LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS AND PRINCIPALS (Hansard, 6 May 1994)

§ Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, leave out 'or a contract for services'.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
Before I introduce my new clause and amendments, I should make one thing clear. Everyone in the House has one prime concern—care for the disabled. Nobody can claim higher moral ground on that issue—[Interruption.] The real issue must surely be —[Interruption.] It is disgraceful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the way the Opposition are trying to shout me down—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—when I should point out that there are fewer—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. When the Chair rises, I expect hon. Members to sit down. I do not expect to hear "shame" and other words from a sedentary position. Hon. Members have made their views entirely clear; that is their right. But the Chair expects there to be a proper debate on new clause 3.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I was trying to say—I think that we should make it entirely clear—that everyone in the House shares a deep and heartfelt concern for the disabled. All of us have a considerable community of disabled people in our constituencies. I certainly have in mine. I have met them. I know them well and am well aware of their concerns. If there is a debate going on right now in the Chamber, it should not be about whether we should try to improve the lot of the disabled, but how and what will be the best means to do so.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
Did the hon. Lady draft new clause 3, or was it fed to her by the Government?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I make my own plans on my new clauses and amendments. I always seek advice, as I have for every Bill, but I have been deeply concerned with the disabled. Anybody in my constituency will bear witness to the enormous amount of effort and work that I have put in on their behalf.

§ Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale)
Will the hon. Lady answer the question? Who drafted the amendment? Was it the hon. Lady or was it the Government?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I take responsibility for my own amendments.
I must now get on. I do not think that it is very helpful to the disabled community to be met with a barrage of shouting from the Opposition when we should be giving serious and careful consideration to what is in their best interests. I want the disabled to feel independent, free, and able to go about the community with dignity. I want them 962 to have the very best possible access to all amenities, whether in entertainment, public transport or work. Surely we all agree that we have a common concern about that area. I feel keenly that, when we are trying to help what has been a disadvantaged community, we must ensure that we get it right. I am concerned that, so far, the Bill not only needs clarification, but, in my view, redrafting. It would be a great mistake to us all if we found that, in our efforts to help the disabled, we entered into an era of endless litigation in which the only people who could possibly benefit would be lawyers.

§ Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)
The hon. Lady claims to be vice-chair of the Conservative disability campaign. Will she confirm that it opposes the Bill? Or is it a decision that she has made on her own?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
My decisions regarding the Bill are entirely my own. I operate without having to be dictated to by anybody.
I think that it is very important that we should look at the detail of the Bill rather than face recriminations and tears later on. We should look at the experience of people in other countries and at how they have made progress in that area, or not. We need look no further than America. It tried, with tremendous enthusiasm, to introduce the Americans with Disabilities Act. Since that Act came into being in 1990, it has turned out to pit the disabled against employers. That is causing many tears, which we in this country would wish to avoid.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
Will the hon. Lady help the House by telling us whether, if necessary, she will press the amendments to a vote?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
Whether I do or not will depend on what my right hon. Friend the Minister says in reply.
I should like to make some progress. We should not be so arrogant as to think that we can plunge forward with legislation without heeding experiences in other lands. The American experience should enable us to avoid pitfalls. The aim of regulation is to help, not to hinder, and it is certainly not to cause such resentment among the people who help the disabled that all the good work is undone.

§ Mr. Wigley
Is the hon. Lady aware that virtually every disablement organisation in these islands supports the Bill? Those organisations will point out to her constituents that the hon. Lady is talking the Bill out.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I shall not be responsible for talking it out. A far greater crime would be to allow the Bill to continue without proper consideration. That would be folly for the disabled and would not help them.

§ Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South)
Will the hon. Lady give way?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene while the hon. Lady is replying to an intervention. Hon. Members should remember the rules of the House.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
Rushing headlong into legislation, trying to meet a deadline just for the sake of it, would not help my disabled constituents. Our responsibility to the 6 million disabled is to get the legislation right.

§ Mr. McMaster
If the hon. Lady is really concerned and if her words are anything more than patronising, glib 963 nonsense, why did not she table amendments for Committee which could have been moved by members of the Committee? As she did not do that, do not her actions this morning prove that some Conservative Members are trying to stop the Bill?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
This is the time to table new clauses and amendments. But more than that, we have to make sure that legislation is sufficiently precise, fair and balanced for all concerned.

§ Ms Lynne
Did the hon. Lady at any time go to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and put to him her ideas on amendments? Is she aware that there was all-party support in Committee and that not even the Minister objected to the majority of the amendments that were tabled? Is the hon. Lady aware of those facts, or is she just engaging in delaying tactics to prevent the Bill from getting through the House?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
There are no delaying tactics. I say now and I shall say again that there are many times when one can table new clauses and amendments. Today happens to be the most appropriate time to do that. I repeat, what is the point of rushing the Bill through the House and having regrets and recriminations later? That would not help the disabled one bit. We should take note of the American chamber of commerce, which said that it believed that American civil rights legislation was too adversarial to be beneficial.

§ Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington)
My hon. Friend should appreciate the criticisms about delaying tactics. We all know what is going on. His master's voice has spoken from the Whips Office on our side and that is what it is all about. I want my hon. Friend to know that some Conservative Members deplore the delaying tactics and the idea that we should deny disabled people their rights. We can pass legislation for anything quickly, and this is an opportunity for the Government and the House to get the matter right for disabled people. I say to my hon. Friend as a friend, "For God's sake realise that everybody in your constituency is watching and everybody knows." It is this time, today, that the legislation has to go through.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I say to him, as I say to the Opposition, that it would be a far greater mistake for me to hurtle down a road that would create perils which it would be impossible to unscramble.

§ Mr. Alan Howarth
My hon. Friend takes a great responsibility upon herself in obstructing the progress of the Bill. I very much hope that she has studied the issues with care. In the light of what she said about the American experience, may I ask whether she has studied the best research that is available? For example, "Lessons from America" by Victoria Scott is the most authoritative and up-to-date research that we have. It tells us that the National Federation of Small Business Owners in America is of the considered view that the Americans with Disabilities Act, on which the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has closely modelled his Bill, has led to improved business opportunities.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
But it has also led to increased burdens on employers, companies and businesses in America, and that can destroy opportunities for the disabled and the means of helping them.

§ Mr. Alan Howarth
Has my hon. Friend read "Lessons from America" to which I have just referred?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
It is time that I moved on. [Interruption.] The House says, "For goodness sake keep moving."

§ Mr. Dicks
My hon. Friend will need to move rather fast to deal with all the amendments.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
There is a limit. I could read out reams of American resource material, but surely we should be taking account of the considerations of people in this country who help the disabled. In that context, it is important to consider what employers and businesses are thinking.
11.15 am
All the letters from employers which have been received so far have undoubtedly been sympathetic to the idea of helping the disabled. However, they keenly feel that they have not been fully consulted and that is the crunch issue in all our concerns. The length of consultation is vital because without good will we shall never get the right kind of legislation and the co-operation that is necessary to help the disabled.

§ Mr. Berry
Which organisations of disabled people did the hon. Lady consult before tabling her amendments?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I have been in constant touch with disabled groups in my constituency. Only last night I was in touch with them. It would be invidious to suggest—

§ Mr. Berry
Will the hon. Lady name just one organisation for disabled people in her constituency or elsewhere which she consulted before she tabled the amendments and tell us its response?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The new clause and the associated amendments are about the liability of employers and principals. We should return to that issue rather than deal with the broad issues that are now being raised.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
Thank you for your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Berry
Will the hon. Lady give way?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
Only if it is applicable to the new clause.

§ Mr. Berry
Will the hon. Lady advise the House which organisations of disabled people she consulted on the clause before she tabled it and tell us their response?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
Perhaps we should refer the hon. Gentleman to your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may be allowed to proceed with my new clause. I have already explained that I am in close touch with my disability groups: there is no need to go further.
The clause is about the liability of employers and principals, and we should examine the responses of employers. Since the Bill was published, concerns have been expressed by businesses large and small. The employers' groups expressing their anxieties include the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Employers Forum on Disability, the Association of British Insurers, the British Retail Consortium and the British 965 Bankers Association. That is a significant list, and we should think carefully about and listen to what those organisations have to say.

§ Ms Lynne
I am delighted that the hon. Lady gave such a long list of employers' organisations. Will she give a list of the organisations for the disabled in her constituency which she consulted on the new clause?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
The Opposition are trying to make us go round and round in circles, rather than allow me to proceed with my new clause. After all, Opposition Members are anxious to make progress, yet they seem determined that I should not do so.

§ Mr. David Congdon (Croydon, North-East)
One reason why I was pleased to serve on the Committee was that I hoped that it would have the opportunity to explore various issues—and it did. It is of significance that the Government had ample time to table amendments. As a member of the Committee who wanted to make sure that the Bill was fair and balanced, I would have been ready to listen to the arguments for such amendments. As a member of the Committee that considered the Bill carefully, I feel that the arguments being made this morning come somewhat late in the day. Even if the Bill is not 100 per cent. perfect, it would be better to have a Bill that is 99 per cent. perfect rather than risk losing valuable legislation for the disabled.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
Once I have explained employers' concerns—and my new clause is employerrelated—the House may understand that it would not be wise to hurtle down a route just for the sake of getting something on the statute book today which we would regret later.
We must take into account employers' concerns because without their co-operation the legislation could never succeed. We must take into account the valid point made by employers that the Bill is vague about their precise obligations. They also feel that the Bill would be expensive for businesses—and particularly for small firms —to comply with, as it would require costly modifications to buildings and would cost jobs. I emphasise that the Bill was drawn up without employers being consulted.
I will provide a quick synopsis of comments made by employer organisations, which will make my new clause more understandable.

§ Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich)
The hon. Lady said that she speaks her own mind and holds her own counsel. Will she say whether she is speaking from a printed Government brief?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I am not speaking from a printed Government brief, but reporting the representations made by different business organisations.
The Forum of Private Business stated: Even the most well-intentioned and innocuous legislation can impose burdens on business, and the burden always falls hardest on the smallest firms who are the proven job creators. The Institute of Directors commented: While we share the aim of ending discrimination against disabled people, we do not think that the measures proposed by this Bill offer the right solution to this problem. It was referring to proposals to achieve unrestricted access by the disabled to business premises, which could close 966 small firms across the country. If the Bill were taken to its logical conclusion, it would almost be like placing a tax on small businesses, and clearly that is not what the House has in mind.
The Federation of Small Businesses stated: The FSB would be concerned about any new mandatory framework for action concerning legislative accessibility to shops or business premises in the high street which might involve substantial building expenditure.

§ Mr. Sheerman
On Second Reading, the hon. Lady intervened on the Minister, but did not make a speech. In trying to establish good communications with business, as members of my Front Bench try to do—and I have been in contact with many of the organisations to which the hon. Lady refers—one shorthand procedure is to read and then to send to those organisations the Committee proceedings. The points that the hon. Lady is addressing were well covered in Committee, especially in regard to small firms. She has done a disservice to the Bill and to the House by not reading the Committee proceedings and understanding that those points were met.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I acknowledge that there was some contact with small business organisations, but they all feel keenly—bearing in mind the Bill's wide breadth and the scale of its impositions on businesses—that there must be broader and deeper consultation. It is not enough to have one chat, one phone call, one meeting and an exchange of documents. That is not real consultation.
The Association of British Insurers commented: The Bill as currently drafted would create serious difficulties for the insurance industry and our policy holders. It would effectively prevent insurers from differentiating between risks, which is a fundamental feature of insurance and applicable to all policy holders.

