DISABILITY RIGHTS COMMISSION (Hansard, 20 May 1994)

§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)
I beg to move—

Hon. Members
Formally.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) to move the amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
The answer is yes.

§ Mr. Berry
The hon. Gentleman's name is not on the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman's name does not have to be on it.

§ Mr. Berry
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept the amendments. Therefore, is it not in order that we proceed to the Third Reading?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
The answer is no. It is entirely up to the hon. Member who moves the amendment.

§ Mr. Berry
I wish to move the amendment formally.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not appropriate. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman sits and listens for a few seconds.

§ Mr. Leigh
I beg to move amendment No.11, in page 2, line 31, leave out 'of the passing of this Act' and insert 'after this section is brought into force'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 49, in page 8, line 2, after 'period', insert
'and subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified.' No. 50, in page 8, line 3, leave out from 'any' to end of line 4 and insert
specified requirement of Part III or Part IV of this Act'. No. 51, in page 8, line 5, after 'section' insert
'may make different provision for different cases or for different classes of case and in particular'. No. 52, in page 8, line 9, at end insert—
( ) For the purposes of this section, "specified" means specified by the Secretary of State in regulations under this section.'. 1078 No. 64, in clause 17, page 9, line 37, leave out from "(3)" to end of line 40 and insert 'Section 15 above and this section shall come into force on the day this Act is passed. (4) The other provisions of this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint. (5) Different days may be appointed by an order under subsection (4) above for different purposes and different provisions.'.

§ Mr. Leigh
Amendment No. 11 was tabled by my hon. Friend for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), who is not here. It deals with the time limit for performing some of the actions required by the Bill. It allows the Secretary of State six months from the commencement of the Act, rather than six months from Royal Assent, in which to set up the new Disability Rights Commission. I am worried about the time scales in the Bill. The amendment extends the time limit for setting up the commission and for publication of codes of practice. A new Disability Rights Commission would need time to ensure that it got off on the right foot. The procedures involved, such as the selection of commissioners, would need thorough examination and careful consideration. Using the tight time scales in the Bill might be to the detriment of the organisation.

§ Mr. Berry
As I said that the amendment was acceptable, will the hon. Gentleman advise the House as to the purpose of further delay?

§ Mr. Leigh
This is a serious matter and the House is entitled to know about the amendments if they are to be accepted and to pass into law. I am perfectly entitled to move them and that is precisely what I am doing.
Using such a tight time scale might be to the detriment of the organisation. I know that we are all aware of the important role that the commission would have in working towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people. It is imperative that it gets off to a good start and is as effective as possible, working within realistic time scales.

§ Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale)
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has said that he accepts the amendments. Why is the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) going ahead with his speech? Is it to delay the implementation of the Bill? The House and the 6.5 million disabled people would like to know the answer to that.

§ Mr. Leigh
I have never made any secret of the fact that I oppose the Bill. I have never tried to hide behind any support for the Bill. I have always made that clear. On previous occasions, I have made it clear that I oppose the Bill. Under the procedures of the House, I am entitled to speak to the Bill. That is precisely what I am doing.

§ Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)
As I have said before, I know that the hon. Gentleman is an honourable Member. Does he intend to filibuster? I believe that he understands how we feel about the Bill. We believe that there should be a vote and that we should make progress. Is he happy for that to happen, or is he going to filibuster? Can he tell the House now?

§ Mr. Leigh
I have no intention of filibustering because that would be out of order. I am simply speaking to the amendments.
As I said, this is an important matter. The time scales set out in the Bill do not give sufficient time. Even the 1079 supporters of the Bill accept that it would have enormous consequences. One of the reasons why I oppose the Bill is because of those increased public expenditure consequences. The Bill is fundamentally regulatory and if it is to be enacted at all it is in order for me to suggest that we should have more time to consider such matters.

§ Mr. Alan Howarth (Stratford-on-Avon)
If my hon. Friend looks again at clauses 8 and 10 and considers the amendments made in Committee he will realise that no time limit is set for compliance with the Bill. The relevant Secretary of State will have the discretion to determine how long the time scale for implementation should be. Comparable legislation in America allows public transport 20 years for implementation and here it could be even longer.
Does my hon. Friend accept that proponents of the Bill are most anxious not to load unreasonable compliance costs on businesses, employers and society? In the light of the spirit of reasonableness shown by supporters of the Bill, does he accept that it is sensible for the House to complete consideration of the Bill today, so that it can go to another place where, if constructive and helpful amendments are tabled, I am sure that their lordships will be willing to consider them? Would not that be a proper procedure?

§ Mr. Leigh
My hon. Friend is an eloquent supporter of the Bill and he is taking a perfectly honourable position. I understand his point of view. He has said on several occasions that the cost compliance figures suggested by the Government are exaggerated. He does not for one moment accept that the Bill will cost the taxpayer anything like £17 billion. I accept that there could be delays in implementing the Bill and that it could be introduced gradually. I accept his point of view. Presumably, we are not talking about a cost of £17 billion being imposed immediately on the public purse. From reading the arguments and the various briefs supplied to us by business organisations, however, I am convinced that, although we may not arrive at £17 billion in the near future, compliance costs would be enormous and would have serious implications for business, especially small businesses.
I hope that the House will at least accept that I have been perfectly honest in saying that I oppose the Bill. I accept that what I am doing might not be very popular with disabled people—many people will not understand what I am doing. Occasionally in this House, however, one has the right to speak according to one's conscience and to what one believes to be right for the nation, rather than always be influenced by what one pressure group or a series of groups, however worthy, may propose.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. He has made his position clear. He has said that it is not his intention to talk out this humane and extremely important Bill. Is he prepared to contemplate with serenity the talking out of the measure? Is he prepared to contribute to a debate that may go on too long? Is he prepared to say now that he would like to see the Bill at least go forward for further consideration to the House of Lords?
1080 It has been accepted that the hon. Gentleman has acted with honour. He is in an extremely important position because my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has said that we are prepared to accept his amendments—we are prepared to accept all the amendments—so that the Bill can go forward. Will he accept briefly, if he looks at the cost compliance assessment document, that it is badly dated? It refers, for example, to the disablement commission, which was altered in Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is making a very long intervention. I hope that he will draw it to a close now.

§ Mr. Morris
I will do that. I am trying to correct an error of fact. The hon. Gentleman may think that that document takes account of the debates in Committee, but it does not.

