Lords Sitting of 27 June 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Minewater Pollution: Control
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the long-term arrangements and responsibilities for the control of minewater pollution.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Environment Agency will carry forward the regulatory role of the National Rivers Authority. The Environment Bill introduces measures which will enhance the agency's powers to address this issue. Discharges from mines abandoned after the end of 1999 will be regulated in the same way as all other discharges.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's belief that if the pumping of minewater ceases the consequences will be devastating? Despite what the Minister has just said, is not the main issue that no one has responsibility for the matter? As the Coal Authority is the obvious body to shoulder that responsibility, why do not the Government make that a statutory duty of the authority?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I suspect that the question of ceasing pumping needs to be dealt with on a coalfield by coalfield basis. The noble Lord says that the consequences may be devastating. That may not be true in every case. Certainly the Coal Authority has confirmed that it will maintain all the pumping operations which have been identified by the NRA as necessary to prevent water pollution. That includes pumping formerly carried out by British Coal, especially to prevent pollution of the River Weir.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Viscount not agree that under the regime of the National Coal Board, and later of British Coal, the control of minewater pollution was clearly the responsibility of those bodies, but that under the present arrangements responsibility is shared between the Coal Authority, the new owners and various regulatory bodies? Is there not a serious risk that under that mixed arrangement, which replaces a single responsibility, minewater pollution might begin to cause damage?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, because the Coal Authority is now responsible as the owner of all abandoned coalmines, except in so far as any part of that responsibility has been transferred to private sector operators through leases. However, through those leases
600
private sector operators are still responsible to the NRA for the risk of pollution and also to the Coal Authority as the owner. The Coal Authority has confirmed that it will seek to address the pollution problems inherited from the past—in other words—from British Coal, within its available resources and in the light of priorities to be agreed with the regulatory bodies. I do not believe that there has been a change of course in any way.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that during the course of the proceedings on the Coal Bill, the liability for pollution from abandoned mines was purposely delayed in order to protect the proceeds that the Government expected from the sale of the coal industry? Therefore, the new coal owners—the Budges of this world—are exempt from liability if they pollute rivers and streams as a result of any of their operations until 1999. Is that not a classic example of the Government pursuing profits from privatisation to the detriment of the environment and conservation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is confusing two distinct Bills. The coal privatisation Bill made operators give six months' notice to the Coal Authority of any proposed abandonment and produce a report on the consequences. It may be necessary for the operator to make appropriate payments to the Coal Authority to deal with continuing costs when relinquishing a mine. The date that the noble Lord quoted of 1999 is the date introduced by the Environment Bill, which removes the statutory defence which has been law for over 100 years.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that minewater pollution has been a major problem in South Wales over many years? It causes a great deal of concern generally throughout the valleys of South Wales. Will the noble Viscount say what action is being taken at the present time? Is he in a position to talk to the Secretary of State for Wales about it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Coal Authority is discussing with the NRA at present, and will do so with the Environment Agency in the future, priorities for pumping or disposal in other ways. As the noble Lord will recall, the agency will cover Wales as well. Other techniques are being investigated. It is not just a question of pumping. I see no problem regarding communicating with the acting Secretary of State for Wales.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his Answer to my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington, the Minister referred to the fact that a regulatory body was needed because there might be differing degrees of pollution from mines. However, whether the pollution is minor, not severe or very severe, what is the difference in principle? My noble friend and colleague seeks to establish who picks up the bill. Will the Minister give an undertaking that it will not be the public?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the issue is the same for everyone; it is a completely level playing field. It is an offence for mine owners, whether the Coal Authority or any other owner of a coal mine or any other mine, to cause pollution of water courses. The Coal Authority

601
can be prosecuted in the same way as any other mine operator, whether a mine is active or abandoned. But the statutory protections apply only where water is permitted to flow from an abandoned mine.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Viscount accept that there was a clear distinction between the undertakings given in this House on the passage of the Coal Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the provisions of the Environment Bill? On this serious problem the Government seem to have copped-out (if I may use that expression) from the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave to the House.
Does the noble Viscount further agree that the Government have made no provision for the problem of metal mines from which pollution is equally important—in some cases more important—as that from coal mines?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord is wrong in imputing that the Government have acted in a way which is not entirely consistent with my noble friend's assurance during the passage of that Bill. The Government then made it clear, and now make it clear, that as regards water pollution liabilities the Coal Authority would not rest on the effect of the defence and exemption provisions but would seek the best environmental result obtainable from the funds available to it. The Coal Authority has undertaken that it will do that. During the first year of its existence since October 1994 it has done that.
The noble Lord is quite right: there is more pollution from metal mines than from coal mines. That is why we have sought to remove the exemption. However, in order to give operators and owners an opportunity to adjust to the new liabilities, the date of the end of 1999 has been introduced.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Viscount accept that introducing 1999 as the final date in debates on the Environment Bill derogates from the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave to this House on the passage of the Coal Bill?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no; that is not so. My noble friend gave an assurance that I have repeated today: the Coal Authority will not rely on those exemptions which have existed in law for a long time, and it will seek the best environmental result obtainable from the funds available to it.

Toxic Poisoning: Treatment Facilities
2.48 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make an allocation of central funds to enable general medical practitioners to refer patients suffering chronic symptoms after exposure to toxic chemicals to consultants with specialist knowledge and facilities for the purposes of diagnosis and treatment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government allocate resources to health authorities to enable them to purchase healthcare for their local populations. It is already possible for GPs to refer patients suffering chronic symptoms of toxic poisoning for specialist treatment.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Baroness appreciate that the medical profession is the first to admit that it knows little about the chronic effects of toxic chemical exposure? Does she understand, too, that extra contractual referrals are extremely difficult in some cases because the GPs do not understand the history of the patients? It can also happen that the paying authorities—a health authority, for example—will not allow ECRs for various reasons. Will the Minister consider setting up supraregional units, perhaps using the West Country as a model, with another, say, in Glasgow, followed by other regions? GPs could then refer patients to consultants not just for organophosphate poisoning but for poisoning by the many thousands of chemicals and combinations of chemicals in use today.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, on the first point, the noble Countess will be aware that much research is going on. She is quite right; there is a lot more that we need to learn about organophosphates and poisoning generally. As to the second point, only 2 per cent. of all referrals are ECRs and there are few reasons why they should be refused. If patients feel they are not receiving the service they need, they always have the option of asking for a second opinion.
On the third point, I have just received a paper from the noble Countess which outlines regional proposals for an assessment and investigation unit. I received it about 20 minutes ago. It is an interesting proposal that I would wish to pursue with officials.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister examine an individual case with which I have been dealing from the Harrogate health district? It is of a farmer who is suffering from organophosphate poisoning and the health authority has refused to pay to send him to a specialised unit. He was accepted by both Glasgow and Guy's hospital in London, but the authority refused to pay because his case was considered to come under the heading of research. It said that it could not be sure that there would be any clinical help.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, I should be delighted to pursue any individual case. I am surprised that the person was refused treatment; it is something I shall investigate.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the noble Countess has rightly drawn attention to a new and serious health problem? If dogma about extra-contractual referrals and the operation of the internal market prevent the Government giving central funds to help to promote proper care, will they consider funding research from central NHS funds under the NHS R&D programme?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I remember that when the internal market was first introduced, there was real concern about ECRs, particularly from the noble

603
Baroness opposite. Those fears have not been justified. When we have problems we pursue each one so that we know their extent: it is minimal. Much research is going on at the moment. There are tenders out from the department for research institutes wishing to pursue the subject and put forward proposals.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I accept the Minister's reply about extra-contractual referrals. However, is it not above all important that the average general practitioner be given greater information and education in order to recognise the symptoms before he can even begin to refer the case?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, toxicology is covered in the initial training of doctors. There are also postgraduate courses available of which doctors can avail themselves. Indeed, the department produced a hook, Pesticide Poisoning, which was published and circulated. On two occasions the Chief Medical Officer has written to all doctors in England explaining the problem. On the last occasion, the letter was also signed by the chief executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. So we are trying to give the issue maximum exposure. However, it is important that research is carried out. That is exactly what the Government are doing.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Baroness appreciate that the papers and letters to which she referred all deal with acute poisoning by toxic chemicals? There is nothing about the effects of chronic poisoning. Secondly, I have received a number of complaints about the failure of ECRs. If I give the noble Baroness a list of the problems, will she kindly investigate them for me?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords.

Iraq: Kuwaiti Detainees
2.54 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to help Kuwait secure the release of any remaining Kuwaiti civilians taken captive by Iraq during the Gulf War.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we raise this issue at the United Nations at every opportunity and were instrumental in obtaining a progress report from the ICRC to the Security Council which was submitted on 9th June.
We shall continue to play a leading role in the Tripartite Commission and its technical sub-committee. We shall continue to press Iraq to co-operate more fully with the ICRC.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, is she aware that during the recent Recess I had occasion to go to Kuwait? I was invited by the Speaker, to whom I spoke, and he expressed his deep appreciation of the British Government's endeavours at the United Nations, particularly those of the noble Baroness. He appreciated the sincere manner in which she answered the questions
604
which I put to her and requested an assurance that we would continue to help all we could. I said that I would mention the matter to the House. I felt sure that the noble Baroness would be prepared to give the assurance that, through its Parliament, Britain would continue to make every effort to ensure that people stolen from Kuwait would be returned to their parents and their homes.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the thanks which he has passed on from the Government of Kuwait. We intend to continue our work. We were instrumental in obtaining a progress report from the ICRC. We maintain constant touch with the Kuwaitis and other coalition countries. We made it quite clear to the Iraqis that we expect to see substantive results soon. It is vitally important for relatives of the missing that Iraq should comply so that an end can be put to the period of uncertainty as soon as possible.
However, let us not leave the issue without condemning Iraq for rejecting, for the third time, a scheme which would allow humanitarian goods in, such as food and medicines, in return for the export of some oil. Every time we try to help, the Iraqis refuse to help the Iraqi people.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, has my noble friend any idea how many Kuwaiti civilians are imprisoned at the moment?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that there were 609 inquiry files. So far, we know that the technical sub-committee has discussed 168 of those. I believe that there may be a further 18 people from countries including Saudi Arabia and the Philippines who are also detained, but we do not know where or under what conditions because the ICRC has not been given access to all of them.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Kuwaitis are not the only hostages now in Iraq? Are not many Kurds in that position, including some imprisoned before the start of the Iraq/Iran war?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I regret to say that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is undoubtedly right. We have no idea of the numbers, nor where those people are held. However, every time the ICRC goes in, for one reason or another, it will obviously try to find out about all people who may be illegally detained by Iraq.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a powerful lobby is organised, I suppose by Iraq, to try to persuade people in this country that the resolutions of the United Nations are to be rejected? That includes the latest and most generous arrangements to allow Iraq to sell oil so as to acquire humanitarian goods. It is suggested that the West is responsible for the deaths of babies and other kinds of humanitarian disasters within Iraq. Will the Minister place in the Library whatever documents she has which show the reasonableness of the offers that have been made by the Security Council and the benefits that would accrue to children, nursing mothers and other victims of the blockade if the Iraqis were prepared to accept the generous offer?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for picking up the point. He is absolutely right that some Iraqis are setting out to deny the benefits of United Nations Resolution 986. It would allow Iraq to export oil in return for other humanitarian goods. Again, I underline that medicines and food can go into Iraq; they are not caught by the embargo. It is the additional help which the West wishes to give for the sake of the Iraqi people that is caught. I am not sure that an exact document exists, but one can certainly be drafted so that it could be placed in the Library, and I shall do that.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the arranging of meetings, postponing them and then claiming that they were never arranged, is part of a policy of procrastination by the Iraqi Government in the hope that the rest of the world will grow weary and lose interest? Will she give an undertaking that that policy will not work and that the questions will continue until either the prisoners have been released or there has been an honest account of what has become of them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I hope that the world will never grow weary of fighting the cause of human rights for people placed in such intolerable positions by Saddam and other Iraqis. It is for that reason that we are so determined to spread democracy across the world so that other parliaments, like our own, can raise these issues at every possible point, keep the issues alive and make sure that Iraq knows that it will receive no mercy until it shows mercy to those it detained illegally.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when those of us in the delegation saw the terrible grief and sorrow we could not understand why, despite the efforts of this country and the United States of America, the United Nations does not seem to move at all? Is it doing anything whatever? Does the United Nations organisation really exist for times like this?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this is a particular and very difficult problem. In his most recent report to the Security Council, the United Nations UNSCOM ambassador, Ralph Ekeus, made clear what was going on. There has been some progress on accounting for past chemical weapons and ballistic missile programmes, but significant gaps remain on biological weapons. In addition, no progress has been made over those detained. While I sympathise with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that the UN may not seem to have the necessary mechanism, the UN only has the mechanism that the General Assembly gives to it. We should never forget that.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the last time my noble friend asked this Question she said that the lack of progress on this matter was unacceptable? That was three months ago, and there has still been no further progress. I accept that the UK Government play a role in the tripartite commission and in the technical sub-committee in trying to speed up the review of these cases. However, in relation to the 168
606
cases that have been considered, have any concessions at all been made by the Iraqis with respect to their future release?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am as anxious as is the noble Baroness for progress for these poor people and for their relatives. Of the 609 inquiry files, I mentioned that 168 had been discussed. Iraq has presented what one might term intermediate results on 70 of those 168 cases. The mortal remains of one person were repatriated from Iraq to Kuwait. We know that Kuwait has now closed two files that it had submitted to the ICRC, and two other files have been withdrawn. We shall go on pressing. But there is no unilateral action that can be taken. We have to work with fellow members of the United Nations and the European Union to continue the pressure in whatever way is possible.

Rail Privatisation: Timetable
3.3 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the timetable they have set for the privatisation of more than half of passenger train operations by April 1996 is likely to be adhered to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government remain committed to the target of franchising 51 per cent. of passenger services by April 1996 that was set for the franchising director in the objectives, instructions and guidance issued to him on 22nd March 1994.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that British Rail managers have indicated that that is an impossible timetable to undertake and have expressed grave concern about it? Is he further aware that the whole procedure is so hideously complex that the Office of Passenger Franchising, with some 70 staff, is finding it extremely difficult, I understand, to cope with the volume of paperwork? Is not the requirement for indicative bids before proceeding to ask for a full bid a concession on the part of the Government who have no idea of the amount that the private sector is expected to bid for the franchises?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the process is necessarily complex. However, we have made good progress and remain committed to the target. It is a challenging target, but there is absolutely no point in having a target unless it is challenging. Prequalification documents for the first eight franchises were issued in January. Invitations to tender for the first three franchises were issued in May. At the same time, draft passenger service requirements for four more franchises were issued for consultation. That illustrates that we have made considerable progress towards the challenging target of franchising 51 per cent.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, why do the Government insist on indicative bids? After all, when the owner of a house wants to sell it he does not ask for an indicative bid before the full bid is forthcoming. What is the rationale behind that?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have set up a very full procedure to make sure that the bidding process goes the right way. We need to make sure that value for money is secured and that the best services are provided. We believe that the very full procedure that we have set out is the best way to go about it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what is the basis for the Government continuing with this policy, given the fact that they are tearing themselves apart day by day on the question of leadership? What conceivable mandate do they have for privatising British Rail?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I should have thought that the production of better services for passengers, an increased level of service, and achieving better value for the taxpayer were all worthy objectives of a Conservative Government.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister accept that many of us feel that the concept of indicative bids is not only sensible but absolutely crucial since it enables the Government to have in advance some idea of exactly how much money they will have to pay the bidders to take this off their hands?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I was about to say that I was grateful to the noble Lord. As he points out, there is clear value in the bidding process we have set out. It is the best way of handling what is a highly complex procedure.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, even if the Government's programme is achieved, will there not be a hiatus in the provision of the essential investment required to make the railway system successful?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, quite the opposite. Our approach will produce the new avenues of investment that the railways have lacked. Access to new and innovative types of investment, coupled with innovative management, will, I am sure, produce better services for the passenger.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that every single one of the privatisations was bitterly opposed by the other side and every single one has been extremely successful?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it could not be put better than that. I agree totally with my noble friend, and the look of anguish on the Benches opposite reflects that truth.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that in the process of franchising—if they are in a position to carry it out—the Government will ensure that services under the franchising arrangements will connect? Can he assure us that the current nonsense whereby, owing to the beginning of the break-up of services, it is
608
impossible to get connecting regional and InterCity trains from one part of the country to another will end? Will he also confirm that InterCity trains are being delayed when entering stations because of the break-up of services? I understand that they have to pay for the use of local platforms and therefore have to wait until an InterCity platform is available.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, making services connect with each other is clearly in the interests of those who will run the franchises. Nothing illustrates that better than the debate that went on about through-ticketing. It is clearly in the interest of those who will bid for franchises and consequently operate them to make sure that their services connect in the best way with other services.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while no one would challenge my noble friend's suggestion that this is a necessarily complicated process, can he tell us anything about the attitudes of the franchising director'? Is he being a little more reasonable and flexible so far as bids from British Rail are concerned?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I know that my noble friend has tabled a Question on this specific subject. We shall go into that matter in very full detail. Essentially, whether BR can bid for the franchises is a decision for the franchising director himself.

Disability Discrimination Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 23 [The National Disability Council]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): In calling Amendment No. 101, I should inform the Committee that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 102.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 17, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) It shall be the duty of the Council—

(a) to work towards the elimination of discrimination; and

(b) to keep under review the working of this Act, and when they are so required to do so by the Secretary of State or otherwise think it necessary, to draw up and submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amending this Act.

(2A) In discharging the duties set out in subsection (2) the Council shall have the following powers—

(a) to investigate such complaints as are made to them of failure to comply with any provision of this Act in an individual case, and where it seems appropriate, conciliate in relation to such complaints:

(b) to provide assistance, including legal and financial assistance, to disabled persons in enforcing their rights under this Act;

609

(c) to carry out investigations with a view to determining whether the provisions of this Act are being complied with;

(d) to undertake or assist (financially or otherwise) the undertaking by other persons of any research and any educational activities, which appear to the Council necessary or expedient for the purposes of subsection (2).").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 104, 108, 109 and 114 to 118 inclusive. Also grouped with those amendments are amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain; namely, Amendments Nos. 103, 106 and 110. I understand that some Members of the Committee have indicated that they might wish to take Amendment No. 106 separately.
The amendments are designed to extend the powers of the National Disability Council. The purpose of the first amendment, Amendment No. 101, is to change the role of the council from being merely advisory to one with enforcement powers. The amendment broadens the role of the National Disability Council. As currently drafted, the council has power only to advise the Secretary of State on matters relevant to the elimination of discrimination against disabled people, measures which are likely to reduce such discrimination and matters related to the Act.
This amendment would give the council important new powers which, in my view, are essential to ensure that the law is properly implemented and the rights of disabled people safeguarded. The new powers are, first, to draw up proposals for amending the Act if the council considers any part of it not to be working as intended; secondly, to carry out investigations into complaints by an individual person and, where appropriate, provide conciliation; thirdly, to provide assistance to disabled people, including legal and financial assistance, so that they can enforce their right not to be discriminated against; fourthly, to initiate investigations into companies' practices, as it considers necessary; fifthly, to undertake or commission research; and, finally, to undertake or commission educational activities.
Disabled people are excited by this new Bill. They hear what the Government say about wanting to eliminate discrimination and they have high expectations. They will want information about their rights and advice on what to do if they feel that they are being discriminated against. The law is complicated. Different parts will come into force at different times. The very important principle of reasonableness means that different levels of access will apply in different situations. Codes of practice and regulations will be there to help clarify duties, but many disabled people will be unsure of how to interpret them in their particular situation and they will not have the overview that is available to the council.
So where can they go for help? The Government propose that disabled people who feel that they have been discriminated against in the area of employment should take their complaints to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, whose conciliation officers will be able to offer advice. If that fails, the disabled person must go to an industrial tribunal, for which there is currently no legal aid available. If they feel that they have been discriminated against in the area of goods and services,
610
the Government propose that they should go to the local citizens advice bureau. Unfortunately, that idea was rejected by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. However, under the Bill the matter can go to court, which is a daunting experience for anyone and surely "an option from which many disabled people, without the support and backing of an authoritative body, are likely to shy away.
The enforcement body set up under other laws aimed at eliminating discrimination—the Race Relations Act and the Sex Equality Act—are able to give help to individuals who feel that they have been discriminated against in the areas of race and sex. Why should people with disabilities, many of them with sensory impairment which makes it difficult for them to have access to information and advisory services, have less support to tackle discrimination against them than people from ethnic minorities or women?
The broader role of the commissions in being able to initiate investigations into companies and practices where they suspect that discrimination is taking place is of key importance. Such investigations are able to focus on key areas and issues. They generate a lot of publicity. They make businesses, many of which wish to comply with the law but fail to do so through ignorance, aware of discriminatory practices. Where businesses are reluctant to comply with the law, a commission can force them to provide information. An individual disabled person would not be able to do that. Where necessary the commission is able to take legal proceedings. Often that is not necessary. The threat of being taken to court is enough to make many companies change their practices.
Finally, the amendment would give the National Disability Council the power to carry out independent research and undertake educational activities. In the Bill as currently drafted, the council can only undertake research commissioned by the Secretary of State. The educational role is of paramount importance. Employers and service providers will need advice. They have made clear that they are very concerned about whence that advice and information will come. The Employers Forum on Disability, in its summer update, said:
"Employers need consistent expert advice and support. Experience suggests that credible, workable and enduring anti-discrimination legislation needs the underpinning provided by an authoritative central body".
The educational role is very important, but obviously it is of little value if businesses fail to follow advice. In its second review of the Race Relations Act, the Commission for Racial Equality said:
"Our promotional work is greatly strengthened by the awareness of employers that, if it fails, formal investigations are possible. Our guidance and codes are heavily based on the information that has come to us through formal investigations and individual complaints".
I turn to Amendment No. 104. Subsection (4) of this clause (page 17, line 16 of the Bill) prevents the Secretary of State from giving the council powers to investigate complaints. That is obviously incompatible with Amendment No. 101, to which I have just spoken. One of the most important powers that Amendment No. 101 gives to the council is the power to investigate complaints.
I come to the purpose of Amendments Nos. 108 and 109, and also Amendment No. 110 in the name of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. Subsection (9) of the clause prevents the council from giving advice on employment matters. Under the Bill as currently drafted, the council has powers only to advise the Secretary of State about discrimination in the area of goods and services. The power to advise the Secretary of State for Employment about employment, self-employment and training of disabled people rests with the National Advisory Council on the Employment of People with Disabilities, a body which is already in existence. That means that there will be two separate bodies advising two different Ministers in two different departments with two sets of civil servants about discrimination against disabled people. Most businesses will be service providers and employers. They will have to consult with two entirely different structures.
NACEPD has a very low profile and is not known to employers. It has only 2.75 staff units and does not have its own budget. It currently advises the Minister through its quarterly council meetings and provides periodic reports of its activities to him. It is not independent. If the Minister rejects its advice, it is not able to promote its views.
NACEPD does not have a remit to combat discrimination or to monitor legislation. Even if it did, it would not have the resources to be able to tackle discrimination against disabled people by employers in the same way that the existing commissions can. In its response to the Government's consultation last summer, NACEPD called on the Government to set up a single authoritative body with enforcement powers to cover all aspects, including employment. The Government have so far ignored that advice.
The purpose of Amendment No. 114 is to enable the council to appoint its own staff. Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 enable the council to have financial independence. Amendment No. 117 seeks to remove the power of the secretary of State to make supplementary regulations in regard to the provision of information to the council, the commissioning of research, the appointment of any person as an adviser and the payment of expenses incurred by the council.
Those four amendments ensure that the council is an entity in its own right, with sufficient resources to carry out its responsibilities. The Bill, as currently drafted, means that the Secretary of State can provide the council with staff as he considers appropriate. The proposed budget for the council is only £250,000, which will pay for very few staff. On such a small budget and with only a few members of staff, the National Disability Council would be extremely limited in what it was able to do. With the broader powers given to it under Amendments Nos. 101, 104, 108 and 109, it would need sufficient resources and staff to carry out its key role.
The National Disability Council's budget of £250,000 is ludicrously small when compared with the budgets of bodies set up under previous discrimination Acts. As I understand it, the Equal Opportunities Commission has a budget of £7 million and the Commission for Racial Equality one of £15 million. The lines deleted by Amendment No. 117 enable the Secretary of State, by
612
regulation, to make provisions in relation to information given to the council by the Secretary of State, the commissioning of research by the Secretary of State, the circumstances in which the council may appoint an adviser, and payment of expenses incurred by the council. That regulation-making power would not be needed if the other amendments were accepted, giving the council more powers and resources, thereby making it more independent of the Secretary of State.
The purpose of Amendment No. 118 is to provide for regulations to be made governing the carrying out of the council's investigations and enforcement powers. The new clauses provide for regulations to be made governing how the council carries out those powers. Through the regulations the Secretary of State can specify how investigations are to be carried out, the circumstances in which the council can make recommendations and issue non-discrimination notices following investigations and the arrangements whereby the council may refer cases of discrimination to an industrial tribunal or court. By enabling the Secretary of State to prescribe such regulations, the clauses will ensure that the National Disability Council is not able to abuse its powers and act in a heavy-handed or inappropriate way.
Not included with this group of amendments but which are connected to them are Clauses 26 and 27. Those clauses give the Secretary of State the power to prepare codes of practice in the area of employment. Under the Bill as currently drafted, the National Disability Council does not cover employment and therefore the Secretary of State must have the power to draw up codes. However, Amendments Nos. 108 and 109, to which I have just spoken, amend Clause 23 so that the National Disability Council can cover employment matters and therefore the council and not the Secretary of State would draw up codes of practice covering employment. The Bill as currently drafted enables the council to draw up codes of practice under Clause 24, but that is only for goods and services. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I add my warm support to these amendments, particularly those to which I added my name and also Amendment No. 108, to which there was no room to add my name. The amendments were clearly and comprehensively explained in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and I should like to go back briefly to look at the evidence on the need for a strong body.
Way back in 1982, when the Committee on Restrictions Against the Disabled was conducting its investigations, members visited both the CRE and the EOC. They also sought information on the experience in other countries. The evidence collected led CORAD to recommend that, with anti-discrimination,
"there should be a regulatory body or Commission with powers to investigate, conciliate and if necessary take legal action on individual complaints of discrimination; to recommend guidelines on reasonable affirmative action required to accommodate disabled people and to promote the integration of disabled people into society".

613
What is important is that CORAD found that in every case where such legislation had been passed an enforcement body had been necessary. It concluded that a commission or council with powers to help individual disabled people enforce their legal rights and powers to undertake general investigations was vital to the success of any legislation to eradicate discrimination against disabled people.
As the Bill stands, the NDC lacks those powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, explained, it is predominantly an advisory council. It is unable to investigate individual cases, to conciliate, to take legal action on behalf of an individual and, very important, to undertake general investigations to determine whether someone is following the procedures that might lead to discrimination. With regard to the first three shortcomings, the Government recognise the need to help disabled people who are subject to discrimination. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, in the field of access to goods and services they asked NACAB to do the job, which felt that it could not agree to it. As the noble Lord said also, where will disabled people go for advice if the amendments are not accepted?
I was not encouraged by the Minister's words on the first day of Committee. He said:
"One does not need to use the same organisations throughout the whole of the country. That is something we are considering".— [Official Report, 13/6/95; col. 1698.]
We need clear, firm, reliable advice and information, not advice the quality of which may vary in different parts of the country according to which organisation may be proffering it.
As to the question of investigatory powers, one of the most important means of amicably—I stress "amicably"—improving practice in commerce and industry in relation to disabled people would be to empower the NDC to undertake general investigations. It would be both an efficient and cost-effective means of advising and educating firms and businesses as to how they can benefit both themselves and disabled people by avoiding discriminatory practices. As it stands, Clause 23 falls short on all four of those counts. That is why I hope the Committee will support the amendments.
Lord Rix: I am by nature an optimist and therefore I hope that our brief sojourn into the territory of Clause 23(4) of Part IV of the Bill in Committee on 13th June (col. 1739), guided perhaps inadvertently by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is but a harbinger of good tidings to come as we debate the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in regard to the National Disability Council.
On paper the National Disability Council looks significantly different from the commission for which some of us have argued over months or indeed years. I suspect that it is popularly perceived among those who are concerned, but who have not read the Bill, as having rather less relevance to the day-to-day business of disability and discrimination than the City livery companies have to the day-to-day business of manufacture and trade. I would give it rather more credit for a potentially useful role. However, the noble Lord,
614
Lord Swinfen, provided the Government with a helpful prompt to think again about a central clause and a central schedule in a major Bill.
The Government do not, I imagine, want their Bill to be or be seen to be a pussycat where a tiger is needed and are concerned to face a future debate about the renewal of their party mandate with the credit of having at least taken a serious swipe at unfair discrimination. That credibility seems to turn in large measure on Clause 3. Moreover, there must be some question about the ability to attract the best people to serve on the council if that council is popularly perceived as being of very limited usefulness. In short, and despite what I take to be the Treasury concerns about opening a pandora's box, I think that the Government need to move at least some way down the road that the noble Lord has invitingly marked out for them.
The amendments that we are considering say that disabled people are important, that the barriers society places in their way are substantial, that the task of removing those barriers is a high priority and that we need to dedicate to that task resources adequate for its completion. That approach to the issue seems to me to be wholly logical. The opposite approach, of sticking with a council which has been so heavily and so widely criticised, seems not to be logical. Saul would have had even less credit for his contributions to the major debates of his day had he sent David into battle with Goliath armed with a sling but with a strict ban on the use of pebbles.
If we do not make any progress today I hope to come back to your Lordships at a later stage with some ideas for a more modest strengthening of the council. However, I hope that we can make progress today in the interests of the Government, who deserve credit for turning into the paths of righteousness if not yet into the ways of peace, in the interests of building the sort of partnership that can be built around this Bill and, above all, in the interests of the disabled people whose rights we are debating and whose cause we all support.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am glad to follow the Biblical references of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. After two previous very long days in Committee on the Bill, some of us felt rather more disabled than we were before. I expect and look forward to another long day, moving on into the night.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen has very clearly explained the purpose of his amendments. As your Lordships know, I have been involved in this subject for a very long time. The Private Member's Bill which I introduced in another place in 1968, 27 years ago, was entitled The Disablement Commission Bill. It would have established a commission with very much less power and fewer functions than the National Disability Council. That did not save it from being opposed by the Labour Government of the day. After its Second Reading debate it was defeated by only four votes. I have a copy of it with me. Its last clause stated:
"This Act may be cited as the Disablement Commission Act 1969".