§ Mr. Berry
It may help the hon. Lady to know that we met the ABI and it now accepts that the statement that its members could no longer differentiate between risks was not correct. Will the hon. Lady withdraw her comment?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
If the hon. Gentleman is right and the association holds to that view today, I will withdraw my remark—but I will be in touch with the ABI to learn its current position.
The British Retail Consortium states: There is concern that the Bill would impose extra burdens on employers. The cost of converting older and smaller premises to accommodate the disabled may be prohibitive and cease to make the business viable. We must take those concerns seriously. It would be invidious to ride roughshod over the very people whose co-operation is badly needed. That would not make for good legislation. A small firm operating from a grade 2 or 3 listed building may be required to make extensive changes to its premises. It might not be able to afford that —it could financially cripple the company. I know that the Bill says that there will be a long lead-in time, but we never know.

§ Mr. Berry
The Bill does not say that.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I urge the hon. Lady to return to the substance of new clause 3. She is now speaking in a very broad context. She must address her remarks tightly to new clause 3.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I thought that it was appropriate to explain why I am introducing new clause 3. Unless I do so, the House will not understand my proposals.
967 Employers' concerns are the key to the whole Bill. I will give just one more example, to qualify my arguments. Kwik Save Group plc bitterly complained about lack of consultation. It stated: Nothing like sufficient research or consultation has been undertaken"—

§ Mr. Austin-Walker
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My reading of new clause 3 is that it relates to whether an employer is responsible and liable for the acts of an employee. I cannot see the relevance of the hon. Lady's remarks.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It is clear that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my earlier ruling. I made the same point a minute ago.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I maintain that it is essential for proper understanding for me to quote Kwik Save's view: Nothing like sufficient research or consultation has been undertaken into the consequences of the proposals. For instance, there is no evidence that its correlation with employment or health and safety legislation has been considered. We need to allow the necessary time for proper research and consultation. On that score, I must go further into—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady is now taxing the Chair. New clause 3 is not about health and safety, so her last quotation was totally irrelevant. I firmly request the hon. Lady to address the new clause.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
New clause 3 relates to the liability of employers and principals. It would make employers responsible for discrimination practised by their employees or agents, unless they have taken reasonable steps to prevent it. The new clause would correct an oversight in the Brill as drafted. The Bill places duties and responsibilities on a variety of people, many of whom employ a work force or act through agents.
It would clearly be nonsense to outlaw discrimination while allowing people to dodge their new responsibilities by claiming that it was the employee or agent who had practised discrimination. It would be small comfort to a job candidate who was wrongly denied an interview on grounds of his disability to hear that it was an underling or employment agency, and not his prospective employer, who had discriminated against him.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
Will the hon. Lady give way?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I am sorry, but I have already given way so often—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that Disability Action, Sutton, a group in the hon. Lady's constituency, is taking strong exception to what she is doing on the Floor cif the House today by interfering in the rights of disabled people in her constituency. Will she resume her seat and concede to the requests of disabled people in Sutton and Cheam?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Bogus points of order do not help either.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
New clause 3 also recognises that it would be unfair to penalise an employer if, through no fault of his own and perhaps in direct contravention of his instructions, an employee discriminated unjustifiably against a disabled person. Therefore, the new clause allows an employer to defend himself against proceedings brought under the provision by proving that he had taken reasonable steps to prevent his employee from acting in a discriminatory manner. New clause 3 is modelled on a provision similar to that in section 32 of the Race Relations Act 1976.
Amendment No. 4 would remove a confusing and unnecessary phrase from the Bill's definition of "employer". The amendment seeks to clarify the Bill at the expense of extraneous detail. The fact that a contract for services has been established between two parties, one of whom is an employer, speaks for itself.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Why don't you sit down?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
Within the same contract it is therefore necessary—

§ Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West)
My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
The hon. Gentleman's organisation is also objecting to—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) should cease his sedentary remarks. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members have an absolute right to be heard provided that they are referring specifically to new clause 3.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. An attempt is being made in the House by Conservative Members to destroy this legislation. Nearly all Conservative Members present today have organisations in their constituencies have contacted Labour Members—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. The Chair is here to ensure that there is full and proper debate on the issues before the House. We are now considering new clause 3 and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) was making an intervention.

§ Mr. Stern
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to make the point that the thrust of amendment No. 4 is borne out by experience in other fields and in particular where the Inland Revenue has great difficulty in establishing whether—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, there has been a campaign of barracking from the Opposition Benches today. May I appeal to you for protection to enable hon. Members to be heard?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I must tell the hon. Member for Workington, who is commenting from a sedentary position, that I should be grateful if he would desist—or go and have a cup of coffee.

§ Mr. Stern
The thrust of amendment No. 4 is borne out by the experience of the Inland Revenue, which has great difficulty establishing whether a person is employed or self-employed and the definition of contract for services is frequently used in such cases. Unless my right hon. Friend 969 the Minister or the Bill's promoter can rebut the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), amendment No. 4 would be a worthy addition to the Bill.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) for making a very worthy intervention. It was a lot more constructive than many of the comments that have been made from across the Floor of the Chamber.
The definition of employer should not extend to a person who may or may not engage the services of another under a contract for services. That term has no useful meaning within that context and its removal will clarify the Bill and go some way towards the aim of promoting conciseness wherever possible.
Amendment No. 5 would remove the final three words from the Bill's definition of employer.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
Before the hon. Lady considers amendment No. 5, may I ask whether new clause 3 has the support of disabled persons in her constituency? That point was made a few moments ago. Even if it has, would they approve of anything that would delay the rapid passage of a Bill that is wanted throughout the country and particularly by disabled people?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I can confirm that disabled people want the very best possible Bill, the best legislation and the best drafting. They do not want a Bill that is hastily drawn up, which contains flaws and which they feel would not help them in the way intended.

§ Mr. Berry
Will the hon. Lady name any organisation of disabled people which is other than fully supportive of the Bill as currently drafted?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
All organisations have their own points of view. May I also say that disabled people have their points of view.

§ Mr. Berry
Will the hon. Lady give way?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
We are now straying from the main point, of the amendment. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will stick to the main point, as I am sure that that is what you have in mind.
Amendment No. 5 would remove the final three words of the Bill's definition of employer. The words add nothing to the meaning of the definition. Indeed, they cause confusion by seeming to refer to a mysterious set of Acts which are not mentioned earlier in the Bill. The removal of those words would clarify the Bill.

§ Mr. Wigley
Will the hon. Lady give way?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
Amendment No. 5 is a simple amendment which is intended to clarify the definition of employer in the Bill. The words "under those Acts"—

§ Mr. Wigley
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) inadvertently or otherwise misled the House a few moments ago when she said that Kwik Save had expressed an opinion on the Bill. I have just spoken to the chief executive of Kwik Save, which is based in north Wales. He told me that he has received no approach and he stated categorically that he would have known of an 970 approach had there been one. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to withdraw that part, and many other parts, of her comments.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) may wish to respond.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Is it a new point of order?

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Yes, indeed. Is not it true that to deliberately mislead the House of Commons is a contempt? If it is a contempt and the hon. Lady has deliberately misled the House of Commons, surely the matter should be referred immediately to Madam Speaker? Does not "Erskine May" say that that should happen at the first possible occasion?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am not aware that the hon. Lady has deliberately misled the House.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I can certainly produce the evidence from Kwik Save, but time prevents me from going through all my papers right now. However, if the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) would like to catch up with me later after the debate, I will show him the original correspondence. I can go no further than that.
Amendment No. 5 is simple: it aims to clarify the definition of "employer" in the Bill. The words "under those Acts" are tagged on at the end of the definition. The words are confusing because no Acts are mentioned in the Bill to which they could refer. Indeed, the definition reads sensibly without those words. I propose the removal of the offending words. I commend the new clause and the amendments to the House.

§ Mrs. Clwyd
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has again misled the House. She gave the impression earlier that she had consulted—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. If the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) wishes to make a speech on any element of the new clause, she is perfectly entitled to do so. Points of order are directed to the Chair and for a ruling from the Chair. I have given a ruling on the issue.

§ Mrs. Clwyd
This is a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. I have just this moment—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. In future, the hon. Lady should start by explaining that point and should not arrive at it after I have reprimanded her.

§ Mrs. Clwyd
I am listening carefully to your words of reprimand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise to you. I came into the Chamber just before the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam sat down. She claimed that she had spoken to disability organisations in her constituency, although she failed to mention one. It is important that the House should know that I have just spoken to the Sutton and Cheam branch of Mencap. It fully supports the Bill and it is important that the House should know that.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady has been a Member of the House for a good number of years. She knows full well that that point has absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.

§ Mr. Wigley
It Is a good point though.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
No, it is not a good point. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has been in the House for as long as I have. He knows, too, that it is not a good point.

§ Mr. Berry
I urge the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) to withdraw the new clause, and I urge other hon. Members who have tabled amendments not to press them—for a very simple reason: all the amendments can be considered in another place, but only if we conclude the Report stage and Third Reading this morning. It is abundantly clear that efforts have been made by some hon. Members to prevent us from completing those stages this morning.
I say immediately that I do not throw that accusation at all Conservative Members. There are Conservative Members who are as angry as we are—[HON. MEMBERS: "And honourable."]—and who are honourable. Other Conservative Members are not behaving honourably at all. The amendments were not tabled to ensure careful and detailed consideration of the Bill. They were tabled specifically to wreck the Bill.
All the amendments could have been tabled in Committee, but I did not receive a single approach from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, from the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) or from any other hon. Member who has tabled amendments for consideration today. However, we did receive representations from organisations such as the Association of British Insurers. We tabled amendments suggested by them and discussed them in Committee.
The point is perfectly simple. All 80 amendments could have been discussed in Committee if they had been tabled in Committee. I repeatedly begged the Minister to table amendments on behalf of the Government to address any concerns that he might have. As he failed to do so, I and my colleagues in the Committee tabled amendments through which we attempted to address the Government's concerns. As I said last Friday, I believe that those amendments went a long way to taking on board those concerns. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and her colleagues have been put up to this by the Government.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Berry
The hon. Lady shakes her head. I am afraid, therefore, that I shall have to produce evidence to confirm that point. The hon. Lady and I were invited on Wednesday evening to record a "Westminster Daily" programme in which we were to debate the Bill. The first thing that the hon. Lady said to me as we prepared to go into the studio was: Where are we with the Bill? I explained to her that the Bill had received an unopposed Second Reading, with 231 hon. Members voting in favour and no hon. Member voting against. I explained to the hon. Lady that the Bill had completed its Committee stage, at which point she said: I must read the proceedings of the Committee. She made that statement after she had tabled amendments for debate this morning.
972 I know that we have to choose our language carefully in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I intend to stay in order, but I must say that I think that it is less than honest for the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam to pretend that amendments have been tabled after careful consideration when, out of her own mouth, it is confirmed that she has been put up to it by the Government.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has been making the most gross slurs against my good name. I have been very concerned for a long time about the disabled in my constituency and elsewhere. For the purpose of tabling new clauses and amendments, it is irrelevant whether I had read the report of the Committee stage at that moment. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remarks.

§ Mr. Berry
Not only have I no intention of withdrawing those remarks, but I shall make a further one, which will be borne out by the video of the programme in question. On three occasions, the hon. Lady was asked whether she had been put up to this by the Government and on three occasions she refused to answer the question.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I object to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I have always and consistently said that the amendments are mine. I have had a long-standing interest in the disabled in my constituency and I stand by that.

§ Mr. Berry
The video is there. I am aware that the hon. Lady has threatened legal action against Disability Times; perhaps she will threaten legal action against me as well. All I can say is that the hon. Lady has behaved dishonourably and dishonestly in this matter.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
My hon. Friend says that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has threatened the disability press—in particular, Disability Times. That would be an odious thing if it happened. Can my hon. Friend give a source for what he has said?