§ Mr. Leigh
I can confirm that I do not intend to continue speaking for more than a few minutes and therefore I do not intend to talk out the Bill. I am simply doing what I am entitled to do, which is to speak to the amendments.
I think I have dealt with amendment No. 11. I shall now deal with amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51, which are in my name. That group of amendments would allow the Secretary of State more flexibility and a greater variety of exemption procedures and especially extend the scope for exemptions from the employment provisions of the Bill.
The Secretary of State is given a power to make exemptions to the regulation of provision of goods, services and new constructions under part IV. That is reasonable and allows for some of the different difficulties and circumstances that may obstruct the attempt to implement the wide-ranging provisions of the section. However, the scope for exemptions, as currently specified, seems to me to be far too narrow and restrictive to allow for the full range of circumstances that may arise.
There are no exemptions for the part of the Bill regulating employment. That is an especially grave omission. An over-rigid Bill has much less chance of successful implementation than one that retains flexibility. As I did the previous time that we debated the Bill, I have moved a number of amendments. If it is to become law, the Bill must be flexible. One of the reasons why I oppose the Bill is that I believe it to be inflexible. Especially with regard to employment and to the current state of the recession, any flexibility that we can introduce would be worth while.
[See Official Report, 23 May 1994, col. 21.
For example, an employer might come under the force of the Bill tomorrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) says that the purpose of the movers of the Bill is to bring it in gradually. However, as I understand it, an employer might come under the force of the Bill straight away. He might acknowledge, and agree to, his obligations to make changes to his premises, but be unable to complete the changes for some time, due to the size of his business. In that case, surely it is better to allow an exemption period while the changes are made and keep the employer within the law than to prosecute an employer who wishes to stay within the spirit of the legislation.

§ Mr. Alan Howarth
Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the Bill provides exactly what he is asking for? The 1081 principle that employers should be required only to 'Make reasonable accommodation"—I quote from the terminology of the Bill—and that there should be no imposition of undue hardship on employers completely covers the worries that he, otherwise perfectly reasonably, expresses. Therefore, will he accept that it would not be appropriate to detain the House more than another moment or two on that subject and that it would be in the interests of Parliament, as well as in the interests of disabled people, that we should be enabled to reach a conclusion in our consideration of the Bill today, so that hon. Members who may have objections of principle, which they are fully entitled to express, can have those objections tested, if necessary, at a vote? It is not acceptable that the Bill should simply be talked out and be frustrated for lack of time.

§ Mr. Leigh
I shall not comment on the latter argument because I do not believe that it is relevant to the amendment that I am discussing, but if what my hon. Friend says is right, and the proposers of the Bill wish it to be as flexible as possible, I believe that my amendments would improve it.

§ Mr. Berry
That is precisely why I said many minutes ago that we would accept the amendment. There is no point in further debate on the matter, except to wreck the Bill.

§ Mr. Leigh
The amendments are narrow and that is why I intend to finish speaking in about a minute, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so. I have tabled the amendments, however, and I am perfectly entitled to speak to them. The Minister is also entitled to speak about them, if he feels it necessary to do so.
It is better to keep an employer within the law than to prosecute an employer who wishes to stay within the spirit of legislation. The Bill would be left rather inflexible and would not be put to its best use if it allowed for exemptions solely for periods of time and did not allow for any other circumstances.
The Secretary of State may wish to exempt an employer or service-provider from the requirements of the Bill while the nature of his business premises means that he is unable to carry out the alterations necessary—for example, the building might have a preservation order. I could cite many other examples, but I shall sit down now. I hope that the House will recognise that the amendments are sensible and that if the Bill is to become law, they would improve it.

§ The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott)
Given the considerable controversy that surrounds the Bill and the proceedings in the House on 6 May, I should preface my remarks on this group of amendments with a clear and unambiguous statement.
The Government have, and have always had, reservations about the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). That comment is not new; I have said it on numerous occasions and I will explain exactly its context before I consider the amendments. My introductory remarks will be brief.

§ Mr. Berry
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that we were dealing with the amendments now. Surely we should not have a statement from the Minister about Government policy in general at this stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member and I understand why he is taking such interest in 1082 proceedings today, but I should be grateful if he left it to me to make a judgment about what is in order and what is not in order.

§ Mr. Scott
I have no intention of unduly prolonging my introductory remarks, but they must be judged against a background in which my own position has been under attack from the hon. Member for Kingswood and others—not always, I may say, with the degree of accuracy that one would expect.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Sit down then.

§ Mr. Scott
If the hon. Member would like to intervene, I am perfectly willing to give way to him.

§ Mr. Skinner
I do not want to waste time, but if the right hon. Member had any guts and had earned the title Minister for Disabled People, he would give a welcome to the Bill. He would sit down and let us get on and finish the proceedings for the benefit of those 6.5 million disabled people. What he has been doing up to now is kicking their crutches away. Come on, get on with it.

§ Mr. Scott
Despite the vulgarity of his language, the hon. Member knows that in the six years in which I have been Minister for Disabled People I have consistently endeavoured to improve the quality of life for disabled people through a range of Government initiatives and support for those voluntary organisations of and for disabled people, who play such an important part in enabling that progress to be made. I have done that consistently and I am determined to go on seeking to do it.
The Government themselves have made clear their intention to consult and to act in five key areas that affect the quality of life of disabled people and the obstacles that are placed before them in a number of important areas. I want that work to continue. What I have never said is that the Government support the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Kingswood.

§ Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was just wondering when the Minister might get on to talk about the amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I shall soon get a little ratty if there are any more points of order from hon. Members trying to decide what the Chair shall do. The Chair will make that judgment.

§ Mr. Scott
The bottom line has always been that the Government cannot accept the Bill because of the considerable cost implications involved. That applies to this group of amendments as it does to others. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me to respond, albeit to the sedentary intervention from the hon. Member—

§ Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich)
rose—

§ Mr. Scott
I will give way to the hon. Member in a moment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It is not usual to respond to sedentary interventions. As the right hon. Gentleman is now speaking to the amendment, perhaps we may make progress with that.

§ Mr. Austin-Walker
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that the Government do not support 1083 the Bill, but if that is the case, why did neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other member of the Government vote against the Bill on Second Reading—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. After a degree of latitude was allowed to hon. Members on both sides of the House, we have just started to debate the amendment—so may we now stick to it?

§ Mr. Scott
In parenthesis—literally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in a sentence—I have explained on a number of occasions precisely why, for constructive reasons, we did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading and allowed it to go into Committee—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Back to the amendment, please.

§ Mr. Scott
As a point of order was raised, I thought that I should seek—with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker —to make the position clear.
The common theme of the amendments is the time scale for implementing the Bill's provisions.