615
I am afraid that that was not to be. The Bill had seven sponsors, including Mr. James Griffiths, who had been in a Labour Cabinet, Lady Vickers and—a very important sponsor—the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. He and I are the only two survivors of the eight who at that time introduced and sponsored the Bill.
The noble Lord and I have been involved in this subject over the years. We do not always agree on the means to achieve our goals but it is interesting for the record that we are the survivors of that Bill. I had been in Parliament for nine years; the noble Lord had been in Parliament for two years. But as far back as 1968 we worked together in raising the subject of disablement and pressing the government of the day to take it up. At last this is happening. A government are taking up the subject.
As regards Amendment No. 101, it would add enforcement powers and additional functions to the council. The Government's proposals in the Bill are for an advisory body only. The comparisons which have been made in the past with the commissions dealing with equal opportunities and race are not valid. Even in these days of sex change operations, discrimination, if it occurs against women or men, does not raise doubts about their gender. It is a single, straightforward condition. In contrast, the range of disabilities is vast. There are many kinds of physical disability, including degrees of sight and hearing, and of mental illness and learning difficulties. There are also huge differences in degree, from the very severe—people who are completely immobilised—to the very slight, though, of course, I quickly point out that even the loss of one finger can be very damaging for someone who is a professional pianist. I shall not dilate upon this subject because I initiated a whole debate in the House on 14th December last about the many different disabilities which we must consider. The information is set out in the record and can be looked up.
The proposed body—the council—will be considering situations involving, for example, the completely bed-bound and very severely disabled immobile person as well as the outwardly able-bodied suffering from mental illness or dyslexia, blind persons and the aged, who are by far the largest group where goods and services are concerned and who are disabled by arthritis or other afflictions which arrive normally late in life. Those categories are very different from each other. The Equal Opportunities Commission starts with the simple fact that a person is female or male. Similarly, with regard to the Race Relations Commission, which was referred to at earlier stages of the Bill, although there are several ethnic minorities, the commission deals with situations and problems which are shared by them all. I must declare an interest. I have been for many years the patron in chief of the Scottish Pakistani Association. The Pakistanis are the largest ethnic group in Scotland. Under race and gender it is not normally necessary to determine first whether someone is eligible under the Act. Under this Bill the definition "substantial impairment" and other parts of the Bill will have to be looked at very carefully to see whether someone qualifies at all to be considered under its provisions. There is also a completely new concept
616
of "reasonable adjustment", which most of us have welcomed as a way of dealing with disability problems. But that again is something quite new in this field.
I incline to the view that an advisory body is more appropriate in this Bill in the widely varying circumstances and the miscellaneous conditions of disabled people whose problems are not just of access but of a hundred or more different kinds. An important point is that the NDC proposed in the Bill can offer advice to the Government on its own initiative. That advice can be on discrimination in general concerning disabilities and on the operation of the Bill when it has been enacted. If the Government resist the suggestions of the council or take a very long time to respond, there appears to be nothing to prevent the NDC from making its views public while preserving the confidentiality of any individual case. I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could confirm whether that is so. That would certainly bring public pressure to bear upon the Government. One would hope that that would seldom be necessary and that good relations would subsist between the council and the government of the day.
The NDC as proposed by the Government raises some questions. First, I am concerned whether it will have adequate resources and whether facilities will be available to it; for example, when it needs to commission research into a particular matter and where government assent might be withheld in reasonable cases. We hope that the Government will give an assurance that there will be no withholding of assent unless they were quite ridiculous proposals.
How will the NDC work—my noble friend raised this point—with the existing National Advisory Council on the Employment of People with Disabilities, which is due to be wound up in due course, according to Clause 33? Will the NDC then take over some or all of that council's responsibilities in the employment area? I shall want to receive assurances from the Government on these questions in considering their proposals for the council. I accept the Government's proposals for the new body in general, but I believe that these questions need to be answered and we want satisfactory answers.
Baroness Flather: I too added my name to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I am very grateful to him for dealing with all the details of the clause. It is very helpful that I do not have to do so. I wish to make some broad-brush remarks because I believe that I am in a unique position to make them. I am a woman and from an ethnic minority. I am a primary carer for a very disabled husband. Therefore, I can tell Members of the Committee here and now that I have personal experience of all three areas of concern. I am very disappointed that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy believes that there is no connection between the two commissions and what we are now talking about.
We are not talking about the commissions or the structure but how to do away with discrimination. That is the basic, underlying reason for our talking about these issues. Social legislation never comes about ahead of need. We all know that, lawyers only too well. It comes long after the need has been established. The need for something to be done for people with

617
disabilities is well and truly established. We are into our third race relations Act. The first had very limited powers and did not work. The second separated the promotional role from the legal role, which also did not work. Why are we going down the same route and not learning from the experience of the other commissions?
As far as the Equal Opportunities Commission is concerned, I believe that people have benefited greatly from Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and the European Court of Justice. So it is always the threat, if not the fact, of legal action which makes people think about issues. The only area where there has been a quota is that of disability. What has it meant? It has meant that nobody has bothered about anything. It has been the most negative feature of all the different administrative measures that could have been put forward.
Now that we are considering this matter we should be looking at what works and not saying, "Let us do this now and then, if it does not work, we will tinker with it". Why not look at everything and see what works best? Let us look at examples from other countries. Let us look at examples from the United States where such provisions work. It is always the threat of having to do something, otherwise one gets into some kind of trouble. The most vulnerable group, which we are talking about today, is the least likely to be able to put its own case forward as substantially as one would like.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for moving Amendment No. 101 so clearly. I wish to speak to the proposed group of amendments with the exception of Amendment No. 106 which, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, will be moved separately at our request.
The Bill is a major advance for disabled people, in theory. So much of it is good. The Government could end this Session and we could leave your Lordships' House knowing that we had passed a landmark Bill for disabled people—remedying wrongs, affording rights and integrating disabled people as never before into a full life in our society. That would be a good thing for us to have done this Session.
It will be done in theory but not in practice because the wrongs remedied will too often continue and the rights afforded will too often not be enjoyed. Why? Because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, so eloquently told us, the Bill provides no proper means of enforcement. It is a paper Bill which will raise many hopes subsequently to be dashed. The gap between the promises of the Bill and the reality that it will achieve, I fear, is going to be very wide. A Bill which is not enforceable is not enforced whether it is factory and mines legislation or health and safety legislation. We know that to be true.
No one expects customers in a restaurant to sue the owner for a dirty kitchen because we expect the environmental health officer to do that. No one expects a shopper in a supermarket who has an underweight piece of cheese to take on the supermarket. We expect the trading officer to do that for us. No one here who is involved in an instance of dangerous driving expects
618
personally to prosecute another driver. We expect the police to do that for us. If local residents fear that a chemical factory is discharging into a river we expect the environmental health officer to take up the issue. In other words, we expect in all areas of our life to have an enforcement agency ensuring that the intentions of the Act are enforced.
That is our experience in every walk of life except, apparently, when we are dealing with disabled people and their rights and remedies for their wrongs. Disabled people are often poor, isolated and in poor health. They will have to fight their claims through the courts and tribunals themselves. If they cannot do that or do not do so, their rights will remain paper rights in a paper Bill. We fear that that is what the Government's Bill will leave us with. Why?
When one looks at the Government's proposals in the Bill, there is a set at the top and another at the bottom. At the top the Government are proposing to add a second advisory council to an existing one—in other words, one for goods and services in addition to the one which already exists for employment, even though most of us will never have heard of it. Therefore, we shall have two advisory bodies reporting to two different Secretaries of State, backed by two different Civil Service departments, issuing two different sets of guidance. The result which employers fear is contradiction, incoherence and lack of clarity.
The Bill is split down the middle at the top. For example, let us consider an hotel. If the owner is dealing with issues of physical access for employees, he will come under the Department of Employment and that advisory body. But if that same hotel is dealing with means of access for disabled customers, it will come under the National Disability Council and a different Secretary of State with different guidance and requirements as to what makes for physical access. That cannot be sensible.
That is at the top of a split Bill. At the bottom it is also split. Disabled people will have to pursue their employment rights through a tribunal and the rights to goods and services through the courts. If they struggle through the system we may find a dozen different cases, all simultaneously contesting the one point—say, controlled epilepsy. There may be a dozen different judgments. As the Law Society said, its prime concern is the absence of any body to co-ordinate cases which reach industrial tribunals and the courts. It fears that there will be contradictory signals coming from different cases as they go through the system. Again, that is a recipe for confusion, contradiction and incoherence. To add to the list we not only have split advisory councils at the top and split roots at the bottom, with no legal aid or financial support for people to contest their cases, but no feedback between the two. We fear that, as things stand, the result will be a costly and confusing shambles.
As employers' organisations have said, without the National Disability Council, with powers such as those proposed in Amendment No. 101, we shall have law by litigation. No one will know where they stand, what to do, where to turn or what is needed. The Government's own red book on the consultation exercise showed that over three-quarters of those who responded wanted a

619
body with powers such as those outlined in Amendment No. 101. None of us minds what the body is called, but we need a central authoritative body with powers to give advice, information and guidance. It needs powers to monitor legislation and to investigate, conciliate and, if necessary, to prosecute complaints. It needs powers to carry out research and to bring test cases to clarify the law. It needs the power to take up third-party complaints. We want a strong friend.
On 27th March in the other place, the Minister said that he would prefer one body for the UK rather than separate bodies for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. He said:
"There are considerable benefits in one organisation taking a consistent approach in advising on the elimination of discrimination—for example, in ensuring that the best and most effective practice can be shared".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/3/95; col. 789.]
Quite so. If Mr. Hague, the Minister in the other place, argued for one body for territorial reasons, do not his arguments apply for one body for policy reasons? What are the Government afraid of?
We know what employers want. They have told us. The Employers Forum on Disability was set up in 1986 as a self-help group for major companies which wanted to share best practice on recruiting disabled staff. It has 134 members and a list of them reads like the FT share index. Apart from the local authorities, building societies and banks, its members include Boots, BP, British Airways, BT, Coca-Cola, Esso, Grand Metropolitan, Guinness, IBM, ICI, Sainsbury, Kingfisher, Marks & Spencer, McDonald's, Mobil Oil, Reuters, Sears, Shell, Smithkline Beecham, Tate & Lyle, Taylor Woodrow, Texaco, Unilever and Whitbread. They all want to have a statutory commission. Perhaps I should add that that organisation's members also include the Metropolitan Police, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Inland Revenue and the Minister's own Benefits Agency—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am listening with interest to the noble Baroness, but I do not think that she can assume that because those organisations subscribe to that body they necessarily subscribe to the views that she has quoted.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The organisations which belong to the body pay for, run and own it. They are the stakeholders. The body claims to represent their views. I understand that it may be a little inconvenient for the Minister to have the Benefits Agency included, but I promise the Committee that those are the organisations which founded that body which speaks for their views—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness that democratic organisations which represent people may speak for the majority, but that does not necessarily mean that they speak for absolutely all of their members. I cite as an example her own Front Bench with regard to the European Union, and the position of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. Like the noble Baroness and, I am sure, other Members of the Committee, I received a Peers' briefing from the forum this morning. It has looked at all the amendments that we are considering today and states:
"We would encourage Peers to support amendments tabled by Baroness O'Cathain on behalf of the CBI which seek to clarify and strengthen the role of the National Disability Council".
It does not say anything about abandoning the National Disability Council. I feel strongly that statements are being made on behalf of companies which have not investigated or examined this position. Indeed, they have not given credence to it. I have found from all my investigations leading up to this debate that what the noble Baroness has been saying is absolutely not the case. I know that the forum would ideally like a body such as the CRE or the EOC, but what it has actually said is that the Bill provides the ability to strengthen the NDC and NACEPD. We should go ahead and do what the Bill is supposed to do, which is to enable disabled people to lead able-bodied lives as far as possible.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Baroness appropriately read from the briefing from the Employers Forum on Disability, which asked Peers to support the amendments that she has tabled. I refer to Amendments Nos. 103, 106 and 107. However, the noble Baroness did not read the next paragraph which I am sure that the Committee will wish to hear. It states:
"We would also encourage Peers to support amendments tabled by Lord Swinfen and others which will strengthen the investigatory and enforcement powers of the NDC, including amendments 101"—
that is, the amendment that we are now discussing.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Baroness, but the fact is that the forum wants to strengthen the NDC. That is the point to which I wish to speak. It is being said that we need a commission, but the Employers Forum on Disability is not saying that. It says that we need to strengthen the provisions. That is what we are all saying and we are asking the Minister whether the council can be strengthened.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think that I made the point that we do not care what its name is; what matters are its functions. Speaking for its members the forum says that it wants to strengthen the investigatory and enforcement powers of the NDC. It supports Amendment No. 101, which we are currently discussing. That is what it has said. If the noble Baroness continues to read the briefing she will see that I am in no sense misrepresenting its views. I am happy for other noble Lords to have a copy of the briefing if they want, but I believe that it may already have been sent to other noble Lords. The Employers Forum on Disability has 134 members with a total of more than 2.6 million employees, representing some 12 per cent. of the working population. I have to say—although I leave it to others—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way again. She is obviously keen to represent that particular body, but can she give the Committee an assurance that all of the companies that she quoted actually agree—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: What I have done is to list the bodies which set up that organisation and for which the organisation speaks. When I asked the director of that organisation whether she represented the views of those bodies, she said that that was her job. Perhaps your Lordships have heard to the contrary, but as the Bill went through the other House I did not receive any representations from any of the organisations in the forum dissociating themselves from the views of the forum. They would have been perfectly entitled to do that, but given that they did not, surely we can assume that the Employers Forum on Disability is doing what it says and speaking with the employers' voice—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am sorry to have to ask the noble Baroness to give way, but one of the firms that she quoted was Texaco. In earlier debates I pointed out that Texaco insists on HIV testing, so I find the noble Baroness's point surprising. It throws into doubt my assessment of whether those people are all supporters of what she is saying.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I understand that a number of organisations, including British Airways, may do the same thing, but that is because of the effect of medication, for example, at altitude. It is not the case that they dissociate themselves from the disability council, which should have powers not only of advice and research but of investigation and enforcement. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 101. Unless any of your Lordships have heard to the contrary from companies which that body represents, and that they are dissociating themselves from that body, I am afraid that the evidence is with the Employers Forum on Disability. I give way to the Minister.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baroness is trying to reverse the onus of proof and I am afraid that she cannot do that. The fact is that if she does not have a specific letter from those companies and organisations, she cannot pray them in aid. She can pray in aid the overarching body, but she cannot pray in aid individual companies. I assure the noble Baroness that some of them do not subscribe to the view that she attributes to them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The evidence is that that body, set up by those organisations, expresses their views. That is the evidence that we have. Therefore, the assumption and presumption that reasonable people may make from that evidence is that those companies express the view that is put forward in their names. Only if your Lordships have evidence to the contrary of companies explicitly dissociating themselves from that view would the argument lie the other way. The burden of proof lies with the Minister.
I repeat that that body was set up by those companies and represents their views and that, together, those companies employ over 2.5 million people. The organisation is saying that the cost of a central authoritative body is outweighed by its advantages. It lists the advantages. It quotes also W. H. Smith and IBM as calling for such an organisation. And their reasons? They wish to see less litigation, with its attendant
622
concealed costs to employers as each case is fought on its merits. They wish to support a central disability organisation—one body with powers to make the Bill work—because they think that it will lead to reduced dependence upon state benefits for disabled people, a greater tax take for the Exchequer and reduced bureaucracy. The EFD believes that it would generate greater employer good will because of easier and speedier access to advice and guidance. It believes that it would reduce discrimination against disabled people.
The EFD goes on to say that it is precisely because there is no such national authoritative body that it had to be founded in 1986. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a central disability organisation is what these major organisations want; it is what disabled people want. We are entitled to put to the Government a very simple question: will the Bill work without a commission such as is outlined in Amendment No. 101?
I am sure that every one of us in this place wants the Bill to work. I do not believe that there is any difference between us on that. We want it to work, but will it work without such a commission? The Government are willing the ends but not the means. The whole history of our social legislation—the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, was right—shows that if you set up policy objectives without the means to enforce them—if you will the ends but not the means—and do not have an enforcement agency standing at the back, then the Bill will remain a paper Bill.
As it stands, the Government's advisory body has the power to do everything except make a real difference. The amendment is a test to see how much we all want the Bill. I support it.
4 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: I shall speak to the amendment standing in my name. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is right: everyone wants the Bill to work. The problem is that some of the arguments that are going on at the moment detract from the overall basis of the Bill, which is that we want it to work.
In my Amendment No. 103 I am dealing with functions. I could not care less where the functions lie for this council. I am much more interested in whether they operate effectively. I believe that the NDC, as proposed, could and will work, depending upon the will for it to work. It is not a matter of confrontation. There must be a high level of commitment on all sides. It depends also on the ability to make it work. So it has to have the necessary authority. The body itself has to have an adequately strong membership. It has to have the functions and, of course, the resources.
I want to deal with just two of the functions: the research function and the education function, with which Amendment No. 103 deals. If the NDC was allowed to commission its own research it would exist as a body of authoritative research which people would be able to use if there were a dispute.
While doing some preparatory work on the Bill, I was greatly heartened to read on the Americans with Disabilities Act, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission document entitled Your Responsibilities as an Employer, from which I should like to quote:

623
"The Commission also recognizes that differences and disputes about the ADA requirements may arise between employers and people with disabilities as a result of misunderstandings. Such disputes frequently can be resolved more effectively through informal negotiation or mediation procedures, rather than through the formal enforcement process of the ADA. Accordingly, EEOC will encourage efforts to settle such differences through alternative dispute resolution, providing that such efforts do not deprive any individual of legal rights provided by the statute".
If there are problems, people who feel that they are discriminated against should be able to call on the NDC, which, with the research that it has commissioned, should be able to point out the advice that such people should have. Points were raised by previous speakers which I should like to question. One related to the CABs saying that they would not give advice. A document I received from the CAB during the past three or four days said that of course it will give advice but it will not say that it is statutory advice. No one who goes to a CAB asking for advice on these issues will be turned away.
Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that employers fear the legislation and have no faith that the organisation will work. I have been briefed by the CBI. It does not fear that the NDC will not work, provided that it is strengthened. There are two sets of employers with apparently two different views. A great many of the companies named by the noble Baroness are members of the CBI. In this, I suppose you have got to pay your money and take your choice, but I believe that employers are not fearful of this organisation working provided that it has enough functions.
I turn now to the point about the commission versus the NDC. I drew up a list of what I call debits and credits of the work undertaken by the CRE and the EOC and whether that work would be undertaken by the NDC. The monitoring of legislation is undertaken by both the EOC and the CRE. My amendment suggests that the NDC has a role in monitoring the legislation, bringing advice to the Government, and saying, "It's not working here, please can we amend it in such a way?" That would be undertaken anyway under the NDC.
Both the CRE and the EOC work towards ending discrimination. Certainly the NDC has as its remit to do that and to oversee the aims of the legislation. Parliament itself has a role to play in this, given the expertise and public concern about which we know. The EOC and the CRE exist to promote equality of opportunity. That is of course needed with the NDC, but the NDC will oversee and publish an annual report. It will draw attention to all those issues. It will undertake research and educational activity. That is a point upon which I think the NDC needs strengthening. We have been promised that the NDC will be able to commission research. So long as it is independent research in which people will have faith, I do not believe there will be any problem.
The NDC will produce an annual report, as do the two other commissions. It will issue draft codes of practice like those two commissions. NACEPD will also do that. On information and advice to filter weak claims, it requires a good infrastructure for that to happen. I believe that the secretariat needs strengthening. But we are already being told that ACAS can give advice in relation to disabled people in employment. We need to
624
know who will give advice in relation to goods and services in this area. I should like to pursue that issue with my noble friend the Minister.
The CRE and the EOC help reach settlements. The NDC should be able to do that in the terms of giving advice. Both the CRE and the EOC provide general information and give guidance and advice on key issues. Again that is something that the NDC will be capable of doing. They both conciliate. That again is something that the NDC could do.
There have been arguments about formal investigations. The NDC does not envisage having a formal investigation role. I do not believe that it is necessarily required. It is not an ideal tool. It can have many drawbacks. The desired effects can be achieved by other means; for example, by referring to a whole caucus of high-quality authoritative research. Similarly, I do not believe that it need necessarily serve anti-discrimination notices. Desired effects can he achieved by other means. What people, employers particularly, are looking for, is, as has been already stated, consistent advice.
If the NDC is sufficiently beefed up, has sufficient powers and respect and has the commitment, I cannot see that it will not fulfil all the functions that are now being fulfilled by the EOC and the CRE.
Lord Carter: I am obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way. She spoke about employers and their wishes. We have discussed the Employers Forum on Disability and whether it could speak for all its members. I believe that the Minister raised that matter. I took the trouble to leave the Chamber and telephone a representative of the forum. I was told that every member, including all those mentioned by my noble friend, was consulted on the Government's consultation document. The vast majority supported the line that the forum has taken on the need for the council. I telephoned only five minutes ago and was told that all its members stated that they were entirely happy for the employers forum to speak on their behalf.
Baroness O'Cathain: They were probably not asked whether, if there was a sufficiently strong NDC with strong powers—
Lord Carter: Every member was asked in detail to comment on the Government's consultation document. The great majority came down heavily in favour of the briefing given by the employers forum and all said that they were happy for it to speak on their behalf. The noble Baroness should let the forum and the members decide what they want to say instead of deciding for them.
Baroness O'Cathain: I am not trying to decide for the employers forum. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that there is another side of the argument. Some employers and members of the employers forum to whom I have spoken would be happy for the National Disability Council, if sufficiently strengthened, to give such advice, so long as it was consistent advice. I shall make additional suggestions about the amalgamation or overlap between NACEPD and the National Disability

625
Council. There is a danger of having two bodies, one for employment, which is NACEPD, and another for access, which is the NDC.
Once the legislation is enacted and the regulations are agreed and begin to work, it may well be that NACEPD could be subsumed into the NDC in order to make it a proper National Disability Council. But that is further down the line. I believe that to throw out the Government's suggestion of an NDC at this stage and to set up a whole new superstructure of a commission is not what employers require.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: Perhaps I may contribute to the debate and answer one of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I wish, first, to speak to Amendments Nos. 101 and 108. I was unimpressed with the point made by the noble Baroness. I believe that my noble friend Lady Hollis was right to say that terminology is not important but the meaning and thrust of what we are discussing are crucial.
The noble Baroness appears to be implying that no organisation should speak for its members unless every member has signed an affidavit to that effect. That is the equivalent of a football supporters' club saying, "We believe that this should be the policy for this club", and someone else saying, "You have 30,000 members. Have you asked them all whether they support that policy?". That is an absurd proposition and I cannot agree with it. The heart of the argument is our proposal for the National Disability Council. Whether we call it a commission or not is irrelevant.
I wish to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on his presentation of amendments to the Bill. Coupled with the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, that represents significant support from the Conservative Benches for amendments to the Bill which will strengthen the Government's hand. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness are aiding the Government by proposing amendments and they are helping the Minister. We too will lean over backwards to help him. That is why we are being so diplomatic in putting forward these proposals.
The Bill should be a landmark Bill, but as it stands it will not and it cannot be that. It fails to provide a council or a commission which will give it a strong backbone. That is its problem. It is impossible to argue legitimately with the Law Society's view that it is unfair and unjust to introduce statutory rights which disabled people cannot afford to have enforced. The Law Society made a most strong statement.
Perhaps I may quote to the Minister one other authority; I use the word "authority" with a small "a". I refer to one of the finest and most eloquent Conservative Back-Benchers ever to sit in the other place, Alan Howarth. He said:
"To create rights without providing the means to sustain them is a hollow act".
He is not a raving socialist or a severely disabled person but a healthy, articulate, balanced and loyal Conservative Member of Parliament. That means that the amendment should not be brushed aside; it is put
626
forward in all good faith. Many disabled people do not have the means, some do not have the determination and many do not have the knowledge or confidence to fight discrimination. The Bill will give them only superficial protection if the individual is not supported. I have no doubt about that.
The commission's investigations into individual cases and its support for those going to the courts would ensure that they focused on the relevant and important issues. A strong commission would provide the resources to argue the case, which is profoundly important, and people would be able to obtain the vital information.
That is important because the legislation will be new and there will be areas of uncertainty. We need to establish legal rulings in crucial areas. However, this is not a once-and-for-all Bill. It needs changes and improvements not only to help individuals but in respect of general strategic issues. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that. It is important to have a body conducting an independent review, observing which part of the legislation is going well and which is failing and seeing where problems exist for disabled people, employers, companies and service providers. If the commission can help individual disabled people, employers and the institutions that is fine; let us do what we can about that. It is necessary to have a strong commission which will identify trends in attitudes and practices, which are the driving forces for extending future opportunities and for providing the right ones. If those aspects are in question we can do something about that.
Often disabled people lack confidence. A strong commission would give them that confidence because they would know that there was a powerful body ready, willing and able to fight for them. I do not refer to people who have lost an arm or to people such as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who is one of the finest battlers for disabled people that the House has known. I refer to severely disabled people who cannot fight for themselves. They need a champion and they do not have one in this Bill. They have a weak advisory body which has no real powers, independence or ability to fight cases through the courts. That is not good enough.
We are asking the Government to change their mind. We are not asking for an empty government organisation but for an organisation that is truly independent. Such an organisation would ease the pressure and frustration for disabled people. It would lead to fruitful discussions instead of angry demonstrations outside Parliament, and all of us would benefit from that. Without such an organisation and without an independent review, which this organisation could provide, the Government will be blindfolded and unable to assess the success or failure of their policies. That is not a very dignified posture for any government. I am sure that the Minister wishes to be dignified.
The independence of this council is vital if it is to be effective. It needs the resources and powers to be independent. However, I wish to say to the Minister in all good faith that I am receiving the impression from government spokesmen—not the noble Lord, Lord

627
Mackay, but some of his colleagues—that they are tending to patronise disabled people. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, does not do that but some Ministers are beginning to do so. The "Does he take sugar?" syndrome is beginning to display itself. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, would wish to dissociate himself from that.
For example, when the Minister was pressed in another place about providing powers for the council and to commission research, he replied:
"It will also be assisted by research commissioned on its behalf'.
Is that not marvellous? We cannot have the commission itself looking into the problems of disabled people by disabled people for disabled people. That research will have to be commissioned. That is rather like patting their heads; like patting the heads of people in wheelchairs. That is simply not good enough. We must allow that independence and assume that people can do the job for themselves. We must assume that they have the pride and capability to carry it out. The Minister would be well-advised to accept the amendment and to give disabled people what they are seeking.
I conclude with this thought. This Bill is put forward by the Government as an attempt to combat discrimination. We know that it is well-intentioned but we feel that it needs strengthening. We have tabled those amendments which we hope will be accepted. Perhaps I may illustrate my attitude to the Bill by using the analogy of the Grand National. This Bill is saying that disabled people are able to enter the race of life in our society and they are welcome to do that. This Bill will enable them to jump the first big hurdle. But then, by refusing an effective law enforcement body, the Government have removed the jockey. They have kicked the jockey out of the saddle. Disabled people will be moving without direction and inevitably they will be the losers. When that happens—and I do not say if it happens—the Government will be condemned publicly instead of acclaimed publicly for their Bill. Ministers are heading for a disaster of their own making. The most calamitous mistake to be made is the failure of Ministers to include those provisions. They will regret it if they fail to accept the amendments and I hope that they will consider carefully to see whether or not they can accept them.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that when the Grand National fiasco took place, a brilliant man raced across the course twice and stopped the horses jumping the first fence, the horses having been egged on by the animal protesters? That gentleman was receiving a disability pension but it seemed to me that he was not suffering from a great deal of disability.
Lord Addington: After that discussion by the racing fraternity, perhaps we may return to the Bill. There has been a great deal of argument about who does and who does not support the amendment. I do not intend to go down that road because it makes absolutely no difference.
The amendment provides a coherent structure. It gives a real functioning heart and soul to the Bill. It means that there will be a body which gives guidance
628
on the legislation and makes it effective. It gives direction and it will enable changes to be made when they are needed.
It provides also the ability to co-ordinate any legal action which is needed in the courts. Therefore, there will be direction, enforcement and education. Most of us agree that most types of discrimination are due to ignorance. If all those elements are combined, the Bill will be made very much better and more effective.
One historical analogy which may be used is in relation to legislation on factories. I believe that it was about 200 years ago that the law said that people who worked in factories must not be mistreated and one inspector was employed to ensure that that law was observed throughout the whole country. Unless there is an enforcement agency, the legislation will not work because people ignore what is not in front of them. If something is not relevant to them, they ignore it. Unless provision is made which gives people the drive and ability to make note of what should be done, it will have no effect at all.
Also, these amendments remove the confusion arising out of having two bodies. All matters are brought together. Unless that is done, the Bill will achieve only part of its objective. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that if we work together and co-ordinate matters, the legislation may work. That is true. But these amendments mean that that will happen and I do not believe that we should take the risk that it will not.
Lord Milverton: I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. They seem to be far more sensible and practical. I have given the matter some thought but I cannot support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinfen.
My wife pointed out to me recently an extremely striking letter in The Times, written by a disabled person. It was not, as some Members of the Committee may have thought, that that person was hoping that all the amendments put forward would be accepted. Strange as it may seem, that disabled person said that he had a disability and he accepted it. Unless we are careful, disabled people, whom we want to help, will feel that they are being patronised. It is no good being too heavy-handed. Something may be provided in legislation but, in the end, there must be a willingness and a sensitivity to bring that about.
I believe that we may be too heavy-handed and, therefore, we shall not help disabled people. Reliance must be placed on sensitivity and understanding to bring about reasonableness. Until that reasonableness comes from every single person from every single spectrum of outlook and creed, there will be endless, ineffective legislation.
As regards protesters, I shall not say what I think of the many protesters that there are in the world today. One wonders what they are doing, or trying to do, in life. I support my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, but I cannot support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I am sure that the Minister will give a good reply. I support him and what this Disability Discrimination Bill seeks to achieve. I think it is good.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I suppose that that will come as no surprise to the Minister and Members of the Committee as I have consistently argued during the passage of the Bill for a central, independent body to be charged with the responsibility of overseeing the operation of the new Act and to be given the necessary powers and resources to do so.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, set out a whole range of functions for the proposed National Disability Council. The council could select which of those functions it would deploy at certain times so as to deal with the issues with which it will be faced. I support the amendments based on my experience when I was chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I know from that experience that there will be, both initially and from time to time when codes of practice or new statements are made, a whole range of inquiries coming to the council asking for advice and interpretation on what is meant.
Therefore, I believe that it is important to have a body which can build up such expertise and which is capable of seeing what the trends and main issues are so as to be able to give that help and advice. In order to do that, I hope that the council will have the ability to conduct research and to have independent research undertaken. It should have the ability to help individuals pursue cases, not in a confrontational way but in order to help it understand just how the Act is operating. In so doing, it would strengthen its own position in giving advice in the future.
I was chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission from 1975 to 1983. I must point out that the commission was not in a confrontational position, although it did take legal action. Most of its time was spent in helping, advising, guiding and providing information which helped to educate. I foresee the proposed National Disability Council doing much the same.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that there was a difference between disability and sex and race discrimination. Yes, there is a difference; indeed, it is a very considerable difference. But there is a considerable difference between sex discrimination and race discrimination because they are separate issues. However, there is one overriding factor which is common to all three, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather—namely, the issue of discrimination. When the National Disability Council is established, I hope that it, along with its staff, will soon become expert in matters of disability and in the operation of other laws affecting disabled people, and that it will see discrimination in the light of that expertise.
I understand that the Minister may have some reservations about having a council with legal powers because of the costs involved in disability discrimination. However, I suggest to the noble Lord—we have debated the matter many times in this Chamber—that there is a cost attached to disability and that that cost will apply, whether or not the amendments are accepted.
Just over a week ago I read in the Daily Telegraph about a deaf woman who had won her case against the Government, thus enabling her to claim disability living
630
allowance to help provide her everyday social needs. Such cases will occur whether or not we have a disability council with enforcement powers. Surely the Minister will agree that we must have confidence that the Bill provides that, in order to win, one has not only to prove discrimination; one has also to prove that it would not be unreasonable for an employer or a company to carry out certain changes involving cost.
I suggest to the Minister that the test for reasonableness is a very tough one in the context of the Bill. I hope therefore that he will not feel that the proposal for assisting the disabled would increase costs—costs which are necessary and which, I suggest, would have to be spent in the long run. Despite the exchanges that have taken place, I hope that the Minister will take a more favourable attitude towards the amendments which I believe could strengthen and make more effective the legislation that he is seeking to get through.
Lord Gisborough: I support the amendment to bring in a central, one-stop shop to administer the workings of the Act which at present are split between two departments of state. Such a central authoritative body would help in mobilising the goodwill of employers, which is most important if the spirit of the Bill is to be adhered to rather than meeting with just bare compliance. It becomes much easier for employers to deliver the opportunities for disabled people if they can refer to consistent and one-stop advice. Such a body could monitor the working of the legislation; it would be able to give better information to disabled people; and it could try to sort out some of the problems that will inevitably develop.
The cost of such a central body would be offset and probably outweighed by savings in reduced litigation, better employment opportunities, reduced state benefit, a greater tax take from those disabled who became employed, reduced bureaucracy and greater employer goodwill. Finally, I hope that the Government will be able to give an assurance that at least as much will be spent on the implementation of the Bill's provisions in respect of the proposed National Disability Council as has been spent on the quota system which proved to be a failure.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Members of the Committee will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for tabling the amendments and for the powerful, well-informed and eloquent manner in which he introduced them. Conscious as I am of time, perhaps I may make just a few remarks, drawing on my practical experience as one of the architects of the sex discrimination and race relations Acts and someone who, as an advocate, tried to make the legislation work.
I strongly support the amendments because I believe they will lead to wiser, more effective enforcement of the legislation and will ensure that the legislation is more user friendly. That seems to me extremely important. When I left the Bar in the mid-1970s to advise the then government on the sex discrimination and race relations legislation, it was clear that earlier attempts to legislate—namely, the attempts of 1965 to 1968—had failed precisely because too much reliance was placed on individual enforcement and too little on

631
strategic enforcement. People had sought to bring forward fanciful cases; unnecessary legal costs had been incurred; and there was great confusion about how to give effect to the legislation.
In the mid-seventies, with the support of all parties in both Houses, legislation was put in place to give effect to the principle of equal treatment without unfair discrimination. This Bill admirably extends that principle to another kind of unfair discrimination. However, the underlying problem applies to all kinds of discrimination—how can the ordinary individual, whether it be an employer, employee or anyone else, understand his or her rights? How, if necessary, can they be enforced? And what bodies can there be to filter out frivolous complaints, give proper advice and assistance in key test cases? It seems to me that those considerations apply every bit as much to this Bill as to the other body of law that we have in this country, including the Northern Irish legislation on religious and political discrimination.
What worries me about the Bill as it stands is that, as has been said, it is a much more complicated piece of legislation than any of our existing discrimination laws. It will lead to costly and protracted litigation, especially if there is no public body able to give advice and to help the courts and tribunals in their daily work. We have no legal aid in industrial tribunals. Disabled people on the whole are under-represented in trade unions, and if they are not employed they will not be members at all, and there will be no other body to take up cudgels on their behalf.
The Committee may think that that would be a bonanza for members of my profession or that public expenditure would be huge. I remind the Committee of the figures. In the case of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Great Britain, which deals with half of the population of the country—namely, the female half, as well as the other half—the total amount spent on providing legal assistance per year has never exceeded £600,000 and last year it was about £300,000. Those figures are much smaller than the cost of fighting a case all the way to the House of Lords on some point of law and then having to pay the costs of both sides. The figure for the Commission for Racial Equality is higher, but has never been higher than about £800,000.
It seems to me that it would be cost-effective if there were a body able to give modest assistance of the kind that those bodies now give and advise employers, employees and others. That would be a really cost-effective way of plugging the gap in the legal aid provision and trying to reduce frivolous, unnecessary and vexatious litigation. That is why I feel very strongly that, of the amendments tabled, those dealing particularly with advice and assistance deserve to be supported.
I am somewhat less enthusiastic about any open-ended research function because that could be expensive and not necessarily cost-effective. That is not to say that it is not important, but as a matter of priority I would focus on the points that I raised.
I very much hope that the amendments will be treated sympathetically by the Government. It is in their interests as well as everybody else's that courts and tribunals are not overwhelmed by unnecessary litigation, and also that the public at large receive proper advice.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: I agree with much of the aims expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. However, he has not convinced me that the means he suggests are the right ones.
This has been the most important debate that we have had during the Committee stage, and I shall detain the Committee for a very short time in order to put the matter into a somewhat different perspective from that which has so far been mentioned.
We all want to see the provisions of the Bill enforced. Indeed, we have passed Clause 8, which enables industrial tribunals to enforce the provisions of the Bill in relation to employment, and Clause 20, whereby the civil courts will enforce them in relation to access and so on. There will be appeals from either of those bodies.
The Government have it in mind that the National Disability Council shall advise them and have continuous oversight of the way the Bill is working, including the work done by tribunals and the courts. However, the Government have decided, wisely in my opinion, that the NDC should not interfere or be given additional functions enabling it to interfere with functions with respect to the investigation of any complaint which may be subject to proceedings under the Act. However, my noble friend Lord Swinfen wishes subsection (4) of Clause 23 to be left out. That could result in a serious overlap with jurisdiction in relation to the investigation of complaints. The National Disability Council will not be a judicial body. It will be a lay advisory body, as I understand it. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish may correct me if that is not right. It would create confusion if we were to accept subsection (2A) (a) of Amendment No. 101, which gives the council the power:
"to investigate such complaints as are made to them of failure to comply with any provision of this Act in an individual case".
That is an overlapping of the jurisdiction of tribunals and the courts.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The power proposed in the amendment is not for this to be a judicial body but for it to be an administrative agency, as is the case with the EOC and the CRE, able to investigate complaints and, where necessary, support proceedings. It is not to be a judicial body of any kind.
Lord Renton: It is very difficult to imagine how it will be able to investigate complaints without considering the evidence offered in respect of those complaints and without considering the relevant provisions of the Bill, unless it will exercise a proper judicial function.
Lord Swinfen: Will my noble friend give way?
Lord Renton: I am trying to be brief. We have gone on for a very long time. I was reluctant to speak at all. I decided to keep an open mind about this matter until I heard the debate. Having heard my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. I believe that the powers already contained in the Bill, perhaps amplified in the way that my noble friend Lady O'Cathain suggested, would be far better than risking a