§ Mr. Berry
The information is on tape.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
The hon. Gentleman's remarks are absolutely scandalous. He is still trying to imply that I am threatening legal action. How did he come by that information from my private conversation with Disability Times? Is he not aware that I confirmed to Disability Times, yet again, that the new clause and amendments were mine and mine only?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Before this goes any further, may I be clear that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) did not say that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) had acted dishonourably in the House? Is that right? If he had done, I should have to ask him to withdraw the remark.

§ Mr. Berry
I sought the strongest remark that I could make without causing offence to the Chair. If you could advise me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the strongest language that I could use, I should be grateful.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I accept the hon. Gentleman's good will in making that suggestion. However, if he did say, as I understood it, that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam had acted dishonourably in the House, I wish him to make it clear that he did not make that statement.

§ Mr. Berry
I did not make that statement.
This is a serious matter. Disabled people have been campaigning for a civil rights Bill not just for a few weeks or a few months, but for many a long year. They have been campaigning ever since the first Minister for the Disabled, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), set up a committee to investigate the possibility of such legislation being introduced. In 1982–12 years ago—that committee reported. The issue has been on the table since then, so when people make statements about their good intentions they should be certain that they can substantiate them. There is no doubt that a few Conservative Members are seeking to talk out the Bill. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, for example, said on Radio Bristol a fortnight ago that of course the Bill would be talked out. That was before one single amendment had been tabled. He subsequently tabled 50 amendments.

§ Mr. Stern
I am happy to amplify what the hon. Gentleman said. He may recollect a conversation that he and I had last February, in which I pointed out to him that the inevitable fate of the Bill was that it would be talked out because it was bad legislation.

§ Mr. Berry
Not one hon. Member voted against the basic principle of the Bill on Second Reading. Yet in other places they said that they were against the Bill and would do all that they could to stop it. As the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West rose to his feet, I will read out a letter that I happen to have in my possession which he wrote to the honorary secretary of Bristol Mencap. Bristol is a city that he and I have in common. It is probably the only thing that we have in common. The hon. Gentleman pointed out in his letter of 17 February 1994: As you will know, I regard the various drafts of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill as pernicious legislation which would merely serve to provide a cloak for expanding bureaucracy … something to be opposed at all costs. Yet he did not oppose it.
Three or four weeks later, we had the Second Reading debate and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West and, indeed, the Government could have voted against the Bill. They did not do so. The Prime Minister looked forward to detailed discussion in Committee. But not one amendment was tabled by the Minister or suggested by the hon. Members for Bristol, North-West or for Sutton and Cheam or anyone else who might seek to talk out the Bill this morning. That is why most of us in the Chamber, on both sides of the House are, to put it mildly, a little angry at the behaviour of a small minority.

§ Mr. Dicks
A lot angry.

§ Mr. Berry
Yes, a lot angry. I am grateful for that intervention, albeit from a sedentary position.
The consultation on the Bill has been extensive. The all-party disablement group, so ably co-chaired by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and Lord Ashley, has consulted the Minister, the Prime Minister and organisation after organisation for 12 months and more. I dare say that I have spent more time consulting the organisations that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam listed this morning than she has.
It is appalling that when one asks the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam the simple question of which organisations of disabled people she has consulted, she 974 cannot name one. She asserts that she has consulted, but she cannot name them. If that is not disingenuous—I hope that that word is in order—I do not know what is.

§ Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the House considers legislation which affects a wide body of people—not only the people that it might aim to help—there is a duty to consult widely all relevant organisations? What consultation has the promoter of the Bill had with the chartered airlines?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We are on new clause 3.

§ Mr. Berry
I should like to answer that question. I received a letter from Britannia Airways and I have spoken to the company on the telephone. I promised that we would meet after the completion of business today, before the Bill —I hope—goes to the other place. I would have met that company this week if I had not been meeting other organisations to discuss the Bill.
Returning to new clause 3 and all the other amendments, let me say in conclusion that the Bill received an overwhelming Second Reading, with 231 hon. Members voting in favour of the Bill and not one voting against. The Government did not vote against. The Minister did not vote against. Indeed, there was not one speech against it.

§ Mr. Stern
If the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard he will find that I made my doubts clear in the Second Reading debate.

§ Mr. Berry
I confirm that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West expressed grave reservations about the Bill, although not quite so stridently as in his letter to the secretary of Bristol Mencap that I quoted a few moments ago. Indeed, the contrast is marked. The hon. Gentleman did not have the courage to vote against a Bill which he now says is totally unacceptable. That is the point.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Obviously, the reason why the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) did not vote against the Bill was that he knew what happened to Bob Hayward, his colleague in Bristol who lost his seat at the last general election for in effect destroying such a Bill when it came to the House on a previous occasion. Is that not the real reason why the hon. Gentleman did not have the courage to walk into the Division Lobby to vote against the Bill?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is nothing to do with new clause 3.

§ Mr. Berry
New clause 3 and other clauses have been tabled not in order to have the debate that we should have had in Committee. We had an extensive debate in Committee and many of the issues were discussed. If other aspects of the Bill should have been examined, that should have been done in Committee. Even now, if the new clauses and amendments are withdrawn, the issues can be discussed in the other place. Was it really pure coincidence that a handful of hon. Members tabled 80 amendments two days ago? Of course it was not. The amendments were drafted by the Government and tabled by tame Back Benchers to wreck the progress of the Bill.
Disabled people are not asking us to speak for them and do things for them, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam suggested: they are asking us to let them have the 975 basic civil rights that we demand for everyone else. We are not talking about charity or about being nice to disabled people—we are talking about people's rights. Disabled people are demanding the rights enshrined in the Bill.

§ Mr. Dicks
Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that we do not expect those rights to come the day after the Bill becomes law? That is an important point.

§ Mr. Berry
Exactly right. The hon. Gentleman has studied the Bill and campaigned for the measures in it over the years. He knows that the Bill has been drafted carefully to ensure that the provisions can be introduced on a reasonable time scale to accommodate the problems of cost and so on.
What really annoys me is that in recent weeks I have heard the Government say one thing in public and seen and heard them do something totally different in private. In public, they have no opposition to the principle of the Bill. The Prime Minister welcomed the Committee stage. It was a case of "Of course, we all want to do something, don't we?" In private, however, it was made abundantly clear that the Government would not let the Bill through and that they intended to wreck it.
As a new Member of Parliament, I am beginning to understand why many people hold this place and its Members in something less than total respect.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
Nonsense.

§ Mr. Berry
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is not in the best position the morning after what happened in the local elections yesterday to suggest that there is enormous confidence in her good self and the present Government. It is a serious point. If Members of Parliament and Governments, of whatever political party, behave in such a deceitful manner, persistently misleading people by saying one thing in public and a different thing in private, it is no wonder that we lose respect.
Disabled people want the Bill. They have a right to the Bill. They have campaigned for it for a long time. I beg those who have tabled amendments to withdraw them and allow the Bill to complete its Report stage and receive its Third Reading today. I guarantee that any matters that. hon. Members wish to be considered, even at this late hour, will be considered in the other place. On behalf of the 6.5 million disabled people who want the provisions of the Bill, I will do whatever is necessary. I beg those Members who have tabled amendments to withdraw them.

§ Mr. Stern
Unlike the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who spoke for the past 18 minutes, I shall attempt to deal with the amendments.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman intends to stay in order, but, apart from a number of occasions when I reprimanded hon. Members, the rest of the debate has been in order.

§ Mr. Stern
I naturally accept your partial correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on new clause 2—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
This guy wants to be a Treasury Minister.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) obviously did have a coffee—[Interruption.]Order. Is the hon. Gentleman's disability such that he cannot stay quiet below the Gangway?

§ Mr. Stern
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The new clause deals with a genuine problem in that the definition of the relationship between employer and employee in the Bill is less than precise, as is that of the relationship between acts carried out by one or the other. That matter was not discussed fully in Committee.
I also commend to the House amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam tabled, not least because—

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
Will the hon. Member give way briefly?

§ Mr. Stern
The Opposition has launched a campaign of deliberate delay today. They are determined to delay these proceedings as much as possible and to throw the blame on those few hon. Members who oppose the Bill. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will undertake not to raise matters that have been raised in the many interventions this morning and if he intends to say something that is germane to the subject of my speech.

§ Mr. Morris
I am grateful to the hon. Member. His colleague from Bristol, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), in a distinguished speech, appealed to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members to withdraw their amendments so that we can reach conclusions on Report today. My hon. Friend gave the hon. Member and others a straight pledge that he will see that amendments similar to any on the Order Paper today, or any other amendments that the hon. Gentleman wishes, are considered in another place. We are time constricted—their Lordships are not. Will the hon. Gentleman respond, please, in view of what he has said about brevity, to what his Bristol colleague said?

§ Mr. Stern
I will certainly respond. I cannot see how an hon. Member in this place can give an undertaking about how the other place will proceed as it has its own rules and orders. I will not permit the amendments that I tabled in an effort to improve an extremely doubtful Bill to be put into the hands of someone who is in favour of all the principles behind the Bill.
I will continue to give my reasons for the various amendments that I have tabled. The first amendment in my name in the group is No. 26. I shall be grateful for any comments from the Minister, but my understanding is that the amendment supplements new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, by writing similar provisions into another defective part of the Bill. I certainly commend the amendment to the promoters of the Bill, If the hon. Member for Kingswood, who has not dealt with these detailed amendments so far, wishes to answer the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and I have raised, I shall have no objections to his speaking again in this debate.
Amendment No. 29 goes to the core of one of the approaches in the Bill about which I have strong doubts. It is designed to affect the legal definition of discrimination in clause 4. As I said on Second Reading, the Bill attempts such a definition, but it cannot possibly achieve one and it creates further problems, which are apparent. My 977 amendment will strike out words that are capable only of creating litigation after litigation and problem after problem for the enforcers. Despite having read the discussions in Committee, I can see that those views have not been adequately considered. I fully understand and accept what the hon. Member for Kingswood is trying to achieve with the wording, but in my view it will certainly not achieve that aim.
For example, paragraph 2(c) in the first part of clause 4 that I am trying to delete—at least on a probing basis—contains a selection of words that can only be described as vague. This House has a duty to ensure that any legislation that we pass to another place—I accept that further amendments can be made there—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Stern
Not to the hon. Gentleman.
We have a duty to ensure that legislation is sufficiently clear to be intelligible to the lawyers who will have to interpret it. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Jenkin
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot hear my hon. Friend's speech. You have already reprimanded the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) several times.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) seems to have some difficulty containing himself this morning. I appeal to him to be quiet because hon. Members want to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern).

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
No they do not. No one wants to listen to the hon. Gentleman—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Workington would keep quiet.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have reprimanded my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He was telling me that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) had recently hosted a group of deaf people from his area in the House of Commons but did not have the guts to tell them while he was escorting them around this place that he intended to oppose this Bill, which is being proposed on their behalf.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman was doing so in such a loud voice that I could not hear what the hon. Member who had the Floor was saying. I should be grateful if the hon Gentleman would whisper to his hon. Friend in future.

§ Mr. Stern
May I immediately counter that deliberate mis-statement? No, I withdraw that. May I counter the baseless mis-statement by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which is directly contradicted by the truth? When I hosted the group from Access for Deaf Students Initiative from Bristol in this House I discussed my views on the Bill with some of them. Those views were no different from those that I have stated today. I invite the hon. Member for Bolsover to withdraw his statement, which directly contradicts the truth.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover does not need any help. He can speak for himself.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Workington is beginning to try my patience.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Is the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) giving way to me?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. No one is giving way, as I have the Floor. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a statement, which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) has refuted. The House recognises that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West was the person present and also recognises the clarity of his statement.

