§ Ms HodgeI beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 13, line 28, at end insert—
'List of consultees17.—(1) The Commission shall maintain a list of the organisations it has consulted generally for the purposes of any of its functions.(2) An organisation may be removed from the list if it has not been consulted generally in the 12 months preceding its removal.(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), consultation is general unless it relates only—
- (a) to an investigation to which paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 applies,
- (b) to assistance under section 7, or
- (c) otherwise to a particular individual or individuals.
(4) The Commission shall make the list available to the public in whatever way it considers appropriate (subject to any charge it may impose).'.The amendment requires the commission to produce, and make publicly available, a list of organisations that it has consulted. I hope that hon. Members will accept that we tabled the amendment in response to the reasonable amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) in Committee.When we discussed the amendment in Committee, I said that I had sympathy with the thrust of what the hon. Lady wanted to achieve, but that I needed to look carefully at the burden that that might place on the commission, and to minimise that burden where it was practical to do so. We have, after all, said that we do not want the commission to tie itself in red tape or to waste resources. Through this amendment, I wanted to address the concerns that were expressed in debate in response to the hon. Lady's amendment. They were that the list should be useful as a point of reference and provide transparency as to whom the commission consults, but that it should not include contacts with particular individuals—such as general practitioners—in response to a particular case.
The key feature of the amendment is that the list would be publicly available, on demand. The commission could decide the best way to make it available; for example, we hope that it might be posted on the internet. That would retain the "publicness" of the list, but would be likely to reduce the cost and administrative burden of producing perhaps several thousand glossy copies—probably as part 376 of the commission's annual report. The list should be updated to get rid of dead-wood organisations—for example, organisations in the voluntary sector that are defunct. The amendment allows the commission to remove organisations from the list, if they have not been consulted during the previous 12 months, but does not require the commission to do so. That would mean that the DRC was obliged neither to start from scratch every year, nor to keep the list under continuous review—both of which could be administratively burdensome.
Only organisations—rather than individuals—would be included on the list, but not if an organisation had been consulted for the purposes of a formal investigation, or if the DRC was giving an individual assistance in relation to proceedings.
§ Mr. OatenIf an organisation was paid for the advice it gave, would that point be attached to the provisions that the Minister is listing?
§ Ms HodgeWe have not specified that point, because we wanted to ensure that the list was more complete than I had suggested in our original exchange of views in Committee. For the sake of completeness, it would be best not to specify that point. However, nothing in the amendment would prevent the DRC from listing organisations that had received moneys for assisting the commission with its work.
With those reassurances, I hope that the amendment, tabled in response to representations from Opposition Members, will be accepted.
§ Mr. BoswellAs the Minister has reminded the House, she has been as good as her word in tabling an amendment that enshrines the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). In the rather speedy transfer of responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench, I have not consulted my hon. Friend on the matter. However, she is aware of what has happened and has not expressed her dissent.
In relation to the intervention of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), I assume that, in deciding whether to state that a charge has been made, the commission will consider whether that would colour the advice that was given, or whether such a statement would be required for accountability. I am sure the commission will be sensitive about that. The same point relates to the provision that the commission should not refer to individuals, or to formal investigation. In relation to our constituencies, we sometimes write letters on the record—indeed, for the record—but there are other occasions when we want to consult individuals confidentially in the interests of our constituents.
We realise that different types of consultation have to take place, so it is important to have a good working list, which is updated by the exclusion of organisations after a period of non-consultation and shows whom the commission has approached for advice, so that those with particular interests can debate matters on which they feel that there are gaps or an undue emphasis. That is wholly consistent with the constructive way in which we have discussed these matters.
Will the Minister comment on one outstanding matter that relates to proposed sub-paragraph (4)? I gather that there was some misunderstanding—to put it charitably— 377 about exactly what the Government's commitment was on charging by the commission. In correspondence, the Minister pointed out that she had confirmed, on Second Reading, that the commission would not be empowered to recover any of its legal costs from compensation awarded to individuals, or agreed outside a court or tribunal. Such costs could be recovered only from an amount for costs awarded or agreed upon—there would have to be some pre-existing agreement or a separate charge for the service given by the commission to the organisation or the individual. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point.
There is a general duty on public bodies—for which the Cabinet Office and others publish advice—that they should have a reasonable schedule of charges. From time to time, we all complain that some of the charges that are imposed are excessive—as indeed sometimes they are, and we are right to complain. However, such bodies should be able to institute a reasonable charging policy. If we can complain when we believe the policy to be unreasonable, and if they can explain the rationale for their charges, they should be able to implement them, subject only to the following qualification. We are dealing with people who, by definition, have some difficulties, and with organisations that are often voluntary and do not have large assets. They will not welcome heavy charging by Government or para-governmental organisations. As technology improves, no doubt much of that information may be available on the website and may be free to the user. I hope that it will be. We certainly do not want anyone who has a genuine interest in checking such material to be inhibited by a charge for accessing information.
I should be grateful if the Minister would speak to those points and give me the confirmation that I seek. I repeat my thanks and those of Opposition Members to her for responding to the point put to her in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton.
§ Mr. LeighMaintaining a list of organisations to be consulted is important. I take an interest in social security matters and I serve on the Select Committee on Social Security. It is often a feature of social security matters that, compared with many other areas, there is no well funded, widely based group of natural consultees. In contrast, the agricultural sector has some of the best organised lobbyists in the country, as does defence. If one is taking a decision in such matters, there is almost an embarrassment of riches in terms of consultation. However, the number of people who are sufficiently well funded and interested in social security matters to understand the technical nature of the subject, and who are prepared to be consulted and want to submit good proposals to Government is limited.