§ Mr. Berry
The Minister may not have heard me indicate that we are prepared to accept the amendments. I hope that that is helpful and that we may proceed as quickly as possible.

§ Mr. Scott
I am sure that that is the hon. Gentleman's hope, but in the same way as we debated on Second Reading and in Committee, we must discuss these amendments against the background of the need to carry forward discussions about the obstacles that stand in the way of disabled people in society and for Parliament to address them in due course. The Government will of course take note of this debate, as they did of debates on Second Reading and in Committee, as they develop their own proposals. Before I gave way, I was saying that the common theme of the amendments is the time scale for implementing the Bill's provisions.

§ Mr. Austin-Walker
rose—

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
rose—

§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
To which right hon. or hon. Member is the Minister giving way? I call Mr. Rooker.

§ Mr. Rooker
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is in a difficult situation and I do not want to make it worse. Will he tell the House and those outside whether the amendments form a tranche of any of those that were drafted or examined in his Department? If so, and as the Minister's amendment has been accepted by the Bill's promoter, why are we debating them?

§ Mr. Scott
In the light of the trouble in which I found myself after I was last asked such a question, I will let the hon. Gentleman know the answer. I would have to look at the particular amendments. They may reflect amendments that were moved earlier. I would not want to make any commitment today that would get me into the sort of trouble in which I found myself when I was trying to be helpful on a previous occasion.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
All the world knows now that most of the amendments were drafted by the Government. We accept them. The right hon. Gentleman is speaking for the Government. Will he now allow us to proceed with the rest of the amendments—one of which is a new amendment from the Minister?

§ Mr. Scott
I made it clear that the Government cannot accept the Bill. I want to use the proper procedures of the House to explain the Government's reservations about this particular group of amendments. It is right that the House should have the opportunity to discuss them and—

§ Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Scott
In just a moment, if I may just complete a sentence or two.
The House should understand why we are resisting the amendments and why we should consider them in some depth, whether or not some of them may be acceptable. We need to discuss those matters today. That will better inform our discussion of the future since, as I am making clear, the Government cannot accept the Bill.

§ Mr. Dicks
By devious routes, the amendments are my right hon. Friend's, the Department's or Government amendments. Why does he want to tell us about amendments that he helped to get through to Back Benchers to table? There is an old rule about life, and it is a simple one—if you are in a hole, stop digging.

§ Mr. Scott
What a number of my hon. Friends have done by moving the amendments before the House is to express concern, particularly about the speed with which the Bill would take effect, the costs that it would impose, and the speed with which that cost could be imposed on businesses, employers and shops. I take the point that is frequently made, and it is a common point between the hon. Member for Kingswood and myself that the concessions that he made in Committee did not, as he will recall, involve me in moving amendments, but in making clear during discussions on the Bill the Government's reservations that they placed the responsibility for the timing into the hands of the Secretary of State. In other words—

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
I think that the whole House accepts what the Minister said about his own contribution to the disabled, and we accept that, of course, Government matters put him in the hands of the Treasury. But does he agree that the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We are on amendment No. 11.

§ Mr. Spearing
Does the Minister agree that amendments that were referred to in the answer of the Leader of the House to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) were drafted by his Department and that, therefore, he is not overtly, but covertly speaking against amendments that he has tabled? What is the object of doing that?

§ Mr. Scott
I am not going to enter into that, for the reasons that I explained earlier.
I am concerned to see that we have an opportunity this afternoon to explain to a wider audience, as well as to the sponsors of the Bill, our concerns about the speed with which the costs that will be inherent in the Bill, if it reaches 1085 the statute book in its present form, could be placed on employers and providers of various facilities for disabled people.
I believe that it is naive of the hon. Member for Kingswood to infer that, because these matters have been placed under the authority of the various Secretaries of State concerned, there would not, if the Bill reached the statute book, be considerable and powerful pressure for the immediate implementation of the various matters. That, in my view, would arouse the expectations of disabled people, and would be very difficult for Secretaries of State, perhaps of either party, who have to take into account not just meeting the needs of disabled people, important though that aim is, and one which I share, but the costs that might be borne by the Government and, perhaps more importantly, by industry, commerce and business.
I believe, as I shall seek to explain if I am given the chance to develop a coherent argument, that we need to take those people with us as we develop policies that are designed in a constructive way to meet the needs of disabled people in society. So I am nervous, despite the fact that there is built-in flexibility about timing, and that power is given to Secretaries of State, that, in passing the Bill in its present shape, the speed and the pressure for immediate implementation would create considerable problems for those in Government who have to take responsibility for its implementation.

§ Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire)
I accept that my right hon. Friend has concerns over the points that he made, but could not they be dealt with in another place, were the Bill to be allowed to get to another place?

§ Mr. Scott
That is true, but, in my years in this House, I have never thought it a proper principle that because there would be opportunities for discussion in another place, the House should not give proper consideration to proposals that are being placed before it, and particularly since the House has a special responsibility for the public purse, which does not in the same way—

§ Mr. Spearing
Treasury again.

§ Mr. Scott
If I may say so, I made it very clear that it is a proper concern of those who are responsible for public expenditure in this country that we should not be placing undue burdens on the public purse or on businesses, which are the engine of economic success.

§ Mr. Berry
The Minister kindly acknowledged that in Committee I moved that the Secretary of State, subject to parliamentary approval, should determine the time scale for introducing each of the measures. Therefore, the cost implications would be entirely under the control of the Secretary of State. Will the Minister tell the House what else one could have done to make the provisions acceptable? The pressures that he mentioned will exist whether or not the Bill reaches the statute book. I repeat that the costs will be under the control of the Secretary of State, which is why we accept the amendments.

§ Mr. Scott
I have to tread a narrow path and address the amendments, while setting them against the background of the pressures that could exist in the areas affected by the amendments. The amendments properly consider the time scale. To set at rest the minds of right hon. and hon. Members who have intervened about the drafting of the amendments, I can say that all the amendments in the 1086 group were drafted by Parliamentary Counsel, as was amendment No. 64 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern).
I have another worry about the path on which we would be embarking were the Bill to achieve Third Reading today and we sent it to another place. It is a concern that I have expressed frequently in previous discussions—the failure of the Bill's sponsors to consult the many sectors of the economy that would be affected by the Bill's provisions. It is important that those sectors of the economy have an opportunity, before the legislation reaches the statute book, to express their concerns, not just about the totality of the cost, but about the speed of impact of the costs that might be placed on them.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
Never was an accepted amendment parried at such length from the Treasury Bench. Does the Minister recall the money resolution, tabled by Treasury Ministers in support of the Bill? That underwrites the cost. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said, the right hon. Gentleman has total control over dates and expenditure.