§ Mr. Stern
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What we have just heard is typical of the calumny that has been heaped on those of us who, in all honesty, are trying to get the House to produce decent legislation rather than just going along with what we are told that people outside want.
Amendment No. 29 would delete clause 4(2)(d). I suggest to the hon. Member for Kingswood that the wording in that paragraph is so imprecise as to be positively impractical. Once again, we are being asked to pass law that no court could possibly enforce. We must accept that if and when the Bill, in any form, becomes law, it will be enforced at some stage as a result of contested litigation in the courts. I do not think that the House can pass a Bill containing such imprecise wording without at least further clarification about exactly what it is intended to mean. I have read paragraph (d) several times and I cannot see any way it could be applied with clarity to any employment case.
Amendment No. 30 would delete paragraphs (e) and (f) of clause 4, because they would be wholly oppressive on any employer to whom they could possibly be applied by an employee or a potential employee.
Reference has been made to the Americans With Disabilities Act 1990 and it is worth considering how it works in terms of attempting to change employers' habits through legislation. That, too, is the purpose of the Bill and the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) rightly pointed out that a great deal of authoritative work has been done on the working of the ADA and that there are a number of different views about it. I have not read the book that my hon. Friend quoted, but I am sure that strong views are held in favour of the working of that Act. It is only right to put an opposite point of view, which does not come from an American source but a well-respected charity that works with the disabled in this country, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, RADAR. Victoria Scott, a RADAR official, pointed out: Many of the costs of the ADA provisions are being carried by consumers or customers. For example, the cost of making the Relay (typetalk) system available in every state has cost every telephone user an average 10–30 cents per phone bill … The ADA has cost America money to implement … The costs are dispersed amongst central and Federal Government, private business, transport companies and millions of consumers … The main concerns about the ADA surrounded the cost of compliance and the vagueness of certain legal terms"— where have we heard that before— such as 'reasonable accommodation', 'undue hardship' and 'readily achievable'. During the passage of the Act, many expressed concern over the vague terminology. 979 It is a pity that more hon. Members are not doing the same.
Victoria Scott went on to say: Even now it is still fashionable to bemoan ADA's moving targets. On the question of legal problems, she pointed out: The US Chamber of Commerce has said that the ADA is too adversarial, that it pits disabled people against employers. I think that my case for the amendment rests.

§ Mr. Alan Howarth
I know that my hon. Friend has expressed his opposition to the Bill consistently and frankly over the years and he deserves to be respected for that. It is quite wrong to pray in aid the research that he has quoted, because Victoria Scott proceeded to refute those very points. She cited some of the criticisms that had been made of the ADA, but she went on to explain that they are without adequate foundation. She argued that the concepts of reasonable accommodation and undue hardship are sufficiently robust, as they might be interpreted by the courts, to protect the interests of small business. My hon. Friend is entirely right to be concerned about any legislation that added undue or unreasonable costs to business, because that would be counter-productive. The Bill is securely designed to prevent that from happening.

§ Mr. Stern
I accept my hon. Friend's point. Our discussions on the Bill have always been conducted politely, unlike some of the ill-tempered comments from certain Opposition Members.
My hon. Friend is right that the purpose of Victoria Scott's article is to refute the criticisms that have been made. I accept that, given the complexity of the ADA, criticisms, refutation of those criticisms and refutation of the refutation of those criticisms will be made. That is bound to happen because that Act is relatively new. In this debate on the Bill, however, we have heard from one side of the argument alone. Criticisms continue to be made about the Bill, however, and it was my purpose to ensure that at least they were heard in today's debate.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Why did the hon. Gentleman not serve on the Committee and make those criticisms there?

§ Mr. Stern
For once, I will reply to a seated intervention from the hon. Member. I did not sit on that Committee because I was not allowed to do so. I applied to be a member and I told the hon. Member for Kingswood that he was in danger of setting up a Committee that was slightly less than balanced if he did not accept as a member of it someone who had strong doubts about the Bill. The hon. Member for Kingswood told me that he was not a free agent in the matter and, for whatever reason, my request to be a member of the Committee was not accepted.

§ Mr. Berry
The Committee of Selection made the appointments to that Committee. I was consulted, however, and was inundated with requests from people who wanted to serve on the Committee. I was under considerable pressure to nominate the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister, which I did, to show good faith—that was the term used when that suggestion was put to me. I could not go any further and, given the actions of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West this morning, I believe that I was correct.

§ Mr. Stern
We have discussed this amicably on a number of occasions and all I can say to the hon. Member is that if I had served on that Committee I might have been able to put forward a number of the amendments that I have tabled for discussion today.

§ Mr. Berry
Will the hon. Member confirm that there was nothing to prevent him from giving me those amendments either before or during the Committee? Will he also confirm that at no time were any of his 50 amendments moved by a member of the Committee for our consideration? It was perfectly possible for that to have been done.

§ Mr. Stern
I am happy to answer those questions, which continue the discussion that we had on Radio 5 this morning. The answer is simple: in the words of Mr. John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious." If the hon. Member looks at the composition of the Committee, he will accept that, apart from the Minister and his PPS, it was composed of hon. Members who were broadly sympathetic to the Bill's objectives. My amendments are largely critical of the Bill.

§ Mr. Austin-Walker
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Stern
No, not until I have finished the point I am making. Given that my amendments are largely critical of the Bill, it would have been foolishness in the extreme to expect that those amendments could have been moved in Committee by someone who was philosophically and practically opposed to their purpose. I will now give way to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker).

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that we should get back to the amendments.

§ Mr. Stern
Amendment No. 33 is a probing amendment and would strike out clause 4(3). The wording of that subsection would make the remit of the clause far too wide. By treating a relative, however distant, of a person with a disability as a person with a disability for the purpose of the clause means that we would be subject to endless litigation about how remote or how close the connection with the disabled person should be to qualify to be covered by the terms of subsection (3).

§ Mr. Sheerman
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Opposition Members cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary is now talking to the two prime destroyers of the Bill, as she was this morning before the debate started, organising the destruction of the Bill, and as she organised a meeting to conspire to destroy the Bill before the House started to discuss it, in order to carry on the Government's—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. There have been far too many sedentary comments all morning. That does not alter the fact that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) has a fairly quiet voice, and I should be grateful if he would raise it a little.

§ Mr. Jenkin
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sitting right beside the hon. Members mentioned in the point of order of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and I could perfectly well hear the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern).

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is obviously down-wind. I could not hear clearly.

§ Mr. Stern
Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are intended largely as probing amendments, but they are a genuine attempt to improve the wording of the relevant sections of the Bill. I commend them to the hon. Member for Kingswood on that basis.
Amendment No. 37 is another probing amendment. Although I can understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, clause 5, which deals with medical examinations, also seems to me to go far too wide. For example, I suggest that clause 5(1) is otiose. No evidence has been produced of any need for that subsection. When I have spoken to employers about the provision, a number of them—employers who employ medical examinations for some of their staff as a normal practice—regarded the clause as insulting. The hon. Gentleman should have created a climate in which at least a greater need for that subsection was demonstrated.
As for clause 5(3), I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the provision omits the practice in many firms not simply of requiring a medical examination before taking on an employee, but of requiring for employment purposes a continuing regular medical examination in order that that employment can continue, which is applicable in certain types of employment.
My hon. Friend the Member for—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Gainsborough.

§ Mr. Stern
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) has tabled amendments Nos. 55, 57 and 58 and I look forward with interest to his explanation of them, given the detailed experience in employment and trading law that he gained as a Minister in that sector.
Finally, I shall briefly discuss the last two amendments in my name in this group. Amendment No. 77 seeks to correct wording that is much too vague. To answer the question that the hon. Member for Kingswood asked my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam earlier, I regard the specific wording that I seek to strike out in clause 77 as so vague and unworkable that if necessary I would press that amendment to a Division on that point alone.
Finally, the purpose of amendment No. 79 is simply to create the possibility of a reasonable claim by an employer that he has not discriminated without his having to go through the entire process of litigation which would otherwise be necessary. Despite a certain amount of barracking, I have gone through the amendments in my name as quickly as possible and I am happy now to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle to continue.

§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)
I shall speak to my amendments Nos. 55, 57 and 58. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) was kind enough to refer to my experience in the matter.
I would not want anyone to accuse me of hypocrisy in the matter, so I have to say straightaway that I oppose the Bill. I oppose the Bill as a result of my experience as a lawyer and as a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry. I believe that it is a regulatory Bill. The burdens that it imposes on small businesses as they emerge from a 982 recession would be severe. Therefore, I make no secret, because I do not believe in hiding anything from the House of Commons, that I oppose the Bill.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many people regard the Bill as a deregulation Bill—a Bill which will deregulate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) said in Committee, the lives of disabled people. They feel that in contemporary society, their lives are heavily regulated. Will the hon. Gentleman think of their viewpoint and accept that there is a strong case for saying that it is a deregulation Bill?

§ Mr. Leigh
The whole House recognises the huge experience that the right hon. Gentleman brings to those matters, and no one doubts the—

§ Mr. Tom Clarke
Right honourable.

§ Mr. Leigh
I am sorry, that the hon. Gentleman brings to those matters. [Interruption.] I said right honourable. Let us not get too bogged down in titles. No one doubts his huge experience and the sincerity that he brings to those matters.
No one in the House wants to do down disabled people. No one doubts that they are often confronted by severe difficulties. I do not doubt that. I am lucky. I am healthy; I have healthy children, but I know the appalling problems that confront disabled people and how frustrating it must be for them, for instance, when they come to an office building or a public building to which they cannot gain access. No one doubts the sincerity with which those matters are brought forward.
The research that I have been looking at, especially from America, which has been kindly provided to me, shows the enormous compliance costs that will be placed on business.

§ Mr. Alan Howarth
rose—

§ Lady Olga Maitland
rose—

§ Mr. Leigh
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and then my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).

§ Mr. Howarth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I hope that he will spell out the evidence that he has of enormous compliance costs. As he has obviously studied the Bill and its proceedings with care, and other relevant proceedings in the House, he will be aware of a parliamentary question that I put to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. In his answer, my right hon. Friend refused point-blank to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the measure.
We are, sadly, all too accustomed to the macabre frivolity which, over the years, has characterised the Treasury approach to questions of social responsibility. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary regards the Bill as simply another conspiracy on the part of the pressure groups which he believes are driving the country to the dogs. Would my hon. Friend care to make any comment on that, and especially will he give us the evidence he has of unsustainable costs, given that it is provided in the Bill—it was amended in Committee—that there should be reasonable and manageable time scales for the implementation of any changes?

§ Mr. Leigh
I understand why the Treasury was not prepared to answer that question. I should have thought that the work involved in the Treasury in seeking that type of information would be immensely time consuming and costly. I mentioned the American experience, where I am told that Government regulation costs at least $8,000 per household and may reduce national output by as much as $1.1 trillion per year. Unnecessary and inefficient regulation at federal, state and local levels is now costing American people between $810 billion and $1.7 trillion per year, even after taking account of the benefits of regulation, or between $8,400 and $17,000 per year per household.
Those may be exaggerations, but even the Bill's promoters would not doubt that extra burdens will be imposed on businesses. Otherwise, why should many organisations, such as the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses, repeatedly say that they hold nothing against disabled people and recognise the difficulties that they face, but provide us with detailed briefing showing the enormous regulatory burdens that would be imposed on businesses?
I am honest about the fact that I am speaking today because I do not want the Bill to pass into law. That is a perfectly honourable point of view.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
On the issue of cost burdens, has my hon. Friend taken into account the assessment made by the Conservative Disability Group, of which I am a sponsor, which says: The cost of making all primary and secondary places of education accessible to disabled persons is estimated at £2 billion. The direct cost to office buildings is estimated at £43.7 million"? Is he also aware that the group has estimated the cost of converting all public buses to accommodate wheelchairs at some £10,000 per bus?