633
duplication of the jurisdiction of the courts. For that reason, with great respect to my noble friend Lord Swinfen, and knowing how zealous he is in helping disabled people, I hope that he and those supporting him will realise that they may not be doing the service to disabled people that they intend. They may be creating confusion.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may say that although I am not a lawyer I should have thought that the police, who have powers to investigate complaints under various Acts, act in an investigative role and not in a judicial role. That is what I intend in the drafting of the amendment. As I said, I am not a lawyer and I may have got my drafting wrong.
Lord Renton: My noble friend refers in his amendment to individual cases, and if he reads the rest of that subsection he will see that the opportunity of investigating a complaint goes as far as the courts will go.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I wish to support the amendments, and in so doing I wish to read a postcard which I received this morning from a member of the public in Cornwall, who writes:
"The Disability Discrimination Bill needs an enforcement agency … The Disability Council will just be another talking shop, full of 'ifs, buts and maybes'. We hope the Government will recognise this omission and act constructively".
Last Sunday evening I had a call from a member of a disability group in Northallerton in North Yorkshire telling me that the Hambleton District Council was to remove a taxi man's licence because he was disabled. I was told that the taxi man had held a licence to drive a taxi for three-and-a-half years without any problems. He had passed his advanced driver's test. The man had lost an arm while in the Army. I asked why Hambleton District Council wanted to remove his licence. I was told that the official concerned did not like disabled people. I do not know whether that is fact because the issue is so recent and I have not been able to check on it, but that is what I was told.
I then asked whether the case had been taken to the local Member of Parliament. The honourable Member of Parliament happens to be the Minister for Disabled People, William Hague. I was told that he had fobbed the case off saying that it was up to the Department of Employment. But surely if the taxi driver does not have a licence to drive a taxi, the Department of Employment cannot do much—or can it?
Who will sort out those problems? Does it not show that there is a need for an agency which has expertise, is independent and can sort out all the varied and complicated issues with some clout?
I found the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, most interesting. I hope that the Government will consider what she said. The noble Baroness may agree with me that the problems of gender and ethnic minorities are not half as complicated as those of the disability issues. One of the biggest issues is this: who are disabled people and who will be covered by the Bill?
Earl Russell: Before touching on what I was going to say, perhaps I may respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He has touched the hub of the central
634
issues. He suggested the danger of a concurrent jurisdiction with courts. If the commission (as I hope that it will become) were to listen to the evidence, as I agree it must, surely it would no more conflict with the courts than a solicitor does when he takes the proofs of witnesses. The hearing would be preliminary to referring a case to court if need be, or exercising conciliation. The role would be similar to that which the Equal Opportunities Commission discharges with distinction.
To enforce any such provision one needs specialist knowledge. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, illustrated, one needs specialist knowledge as regards disability more than with any of the other areas because of the number of different types of disability and the jigsaw problem of matching them to specific employments. Therefore the need for a specialist body in the area of disability is even greater than in race relations or sex relations.
In 1563 the Lord Keeper, Sir Nicholas Bacon, summoned the Parliament at the end of its Session for a headmasterly talking-to. He reproved it for passing large numbers of laws without thinking how they were to be executed. He said that it was like buying new gardening tools and never using them. If we do not pass Amendment No. 101 we shall be wide open to that reproach.
I have also been considering how Clause 23 and Schedule 3 to the Bill came to be drafted as they are. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), may remember moving what I believe was the first amendment that I ever heard accepted by the Government in this place. It was in a debate on the Education Reform Act 1988. It sought to remove a clause from the qualifications for membership of the National Curriculum Council which disqualified anyone who became disabled or was otherwise incapacitated from carrying out his duties. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, agreed instantly to remove the provision. On the next Bill, we immediately found a clause with identical wording. On the noble Baroness's amendment, it was instantly removed. We then found it a third time. The noble Baroness asked whether the Minister could investigate whether there was any common source for those clauses. I have since heard it suggested from a very good source that there are such things as model clauses for drafting provisions for Acts of Parliament. Therefore the question arises: what model clause has the draftsman used for drafting Clause 23 and Schedule 3 to the Bill?
To anyone who has sat through the vast series of education Acts since 1988, the answer is painfully obvious. It is the model that was used for the Universities Funding Council in the Education Reform Act 1988. But that is the wrong model. The provision was for a different duty. That Act was for the administering of funds. If one considers Section 131(4) of the Education Reform Act 1988, the first duty that it lays on the council is to be responsible for administering funds made available to the council. It is essentially an administrative model which has been spatchcocked into an advisory function, to which it is not entirely appropriate, in a situation where what we really needed was enforcement.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: I support my noble friend's amendment. The National Disability Council in its present form is quite inadequate because it has no enforcement powers. My noble friend's amendment shifts the role of the council from being advisory to one which involves taking action to fight discrimination.
All disabled people welcome the Bill. Let us give it some teeth. It will be sad if the National Disability Council continues in its present form. It simply must have an adequate secretariat with an adequate budget so that it is in a position to investigate all cases, not just a few, and to give advice when required, with authority to use enforcement powers if and when necessary. I support the amendment.
Lord Monson: The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, among others, extolled the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. They put them forward as models which ought to be followed in the Bill. However, I wonder whether they have read a recent newspaper interview with the distinguished dean of one of our better known medical schools. He expressed the view that race relations and equal opportunities legislation were making it much more difficult to recruit medical students of the right calibre. No longer was it possible to offer a place to a white male who was perhaps academically slightly less qualified than a female applicant, or one from an ethnic minority, but who was nevertheless much more sensitive, much more empathetic with patients and generally had a much better bedside manner than the technically slightly more qualified applicant, because if the medical school were to do so it would fall foul of anti-discrimination legislation.
5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This has been an interesting debate, but running through it is a point which worries me. Some people who support the Bill say, on the one hand: "This is a landmark Bill"; yet on the other hand in their speeches they do as much as they can to diminish it. They say that it will not work, it will not do the job and they devalue it. It seems to me that they are playing a dangerous game when they approach the issue of a commission with that argument.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that I am always impressed when Opposition members quote a Government Back-Bencher as being among the finest and most able of people. That usually means that the Back-Bencher has decided not to support the Government but the party opposite on a certain issue. I am afraid that I do not fall for that, and nor, I suspect, do many of my noble friends.
The proposals in this Bill have been carefully formulated to meet the needs of disabled people, business and government. They recognise that each of these groups has different needs and seek to provide for them, building on existing expertise and using tried and tested mechanisms. We see no benefit in creating another bureaucracy while the necessary functions can be delivered more effectively by other means. Most importantly, we think our three-pronged approach,
636
which provides a powerful body to advise government, information for business and disabled people and conciliation, advice and support to help resolve disputes, is best suited to meeting the needs of all concerned.
There has been a heavy concentration on employment, but the Committee should remember that the Bill concerns goods and services as well. In all cases, it is not about equality but about doing things to help get rid of inequality, to help people carry out a job and be provided with a service when, without those changes, they would not have such help. So it is not strictly a case of, "You must not discriminate"; it goes a step further and states: "You must do things, change things"—procedures, buildings or whatever it may be—"in order to help someone who would otherwise be discriminated against".
I suspect that the calls for a commission which I have heard today stem in part from a failure to perceive the major difference between what we propose for disabled people and the legislation that was passed in the 1970s, over 20 years ago, on sex and race. Speakers also do not understand the valuable role which we envisage that the National Disability Council will have. The council will have an influential and practical role in helping us towards a society in which disabled people no longer meet barriers to integration. It will be influential because it will be the primary source of advice to government on general issues and on whether the legislation is meeting its aims. It will provide advice both on its own initiative and when asked to do so by the Secretary of State. It will be practical because it will prepare codes of practice which business and disabled people will need to implement the legislation. We also envisage that the council will work closely with senior civil servants in developing regulations under the right-of-access provisions in the Bill.
An important part of the NDC's duties will be to keep under review the operation of the Act with the exception of aspects relating to employment. I shall return to the role of NACEPD later. Should the council find that particular groups of disabled people are having difficulty securing their rights—for example, from examining the information collected by the advice and support service—there will be a number of courses open to it. It may want the Secretary of State to commission research or to take evidence from the advice service and speak to representatives of business to identify the root of the problem. In any event, we would expect the NDC to make recommendations to government about how any problems could be overcome. The flexibility provided in the regulation-making powers contained in the Bill and the provisions for codes of practice are intended to allow the policy intention to be clarified if a particular problem arises without the need for cases to be tested through the courts. The council will have a central role in this process of clarification and refinement.
The council may also wish to take a lead in persuading industry to provide for the needs of disabled people, in a similar way to the National Council on Disability in America. This would be particularly useful in the areas of accessible design and labelling of products which cannot be dealt with by rights-based

637
legislation. The NDC would also be able to work on other aspects of business not covered by this legislation to encourage voluntary codes of practice.
Perhaps I may turn to some of the amendments and take, first, the research amendment and the points made by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. I can assure the Committee that the NDC will be able to ask for research to be commissioned on its behalf by the Secretary of State. Such research will ensure that it is fully informed.
The arrangements proposed in the Bill will allow the NDC to draw on the professional expertise of analytical services staff already employed by the Government, to commission independent research and to co-ordinate the use of research from reliable sources.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask for a small but important clarification. The Minister said that the council may ask the Secretary of State to commission research on its behalf. Is the Secretary of State bound to accept the request?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, he is not bound to accept it. He must weigh all the suggested research projects that come to him against the amount of money he has in his budget for research and against the other projects which seek research money. So one has to be realistic about it. I presume that the noble Earl would like unlimited money to be devoted to the organisation to allow it to carry out any research it wishes, without considering the competing demands. However, the Government already collect a wealth of information through research which the NDC might find useful. If it had to rely solely on research commissioned in isolation, there would be a significant risk that it would either be unaware of important information or would duplicate that already available.
The NDC can also advise the Government on educational material. That is an area where much work is already being done by government departments and the voluntary sector. To avoid duplication, it seems wisest if the NDC, with an independent eye, identifies what more needs to be done and provides advice.
We are committed to supporting the implementation of the Bill with a wide-ranging programme of awareness raising and information provision. I shall speak about that when we reach another amendment.
I turn now to the changes proposed in Amendments Nos. 108, 109 and 110. They would leave substantial potential for duplication between the NDC and the National Advisory Council on the Employment of People with Disabilities. My noble friend Lord Swinfen cast doubt on the independence of NACEPD. I assure him that it is independent. It has prominent members who would object to the suggestion that they did not act independently in giving advice or considering issues. Its views on last year's consultation document, to which my noble friend referred, are in the Library. From time to time NACEPD also issues a report on its activities. So my noble friend is being unkind when he questions its independence.
Let me say right away that it is not our intention that the NDC be precluded from considering the adequacy of anti-discrimination provisions in the field of employment,
638
where that is appropriate, as an aspect of its broad overview of anti-discrimination measures. Ministers can ask it to do so and the NDC can advise Ministers that it wishes to look at particular aspects of the employment provision. But to provide for it to act on its own initiative in that area, as the amendment would do, would risk confusion and give the wrong signals.
So long as NACEPD or a successor body exists, that body should lead in giving advice on all employment and training matters. We of course recognise that there will be a need for the advisory bodies to keep in close contact where they provide advice on aspects of the Bill which might affect businesses in their roles as both employer and service provider. I can assure the Committee that my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Social Security and Employment will be asking the councils to do that and to ensure that there is a full understanding between the councils. It is very likely that in appointing members to the NDC, the Secretary of State will seek to provide some common membership.
Clause 23(9) (b) refers to provisions of the Bill dealing with employment which it will be natural for NACEPD to be concerned with in line with its existing responsibilities. All the members are appointed because of their knowledge and experience of employment and disability issues. NACEPD has developed considerable expertise over the years. It has advised Ministers on issues such as the Employment Service's code of good practice, the disability symbol and the Access to Work scheme. It will continue to monitor and advise on the wide range of employment and training help provided to disabled people. Most immediately, we need NACEPD's help on issues to do with the Bill, including the new employment code of practice which we discussed at the start of the first day in Committee.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the Minister confirm that NACEPD stated that it would wish to see its own abolition and to be overtaken by a statutory commission?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We shall discuss a later provision which, were it to be used, could be used to wind up NACEPD. I am just about to come to that point if the noble Baroness will contain herself. Many people have advised us on what should be done and that a commission is needed. We listened to the advice. We have listened to the advice of those who do not want it. We made our judgment, as governments are supposed to do. I do not expect noble Lords always to agree with judgments that the Government make, but that is what governments are there for.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the Minister answer my question?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have answered it, and I am just about to add to that answer. We are not locked into the NACEPD arrangement for ever. The Bill provides in Clause 33 for the statutory powers in the 1944 Act, under which NACEPD is established, to be repealed, and for people to be appointed to advise generally—that is to say, on a national basis—on employment issues. We intend, however, that NACEPD should continue in its present form until at least the

639
expiry of the terms of office of current members, when the position would be reviewed. That would be until 30th June 1997. That answers the question put by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
I hope that the Committee will agree that these arrangements provide for the NDC and NACEPD to fulfil the advisory role to government in much the same way as a commission. They are intended to harness the authority, experience, good will and resources of government, business and voluntary organisations to achieve our aims. In this new and sensitive area we need independent bodies whose members have the right mix of experience and skills to give balanced and practical advice. Government do not intend to wash their hands of this Bill once it has come into force, as some Members of the Committee might be tempted to think having listened to some of the speeches. When the council's advice has been accepted by the Secretaries of State, it will be promulgated and implemented with the full backing of government using all the mechanisms across the public sector, including the resources of the Disability Unit, which works for my right honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People and the network of services provided by the Employment Department.
I turn to some of the other aspects that were raised. We do not believe that creating a commission as proposed in these amendments is the best approach to meeting the needs of disabled people or business, and for three fundamental reasons: it would not work; it risks a backlash; and it would not fit the social context of the late 1990s.
In an exchange earlier an attempt was made to persuade the Committee that the majority of employers were in favour of a commission. There was an exchange about the Employers Forum on Disability. I welcomed the emphasis by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in his intervention that the great majority of members of that body said that they were in favour of a commission. My point was, however, that not all of them said so. Therefore, it is not possible to read out a list, claim that it comprises every single one of them and then say that it is the great majority. That was my only point.
Lord Carter: Will the Minister give way? He knows what I said. When the Government negotiate with the National Farmers Union, do they ask the NFU whether it has asked every farmer in the country whether that member supports NFU policy, or any other organisation that comes to them?
I telephoned the employers forum, and I repeat what I said: every member of the forum, including every company—all the large organisations that were quoted by my noble friend—were consulted on the Government's consultation document. Every one was consulted. The great majority entirely supported the outcome that is in the brief in front of us; and in addition every one of them said that they were happy for the forum to speak on their behalf.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Of course they are happy that the forum speaks on their behalf; they have all joined it in order to make it easier to recruit, retain and develop disabled employees. That is perfectly
640
laudable. The noble Lord repeated and underlined the point that I am making. He said "the great majority". You cannot, as the noble Baroness tried to do—I should not have intervened had she not made a clever little attempt to suggest that some organisations within my own department disagree with the Government's policy; that is why I was brought to my feet. It is not true that every organisation is asking for this—the great majority may be but not every one. That is my point.
I return to organisations. I suggest that there are other organisations involved, not just this particular one. We have to be careful not to form the impression that a majority of businesses want a commission. The Forum of Private Business, an organisation that tends to represent, if I may so describe them, the Davids rather than the Goliaths of the business world, expressed its firm opposition to a commission. The Institute of Directors was equally forthright. The CBI, while it has called for clarification of certain functions, has not called for a new enforcement body such as would be created by Amendment No. 101.
I mentioned three reasons. The first is that a commission would not work. Anti-discrimination legislation in the field of disability is not the same as sex and race legislation. One vital difference arises because both the existing race and sex legislation cover all racial groups and both sexes. The Acts governing these areas make it a duty of the commissions to promote equality of opportunity between men and women and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups generally. I note with interest that the amendments we are discussing today, which draw so heavily on the sex and race legislation, do not seek to place this duty on the council. Perhaps my noble friend recognises that there is indeed a considerable difference between race and sex on the one hand and disability on the other.
If we accept these amendments, we should not be setting up a body with a fundamental duty to promote equality of opportunity between able-bodied and disabled people. It would be a powerful executive body charged with the explicit duty to act in the interest of disabled people, without any statutory responsibility towards the interest of the rest of society. I believe that this would undermine and endanger our aims. A commission also runs the—
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Would it not be possible to incorporate the employers and everybody else? That is what is wanted.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not too sure in what way. The NDC will include people drawn from the employers, as it will those drawn from the disabled and others who are interested. They will be involved in the NDC.
A commission would also run the risk of creating a backlash. The provisions in this Bill go much further than the sex and race legislation. The sex and race legislation requires essentially that the same service is extended to people without regard to their sex or racial origin. The provisions in this Bill require a service provider to make additional arrangements, if that is necessary, to ensure that a disabled person can access

641
the service. This might take the form of providing extra services, a sign language interpreter for someone who is deaf, or altering the building from which the service operates. What we are requiring in this Bill is that service providers not only stop discriminating in the sense of the sex and race legislation, but that they change the way in which they offer services to overcome the problems that disabled people encounter.
Similar issues arise for employers, who will be required to consider providing extra supervision, changing the premises or allocating some of the disabled person's duties to another person. It is about the employer making different or additional provision to enable a disabled person to carry out the job; and in some instances it might require other employees to change the way they work or to take on extra duties. These are substantial differences that set the boundaries for eliminating discrimination against disabled people much wider than those for sex and race. They need be reflected in the arrangements that we make for ensuring that the policy intention of this Bill is carried through without encountering a backlash.
My noble friend Lady Flather asked me to look at the United States, saying that a commission works there. I fear that my noble—
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will be kindly explain the concept of backlash, given the fact that a commission as proposed by the amendment would pursue only those who actively discriminated against disabled people? It would not in any way affect people who did not discriminate.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not want to rehearse an argument that we had late last Tuesday night, but I should have thought that anyone listening to the small debate that we had on taxis, and realising that it would perhaps have been a rather larger debate had it been held earlier in the day, would appreciate that in that narrow field there would be the danger of a backlash. We saw just that problem occurring there. Some of us have a briefing from organisations in which I at least believe that one can see the danger of a backlash and a need for us to bring everybody with us if we are to improve the day-to-day living of disabled people, not just in special areas but everywhere.
In response to the point made by my noble friend Lady Flather, I feel that she misunderstands the American experience. There is no independent enforcement agency in the United States covering all aspects of the Americans with Disabilities Act. There is the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, but that is hardly an example to follow. Perhaps I may quote from a recent report published by the Millbank Memorial Fund:
"Backlogs of complaints at the EEOC have been problematic for years and are increasing. EEOC' s inventory of pending charges grew to 85,212 through March 1994–20,000 more than the previous year. The average time to process a charge rose from 274 days to 293 days in the same period".
I turn to the matter of test cases. I believe that test cases and formal investigations have little general application in the area of disability. Disabled people
642
come in groups of one. The language itself is misleading us into perceiving disabled people as a single group with the same needs. That is not the case. What an 18 year-old with epilepsy needs is different from what an 80 year-old with chronic arthritis needs. Even with the same impairments, there will be significant differences in effect. Somebody losing his hearing in his sixties faces very different challenges from someone who is born deaf. While a central body taking test cases to court may be able to set helpful precedents on behalf of women, there seems little scope for it to do the same for disabled people, who form such a diverse group. Similarly, a company's policies, practices and procedures will rarely disadvantage disabled people as a whole.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. He is quite right about the variousness of the cases. But does not that strengthen rather than weaken the need for a central body with specialist knowledge?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is a body with specialist knowledge; namely, the NDC. We are talking about investigation at this time. I was going on to say that we believe that the mechanisms that we have provided will largely replace the need for formal investigations. In any event, interestingly enough, those are used very rarely by the existing commissions. The EOC commenced only one investigation under that heading in 1993.
My final objection to a commission stems from the different social context in which we are introducing this legislation from that which operated in the 1970s. I shall resist the temptation to list all the deeply held beliefs and policies of the 1970s which have now been discarded in the 1990s. People are very much more aware now of their rights than they were then. That has been achieved in part by the huge growth in the voluntary sector in the past 20 years. There are hundreds of organisations, both voluntary and in the public sector, with considerable expertise in providing information and advice to disabled people. Nothing similar was available in the 1970s to help women or people with different racial backgrounds. I believe that the correct approach is to build on the important foundations that we have and to develop them further. In particular, we need to provide advice locally which gets to the root of problems without delay and ensures that disabled people get the help they need to secure their rights.
One can establish centrally the elaborate framework of rights required to span the wide diversity of disabled people's needs. But, frankly, a set of general rules will get us only so far. We need a local service to get close enough to the local issues to resolve individual cases.
I hope that I have shown that a commission would not work and demonstrated that the council will perform admirably the task of advising the Government. I should now like to explain how we propose to help individual disabled people. Our aim in providing conciliation and support services is to offer mechanisms for resolving disputes quickly, efficiently and cost-effectively without lengthy litigation and at the local level where the problems arise.

643
We intend to set up under the Bill advice services to support rights of access to goods and services which will be equipped to provide a face-to-face service to individuals and resolve disputes at local level without the need for more formal action.
The Employment Service will provide advice to individual employers and disabled people on the proper application of the new employment right. Where a claim of discrimination has been or could be made against an employer, a disabled person will be able to seek help from an ACAS conciliation officer. The advice and support services will explore the facts in individual cases and standard questionnaire procedures will be provided to aid the processes and ensure a common approach across the country.
The procedures at industrial tribunals and small claims courts, where we envisage that most cases will be heard, are relatively simple and inexpensive. It costs nothing to take a case to a tribunal and only a few pounds to go to a small claims court. Both mechanisms are designed to be used by individuals without legal representation, with the tribunal or judge specifically charged to draw out the facts of the case. Some 90 per cent. of cases under the sex discrimination and equal pay legislation are already taken to industrial tribunals without the aid of the Equal Opportunities Commission. Therefore, it is misguided to think that individuals will be unable to secure their rights without the aid of a commission. That was what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, tempted us into thinking.
I am sorry to go on, but there are other amendments in this group. I now turn to Amendments Nos. 114 and 115. They would provide the council with funding to meet the responsibility of appointing its own staff and those associated with its other duties. Amendment No. 116 concerns financial records and Amendment No. 117 removes regulation-making powers from the Secretary of State. I believe that the amendments are unnecessary. The arrangements in the Bill are in line with those made for other advisory bodies, such as the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and the Social Security Advisory Committee. They will be the most appropriate for the kind of council that we believe should be established.
I believe that the provisions in the Bill will set up arrangements which best serve the needs of disabled people, business and government. The National Disability Council will be an influential voice, ensuring that we keep working to eliminate discrimination against disabled people. It will report publicly to Parliament through its annual report, thereby drawing attention to its concerns and any areas where it considers that its advice has not been heeded. Again, I believe that that answers a point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
It is mistaken to think that the provisions in the Bill offer less protection to disabled people than has been given to women and ethnic minority groups. Indeed, we are giving them more. The Bill requires much more than equal treatment for disabled people. It requires business to make jobs and services accessible by making changes which accommodate the needs of the individual disabled person. The Bill's provisions are enforceable through
644
courts and tribunals, although we hope and believe that the conciliation, advice and support services will be effective in resolving disputes before formal action is necessary.
These amendments would not provide disabled people with a better service. They would be costly and set up another central bureaucracy and policing force which might well jeopardise our ability to take society with us in removing discrimination against disabled people.
I cannot recommend that the Committee should accept these amendments. I do not know what my noble friend intends to do. Perhaps I should invite him to contemplate what I have said and the strength of my arguments and ask him to withdraw his amendments. I hope, if he feels that he cannot do so, that my noble friends and other noble Lords who have been convinced by my arguments will support me in the Lobby.
Lord Swinfen: Before I make up my mind on what I intend to do—I have a feeling that my noble friend Lord Mackay and I are still some distance apart—would my noble friend be prepared to meet me between now and Report stage so that we could consider whether we can thresh out this matter a little further and come to some kind of understanding?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am always happy to meet my noble friend and discuss the issues. But if I were to meet him, I should endeavour to persuade him that I am right. I should not hold out any hope that he would be able to persuade me that he is right.
Lord Swinfen: I am sure that my noble friend would endeavour to use his powers of persuasion on me as I would try to use mine on him. Having had that assurance from my noble friend, it is fair to let the Committee know that I advised him earlier that I did not intend to test the opinion of the Committee on this amendment. It is a very important matter and it should not be dealt with in a great hurry.
I do not know what my noble friend Lady O'Cathain will do with her amendments. She may agree that my amendment covers the same ground. However, if she decides to move her amendments I shall support her in the Lobbies. My noble friend will make up her own mind in due course.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said that he felt that disability discrimination was different from race and sex discrimination. Of course it is, but the principle is the same. One discriminates in employment against someone when one takes into account factors such as race, sex or disability and not the competence of the person to do the work.
The National Disability Council only has an advisory role. It has no powers to advise individuals or employers, only the Minister; it has no power to carry out independent research and very little in the way of resources; it also has no independent members of staff and no powers with regard to employment.
I thank all those who took part in this debate. It has been extremely useful. I intend to come back to the matter at Report stage and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 17, line 9, at end insert ("and persons who have had a disability").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 103:
Page 17, line 13, at end insert:
("() The Council may assist (financially or otherwise) the undertaking by other persons of any research, and any educational activities, which appear to the Council necessary or expedient for the purposes of subsection (2).").
The noble Baroness said: Having received assurances from my noble friend the Minister I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 17, line 18, at end insert:
("() In discharging its duty under subsection (2) (a) of this section, the Council shall have a particular duty to advise the Secretary of State on the measures necessary to prepare for the repeal of section 29(6) (a) of the National Assistance Act 1948 and for the conferring on social services authorities of the power to make cash payments to a disabled person in lieu of the direct provision of services under section 2(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 105 relates to a different matter. It is a probing amendment.
In April 1988 the Disablement Income Group, with the then Department of Health and Social Security, set up the Independent Living Fund to administer cash payments to severely disabled people to assist with the costs of personal care and domestic assistance. That followed the replacement of supplementary benefit by income support which effectively ended many payments previously made to disabled people in respect of their additional disability costs. By the time the fund closed at the end of March 1993, 21,500 severely disabled people were receiving payments which averaged £105 per week.
The earmarking of cash payments to disabled people by the Independent Living Fund raised the profile of this whole area of provision. Since then, disabled people have been actively involved in promoting and developing cash payment schemes with their local authorities. However, because of the illegality of direct payments from local authorities to individuals, those schemes have taken the form of indirect payment schemes which have used third party organisations to support user-managed care. The latest research report by the Disablement Income Group—An Opportunity Lost? Social Services use of the Independent Living Transfer—revealed a notable increase in the interest shown by social services departments in third party personal assistance schemes.
Third party organisations are increasingly being used by local authorities as legally acceptable mechanisms for making direct payments to individuals who wish to
646
purchase their own care. Most of the recent schemes studied by DIG channel local authority money through a voluntary organisation which provides a support system rather than just "laundering" the money. Providing personal assistance support services is an important adjunct to any direct payments scheme. The research also confirmed that there is widespread support among local authorities for changing the law to allow for direct payments.
Clearly, several issues need to be resolved as the framework for direct payments is created. Those include consideration of how the money will be audited and how support structures for recruitment and management of individual employees can best be provided. Questions will also arise concerning eligibility, financial ceilings and thresholds, and the interface between nursing and personal care. Then there are a whole series of issues concerning the employment conditions of personal assistants, including their status in employment terms and the obligations of individual employers who would be the disabled people concerned.
All those and more will need to be resolved before a framework can be established. Nevertheless, in my view it is crucially important that those moves are legislation-led, which is why the new clause is so important. I believe that my noble friend's department has been working on this matter and I hope that he can give me and others in the Committee some assurance that it is moving forward. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: I suspect that the Minister, when he replies, may be minded to say that the principle of direct payments to disabled people has been accepted; it is now being developed by officials and fits a little uneasily into a Bill dealing with discrimination. I therefore want to take the opportunity provided by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, to anticipate unfair discrimination in this area.
While it may be true that the standard model of support for people with learning disabilities is a staffed group home and local authority day centre, that is not the whole story. There are already within the existing rules service brokerage arrangements which put the funding into the hands of advocates, supporters, parents and so forth who are close to disabled persons and who make it their business to understand their needs and secure tailor-made solutions to those needs.
Just as people with severe physical disabilities may need a partner, advocate or agent to help them handle the sometimes complicated business of being a disabled person, so may someone with severe learning difficulties. If and when direct payments begin, I hope that the scheme will not discriminate against people with learning disabilities, but that they will be included in the scope of the arrangements. That option will provide advocates, carers and brokers with the opportunity to agree with the disabled person in the light of what they are known to enjoy and to dislike, in the case of those unable to speak, what would be the most appropriate, and then to go out and buy it.
The heart of community care is assessment of individual needs, followed through into individual support packages. That is as true for people with

647
learning disabilities as it is for people with physical disabilities. Anything that moves us closer to securing that, such as direct payments and service brokerage, is to be commended. That is why I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I give my wholehearted support to this amendment and added my name to it. As one who has been involved for what seems like many years fighting long and hard to achieve this aim, I support it and hope that the Minister will be able to say something encouraging to us when he replies.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We also strongly and warmly support the amendment. It will allow local authorities, where they deem it appropriate, to pay cash rather than provide services to their disabled clients. Why? There are two broad reasons.
First, it places the disabled person at the centre of the care system rather than making him or her dependent upon it. Direct payment means that services are fitted to the needs of the client because the client purchases them, rather than fitted to the needs of the service. For example, someone with severe spinal injuries may be dependent on help to go to bed. If that person is dependent on a service being provided by the local authority, then that person would have to fit into the timetable of the person provided by the local authority. If it is said that the disabled person must go to bed at eight o'clock, nine o'clock or 11 o'clock, then that is when they go to bed. Whereas, if the disabled person is purchasing the services she or he will determine when they go to bed, when they get up, and whether or not they go out. The services are tailored by her or him to meet her or his needs rather than to fit inevitably the needs of the providers. That allows the disabled person to enjoy the spontaneity in her or his life that we all take for granted.
Because a disabled person would employ the carer if there were cash payments she or he would control what the carer does. That is important. As an Independent Living Fund client said, if you are paying for it, you can get what you want. When we are talking about quite intimate tasks—toileting and the rest—it is appropriate that the disabled person should choose because she or he can pay the person who performs those services rather than be dependent on a kindly flow of strangers who may change from week to week.
Therefore, the first reason for supporting the amendment is that it puts the disabled person at the centre of care and ensures that she or he gets the services that she or he wants at the times she or he needs them and provided by the people she or he chooses to suit her or his needs. By definition, if a local authority is doing it for the disabled person, she or he is dependent on what the local authority can do at any particular time.
The second reason for supporting the amendment is that it offers better value for money. If a disabled person can make a direct payment, she or he can use that sum of money to float a whole network of care, formal and informal. She or he can pay the petrol, can offer a bottle of wine, can provide chocolates, can meet expenses and as a result get very many more hours of support and
648
care for the same sum of money than she or he would get if those services were provided by an individual. The same money can be stretched because the disabled person can broker it around a whole network of people, some of whom will be paid by the hour, some of whom will be paid expenses and some of whom will not be paid but will nonetheless get the occasional gift.
That is why the amendment is so warmly supported by all the disability organisations, by the local authorities and by the Association of Directors of Social Services. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, local authorities are so keen to provide this additional service that around two-thirds of them have set up trusts to launder the money. The local authority pays the money to the trust and the trust pays it to the disabled person. It is not legal at the moment to make a direct cash payment—I forgot, it is not legal in England but it is perfectly legal in Scotland. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why it is legal in Scotland but not legal in England. That means that we must provide the system which disability organisations and local authorities urgently want.
What are the objections to the amendment? Some time ago the noble Lord, Lord McColl, introduced a direct payments Bill into the House. The opposition was said to be the Treasury which had insisted that local authorities provide services and that the DSS provide cash and that the lines between the two should not be confused. That argument would be a little more powerful were it not already the case that those lines are confused. Local authorities already pay cash to foster parents; they already pay cash to children leaving care; they already pay cash to voluntary organisations to aid disabled people. Most of them—two-thirds of them at the last survey—were already paying cash into trusts in order to make direct payments to disabled people.
No one suggests that direct payments are suitable for everyone. Perhaps one person in a thousand is receiving care services in the community and perhaps only one-tenth of those in turn might want direct payments. Many elderly people might much prefer services rather than cash. No one is saying that they must have cash. Very often the people asking for this right will be younger people with spinal injuries who managed their own affairs but following a traumatic accident are unable to do so. They would be able to take control over their own lives and be independent. Direct payments would empower them. As Sir Peter Large once said:
"Direct payments makes the difference between a life in which most of your choices are made by others and a life in which you can mostly choose for yourself".
That is the difference which direct payments would make. I know which choice all of us would prefer. With this amendment we can offer that same choice to disabled people.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has touched on the point I was going to raise. I am afraid that I have not had time to give my noble friend the Minister notice of it and I quite realise that he may need time but it is my understanding that direct payments are legal in Scotland. That is because the