§ Mr. Scott
The money resolution does not do that. It is a technical device—in a non-pejorative sense—tabled to ensure that those parts of a Bill that attract significant public expenditure are in order as the Bill is discussed. That is not the implication that many people would draw from the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. The money resolution was in no sense underwriting all the public expenditure that might flow from the Bill. That was why the Government were under considerable pressure—and had a duty once the Bill had received Second Reading and before its Report stage—to produce the compliance cost assessment that has been before the House. That assessment is the assessment of the expenditure. As anyone who has had dealings with legislation in the House knows, the money resolution in no sense underwrites that. The money resolution simply makes it clear that it would be in order for various matters in the different clauses of the Bill to be discussed properly.
As I was saying before I gave way to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I am concerned about the lack of consultation with many sectors of the economy which would be affected by the Bill's provisions. I expressed my disappointment to the hon. Member for Kingswood that the Bill had returned in virtually the same shape as it had appeared before the House more than a year ago in February 1993. The Government had previously expressed their concerns about the practical implications, costs and potential for litigation. I had hoped that, before the Bill came back to the House for consideration, there would have been widespread consultation with those on whom its requirements would fall and who are very properly concerned—a point highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West—about the costs and any wider consequences that would flow to them.

§ Mr. Sheerman
I do not want to delay the proceedings, but the Minister is going a little wide of the amendments and taking a long time. He will—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber and is accusing the Chair 1087 of not restraining hon. Members' contributions. I suggest that he listens to the full debate before making such accusations.

§ Mr. Sheerman
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being absent from the Chamber for a short time and for any disrespect to the Chair. I wanted to intervene on the Minister because he cannot get away with what he is saying. He referred to a wholly spurious cost assessment which everyone outside the Government knows to be laughable. He also said that there had not been sufficient consultation or time. In his capacity as Minister with responsibility for the disabled, he has for years said that he was benevolently neutral about the Bill while he could have been encouraging and helpful. The truth is that he did not think that this Bill would come to fruition.

§ Mr. Scott
I do not want to repeat myself because it would be tedious and almost certainly out of order to do so at length, but I must say that the Government have made their position clear a number of times, most particularly when I wrote on 17 January this year to every hon. Member to express my reservations about comprehensive legislation in this area. I said that the Government believed that the best way forward was through education, persuasion, the raising of awareness in society as a whole and, where necessary, targeted legislation. I made it clear that I was opposed to the sort of over-arching legislation that we are now discussing in this part of the Bill. That was made abundantly clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by me on numerous occasions to hon. Members and to the sponsor of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Kingswood knows my concern as well as I do. To be fair, in Committee he acknowledged my concern about the lack of consultation that had led many employers' organisations and others to express worries about the costs and the rate of imposition of those costs on their members and the interests that they represent. It is perfectly proper for those organisations to have done so. They might not have expressed such reservations or felt it necessary to make representations to a range of hon. Members had the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues undertaken the necessary consultation themselves as the Bill passed through its various stages. I now know that, somewhat belatedly, they are doing so and are arranging discussions with various employers' organisations and other providers. The hon. Gentleman made it clear in our exchanges in Committee that he rather regretted that he had not embarked on that process before.

§ Mr. Berry
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Scott
It would be worth the hon. Gentleman looking at the record. If I have misrepresented him in any way I apologise, but he acknowledged that it might have been better if the consultation process had started rather earlier than it did.

§ Mr. Rooker
Like everyone else, the Minister realises that parliamentary time is extremely valuable. His points might be halfway valid, but, if the Bill could go to another place today having secured a Third Reading and if it were to be amended in another place, it would not be subject to the vagaries of private Members' legislation on a Friday. It could be dealt with late at night during the week, possibly in the overspill after the summer recess. That would 1088 provide a possible four months for consultation without damaging the Bill's prospects of receiving Royal Assent. The Bill would not fall to be debated on a Friday—that is not the procedure once it has left this place. The Minister is putting his successors in an impossible position. He cannot say with sincerity that he wants widespread consultation and detailed discussion about when particular clauses will come into force if it appears that he has sought to kill the Bill stone dead. I ask him not to do that.

§ Mr. Scott
I am nervous because of the constraints under which, manifestly, I operate in terms of the rules of order. However, I want briefly to refer to the approach that I announced when the Bill was discussed at an earlier stage and which the Government have adopted. Within the next six months or so, we intend to engage in a proper process of consultation with a range of interests about proposals in a number of key areas, which will address many of the concerns raised today by the promoter and sponsors of the Bill. They need to be addressed—

§ Mr. Sheerman
rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We must get back to amendment No. 11. There will be a Third Reading debate at some stage during which the wider points can be made. I should be grateful if we could get back specifically to this group of amendments.

§ Mr. Sheerman
I had merely intended to give the Minister a chance to read his note.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I hope that that point is relevant to the amendments.

§ Mr. Scott
I am only reiterating what I have said before. There is evidence, even in today's Financial Times, that concerns are being expressed by the Confederation of British Industry—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I ask the Minister firmly to stick to the amendments. When the House has finished its discussion on them, we can put the question on them. We are discussing amendment No. 11.

§ Mr. Scott
I am certainly in accord with that aim. I do not want to challenge your ruling in any way, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendments concern the impact of costs, the speed with which the provisions of the Bill could be implemented and the worry, which is being expressed even today by the Institute of Directors and the CBI, about those pressures. The amendments have been tabled to address those matters and it is to those amendments that my remarks are directed. With my normal generosity in this area, I am only too willing to enable those who feel that they have points to make to put them to me and to respond to them to the best of my ability, despite a somewhat unfortunate experience recently.

§ Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)
My right hon. Friend has made it clear that the Government are not prepared to accept the Bill. Some people had hoped that when the Bill was discussed in Committee—I was not a member of the Committee—it might have been amended in a way that made it possible for the Government to accept it. Clearly, that was not the case, so it is important that we now use whatever time we have available to learn more about the way forward and about what the real objections are. The compliance cost assessment came out only after the Bill had completed its Committee stage. I have not 1089 been here to debate it previously. It is important that we use the time positively to explore what the Government's objections are and to spell out more clearly what course could be followed in future so that we can have a Bill that has the support of the Government as well as the support of all those whose interests are being expressed so clearly today.

§ Mr. Berry
We accept the amendments.