§ Mr. Leigh
Yes, I have a similar briefing—[Interruption.] That is not surprising. How are we expected to make a speech in the House of Commons unless we seek to obtain briefings from the Conservative Disability Group, the Institute of Directors, Mencap or anyone else? This debate has been conducted in an unpleasant manner, with unnecessary barracking, particularly from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), which has neither improved the atmosphere nor helped disabled people. We are entitled to our point of view. Is not that what the House of Commons is all about? We are also entitled to obtain briefs from various people.
The Conservative Disability Group says that the Bill is worthy and that the Government should examine the issues that it raises carefully and come up with an initiative that is practical, tested and of great benefit to disabled people—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Leigh
I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has only just entered the Chamber.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I have just been on the phone to Gainsborough.

§ Mr. Leigh
The hon. Gentleman has never shown any interest in my constituency before. I would welcome him in my constituency.

§ Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)
The hon. Gentleman referred to the experience in America. Has he read the excellent publication by Victoria Scott, who knows a great deal about disability, entitled "Lessons from America"? If so, has he noted on page 22 that the National Federation of Independent Businesses says that not one of its businesses has suffered unduly or gone out of business as a result of the American legislation? So employers in America have accepted the legislation. Where is the reason for us not to do the same?

§ Mr. Leigh
The American economy is complex, and political debate there is as robust as it is in our country. Either side of this debate could adduce arguments on their behalf. The hon. Gentleman may be in receipt of a background briefing from the Heritage Foundation, an organisation of which he may not approve ideologically.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
A nasty bunch.

§ Mr. Leigh
That organisation has conducted some serious research. For instance, it says: Between 1 January 1983 and 31 March 1990, private sector employment in the US economy grew by some 90 million jobs, rising from 72.8 million jobs in December 1982 to 91.8 million jobs in March 1990. However, over the next two years, the private sector lost nearly 2.2 million jobs, reaching a low of just over 89.6 million jobs in January 1992. The number of private sector jobs has recovered only slightly since then, rising to 90.1 million jobs. So the only answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman is that he should look at the evidence, particularly of the regulatory burdens.
I see that you are looking at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall return to the amendments that I have tabled.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I have just spoken to one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Gainsborough and I am informed that the disabled community in Gainsborough wants the Bill to go through this afternoon. Deep concern is being expressed in Gainsborough about what the hon. Gentleman is doing in the House today. Is he prepared to ask his hon. Friends to withdraw the amendments so that disabled people in Gainsborough can have the benefit of the Bill?

§ Mr. Leigh
I freely admit that disabled groups in my constituency want the Bill to go through. I do not deny that for a moment. I am in contact with them. The hon. Gentleman was not in his seat when I started my speech and honestly admitted that—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)
Order. The Chair wants new clause 3 to be debated rather than anything else.

§ Mr. Leigh
I shall now discuss amendment No. 55. One of the problems with the Bill is that it is shot through with drafting errors. Even if the House passed it, I doubt whether it would have a practical effect. No doubt the Minister, who is much better briefed on such matters than I am, can clarify the position for the House.
One issue that I am raising in my amendments is that —on page 18, line 15, clause 11—we ensure that we provide for conciliation by an officer of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—ACAS. Clause 11 allows recourse to industrial tribunals. As a lawyer, all I 985 can say is that we have built up enormous problems for ourselves through existing employment law and the nature of industrial tribunals. Contrary to the barracking that I shall no doubt receive, if my sensible amendment, which provides for conciliation by an ACAS officer, is accepted—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you can help me. You will understand that when Members of Parliament are appointed Parliamentary Private Secretaries to Ministers they are under some restriction. I understand that that is not necessarily a matter for the House, but you might wish to comment on the rights of a PPS—in this case, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait)—to let her constituents know whether she is in favour of the legislation. I understand that they are concerned and that there have been conversations today. They would like to know whether she wants the Bill to proceed today—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is not a matter for the Chair and I do not wish to comment.

§ Mr. Jenkin
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has raised a number of bogus points of order this morning and has been brought up short by the Chair several times for that. Do you have powers to restrain his activities as he is disrupting the debate?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The Chair has certain powers, but I see no reason to use them at present.

§ Mr. Leigh
I was describing how the conciliation could be carried out by an ACAS officer. He has a duty to try to encourage the respondent and the applicant to make a voluntary agreement. My amendment is entirely in the spirit of what I am trying to propose. I tabled it the day before yesterday in the spirit of what I am trying to achieve for disabled people in this country—things should be done by example and voluntary agreements. My objection to the Bill and the reason why I believe that it is fatally flawed is that it attempts to impose a regulatory structure and might ultimately have the opposite effect on disabled people to that which it is aiming to achieve.

§ Mr. Tom Clarke
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You referred to the powers that you have, which the House respects. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) is not talking about the amendment, but about the Bill, is he in order?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman can safely leave that to the Chair.

§ Mr. Leigh
rose—

§ Mr. Sheerman
The hon. Gentleman and I know each other well, as we represent constituencies in a similar part of the world. I know that the hon. Gentleman comes from an extreme wing of the Conservative party, but, even so, I am not castigating him for that. We all know his views and he has an absolute right to criticise the Bill and vote against it. The bad atmosphere in the Chamber today has not been caused by his views, but by the methods that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are using to stop a democratic vote on a Bill which has a clear majority behind 986 it in the House. There is a feeling of frustration on both sides of the House and in the country that a strategy is being adopted to prevent a democratic vote from taking place. That is why we are angry.

§ Mr. Leigh
When I drew a place in the ballot, I ensured that I produced a Bill that was, I hope, interesting and had the support of both sides of the House and all the relevant interest groups. There is a long tradition that if one wants a private Member's Bill to become law, one has to present a Bill that is largely non-controversial. Disabled people have been misled into assuming that there was a chance of the Bill becoming law—there was not. A political gesture is being made. The process has been unpleasant because people have tried to fool disabled people into thinking that the measure will become law. There is never any chance of controversial legislation being introduced by a private Member.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman spoke about his amendments. Moreover, if he does not intend to give way, there is not much point in hon. Members jumping up and down.

§ Mr. Leigh
I am trying to talk about my amendments: the problem is that I keep being interrupted.

§ Mr. Berry
Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Bill is sponsored by Members of all political parties in the House; that it has been as actively promoted by certain Conservative Members as by the Opposition; and that the all-party disablement group is enthusiastically behind it? Will he also acknowledge that the Prime Minister expressed in this Chamber the wish—

§ Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow)
That won't impress him.

§ Mr. Berry
Perhaps not. In any case, the Prime Minister said that he "looked forward" to a detailed examination of the Bill in Committee. If, as the hon. Gentleman maintains, the Bill was clearly worthless and incapable of being enacted, how could the Prime Minister, of all people, look forward to its scrutiny in Committee?

§ Mr. Leigh
There is no harm in Bills being examined in Committee, or in the fact that they may be promoted and supported by hon. Members on both sides. It is important to remember, however, that what we are witnessing today is perfectly normal parliamentary procedure. The same has happened to private Members' Bills many times in the past, and it will happen to them again. We are just as entitled to put across our points of view as others are entitled to theirs.
My amendments are simple. Amendment No. 54 allows an ACAS officer to seek a voluntary agreement. The ACAS officer would not offer any opinion on the merits of either side's case or take sides in any way. ACAS has an excellent record in these matters. It is far better that difficult cases be dealt with by conciliation from the start. The flaw in the Bill lies in the creation of a huge new and highly expensive legal structure which no doubt will have to be paid for by legal aid. That could result in consequences with effects opposite to those intended.
The amendment would also allow complaints to be settled by means of a compromise agreement, thus 987 enabling two sides to reach a binding agreement outside the industrial tribunal system, provided that the people involved are properly advised by qualified lawyers.

§ Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva (Brentford and Isleworth)
I speak as a member of the all-party disablement group; some of us voted for the Bill on Second Reading. My intervention is intended to be helpful.
One of my hon. Friend's concerns is with the overzealous application of regulation which might be detrimental to businesses and to employment prospects. I served on the Standing Committee considering the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. There, we introduced an idea which my hon. Friend might find useful. If a dispute is caused by the application of regulations by officialdom to a business or enterprise, that enterprise is entitled to go to a magistrates court and to ask for a stay of execution until the case is heard in full by a magistrate.

§ Mr. Leigh
My hon. Friend brings his experience to these matters—it seems a worthwhile way of proceeding. We are trying to ensure that we resolve these disputes in the least possible bureaucratic way, avoiding long legal procedures that can be costly for both sides.
Amendment No. 57 allows for complaints to be settled by means of a compromise agreement between parties, when the complainant has been legally advised and specified conditions have been met, as an alternative to recourse to the industrial tribunal procedure. Thus, a binding agreement outside the industrial tribunal system becomes possible. That seems much more sensible.
Amendment No. 58 is also simple. It includes a right of appeal against an industrial tribunal decision to an industrial appeal tribunal. In general, the amendments are designed to ensure that disabled people have a right of appeal on a question of law to an industrial appeal tribunal. That is customary procedure, but it has been left out of the Bill. My amendments are clearly put. They would improve the Bill and I commend them to the House.

§ The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott)
It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak at this point to the amendments and new clause, because time is limited and we have a number of other groups of amendments to discuss this afternoon.
Before I turn to the substance of my remarks, may I say that the accusation of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) had entered into a conspiracy with some of my hon. Friends in relation to progress on the Bill is utterly without foundation. I asked my hon. Friend, in her role as my Parliamentary Private Secretary, to ascertain which hon. Members intended to intervene, so that I could time my own speech in a suitable way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will utterly withdraw any accusation that he made towards my hon. Friend on that account.

§ Mr. Sheerman
If the right hon. Gentleman's PPS was circulating for that purpose, I apologise unreservedly. I was more concerned about the evidence outside the Chamber that she was talking to the same group of people, miraculously, who are now in the Chamber and talking the Bill out. That was what I was referring to. That is the problem. Everybody knows that there is a Government Whip-inspired attempt to stop the Bill.

§ Mr. Scott
I would have been more impressed if the hon. Gentleman had had the grace simply to withdraw his remark, which was totally unfounded.

§ Mr. Stern
On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is the second time this morning that statements have been made that are directly contrary to the truth. May I assure the House that, as one of the people to whom the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) clearly referred, I have had no discussion—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. What is the point of order for the Chair?

§ Mr. Stern
May I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the statement that was just made, as applied to me, is wholly untrue?

§ Mr. Scott
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) moved the new clause and amendments that stand in her name. I believe that it would have been more in tradition with the keeping of the House if she been listened to and allowed to develop her arguments instead of having to endure a range of bullying interventions when presenting her arguments to the House. This is an immensely serious business. We know the impact on the lives of disabled people. It is right that we should address those matters in a mood of great seriousness.

§ Mr. Berry
I share the Minister's concern about the seriousness of the matter, as he well knows. Given that the matter is serious, will he tell the House the Government's response to the motion that was passed, without opposition, last Friday, urging the Government to provide adequate time for the remaining stages of the Bill? The Bill is sufficiently serious to require full consideration of its remaining stages.

§ Mr. Scott
I understand the feelings expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I am not in a position to respond to the point that he raised. He knows as well as I do that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) put a point to my right hon. Friend the Lord President—I believe that it was last week—

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Yesterday.

§ Mr. Scott
—and received a considered reply from him on the matter. It would not be prudent or wise of me to seek to expand on anything that was said by my right hon. Friend, who is, after all, in charge of the business of the House.

