H'stead) | |
| Lidington, David | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Livingstone, Ken | Mr. Harry Barnes and |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Mr. John Cummings. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ It being after half-past Two o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
§ Bill to be further considered on Friday 20 May.
2.39 pm§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you consider discussing the progress of this Bill with Madam Speaker? As you know only too well, last Friday the House voted unanimously, calling on the Government to provide time to get this Bill for disabled people through the House.
Today, the Government have taken part in an escapade to thwart the Bill's passage. Could you tell us, after consulting Madam Speaker, exactly what procedures will be put in place to enable the wish of the House that was expressed last Friday to be brought to fruition? Six and a half million disabled people expect the House to observe the two unanimous votes: 235 to nil on Second Reading, and a unanimous vote again last Friday.
1014 It is high time this Government were brought to book. If the House is to go up on 15 July for three months holiday, will you at least ask that one or two days be found for this Bill?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am sure that Madam Speaker is already fully aware of that request, as the hon. Gentleman put it to her earlier. [Interruption.] Order. I am quite capable of conducting the business of the Chair without help from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
§ Mr. Roger Berry (Kingswood)rose—
§ Mr. BerryNo, but it is clearly related. The fact of the matter is that a clear majority of Members of this House have expressed their support, in writing, for the Bill. Last Friday, no Minister voted against the motion to allow time for the remaining stages to be completed. That being so, how can time not be provided? Will the Minister assure disabled people that it will be?
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThat is not a point of order for the Chair, and, in any case, it has been made time and again in the the debate.
§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you are aware of my exchange earlier today with your predecessor in the Chair about the parliamentary replies that I am expecting and awaiting from the Lord President of the Council about whether the Government were involved in drafting the amendments in the names of private Members.
I must inform you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have still not heard from the Lord President. Your predecessor in the Chair said that he was quite certain that those on the Treasury Bench would have heard what I said—but there has been no reply.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI have no doubt that they have heard it; but I recollect that the Minister earlier gave an assurance on that very point.
§ Mr. Alan Howarth (Stratford-on-Avon)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you, on behalf of the House, to convey to the Leader of the House the fact that it would be extremely welcome if he came here and made a statement, before we rise this afternoon, on the Government's plans to provide further time for this legislation—in accordance with the resolution that the House passed a week ago today?
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any Standing Order that applies to a resolution of the House such as the one passed last week? If there is not, is it not correct to say, in the old phrase, that if the Government take no notice of such a resolution, they do so at their peril?
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your response to my earlier point of order, but what the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said was that he personally had not been 1015 involved. I then asked him whether the Government had been involved in any way in drafting the so-called private Members' amendments. There was no response to that.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerI repeat what I said earlier. No doubt hon. Members on the Front Bench will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman had to say.
§ Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Chair is responsible for how the House is seen by people outside. May I bring it to your attention, in having to implement that, that the House today, because of the behaviour of hon. Members, particularly on the Front Bench, did itself no justice at all? There are some issues that are political between both sides of the House, and there always will be, but the issue that we were debating, for once, went beyond politics, yet politics was brought in. I think—
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if the Chair was responsible for the behaviour of the House, it would behave much better than it does and would come across much better throughout the country.