§ Mr. Scott
I very much agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). We have time now on the Floor of the House. The offer made by the hon. Member for Kingswood simply to accept the amendment, and to say that that is the end of it and that a line can be drawn across the page is not a constructive approach to the way forward as the Government see it. The Government see the way forward not as allowing the Bill to become law, but as replacing the laudable efforts of the hon. Member for Kingswood and his predecessors who have introduced similar Bills, and operating along the lines I announced at an earlier stage, which have been reiterated since by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
We are determined to go out to consultation on five of the key areas that are reflected in the approach of the promoter and sponsors of the Bill—

§ Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to the whole of this debate. Some of us on the Back Benches are getting rather frustrated. With all due respect and despite the fact that you have said to the Minister that he must address his remarks mainly to the amendments, I point out that he is constantly ignoring your request. It is frustrating for us as Back Benchers. We would not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Those amendments are about compliance costs. Certainly, since I reprimanded hon. Members on both sides of the House, the speeches have been on compliance costs.

§ Mr. Scott
It is true and it is clear in my view that the discussions that we have had on the Bill at previous stages have already begun to affect attitudes outside the House without any doubt at all. I shall not stray into the contents of the broadcast of the hon. Member for Kingswood this morning on the "Today" programme, which were manifestly inaccurate. I hope that when he looks at what he said on that programme and checks it against the facts, he will understand that he was inaccurate. In my view, attitudes are changing outside. The Confederation of British Industry has never really had any enthusiasm in the area, although it recognises that, whatever happens, there are likely to be costs for its members. It has now said: while there is clearly a need for a new legislative framework to protect people with disabilities in employment, and possibly in other areas, to introduce such legislation without consulting employers and other groups that will be instrumental in ensuring that such legislation is effective is unlikely to produce the best solution. There has been no opportunity for that in this present Bill. That is the view of the Confederation of British Industry and, manifestly, it has been a failure on the part of the sponsors of Bill to take it into account. Many members of the CBI take a constructive view towards the needs of disabled people and their rights in terms of employment. Many of its members are also members of the Employers Forum on Disability, for example, who have a manifest 1090 commitment to progress in that area and quite right. That is why I believe that further discussion today on the impact of some of the costs could be of use in further improving attitudes outside the House.

§ Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the representations that I have had in recent weeks from retailers and businesses underline absolutely what he has just said? Those companies are more than prepared to move progressively to providing better access for disabled people because it increases their business, if nothing else. However, they are absolutely horrified at the lack of consultation that has taken place during the passage of the Bill. They have not been consulted. It was only in April that they began to get information about the implications of what has been suggested. They fear that it will cost jobs and make it harder to continue to employ disabled people.

§ Mr. Sheerman
rose—

§ Mr. Scott
Perhaps I may respond to my hon. Friend and then, of course, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I very much agree with my hon. Friend and I also agree that there have been some very encouraging examples recently of increased awareness and real progress in the employers' approach towards disabled people. When businesses come to see hon. Members and make their views clear to Government, and probably also to the Opposition Members who are the sponsors of the Bill, about the need to consult to ensure that effective, supportable and deliverable practical measures are in place, it behoves us to take careful note of that and respond to it. They are still manifestly concerned about the problems, especially about the speed of the implementation of the sort of legislation that we are presently discussing.

§ Mr. Sheerman
Will the Minister be totally frank? The fact of the matter is that that very sophisticated lobby are not shrinking violets. When legislation passes through the House and when it is anticipated, that lobby is here and asking for consultation all the time. The truth of the matter is that, assiduously, his Department was telling everyone out there—the CBI, the Institute of Directors and everyone else—that the Bill did not have a chance and that, if it had a chance, it would kill it. That is why the Government suddenly woke up. They saw a majority of hon. Members behind it and a chance that it would go through.

§ Mr. Scott
That was a robust intervention, but it was somewhat inaccurate. Although we made clear our reservations about the Bill, particularly in my letter as early as 17 January in which I explained to hon. Members why I was opposed to the approach being pursued by the Bill's sponsors, I indicated that the Government wanted to see progress in this area. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in response to a question that he wanted the Bill to go into Committee so that it could be examined in detail and we could discover which parts we could agree on and how we could carry forward some of the ideas.
If I may say so, that is precisely what the Government are now committed to doing. Having studied the discussions that are still continuing in the House, and apart from discussions that may be taking place outside the House, we are committed to discussing the matters to see as we undertake our—

§ Mr. Rooker
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Somewhere among the Standing Orders there is a Standing Order which allows you to instruct an hon. Member to resume his seat on the ground of tedious repetition. Will you consider doing that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
First, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have a copy of the Standing Orders in my hand. Secondly, it is not appropriate to do that at this juncture.

§ Mr. Scott
I plead for your understanding, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I seek to respond politely to repetitious interventions and make clear what I believe is the Government's position and, underlining our opposition to seeing the Bill reach the statute book, I nevertheless underline our commitment to ensuring that there is a proper, new legal framework, in particular, to protect disabled people in employment. That is one of the five points on which we are committed to consult over the next six months, manifestly with an understanding that, at the end of that consultative period, we will consider what legislative moves may or may not be necessary.
That will be important in terms of consultation. We will approach that consultation in a widespread manner. We will not just consult employers. We will be prepared to consult the organisations of and for disabled people so that they can make their views clear about the shape of that legislation.
With regard to employment, we all know that the quota system is discredited. We want to move to a more sensible—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We should return to cost compliance, not the quota system.

§ Mr. Scott
Manifestly, it is a matter of costs and we are concerned about the £17 billion worth of non-recurring costs and the £1 billion a year of recurring costs which, it is said in the compliance cost assessment, could be placed on businesses and other enterprises if the Bill reaches the statute book in its present form.
I understand that hon. Members may have some reservations about the cost compliance assessment. As I told the House when we last discussed these matters, it was an exercise that was carried out under considerable pressure of time. Each Department was asked to make its assessment of the costs on those organisations which were, in a sense, in its client area so that the Government could put together a package that could be placed before the House in terms of a total compliance cost assessment.
We did that. There is no reason why, having seen the cost compliance assessment, hon. Members should not examine it in detail and consider the extent to which they feel it reflects the position as they understand it. However, it was the best that the Government could do between Second Reading and their legal commitment to produce such an assessment before Report. We are anxious to move ahead quickly with consultation and to take such action as we believe is necessary in the light of those consultations.

§ Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring)
I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it clear that the Government's thinking on this point is that, while the aims of the Bill are laudable, some reports from the United States about the backlash created by the costs of US legislation show that it is 1092 creating an unhealthier atmosphere in terms of public and business attitudes towards disability than currently exist in the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Scott
The Americans with Disabilities Act is still in its early stages. It is right that we are getting conflicting signals. As I said, I am particularly conscious of one piece of evidence which looked at and, basically, produced a favourable report on the early days of the implementation of that Act. As I said before, I hesitate to query that.

§ Mr. Sheerman
What about the other side?

§ Mr. Scott
There are reports coming forward. I would probably be out of order if I went into too much detail. [Interruption.] I have responded to interventions from Labour Members, as I did at an earlier stage. Any hon. Member who knows me would know that I probably have a better record of giving way to interventions than almost any other Minister who stands at the Dispatch Box.

§ Mr. Peter Atkinson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way to me again. I shall make a point about the cost. We have had enormous figures bandied around. What is certain—and what can be said with certainty—is what it costs individual businesses to do individual jobs. If Labour Members had done a calculation of what it costs to put a lift in a shop, they would know that the minimum price is £20,000—and it could be £100,000. Shop owners also know what it costs to widen a door—and that could be anything from £2,000 to £5,000. In the area which I represent, which is a country area where shops are not rich or necessarily prosperous, that burden would be devastating to companies.

§ Mr. Scott
I agree with my hon. Friend and I understand—

§ Mr. Berry
This is outrageous.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Scott
I am trying to respond to the point raised by my hon. Friend. I agree that there is considerable concern on this front not only among employers but in other areas as well. For example, Business in Sport and Leisure—BISL—which is an umbrella organisation promoting the interests of private sector companies involved in the sport and leisure industry and representing more than 50 companies, has said: The sport and leisure industry is committed to providing facilities for disabled people and access where at all possible, in the centres it owns. Most newly built night clubs, bingo centres and ten pin bowling centres have facilities for disabled people and access by lift provided at all levels"—

§ Mr. Rooker
Why not give us their addresses and telephone numbers as well?

§ Mr. Scott
The hon. Member has access to a telephone directory. If he wishes to ring the organisation concerned, why does he not do so? I am addressing the issue of costs, the speed of implementation of the provisions of the Bill and the implications for the Bill of the amendments which are properly before the House at present.
BISL went on to say: It is, however, often impractical, if not impossible, to do this in existing buildings, even when considering refurbishment, because of a number of different levels and staircases. Schemes have been considered where lifts for disabled people might be attached to flumes and swimming pools. The costs, however, of schemes like this outweigh their possible use. Overall, we are 1093 concerned with the very high cost that this Bill would involve for the leisure industry if it becomes law. We would urge the Government to undertake the widest possible consultation and to consider the full impact on business if this measure is to receive Government support. I have already said that the measure is not receiving the Government's support. However, I have given an undertaking to BISL, as I have to others, that as we come forward with our proposals in this area, we will engage in the widest possible consultation.
Recently, a great deal of progress has been made in the leisure and tourist industry. Wonderful work has been done, for example, by ADAPT—Access for Disabled People to Art Performances Today—under the leadership of Geoffrey Lord. [Interruption.] I shall not respond to sedentary interventions, or I shall get into more trouble with Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, we have seen considerable progress in this area from a variety of organisations that have sought to improve provision for disabled people in major sports and other facilities.
There is clearly room for a great deal more to be done. Many people have contacted me to express their concern about the current inaccessibility of theatre, cinema and other provision. Again, mammoth costs are likely to be involved in that area, not least because many of our theatres, cinemas and arts venues were constructed about 100 years ago and it would be very expensive to adapt them properly to meet the standards for disabled people that we all want to see. It cannot be done overnight. That is the point dealt with in the amendments. We have to ensure that these matters can be tackled over a sensible period, which may vary from industry to industry and provision to provision.
I received a letter from the British Retail Consortium on 28 March. It states: It is important that employers' costs are kept at a sustainable level, and that the timescale set for compliance"— that is what we are talking about— with such legislation is achievable".

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
Why should the Minister read from a brief that was drafted for him before we accepted the amendments which, after all, he drafted?

§ Mr. Scott
At the risk of being repetitious, I say that the House should use our proceedings today further to explore and inform discussion on this important matter. The British Retail Consortium letter continues: Disabled people should be treated fairly and employers—

§ Mr. Dicks
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it normal for a Minister of State to arrange for amendments and new clauses to be passed to Back-Bench Members, who then table them, and to come back to talk about the very amendments that he created, and to filibuster? Is not that an abuse of this place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
So far, there has not been a filibuster. So far, speeches have been in order, particularly those on amendments Nos. 49 to 52. That is my ruling for the moment.

§ Mr. Dicks
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendments that the Minister is speaking to are the very amendments that he and his office drafted for the narks on the Back Benches to move last time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
The source of amendments has nothing to do with the Chair.

§ Mr. Scott
If I may pick up the thread again, it is right that we should take note of the views of those organisations. We should not quickly, easily and glibly pass over the questions that are reflected in the amendments about the scale and time scale of measures which will place extra costs on business, industry and other providers in society.

§ Mr. Berry
We agree.

§ Mr. Scott
I am delighted to know that the hon. Gentleman agrees and I hope that he recognises now that it is right that the Government, in picking up on one of the main threads in his Bill—access by disabled people to premises—should hold comprehensive consultation with those organisations and take careful account of their views. They are apprehensive and they have communicated some of their views in response to the provisions in the Bill because they are concerned about the time scale.

§ Mr. Spearing
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Scott
I should like to continue for a few more sentences.
I have said it before and I say again that one of our concerns is that, in legislating in this important and sensitive area, in which we all share the underlying aims of the sponsors of the Bill, we should not create resentment among employers and other people who will be affected by the passage of legislation such as this or any Bill introduced by the Government which will involve costs on industry and businesses.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Scott
I shall give way first to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.

§ Mr. Sheerman
I am reluctant to intervene, but will the Minister consider that this is a private Members' day and this is a private Member's Bill that has the majority of the House behind it? I beg him to salvage his reputation and not to block the Bill. He has spoken for nearly an hour and I beg him to salvage his reputation and the Bill by speeding on and finishing his remarks.

§ Mr. Scott
I could have made a great deal more progress had I not given way on the number of occasions that I have done this morning. When we last discussed the matter, I gave way more than 20 times during a 50-minute speech.

§ Mr. Spearing
We are talking about today.

§ Mr. Scott
Indeed, and I have given way a considerable number of times. The majority of interventions were by Opposition Members, the rest by Conservative Members who support the Bill. I do not think that I should be the subject of criticism about giving way.
A number of organisations have made clear their commitment to progress in the area, but also their concerns about costs and time scales.