649
Scottish legislation concerning local authorities is different and the whole administration by the Scottish Office of local authorities is different. I supported in principle the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord McColl a year or two ago and I made the same inquiry then. My understanding is that direct payments have worked quite well in Scotland but the Scots make up only one-tenth of the population of the United Kingdom. If the system is working there I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at changes south of the Border, though I would not wish to interfere with what is going on south of the Border.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: To allow direct cash payments to be given to disabled people in lieu of community care services is indeed the Government's aim and we have already announced that we intend to introduce legislation to achieve that south of the Border. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned, those facilities are already available in Scotland. It means that if someone prefers this option he or she would take on the responsibility for buying his or her own care package with these payments. That would give people more choice, more independence and more control over their lives. For example, they could employ their own care assistant and choose exactly when it would be most convenient for an assistant to help them. This initiative is a logical extension of the Government's policy of giving more power to the users of public services, a guiding principle for the Government seen most clearly in the Citizen's Charter initiative. I was delighted by the powerful endorsement given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, to these government principles.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the Minister baits me he can hardly expect me not to respond. We have debated this issue on at least two occasions to my knowledge and it may be very many more. Why has the Minister for Health firmly resisted this proposal in the past? Why are the Government now changing their mind? We are absolutely delighted that they are, but why has it taken so long? Many of us fought hard when the old ILF was scrapped to make sure that the continuation fund could fulfil the same role. Let us welcome the belated conversion, but let the Minister be a little wary of claiming too much credit for initiating that which for so long he has opposed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was just pointing out that this is but a small part of the Government's total overall principle of giving people choice—like buying their own council houses, dare I say, on which I crossed swords with some on the Benches opposite yesterday. However, I leave that aside.
Unfortunately, I have to say to my noble friend—I do not think he will be surprised—that I cannot support this amendment which attempts to specify exactly how legislation should be changed before it is clear what legislative measures are needed. It may be that more legislation is needed to create an efficient direct payments system than is specified in the amendment.
650
The Department of Health is currently looking at what legislation is needed to allow local authorities to make cash payments to disabled people. There are some complex technical issues to be resolved. The Department of Health is taking this forward in co-operation with local authorities and representatives of disabled people themselves. For example, one of the complex issues which has to be addressed is the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. That is the role that a third party might play in assisting recipients to manage their direct payments. That is but one of a number of complex issues which are being addressed.
We recognise the value and importance of consulting disabled people themselves about how this work is taken forward. The necessary preparatory work ought to be carried out before the legislation is changed. However, by asking the NDC to report on the necessary measures to introduce direct payments, we run the risk of duplicating the role of a separate technical advisory group which the Department of Health has set up. This group is assisting in the work of taking forward legislation to allow direct payments.
The British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, the Disablement Income Group and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR) are all represented on this technical advisory group. Therefore, there is already a means through which disabled people can influence the development of this important policy. Having explained what the situation now is, and where we are with the development of this policy, together with the assurance I have been able to give my noble friend that we intend to introduce the necessary legislation to achieve the ends that we all agree, I hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: Before I do that, can my noble friend say whether he is in a position to give any sort of tentative timetable?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Convention has long dictated that Ministers do not attempt to say in which Session of Parliament legislation will be brought forward.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Before the Minister sits down, the preparatory work has taken quite some time, has it not? It was in 1990, during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, that the Secretary of State, Mrs. Bottomley, more or less indicated in the other place that an amendment would be forthcoming. My noble friend on the mobile Bench and I pursued it in this House. There have been five years for this preparatory work to be undertaken. Has the Minister anything to say on that?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not have anything to add without breaching the convention which I mentioned to my noble friend. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that I shall chide the Department of Health when I return to Richmond Terrace.
Lord Swinfen: I am delighted to hear that my noble friend will bring pressure to hear where it is most effective in order to speed up this matter. With those words I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 17, line 18, at end insert:
("() The Council may, on request or otherwise, give employers and disabled people such advice as it thinks appropriate on matters concerned with or affecting or likely to affect disabled people.
() The Council may publish general advice on matters concerned with or affecting or likely to affect disabled people.").
The noble Baroness said: The main point of this amendment is that it is very important to give access to authoritative, consistent and informative information, support and advice to all three constituent groups that we are talking about at the moment—that is to say, the disabled, employers and providers of goods and services. The advice has to be really consistent and authoritative on their rights and obligations.
The amendment draws on the wording of ACAS's powers to give advice. One way of ensuring advice is provided would be to attach this function to the NDC. But it could be done elsewhere, and other specialist agencies could be best equipped to do it. ACAS, for example, is held in very high regard by employers and it is reassuring that it will be delivering some of the services under this Bill.
What is essential is the key function of ensuring that the right information and advice is available. This can be delivered through the existing institutional framework proposed in the Bill. But some reassurances are necessary that this delivery will happen.
Information and advice, of course, comes in different forms, but needs to include written materials and guidance, and the codes themselves. It should include information and advice, perhaps available from telephone helplines or one-stop shops, on specifics of legislation; for example, on the formula needed to calculate whether an adjustment falls within the cost ceilings set in the regulations. It also needs to include very specific advice or information on detailed issues of adjustment in specific cases, which can only realistically be given by specialists.
Other important support will need to come in the area of conciliation, which I have referred to already. ACAS on employment and the CBI have been assured that some other body could have the role on access. But the information and advice must clarify what the new law requires; how it will work and who is to be covered. This will be an important adjunct to the codes of practice and guidance that will be produced. It should also contribute to the effectiveness of informal dispute resolution.
Business does not look to the Government to provide everything. It is not looking for handouts and it will certainly use legal and technical specialists, as it does now in other areas of activity. I suppose that in this case there will probably be a whole raft of new consultants on the Disability Discrimination Bill. But the Government and publicly funded sources will play a vital and central role.
The Government have already given undertakings that information and some advice will be available from a variety of publicly funded sources. Given that, it is also reassuring to have Government undertakings as stated in Hansard of 13th June at col. 1696; namely, that ACAS, the Employment Service and their PACTS
652
will be available to offer to people with disabilities and employers appropriate help and advice on the new requirements under the Bill. It is also reassuring that business will have a realistic time to prepare for and make necessary changes, and that the Government have undertaken to ensure that, while the introduction of the Bill will be phased, the support structure is intended to be fully in place to meet the requirements of the first provisions that come into force. That again was mentioned on 13th June.
But there are some important criteria which the provision of advice and information must fulfil if necessary functions are to be carried out. Further confirmation is sought that the support will be consistent—that is very important—and coherent across employment and access issues, guided by "reasonableness" tests as to the scale and nature of the physical adjustments which will be required. There will also be a need for support which is readily accessible at local and national level; for example, through the provision of telephone helplines. It should also be available to all three groups; namely, those employing people, those providing goods and services and, most importantly of all, the disabled.
In a case where it is clear that advice is too individual or specific to be answered by anyone other than specialists—for example, on the precise adjustments that must be made—people should be told where the specialist advice can be obtained. In addition, I seek clarification on what contribution the NDC and NACEPD will make to the design and delivery of the support structure for the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. At the moment the National Disability Council would simply advise the Secretary of State and then only on issues of goods and services and only when he asks it to. It has no independent powers to offer him advice; no independent powers to commission research or to give advice. As I say, in any case, as it does not deal with employment matters, it is certainly not able to advise employers even if the Secretary of State wanted it to.
I believe that we all agreed at Second Reading that most problems in enforcing this Bill are likely to occur not because of malevolence, but because of ignorance; not because employers and the providers of goods and services want to thwart the law, but because they do not know what the law is or what it requires. All hope that cases going to the courts and tribunals will be a last resort when all else fails. It is much better to have a culture of willing compliance rather than a climate of litigation.
How will employers' organisations and suppliers of goods and services who seek clarification of the law know where to go if they are not allowed to seek the advice of a central authoritative body? It is a very modest and tiny amendment, but at least it would ensure that companies, organisations and suppliers of goods and services get consistent advice when they seek it. Otherwise, where do they go? How do they find out what they should do? How are they going to assess what is reasonable cost and how can they be reassured that their competitors will also be complying in the same way?

653
There was a revealing interchange at Committee. We discussed this matter on the first day, 13th June, at cols. 1737 to 1738. On an amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Turner, we discussed the need for employers to take expert advice. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked the Minister where employers could take expert advice, and the Minister said that the National Disability Council could "offer advice". When we were surprised, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, replied that, although institutionally the body could not give advice,
"if someone were casting around, with nowhere else to go, they might find they could be helped by contacting that body".—[Official Report, 13/6/95; col. 1739.]
When the Minister said that, we all thought, "What an entirely sensible idea"—but for one small drawback; under the Bill the council has no power to do that. The Minister apologised for misleading the Committee. The Minister's first thought—that employers could go to that body—was his best thought. That body, the National Disability Council, could and should offer advice. Indeed, the Minister's reflex response was that it could offer advice. We all thought that it was sensible for it to offer advice. The Minister was somewhat surprised, when pressed, to find that it could not do so. Was not the Minister making our case for us? In the light of that, may we hope that the Minister will support the amendment?
6 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I rise to support the amendment. If it is accepted, we shall need to take out of the Bill subsections (9) and (10), as envisaged in the group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 108, 109 and 110. Those subsections specifically prevent the National Disability Council from giving advice on employment matters.
Lord Addington: In our last debate but one I said that the noble Baroness had proposed a second way to try to make the Bill more functional—that is, to try to specify that there should be advisory powers and to try to stitch together the current rather loose structure. This is not my preferred way of doing that, but at least it is an attempt. Therefore, I support the amendment and its aims.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may start by making the position clear. Indeed, I thought that I had made it perfectly clear in my rather long speech on the first group of amendments. Clearly, however, I had not because the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said—I cannot quote her verbatim but I understood her to say—that the NDC could give advice only if asked to do so by the Secretary of State. I said clearly that the NDC will provide advice both on its own initiative and when asked to do so by the Secretary of State. I added—indeed, I emphasised this by pointing out that I was answering a point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy—that the NDC will report publicly to Parliament through its annual reports, thereby drawing attention to its concerns in any areas where it considers that its advice has not been heeded. Although I
654
understand that the noble Baroness wants to go a little further, I believe that she is doing the proposed NDC a disservice to suggest that it can give advice only when asked to do so by the Secretary of State. That is certainly not the case.
We fully intend the NDC to give advice on the needs of disabled people and on how service providers can meet those needs. Practical advice on implementing the provisions relating to goods and services will be issued in codes of practice prepared by the National Disability Council. Similarly, NACEPD will give advice to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment on the employment provisions in the Bill. Indeed, NACEPD rather than NDC is best equipped to consider the wide range of employment issues as all of its members are appointed because of their knowledge and expertise in the field of employment and disability issues. They include such key figures as Sir Peter Large, who was mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, and the director of RADAR, Mr. Bert Massie.
In particular, we shall be drawing on the expertise and experience of NACEPD when drawing up the new employment code of practice on the employment of disabled people. However, we are also fully aware that employers, service providers and disabled people will want more general information and specific advice on particular issues. That point was raised in another place and my honourable friend the Minister responsible for disabled people gave assurances that the Government intend working in co-operation with business—with, for example, the Confederation of British Industry, the chambers of commerce and local authority access officers—to ensure that people know what Parliament expects them to do once the Bill has been enacted.
Officials in the DSS and the Department of Employment are already working together to co-ordinate a framework of action to ensure that the business community and disabled people are aware of the new rights and duties created by the Bill. We shall be discussing that framework with business and with representatives of disability organisations. My honourable friend has also said that he is considering setting up a telephone helpline to provide more specific advice on particular issues.
When the NDC is set up, both it and NACEPD may wish to provide advice about those arrangements. We shall certainly put draft plans to them for their consideration, but we see no advantage to it becoming the councils' responsibility to provide such advice. The experience and skills of the NDC's members should be directed to overseeing the operation of the Act, appraising the arrangements with a truly independent eye and advising the Government on any improvements which need to be made. I remind the Committee that the Bill already contains provisions for setting up an advice and support service to help to resolve disputes under the right of access and that the services of ACAS will be available to help to settle the disputes arising from the new employment rights.
I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend Lady O'Cathain that the information and advice needs of business and disabled people will be met. We are at one in considering that essential for the successful

655
implementation of the Bill. We shall be giving it a high priority in the lead-up to the implementation of the Bill's provisions and thereafter to ensure that the Act operates as we all intend it to operate. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: The phrase which gave me the most comfort in my noble friend's speech was that officials of the DSS and the Department of Employment are working together. The impression that has been given in our long discussions on the Bill to date is that they are two cells working in different parts of Whitehall and ne'er the twain shall meet. Therefore, I found my noble friend's words most encouraging. I was also encouraged that the Government are considering setting up a helpline. Being realistic, I suppose that we should be most encouraged by the fact that my noble friend has said that he fully intends the NDC to be fully available to give practical advice on access, that it is involved in drawing up codes of practice and that NACEPD is to give practical advice on employment matters. In the light of those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 17, line 39, after ("appropriate") insert ("including appropriate organisations representative of employers and appropriate organisations representative of disabled persons").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 107, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 112, 119 and 120. My noble friend the Minister will not be surprised by these amendments because they relate to a matter that I have raised in every discussion on the Bill so far. I refer to the need to consult. It is terribly important that that happens. I hope that by now the message may have got through. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's reply: I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I shall be extremely brief. These are helpful amendments. When the Minister replies perhaps he could tell the Committee how the department proposes to ensure that the organisations which represent disabled people are truly representative and whether they are organisations of disabled people or organisations for disabled people. I can see the Minister holding his head. He is aware of the problems that that will raise, but I know that he is aware of the important distinction. Therefore, it would be helpful if he could say just a few words, first, about how the Government intend to ensure that they understand the distinction between organisations of and organisations for disabled people and, secondly, about how the Government propose to ensure that they are appropriate organisations.
Baroness Seear: At a previous stage I mentioned that when consultation is to take place with employers' representatives and representatives of disabled persons, it is regrettable that no reference is made to trade unions, or at least organisations of employees, because disabled people will be working alongside other workers. It is a common experience that some workers can find that difficult. They need to have the position explained to them.
656
I recall many years ago the issues that arose when a person with epilepsy was introduced into a typing pool without the other typists knowing that that person had epilepsy. If that person had suddenly had a fit it would not have had a good effect on relationships in the section or on the future of the person with epilepsy. If people with disabilities are to be happily employed inside organisations, it is important that fellow workers should understand the position and should be willing—when they do know they normally are—to accept such a person. They should understand that they are likely to do a good job but they may have special problems. It is a pity that that has been overlooked.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall deal with each amendment in turn. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that I understand the difference between organisations of and organisations for, and probably organisations which are both of and for, disabled people. We appreciate the wide range of bodies that there are in this field. Some overarching bodies exist to bring them together, otherwise consultation might be impossibly lengthy.
On Amendment No. 107, as the Bill is currently framed the NDC would be empowered to consult any persons it considered appropriate before giving advice to the Secretary of State. It would be free to consult appropriate organisations representative of employers and disabled persons, but might also wish to consult a wide range of other people, organisations and service providers, depending on the area under consideration. I hope that that answers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Baroness Seear: I am sure that the Minister will not let the disgraceful words "trade unions" or "union employee representatives" pass his lips, will he?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I did say representatives of employers. As I said, depending upon the area of consideration, the organisations could easily include representatives of employees. A trade union is obviously one such organisation which represents employees. If that encourages and helps the noble Baroness, I am happy to say it.
The NDC is required to consult bodies set up by statute or by Ministers for the purpose of giving advice on disability. Representatives of business and disabled people already sit on those advisory bodies. Moreover, the NDC itself will include members from business as well as disabled people.
We do not think it right to place in legislation further reminders to consult specific types of organisation. The NDC's membership will be appointed with a view to gaining the respect and confidence of all sectors of society. Therefore we envisage that it will see the good sense of consulting organisations whose members are likely to be affected by its recommendations. But we must leave the NDC to decide whom it is appropriate to consult before giving advice to the Secretary of State on particular issues. I am sure that the Secretary of State will take an interest in whom the NDC has consulted and it would be open to him to consult more widely before corning to any decision if he considered that to be appropriate.

657
On Amendment No. 112, the legislation as currently framed allows the Secretary of State to consult whoever he considers appropriate before making appointments to the NDC. The intention is that both appropriate organisations representative of business and representatives of disabled people would be consulted along with others with an interest in the work of the NDC. It would be wrong to put some types of organisation on the face of the Bill, as proposed by Amendment No. 112, while leaving others out.
The effect of Amendment No. 119 would be to require the Secretary of State to specify at least one person to be consulted by the NDC whenever he asked it to prepare a code of practice. That would not always be appropriate. The legislation as currently framed allows for the proper amount of flexibility.
Amendment No. 120 seeks to specify that appropriate organisations representative of employers and disabled people should be included among those the NDC considers consulting when preparing codes of practice. However, it would be inappropriate to make such a provision. As I have already said, there will be a number of other bodies with an interest in the work of the NDC and it would not be sensible to specify two groups on the face of the Bill and leave others out. In any case, the Bill as currently framed allows the NDC to consult whoever it wishes.
I am sure that the NDC will be careful to consult organisations representing those with a direct interest in the matters under consideration when preparing proposals of codes of practice. But I would also remind my noble friend and other Members of the Committee that there are further safeguards which require draft codes of practice to be published before they are put to the Secretary of State. Those will ensure that everyone with an interest has an opportunity to make representations to the council and, I suppose, to the Secretary of State.
We believe that the provisions in this Bill for consultation prior to the appointment of members or the giving of advice, and on the preparation of codes of practice, are sufficient to ensure that the views of all those with an interest are taken into account. I hope that, given my assurances and my explanation on the record, my noble friend will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving that reassurance and for the fact that it will be on the record. But will be enlighten me on one point? He said that membership of the NDC will include representatives of business in relation to the provision of access. Will there be something in the remit of those appointed to the NDC which will make them responsible for consulting widely the people whom they might represent? I cannot get my mind around whether a member of the NDC will be someone who happens to be a good business person (man or woman) or an articulate member of a disabled lobby who might just give his or her own views rather than consult. In that case the rest of business would not be consulted. Does my noble friend see the point I am making? I should like to know what he thinks about it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is always a problem. If one wishes to consult a body, one writes a letter to the secretary and receives a letter back from the secretary. One may well be left puzzling whether the secretary is writing on his own behalf or whether he has decided that that is what everyone thinks. It is a general problem, but I do not believe that it happens often. I suspect that people are always careful about ensuring that their organisation is involved if it is being consulted.
The people on the NDC will be drawn from the background I mentioned. On employers, I hope that they will do a great deal more than just represent employers' interests. I hope that they will be of such a calibre that they will realise that they must try to listen to what all employers are saying before they give the views. I hope that they will take a wider interest in the NDC's business. Even if it does not directly involve employers, I hope that they will still be prepared to give their expertise, help and advice. That is it.
On appointing people to the council, we shall of course be consulting about that, but all the people appointed, whether they are from disabled groups, employers or wherever else, will be appointed in their individual capacity. It would not be in the interests of the NDC's best working if all the members felt that they were only there to bat for whatever or whoever they represented. Some Members of the Committee, like me, may have served on bodies where that view was sometimes held by a member. It did not serve the body well when the member took such a narrow view of his responsibilities. I hope that that helps my noble friend.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank my noble friend for that explanation, but my attention has just been drawn to Schedule 3 which provides:
"The members shall be appointed from among persons who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State—

(a) have knowledge or experience of the needs of disabled persons … or

(b) are members of, or otherwise represent, professional bodies or bodies which represent industry or other business interests".

I come back to the point: will they be charged with not necessarily giving their own personal opinion, but when issues arise which have wide implications charged to consult on behalf of those particular groups?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I understood my noble friend to ask whether an individual representing employers, say, will be obliged personally to consult employers. I do not believe that on the face of the Bill that will be the case. The NDC collectively, including that person, will be obliged to consult widely, as set out in Clause 23(7). However, there will be no obligation on each individual member to consult the sector from which he or she is drawn.
However, the way of the world is that when deciding how to make a judgment on issues before the council the person will draw from his or her experience, contacts with colleagues, and so forth. I understand my noble friend's point but she is concerning herself unnecessarily about the distinction between what an individual must do and what the body as a whole, including that individual, must do. I hope that I have helped my noble friend.
Lord McCarthy: We are corning close to the heart of the Government's philosophy. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, told us that she reflects what is said by the CBI. Of course, the CBI wants a body that is representative. It wants to sit at a table with people who represent different groups and who can commit those groups by saying, "This is what these people would like to have".
If one wants a body that is representative it would help to have representatives of employees, even if they are from trade unions affiliated to the TUC. A dreadful thing! I do not ask for that to be on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, the Government are keen not to have anything representative because it smacks of that terrible thing, "representativeness"; it is getting close to quangos and so forth. Therefore, they state repeatedly that such people are individuals talking as individuals. If that continues they will represent no one until there is nothing.
Lord Renton: During the past 50 years we have had a great deal of experience of statutory bodies appointed by the Government under authority given by Parliament. As regards the National Coal Board, for example, it was customary to have on the board at least one current or former representative of the National Union of Mineworkers. However, once he was appointed he represented the interests of the National Coal Board. He drew on his experience and loyalty but his decisions were those to be made in favour of the National Coal Board. That is only a simple example of what happens across the board.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord is utterly and totally wrong. If one was a workers' representative on the National Coal Board one could not have anything whatever to do with the National Union of Mineworkers or any other association connected with the industry. The board was an executive functioning management and people were not there to represent people; they were there as individuals. We are now talking about a consultative committee and the Government are trying to discover what industry and various groups, including the CBI, think. That is the difference and that is why it should be representative.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is a great deal more than a consultative committee. It will give advice on a number of issues, including important issues such as codes of practice. Therefore, it is a good deal more than the noble Lord suggested.
I am amazed because it sounds like a debate on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I thought that it had been pretty well accepted that people who are appointed to public bodies, as this body will be, come from different backgrounds and perhaps are appointed because of that. However, after they are appointed they are expected to participate fully in the total work of the board or organisation and not represent only one interest. I am amazed that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, believes that that would be a sensible and workable way to organise a body such as this.
Baroness O'Cathain: Of course, individuals are not there to represent only one interest. Let us suppose that there is an employers' representative on the NDC; for
660
instance, somebody with experience of dealing with ATMs, the bank machines. He has been appointed in his own right because he has experience and knows about some of the problems. If a specific problem arises will it be up to the NDC as a whole or will it be up to that individual to ensure that there is wider representation? It could be that the individual has specific experience in one area of ATMs and not in another.
Obviously, representatives will be appointed for what they can contribute to the running of the NDC but groups of employers, disabled people and providers of goods and services will believe that, as regards the NACEPD and the NDC, unless there is a strong commitment they will be left out.
I shall read carefully what the Minister said. Perhaps he will confirm that he said that the NDC will have a responsibility to consult. Indeed, it has a responsibility to consult but I expect that underlying that will be specific areas. For example, in the case of access it will consult the building construction industry and in the case of disability it will consult disabled people. I cannot see why the provision cannot be put on the face of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps it will help my noble friend to reflect on what has taken place today if I put on record in Hansard Clause 23(7). She can then read it tomorrow. It states:
"Where the Council proposes to give the Secretary of State advice on a matter, it shall before doing so … consult such other persons as it considers appropriate".
There are plenty of powers on the face of the Bill to suggest that the council must consult.
Baroness O'Cathain: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 108 to 110 not moved.]
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [The National Disability Council]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 33, line 7, at end insert:
("() have knowledge or experience of the needs of persons who have had a disability or the needs of a particular group, or particular groups, of such persons;").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 33, line 15, after first ("persons") insert (". persons who have had a disability").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 114 to 118 not moved.]
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Further provision about codes issued under section 24]:
[Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 120A:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
("Reports prepared by the Council
.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of section 23(2), the Council, in pursuance of the duties imposed by paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection—

(a) shall examine enactments for the purposes of ascertaining whether they are inconsistent with, or contrary to, the object of eliminating discrimination against disabled persons, and

(b) if so required by the Secretary of State, make to him a report on any matter specified by him which is connected with those duties and concerns the results of any such examination.

Any such report shall be made within the time specified by the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State shall cause the report to be published.
(2) Whenever the Council think it necessary, they shall draw up and submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amending enactments.
(3) In this section "enactment" includes an Order in Council, and Northern Ireland legislation and any instrument made under an Act or any Northern Ireland legislation:").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 120A is to monitor other legislation in order to test its effect on the disability discrimination legislation. Clause 32 establishes that all other legislation, whether prior or subsequent to it, will take precedence over the disability discrimination legislation. Therefore, this amendment will require the disability council to review both secondary and primary legislation to ensure that it does not conflict with the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Bill; in other words, that it does not conflict with the elimination of discrimination against disabled people.
It is a fairly simple and straightforward amendment but it is important in the sense that much of our other legislation tends either in itself or in its implementation to discriminate against disabled people. A number of laws may operate in such a way as to block the elimination of discrimination. One example has already been discussed; that is, the legislation governing listed buildings. We are extremely pleased that the Minister has indicated that English Heritage will be producing guidance on that issue and that the council may choose to address that in its code of practice.
Another obvious example relates to the implementation of health and safety legislation. The role of health and safety legislation and of fire regulations in constraining access to buildings and services is well documented, in particular in the report of the Committee on the Restrictions against Disabled People which reported in 1982. Perhaps I may quote a paragraph from that report which states:
"Many of the letters we received referred to people being refused access because they were 'a safety hazard' … Many others referred to being turned away from cinemas. dance halls and other places because they were 'fire risks'. We … accept that on certain occasions they might be justified. On the other hand. the insistence on safety by managers is often not so much for the benefit of customers as to protect managers who do not want to be accused of carelessness".
I know that that report was published in 1982 and, as the Minister indicated earlier, we have become much more aware of those issues since that time. But there are still examples of occasions on which people impose restrictions which are not reasonable and which impose a barrier against disabled people. In other words, there are still misplaced perceptions of what disabled people can and cannot do. Those perceptions can easily creep into legislation, and in particular into secondary legislation.
I hesitate to say this, but there is a precedent for this particular amendment. It is based on Section 55 of the Sex Discrimination Act. Under that section, the EOC is required to monitor and report on changes in health and safety legislation. It has carried out one major report at the request of the Secretary of State but, since then, it has not published any major reports. However, it has monitored the various changes that have been made and it has made its report to the Health and Safety Commission or, as appropriate, to the Minister.
Of course, this amendment would go rather wider than just to one area of legislation, although health and safety would be extremely important in that respect.
The fact that such a duty is placed upon the commission is a cautionary influence on those making legislation and in particular those putting forward secondary legislation in the form of regulations. It would give the National Disability Council an opportunity to influence the wording of those regulations for the legislation to ensure that unfair perceptions were not included. It is quite an important amendment and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: The noble Baroness put her case clearly and sincerely but, with respect, I must say to her that I do not consider that the amendment is necessary and I am not sure that it creates a very wise precedent. In the first place, the amendment asks that the NDC "shall examine enactments". That means previous legislation. But that is the function of the legal people in government departments. Sometimes that is done with the help of parliamentary counsel, the draftsmen.
If the NDC were to do that, it would have to employ lawyers. It may be that it will employ one lawyer but I should not expect it to employ more than one. Surely when we establish new bodies under statute we do not expect to pass the buck to them to see whether the statute under which they have been appointed has omitted necessary amendments to previous legislation. I hope that they have not been omitted because there are quite a large number of amendments proposed in this legislation; there is also a repealing schedule and there is modification of the Act in its application to Northern Ireland, and so on. Therefore, with great respect to the noble Baroness, I do not believe that it would be right to have the effort which government departments are making continuously duplicated by this new statutory body.
The noble Baroness has a better case in relation to subsection (2) of the amendment; but within the powers already given to the NDC under the Bill—in subsection (2) of Clause 23 especially, to which the new clause

663
refers—the council could perfectly well submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amending enactments, including this Bill when it becomes an Act.
I should have to look again at Section 55 of the Sex Discrimination Act which the noble Baroness mentioned but my recollection is that Section 55 enables the health and safety regulations which are already in existence to be considered to see whether they need to be amended in the light of practice which has arisen in their application. Therefore, with deep respect, that is not really a precedent and I should not be surprised if, on this occasion, my noble friend felt unable to accept the amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I support my noble friend, who put her case so well. I am extremely surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, should say that there is a danger of creating a precedent because my noble friend went out of her way to say that the precedent is already established in the Sex Discrimination Act.
The principle is precisely the same. The strength of my noble friend's case is that because the section is in that Act it gives us a valuable precedent and is a crucial part of the legislation. Therefore, by omitting the principle from the Bill, the Government are, in a sense, discriminating against disabled people by their failure to provide adequate legislation. We are not at all interested in existing legislation; we are concerned with future legislation. That is a very important factor and one of the important reasons why my noble friend deserves support.
Can the Minister say why the Government deliberately omitted that clause? Perhaps I may speculate on two possible excuses, although I am sure that the Minister will have a very good reason rather than excuses. However, my first example is on the question of money. No government want to spend money unreasonably, but, as the Minister well knows, there is provision in the Bill to cover unreasonable accommodation. Therefore, there is no question of unreasonable amounts of money being spent because of the amendment, which I hope the Minister will accept.
The only other excuse or reason that I can think of is that the Government do not want the hassle and that they fear that arguments will arise over such issues as safety regulations. But we will not remove discrimination and prejudice or get reasonable provision for disabled people without a lot of hassle. We shall have the hassle in any event when the Bill is enacted; but hassle is an essential and worthwhile price to pay. If the Government fail to accept the amendment, I believe that they will have far more hassle if subsequent legislation goes against the letter or the spirit of the Bill.
Lord Swinfen: My name is attached to the amendment and I should like especially to support its principle. My noble friend Lord Renton praised Clause 23(2). Of course, it may have been faint praise, but it was nonetheless praise. However, how can subsection (2) work without there being some work on subsection (1)? Looking at the provisions and the regulations produced under the legislation, one would have to undertake a certain amount of investigation to ascertain whether there are any contradictory Acts around.
664
When he responds to the amendment, can my noble friend the Minister say whether, as drafted, the provision would cover secondary legislation? I ask that question because I have a feeling that it may cover only primary legislation. I suspect that most of the problems are caused not necessarily by primary legislation (which should be looked at by parliamentary draftsmen when preparing Bills) but by the way in which the regulations produced under various enactments are actually put into effect.
Perhaps I may give Members of the Committee an example from my own experience when dealing with fire officers. When there is a change of individual holding a particular post, all the requirements in a particular building also change because the new man's fads—and it is normally a man—happen to be totally different. Such changes can prove to be very expensive for disabled organisations and also for business.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I do not know whether this is the right time to mention it, but I have received yet another letter. This time the letter is from the vice-chairman of the Oxford City Access Committee. The committee is most concerned about city centres of such towns as Oxford which are being closed to traffic. The letter says:
"I beg you to use your influence to press for more power to be given to local authorities when they shortly take over responsibility for access for disabled people in city centres. In fact, a legal right of access is needed".
I hope that the Minister will ensure that such a provision is somehow incorporated into the Bill. Access is absolutely essential to such people if they are to live a normal life.
Lord Carter: It may be of assistance to the noble Baroness to know that I have tabled Amendment No. 126A which deals with that very point.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I thank the noble Lord for that information.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendment seeks to place a separate duty on the NDC to examine legislation to ascertain whether it is inconsistent or contrary to the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people. I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me if I tell the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that I believe her point does not actually arise under the current amendment. However, we shall perhaps deal with it later. I shall certainly look into the point that she mentioned. Moreover, if Members of the Committee will extend a little further tolerance to me, I should say that I have looked into the point that the noble Baroness raised regarding an earlier letter that she read out this afternoon. The noble Baroness said that it was letter number one. I was surprised at the suggestion that my honourable friend Mr. Hague, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, had—and I believe that I remember the words correctly—"fohhed oft" a disabled constituent.
I believe that that letter led the noble Baroness to take a very partial view on the matter. However, far from fobbing off the gentleman, my honourable friend has

665
written to the council on his constituent's behalf on no fewer than four occasions since last December. As the council has the responsibility in the issue, that clearly is the body which my honourable friend must consult.
My honourable friend has also secured a temporary extension of the taxi licence while the matter is being investigated further. I do not want to go into any more detail on the matter, but I should like to restore the balance as regards the picture painted—unwittingly, I know—by the noble Baroness. As other people have said, and as I am sure the noble Baroness appreciates, my honourable friend has an excellent record on behalf of disabled people in general and regarding his own disabled constituents.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: For the sake of the record, perhaps I may tell the Minister that that was not letter number one; it was a telephone call. Letter number one came from Devon.
However, I was very pleased to hear what the Minister said. I hope that there will be a satisfactory outcome. If the matter has been going on for as long as the Minister said, it really is a very serious problem. Indeed, we are talking about the poor man's livelihood. Therefore, to take away his bread and butter—and he is a taxpayer—and throw him into unemployment would be ridiculous.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As I said, thanks to the intervention of my honourable friend, that gentleman now has a temporary extension of his licence while the matter is being resolved. Therefore, as they say, we should carefully watch this space.
I appreciate the concerns expressed by Members of the Committee who have taken part in this short debate and especially those raised specifically by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. I, too, envisage that the NDC may wish to pursue that area. My noble friend Lord Renton, with his unerring eye, drew our attention to Clause 23(2). Some of the duties of the council are laid out in that subsection and encompassed in them would be the ability to apply the role that I believe the noble Baroness wishes it to play; namely, to look at the important area of other legislation. Indeed, although I am not a lawyer, my eye is caught by subsection (2) (c) in particular which says:
"It shall be the duty of the Council to advise the Secretary of State, either on its own initiative or when asked to do so by the Secretary of State—
(c) on matters related to the operation of this Act or of provisions made under this Act".
Therefore, quite clearly—
Lord Swinfen: If, when the legislation becomes enacted, it clashes with another Act, would advice on amending the other Act be allowed?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought that my noble friend had lost patience with me. I was just about to tell him that that would, of course, include secondary legislation. I believe that that answers one of my noble friend's points.
However, the question is: what would happen to that advice? I would expect that in most cases—and I use the word "most" with a little care—the Government
666
would try to take the opportunity (and obviously, if it is legislation, that has to be the way that it is done) to square up the Bill and whatever Act or secondary legislation has been drawn to their attention as being contradictory.
I would not like to say that in every case they would be able to repeal the offending part of a previous Act. There may be other or conflicting interests which require to be balanced. We all know about the difficulties concerning fire prevention and health and safety which may well conflict with this Bill. In some cases a future government may not be able to go down the road the NDC might wish them to go down.
However, I see the NDC as a valuable body from which the Government could obtain advice on those conflicts. I would expect that in the great majority of cases the Government would take steps to make sure that the conflict was removed. However, I should not like to lead my noble friend into believing that there is a guarantee that the Government would act in every case. The other interests involved have to be considered.
As I said, the council will be free to consider these matters on its own initiative. Should it consider that a piece of legislation is inhibiting the elimination of discrimination and needs to be amended it will be within the council's remit to advise the Secretary of State how that could be done.
While we do not envisage that the council would produce a report for publication on each piece of legislation examined, it would be open to the Secretary of State to use the council's report as a basis for wider consultation. The council might also wish to include details of its consideration of legislation in its annual report, as I mentioned earlier. The Northern Ireland Disability Council will have a similar ability in relation to Northern Ireland legislation.
I hope that the debate has served to demonstrate the breadth of the NDC's general duties as proposed in the Bill and the influential position it will hold. We do not believe that it would be right to try to identify all the areas which the NDC may wish to consider in detail on the face of the Bill as those are hound to change over time. However, I hope that, given my assurances on the points before us this evening, the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. However, there is a difference between the general duty about which he spoke and to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred and a specific duty which is placed upon the council. If a specific duty is placed upon the council, that means that there is an obligation on the council and on the Government to discuss the matter and consider what the council recommends.
To take the parallel with the Equal Opportunities Commission, the review of the health and safety legislation led to a number of changes in that legislation. However, where the commission has made representations on other Acts of Parliament it has been more difficult to bring about changes in those Acts. Therefore, there is a difference, which can be important.