§ Mr. Skinner
What I said to the Lord President yesterday—the Minister was sitting next to him—was that the Government should recognise that a unique motion was passed unanimously last Friday calling on them to provide adequate time to ensure that the Bill got through, noting that, on 64 previous occasions in the past, Governments, both Tory and Labour, had given assistance to private Members' Bills and that it was not a precedent. We are asking the Government to observe the will of the House last Friday, which was expressed through its support for the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). The Minister, who I expected to stand up yesterday and again today, has not responded. I ask him now: will he, on behalf of the Government, give a guarantee that they will provide adequate time in line with 989 that resolution so that disabled people throughout Britain in every constituency will get the benefits of equal treatment?

§ Mr. Scott
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not in a position to give those undertakings. He raised the matter in the proper quarter and received an answer from the Lord President.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can answer this question. Have he or his Department been in any way involved in the drafting of any of the amendments or the new clause tabled by the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) or for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring)?

§ Mr. Scott
No part whatever in the drafting of any of the amendments and, to the best of my knowledge, nobody in my Department has been involved in the drafting of any amendments in this area.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
Very early in these debates I raised the point that I had highly authoritative information that amendments on the amendment paper—the amendments that we are discussing now, among others—were drafted by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has no knowledge of being involved. Were they in any way contributed to or drafted in Whitehall—in other words, by the Government? As the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, the right hon. Gentleman has a very close interest in the matter.

§ Mr. Scott
The right hon. Gentleman has put down a number of questions to the Lord President and I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who is responsible for these matters, will give the right hon. Gentleman a reply to that matter. I have responded as best I can from the knowledge that I have in this situation.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
May I intervene on that important point?

§ Mr. Scott
I have not given way.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It would be helpful to the House and to the progress of the debate if the Minister were allowed to speak to the new clause and the associated amendments.

§ Mr. Scott
It might be sensible and for the good—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall keep it strictly in order. You heard the Minister say "to the best of my knowledge", which means that departmental officials will know the precise position. Could you on behalf of the House ask—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair. [Interruption.] Order. The Minister is responsible for his own speech.

§ Mr. Scott
I have some sympathy for a number of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, but I should like to enter some caveats to her assessment of the effect of the Americans with Disabilities Act on the lives of disabled people and its impact on business in the United States. I do not want to go into detail 990 at the moment on that. Obviously, I have read more than once and with considerable care a document called "Lessons from America" on this issue.

§ Mr. Tom Clarke
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Scott
Perhaps I could be allowed to complete a sentence. I do not think that I have yet managed to do that, but when I have I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect.
I have some reservations about the Bill as it stands and support some of the amendments. The overwhelming impression is that business and providers of goods, services and facilities in the United States of America have reacted positively and constructively to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act and have not found the costs prohibitive. These are early days in the implementation of that legislation, but so far I do not have specific worries about the way in which it is proceeding.

§ Mr. Tom Clarke
The Minister showed good sense in reading "Lessons from America", which was written by an excellent woman in this field, Victoria Scott. The great worry is that some people do not listen to her first-class advice. If she were offering advice at the Dispatch Box, would not she say to hon. Members that not a single argument has not been answered by that document? Such legislation works in American and it would work here.

§ Mr. Scott
The hon. Gentleman must judge what would be the response of that particular lady. It would be rash of me to interpret her views for the House.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam that if we are to make legislation in this important area—this point was made several times in debate—we must take people with us. There is no use imposing legislation on reluctant providers of services or employers. The work of persuasion, raising awareness and educating people about the needs of disabled people—and the abilities that they can bring to various parts of society—must be acknowledged.

§ Mr. Alan Howarth
I do not mean to test my right hon. Friend's patience but to be constructive. He spoke of the need to carry people with him. He has often expressed his principled objection to discrimination and indicated his support for the manner in which the Bill addresses discrimination and its purposes. Where, then, is the difficulty in the Government? May I tempt him to set aside the obfuscation of collective responsibility and say whether the difficulty is to be found in the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department of the Environment? Have Ministers in those Departments not yet applied their minds to the issues? If so, it seems hard on my right hon. Friend to have to defend collective responsibility.

§ Mr. Scott
I am surprised that my hon. Friend should in any way doubt that Government is a totally seamless garment. I speak from the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government as a whole. I am sure that all parts of Government agree that if we are to legislate in this sensitive and difficult area, we must get it right. I well understand—

§ Ms Lynne
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Scott
Perhaps I may be permitted to complete two sentences this time.
991 I will refer later to the Government's reasons for not tabling amendments at Committee stage, but the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) will acknowledge that he responded to various points that I raised in discussions in Committee and accordingly produced amendments. There is still work to be done on the shape of the legislation, so I am not surprised that some of my hon. Friends felt it necessary today to table a range of amendments at least to explore the possibility of further improving the Bill.

§ Ms Lynne
rose—

§ Mr. Berry
rose—

§ Mr. Scott
I give way first to the hon. Lady.

§ Ms Lynne
The Minister said that, to the best of his knowledge, his Department did not give any information for the briefing of Conservative Members who tabled amendments. Will he ask his officials whether anyone in his Department had any knowledge of the tabling of amendments on behalf of the Government? I should be grateful for an answer.

§ Mr. Scott
The hon. Lady will not get one. In my view, she and other hon. Members are embarking on a fruitless exercise. I should much prefer to get down to the merits of the amendments and new clauses. If the hon. Lady, together with the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, wants to pursue that matter with my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council—

§ Mr. McMaster
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We do not seem to be getting far with discussing the new clause.

§ Mr. Berry
The Minister spoke of making further improvements to the Bill and he mentioned the seamless garment of Government. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that disabled people and many hon. Members are frustrated because while the Government make statements about improving the Bill, they are—either through lack of time or because of the sudden emergence of 80 amendments—wrecking the Bill? Does the Minister appreciate that we are being told different things by different parts of the Government? That explains our frustration this afternoon.

§ Mr. Scott
I have some understanding of that, although the most important thing is to address ourselves to the business with which we are dealing and that is the Report stage of, the Bill. As part of that consideration, it is perfectly proper for my hon. Friends to table amendments which they believe would improve the legislation.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
rose—

Hon. Members
Oh, no.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I am sorry, but this is the House of Commons and Conservative Members will not get away with what is happening today.
I want to ask the Minister a question that was asked by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne). Will the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), ask the civil servants in the Box whether they are aware of departmental officials giving any help in the drafting of amendments, or handing them to Conservative Members or of Conservative 992 Members having been briefed? We are simply asking the Minister to turn to his PPS and ask her to ask the civil servants so that we can have an answer. We notice that the Minister hid behind the words—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is a very long intervention. I repeat that it is time that we debated new clause 3 and the amendments associated with it.

§ Mr. Scott
All of us who have been engaged in the passage—

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Time is extremely important to us, so I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

§ Mr. Scott
I was saying when the closure was moved that the attitude of employers and providers of services in Britain to the possibility of legislation in this important area was changing. As the new clause is particularly about employers, I should like to mention them specifically. We have had recognition from the Confederation of British Industry and other organisations of employers that action, including legislation, is acceptable.
The Employers Forum on Disability has given a considerable lead in influencing opinion among employers 993 more widely and it is to be congratulated on the steps that it has taken. Employers still have concerns about the precise nature of the legislation, not least about the impact that it might have on their costs. They worry about the lack of consultation—a subject to which I shall return in a moment.
We have also heard about the insurance industry and fears that it may have.

§ Mr. Dicks
Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Scott
No, I am sorry, but I will not give way again for some time because it is important to have a coherent presentation—or as coherent as I can make it—of the Government's position. I apologise to my hon. Friend.
I received a letter from the Association of British Insurers today, stating that it supports the Bill, but making it absolutely clear that that support is given with the vital proviso that the Bill be amended to allow exemption for insurers so that they can continue to differentiate between risks. I believe that the sponsors have already given an assurance to the ABI on that matter, but it was important to draw the attention of the House to the existence of that letter as we are discussing such matters.
1.15 pm
Employers' attitudes are changing positively. It would have been wise for the sponsors of the Bill to begin consulting employers earlier. I am not making a great issue of that. However, the hon. Member for Kingswood said that he had been consulting in recent days and intended to carry on the consultations. He would have been wiser to have those consultations and reassure employers and others—the Bill could have an impact on their businesses and costs—before the Bill began its stages in the House, rather than having to deal with their concerns rather late in the day. Consultation, especially on the impact of the costs imposed by the Bill, should have been the sponsors' responsibility and they came to it rather late in the day. Those involved who contacted me on the matter certainly expressed that view. Having recognised that change of attitude, which has increasingly been reflected by employers, I must deal with the new clauses and amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam tabled new clause 3, which is important, as are the amendments associated with it. It would be important for any legislation on the subject to ensure that unscrupulous employers could not hide behind the defence that an act of discrimination had been committed by someone else, even if acting on their behalf. I made clear my reservations about the legislative approach that the Bill's sponsors took. If the Act is to be effective, employers must take responsibility for ensuring that their staff and agents are aware of its provisions and are suitably trained to act accordingly.
The Government have always maintained that the key to changing attitudes is improved awareness and training. As I made clear on another occasion, whatever its merits the Bill would not remove the need for continued education and for raising awareness about disability. Of course, one can legislate to remove discrimination, but prejudice, misunderstandings and other problems cannot be removed simply by legislation. If society is to arrive at a better understanding of the needs of disabled people we need much education and persuasion. We will achieve that 994 understanding through better training and education on the issue and through raising the general level of awareness in society.

§ Mr. Alan Howarth
I entirely agree about the importance of education, but does my right hon. Friend also agree that legislation is necessary to shift the culture and to make it possible for such education to be more effective?
Even though my right hon. Friend sees flaws in the Bill and scope for it to be improved, will he allow it to proceed beyond Third Reading to another place, where the Government could table amendments to improve it? If he feels that the Bill is not capable of satisfactory amendment, will he undertake to embark on a consultation process on a draft Bill, which the Government could introduce? The Government could commit themselves to introducing a Bill with which they are satisfied in the next Session of Parliament.

§ Mr. Scott
It might be an appropriate moment to say that, having considered the provisions of the Bill and the arguments put forward, the Government intend to build further on the considerable advances that have been made as a result of our approach of education and persuasion, which I spoke about just now. We have introduced targeted legislation in this connection before and it has had an effect on people's attitude and approach to disability issues.
When the Bill was introduced, I expressed concern that it was in exactly the same form as it had appeared on previous occasions. I accept, of course, that it is a private Member's Bill and that it was difficult for the sponsors to engage in the sort of consultation in which the Government would be able to engage, were they introducing their own legislation. It is right for me to make it clear today that the Government intend to consult widely on proposals in a number of important areas concerning disability.
At the end of that process, the Government would be prepared to consider assisting in the drafting of any necessary workable and practicable legislation. We propose that the issues that should be covered by that consultation and by possible legislation should be employment, access to goods and services, the provision of financial services, building regulations, as they affect the lives of disabled people and the creation of a new advisory body on disability. Those proposals, Mr. Deputy Speaker, manifestly go wider than employment, which is strictly the subject of the amendments, but, in view of the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), it was useful for me to put on record the Government's intention.

§ Mr. Tom Clarke
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which was a comprehensive Act on disability and much more wide ranging than the appealing, limited Bill before us, was amended greatly in another place, because there was consensus and consultation took place? Does he accept that there is no reason in the world why time cannot be given for the Bill today and for it to be considered in due course in another place?

§ Mr. Wigley
rose—

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am not clear whether the Minister is giving way.

§ Mr. Scott
I thought that it might be for the convenience of the House if I gave way in series to those hon. Members who wish to intervene.

