HL Deb 05 April 1984 vol 450 cc867-71

7.48 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Constitution and proceedings of the Commission]:

Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 9, after ("members") insert (", of whom not less than two shall themselves be disabled within the interpretation in section 5 of this Act,")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. This amendment and the next three amendments on the Marshalled List are tabled to meet points which were raised at the Committee stage by noble Lords in different parts of the House. As regards the first amendment, it would change the Bill so that at least two members of the proposed Disablement Commission would themselves be disabled. That would be the minimum. Of course there could be more; there could be a majority of members who were themselves disabled. But during the debate at the Committee stage I pointed out that it could be restricting for the Secretary of State, who has to make the appointments, if the minimum was stipulated as being more than two members of the commission. It might lead to a situation where extremely suitable people in every other way might have to be excluded. I beg to move.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment because I think it is important to have people who are themselves disabled on the commission. With a number of not less than two disabled people on a commission of between eight and 10 people, we have achieved rather more than proportional representation. However, that is quite right as the commission is dealing specifically with the problems of disablement.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Longford was unable to stay for the Report stage and has asked me to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for his absence but nevertheless to express his support and his sympathy for the Bill. There are very few people who would challenge or even question the principle of participation embodied in the amendment.

The case in favour of the amendment was made out at Committee stage. What is a little surprising is that the principle appears to have been overlooked when the Bill was being drafted. However, I am not so certain about the proportion of two out of eight or possibly 10. The Bill, which was sponsored by my noble friend Lord Longford, put it higher. I read in the Committee stage proceedings—I regret very much that I was not present—that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, thought that it should be higher, half being non-disabled and half being disabled people. I am nevertheless glad to support the principle. What matters tonight is that the principle of participation should be embodied in the Bill. I am glad therefore to support the amendment.

Lord Kilmarnock

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has chosen to move this amendment and to incorporate it into the Bill. It is true that at an earlier stage I suggested a slightly higher proportion of people with personal experience of disablement. I think, however, that the words "not less than two" cover the case fairly well and do not impose too rigid a straitjacket on the Secretary of State. On those grounds, I am happy to support the amendment.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, I am grateful for this support. I am also grateful for the message from the noble Earl, Lord Longford. The noble Earl told me himself that he had to leave. He and I have both been piloting through Bills with different approaches, but I am grateful to him for his general support for my Bill.

As regards the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, the only reason why this was not included originally in the Bill was because I had thought it not necessary. I had assumed that the disabled would be included anyway, perhaps because I am disabled myself and would fall within the category. I am glad, however, to have this improvement inserted into the Bill.

Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 10, (as corrected), at end insert (", after consultation with the Secretaries of State for the Home Department, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to the way in which the Disablement Commission would be appointed. The question of which Ministers would be consulted and which Minister would be the appointing Minister was discussed at Committee stage. The noble Lord on the Oppositon Front Bench, then the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, disagreed with what I was proposing. I therefore withdrew my amendment and had further discussions with those concerned, including the noble Lord. Lord Ennals.

I must make clear that the amendment refers to the Bill as corrected. A correction slip was issued by those in charge of the printing of Bills because it had been assumed at Committee stage by those who record our proceedings that the amendment that I was then proposing had been made. They had been good enough to credit me with having got the amendment through, which I had not at that stage. My amendment therefore refers to the Bill as corrected by the correction slip.

The words now in Amendment No. 2 are those which have resulted from my discussions, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, tells me that he is completely satisfied with them. I believe that the amendment meets the views expressed in other parts of your Lordships' House. I should like to add that there is a convention that the simple phrase "the Secretary of State" appears in Bills and that when it appears in the first place and when it appears later in other parts of the Bill it can be any Secretary of State. Any Secretary of State can step in and perform the functions described in that part of the Bill. This is quite helpful when the Secretary of State happens to be at the other end of the world on business and is not available.

