Disabled Persons (Consultation) (Hansard, 2 November 1994)

§ Mr. Roger Berry (Kingswood)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a system of consultation when legislation relating to disabled persons is proposed and to set rules for formulating compliance cost assessments in the case of such legislation. The House will be aware that the Government have recently consulted on their proposals to tackle discrimination against disabled people. It will also be aware that that exercise was conducted in response to the overwhelming support for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. No doubt that accounts for the attendance in the Chamber at this time.

I am sure that support for the Bill, inside and outside the House, encouraged the Government to put forward their own proposals. I am also sure that their consultation document was published in response to the widespread disquiet at the manner in which the Government blocked that Bill temporarily. Nevertheless, I welcomed the consultation exercise, not least because, by issuing that consultation document, the Government made it quite clear that disabled people face systematic discrimination and that they believed that this must be tackled through legislation. Therefore, in common with other hon. Members, I eagerly await the Government's publication of the results of that consultation exercise and further debate on that issue. In the meantime, my Bill is a modest attempt to address and correct some of the serious limitations in that consultation exercise.

The main issues that we must consider are the way in which consultation exercises are undertaken and the misuse of so-called compliance cost assessments. For example, it is said by many people, including the Prime Minister, that the price tag on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is £17 billion. As I shall demonstrate, that figure has no basis in fact. That a document claiming to be a compliance cost assessment could come up with that figure suggests that we should carefully review the rules for compliance cost assessments in order to ensure that truthful figures are produced, not figments of people's imagination.

In relation to the consultation process, my Bill recognises that the Government may, of course, consult on whatever proposals they wish—there is no question about that. Disabled people, however, have felt and still feel that it was regrettable that, in the recent consultation exercise, the Government refused to consult on the one proposal for tackling discrimination against disabled people that disabled people wanted—the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.

I recently received a communication from the Spastics Society—I am sure that hon. Members would like to join me in congratulating that society on the fact that, tomorrow, it will change its name to Scope—in which it pointed out that it regretted that the Government had excluded from their consultation exercise items that featured in the civil rights Bill. That regret has been repeated by other organisations of and for disabled people.

My Bill contains some very modest proposals. It would require that, when the Government undertook a consultation exercise, they would include with their proposals for disabled people any proposals relating to similar matters that disabled people supported. That seems perfectly reasonable.

1568 Secondly, it would also be reasonable to state that any proposed Government consultation should include legislation that received an unopposed Second Reading in the Chamber. A Bill is not carried every day of the week by 231 votes to nil on Second Reading. That vote expresses the view of the House and should be the subject of consultation.

Thirdly, my Bill would require that any legislation that had successfully completed its Committee stage should be a matter for proper consultation. Finally, any legislation that had completed either of those stages in the other place should also be the subject of consultation.

I am sure that hon. Members are reasonable, although I do not want to over-egg it, and I am sure that they would agree that any legislation that has passed any one of those four tests, let alone all of them, is worthy of detailed consultation in the sort of exercise in which the Government have just engaged.

The second issue dealt with in the Bill concerns compliance cost assessments for proposed legislation. Those sound very grand. Some people think that the assessment is based on a widely accepted technique for evaluating policy, whether by economists or anyone else. It is not and no self-respecting economist would touch many of the assessments with a bargepole. Indeed, the appalling errors in the compliance cost assessment for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill have led me to suggest these new rules. They are not controversial, but they are worth stating.

First, when undertaking a compliance cost assessment, one should refrain from counting the same thing twice. Double counting, whether by accident or by design, obviously inflates estimates of costs. That may be welcome to someone who opposes the legislation, but it hardly brings such an exercise into good repute. For example, the compliance cost assessment for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill included the cost of providing access to existing buildings in the environment section, but some of the costs were counted again in the sections on employment and education. That double counting accounts for £6 billion of the alleged £17 billion costs.

Secondly, one should not assume a phasing-in period that is not contained in the proposed legislation. It was assumed that everything contained in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill would have to be done within five years. That does not feature in the Bill. If we allow for a proper phasing-in period for transport, we could reduce the costs by yet another £6 billion.

I am running short of time, so suffice it to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."]—I appreciate why some opponents of the Bill might be happy about that. The £17 billion figure should never be used again. According to the Government's assumptions, if we avoid double counting and do not allow for time periods that are not in the Bill, we are down to £5 billion.

Compliance cost assessments should also be required to take into account the benefits of legislation. It has been estimated that discrimination excludes disabled people from the labour market at a cost of between £3 billion and £5 billion a year. The cost of inaccessible transport is £1 billion. My Bill would ensure that much more meaningful consultation took place on legislation relating to disabled people and it would ensure more meaningful cost-benefit 1569 analyses. Today's Bill, like the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, has all-party support and I commend it to the House.