§ Mr. Wigley
As I am still on my feet, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I seek clarification from the Minister about what he meant by saying that the Government may help to draft legislation. Is he saying that the Government are prepared to introduce their own legislation, as opposed to helping to draft a private Member's Bill, if an hon. Member were lucky to be selected in the ballot? Is he working to a timetable that would enable such legislation, whether it was included in the Queen's Speech or introduced by a Back Bencher as a result of the ballot next year, to reach the statute book in the coming year? In the context of the consultations that he will hold, is he talking about anti-discrimination legislation?

§ Mr. Scott
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's final point would be broadly yes, some statutory rights in terms of discrimination would be included. I would not want to be pressed now on the nature and timing of that legislation. The Government will—

§ Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North)
rose—

§ Mr. Scott
If the hon. Lady will control her impatience for just for a moment, I should like to respond to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
More than one piece of legislation may be necessary, although I do not want to pre-empt anything. The timing of that legislation might depend on the nature and extent of our consultations and the reactions to them. I can certainly offer the hon. Member my assurance that the Government have no intention of unduly delaying the process in any sense. The Government, having come to the view that it is the right way to proceed, certainly will want to do so with some speed.

§ Mr. Berry
Will the Minister give way? I am grateful to the Minister.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Is the Minister giving way or is he sitting down? He is giving way.

§ Mr. Berry
I appreciate that the Minister wishes to appear reasonable, albeit at the 11th hour, but can he confirm that what he is not offering the House is Government support for a comprehensive piece of anti-discrimination legislation and that, indeed, what he has alluded to in a few choice phrases is significantly different from the comprehensive civil rights Bill that disabled people throughout the country are known to want as quickly as possible?

§ Mr. Scott
I acknowledge that there are significant differences between a comprehensive Bill of the nature that which we are discussing today, and the consultative process and the implications of further action which would flow from the announcement that I have just made.

§ Ms Walley
Can the Minister confirm that we already have an opportunity to do something about the issue? Why cannot he give a commitment that the consultation process that he is speaking about can start to take place now and be completed while the Bill passes through the legislative 996 procedure? Surely he is simply deferring and deferring, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said—putting off something that he is not prepared to say openly that he is putting off.

§ Mr. Scott
With respect, in response to an intervention from my hon. Friend, who was pressing me to, as it were, short-circuit the arguments that I was developing about the new clause and amendments that we are discussing, I simply sought to give the House, I thought, the benefit of some advance notice of the intentions of the Government. I do not think that it would be right for me to go any further than that today because obviously the Government are still considering the—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I take note of what the Minister has just said, but I have been very indulgent so far. The debate has gone rather wide. Can we now get back to the new clause that we are discussing with the associated amendments?

§ Mr. Scott
I am willing to return to that. If I could say only one sentence: of course we would ensure that, in moving down the route that I have indicated, we undertook widespread consultation, not only with those who might be affected in terms of costs or impact on their businesses, but manifestly with the organisations of and for disabled people, in this specific and very sensitive area.

§ Mr. Jenkin
Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Scott
I am conscious of the Chair's ruling, but I give way.

§ Mr. Jenkin
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend.
With regard to those specific amendments, given the important announcement that he has just made about the future intentions of Government policy, which is a major development, would amendments— [Interruption.]—of the nature that we are discussing now be necessary, or would the legislation that he proposes be restricted and limited, to avoid the wide problems that develop from that comprehensive type of legislation?

§ Mr. Scott
It is too early for me to give such a judgment. I nevertheless believe, and have believed throughout the passage of the Bill, as I hope that I have demonstrated, that, whatever the outcome of the legislative procedure on which we are embarked, discussion in the House of the issues surrounding matters of discrimination and the role that the law might have in combating that in a range of areas is worth while, because every bit of discussion that we have further informs, not only the House, but those who develop policy officially.

§ Mr. Dicks
My right hon. Friend the Minister knows how much I respect his work for the disabled. My disability affects the motor part of the brain rather than the thinking part. This seems to be just another cover-up and another delay to avoid introducing legislation. Does my right hon. Friend understand that disabled people cannot gain the access or help that they want? To hear the Minister say that he may be taking the matter forward by delaying it even more is nonsense. Many people without limbs have brains and they know what is going on. They want action today. As a loyal Tory Back-Bench Member, I cannot understand the Government's problem in bringing in the Bill.

§ Mr. Scott
My hon. Friend will recognise that the announcement that I have been able to make was as a result of considerable discussions within Government on the way forward. If we are to legislate in this area, we must be sure that we get the legislation right, that it is workable, workmanlike, practicable and based on widespread consultation both with those who would benefit from such legislation and those who may have to alter their practices to comply with the legislation. But if we enter into that consultation, it will be in a positive frame of mind. I am not seeking to delay matters. If we pass the Bill today and it goes through another place, many of those steps would not happen tomorrow, but would take a long time to come into effect—[Interruption.] I advise those Opposition Members who are fussing to listen and see the terms of further Government announcements in due course, and then respond to them.
As I was saying when the closure motion was moved, the clause would compel employers to evaluate the guidance given to staff and procedures being used. It would ensure that employers were properly responsible for the actions of their staff and agents in that important area. That, of itself, must be a good thing. Even in the best organised company with the most enlightened training programmes, there are bound occasionally to be employees who do not respond. The clause would allow an employer who had done all that he could to prevent unjustifiable discrimination to defend himself. The new clause is an important and sensible addition to the Bill.
On amendment No. 4, the Standing Committee amended the Bill by modifying the definition of "employer" in clause 1. Instead of the definition under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, which gives a small business exemption for employers with fewer than 20 employees, the definition now contained in the Bill as amended no longer provides that exemption and extends to An
employer under a contract for services". Discussion in Standing Committee focused largely on the removal of the small employer exemption and amendment No. 4 allows the House to reflect on whether the treatment of employed and self-employed people can be assimilated as easily as the Bill's sponsors suggest. A person "employed" under a contract for services is any self-employed person supplying services to the business, be it a window cleaner, a computer consultant or an independent lawyer or other professional.
However, the rest of the Bill is drafted with "employees", as commonly understood, in mind. Thus, in clause 1, the definition of "qualified disabled person" means a disabled person who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position—I emphasise that word—that he holds or desires. In the same way, clause 4 talks of job discrimination in relation to job application procedures, the hiring, promotion or dismissal of employees, employee compensation, training and any other terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
Clause 4(2) continues in a similar vein, with aspects that are apt to be settled by the relationship between employer and employee, not to the much more varied and episodic relationships between an employer and an outside contractor. Clause 4(4) tackles the meaning of "reasonable accommodation" and talks of job restructuring, instituting 998 part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to vacant positions and appropriate adjustment or modification of examining training materials or policies, which are more appropriate to the employer-employee relationship. The enforcement machinery of complaint to an industrial tribunal would confer on that body a potentially far-reaching and novel jurisdiction in relation to contractual disputes between business and self-employed contractors with which the tribunals are not familiar and which might have a significant impact on their case load and staffing.
The corresponding provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 phrase their prohibitions differently, focusing on the employment rather than the employer. Section 4(2) of the Race Relations Act makes it unlawful for a person, in the case of a person employed by him at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate". At the same time, "employment" is defined by section 78 of the Act to mean employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship or a contract personally to execute any work or labour. That tortuous explanation illustrates that the present Bill may be deficient in its treatment of contracts of apprenticeship, which the law recognises as distinct from contracts of employment. The Bill is perhaps over-ambitious in its all-embracing sweeping up of all contracts for services, as opposed to the more limited category of contracts personally to execute any work or labour.
The Bill's sponsors may have been unduly influenced by American models and terminology which may not always adapt precisely to the United Kingdom's legal framework and conditions. The sponsors have departed from our United Kingdom domestic models in the Sex Discrimination and Race Relations Acts. It will be for them to consider the concept of reasonable accommodation and how that might apply to relations between businesses and their arm's length self-employed contractors.
On amendment No. 5, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam that the words "under those Acts" seem to add nothing to the meaning of the Bill's definition of "employer". Indeed, I fear that they might cause confusion by seeming to refer to a mysterious set of Acts—"those Acts"—that are not mentioned earlier in the Bill. The removal of those words would clarify the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) mentioned some sensitive areas of discrimination in employment. As I said in the House on 11 March —and, indeed, on many other occasions—it is the Government's aim that disabled people should be recognised as people with abilities who can contribute to wider society in the same way as anyone else. I recognise the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend in moving amendments Nos. 26 and 32. I have mixed feelings about some of the precise issues raised by my hon. Friend, but we can all agree that the Bill proposes to outlaw discrimination. We have to examine some of the detailed difficulties that might arise from the drafting of the present Bill and we must be concerned about indirect discrimination.
It is more difficult to determine precisely how we can tackle indirect discrimination in this sector than it might be in a number of others. Indirect discrimination can be shown much more clearly in matters of race or sex, but it might be more difficult to demonstrate in the case of disabled people. The group is not homogenous—it 999 involves a wide range of disabilities and the varying effect of those disabilities on individuals might make it much more difficult to establish what constitutes indirect discrimination. It might be worth the Bill's sponsors giving that subject further consideration.

§ Ms Lynne
The Minister said that it might be more difficult to demonstrate indirect discrimination in relation to disabled people than to other groups. If he recognised that before, why did not he table amendments in Committee so that we could have discussed Government-tabled amendments there, instead of having to waste the time of the House today and have a disgraceful filibuster on the Bill to prevent disabled people from enjoying their just rights?

§ Mr. Scott
I hope that the hon. Lady is not accusing me of filibustering. I am trying to respond to points raised in the debate. As for my approach to the Bill in Committee, I was trying to fulfil the remit given me by the Prime Minister, which was to examine the Bill and to raise points of concern that presented themselves to me. In a number of cases, the Bill's sponsors responded with improvements. I thought that that was more in tune with my remit than if I started tabling amendments in Committee.

§ Mr. Berry
Surely the Minister accepts that that approach was consistent with his remit only if that remit involved ensuring that the Bill was talked out on Report.

§ Mr. Scott
That is a statement by the hon. Gentleman—it is not one which I would wish to comment on or agree with. As the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, in Committee we significantly improved the Bill, partly as a result of contributions that I was able to make and partly as a result of his generosity in responding to the points that I put to him.
The Government's view is that the Bill is still defective. It does not take sufficient account of the impact of the costs that it will involve. We were asked to produce a compliance cost assessment for the Bill. It has now been produced for the House. I acknowledge that it does not include the cost-benefit analysis which my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and others were keen to have. Nevertheless, the compliance cost assessment shows that the up-front costs of introducing the Bill could be as high as £17 billion, with on-going costs of £1 billion a year.
This was the best that the Government could do in the face of the legitimate demands by those interested in the subject that we produce a compliance cost assessment. We had to ask Departments, under severe time pressure, to produce their assessments of what the costs in their areas of policy would be. Then we brought together those costs into the single figure that I have just given the House. I am sure that all who take an interest in these matters will in due course want to look carefully at the assessment to make up their minds about the approach that should be adopted.

§ Mr. Berry
Will the Minister acknowledge that this is the first time he has given that information to those who have been promoting the Bill? As he said, the Bill has been knocking around for two years. He has been engaged in discussions with the all-party disablement group on this very Bill for two years. How is it that, at 1.42 pm, less than an hour before the end of the Report stage, the Minister can 1000 introduce information for which we have been asking for months? Does he feel no embarrassment about behaving in this way?

§ Mr. Scott
The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is generally the practice—whether it is law I am not sure —not to produce compliance cost assessments until after Bills have been given a Second Reading. After Second Reading, we were under considerable pressure to produce an assessment. We set the work in hand, and only in the past few days have we been given the strands of information produced by Departments which in turn have enabled us to give the information to the House.
I thought that it would be helpful, as I now have the information, to give it to the House today.