667
However, because the Minister has dealt with the amendment so sympathetically, I should like to consider what he said and perhaps return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Codes of practice prepared by the Secretary of State]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 121 to 124:
Page 19, line 36, leave out ("against disabled persons").
Page 19, line 37, after ("employment") insert ("against disabled persons and persons who have had a disability").
Page 19, line 39, at end insert ("and persons who have had a disability").
Page 20, line 3, after ("person") insert ("or a person who has had a disability").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 121 to 124 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Further provision about codes issued under section 26]:
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 20, line 19, after ("consult") insert "the National Disability Council and such other").
The noble Baroness said: I am grateful that this is one of the few areas of the Bill where consultation is specifically mentioned. However, the amendment seeks reassurance that consultation will also involve discussion with the NDC. There could conceivably be an overlap between the codes of practice under Part H of the Bill on employment and under Part III relating to goods and services. It is very important that those should be consistent.
For example, in the case of an employee working in a restaurant, NACEPD would give advice and the code of practice would specify that certain arrangements would have to be made for that disabled employee. That same restaurant would be open to disabled people. It could well be that the advice given by the NDC in terms of access would not be consistent with the advice relating to provision for the wheelchair employee in the restaurant. In order to avoid any confusion, I ask that the National Disability Council should be consulted. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining her concerns about one hand not knowing what the other was doing. However, I should point out that, unless specifically asked to do so, the National Disability Council is excluded under the Bill as currently drafted from advising Ministers on specific matters relating to employment. The National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities fulfils that role, as we have already debated. However, I accept that the employment code of practice will have implications for employers and others that need to be considered in a wider context.
As my noble friend Lord Mackay mentioned, NACEPD has considerable expertise and is well respected. It has advised Ministers on a number of
668
employment issues, including the Employment Service's voluntary code of good practice, the disability symbol and Access to Work, and continuously monitors the provision of employment and training programmes and services for people with disabilities. NACEPD is currently helping with issues connected with the Bill, following a request from my honourable friend the Minister of State for Employment. To that end it has set up a special working group which is looking into employment matters as they are affected by the Bill.
I mentioned earlier that it is our intention to issue a code of practice in advance of the employment provisions of the Bill coming into force. As we intend the employment provisions to commence towards the end of next year, the preliminary work on that code has already commenced and the intention is for it to be put out for formal consultation at the end of this year. Members of the Committee will be interested to note that the NACEPD working group I mentioned earlier is playing an active role in the development of the code. I make these points because, although the intention is for the National Disability Council to be established early in 1996, it may not be set up by the time the Government are ready to consult formally on the draft code and clearly can have no role in the current preliminary work.
I can, however, assure my noble friend, as my honourable friends have explained in the other place, that we will be consulting widely on our proposals for codes of practice and regulations. Those consultations will include organisations and individuals not included on the face of the Bill. I can therefore confirm that NACEPD, and the National Disability Council provided it is set up in time, will be included in any formal consultations on the code and any subsequent revisions of the code. It is unnecessary to mention that in the Bill; it could potentially cause confusion when coupled with other provisions specifically excluding employment and training matters from the National Disability Council's remit.
I hope that with that assurance my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Lord McCarthy: Is the noble Lord really saying that he cannot accept this very small and reasonable amendment because the Government cannot make up their mind what they want to do with these two consultative bodies? They have made provisions whereby they could keep one of them in existence for ever, get rid of one of them, or have another. The Government do not know what they want to do. Therefore, when they are asked to accept a simple amendment which provides merely that something may be done to keep them together so that they do not go in different directions, they cannot make up their mind. Why can they not make up their mind? If they cannot accept the amendment, why can they not tell us now how many councils they think we shall eventually have, and when?
Lord Swinfen: Is this not another argument for having a central authority?
Lord Inglewood: In trying to confuse me, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has confused himself. To go hack to what I explained about timing in relation to the various bodies, the important point is that. as the

669
amendment is drafted, it would be impossible for anybody to do anything until both bodies were in existence. The National Disability Council will not come into existence for a little time, long after much of the essential preliminary work from NACEPD in order to draw up the code of practice will have had to be carried out. In other words, the amendment would effectively block the proceedings which we intend to put into place to help disabled people. That would be quite contrary to the purposes underlying the Bill, whose aims I believe noble Lords opposite agree with.
7 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Baroness does not say that one can consult only the National Disability Council. If it were not there one could not consult it. The noble Baroness is saying that when the council is in existence, consult it.
Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I may say what I actually wanted to say. I take the Minister's point that if the council is not in existence it cannot be consulted. When the codes of practice are drawn up, I wish to ensure that there is coherence between the two councils. If NACEPD has done all the work on the codes of practice before the NDC is in existence, my amendment does not stand. However, I was reassured by what my noble friend stated: that people will be consulted on drawing up the codes of practice. Although he did not say this, there was mention earlier about there being common membership between NACEPD and the NDC. It was another point on which I wished to thank the Minister. People who are drawing up the codes in NACEPD now may eventually find themselves on the NDC. If there were any problems, they could be ironed out.
The Minister nods his head in agreement. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved amendment No. 126A:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Obstruction by public authority
. No public authority shall unreasonably obstruct the operation of this Act where a person has acted to comply with its provisions.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. I apologise for the drafting; I drafted it myself.
The purpose of the amendment is to find out the exact rights, powers and responsibilities of public authorities—I refer in particular to local authorities—in respect of the Bill when it becomes an Act. I briefed the department on the background to the amendment. I put forward the provision as a result of my experience over the past week or so which revealed to me that there may be a gap in the Bill. If not, perhaps the Minister will explain that I have analysed the situation incorrectly.
Members of the Committee who were present at an earlier debate may remember that I gave an example of a company I know which employs disabled people. It needs a ramp. The company is a tenant and the landlord
670
has agreed to provide a ramp. The tenant requires access to secure employment of disabled people. Application for planning permission has been sought, received and so on. The only place for the ramp is on the pavement, on the public highway. The highways authority has said that within the existing law there is a long and tedious procedure for encroachment on the public highway. The matter can even go to a public inquiry and may take a long time. In fact, the ramp is half built, but building of the ramp has been stopped while the issue is sorted out.
I have deliberately not named the council because I am just giving an example of the grey area which may arise when the Bill becomes law. The point was made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, when she referred to the problem of city centres.
Unless the matter is already covered in the Bill, if the ramp clearly does not interfere with movement on the pavement—in this case the pavement is extremely wide and in common sense there is no problem with the ramp—the amendment requires the public authority or the local authority not to act unreasonably. It can consider the situation and say, "We can rely on the Disability Discrimination Bill. It provides that we must not act unreasonably. Therefore, we do not have to go through this long and complicated procedure under the Town and Country Planning Act, the public inquiry route, and so on. We can rely on the Bill to provide that we are not acting unreasonably if we give permission".
At present public authorities, in particular local authorities, can put so many hurdles in the way of access or whatever that there can be a long delay and then refusal. In this case the highways authority regards as its primary responsibility to defend the safety of the highway rather than giving higher priority to providing access for disabled people and thus employment for disabled people. If the ramp is not provided, disabled people will have to be discharged from employment because the fire officer is extremely unhappy with the current access available.
As it is drafted, I am not clear that anyone will be able to call in aid the Bill in order to ask the public authority to act reasonably. The purpose of the amendment is to discover whether the Bill can be used, as it were, to force a public authority to apply the test of reasonableness in its considerations.
With regard to my specific example, there will obviously be a requirement to consult with the highways authority. The highways authority can consider the matter and say, "This is not unreasonable. Therefore we give permission. We do not have to consider all these other requirements which are largely theoretical, although legal, as overriding the responsibility for providing access for disabled people".
If the power is not built into the Bill, many necessary alterations to improve access will not take place because the owner of the building will be willing to provide access but the local authority, the highways authority or the public authority involved will say, "No. We have a higher responsibility over and above providing access for disabled people. That responsibility is under the Town and Country Planning Act to ensure that the highway is not impeded".
The amendment probes the need for an overriding power of reasonableness so far as concerns the public authority whose consent is required. Such a power requires the authority to behave reasonably in its consideration of such matters; the authority would not be forced to rely on other Acts of Parliament which take precedence over the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support my noble friend's amendment most warmly. The problems that he outlines have been experienced by many local authorities, in particular where one has a two-tier system. The district council may be responsible for conservation issues as a local planning authority and may well have the disability access officer. Together they come up with an acceptable proposal. But the highways authority involves another tier—the county council. The county council is responsible for ruling whether a proposal is acceptable. As a result, the district council may urge that providing access is a reasonable activity. The pavement may be 10 feet wide or 12 feet wide. The conservation officer and the local disability officer, both employed by the district council, have come to a reasonable and sensible way forward on the issue. But the traffic authority involves the county council—another local authority. It may veto the matter, unreasonably we may believe.
Given the complications, and given that there cannot always be a meeting of minds, we hope that the Government will be supportive of the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for bringing the amendment to our notice. I, too, would like to probe the Minister on the issue. I received a letter only yesterday about Oxford city centre. It is from the vice-chairman of the Oxford City Access Committee. It asks me to bring the matter up and to press for more powers to be given to the local authorities when they shortly take over responsibility for access for disabled people in city centres.
Is this a new provision? I should like an answer from the Government so that we know whether a new regulation is being handed over to the local authorities. Access to city centres is absolutely vital for people living in those towns, otherwise they will not be able to go shopping or to take up employment and will be discriminated against.
When the city centres are closed to cars, there needs to be positive discrimination for severely disabled people so that they may park their cars near the closed areas, otherwise there will be completely no-go areas. As people live longer, there will be more elderly people and it is becoming a great issue. I should like an answer from the Minister about that. I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for his helpfulness over the other matter.
Lord Rix: I too would appreciate clarification. Access to places of entertainment and particularly theatres in city centres is involved. The noble Lord. Lord Carter, put the amendment down as a probing amendment for clarification, which I too should like if the Minister can give it.
Lord Addington: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has put his finger on an important point. Once again, the amendment calls for clarification, as we have been doing all day. If the Minister can give a little guidance, it would probably save many people a lot of money and avoid the damage to pension funds with the use of solicitors.
Lord Swinfen: I wish to support the principle behind the amendment. I am thinking of a theoretical case of a listed building which will require a new use. The building will perhaps be used as a hotel or offices but the approach to it is in fairly poor condition, for example, with potholed asphalt. In order to make the place look more authentic and in keeping with its listing, the local authority wants the developer to cobble the front as opposed to the nice smooth surface. Something similar was done recently outside one of our most famous cathedrals, where asphalt was replaced with cobbles. I gather from those who use wheelchairs that to be pushed over it is absolute hell. Sometimes local authorities suggest or insist on various things being done in planning applications but the example I gave is the kind of thing that should be avoided.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for moving the amendment and for describing the background to it and also to other Members of the Committee who spoke. The problem is obviously causing considerable concern. We are trying here to tease out the interaction between the provisions in this legislation and that contained within other government legislation, particularly as it refers to providing access for disabled people.
As an aside, I believe that the problem we arc discussing goes much wider than simply disablement issues. I suspect that most planning inquiries and appeals going on in the country at present would in one way or another focus on the problem.
When considering the matter, it is important for us to distinguish between two cases: those where the law gives the person who—if I may put it this way—is getting in the way of the desirable disablement aspiration absolutely no discretion about what he can do; and those circumstances where a public body is involved and has a discretion. I shall go through the matter in detail and I hope I shall demonstrate why I believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
We have already debated the right of access to goods, services and facilities in the Bill where it is made clear that it applies equally to public authorities as to any other provider of services. I am, however, happy to take the opportunity to restate the position, which is that any public authority will be subject to the requirement under the right of access. as a provider of services or facilities to the public, to make adjustments to any policies, practices and procedures which would otherwise prevent a disabled person from making use of a particular service or facility and to take steps to remove any physical features which make it unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to use a service or facility.

673
I must also make it clear that, as with other legislation of this nature, nothing in the Bill makes unlawful anything done under any other Act. I refer here to Clause 32. In other words, the legislation does not require service providers to breach other legal obligations. The important word there is "require". That is the same approach as taken in the sex and race legislation, an approach which the Government believe is right.
I know from what the noble Lord said that he has in mind a particular case. Obviously I cannot comment on it from the Dispatch Box. However, I can say with certainty that I cannot imagine a situation where a highway authority would unreasonably refuse permission to provide wheelchair access in the public highway. After all, as we know, that is the kind of aspiration that the Committee would like to see provided for where possible and appropriate. However—and this is the crux of the issue—the ultimate responsibility for the safe upkeep of the highway lies with the local highway authority. No alteration to the highway would be permitted if, in the authority's view, such alteration would pose a danger to other highway users. The prime factor in granting such permission is therefore one of safety and avoiding obstruction to the public highway. In areas where there is a discretion, one should remember that that discretion must be exercised reasonably. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not here. He has plenty of views about that.
The public authority cannot simply act capriciously. We referred to that when we debated listed buildings some days ago. However, in cases where a refusal has occurred, it may not necessarily be the end of the matter. For example, there may be a more acceptable way of providing wheelchair access which meets the concerns of the highway and planning authorities. Or, for that matter, on the facts of the case and the circumstances, there may be a mechanism for appeal which will be open to those people who are disappointed. That is the case in all kinds of other areas where people may be disappointed in respect of quite different matters.
We have heard examples from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked some questions to which I wish to respond later. I cannot give her an exact reply. My noble friend Lord Swinfen mentioned examples about which he was concerned. It might be helpful if the noble Lords wrote to me about particular cases so that the matter may be investigated and a fuller response given if there is a problem. In a wider sense, there may be useful lessons to be learnt from the cases that people have in mind.
Meanwhile, I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the amendment is unnecessary to achieve the result he seeks. If he feels reassured, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister and to other Members of the Committee who took part in the short debate. When I moved the amendment I forgot to mention a point raised by my noble friend Lady Hollis which reminded me that it was a disability access officer who suggested where the ramp should go.
674
The planning authority was happy with it, but then the highway authority moved in and we now have the whole apparatus of the Town and Country Planning Act to deal with. It seemed to me that it was a good example of the overlapping powers of different departments in the same authority.
I was partly encouraged by what the Minister started to say—that the Bill would apply to public authorities, with the right of access and that they will be required to adjust policy and so on. However, the local authority is not the provider of the service in this case, it is just the provider of the highway. Whether that is caught, I am not sure. The authority is required not to act unreasonably, but suppose it does? That is the question. The disabled person, the employer or whoever it was would not be able to rely on the Bill to stop the authority acting unreasonably because it would be acting within the powers which it thinks reasonable within the existing legislation. At the end of the day, it seems to me that it will be left to the public authority. We shall not be able to rely on the Bill; someone will not be able to say: "You are acting unreasonably and we have the anti-discrimination Act which prevents you doing so".
Lord Inglewood: I understand that the position which the noble Lord described is correct. However, we are talking here about a system where discretion is to be exercised by an authority. In exercising that discretion, the authority will take into account the policy aspirations that may be found in society. The kind of problem which the noble Lord describes is one which people face all the time. In planning matters there is an appeal and the policy behind the Bill is an important matter to be taken into account. I myself conducted a planning appeal—successfully, I am glad to say—about a listed building and trying to provide WCs for disabled people.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. Incidentally, did he win?
Lord Inglewood: Yes, I did.
Lord Carter: If he had not won, I bet that he would not have mentioned it. I am grateful to the Minister. I shall write to him with a particular example. It is an interesting illustration of the sort of problems that might arise. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 127 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 128:
After Clause 27. insert the following new clause:
("Unlawful advertising
.—(1) It is unlawful to publish or to cause to be published an advertisement which indicates, or might reasonably he understood as indicating, an intention by a person to do any act which is, or might be, unlawful by virtue of Part II or III.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the intended act would not in fact be unlawful.
(3) The publisher of an advertisement made unlawful by subsection (1) shall not he subject to any liability under that subsection in respect of the publication of the advertisement if he proves—

675

(a) that the advertisement was published in reliance on a statement by the person who caused it to be published to the effect that, by reason of the operation of subsection (2), the publication would not be unlawful; and

(b) that it was reasonable for him to rely on the statement.

(4) It is unlawful for a person knowingly or recklessly to make a statement such as is referred to in subsection (3) which in a material respect is false or misleading.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 128A which is grouped with it. The amendment relates to unlawful advertising and the enforcement of the advertisement provision.
The issue of discriminatory advertisements is addressed in the Bill. However, we feel that the current approach is too weak. Clause 11 provides that where a discriminatory job advertisement has been placed, a disabled individual has applied for the job, has been rejected for that job, and challenges that decision as discriminatory, then that fact can be used in evidence in proceedings.
The corresponding provision in the sex and race legislation makes discriminatory advertisements illegal per se and allows the commissions in those cases to take proceedings. These amendments mirror that approach. The approach to discriminatory advertisements currently contained in the Bill is unsatisfactory and is unlikely to lead to individuals attempting to use the Act to bring challenges. The burden of enforcement placed on the individual is too high. Very few people apply if an advertisement indicates that they will be unwelcome. After that it is extremely unlikely that they will take additional legal action. This illustrates the important role that a commission could play, if it had the power, in lifting the burden of enforcement from individuals.
Although few prosecutions are brought under the relevant sections of the sex and race discrimination Acts, the commissions in those cases are regularly contacted by people who seek advice before they place advertisements because they wish to ensure that they comply with the law in those two respects. I believe that we are all now familiar with the types of blatantly discriminatory advertisements that were common before the passage of the race and sex legislation and which have been stamped out. I was given an example by RADAR of the sort of advertisements that discriminate against disabled people. I am afraid that it relates to a local authority which intended to place an advertisement for a car park attendant that included the statement:
"An essential criterion for the post is being physically fit as there is a lot of walking involved".
On closer examination it was accepted that this was not correct. Indeed, the post of car park attendant is one of the occupations reserved for registered disabled people under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act.
I am sure that the Minister will understand the drift of the amendments and what we seek to achieve. As I say, it is extremely unlikely that the individual will wish to go through all the hoops that are in the Bill in order to prevent discrimination in advertising. The two new clauses in the amendments are intended to prevent that happening. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I can fully understand the noble Lord's concern that it should not be lawful to publish advertisements that are suggestive of discrimination. That is why we made the provisions in Clause 11 to which the noble Lord referred in relation to the publication of advertisements by employers.
The Committee may remember that when we discussed Clause 11 I explained that we do not believe that a total ban applying to employment advertisements is the best approach. As I explained, there may be perfectly good reasons why certain particular physical attributes are necessary to carry out a particular job. In the case of a disabled person applying for that job, we then had to measure by the test of what would be an appropriate and reasonable adjustment in the particular circumstances. We believe that it would he wrong to prevent an employer mentioning health requirements or occupational skills requirements in advertisements. Instead, as already touched on, the Bill provides for tribunals to take into account the publication of an advertisement that suggests an intention to discriminate in considering an employer's reason for refusing employment to a disabled person. We shall also provide guidance for employers on ways to avoid unacceptable advertising.
As to advertisements for goods and services, which I believe would be covered by this particular proposal, I must say that I have difficulty in thinking of examples of cases of advertisements that might be discriminatory in the way that the amendment suggests. Apparently, there was an evangelist who recently advertised a rally that he was holding. It was suggested that all those who were disabled would somehow or other walk away from it with their illnesses put right. That is the only case that we could think of where people might positively advertise in a discriminatory manner, in the way suggested, as we understand it, in these particular provisions so far as Part III of the Bill is concerned. I am sure that the main focus of the new clause is advertisements for employment. Indeed, while the Sex Discrimination Act covers advertisements for employment and goods and services, the examples given in that Act concern only employment advertisements. In any case, I believe that the concerns expressed are already addressed by the provisions of Part III. Clause 15 puts a duty on service providers to change any policy, practice or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to make use of their services. Given the need to adjust such policies, it seems most unlikely that a trader, determined to evade this requirement, would advertise his or her failure to comply with the law. Essentially, I believe that Amendment No. 128 is unnecessary.
There is no equivalent of Clause 15 of this Bill in the Sex Discrimination Act and thus no need to follow the lead on advertising set by that Act in relation to goods and services. It is interesting that the Americans with Disabilities Act, which does have similar provisions to Clause 15, has no general ban on discriminatory advertising of goods and services.
Amendment No. I28A seeks to place a responsibility on the National Disability Council to police and enforce the provisions of the new clause proposed on unlawful

677
advertisements. Again, it seeks to mirror the provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act without regard to whether they are necessary or constitute the best approach. The amendment provides for the NDC to monitor advertisements, apply to either an industrial tribunal or a court for a decision as to whether an advertisement is unlawful, and apply for an injunction if it considers that the person who issued the advertisement is likely to do so again.
My noble friend Lord Mackay went to some lengths in earlier debates to explain that the NDC is not intended to be an investigative or policing body. It will be an advisory body, charged with providing high level policy advice and guidance. The role proposed in the amendment, which I fully understand is one that noble Lords opposite would like to see the NDC have, is totally at odds with the remit that we propose for the council.
I turn to the noble Lord's other point about trying to prevent advertisements of this kind. It seems to be generally accepted that, where there is legislation of this kind on the statute book, backed by policy guidance, it has the effect of reducing very considerably the number of offending advertisements.
Of course, the NDC will be able to consider advertisements as part of its wider duty to study the operation of the Act. Should it identify a problem, it will bring that to the attention of the Secretary of State and advise on ways in which the problem could be tackled. However, as I mentioned, we believe that the provisions already in the Bill will be sufficient to deter such advertisements.
I hope very much that I have been able to allay and mitigate the noble Lord's concerns about advertising. I hope he considers that he will be able to think again.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, can be say whether this provision will also apply to firms employing 20 or less in terms of advertising? So long as the advertisement was not offensive, could those firms exclude people with disabilities and get away with it?
Lord Inglewood: So far as those employers are concerned, the duty not to discriminate as defined in the Bill does not apply. I believe the noble Lord's question did not address goods and services. It addressed advertisements for employment.
Lord Rix: It could be either. It could be goods and services or employment. The goods or services might be provided by an employer who employed fewer than 20 people.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: Indeed, so far as the provision of goods and services is concerned, there is no threshold involved. It completely falls outside it. The second point on which the noble Lord inquired was whether an employer who employed fewer than 20 people would fall subject to the provisions of Clause 11 of the Bill. Clause 11 expressly states that a number of criteria have to be satisfied.
678
I hear the noble Baroness's remarks, but the difference between these Benches and those opposite is that when we make a mistake, we quickly appreciate it. That is not necessarily the case on the Benches opposite. I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to look into this matter. I should like to give an accurate answer. I think that I know the answer but perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to give him an answer later this evening.
Lord Rix: I should be delighted to and I hope that it will be quite clear that companies with 20 or fewer employees cannot discriminate in their advertisements.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I too would like to ask the Minister a question. One of the difficulties and reasons why so many of us are anxious to have a national disability commission is that under the arrangements of the council, with individuals going to tribunals and courts, there is no way to take on board what I call third party issues or problems; in other words, where the difficulty is generic. As with the old Press Council, someone could only pursue a problem that directly affected that person as opposed to a generic problem, which may be the case of advertisements. Can the Minister help us on this?
Lord Inglewood: I thought that I had explained our approach to that matter in my remarks. The National Disability Council clearly can consider the general question of advertisements. We do not anticipate that the kind of general queries to which the noble Baroness alludes will be likely to cause problems. However, as I explained, it is open to the council, if it anticipates or identifies the kind of problems to which the noble Baroness refers, to make recommendations to the Secretary of State.
I am now able to give a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. A firm of below 20 employees is not subject to Part II of the Bill and hence will not be covered by Clause 11.
Lord Rix: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may tell him that I am shaken by that response, for obvious reasons. In fact it means that an employer could place an advertisement in a small local newspaper saying, "No disabled person need apply". If my reasoning is correct, the advertisement could be as flat-footed as that, which is in absolute contravention of the whole principle of this entire Bill.
Lord Inglewood: I should like to emphasise that the guidance that will be provided is intended to be guidance for the good behaviour of employers and others regardless of the size of firm about which we are talking. I do not wish to go over the ground that we went over at some length on a previous occasion. But the Government feel that the burdens that could be inherent by falling within the scope of the Bill compulsorily under Part II arc such that they should not be imposed on employers employing fewer than 20 people. That does not mean to say that the Government might necessarily in any way condone the kind of advertisement to which the noble Lord referred.
It has just been drawn to my attention that we ourselves arc not aware of discriminatory advertisements which are so blatant as the noble Lord

679
suggests. I should have thought that if such advertisements were not appearing now, the chances of them appearing once the Bill came into operation would be that much less.
Lord Rix: I believe that I can give chapter and verse for advertisements that have appeared certainly within the past year saying in effect that no disabled person need apply. The advertisements probably did not use those exact words but used similar wording. I shall try to find evidence and provide the Minister with it, if he so wishes.
Lord Inglewood: I am extremely sorry to hear that the noble Lord has such evidence. Clearly, we should be pleased—if that is the right word to use in the circumstances—to have chapter and verse.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Surely the Minister can see that there is a difference between some of the advertisements for employment not requiring specific people to be employed as a rule and circumstances in which people are ruled out of consideration before they even get to the job. Surely it is totally wrong for someone to be able to write advertisements in such a way that people know that there is no point in applying, even to be able to prove it to themselves, however small the employer.
Lord Inglewood: I understand the noble Baroness's concern. But it is not helpful to anyone concerned if the advertisement encourages people to come forward who will not be given a realistic chance of getting the job. All of us in our time no doubt have applied for jobs for which we knew that we had no chance of being successful. It does not do anybody a good turn to encourage people to apply for jobs when they are simply not in the running for them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Tell John Redwood!
Lord Carter: It was a most unworthy remark of my noble friend to imply that that certainly applies to Mr. John Redwood.
This discussion has opened up an area to which we might well have to return at Report stage. We are aware of the tribunal route, but it is a very long, winding one. I was struck by two examples under the heading of goods and services. In fact, I have just been given an advertisement which states:
"I am blind; I am crippled; I am helpless".
It refers to a home for the multiple handicapped. In the middle of the advertisement it says that these people are mercifully few in number but their plight is tragic. I find that an extremely offensive advertisement. It would be interesting to know whether that would be prevented by the Bill.
Also, it occurred to me while listening to the Minister that I saw an advertisement some years ago which referred to the state of this country under a Conservative Government. There was an advert in the Guardian which showed a clapped out, broken down Britannia in a wheelchair. I thought that that advertisement was extremely offensive. I do not say that it was inaccurate in what it said about the Conservative Government, but it was extremely offensive to use the wheelchair analogy.
680
I shall not press these points now. We have opened up an interesting area and I can see the Minister looking rather worried. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128A not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage should not begin again before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) Order 1995
7.39 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move. This order extends the scope of compulsory competitive tendering to three further white collar services: financial, information technology and personnel services. That completes our programme for the extension of competitive tendering to white collar services begun last year when this House approved other orders extending CCT to legal, construction and property services.
Few doubt that competition can stimulate efficiency in the provision of public services and in many cases can offer significant financial savings. Local authority manual services have already been subject to competitive tendering for up to 15 years. We estimate that that has resulted in savings of over £400 million for local taxpayers. There is no reason why the discipline of competition should not also bring better value for money to local authority white collar services: the lawyers, architects and accountants at the heart of the local government machine.
The Government first proposed extending competitive tendering to local authority white collar services in a consultation paper issued in November 1991. Since then we have engaged in a thorough and informed debate on detailed proposals with local authority representatives and other interested parties. This process has been much more than a polite formality where decisions have, in reality, already been taken. The regime has been substantially modified as a result of the valuable input of local authority representatives and the various joint working groups which have been considering CCT extension. While it would be wrong to pretend that local authorities see eye to eye with the Government on the

681
value of CCT, nevertheless I know all parties agree that the extensive consultation on CCT extension has been a valuable and constructive process.
The statutory competitive tendering regime we are putting in place for white collar services is based on that set out in the Local Government Act 1988. Put simply, local authorities cannot undertake certain work in-house unless it has been awarded through fair and even-handed competition. In developing the white collar regime, we have undertaken a thorough view of all aspects of the statutory framework for CCT to ensure that it meets the needs of white collar services. Of necessity there are rules. I hope that those rules are flexible enough to recognise the different approaches individual authorities may take to providing white collar support services.
The order before us this evening defines the new activities to be brought into the regime. Once Parliament has approved the order, then we will bring forward further regulations setting out the timetable for competition and the proportion of work which local authorities are required to expose to tender.
Turning to the services addressed in the order before us today, I should like to describe to noble Lords the regime we are putting in place for each. I should at this point note that we are consulting separately on the application of CCT for those services to police authorities, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will bring forward separate proposals shortly.
Taking first financial services, we have drawn up a comprehensive definition of a broad range of activities which may be brigaded together as financial work. These range from internal audit through accountancy services to frontline tasks such as the administration of council tax or benefits. We will expect local authorities to have exposed 35 per cent. by value of this work to competition, a figure which was deliberately chosen to allow a degree of flexibility in deciding what work should be put out to competition.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State announced on 18th May that metropolitan authorities and London boroughs, the first local authorities to be required to expose financial services to CCT, would be allowed an additional six months to prepare for CCT. The timetable in shire authorities depends on the outcome of the local government review and, where appropriate, subsequent reorganisation in their area.
Second of the new services to be subject to CCT is information technology. This definition captures the procurement, development and programming and maintenance of IT systems, but does not impinge on the users of IT. Much of the work described here is readily suited to competitive tender, and indeed many authorities already buy in from outside suppliers a range of services. We are asking authorities to expose 70 per cent. by value of IT work to competitive tender. As with our other services, they will be able to take into account the value of work which has already been outsourced. The implementation timetable for IT CCT places this service at the end of the extension programme, reflecting the fact that decisions taken on IT could be
682
heavily dependent on the outcome of competition for services such as finance which are major users of information technology.
The last of the new services this House is considering this evening is personnel. Once again, the definition is relatively straightforward and includes services such as human resource management, training or health and welfare work. We have agreed that certain work is not suited to competitive tender. We therefore intend to exempt from CCT the operational training of fire fighters, training undertaken by local authorities on behalf of TECs and personnel work undertaken as part of consortia for the pre-imposed qualification training of social workers. The private sector of course has a role to play in all those areas, but not through CCT.
Following consultation, we also reduced to 30 per cent. the proportion of work which authorities will be expected to expose to tender. This is to acknowledge that many elements of the defined activity for various reasons may not be readily suited to tendering. In practice, most local authorities have already brought competition to bear on many aspects of personnel services and CCT will not pose any particular new problems. For that reason we have concluded that the implementation timetable should remain as was originally set out in our consultation paper. The first authorities will be expected to implement personnel CCT by October 1996.
This order also amends the definition of building cleaning, which is already subject to CCT under the 1988 Act, to include the cleaning of police buildings. Competition can readily be brought to bear on much of this work, although we have acknowledged that certain sensitive areas within police buildings should not be open to wider public access. For that reason, police authorities will be required to expose to tender 80 per cent. by value of cleaning work within each force.
I have this evening outlined to noble Lords the bare bones of the new regime in each of the new services. The detailed regime has, as I have already said, been subject to thorough consultation and should not, I believe, pose any problem for those authorities willing to take on board competition and realise the benefits it may bring. I hope local authorities will respond by adopting a positive approach to CCT. Competition provides an opportunity for local authorities, for their staff and for the private sector. Those who are willing to meet the challenge head on stand to gain. Their reward for thinking clearly about the nature of service provision within their area will, I anticipate, be higher quality services offering local people better value for money. No one can object to that. I commend this order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister has explained the statutory instrument. It is perhaps worth making a couple of general points before making a specific point.