§ Mr. Alan Howarth
Does my right hon. Friend accept that employers and other organisations may have been led into a misapprehension by the Government's compliance cost assessment? Unfortunately, the document was not available to hon. Members by the Committee stage. The Government produced it some considerable time after the Committee concluded and, remarkably, they ignored the 1095 amendments made in Committee. The document ignored clauses 8 and 10, as amended in Committee, which made it clear that there is no five-year time limit for compliance with measures in the Bill. Why did the Government produce a document that asserted that there was and therefore gave people to understand that the £17 billion alleged cost of compliance would fall all at once, or in a maximum of five years, on business? My right hon. Friend knows that that is not the case. Why did the Government produce a document that so easily led to misunderstanding and undue alarm?

§ Mr. Scott
I do not want to go back over that ground. Obviously my hon. Friend and other hon. Members can raise such doubts or criticisms of the compliance cost assessment as they think fit. I explained the pressures to the House recently. A compliance cost assessment is not normally produced by Committee stage. It is produced after Second Reading and in time for Report. That is the Government's duty and it was fulfilled.

§ Mr. Alan Howarth
rose—

§ Mr. Scott
I know that my hon. Friend would have preferred a cost benefit analysis. It would certainly not be wrong for him to go down that route. If it were undertaken, it might be a very valuable exercise, but it certainly is not the duty of Government. If my hon. Friend has serious reservations about the compliance cost assessment, I urge him to bring them to my attention so that we can consider them properly.
The exercise had to cover a considerable number of Departments at the same time and to pull the information together into a coherent representation of the costs, as we could best assess them, in time for Report.
It is clear that employers and others are concerned about the Bill. I do not want that alarm to turn into resistance to the idea of progress towards meeting the needs of disabled people. In my job, I have sought consistently to persuade employers and providers of services used by disabled people of the need for action in that area. I have sought to assure them that the Government certainly do not want to impose unfair costs at too great a speed and in a way that would make employers and providers feel resentful or hostile to the very concept. We must ensure that such moves as are taken by employers, shopkeepers and other providers of services used by disabled people provide services on a fair and equal basis, as they do for other citizens. We are trying to increase employers' awareness and to make them concentrate on people's abilities and enable them to achieve success—the aim that we all share. In response to my hon. Friend, let me say that the Institute of Directors and Business in Sport and Leisure had expressed their anxieties before the compliance cost assessment was published in April. They had corresponded with the Department before that and we should not imagine that they expressed those anxieties simply as a result of the publication of the compliance cost assessment.
Even if the Bill as a whole were to guarantee a fair wind and acceptance in the business sector, people in that sector still have significant anxieties about the time scale. People need time to learn about the new rights and the duties which would be—

§ Mr. Berry
Will the Minister please indicate to the House where in the Bill the time scale is set out?

§ Mr. Scott
I do not want to return to the argument that I had with the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of my speech because that would be tedious and repetitious. Undoubtedly there is worry in the business community and among other providers— [Interruption.]They may or may not be right, but they are worried. They are worried that, if the Bill reaches the statute book at the moment, the proper pressures that would be put on the Government to implement the Bill speedily, if not immediately, would impose costs on them in business. I think it unlikely that, if the Bill were to reach the statute book in its present form, there would not be immediate and consistent pressure on the Government to implement the provisions of the Bill as rapidly as possible.

§ Mr. Thurnham
Does my right hon. Friend agree that those objections are the reason why we have to have a proper debate now, and that it would be naive to imagine that a Bill about which there has obviously been a lack of consultation could be rushed through the House without the House having the opportunity to hear those significant objections? I hope that my right hon. Friend will not feel intimidated in making those significant arguments so that we can hear the reasons for the Government's objections. He has made it clear that the Government cannot accept the Bill in its current form.

§ Mr. Scott
I believe that the underlying anxiety which has been expressed to Government, and I think has been represented to other hon. Members, is that the Bill does not simply tinker with existing statutes but represents a wholly new approach to meeting civil rights.

§ Mr. Clelland
It is the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.

§ Mr. Scott
Exactly. It is civil rights for disabled people. That represents a new departure for many people outside the House and many of them still feel nervous about it, even if they accept the underlying aims of the Bill, which, as I say, are widely accepted on both sides of the House. They find that it is a new departure which arouses fear, or apprehension at least, in many of the organisations that represent the interests of business people. I believe that they want more time to adjust to that, and that the amendments would help to achieve that.

§ Mr. Peter Atkinson
When I mentioned cost compliance to my right hon. Friend in an earlier intervention, there was a chorus of heckles from Opposition Members who said, "Read the Bill".

§ Mr. Dicks
And Conservative Members.

§ Mr. Atkinson
I am sorry—and Conservative Members. One of the anxieties of businesses is that, although an exemption is given in, I think, part IV, the all-pervading clause 2 still applies and the line saying if he fails to make reasonable accommodation for his disability is the line that is worrying business men and companies because that could be used to override the exemption in part IV of the Bill. It may be wrong and I am not a lawyer, and nor are they, but that is the worry of businesses.

§ Mr. Berry
That is simply not true.

§ Mr. Scott
I shall have to study that intervention by my hon. Friend carefully, because I am not sure that he has accurately interpreted the Bill. [Interruption.] I want to be careful to study his words without judging them too much.
For employers in particular, the impact of the Bill would be virtually immediate, as the commission would have to be set up in six months. Other provisions could be brought in at various times, but employers express particular concern—

§ Mr. Berry
You have referred to the introduction of the Disability Rights Commission within six months. The amendment that you are speaking to suggests that that could be delayed. We have accepted that amendment. Please, Minister, why is it that you repeatedly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Berry
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am trying to remain as calm as possible.
Certain points have been accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I do not understand why they are then repeatedly trotted out as reasons for not making further progress on the Bill. The Minister has spent more than an hour doing that. I find that astonishing and disabled people will find it even more astonishing.

§ Mr. Scott
I find some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks astonishing. Since he has provoked me, I allude to his performance on the "Today" programme this morning, which is relevant to our discussions. He suggested that we "held up" amendments to the Bill until after the local government elections. In fact, our amendments were tabled on the eve of poll of the local elections. This morning, the hon. Member said quite clearly—I have got the transcript—that the amendments were "held up" until after the elections so that we could appear benign until those elections were out of the way.

§ Mr. Berry
rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Neither that contribution nor that just now from the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has anything to do with the amendments before the House.