§ Mr. Tom Levitt (High Peak)I rise merely on a factual point to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. He referred to a list of organisations to be consulted. That is not what this list is. This is a list of organisations that have been consulted in the course of the commission carrying out its duties. I am certain that it is not intended to be a list of the great and the good of approved organizations 378 for consultation. I would hope that a huge range of organisations—any organisation—could be consulted if the commission thought fit.
§ Mr. LeighI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing up that point.
The point that I want to make is that, although often on social security matters there is a dearth of people to be consulted, or who have been consulted or may be consulted, there is a well organised disability lobby, and that is a good thing. It is the one social security area on which the Select Committee receives excellent briefings from those who might be affected by a proposal. Therefore, I am not too worried about the list of consultees with regard to the disability lobby. It is good, well organised and can put its case across extremely well.
However, I am concerned with the other side of the picture—the business lobby. Full transparency is important. Two obvious business organisations that might be consulted about a proposal are the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors. However, it is often difficult for such organisations, particularly the CBI, and particularly in relation to issues that might be under discussion by the commission, to take a robust, pro-business approach, if I may put it that way. Obviously, we are dealing with a sensitive area. We are dealing with people who may have severe disabilities and no business organisation, particularly those such as the CBI, wants to receive the bad publicity that it might receive if it is seen to be unduly negative about any proposal.
The Minister presumably has an idea of the sort of people who will be consulted, and I want to be assured that the list of consultees will go further than the large business organisations, which may find it difficult, in public at least, to take a robust attitude. It is important that they should take a robust attitude, that there should be a debate about these issues and that the two sides of the argument should be put. We are potentially talking about a lot of small businesses that might find enforcement of these procedures extremely onerous. That is not because they are unsympathetic to disabled people, but simply because they have limited resources.
I use the amendment as a peg to seek the Minister's reassurance that she understands that the consultation should not simply be limited in the business world to the Institute of Directors or the CBI, but should go wider—perhaps down to a local level, such as the chambers of trade and commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses—so that we ensure that the commission has before it both sides of an argument. Unless that happens, this could be an extremely intrusive organisation which proves damaging to the interests of business and, eventually, to disabled people themselves.
§ Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)What I have to say follows from what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has just said. It relates not simply to what one might characterise as the awkward customers in the business lobby, but to the awkward customers in the disability lobby. It is clearly important that those who have clear and original thoughts should be included in the list of consultees and should be consulted by the commission.
What slightly concerns me about the amendment is that it gives the commission the right to remove from the list any organisation that it has not consulted for the past 379 12 months, without a right of appeal by that organisation. Whether that is a small business organisation of the kind described by my hon. Friend, or a small disability rights lobby—[Interruption.]
Labour Members disagree, but I feel a little uncomfortable when I read:
An organisation may be removed from the list if it has not been consulted generally in the 12 months preceding its removal.I see no corresponding right for that organisation—disability rights organisation, commercial organisation or whatever—to appeal against that removal. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) looks amazed and aghast at that idea, but it is entirely possible. I welcome the principle of open consultation and this addition to the Bill, but I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the commission will not exclude any body—I mean body in the legal sense, not individuals—or any organisation that could reasonably be expected to be included in consultation.
§ Ms HodgeI am happy to confirm to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), in relation to the recovery of costs from individuals, that the Bill relates to the recovery of costs when an award for costs is made. That mirrors the position that exists for the other commissions. The Bill does not provide for the Disability Rights Commission to recover costs from compensation. Neither can they be recovered from settlements reached outside courts or tribunals, unless an amount for costs has been identified therein.
In relation to the charging policy, it will be for the commission to decide for which services it wishes to charge—for example, the distribution of papers. The commission is not expected to charge for general advice. As I said, I hope that the list of organisations will be placed on the internet where it will be free. However, if a particular organisation requires thousands of copies, it would not be unreasonable for the commission to charge.
With regard to whom the commission will consult and the specific request that it consult the business community, I reassure the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) that the commission has been designed to take an evenhanded approach between those individuals who will be seeking to exercise their rights in relation to discrimination and those organisations providing goods and services to the public or acting as an employer.
It may reassure the hon. Member for Gainsborough to know that, on the disability rights task force, which I chair and which is discussing what further steps are needed to secure further comprehensive civil rights for disabled people, are representatives from not just the CBI and the Institute of Directors, but from the Federation of Small Businesses and the chambers of commerce. So we are aware of the need to ensure a broad spread of representation on that body.
We have yet to determine the precise composition of the new commission. We have not been able to do that because the Bill is not law yet, but as soon as it is, we shall ensure that it, too, reflects the broad spectrum of people who have an interest in the commission's workings. I expect there to be strong representation from the business community, the trade union movement, local government and perhaps the health service.
380 It will, at the end of the day, be for the Disability Rights Commission to decide whom it chooses to consult on particular issues. The purpose behind the amendment, for hon. Members who were not present in the Committee, is to ensure that the process of consultation is transparent and that when the commission comes out with a policy proposal or new code of practice, we all know who has been consulted. It was in the interests of transparency, and perhaps to meet some of the fears expressed by Opposition Members, that we have moved the amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.