§ Mr. Alan Howarth
My right hon. Friend has provided us with figures only on one side of the equation: the negatives. Will he explain why the Government regard it as out of the question to make an assessment of the benefits, too? It is entirely within the practice and experience of the Treasury to feed new variables into its models and predictions when it makes assessments of the prospects for the economy. The Government could perfectly well do that task—so why do they not do it?

§ Mr. Scott
My understanding is that the Government have a duty to provide a compliance cost assessment, and copies of it were placed in the Library yesterday afternoon, as my hon. Friend is aware. There is no such duty to produce—

§ Mr. Berry
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Scott
Not when I have already started replying to an intervention. The hon. Gentleman knows that I respect him and that I never decline to give way to him, but, as I am already replying to an intervention from my hon. Friend, I think that he owes me the courtesy of allowing me to finish.

§ Mr. Berry
The Minister now tells me that a document was placed in the Library yesterday afternoon. I ask my questions as a new Member. First, is there any obligation at all on the Minister to inform the promoter of the Bill that that' information is available in the Library? Secondly, as I have not received any such information, is it in the post? Thirdly, is it purely fortuitous that that information should arrive the day before the Bill is on Report?

§ Mr. Scott
As a courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, I apologise. We would normally have informed the promoter of a private Member's Bill. If there was any discourtesy, I apologise to him. Under the rules, compliance cost assessments must be before the House before the Bill is on Report. That is why they were put down yesterday 1001 afternoon, the earliest possible moment, as soon as that piece of documentation reached my desk. I did my best and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that his attention was not drawn to the fact.
If I can move on—

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I repeat what I said earlier and I have been very indulgent. Hon. Members are straying wider and wider from the clause and amendments. The Minister and all hon. Members must get back to them.

§ Mr. Scott
Obviously, I am anxious to stick as closely to the straight and narrow as I possibly can. I shall seek not to be persuaded away from that by further interventions.
Amendment No. 30 follows earlier suggested amendments to the definitions of "qualified disabled persons" which seek to remove the requirement to make reasonable accommodation for disabled employees. Many employers might consider that aspect of the Bill a burden and be turned against the main spirit of it as a result, but my judgment is that employers would be persuadable in that area. Some might be turned against the Bill by that provision, but I believe that attitudes of employers are changing at the moment. We want them to change still faster.
On amendment No. 35, there would be some merit in having a less complex clause that would enable respective Secretaries of State, in consultation with outside bodies, or with each other where necessary, to determine what regulations might be needed for the various purposes.
As we can see, the term "reasonable accommodation" used in the Bill covers a whole range of specific employment issues, including that of making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to, and usable by, disabled people. Inevitably, it would be difficult to make existing places of employment and individual workstations "readily accessible and usable". The introduction of such a term could have quite onerous design implications. Such differing terms in the Bill could lead to inconsistency in interpretation and a common presentation would be useful.
Clause 4(2)(a), which is the trigger for clause 4(4), uses the term "reasonable" and so do, for instance, relevant parts of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the requirements of part M of the building regulations. Their consistency has some merit and they form a better basis for guidance.
The House will be aware from previous statements and from the earlier part of my speech that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is assessing the practicality of extending access regulations to alterations and to non-domestic buildings. If he decides to introduce such requirements, there would clearly be some interface between any statutory duty laid on employers to make the "reasonable accommodation" that is sought by the Bill and whatever "reasonable provision" would be required because of changes in the building regulations.
I shall now deal with amendment No. 77. As the Bill stands, the commission may refer any cases of discrimination in "the employment field" or "in any other field"—that is to say, in any field whatever. I am convinced that the commission's discretion to make such references should be strictly limited to those areas covered by the 1002 legislation. The terms "employment field" and "any other field" are extraordinarily imprecise and too widely drawn and could create uncertainty and confusion. The amendments do much to overcome that problem.
I welcome amendment No. 58 which seeks to ensure that a disabled person would have the right of appeal on a question of law to an industrial appeal tribunal. Industrial tribunals are the proper form for the referral of any complaints that might arise from part III of the Bill.
Clause 11 provides that a complaint arising from part III should be considered by an industrial tribunal. It describes the remedies that tribunals may award if a complaint is upheld. However, it is out of line with existing legislation in respect of complaints taken to industrial tribunals. As I understand it, other legislation in this field—for example, the Race Relations Act 1976—allows that where a case has been taken to an industrial tribunal and the decision is unfavourable, the complainant may take the case to appeal. Therefore, if clause 11 is amended, it will simply be brought into accord with other legislation in this area.
As I said, the amendments would provide for a right of appeal on a question of law to an industrial appeal tribunal. It is the normal provision for appeals against an industrial tribunal decision to go, on a point of law, to the employment appeals tribunal.
As I said some time ago when I started my speech, employment is an important area, but there are other important areas. Access not just to premises but to goods and facilities, to which we may shortly turn, are also important, but employment matters a great deal and I have had time only to skim the surface on this group of amendments. I thank my hon. Friends for giving me the opportunity to discuss the amendments with them and no doubt they will consider my remarks, as I hope will all hon. Members.

§ Mr. Sheerman
Hon. Members who have followed the progress of the Bill from the beginning will know that it is certainly against my nature to be party political or partisan, but I have bitten my tongue and in Committee, on Second Reading and at other stages in the progress of the Bill I have tried to put my party hat slightly to one side to make progress on the Bill, which has support in all parts of the House. The Bill has the whole-hearted support of the Opposition because it is part of our policy commitment to introduce such legislation.
We must also inform the general public, the disabled, and those who have a disabled family member, by putting the record straight on what happened today—which was shameful. I greatly respect the Minister, but he is the master of the honeyed phrase. He is good at presenting a bad case. What happened today was as we predicted. The Government have murdered the Bill procedurally. We warned the House of that, and we warned the public not to build their hopes too high because we suspected that the Government would ultimately do as they have. We saw that process unfold this morning. We saw Conservative Members clearly organised by the Whips.
We even saw amendments tabled. Those of us who examine legislation requently can recognise a Government-drafted amendment when we see one. I am not saying that it was directly done, but I share the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for an investigation into who supplied the amendments that were tabled in such large numbers over the past couple of days.
1003 It was discourteous, to say the least, for information relating to the Bill to be made available in the House only the day before this debate—on a Thursday when most right hon. and hon. Members were in their constituencies to help their local council candidates.
The Government have killed the Bill cynically. They organised its destruction. That is not to say that some Conservative Members—such as the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)—did not work extremely hard to get the Bill through Committee and to make it a success. The Bill was murdered as a result of Government conspiracy and certainly not with the support of all their Back Benchers.
The Minister had the cheek to accuse Opposition Members of using bullying tactics when the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) moved her new clause. He knows why feeling is so high today. It is because the majority of right hon. and hon. Members and the public favour the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman was campaigning in Chelsea yesterday, as I was in Huddersfield, he would have picked up on doorsteps the weary cynicism of the electorate towards the House of Commons. It grows every time they see the kind of activity of which we have been part today, in which there has been behind-the-scenes engineering so that the will of the people is not expressed by a vote of the House. The public expected an honest vote.
An early-day motion supporting the Bill received majority support. There followed a Second Reading and the Committee stage. Last Friday, the House unanimously supported a motion to give the Bill adequate time. Instead, we saw the actions of a cynical Government. I blame not just the Prime Minister but the Secretary of State for Social Security. I know that is difficult for the Minister, because the Secretary of State is his boss. Nevertheless, the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) is totally against the principles of the Bill and everything that it represents. I know that, and most right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House know it.

§ Mr. Dicks
It must not be forgotten that if the narks who delayed the Bill had not been prepared to do that, members of my Front Bench could not have achieved their objective.

§ Mr. Sheerman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He calls them narks. I call them—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Let us stop calling, hon. Members anything and return to discussing the new clause.

§ Mr. Sheerman
You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not going to call them names. I merely wanted to say that the hon. Lady who moved the new clause and those who have supported it and the amendments so vociferously are, if we look at their entries in "Who's Who", dripping with privilege. In that regard, the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)—

§ Mr. Dicks
He has done a runner.

§ Mr. Sheerman
As the hon. Gentleman says, he has done a runner. Those hon. Members and others have every privilege of wealth and education. Their lives are liberated to the fullest extent, but they are trying to prevent disabled people from having the basic rights that they demand.
1004 2 pm
New clause 3 and the amendments have been filibustered. The Minister spoke for 50 minutes. However, I shall be very brief. What has happened today is a disgrace and a slur on our parliamentary institutions. The Government will be held to account. This shabby little effort, this white rabbit which has been picked out of the hat today by the Minister, is not a piece of anti-discrimination legislation but an excuse for not giving the House the right to vote for what disabled people want.

§ Mr. Berry
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may assist the House if I say that new clause 3 does not present a problem for the Bill's supporters. I am happy to accept new clause 3.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The House will have to make up its mind when the time comes.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
It is time that we put politics aside on the important issue of the disabled. It is a great slur on the character of the Labour party to suggest that anyone who dares to say, "Let us stop and think clearly and carefully about this Bill" is reprehensible. Surely it is far more reprehensible to go willy-nilly down the road and make errors on the way.

§ Ms Lynne
I remind the hon. Lady that the Bill has all-party support. Members of her own Back Benches support it, for the very reason that disabled people need civil rights legislation. No doubt her disgraceful behaviour today will be noted in her constituency.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that it was Labour party policy to focus on the disabled. He somehow suggested that no one else cared about the disabled. He is wrong. He also made the great slur—

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that we are awaiting a reply from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) to show that she notes that we have accepted new clause 3 and therefore wish to proceed?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman anticipated me. I was about to remind the hon. Lady that we are still considering new clause 3 and the associated amendments, although there has been an indication that, when the time comes, the new clause will be accepted.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was just making a point and I now wish to withdraw.—[interruption.]

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. For clarification, do I understand that the hon. Lady said that she was withdrawing the new clause?

§ Lady Olga Maitland
I think that we had better clarify exactly where we are on this. If Labour Members would bear with me, I was under the impression that I was now able to move on to my amendments in the next group. Is that not correct?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The Question has not yet been put.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I now understand that the hon. Lady does not wish to move the new clause. Is that correct?

§ Mr. McMaster
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that you saw the Government Whip give the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) instructions during that period of confusion? That should clearly be on the record because it proves that the Government's fingerprints are all over what is happening this morning.

§ Mr. Dicks
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What has happened is an example of the fact that if one is going to get it right, one does not send a girl to do a woman's job—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is the end of this bogus point of order—

§ Mr. Dicks
I was not being sexist.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am beginning to think that people cannot hear my voice.

Division No. 229]	[1.00 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Kilfedder, Sir James
Austin-Walker, John	Lidington, David
Berry, Roger	Livingstone, Ken
Boateng, Paul	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Booth, Hartley	Lynne, Ms Liz
Bowden, Andrew	McCartney, Ian
Browning, Mrs. Angela	Mackinlay, Andrew
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Miller, Andrew
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)	Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Clapham, Michael	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Pendry, Tom
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Cohen, Harry	Quin, Ms Joyce
Congdon, David	Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Sheerman, Barry
Cummings, John	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Sims, Roger
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Skinner, Dennis
Dicks, Terry	Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Dixon, Don	Soley, Clive
Dover, Den	Spearing, Nigel
Fraser, John	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Hannam, Sir John	Tyler, Paul
Hinchliffe, David	Waller, Gary
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)	Walley, Joan
Hoyle, Doug	Wigley, Dafydd
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)	Mr. Gordon McMaster and
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)	Mr. Harry Barnes.
NOES
Nil
Tellers for the Noes:
Lady Olga Maitland and
Mr. Michael Stern.