683
The Minister will be in no doubt that we on these Benches are extremely unhappy about the extension of CCT to white collar services. We do not believe that we need it. Many services have already been tested in the market place and the financial constraints affecting local government over the past few years have pushed costs down to the bare bones. The pressure on blue collar direct service organisations has led to pressure on those support services. The new system, despite some adjustments which the Government have made in response to local authorities, remains extremely complex and bureaucratic.
In relation to more general concerns, first, this will further fragment the provision of local authority services. One of the key justifications for white collar services remaining in-house is the interaction between legal services, advice services, financial services and personnel services to provide a corporate response of local government to its problems. By fragmenting them in this way, one leaves local government less equipped to meet the emerging and changing needs that it will face over the next decade.
Secondly, white collar CCT will create a complex web of contracts because so many of the services overlap. The complex web will also be paralleled by departmental client-contractor split and in the process some of the core values and planning objectives of local authorities will be lost.
Thirdly, I suspect that what will happen under white collar CCT is increasing centralisation at the same time as local authorities are being encouraged, rightly, to bring services closer to the people in the locality. They will have to be brought back into the centre in order to comply with CCT.
Fourthly, there will be severe transaction costs. There will be an increase in the total cost of delivering the service which may not be apparent in the contract price. The local authority associations gave me one such example where, in one London borough, there used to be a single head of legal services and there are now three: one overall head of department, one head of the client side and one of the contractor side. Three senior managers are now required to provide the same service—possibly an interior service—previously provided through one senior manager.
Finally, we believe that there is a loss of democratic accountability because, once implemented, CCT contracts limit the opportunities for variation and flexibility and the fine steer in service delivery that local authority committees can offer. If a contract is lost to the private sector the opportunities for implementing change, except at a very high price in adjusting those contracts, may be severely curtailed. For example, political priorities may change if a council changes political control. But the council will not be able to change the priorities of that service without paying a high price.
We firmly believe that transaction costs are high, that management time will be diverted from improving service delivery and that there is a loss of loyalty and corporate commitment to the organisation and a concentration on narrow financial targets at the expense of the public service. All the experience in blue collar
684
CCT has shown that, disproportionately, the complaints from the public have mounted because the only way those contracts could be won was by cutting pay and conditions of service—unemployment pay, holiday pay, sickness pay, maternity pay and the like. As a result, by pressing down costs, which can only be taken out of employees' wages, CCT has reduced the morale of staff.
There has been a rapid turnover of staff. As a result there has not been the commitment of staff. The staff have been relatively untrained. Consequently, complaints from the public about the quality of service have mounted. It is no accident that a significantly high percentage of contracts that have gone out to private organisations has had subsequently to be called in by the local authority because targets of quality have not been met and a lot of public discontent has been generated. That is one set of problems.
One area about which I am particularly concerned—we argued the point long through the night when we were dealing with the Local Government Bill in Committee—is the extension of CCT to sensitive services like housing benefit. One of the aspects of housing benefit is that one is not just dealing with a mechanical set of calculations as to what benefit anyone is entitled to receive. One is dealing with quite sensitive information which applicants for housing benefit may be very reluctant to reveal when they can have none of the same guarantees about confidentiality, and so on, that they would expect to get from a fully trained and professionalised housing benefit service. We are extremely worried about that. When we debated the Local Government Bill the Ministers at the time tried to assure us that confidentiality would be protected and ring-fenced. That has not occurred and we are extremely concerned about it.
We wish to register our dismay about the unnecessary extension of CCT to white collar services. We wish to register our dismay with regard to the fact that, far from producing value for money, all the evidence shows that public dissatisfaction has mounted and a number of contracts have had to be called in. We wish to register our concern that housing benefit administration in particular will be privatised and that with it there will be a loss of confidentiality that claimants of housing benefit have every right to expect.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I had perhaps expected the reaction the noble Baroness has given to the order. It is no secret that the party opposite is unhappy with CCT extension. It has made that clear when we have brought forward orders. I do not agree with the noble Baroness that fragmentation of local authority services will take place in the way she described. One has only to look at the benefits that have occurred over the past 15 years. In my opening remarks I mentioned the figure of some £400 million. But there are not only financial benefits. I believe that an improvement in service quality and efficiency has been brought about by the better management and the clearer strategic focus.
The noble Baroness was concerned about the lack of provision of core services. My answer to that is that the percentage which is subject to the competition requirement in the extension programme that I am

685
announcing today is designed particularly to allow local authorities to retain that client capability and corporate responsibility that she feels would be lacking. The percentages are relatively low in order that the local authority can retain those core services.
The noble Baroness said that the costs of local authorities will be increased at a time when they are stretched by the local government settlement. We have to look very carefully at the estimated reduction of about 7 per cent. of costs overall and indicate that that is purely to the benefit of council tax payers who receive that in a lower council tax and also a better quality service and better efficiency.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there can be hidden increased costs? If the majority of people providing services, such as school meal services or cleaning services, fall below the poverty line as a result of the process, they then become eligible for other benefits. There are many examples of people's wages and conditions of service being driven to a far worse point as a result of compulsory competitive tendering. For the record, it is also the case that from these Benches we oppose the compulsory nature of competitive tendering when Whitehall imposes a uniform rule across the country without knowledge of or regard to local circumstances.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may add to my noble friend's point. The Minister made much of 7 per cent. savings. I think he will find that virtually all the savings so far found from CCT have come from the low-paid jobs of catering and cleaning and have disproportionately disadvantaged very poor women. That is where the savings have come from—by pressing women down to and below benefit level.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that may be the noble Baroness's view of how savings have been achieved. I was going on to deal with housing benefit, about which the noble Baroness was particularly concerned, and to quote, for instance, the London Borough of Bromley, where housing benefit claims dealt with correctly, first time, have gone up from 67 per cent. to 95 per cent. That service was contracted out. It was contracted out voluntarily, before the competitive nature of the process was brought about.
I understand that compulsion is what noble Lords opposite are unhappy about. There is a recognition of the improvement in the quality of the service delivered by those local authorities that have undertaken competitive tendering. A considerable number of local authorities have undertaken a lot of competitive tendering with a lot of jobs; IT in particular. Therefore. compulsion on some of these extensions will not affect a great number of local authorities as they are probably undertaking, if not the percentage then very nearly the percentage at the moment.
The noble Baroness was concerned about the confidentiality of housing benefit claims. We have a list of items in the order. Although that is one of them, the percentage is indeed smaller. That would allow any local authority to contract out under compulsory tender sufficient other work, but it would not need to if it did
686
not want to. So there is no compulsion. They are not compelled to subject housing benefit to compulsory competitive tender. Some authorities have already done so. They do not seem to feel that the mechanistic side of the delivery of housing benefit is in any way compromised by what the noble Baroness is concerned about. It is for that benefit that there is no compulsion. The percentage has been set that delivers no compulsion on that side.
I believe that decisions on these matters in the order tonight have entailed careful judgments which balance the need to bring competition to bear on white collar services with the operational flexibility that individual authorities rightly seek. The noble Baronesses have indicated that they do not agree with some of the answers which have been arrived at in the consultation. That is inevitable. There is perhaps a point of principle between us. I hope that all recognise that we have given each decision very careful consideration.
My department intend to monitor closely the implementation of white collar CCT and will undertake to reconsider aspects of the regime if there is hard evidence of problems in applying the new rules.
We have met many of the concerns of local authorities in putting together a challenging but, I believe, a fair regime. The CCT will not impose a rigid model for service delivery, but instead encourage innovation, improved quality and greater value for money. The onus is now on local authorities to respond positively to the challenge of competition. I commend this order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.2 to 8.30 p.m.]

Disability Discrimination Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 28 [Victimisation]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 21, line 18, leave out ("his disability") and insert ("or a person who has had a disability, the disability in question").
The noble Lord said: We have already debated this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 130 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clauses 29 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Appointment by Secretary of State of advisers]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 131
Page 23. line 19. at end insert ("and persons who have had a disability").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 132 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 133.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 23, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert:
("(6) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) provide for section 17 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 (national advisory council and district advisory committees) to cease to have effect—

(i) so far as concerns the national advisory council; or

(ii) so far as concerns district advisory committees; or

(b) repeal that section and Schedule.").

The noble Lord said: Clause 33 provides a power for the Secretary of State to appoint people to advise and assist him on matters concerning the employment and self-employment of disabled people. This amendment is being introduced to clarify the wording of subsection (6) which concerns the power to end the current arrangements for national and local advisory bodies.
We believe it important to ensure that the legislation under which the advisory bodies of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State operate provides sufficient flexibility for them to be adapted as circumstances require. The clause provides for this by giving him the option of retaining the existing arrangements for so long as he considers them to be appropriate or of bringing them to an end, either in part or in full. He would then have the power to appoint people to advise him either nationally or in relation to particular localities on employment issues.
At present my right honourable friend receives advice and assistance on employment issues affecting disabled people from NACEPD and from the 60 committees for the employment of people with disabilities (CEPDs). These bodies are established under Section 17 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and are referred to in that section respectively as a "national advisory council" and "district advisory committees".
Although both types of body are appointed under the 1944 Act, they have different functions: NACEPD advises on national employment and training issues relating to people with disabilities, while the CEPDs advise on local employment issues, including matters referred to them in relation to the registration and quota provisions of the 1944 Act. In practice, CEPDs work with the Employment Service locally to promote the employment of disabled people. The two types of body are independent of each other. Subsection (6) was accordingly intended to enable the provisions concerning NACEPD and CEPDs to be repealed either separately or together as appropriate. Our legal advice, however, is that the current wording of subsection (6) does not make this option sufficiently clear.
The amendment before your Lordships is, therefore, intended to remove any doubt that may exist that the duty to have NACEPD and the duty to have CEPDs can be ended separately or both together. It does this by
688
expressly providing the Secretary of State with a power to provide by order for either the repeal of the whole of Section 17 and Schedule 2 to the 1944 Act or separately for the part affecting NACEPD or CEPDs to cease to have effect. The amendment is an improvement over the original wording as it provides clarity on what can be done. For those reasons, I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: I accept what the Minister says about the wording of subsection (6). However, I rise because this is our first opportunity to explore what the Government mean in Clause 33. In many ways, it is a very funny clause. Subsection (1) gives the Secretary of State the right to appoint such advisers,
"as he thinks fit to advise or assist him in connection with matters relating to the employment of disabled persons".
We are not told who those people shall be or what kind of people they shall be. Indeed, the schedule does not tell us what kind of people they shall be. We are not told what kind of advice or assistance they shall give. We are not told with what matters relating to the employment of disabled persons they shall concern themselves; we are merely told that the Secretary of State,
"may appoint such persons as he thinks fit".
That is subsection (1).
Subsection (2) states that such persons,
"may be appointed by the Secretary of State to act generally or in relation to a particular area or locality".
We are not told how they are to act generally or in what way that relates to what they do in particular areas or localities.
In some ways, subsection (3) is even more curious because those people are not to receive any money—at least, they are not to receive salaries—so they will not be the kind of people the Conservatives normally appoint to such bodies. We are told in subsection (3):
"The Secretary of State may pay to any person appointed under this section such allowances and compensation"—
this is very low-level stuff—
"for loss of earnings as he considers appropriate".
We are talking about out-of-pocket expenses for such people, not about full-time jobs. What on earth do they do? My first question is: can the Minister tell us more about these funny people? Who are they? Where will they come from? What will they do? Most importantly, for whom will they substitute?
That brings me to subsection (6). I do not think that there is any substantial difference between the wording of the amendment and that on the face of the Bill. Subsection (6) gives the Secretary of State the power to repeal Section 17 and Schedule 2 to the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and to abolish, at a time that seems right to him, the national advisory council or the local advisory committees. Therefore, we must ask whether the advisers have anything to do with that. Will those advisers at some time in the future do some of the work of the subsequently abolished national advisory council? Will they operate as a private army of the Secretary of State? Will they meet collectively? Perhaps they will never meet collectively because we know that the Government do not like collectivities.

689
Perhaps they will be consulted individually. Will the advisers be an alternative to what we believe to be the best way of dealing with the problem if the Government want to get rid of the national advisory council, as it seems to me that they do?
It seems to us that in the end it would be better to have one council dealing with both sides of the Bill. If we cannot have a commission we will have to have, in some ways, an improved council. We would rather have that on a representative basis than have all these people who come from nowhere, who are appointed, to do we know not what, by the Secretary of State. That is what I am asking.
I have been glad to hear in the debates we have had so far, that Ministers have been prepared to say that the work of the existing council has been useful. When the Minister for Employment, Miss Widdecombe, went to the established council on 25th January, she said, among other things:
"I know that you recommended that the new National Disability Council should take on responsibilities similar to a commission".
So we accept that that is what the old council wants to do: it wants, as it were, to disappear into a commission. But if it does not disappear into a commission, we do not mind it disappearing if it disappears into a properly constituted council, established in broad terms under the provisions of the Bill, if that is possible. I take it that it is possible, because the Minister can add to the present council's functions. He could give the present council powers to act on the employment side. That would be our chosen way of doing it. Will the Minister tell me tonight that in the end—this year, next year, some time, never—whenever they get rid of the present council for employment affairs, the Government will give its functions to the existing council and not to all these funny advisers? Even if they can say that, will they tell us what the advisers will do?
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for explaining that he did not understand what the clause meant. It appears on the face of it to be straightforward. I do not have a great deal to add to what he has read out to us. This is a general power to appoint advisers. We said in the consultative document that we would review the advising arrangements under the 1944 Act.
The clause gives the Government the power to set up a new advisory arrangement. The basis for payment is similar to that under the 1944 Act, which is both for NACEPD and for the CEPDs. My noble friend Lord Mackay has already described the valuable work that NACEPD does, and why we believe the council should be retained, at least for a period after the legislation is enacted.
As we have heard, NACEPD provides expert help on employment and training issues and comprises well-respected individuals in the disability world. I do not want to repeat the reasons for keeping NACEPD, because the Committee has already heard them, but NACEPD's continued existence after the employment right has been implemented is clearly something that must be considered carefully. We have already said that
690
we will do so. Now, however, is not the time for that consideration. The Government have committed themselves to reviewing the position before June 1997, when the terms of office of NACEPD members end.
We shall look closely then at the situation prevailing in deciding whether it will be sensible to amend NACEPD's remit or its constitution, or whether to introduce entirely new arrangements. New arrangements could of course include the transfer of NACEPD's responsibilities to the NDC. Some Members of the Committee think that that is a desirable course of action.
Such transfer is already provided for in the Bill, because Clause 23(10) provides for the NDC automatically to take over the responsibilities currently discharged by NACEPD if it ceases to exist. No one has been appointed under Clause 33 to advise the Secretary of State. Now is not the right time to determine when NACEPD should be abolished. We should therefore not prejudge the review that will be undertaken. I am obviously interested in hearing the Committee's views now. However, it is only right for me to say in turn that I should need some persuading that it would be appropriate, within a year of the Bill's passage, to do without a specialist committee, well-equipped to consider a wide range of employment and training issues.
While the two bodies exist, we shall of course expect them to arrange appropriate means of ensuring, so far as possible, that they adopt a consistent approach towards related issues and take account of each other's views, where appropriate. We discussed that issue earlier today. As has been said, it is likely also that in appointing members to the NDC the Secretary of State will seek to provide some common membership.
For the reasons I have mentioned, I believe that it is right to maintain the current flexibility provided by the Bill. After all, the Bill's provisions are flexible. They provide for a variety of advisory arrangements, depending on what is appropriate. For example, NACEPD could be retained indefinitely or for a particular period only. If NACEPD were to be abolished, the new advisers could be appointed on national employment issues. If no such advisers were to be appointed, then the NDC would take over that role.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, will feel that he is much better informed than he was and will find this a satisfactory reply to the questions that he asked.
Lord McCarthy: If the Government cannot decide what to do about these two councils, it is not surprising that they cannot decide whether to join a single European currency.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 134:
Page 23, line 30, at end insert "within one year of the passing of this Act, at which time any outstanding responsibilities of the national advisory council shall become the responsibility of the National Disability Council").
The noble Baroness said: I may not necessarily move the amendment, but I want to speak to it. My noble friend the Minister has just stolen all my thunder, because he said precisely the things that I was going to say.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that NACEPD and the NDC should work closely together, and that, if the requirement for NACEPD no longer exists, it should be subsumed into the NDC. I appreciate my noble friend's assurance that the statutory existence of both those bodies is not necessarily set in stone, because it is much better, even with common membership, to have one organisation. I have never been convinced that having two separate bodies would always be the best way, certainly in the long term. As my noble friend has given me an assurance that there will be close contact in the short term, and that the long term is to be looked at, and that NACEPD may die a happy death, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardhrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardhrecknish moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 23, line 30, at end insert:
("(7) At any time before the coming into force of an order under paragraph (b) of subsection (6), section 17 of the Act of 1944 shall have effect as if in subsection (1), after "disabled persons" in each case there were inserted ", and persons who have had a disability," and as if at the end of the section there were added—
"(3) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a person is a disabled person if he is a disabled person for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and

(b) "disability" has the same meaning as in that Act."

(8) At any time before the coming into force of an order under paragraph (a) (i) or (b) of subsection (6), section 16 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which extends the functions of the national advisory council) shall have effect as if after "disabled persons" in each case there were inserted ", and persons who have had a disability," and as if at the end of the section there were added—
"(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a person is a disabled person if he is a disabled person for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995: and

(b) "disability" has the same meaning as in that Act."").

The noble Lord said: The amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 136:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
("Duties of local authorities etc. to keep records of disabled persons employed
.—(1) It shall he the duty of local authorities, health authorities, government departments and government agencies to keep such records regarding the numbers of disabled persons employed by them as the Secretary of State shall by Regulation prescribe.
(2) Regulations may prescribe:

(a) the definition of disabled person to be used for recording purposes:

(b) what particulars shall be recorded:

(c) the mariner in which such particulars shall be collected and published

(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) (b) may, in particular, make provision for particulars to be collected separately with respect to different categories of employee.
(4) Regulations made under subsection (2) (c) may, in particular, make provision for the confidentiality of information collected about individual employees.
(5) In preparing such Regulations the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) The National Advisory Council on the Employment of People with Disabilities: and

(b) such organisations representing the interests of disabled persons or employers or employees as he considers appropriate.").

The noble Baroness said: As it presently stands, the Bill will eliminate the register of people with disabilities. The amendment provides that a record will be kept in the public sector—in local authorities, health authorities, government departments and government agencies—of the number of its employees with disabilities.
The Select Committee on Employment in another place in its recent report on the operation of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 which was published in April this year said, among other things:
"We believe that the maintenance of accurate statistics on the position of disabled people in employment is essential in order to tackle discrimination against them, and to open up training and promotion opportunities".
We agree with that view. Nor is it only we who agree with it: many reputable companies in the private sector also do so. They use statistics within their own companies as a focal point for development and implementation of their employment and training policies. They also publish those statistics. As employers, they accept the requirement to publish the number of employees. They agree that it provides an incentive annually to review progress and to ascertain whether any new initiatives need to be instituted in their organisations in order to take more disabled people into their workforces.
Why do they do that? Perhaps I may quote one leading company, Rank Xerox. It recently stated, "If you don't measure it, it won't happen". "It won't happen" must be put into the context of disabled people having an official unemployment rate almost three times that of able-bodied people. "It won't happen" was recently confirmed in a report published by the social policy research unit at York University. That report recommended a mechanism for ensuring that employers keep records of the proportion of disabled employees. The same report referred to the experience of 15 other countries. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, for instance, operate alongside anti-discrimination legislation, such as that which we are debating, various forms of employment equity.
Experience has shown that monitoring is recognised as the best practice in developing and assessing the success of equal opportunities policies. The Government do that in a number of areas. For instance, in the Opportunity 2000 project in the health service they continually assess. monitor and publish statistics in regard to the impact of equal opportunities for women in that organisation.
With the elimination of the register, as provided for in the Bill, and if a new standard for the monitoring is not developed, the whole thrust of the Bill in the employment area will be fragmented. In the view of many representatives of groups of people with disabilities, it will put their position hack. It will not take it forward, which is the clear intention of the Bill. Without any record, how will they know what progress is being made and whether the situation is getting worse for disabled people in employment? What yardstick will be used? Without some comparison, how will the private sector know whether it is meeting its responsibilities and the intentions of the Bill? The public sector is a good area to use as a model in requiring the information to be published.
In our view, regulation in this area is the right way forward as regards assessing data, using it for the details to be recorded and deciding the manner in which those details will be collated and published. That is all to be prescribed under regulation. We accept that this is a sensitive area and that consideration must be given to what is and what is not appropriate from the information gathered. That is why the amendment provides for regulations to be made. Best practice exists and can be used as a model in the race relations field where the monitoring and publication of statistics is important while maintaining the confidentiality of the individuals concerned.
The Employment Select Committee in another place supports that approach, as does the Employers Forum on Disability. The public sector is particularly crucial in this area. Subsections (3) and (4) of the amendment cover issues of confidentiality and the different categories of employee. Subsection (5) requires the Secretary of State to consult on the regulations before they are drawn together and published. That consultation will be required with the National Advisory Council on the Employment of People with Disabilities and other appropriate organisations which represent the interests of disabled people.
Perhaps I may refer to our earlier debate on the issue. Trade unions represent thousands of disabled people in the workplace. Many unions have policies which encourage the recruitment of people with disabilities. Indeed, within the workplace there are model agreements under which the employer and employee organisations monitor the progress made.
I suggest that we need to have the requirement to consult on the face of the Bill because there will then he no doubt about it. We believe that the amendment is sensible. It will enhance the Bill and will not lead to the situation in which in a few years' time many people wonder why we did not get the Bill right when it went through Parliament. Why do we have a situation in which so many disabled peopled are not in the workforce? We do not know the statistics because they are not published. We do not know what the role model should be for a company in taking on employees. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The noble Baroness introduced the amendment most lucidly and helpfully. Its purpose is clear and I look forward to hearing about its practicability and how much has been done already in this area.
694
I have only one inquiry. The noble Baroness spoke about statistics and numbers, and I am sure that we must have those figures. The confidentiality of information is mentioned in subsection (4) of the new clause. However, there is a problem because, unfortunately, many employees refuse to allow themselves to be branded as disabled even though they are clearly disabled. That has been the main problem with the quota system of the 1944 Act. Is it intended that an employee who clearly is missing an arm or leg but who refuses to be categorised as disabled will be included in the figures? I note the point about confidentiality, but will information about him be communicated elsewhere? That has been a basic problem.
I am all in favour of the availability of statistics and numbers because that helps employers. However, there is a problem with many employees who refuse to allow themselves to be categorised as disabled people. Although I am in favour of the principle of the amendment I sec a major problem.
Lord Addington: I must declare an interest because I am a green card holder. It has been of no great use to me but I took it out when I discovered that I was entitled to be registered as a disabled person. Many dyslexics repeatedly refuse to agree that they have a disability. The noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Croy, is right about that. As a result, we do not know how many dyslexic people are unemployed, how many arc employed below their skill base, and so forth. The noble Baroness is therefore taking on an important issue.
Knowledge should be turned into power. If we know what is happening in this field we will be able to do something about it if it is going wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pointed to the problem. How does one persuade someone to say, "I am disabled but there is nothing the matter with me"? That is an odd concept. Perhaps political correctness will fulfil a useful purpose in this case. If such a provision can be included in the Bill or in regulations we shall be taking steps towards educating ourselves about the problems of employment and, it is to be hoped, encouraging disabled people to admit that they have problems in certain areas. It is agreed that something can be done about the vast majority of those problems. We should encourage disabled people to register themselves and others to pay attention to the information.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: It is not surprising that some people did not register for the quota because the failure of governments to enforce the quota meant that there was little benefit to be gained from registering. That is one of the main reasons for non-registration. However. I do not see that as an argument against the amendment. I am optimistic that the Minister will accept it. I am sure that the Minister, wanting to help as always, will not use the excuse of lack of practicability because there arc no practical problems in collating statistics. It is the simplest matter in the world.
One of the flimsy excuses which Ministers use habitually to evade Parliamentary Questions is that the information is not held centrally or that it is not available. As far as I know, the Minister has not said that. But I am sure that he will wish to help the

695
Committee by agreeing with the principle behind the amendment. As the quota system is intended to be abolished by the Bill, there will be no record at all of the employment of disabled people. We shall be dependent on ad hoc surveys and that clearly is not good enough.
I speak from experience when I say that the absence of information about disabled people is the main reason for discrimination. The fact is that when no one knows what is happening, disabled people are disregarded. It is a matter of out of sight, out of mind; and out of consideration, out of a job. That afflicts far too many people who are not considered merely because the Government do not compile adequate statistics. Although I shall argue to maintain the quota system in a later amendment, its relative failure was due to lack of relevant records. As my noble friend rightly said, without records we cannot tell whether the situation is improving or deteriorating. I am sure that the Minister would wish to monitor his own Bill when it becomes an Act, as it will do under the next Labour Government.
The public sector should lead the way in providing information in relation to the problems of disabled people in employment. As far as I am aware, no responsible organisation ever establishes a new, complex system without monitoring the provisions. The Government would be irresponsible if they legislated for new provisions in the Bill and rejected this minimal amendment, because my noble friend is far too modest in her proposals. I believe that the Government will regret it if they reject the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I did not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, but I believe that he slightly misunderstood what I said. I do not suggest that the lack of registration in the quota system is a reason to oppose the amendment. I am merely inquiring whether employees who are unwilling to allow themselves to be branded as disabled will be included in the lists of disabled. I rather hope that they would, but it is quite a difficult matter of citizens' rights whether somebody should be included as a disabled person in an establishment when he is utterly opposed to being so considered. Will that person be included in the figures? As I say, somebody may be obviously disabled—missing an arm or a leg—and yet utterly refuse to be so categorised. We do not wish people who are partially disabled to feel that they are in any way inadequate. That was the point I made. I understand why the noble Lord did not quite take that point, but I wanted to make it clear.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I would not believe that we were debating disability if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, did not accuse me of misunderstanding or misquoting him. However, I am beginning to warm to these debates because in the opening debate the Minister was very kind to me and in this debate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was exceptionally generous to me. Therefore, I am beginning to enjoy the debates.
On this point, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. that people do not declare themselves disabled. But the main reason for that is that they see
696
no benefit in doing so. That is a problem, but it can be solved. I am fairly sure that the Minister will look sympathetically at the amendment and we shall then move forward to encourage disabled people to register their disabilities.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the Minister replies, I commend his attention to the fact that the amendment calls for consideration to be given to how that should be done. There has certainly been a problem because people perceive that it is against their personal interests to register as disabled, to go on a list and be identified as such. But that is very different from agreeing to take part in a survey which will identify anonymously those people who have a disability and are in employment.
In my experience in local government I have known people who are totally blind and who are prepared to have their names recorded voluntarily as having a disability but who do not wish to become registered disabled because they fear that they may go against them when seeking promotion.
Lord Inglewood: I am reassured that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is feeling benign after our debates today. I hope that I shall not put him in an ill humour with some of the comments that I am about to make. I agree also with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that the noble Baroness clearly set out exactly what is in her mind when introducing the amendment. I do not believe that there is anything between us in our wish to see as many disabled people as possible both in work and integrated fully into society at large.
There is, clearly, a case for encouraging employers to monitor the numbers of people with disabilities that they employ. The employment code of practice will accordingly encourage employers to do this. I believe, however, that this type of information is of value first and foremost as management information for employers to monitor their performance against their own equal opportunities policies. I fear that the prescriptive system proposed in the amendment would place an unnecessarily onerous burden on the bodies concerned. The employer would be required, by the amendment, to request prescribed information from a large number of employees in a wide range of employment situations. Such a system would be inflexible. The information would be of more value if it is designed to suit the policies and circumstances of the individual employer.
I should also like to echo the note of caution that has been expressed by a number of speakers about those whose disabilities are not obvious and who may still prefer not to declare their disability to their employer. As has already been said, we see evidence of a similar reluctance now where people choose not to register as disabled because of the stigma that they believe—perhaps, entirely wrongly—is attached to registration. We return now to the kind of points raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in that respect. Therefore, to make it useful, employers need to develop sensitive techniques for collecting information on whether an employee has a disability. Overcoming the harrier of mistrust may be difficult. We do not believe that that would be helped by imposing a prescriptive system for the collection of such information.

697
The Government will, of course, want to monitor the position of disabled people in the labour market after the Bill is implemented. That will be done using a variety of methods, including research conducted by government and others, and through regular surveys such as the Labour Force Survey. The Labour Force Survey will provide nationally representative information on the employment of disabled people across all sectors of the economy. It will not be restricted to the public sector which accounts for less than a quarter of total employment. It will provide more reliable and useful information on the employment of people with disabilities, and the effects of the new legislation, than any pulling together of information from local authorities, health authorities and other employers in the public sector.
The Government can, of course, already arrange by administrative measures for government departments and agencies to monitor their employment of people with disabilities. There is, therefore, no need to establish a statutory requirement for monitoring to be done by those bodies. In fact, the Cabinet Office has already taken positive steps, and actively promotes the programme for action to achieve equality of opportunity in the Civil Service for disabled people. Under this, government departments and agencies are already required to monitor the numbers of their staff and applicants who have a disability.
It is correct that the numbers of registered disabled people employed by government departments, local authorities and National Health Service trusts are published annually in the Employment Gazette. As Members of the Committee know, only about one-third of people with disabilities actually choose to register—a point that we discussed earlier. Therefore, the information is not accurate as regards the number of people with disabilities employed in those organisations. Under any statutory system, employers would still be faced with the difficulties that I have already outlined in identifying those among their workforce who arc disabled and should therefore he counted. On that count alone there would be no real advantage to such a statutory requirement.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, made some remarks about the quota. I believe that it is important to get the point about the quota, and prosecutions in that regard, into some sort of perspective. There have been only 10 cases of prosecution since the quota was introduced. The last prosecutions took place in 1975 as part of an experiment in stricter enforcement policy. There was no evidence that that materially improved the position of disabled people generally. During the 1970s there were five prosecutions under the 1944 Act, two of which were brought by a Conservative Government and three by a Labour Government. Therefore, I do not believe that it has anything to do with the political complexion of the government at the time. That seems to be pretty conclusive evidence that, as an instrument of trying to achieve some of the things that we all want to see, it simply is not working.
698
I am sure that other employers, including local authorities and health authorities, will see the benefits of introducing over a period of time similar initiatives to the kind that I described. It is certainly our intention to promote such good practice. As I said, the employment code of practice will include guidance and encouragement for all employers to implement effective equal opportunities policies and appropriate methods for monitoring them. For the reasons that I have already given, such voluntary arrangements will, we believe, be more effective than what is proposed in the amendment. We also believe that the reality of the amendment is that it would not achieve anything substantive and of value.
Lord McCarthy: Before the Minister sits down, would be not agree that to rely, as he does, on the Labour Force Survey is somewhat naive? That survey asks 40 or so questions on a household basis. It could not ask any detailed questions; indeed, those concerned would have to ask respondents questions like, "Are you disabled?" or, "Do you regard yourself as disabled?" If the Government rely upon the Labour Force Survey and nothing else and will not accept the amendment, what, they are really saying is that they cannot find out how many people are disabled.
Lord Inglewood: I am extremely pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on that point because he clearly did not hear exactly what I said. I said that the Government would rely on a variety of methods, including research conducted by the Government and others, and through regular surveys such as the Labour Force Survey. Therefore, the Government will be flexible in the manner in which they approach the problem.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I am rather envious of the feeling of warmth felt by my noble friend Lord Ashley. It is not a feeling that I have as yet experienced whereby the Minister agrees with me. However, I look forward to that day, although I thought that this might be it. I thank all Members of the Committee who spoke in support of the amendment. I should say straightaway that the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, were both helpful and, indeed, extremely realistic.
As regards the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, as to why people do not register, perhaps I may put forward my small experience in the field while representing people at work. Such people would quite often not want to register because they were afraid that they would be discriminated against in employment, in job training, in promotion and, indeed, in all kinds of opportunities. Even if they were working for a good employer where they would not be discriminated against, such people felt that if they left that employment, or if there were redundancies and they lost their jobs, they would have no chance of gaining other employment if the disability label was attached to them.
I do not suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, proposed that for that reason the amendment should not be accepted; rather the reverse. Education of employers is a key factor, whether in the public or private sector.