§ Mr. Scott
I apologise for being provoked.
Before I draw my remarks to a close, I should like to refer to the American experience. The supporters of the Bill continually point to the American experience—in a way, that is right and understandable. They acknowledge that the Americans with Disabilities Act has had a major influence on the Bill, and rightly so. Bearing that in mind, we should study carefully how the American Act was implemented and the sort of problems that were encountered in its implementation.
In my view, implementing the Bill at the speed envisaged by the sponsors would not allow time to learn from the American experience—

§ Mr. Sheerman
What speed?

§ Mr. Scott
—in a way to avoid the pitfalls. The amendments—

§ Mr. Rooker
There is no speed.

§ Mr. Scott
The amendments—

§ Mr. Berry
There is no speed.

§ Mr. Scott
The amendments would give us sufficient time—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to contain himself. If he wants to make a contribution or to refute something that the Minister has said, he can stand up and say so, but he should not do so from a sedentary position.

§ Mr. Dicks
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister, perhaps inadvertently—and I say that reservedly—is misleading the House. There is no speed and no timetable. Why does he not tell the real truth for a change?

§ Mr. Scott
If I may say so, I am seeking to outline to the House the real concerns of business and other providers of the costs that could be imposed upon them. There is an overwhelming concern about the new rights conferred by the Bill and how businesses can comply with it.

§ Mr. Fabricant
My right hon. Friend has said that the Government would wish to seek advice from industry. We have already received a huge weight of evidence from its representatives about what they like and do not like about the Bill, albeit that much of that evidence was based on the Bill before it reached Committee. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he wished to press ahead with legislation for the disabled. My right hon. Friend the Minister has told the House today that he wants to go ahead speedily with such legislation. Surely it would make sense for the legislation that the Prime Minister has in mind to be used to amend the Bill still further, but in another place, so that it could be completed speedily.

§ Mr. Scott
The danger of my hon. Friend's approach is that it would arouse expectations about the future of the Bill that might not be fulfilled. As I have made clear, the Government and I do not feel that the Bill is the appropriate means of tackling the matter.
I have spoken at length to stress the importance of consultation with all the parties concerned. When the Government consult on their own proposals, our actions will suit these words. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear his views, and we are determined to tackle discrimination in employment, access to goods and the availability of financial services. We will look at the prospects for extending the big building regulations to meet better the needs of disabled people in buildings of a variety of types, and the creation of an independent—

§ Dr. Liam Fox
rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

§ Mr. Sheerman
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just seen a Bill killed by a cynical manipulation by the Government and the Whips, with the Minister talking it out. The Government used the strategy of haling a vote knowing that the bulk of the Bill's supporters are in another place attending the funeral of the former Leader of the Opposition. It is a disgrace for which the people of this country will never forgive the Government.

§ Mr. Peter Atkinson
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier this morning a Bill was lost—the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill—that was of enormous importance to nature conservation in the north-west and Scotland. It was killed because Opposition Members called a vote knowing that the Bill would not be passed, and the business was lost.

§ Ms Lynne
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Government to talk out such a Bill? Can you do anything to ensure that private Members' Bills are protected?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
The Bill has not been talked out. It has been lost at this stage of its proceedings.

§ Mr. Skinner
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Division took place on behalf of 6.5 million people who are disabled. Today the Government—particularly the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who has not earned that title—have kicked the crutches away from those disabled people. To make it worse, in that Division, although 28 people went through the Lobby, and large numbers of the parliamentary Labour party are up at John Smith's funeral, more than 12 Tories in the House refused to go through the Lobbies to provide the necessary 40 Members, including yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that the debate could continue. What the Government have done is beneath contempt. A Back-Bench measure has been killed by the Minister and the Government Whips. They should be ashamed of themselves.

§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What procedure would enable the House to censure the Minister, the conduct of his office and his appalling behaviour in destroying a private Member's Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is a not a matter on which the Chair can give guidance.

§ Mr. Alan Howarth
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received any notification from the Leader of the House that he intends to make a statement at 1100 2.30 pm to tell the House about the Government's plans to provide further time for consideration of this measure, in accordance with the resolution passed on 29 April?

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have received no such representation.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can I use this one remaining opportunity of a point of order to make it clear through you to all disabled people and everyone else that this campaign for a Bill which has been with Parliament for two and a half years will go on for as long as it takes to win full citizenship for Britain's disabled people?

§ Mr. Leigh
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said, we earlier debated two very important Bills —the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill and the Sale and Supply of Goods Bill. Knowing that there were fewer than 40 hon. Members present, the Opposition deliberately employed tactics to kill those two worthy Bills, one of which was presented by a Labour Member. The Opposition are furious that they have now been caught out by the same tactics. If any hon. Members have behaved disreputably today, it is the Opposition who, by underhand methods, deliberately killed two Bills but have now been caught out on their Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
None of that has anything to do with the Chair.

Several hon. Members
rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am not taking new points of order other than from hon. Members who have previously risen to their feet.

§ Mr. Sheerman
My point of order is further to that of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) who impugned the actions of the Opposition—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is nothing to do with the Chair, one way or the other.

§ Mr. Dicks
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) told a pack of lies. The other Bills—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman rephrased that.

§ Mr. Dicks
My hon. Friend was economical with the truth. The two Bills to which he referred would not have been lost had the Government and the Whips played the game by the rules. If they keep moving the goalposts, they should not be surprised when others try to do the same.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Again, that is nothing to do with the Chair.

§ Mr. Berry
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Members of all parties and millions of people outside will be disgusted by what they have seen here today. The amendments that we were debating were accepted by the Bill's sponsors one hour and 15 minutes ago. The Minister has cynically talked out the Bill. It is an insult to disabled people, and the Minister should reconsider his position.

Division No. 249]	[2.00 pm
AYES
Austin-Walker, John	Howarth, Alan (Strat"rd-on-A)
Barnes, Harry	Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Berry, Roger	Livingstone, Ken
Corbyn, Jeremy	Lynne, Ms Liz
Cormack, Patrick	Madden, Max
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Dicks, Terry	Pope, Greg
Dixon, Don	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Fraser, John	Rooker, Jeff
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Sedgemore, Brian
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Sheerman, Barry
Hoey, Kate	Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Skinner, Dennis
Soley, Clive	Tellers for the Ayes:
Spearing, Nigel	Dr. Liam Fox and
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl"yh'th)	Mr. Michael Fabricant.

NOES
Stern, Michael
	Tellers for the Noes:
	Mr. Peter Atkinson and
	Mr. Edward Leigh.