In the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, there was no description of the Secretary of State at all. He was simply referred to as the Secretary of State right the way through. I thought that it was important for the reasons I have described at earlier stages of the Bill that it should be made absolutely clear who was responsible for making appointments and who were the other Ministers who should be consulted while the appointments were being considered. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 16, after ("chairman") insert ("and one other member").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this raises the question of how many members of the commission should be full-time and how many part-time. The proposal in this amendment would require that at least two of the members should be full-time, including the deputy chairman. There could be more. There is nothing to stop the Secretary of State appointing them all full-time, but this amendment provides a degree of flexibility in composing the commission.

When we discussed this in Committee, I pointed out that there are some people who would otherwise be totally admirable for serving on a commission of this kind but who cannot make themselves free for full-time appointments within the meaning intended in Acts of Parliament. This is particularly true of women. To retain some flexibility and not to require that a large proportion of the commission should be full-time appointments would again make it easier for the best possible people to be recruited and appointed to the commission.

Clause 2 [Duties of Commission]:

Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 16, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this would leave out a subsection. From the discussions that we had at Committee stage, it was clear that others agreed with me that it was not now necessary to include a financial part in a Bill dealing mainly with discrimination against disabled people. Questions of fairness or discrimination in monetary benefits or in other financial and pension matters are now questions for the advisory committee that has in recent years been set up for this purpose. To include this financial subsection, therefore, would not be appropriate in this type of Bill. I beg to move.

Clause 5 [Interpretation]:

Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 33, at end insert— (", and "discrimination" against disabled people means—

  1. (i) imposing conditions or requirements which will adversely affect them to an unreasonable extent, or,
  2. (ii) treating them less favourably, on grounds of disability, without good and sufficient reason, than able-bodied people.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I seem to have rather a lot to do this evening, but I make no excuse for that. Because the business of the House went on much longer than was expected, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has had to leave in order to get her last train back to Yorkshire. Therefore, she has asked me if I would, in her place, move the amendment in her name. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.

I know from the discussions which have taken place since the Committee stage, that my noble friend has taken an immense amount of trouble to prepare this amendment. At the Committee stage she said that she thought—having taken some advice on this—that the inclusion of a definition of this kind would improve the Bill. I know that she also had the benefit of the legal expertise and wisdom of my noble friend Lord Renton, who suggested some additional words which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has accepted. I, too, am very happy to include this definition in the Bill.

I must explain that the version of Amendment No. 5 at which we ought to be looking is the manuscript amendment which I hope is available to all noble Lords. The reason for the manuscript amendment being produced today is simply due to a misunderstanding about the order of the words in the amendment. There is no difference in the meaning, but it was considered that the noble Baroness intended the order of the words as set out in the manuscript amendment, and that order certainly improves the clarity of the amendment. I therefore beg to move the manuscript version of Amendment No. 5.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment because I think that it is an improvement upon the amendment that my noble friend moved at the Committee stage and then withdrew. This amendment is more comprehensive. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that the manuscript amendment is an improvement upon the amendment on the Marshalled List because, even if the English is still not breathtaking, it is at least much more comprehensible. So I am very happy to support the amendment.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I, too. have pleasure in supporting this amendment. I must admit that I do not have the corrected wording as regards both Amendment No. 2 and this amendment. However, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was not happy with the wording. I do not know the new wording, but if it clarifies the position then I am perfectly happy to accept the amendment.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I believe that the Bill is improved by the inclusion of the definition of the word "discrimination". It is not an easy word to define in the context of the Bill, and it is therefore helpful that the Bill should contain a definition which is built on the concept of adverse conditions and less favourable treatment. Definitions can make for rigidity—that is the risk with definitions. But the definition proposed by the noble Baroness contains room for flexibility in both paragraphs. Moreover, if the circumstances of which a disabled person complains cannot be brought within either of the conditions specified in this definition, it may well be brought under the heading of "disadvantage" with emphasis on detriment and loss. Therefore, I am glad to support the amendment.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, as it is clear that copies of the manuscript amendment are not everywhere available, I think that it would be helpful if I simply read out exactly, the words which are changed. The change occurs in paragraph (ii) and the new words are: treating them less favourably, on grounds of disability, without good and sufficient reason, than able-bodied people". That certainly does put the matter more clearly than in the amendment as originally drafted.