699
I hope that at the end of the process we are now going through we shall have an Act which will make it illegal to discriminate against someone on grounds of disability. It will also provide individuals with an opportunity to rectify discrimination in a court of law. I hope that that will encourage people to recognise that they have rights. Those rights may have always existed in some areas but not in others. They will be backed up by law and by due process.
The Minister said that there was nothing between us. There is a big gap between us if we agree on the problem but cannot agree on the means of rectifying it. It will be a major problem if there are no public statistics on which one can assess how we are progressing and what policies should be put in place.
I accept the Minister's view that a code of practice will encourage employers. The public sector is a major employer. How helpful it would be if the public sector—local authorities, health authorities and national government, which are covered by the amendment—was required to keep records. Government support for what we propose would send an important message to the private sector.
The Minister says that it would be wrong to be prescriptive; if what was required was set out on the face of the Bill there would be no flexibility. We recognise the problems that exist and that there are different problems in different sectors. We also recognise that there needs to be consultation. Equally, we recognise the overwhelming problem of confidentiality. That is why we have proposed in the amendment that this be set out in regulations. I do not see that that should present a problem.
The Minister relies on voluntaryism. The voluntary system did not work in relation to sex discrimination and we had to have a Sex Discrimination Act. The voluntary system did not work in race relations in Britain and we had to have a Race Relations Act. I suggest that, unfortunately, when too much water has passed under the bridge, we shall find, if the Bill remains as it is, that the voluntary system and the code of practice will not work when it comes to equality of access to employment and training for people with disabilities.
It is clear that the Minister is not prepared to budge from his position. That is extremely disappointing, not only for me but for the people who hoped that this measure would be in the Bill to protect them. It is therefore with a great deal of regret that I seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Amendment of Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944]:
9.15 p.m.
Lord Gladwin of Clee Lord Gladwin of Clee moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 23, leave out lines 41 to 43.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 137 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 138 and 139. All of the amendments are designed to protect severely disabled people who are either in employment or seeking employment.
As we have already discussed, the 1944 Act gives the Secretary of State for Employment powers to provide facilities for and to subsidise employment for people with severe impairments who would otherwise find it difficult to get jobs. This is a supported employment programme which takes two forms. The first is supported factories such as Remploy and the British Legion poppy factory and sheltered workshops run by local authorities and voluntary organisations. The second takes the form of a sheltered placement scheme in which a local authority or a voluntary organisation acts as a sponsor employing people with severe impairments who are then placed in "open" employment with host employers who pay the sponsor for the work done. Those sponsors are subsidised directly by the Employment Service.
However, the 1944 Act prevents the Government from providing funding for supported employment in companies which distribute profits. Clause 34(3) removes that prohibition. That sounds acceptable, but there is anxiety that it could lead to discrimination against more severely disabled people. For some time now supported employment providers have been under pressure to act more like commercial enterprises, and there is anxiety that those pressures are forcing them to recruit employees with less severe impairments and not recruit severely disabled people. If "not-for-profit" organisations feel constrained to discriminate against more severely disabled people, the pressures on dividend distributing companies will be even greater.
The issue was not discussed in the other place. The only reference was made in this House when the Minister responded to a question by my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke about the future of Remploy. I ask the Minister therefore for an assurance that there will be no reduction in the number of jobs provided for severely disabled people under the supported employment programme.
Secondly, at col. 889 of the Official Report of 22nd May, the Minister stated that before using the power provided, he would consult,
"relevant organisations, particularly those representing existing supported employer providers".
Can I be assured that he will also consult representatives of the workers in supported employment establishments?
There is anxiety about the possibility of creaming off. There is concern about the kind of jobs which will be provided by profit distributing companies for people with severe disabilities. There is concern that the money used to fund supported employment in dividend distributing companies will not be new money but will be funds diverted from existing providers of supported employment. Will the Minister confirm that that is not the case?
Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 seek to retain the statutory register for disabled people and the quota scheme. I appreciate that it is difficult to argue that the quota scheme has been a major success, but we all know the reasons for that. We have discussed them in the House.
A number of noble Lords have experienced, as I have, the reluctance of many disabled people to register because they regard registration as a stigma and because they fear that it could affect their prospects of employment and promotion. In other words, they are afraid of being discriminated against.
My experience encompasses two different situations. Like my noble friend Lady Dean and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on many occasions I have sought to persuade members of my organisation to register. On the other hand, I used to deal with factories in which every single employee was registered disabled. It is those people about whom I am particularly concerned.
The provisions of the Bill should remove the anxiety that disabled people will be discriminated against. But how will we know that it is removed if we abolish the register? Therefore the first argument for retention is monitoring. We have already discussed that.
Secondly, registration is an effective method of assisting the more disabled people to obtain jobs through the supported employment programme. The White Paper states that the ending of statutory registration will require new arrangements for identifying severely disabled people who should be eligible for supported employment. Why invent new arrangements when we have the register? If, after consultation with supported employment providers and representatives of disabled employees, the registration scheme needs modification, then so be it. But do not abandon it. Do not throw out the baby with the bath water.
On the question of the quota, I agree with the view put forward at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde and the noble Lord, Lord Rix; why not follow the suggestion of the Employment Select Committee in another place and allow the quota scheme to run concurrently with the new employment right for a period of up to five years?
In his reply at col. 887 of the Official Report of 22nd May, the Minister said:
"I do not believe that it would be practicable or reasonable to overlap the quota provisions with the new provisions in this Bill, even for a year".
I believe that both employers and disabled people seeking employment would find it both practicable and reasonable to retain the registration quota scheme until we are sure that the new legislation is working in the way that Parliament intended. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: I realise full well that the Minister regards trying to keep registration and the quota—while welcoming the new anti-discrimination provisions as they affect employment—as being rather akin to bringing your sandwiches to the Lord Mayor's banquet. I realise, too, that there is within that fairly broad church—the so-called disability lobby—a strong view that registration and quota are not only ineffective but, in themselves, discriminatory. Had not the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, spoken in defence of the quota and of registration at Second Reading, and indirectly just now, I should have been much minded to refrain from further argument in support of a cause which seemed to have
702
few supporters. However, since the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, is having another go it seems worth while rehearsing the arguments yet again.
Quite simply, is it not prudent to make quite certain of the new-found way of doing things before firmly jettisoning the old way, especially when we have yet to hear a convincing explanation of how the new arrangements are to be monitored? Indeed, the Government seem to accept the contention with their views on the future of NACEPD.
In addition, I have to break ranks with those who say that the quota never did any good and that people with disabilities can always gain and keep employment simply on merit without any artificial aids. I know that it has done some good, particularly for people with a learning disability and with the MENCAP Pathway Employment Service. It has set a standard; it has provided a prompt in individual cases for employers to look at their practice; and it has sometimes been the key that turned the lock and got someone a job. I notice that in all the long history of attempts to discredit the quota scheme by those not minded to apply it, there are frequent references to, "employers really are employing 3 per cent. of disabled people, if only you count X, Y and Z". Would anyone have thought of it in such terms without the quota? The quota represents positive discrimination, albeit very modest positive discrimination, and in a society which sets so much store by physical and mental perfection I am not ashamed to say that there is a case for a little positive discrimination. That is permitted in the case of sexual and racial discrimination and I see some case for encouraging it for disabled people, who do not always meet quite what the employer had in mind, especially those with a learning disability.
The Bill sets out to change society: first, its behaviour and then its attitudes. As that begins to happen, registration and the quota will become increasingly old hat. But I am not convinced at the moment that they have actually passed their sell-by date.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am glad to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Rix. First, I wish to explain to the Committee why I appear to be defiling the Privy Counsellors' Bench by putting my leg up on it. I hope that it has been noticed that I tidily have a protective cover underneath the leg, but I am under doctor's orders. A few weeks ago, a thrombosis was diagnosed in one of my legs, which is disabled. I took my medicine during the adjournment and I am only allowed to be here this evening on the basis that I keep my leg up. My doctors are keen that I should take part in proceedings on the Bill. At first they wanted me not to do so and forbade it, but they are now keen that I should take the line that I am and be available to do so. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will understand and I seek its indulgence.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwin. has taken the three amendments together. I am sure be was right to do so. On the first amendment, as he probably knows, I have been a strong supporter of Remploy and been much involved in its activities over the years. However, I wish to concentrate on the other two amendments and the quota.

703
Following the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I start by saying that I have never discredited the quota system. I have just been sad that in recent years it has not worked properly. It started 50 years ago and I shall not repeat my Second Reading speech. Of course, it was mainly intended for the very young disabled people from the war. Unfortunately, for the past 25 years—about half of its life—less than 3 per cent. of the workforce has been registered as disabled. Therefore it has not been feasible to enforce the quota system under the Act. The lack of registration has occurred under both Labour and Conservative governments. On a previous Committee day I referred to questions asked by Labour Members of Parliament and answered by Labour Ministers in the 1970s pointing out exactly the same; namely, that it was impossible to fulfil the quota or bring action against establishments and firms because far less than 3 per cent. of the workforce was registered as disabled.
The important point for the future is one upon which I think we are all agreed: in any system we must somehow persuade or encourage people who are disabled—particularly the severely disabled—to register; or we must bring in some new system whereby they are known and can be encouraged. But that is for the future.
One of the alternatives in the past 20 years would have been to reduce the quota to 1 per cent. That percentage could have been met. I understand that at present 1 per cent. of the workforce is registered as disabled. A 1 per cent. quota could be prescribed by statutory instrument. The 1944 Act did not in its primary legislation prescribe the quota. That was left to Ministers. But that would have been a very depressing signal. I should not have recommended it, and I do not recommend it now. To continue the quota system and bring the percentage down to something that could be achieved would be a sign of failure. Therefore, I dismiss that option.
There is another option. In France, anyone entitled to a disability benefit is automatically registered. I do not know whether compulsion of that kind would be acceptable in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that it would be acceptable immediately. It might in time be possible. That has been practised in France. Britain has a different system of benefits and it would be more difficult for us to follow that course. Our benefits do not necessarily apply just to disability.
In France and Germany there are penalties in the form of fines for establishments that do not reach the quota. This is another option. Some firms in Germany prefer to pay the fine rather than employ the disabled people. In this country in 1981, when I was much involved in a prominent position with the International Year of Disabled People, the Manpower Services Commission was asked to carry out a full review of the quota system. Members of the Committee will probably remember that it recommended that the quota system should be dropped and that a code of practice should be adopted. That was not accepted by the Government of the day. However, there was very wide discussion at that time among the disability organisations, and a wider debate in the country as a whole, as to whether a system of penalties such as exists in France or Germany should be
704
brought in. The majority, particularly among disabled organisations, appeared to be against a punitive system of fines. The reason was that they felt it would make disabled people appear to be a costly burden rather than members of the workforce who could contribute as much as or more than other members. I absolutely understand that. That was the main objection in 1981 to our bringing in such a system. I suspect that it would still be an objection in this country to our bringing in a system of fines as a penalty for failing to meet the quota. I just mention these alternatives before we drop the quota system, which is the intention under this Bill. I do not think that the alternatives are very attractive.
I should not object to the quota system being continued for a time, as a target. I know how much it has helped MENCAP, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, mentioned. I have mentioned that point before on various occasions. However, if it were continued, it would be dangerous for too much faith to be put in it. We know now that it can only be a target. It will have to be—and should be—phased out. I should not be against the Government continuing it for three or five years, or whatever it may be, until the country becomes familiar with the new system that is being introduced in this Bill. But I do not feel that we ought to put faith in the quota.
For at least 25 years I have lived with the system. As the Committee will know, by the time of the 1944 Act I had been wounded and was disabled. I have followed the system ever since with colleagues and men whom I commanded getting jobs and so on. In the first 25 years the quota system was successful and did what was intended. But I do not believe that even the parliamentarians who in 1943 and 1944 passed that Bill would have expected it necessarily to be functioning as they expected 25 years later. In fact, it has gone on for 50 years.
I would not discredit the system or pour scorn on the 1944 Act. But it has served its purpose and now parts of it are no longer applicable. In particular, the quota system needs to be replaced by something else, even if it is not brought to an end immediately.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: We have come to a delicate part of the evening, when we are in danger of repeating our speeches from earlier occasions. I do not want to fall into that trap. I am as willing as anyone to repeat my points ad hominem, ad infinitum and "ad horum", but I should only set even more people against me.
I hope that I can make different points with regard to the quota system. First, it remains because it is not and never will be redundant. It complements and does not replace this Bill. It protects disabled people as a group. This Bill protects the individual rights of people. That is a very important difference.
The system is capable of revision by the levy, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I am in favour of the levy. If some employers do not want to keep the quota and say that they will pay the levy, that is fine. At least they are contributing to disabled people. Finally, it is the only method of curbing the prejudices of wilful, evasive and discriminatory employers, who resist everything but the strongest compulsion.

705
I complete my brief remarks by endorsing what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, said about Remploy and the position of very seriously disabled workers. It is very serious. I hope that something can be done under the Bill by the Government accepting these amendments.
Lord Addington: Let me say very briefly that I am very much in the minority in having taken part in the old green card system. It set a target which has become increasingly unrealistic. One reason for that is that the nature of work has changed since the system was introduced. There are no longer production line jobs on which large numbers of people were employed and a quota could easily be set. The nature of employment has changed.
It is also the case that certain groups of people, for whom this Bill is not designed, have found the system very useful. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, can perhaps confirm MENCAP has found it difficult to find employment for much of its client base. Other groups have not benefited from it.
We have already decided in another case not to have a register. We have just discussed that point. But we do have a register in this case. Many good things were said about the register, including the idea of knowing how many people are involved in it. If the Government would breathe life into the green card—or even change its colour and make it a blue card or even a pink card (let us be radical)—that system would work. Something which tells us who the person is, and possibly the nature of his disability as well, would be helpful.
The quota has not worked in recent years for the vast majority of people of whom we are talking. That is the one thing that marks it down. It has worked for certain groups but it has not worked for others. If the Government had accepted any of the amendments discussed earlier, they could probably say that there was sufficient process here, especially within the council, to make sure that a quota system was not needed, and that they had a positive and aggressive stance. It is the only thing we have left. The idea of registration, and the ease of access to those supporting bodies around it, has not been mentioned but should be taken into account. If one possesses a green card, at least one knows where to go in the employment services to obtain help.
I shall not pretend to know what the answer is. Can the Government give an assurance that the quick lines which the green card provides to the support services will remain intact and that there will be guidance to inform disabled people, whatever definition is used, that the services exist? It is important that disabled people know what they are entitled to in the realms of support. That has not yet been raised but should be borne in mind.
Lord Renton: On the substance of this matter I agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. I merely add that in order to obtain a full picture we must realise that various lists are already kept by those in the public service who pay out various allowances to people with various kinds of disability. A list must be kept of the war disabled who are in receipt of war disability pensions. A list must be kept of those
706
who receive disability allowances and unemployability supplement. I forget what the other allowance is called, but my severely handicapped daughter receives it. She has to be careful all the time; she cannot do anything herself and receives the allowance because of that. There are therefore in existence various lists.
I realise that the noble Lord who moved the amendment is concerned with the register to which there is public access; that is another matter. I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell. However, there is a purely technical point—I hope Members of the Committee will not think it boring—that I wish to raise on the drafting of the amendment. Clause 34(7) on page 24 reads,
"The following provisions of the Act of 1944 shall cease to have effect".
Many times I have complained about the use of that phrase because it really means "repealed". In Schedule 5 we find that each of the provisions mentioned in the subsection is included in the list of repeals. If we wish this provision to be endorsed, why cannot we be consistent in the words that we use in the statutes and say in subsection (7) that those provisions are repealed?
Lord McCarthy: I do not want to rehearse the disparate arguments that have been put forward to persuade the Government to say something. But that is what we want. We want them to say something about the two different general topics dealt with in the amendment.
My noble friend Lord Gladwin asked the Government to say something about three specific matters. He asked whether or not there would be any reduction in the severely disabled programmes. He asked about the consultation procedures on the workers' side and, most importantly, he asked whether there would be any new money or whether the changes which the Government propose in the subsidy and funding arrangements will result in money being taken away from existing programmes. I ask the Government to seek to answer those questions this evening. They are serious questions which worry a considerable number of people. If the Government cannot answer them tonight because they are new questions and they have not thought about them before, let them say that they will go away and write to my noble friend, giving him the answers to the questions.
We come then to the second general heading relating to the quota scheme. We know that the Government are going to abolish the scheme. We do not intend to divide the Committee on these amendments at this time of night. We know that it is long gone. But almost everyone on this side of the Committee and around the Committee has been asking whether the Government accept in any sense that the original objectives of the register are still there to be met. If the Government abolish this way of doing it, have they no proposals at all to follow through the original objectives of the scheme in other ways?
As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, in many ways this is extremely modern. It is astonishing that in this country in 1918, before anyone thought of it in the United States or anywhere else so far as I know, we legislated a system of positive discrimination. It is true that we did it in the aftermath of a world war, but we

707
did it. It worked for some time, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, and then began to fade away because circumstances changed. Successive governments of all political persuasions felt that they had more important things to do and therefore did not look at the way the scheme was operating and try to bring it up to date. They did not find effective ways of working it or set up a Royal Commission on what was wrong with the quota scheme; they just left it there. And now this Government want to do away with it. Those are matters that we ought to feel sorry about; and we on this side of the Committee and noble Lords in other parts of the Committee are sorry about them.
The original aims of the quota scheme deal with the more severely disadvantaged. They deal with those who are prepared to register and try to induce others to register and give them significant benefits so it is worth their while registering. Those objectives and aims are surely as relevant today as they always were. Therefore, we ask the Government for answers. We know what they are going to do. But can they answer the first few questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, and can they answer us in a positive way as to what they feel should replace the quota scheme?
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I merely want to add three points which I hope the Minister will take into account when he replies to the questions posed by my noble friends. First, many appointments made by public bodies—local authorities and local education authorities—are now made not directly by people who are part of the staff of the local authority but by thousands of school governors and teaching and non-teaching staff. It is very difficult to keep a record in those circumstances unless there is a requirement to seek to comply.
Secondly, as a result of government policy much more of the work is being carried out by private sector companies which submit tenders. We heard about this in the Dinner Break tonight. Without a requirement that information should be collected it is very difficult for local authorities to demand contract compliance in the way that they did when they were employers. Finally, as a result of government policy there is a growth in the private sector directly providing in areas where in the past the public sector provided; for example, homes for the elderly. Therefore, there is a need for this monitoring to be continued.
I repeat and stress what I said when I spoke earlier. It is not that the system is excellent and works—because of the difficulties we have outlined. We arc not talking about sticking rigidly to an outworn system. We are talking about the need to continue the monitoring and to insist that the Government accept that principle, go away and look at it and come hack with an amendment that will require that to be done.
Lord Inglewood: We have had an extremely worthwhile debate focusing on three principal matters: first, the supported employment programme; secondly, quota: and, thirdly, registration. I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Gladwin. for raising the matters and
708
also to the doctor of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for having allowed him to be here. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for the contribution he made once he got here. Before getting to the substance of this amendment, I thank my noble friend Lord Renton for his drafting comment, which I am sure that those who are responsible for these matters will be pleased to have heard and will reflect on.
As the Committee will be aware, the supported employment programme was set up under the auspices of the 1944 Act to provide job opportunities for people who, because of the severity of their disability, are unable or unlikely to be able to obtain or retain work in open employment. Around 21,800 severely disabled people are currently helped by this programme at a cost of about £153 million. This includes around 9,200 people in Remploy Ltd, some 4,600 people in local authority and voluntary body workshops and around 8,000 people on the supported placement scheme which provides job opportunities for severely disabled people to work in open employment. I emphasise that the Government are fully committed to this programme and intend to maintain the current level of provision, but we have to recognise that the needs and expectations of severely disabled people are changing, and the supported employment programme needs to be flexible enough in its administrative arrangements to continue to meet those needs and expectations.
Amendment No. 137 would hinder that flexibility on the mistaken premise, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, that private companies would be able to exploit severely disabled people or in some way cream off less severely disabled people to maximise their contribution to productivity. The suggestion appears to be that supported workshops would be left with a workforce made up entirely of the most severely disabled people. This is not plausible. We have contractual arrangements which deal with standards in existing placements, including payment of the rate for the job, and I can assure the Committee that contractual arrangements would be put in place to ensure similar standards in future placements.
As to the potential to cream off those who arc less severely disabled, we propose to consult on the precise mechanisms for entry to the supported employment programme, but we do not expect the broad criteria to change significantly. The current criteria arc that severely disabled people should be capable of productivity within the range of 30 per cent. to 80 per cent. of a non-disabled worker. The specific type of provision to be offered will continue to be decided by the Employment Service and the individual disabled person, in liaison with the relevant providers.
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from funding places in private companies which had demonstrated a commitment to the principles of the programme. It would do so despite the fact that those who responded and commented on this aspect of our Disability on the Agenda consultation document overwhelmingly agreed that there was no reason to exclude dividend-distributing bodies from participating in the programme.

709
We recognise that under the supported placement scheme existing host companies in the private sector are already involved in a range of supported job opportunities through providers who act as a form of agency. This amendment would limit the Employment Service's flexibility in funding additional places in reputable companies located where local provision was too limited to meet the needs and expectations of severely disabled people.
I can assure the Committee that the Government do not propose to exercise this power immediately, nor until they have consulted further with relevant organisations, including employees, on the detail of how the power might be used. Particularly, we would consult those groups representing existing supported employment providers. Mention has been made specifically by a number of speakers of Remploy. I want to make it absolutely clear that the Government remain committed to Remploy and the changes made by the Bill leave Remploy's statutory position unaffected.
The supported employment programme, however, must be open to change, and this is an opportune time to introduce further flexibility into the administrative arrangements to allow in the longer term an opening up of supported employment across a wider range of occupations and locations and to help tailor provisions more precisely to the local employment needs of the most severely disabled. I hope that this gives a clear picture of what the Government's thinking is on this matter and indicates that the more dramatic scenarios that seem to be behind some noble Lords' contributions are not founded.
I should now like to continue by speaking about the quota scheme.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: The Minister did say "additional", did he not? The anxiety is that by doing what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, suggested earlier and by opening it up and becoming more flexible, there will be no more money and the current providers, such as Remploy and the other sheltered workshops, will wither on the vine. That is the fear. I want to be absolutely clear that the Minister is saying that that is not the intention and that the intention is to have more funding for more places for the severely disabled. If that is the case, we are on board.
Lord Inglewood: I think that the noble Lord has jumped further than we have. At this stage, all that the Government are seeking to do is to acquire the power to be able to do that. There is a considerable amount of consultation to be done before anything actually happens. I cannot give a commitment about funding levels some time in the future. It would be unrealistic to do so. If noble Lords opposite were in the same position as I am and at this Dispatch Box, they would not do that either. As I have said, we are committed to the scheme and to trying to provide the hest form of placement that we can. We believe that it could be the case that something along the lines of what I have described could assist disabled people, which, after all, is the purpose of the Bill. We seek that power and, as I have explained, before we exercise that power we shall
710
consult to try to identify (with a greater degree of precision than I have been able to do this evening) what we have it in mind to do.
Lord McCarthy: With great respect, surely the Minister could at least say whether it is the Government's present policy and intention to run down the subsidies for Remploy.
Lord Inglewood: As I said, we are committed to Remploy. There is no policy of deliberately running down Remploy or of deliberately promoting Remploy. The positive policy is to try to ensure that the best provision and the most cost-effective provision can be provided for as many severely disabled people as possible. As I explained, there are a number of ways of doing that and we wish to have a portfolio of options in our pocket so that we can do what is best for people.
Baroness Seear: I should like to get this point quite clear because it is very important. If there are to be new opportunities in the private sector, helped by Government funding which I understand is the idea, will that mean less money for Remploy or is that to be in addition to the money that already goes into Remploy? That is the crux of it. If it is additional money, we are all for it.
Lord Inglewood: We are talking about some time ahead and, as I explained earlier, I am not in a position to give or to talk figures. We do not even know yet exactly what we are going to do. We have to reserve our position in order to be able to do what we consider to be the best for the various people concerned. I do not want to say things which will subsequently be played hack at me—albeit that I may do so with the best intent in the world.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: I am sorry to be persistent, but the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said on Second Reading:
"As regards profit-distributing organisations, we are committed to the supported employment programme which provides jobs for nearly 21,000 severely disabled people. The new power will enable us to fund supported employment in dividend-distributing bodies".—[Official Report, 22/5/95: col. 888.]
That is the new element. All that I and my colleagues are asking is whether the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. in saying that, meant that as well as supporting Remploy and as well as the 21,000 jobs that already exist, the intention is (for the flexible reason that is described in a later paragraph in Hansard) to provide more. That is the worry. That is what is concerning a lot of people not only from Remploy but many other people in sheltered employment. For people who cannot get jobs in the open market and who need sheltered employment, the question is whether it is the Government's intention (in line with the philosophy behind this legislation) to increase the number of opportunities. It is a simple question.
Lord Inglewood: I have nothing to add to what I said earlier, but let me try to explain it slightly differently. Remploy remains an integral putt of the supported employment programme. The Government's continued commitment to the company is demonstrated by the £94.2 million that will be allocated this year to

711
compensate for the cost of employing severely disabled people. As the Committee will be aware, that represents about 60 per cent. of the Government's total allocation to the supported employment programme of over £153 million. Furthermore, spending plans for the supported employment programme, including Remploy, are already published in the report of the Department of Employment. They show that we propose to maintain funding for Remploy throughout the planning period to April 1988. That date is stipulated because it is the current timescale for the Government and the departments' public expenditure bids.
I return to the point I made earlier. In the foreseeable future, the position is clear, and I have explained it. But what happens beyond that must inevitably depend upon the circumstances at the time. When faced with the circumstance of that time, we want to be able to respond with the maximum flexibility. I cannot see anything contentious in that approach, even if one disagrees about the particularity of some of the detail.
I should like to touch briefly on matters to do with quota. It has been agreed on all sides of the Chamber that the scheme is not working as originally intended. There may have been varying degrees of support for it, depending upon an analysis of how effective people felt it to be. It is not working as it should have done, and that has been recognised. It is impossible for all employers to meet the 3 per cent. quota because only a third of those in the workforce who are eligible to register do so. That point has been touched on, but perhaps the logic of the position was not spelt out. However, research indicates that employers would, on average, meet the quota if all those disabled people, who were eligible to do so, registered.
In its recent report on the operation of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, the Employment Select Committee described quota as a system which classes disabled people as a problem. I agree with that description. Quota sends, in our view, an entirely wrong signal to employers about the abilities of people with disabilities. In effect, it is saying, "Here is a group of people who are unable to get work by their own efforts. You, the employer, must therefore reserve a proportion of jobs for them." That is patronising. We should therefore take the opportunity provided by the introduction of the new right not to be discriminated against in employment to repeal the quota scheme.
I know that it has been argued that we should perhaps retain the quota scheme for a time in tandem with the new employment right. That would be wrong. It would serve only to confuse employers and people with disabilities alike. If one looks at the two schemes, they represent two separate and different ways of dealing with the problem. Not only that, the quota scheme itself is not effective. It is narrow in scope. After all, it covers only recruitment and dismissal phases of employment. It places no duty on the employer to help employees in matters such as training. promotion, or adapting jobs so that individuals can cope better with them. It entails criminal offences which we belie e to be inappropriate in today's employment situation. It has no effective provision Cm a disabled person to be compensated or reinstated.
712
We believe that quota is a poor second best to the new rights we want to introduce. Moreover, it would sit oddly alongside them. I find it hard to reconcile the right not to be discriminated against—that is to say, being treated in the same way as other individuals—with the special treatment of jobs being allocated preferentially to people with disabilities and where a burden on the employer would be entailed in keeping both systems. In effect, employers would have to follow two incompatible management styles simultaneously. That cannot be right.
We believe that the quota scheme is outdated. I urge the Committee to replace it with something better, which is what the Bill does—something which focuses upon individuals rather than groups and which we believe will be more effective than quota in dealing with the type of employer mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. At the end of the day, we are talking about individuals who are disabled. It will be poor consolation to a particular person under those circumstances if an employer says to him, "I have met my target. It doesn't matter any more, does it?"
The point about our approach is that it is necessary to deal with each individual as an individual, taking into account his or her particular disability problems.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Would the Minister care to comment on a case of someone seeking employment as a teacher who begins to suspect that he or she is not being shortlisted whereas other people with similar qualifications are? If that person takes action because of a feeing that he or she is being discriminated against, the person will not obtain a job in the locality if it is a fairly small area in which to seek employment. Surely during the period of overlap we need the belt and the braces. The belt will provide that the school governors need to record the trends. With all the caveats and the recognition of what is happening, there is a need to record the trends. Far too many people may be hurt during the changeover period because of the Government's failure to recognise what is happening.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Baroness has merely given a specific example of the generality of the problem that we intend to address. She appears to be saying that in such circumstances a disabled person should be employed rather than someone who is more suitable. The Bill contains an entirely logical and coherent mechanism for dealing with such a problem as and when it arises. We dealt with this in our discussion on Part II of the Bill. We do not believe that an approach which entails quotas will achieve anything that is beneficial. On the contrary. we believe that it would be less efficacious than our proposal.
I turn now to registration. Were a quota to be retained, it must follow that registration must be retained too. But doing so would fail to take into account the views of disabled people. who have shown by their reluctance to register that the system fails to meet their needs and aspirations. Registration is seen by many disabled people as stigmatising them and sending the g messages to employers about their abilities. We should be concentrating on their abilities and not on their disabilities.

713
We have heard arguments that disabled people chose not to register because quota is not working as a result of lack of enforcement. I do not accept that. Experience of stricter enforcement in the 1970s showed that the employment position of disabled people generally did not improve. Disabled people choose not to register for a number of reasons. Research commissioned by the Employment Service—I refer to Employment and Handicap 1990—shows that one of the main reasons for not registering is that potentially eligible people either do not believe that registration is appropriate for them because they do not see themselves as disabled or see no reason to register at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised a particular point. I wish to make it clear that a green card is not needed for help from the Employment Service. Disabled people will continue to receive specialist help where they need it and the Employment Service will continue to make sure that disabled people know about its services. We believe that registration is not worth keeping simply as a route into supported employment. We shall consult interested parties on the new arrangements but we expect the criteria to be broadly similar to those which now exist.
I have already touched on the key to our approach to these three matters. We believe that the new employment right contained in the Bill will be better and more effective in helping people with disabilities to obtain and to keep jobs. It is important that the new right goes wider than the right under the 1944 Act; and we believe that we should not keep this time-expired scheme alongside it. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject the proposals if the amendment is put to a vote. However, I hope that, as the noble Lord intimated earlier, he will reflect on what I have said.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: I am grateful to the Minister. I shall reflect on what he has said, as I am sure will my noble friends. I am sorry that I harried the Minister and I feel sorry for him. The Bill takes away things with which we are familiar, whether they have worked or not. and it puts nothing in their place. Therefore, in discussing the amendments the Minister is in a somewhat defensive posture.
I sincerely hope that before we reach further stages of the Bill—certainly before the autumn—we shall have a better idea about what the Government intend to put in place of what we have. This is not a peripheral matter. There is a great deal of anxiety among people with serious disabilities that, although we all support this legislation, in this area people may be worse rather than better off. I am sure that that is not what the Government want. We all want this legislation to succeed but at the moment the Government are batting off sensible suggestions in a rather defensive way. However, at this hour of the evening. I shall not divide the Committee and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 139A:
After Clause 34. insert the following new clause:
Public service vehicles
PSV accessibility regulations
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations ("PSV accessibility regulations") for the purpose of securing that it is possible for disabled persons—

(a) to get on to and off regulated public service vehicles in safety and without unreasonable difficulty (and, in the case of disabled persons in wheelchairs, to do so while remaining in their wheelchairs); and

(b) to be carried in such vehicles in safety and in reasonable comfort.

(2) PSV accessibility regulations may make provision as to the construction, use and maintenance of regulated public service vehicles including, in particular, provision as to—

(a) the fitting of equipment to vehicles;

(b) equipment to be carried by vehicles;

(c) the design of equipment to be fitted to, or carried by. vehicles;

(d) the fitting and use of restraining devices designed to ensure the stability of wheelchairs while vehicles are moving;

(e) the position in which wheelchairs are to be secured while vehicles are moving.

(3) Any person who—

(a) contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of the PSV accessibility regulations,

(b) uses on a road a regulated public service vehicle which does not conform with any provision of the regulations with which it is required to conform, or

(c) causes or permits to be used on a road such a regulated public service vehicle,

is guilty of an offence.
(4) A person who is guilty of such an offence is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(5) In this section—
"public service vehicle" means a vehicle which is—

(a) adapted to carry more than eight passengers; and

(b) a public service vehicle for the purposes of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981;

"regulated public service vehicle" means any public service vehicle to which the PSV accessibility regulations are expressed to apply.
(6) Different provision may be made in regulations under this section—

(a) as respects different classes or descriptions of vehicle.

(b) as respects the same class or description of vehicle in different circumstances:

(c) as respects different localities.

(7) Nothing in subsection (6) affects the powers conferred by section 37.
(8) Before making any regulations or order under this section or section (Accessibility certificates) or (Special authorisations) the Secretary of State shall consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other representative organisations as he thinks fit.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 139B to 139K and Amendments Nos. 142A. 146A. 1468 and 147A. I shall not read out the new clauses which I intend to insert in the Bill but I shall obviously have to explain in a little detail exactly what these clauses add up to. They add up to a very significant change in the field of transport.
We have already had an opportunity to discuss the Government's proposals to ensure that in future, taxis are accessible to disabled people. I was grateful for the support from all sides of the Committee on that subject, although that was at an even later hour than we are now. This evening, I wish to present to the Committee our proposals for dealing with access to buses, coaches and rail services. Those proposals complete the package of measures covering all forms of domestic land-based transport which my honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People undertook to bring forward at an early stage in the passage of this Bill.
Many Members of the Committee will already be aware of the excellent progress in improving access to public transport which has been made over the past decade. The Department of Transport has for many years worked closely with the transport industries to promote and encourage the introduction of better designs and operating practices to meet the needs of disabled people. I could give the Committee examples but I am sure that all Members of the Committee interested in this sphere know about the examples and the progress which has been made. Therefore, I shall move on to look at the new proposals.
In no sense are the legislative proposals that we are bringing forward intended to force co-operation on an unreceptive and recalcitrant industry but rather to indicate that we see the introduction of legislation in this area as continuing the process of shaping a transport network that is fully accessible. It has long been—and will continue to be—a collaborative and co-operative venture between the Department of Transport, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and all sides of the industry.
Perhaps I may also make clear from the outset that any regulations made under these provisions will apply only to new vehicles. I want to make that point very clearly to industry. There is simply no question of them being applied retrospectively. Such an approach at the very least would be technically very difficult and costly and at worst could render some transport services commercially unviable. Working on the basis of new vehicles, we can achieve access solutions which are effective and sustainable and which serve the interests of all parties involved.
I make no apology for the rather technical nature of the clauses before us on this subject. Our intention has been to ensure that we provide a legislative framework that will be compatible with existing transport requirements and that will allow the Secretary of State for Transport the flexibility which is vital if we are to ensure that we do not introduce requirements that are unworkable technically or that are simply not viable in an operational or economic sense. It is absolutely essential that we do not place burdens on either the manufacturing or operating industries that could jeopardise their future. We have learnt from the experience of the United States that a blanket requirement for accessible transport without regard for technical and economic realities, can lead all too quickly to loss of services altogether. If services are withdrawn, that is not a victory for disabled people. It is simply a loss to the travelling public as a whole.
The first set of transport clauses before the Committee deal with access to PSVs—bus and coach vehicles adapted to carry more than eight passengers and used on public service.
The new clause proposed by way of Amendment No. 139A gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations covering access to PSVs for disabled people, including those who use wheelchairs. The purpose of the regulations will be to enable disabled people to get on and off buses and coaches in safety, without unreasonable difficulty and to be able to be carried in such vehicles in safety and in reasonable comfort.
We have provided in subsection (2) a list of requirements which might be included in any regulations. That list is not exhaustive but simply highlights some of the key issues which would need to be covered. Before making any regulations under the clause, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and any other organisation that he considers appropriate.
I should also say at this point that a full compliance cost assessment will be produced for any regulations we make under those provisions, as well as those covering access to taxis and rail services.
To ensure that we have the flexibility to deal with the widest range of circumstances, subsection (6) provides for different provisions to be made for different classes or descriptions of vehicle, for the same class operating in different circumstances, and for different locations. That flexibility is essential to allow different access solutions, which in the case of full-size single deck buses might be low floors and in the case of coaches might be lifts, to permit different time-scales, and to allow regional and local variation. That will enable us to make regulations making different requirements for different types of vehicle over different time-scales which will ensure a smooth transition towards accessibility.
The Department of Transport has already embarked on a detailed and extensive process of consultation with trade associations and with individual companies. We are well aware that viable access solutions are not yet available for all vehicle types and we recognise that there may be a role for some research input from the Department of Transport to develop and evaluate possible options before regulations can be made.
Finally, as with the taxi provisions, and those relating to rail vehicles which I will come on to later, the new clause creates new offences to deal with non-compliance with the accessibility regulations.
Amendment No. 139B provides for "accessibility certificates" to be issued by vehicle examiners as a parallel to the existing initial roadworthiness certification procedure for public service vehicles. Regulations will deal with the detail of the application procedure for both types of certificate, the inspection system for vehicle examiners to follow and for the issue of duplicate certificates.
In the absence of such a certificate, or of the alternative "approval certificate" which would be issued for vehicles produced in large numbers, a PSV to which

717
the regulations apply will not be permitted to be used on a road. Failure to comply will give rise to an offence with a penalty set at level 4.
Amendment No. 139C introduces a new clause which provides for a type of approval approach to the certification of PSVs built in larger volumes, allowing an initial "type vehicle" to be approved, with subsequent vehicles of the same type being issued with approval certificates. That avoids the need for each vehicle of the same type to be individually inspected.
Amendment No. 139D allows special operating authorisation for vehicles which do not conform to accessibility regulations or for which a certificate has not been granted. It provides flexibility to cater for circumstances in which an individual vehicle or class of vehicle cannot reasonably be expected to meet the full requirements of the accessibility regulations.
Amendment No. 139E creates offences and sets penalties for forgery or misuse of accessibility certificates.
Amendment No. 139F provides for an appeals system against refusal to issue an accessibility certificate or an approval certificate. It also makes provision for a review system for cases where the type approval is refused.
Amendment No. 139G gives the Secretary of State power to require fees to be paid on applications for certificates, type approvals and appeals. There is precedent here in relation to existing procedures for vehicle certification arrangements.
I now turn to the rail services which provide a key link in the transport chain. We believe that disabled people should also have that transport option available to them. We have, of course, already made provision in the Railways Act to ensure that operators have a duty to have regard to the needs of disabled passengers. We believe that the legislative framework could be further strengthened. I wish, therefore, to speak to the new clauses in Amendments Nos. 139H, 139J, 139K, and Amendment No. 146B, which deal with the access to rail services, including light rapid transit and tram systems.
The Government propose to use these regulation-making powers only in respect of new railway rolling stock. There is no intention to require modifications to any existing rolling stock. The clause on this issue tabled by the Opposition in another place would have made that limitation clear on the face of the Bill. On reflection, we believe that that would be sensible and I shall be bringing forward a further amendment at Report stage which will limit the use of these regulations to new rail vehicles.
Amendment No. 139H is proposed so that the Secretary of State can make regulations defining standards of access for rail vehicles to enable disabled people, including those in wheelchairs, to be able to get on and off them in safety and without unreasonable difficulty. The regulations would also be able to ensure that disabled people are carried in such vehicles in safety and reasonable comfort. Before making any regulations under this provision, the Secretary of State
718
will be required to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and any other organisation he considers appropriate.
We have to recognise that the design and use of rail vehicles will vary according to a range of factors, including the systems on which they operate and the use to which the vehicles are put. We have proposed that this clause should allow for different provisions to be made in the regulations for different classes or descriptions of rail vehicles, for the same vehicles used in different circumstances and for different localities or on different networks.
That flexibility is essential for a number of reasons. For example, we will want to ensure that accessibility regulations do not undermine the historic character of heritage railways, and that could be achieved through this provision. Equally, it will allow us to look at different parts of, and different vehicles on, the London Underground to ensure that the access requirements are reasonable and practicable for such an old and largely inaccessible system. We need to be able to look at the circumstances of each system to tailor the requirements to the needs of both the industry and disabled consumers.
This clause also provides for the creation of an offence should an operator use a vehicle on public service which does not comply with requirements.
Amendment No. 139J provides powers for the Secretary of State to make exemption orders for vehicles which would otherwise have to comply with any accessibility regulations. I can assure the Committee that this is not a let out. Its purpose is simply to allow for flexibility in the legislation to provide powers to make exemptions where particular circumstances might warrant it. Again, we see a role for the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee in advising the Secretary of State on any applications, and we have provided for him to be able to make an exemption order, refuse to make one, or to make it with such conditions as he considers appropriate. We do not envisage that this power will be widely used.
Amendment No. 139K relates to both the "PSV accessibility regulations" and the "rail vehicle accessibility regulations", making provision for cases where offences are committed by corporate bodies, or in Scotland by partnerships or unincorporated bodies.
Amendment No. 142A relates hack to the provisions for PSVs and has the effect of disapplying the general requirement under the Bill that orders be made by statutory instrument in the case of special authorisations which apply only to a specified vehicle or to vehicles operated by a specified person.
We believe that these amendments will deliver improved standards of accessibility for disabled people to future public transport vehicles. It will not be achieved overnight, but these clauses will provide the necessary framework for effective and sustainable transport services which meet the needs of disabled people without creating unreasonable burdens on transport providers.
Amendments Nos. 146A, 146B and 147A simply cover the definitions of the new terms which have been introduced in the previous clauses. They are self explanatory.
I apologise if I have gone on a little. I have tried to go over the amendments as fast as I can, but I believe that it is important that what we aim to do in these important new clauses that I have brought to the Committee is clearly on the record. Equally, I believe that, despite the lateness of the hour, these changes to public transport on roads and rail are of great significance to disabled people. Over the years, as new vehicles come on the roads and the railways, the accessibility for disabled people will increase and one of the great problems facing disabled people—that of getting around—will largely be overcome. Even though I have detained the Committee for a little while, I believe that, to achieve that, it was worth it. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: The Committee will be extremely grateful to the Minister for the way in which he explained the group of amendments. I have some general points to raise, and a number of specific points on the new clause.
The noble Lord referred to buses, coaches and rail. I believe that he touched on trams. We have been advised to ask whether trolley buses and ferries are included or excluded. I believe that ferries are public service vehicles.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I can certainly assist the noble Lord on ferries. They are not included. The provision refers to land-based transport. Ferries are not included for a number of reasons, one of which is the international obligations on ferries, and the fact that they sail between different countries. Many ferries cater for disabled people, especially the new ferries which have lifts from, say, the car decks up to the passenger accommodation.
To be honest I had not realised that we had many trolley buses left. However, on the assumption that people will be manufacturing new trolley buses, I imagine that those will come within the scope of the provisions.
Lord Carter: My other point was whether Northern Ireland is covered.
On Amendment No. 139H, subsection (5) (c) and (d) refers to different networks. The Minister said that that would refer to heritage railways. Perhaps that is the term that we shall have to apply to British Rail eventually! However, will he make it absolutely clear whether the provision applies also to the different franchises? Could the Government use their powers under Amendment No. 139J to bring in exemptions? Subsection (2) (a) specifics the persons by whom applications for exemption orders may he made. Will the Government be able to vary the requirements between the franchisees of the privatised networks for providing access for disabled people?
I was puzzled why subsection (1) of Amendment No. 139K is needed. Those of us who are directors of bodies corporate spend a large amount of money on directors' liability insurance. Why do the Government believe it necessary to spell out that provision? I believe that all the people referred to in that subsection are guilty if they
720
connive at such an offence. I have referred already to ferries. The awful cases of the "Herald of Free Enterprise" and the "Marchioness" involved the crime of corporate manslaughter. In this specific case, why do the Government believe it necessary to spell out the provision?
In subsection (2) of Amendment No. 139K, I am puzzled by the definition of,
"a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members".
I can think only of a workers' co-operative or a kibbutz. I am not sure what is meant by a "body corporate". In a private company the members are shareholders; they do not manage the company. And they do not do so in a public company. What is "a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members"?
I understand why a partnership is spelt out in subsection (3), because under Scottish law it is a body corporate. In Scotland there is considerable use of the limited partnership where the liability of one of the members is limited, rather like a limited company. But that is only one member of the partnership. The device has been used a great deal in Scottish farming to create tenancy agreements. In drafting, has the draftsman caught the limited partnership as well as the partnerships defined in the amendment?
We shall be grateful if the Minister will reply to those points. Perhaps he will write to me if that is easier and quicker.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: With regard to Amendment No. 139K and the rather legalistic issues raised, if the noble Lord is content perhaps I may write to him.
As to the different franchises, clearly, as with the case which I mentioned earlier of heritage railways, these might be operated by a different company from the rest of the rail network. That is how it already happens. So different franchises may have different conditions imposed on them. Some may serve different areas and provide different services. For example, already the trains on the inter-city lines are pretty accessible. That would be one franchise which might go ahead more quickly than a franchisee with more local lines, with more old-fashioned stations and more difficult rolling stock to deal with.
It is possible that conditions may vary from one franchisee to another; it is equally possible that conditions may vary inside a franchisee's area because of the differences in the kind of service being run, the availability of stock and how quickly we can see the development of the kind of trains which will be accessible. I hope that is helpful. I shall write to the noble Lord about the other points.
Lord Carter: The concern would he that if the Government found it difficult to unload a number of the franchises—as I am sure they will—would it not he easier to relax the requirements for access for disabled people'?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord has far too suspicious a mind!
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 139B to 139K:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Accessibility certificates
(".—(1) A regulated public service vehicle shall not be used on a road unless—

(a) a vehicle examiner has issued a certificate (an "accessibility certificate") that such provisions of the PSV accessibility regulations as may be prescribed arc satisfied in respect of the vehicle; or

(b) an approval certificate has been issued under section (Approval certificates) in respect of the vehicle.

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations—

(a) with respect to applications for, and the issue of, accessibility certificates;

(b) providing for the examination of vehicles in respect of which applications have been made;

(c) with respect to the issue of copies of accessibility certificates in place of certificates which have been lost or destroyed.

(3) If a regulated public service vehicle is used in contravention of this section, the operator of the vehicle is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(4) In this section "operator" has the same meaning as in the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.").
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Approval certificates
(".—(1) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that such provisions of the PSV accessibility regulations as may be prescribed for the purposes of section (Accessibility certificates) are satisfied in respect of a particular vehicle he may approve the vehicle for the purposes of this section.
(2) A vehicle which has been so approved is referred to in this section as a "type vehicle".
(3) Subsection (4) applies where a declaration in the prescribed form has been made by an authorised person that a particular vehicle conforms in design, construction and equipment with a type vehicle.
(4) A vehicle examiner may, after examining the vehicle to which the declaration applies if he thinks fit, issue a certificate in the prescribed form ("an approval certificate") that it conforms to the type vehicle.
(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations—

(a) with respect to applications for, and grants of, approval under subsection (1);

(b) with respect to applications for, and the issue of, approval certificates;

(c) providing for the examination of vehicles in respect of which applications have been made;

(d) with respect to the issue of copies of approval certificates in place of certificates which have been lost or destroyed.

(6) The Secretary of State may at any time withdraw his approval of a type vehicle.
(7) Where an approval is withdrawn—

(a) no further approval certificates shall he issued by reference to the type vehicle: but

(b) any approval certificate issued by reference to the type vehicle before the withdrawal shall continue to have effect for the purposes of section (Accessibility certificates).

(8) In subsection (3) "authorised person" means a person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of that subsection.").
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Special authorizations
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order authorise the use on roads of—

(a) any regulated public service vehicle of a class or description specified by the order, or

722

(b) any regulated public service vehicle which is so specified, and nothing in section (PSV accessibility regulations), (Accessibility certificates) or (Approval certificates) prevents the use of any vehicle in accordance with the order.

(2) Any such authorisation may be given subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified by or under the order.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the purpose of securing that, subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified by or under the order, provisions of the PSV accessibility regulations apply to regulated public service vehicles of a description specified by the order subject to such modifications or exceptions as may be specified by the order.").
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Forgery of certificates and false statements
(".—(1) This section applies to accessibility certificates and approval certificates.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to deceive, he—

(a) forges, alters or uses a certificate to which this section applies;

(b) lends such a certificate to any other person;

(c) allows such a certificate to be used by any other person; or

(d) makes or has in his possession any document which closely resembles such a certificate.

(3) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

(4) A person who knowingly makes a false statement for the purpose of obtaining a certificate to which this section applies is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.").
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Reviews and appeals
(".—(1) Subsection (2) applies where—

(a) the Secretary of State refuses an application for the approval of a vehicle under section (Approval certificates) (1): and

(b) before the end of the prescribed period, the applicant asks the Secretary of State to review the decision and pays any fee fixed under section (Fees).

(2) The Secretary of State shall—

(a) review the decision; and

(b) in doing so, consider any representations made to him in writing, before the end of the prescribed period, by the applicant.

(3) A person applying for an accessibility certificate or an approval certificate may appeal to the Secretary of State against the refusal of a vehicle examiner to issue such a certificate.
(4) An appeal must he made within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner.
(5) Regulations may make provision as to the procedure to be followed in connection with appeals.
(6) On the determination of an appeal, the Secretary of State may—

(a) confirm, vary or reverse the decision appealed against:

(b) give such directions as he thinks fit to the vehicle examiner for giving effect to his decision.").

After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Fees
(".—(1) Such fees, payable at such times, as may be prescribed may he charged by the Secretary of State in respect of—

(a) applications for. and grants of. approval under section (Approval certificates) (1);

(b) applications for, and the issue of, accessibility certificates and approval certificates;

(c) copies of such certificates:

(d) reviews and appeals under section (Reviews and appeals).

(2) Any such fees received by the Secretary of State shall be paid by him into the Consolidated Fund.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the repayment of fees, in whole or in part, in such circumstances as may be prescribed.")
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Rail vehicles
Rail vehicle accessibility regulations
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations ("rail vehicle accessibility regulations") for the purpose of securing that it is possible—

(a) for disabled persons—

(i) to get on to and off regulated rail vehicles in safety and without unreasonable difficulty;

(ii) to he carried in such vehicles in safety and in reasonable comfort; and

(b) for disabled persons in wheelchairs—

(i) to get on to and off such vehicles in safety and without unreasonable difficulty while remaining in their wheelchairs, and

(ii) to be carried in such vehicles in safety and in reasonable comfort while remaining in their wheelchairs.

(2) Rail vehicle accessibility regulations may make provision as to the construction, use and maintenance of regulated rail vehicles including, in particular, provision as to—

(a) the fitting of equipment to vehicles;

(b) equipment to be carried by vehicles;

(c) the design of equipment to be fitted to, or carried by, vehicles;

(d) the use of equipment fitted to, or carried by, vehicles;

(e) the toilet facilities to he provided in vehicles;

(f) the location and floor area of the wheelchair accommodation to he provided in vehicles;

(g) assistance to be given to disabled persons.

(3) If a regulated rail vehicle which does not conform with any provision of the rail vehicle accessibility regulations with which it is required to conform is used for carriage, the operator of the vehicle is guilty of an offence.
(4) A person who is guilty of such an offence is liable. on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(5) Different provision may he made in rail vehicle accessibility regulations—

(a) as respects different classes or descriptions of rail vehicle:

(b) as respects the same class or description of rail vehicle in different circumstances;

(c) as respects different localities:

(d) as respects different networks.

(6) In this section—

"network" means any permanent way or other means of guiding or supporting rail vehicles or any section of it;

"operator". in relation to any rail vehicle, means the person having the management of that vehicle;

"rail vehicle" means a vehicle constructed or adapted to carry passengers on any railway. tramway or prescribed system;

"regulated rail vehicle" means any rail vehicle to which the rail vehicle accessibility regulations are expressed to apply; and

"wheelchair accommodation" has such meaning as may he prescribed.

(7) In subsection (6)—

"prescribed system" means a system using a prescribed mode of guided transport ("guided transport" having the same meaning as in the Transport and Works Act 1992): and

724

"railway" and "tramway" have the same meaning as in that Act.

(8) For the purposes of this section and section (Exemption from mil vehicle accessibility regulations), a person uses a Vehicle for carriage if he uses it for the carriage of members of the public for hire or reward at separate fares.
(9) Before making any regulations under this section or section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations) the Secretary of State shall consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other representative organisations as he thinks fit.").
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order (an "exemption order") authorise the use for carriage of any regulated rail vehicle of a specified description. or in specified circumstances, even though that vehicle does not conform with the provisions of the rail vehicle accessibility regulations with which it is required to conform.
(2) Regulations may make provision with respect to exemption orders including, in particular, provision as to—

(a) the persons by whom applications for exemption orders may be made;

(b) the form in which such applications are to he made;

(c) information to be supplied in connection with such applications;

(d) the period for which exemption orders are to continue in force;

(e) the revocation of exemption orders.

(3) After considering any application for an exemption order and consulting the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other persons as he considers appropriate. the Secretary of State may—

(a) make an exemption order in the terms of the application;

(b) make an exemption order in such other terms as he considers appropriate;

(c) refuse to make an exemption order.

(4) An exemption order may he made subject to such restrictions and conditions as may he specified.
(5) In this section "specified" means specified in an exemption order.").
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Supplemental Offences by bodies corporate etc
(".—(1) Where an offence under section (PSV accessibility regulations) or (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) committed by a body corporate is committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in such a capacity. he as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence.
(2) In subsection (1) "director'', in relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, means a member of the body corporate.
(3) Where, in Scotland, an offence under section (PSV accessibility regulations) or (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) committed by a partnership or by an unincorporated association other than a partnership is committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, a partner in the partnership or (as the case may he) a person concerned in the management or control of the association, he, as well as the partnership or association, is guilty of the offence.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 140A:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
Application to Parliament
(".—(1) This Act applies to an act done by or for purposes of the House of Lords or the House of Commons as it applies to an act done by a private person.
(2) For the purposes of the application of Part II in relation to the House of Commons, the Corporate Officer of that House shall be treated as the employer of a person who is (or would be) a relevant member of the House of Commons staff for the purposes of section 188 of the Employment Rights Act 1995.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (4), for the purposes of the application of sections 12 to 15, the provider of services is—

(a) as respects the House of Lords, the Corporate Officer of that House; and

(b) as respects the House of Commons, the Corporate Officer of that House.

(4) Where the service in question is access to and use of any place in the Palace of Westminster which members of the public are permitted to enter, the Corporate Officers of both Houses jointly are the provider of that service.
(5) Nothing in any rule of law or the law or practice of Parliament prevents proceedings being instituted before an industrial tribunal under Part II or before any court under Part III.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will he happy to hear that this is a much shorter speech. I beg to move Amendment No. 140A, to which someone referred earlier this evening. I am pleased to do so as it extends the coverage of the Bill to the Houses of Parliament. As the Committee is aware, parliamentary privilege dictates that, as it stands, the Bill would not apply to Parliament. It is, of course, always open to each House to comply with the spirit of new laws, but in this case the House authorities have decided that Parliament should he brought formally within the scope of the Bill.
In the field of employment, the decision is in line with previous provisions which have been made so that staff of both Houses benefit from the employment provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976. In the field of service provision, the two Houses provide a number of services to the public: for example, refreshment facilities, information services and. most importantly of all, access to the Palace. Their coverage recognises how important it is to provide the fullest possible access to the political process for disabled people. The amendment clarifies a point which I know has been of concern to many people and I believe the Committee will warmly welcome it.
Lord Carter: The Committee will obviously he delighted that the Government put down the amendment. It enables me to raise again the point made earlier in the Committee about the situation which has happened in the Chamber, with the arrangements that have been made for this Bill. I pointed out at an earlier stage that it is a classic example of the stereotyping and defining of people by their disability. Special arrangements were made with this Bill for noble Lords who use wheelchairs, but with no other. I pointed out that noble Lords who use wheelchairs are not interested only in matters of disability. I ant delighted that with this new clause it is clear that the House intends to implement the relevant clauses of the Act and that the arrangements which were made on a purely temporary basis for this Bill will become permanent for all Bills.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I warmly welcome this amendment.
Earl Russell: I, too, warmly welcome this amendment, and in the process of doing so say how much I admire what the House has done and will continue to do for its disabled Members, who make such an enormous contribution.
It is perhaps also worth noting in passing that this is an example of the fact that Parliament, being a sovereign body, may, if and when it so chooses, by force of statute override its own privileges. That is an important power and I am glad to see it used.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 141:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Confidentiality
.—(1) Each appropriate authority shall provide, in relation to the courts for which he is the appropriate authority—

(a) for proceedings before them in which a person might he identified as disabled for the purposes of this Act to he held in private,

(b) for securing that the registration or other publication of documents or decisions relating to those proceedings shall be so effected as to prevent any such identification, or

(c) for the court in question to make a restricted reporting order having effect (if not revoked earlier) until the promulgation of the court's decision,

if, for the purpose of preventing such identification, any party so requests or the court thinks fit.
(2) If any identifying matter is published or included in a relevant programme in contravention of a restricted reporting order made by virtue of subsection (1) (c), the following persons shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale—

(a) in the case of publication in a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor and editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical,

(b) in the case of publication in any other form, the person publishing the matter, and

(c) in the case of matter included in a relevant programme—

(i) any body corporate engaged in providing the service in which the programme is included. and

(ii) any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper.

(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (2) it shall he a defence to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he was not aware, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, that the publication or programme in question was of. or (as the case may be) included, the matter in question.
(4) Where an offence under subsection (2) committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent connivance of, or to he attributable to any neglect on the part of—

(a) a director, manager, secretary or similar officer of the body corporate, or

(b) a person purporting to act in any such capacity,

he as well as the body corporate shall he guilty of the offence and liable to he proceeded against and punished accordingly.
In relation to a body corporate whose aft airs are managed by its members. "director- in this subsection means a member oh the body corporate.
(5) In this section—

"appropriate authority- means the person who has authority to make provision. whether by rules or otherwise, governing the proceedings of a court referred to in subsection (1)

727

"court" includes tribunal,

"relevant programme" means a programme included in a programme service, within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990,

"restricted reporting order" means an order prohibiting the publication in the United Kingdom of identifying matter in a written publication available to the public or its inclusion in a relevant programme for reception in the United Kingdom, and

"written publication" includes a film, a sound track and any other record in permanent form, but does not include an indictment or other document prepared for use in particular legal proceedings.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 141 stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who is not able to he present this evening, and my name is also attached. The noble Baroness asked me to move the amendment for her, and I am very happy to do so.
The amendment makes specific provision for any proceedings under this legislation to be able to be held in private, and for parties to the proceedings not to be identified in any way if that is appropriate. At the outset, I stress the phrase "if that is appropriate". Clearly it is desirable in principle that proceedings before a court or tribunal should be public whenever possible on the ancient principle that justice should be not only done but seen to he done.
To explain how the new clause works, subsection (1) gives a power to the appropriate authorities in any court or tribunal to make provision for proceedings to be held in private to prevent identification of any party; to ensure that documents and so forth are not published in a form which allows identification; and for a reporting restriction. This power may he exercised either on the application of any party, or if the court thinks fit. The rest of the clause provides, as is necessary, for any contravention of an order made under subsection (1) to he an offence and for the necessary definitions under the clause. Members of the Committee with experience of such matters will recognise that all this is in recognisable form. The amendment does not seek to introduce a new principle, but to extend well-tried procedures to the circumstances of this Bill.
The rules at present allow private hearings only in those instances covered under Section 8(2) (3) of the Industrial Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 1993, which I have in my hand. So far as I can see, such instances are restricted to those relating to national security. or involving confidential information or information that would cause substantial injury to any undertaking in which a witness works. There is also a further provision in Rule 14 to make a restricted reporting order in cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct.
None of this appears to offer any comfort or protection to an individual desirous of maintaining confidentiality while pursuing a legal remedy under this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament—hence the new clause, which simply makes explicit that private hearings relating to discrimination within the terms of the Bill, would he not mandatory but permissive. It seems to me highly that there will he circumstances in which the identification of one or other, or indeed both, parties would he most undesirable.
The new clause covers all persons eligible for protection under the Bill; and one can think of various conditions that employees might not wish to have disclosed. One is certainly HIV disease—in which, as many Members of the Committee will know, I take an interest—which is widely known to generate discrimination and which, if revealed in court, might well prejudice the employee concerned not only in a current dispute but also in future employment. That is to say nothing of the disincentive effect of an unrestricted hearing to bringing the case in the first place.
The employer's interests might also he involved. For instance, let us consider the case of someone with a disability arising from a viral infection who wanted to take action under the Act (as the Bill will become) against an employer in the catering industry. Even if there were no question of any danger of infection to the public, neither the disabled person concerned nor his employer would necessarily want the fact of that particular disability to be made public, or for neighbours or competitors to know about it.
The interest of the employee is obvious. It could equally be in the interest of the employer for it not to he reported that he had employed staff with a particular condition which, although constituting no threat to public health, might he perceived as such and thus he detrimental to his business.
If there is not an explicit provision in the Bill for such cases, when appropriate, to he taken in private, in my submission the machinery of the Bill will he severely impaired. It will be defective. I stress that the new clause involves only a permissive power so that the ultimate decision is left in the hands of the court or tribunal concerned. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wish very briefly to support the amendment, so clearly explained to the Committee. The amendment would provide a permissive power to restrict reporting to ensure the confidentiality of the parties concerned.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, made clear, the problem could involve people with AIDS or possibly those having a history of mental illness who would he very reluctant to pursue their claims through tribunals and the courts if that resulted in widespread publicity for them. Equally, other disabled people might have a medical history of a highly intimate nature involving incontinence or concealed but substantial physical disfigurement that they would not wish publicly to he revealed.
With that proviso, none of the restrictions proposed in the amendment would prevent the appropriate reporting of the decision after the event. In child care cases involving abuse, restricted reporting would prevent the identification of the complainant and of the employer. I believe that there are similar protections whereby mental health review tribunal hearings take place in private as usually, I understand, do hearings of claims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I understand also that, for the most part, industrial tribunals can sit in private where national security or information of a highly commercial and sensitive nature is involved, but it is not a widespread practice.

729
As a former member of the Press Council—we were often concerned about issues of identification or inappropriate identifications and sometimes there was a jigsaw effect—I can assure the Minister that there need he no problem about requiring such restricted reporting, provided only, I suspect, that the press can claim a public interest defence in the very special circumstances that might be generated. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendment, but I wish to underline a point made by the noble Lord; namely, that it has always been the principle that legal proceedings should he held in open court, capable of being fully reported, as summed up in the saying "that justice is not only done but is seen to be done".
The principle is reflected in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that,
"in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing".
That principle is closely adhered to by the Council on Tribunals in its Model Rules of Procedure for Tribunals.
The onus has always been on those seeking an exception to the principle of an open and public hearing of a case to demonstrate that it is in the interests of justice for a case to he heard in private on the grounds, for example, of national security, public order, decency, safety or the protection of minors. It is then for the discretion of the relevant judicial authority to decide upon the facts presented to them.
The effect of the wide-ranging amendment before us is to provide for a blanket privacy provision, requiring the hearings of all cases under this legislation in courts and tribunals to take place in private; for the litigant or appellant not to he identified in associated documents; and for there to be restrictions on reporting cases. That is a very wide provision which would apply to all those people involved in actions under the Bill. The amendment would also enable any party to the proceedings to request privacy and reporting restrictions, and would thereby fetter the discretion of the courts and tribunals in these matters. I fail to see any reason why there should he a need for a provision such as this to he introduced under this legislation when it has not been necessary to introduce similar measures under other similar legislation. I fail to see why it should he necessary or even desirable to provide for a blanket privacy exemption for any disabled person involved in action under this legislation.
Perhaps I may point out that parties taking claims under the right of access to goods and services provisions will have the option of having their claims dealt with under the small claims arbitration procedure where, because of the arbitral nature of this procedure, hearings are held in private.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: When the Minister said that he did not understand the need for the provision given that it did not apply in other legislation, was he
730
thinking about the other commissions, the CRE and EOC'? Was that what the Minister had in mind when referring to other similar bodies? If so, I should like to come back on that point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was thinking about the tribunals. I mentioned the legislation under which tribunals work and the models of procedure of tribunals which, as I indicated, adhere closely to the principles outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
I suspect that the motive behind the amendment was directed more towards people with AIDS or HIV who may require the protection of the amendment. If the amendment is designed entirely to protect such people, it is drawn rather too widely because it currently applies to all disabled people under the Bill. I would argue also that there is no similar blanket right of privacy under existing employment rights legislation and I am not aware that that causes any particular problems for people with AIDS or HIV. I would therefore stand firmly on the fundamental point of justice that I mentioned earlier.
The Bill attempts to deal clearly and effectively with issues of discrimination against disabled people. It would be a mistake for us to take a step such as that proposed in the amendment which, while of some benefit to a small group of people covered by the Bill, such as those with AIDS, would be of no benefit to the majority and might allow those who have discriminated to hide from exposure in the media.
One of the principles of justice in this country is that it is public. One of the reasons for that is that the public, through reporting and so forth, learn what is and what is not legal. I should have thought that Members of the Committee would he keen for the messages of tribunals and courts—though one hopes that there will not he too many of them—to he widely reported and learnt by other people who may he tempted to practise the same discrimination policies.
I believe therefore that it would not he right to make an exception in the case of this Bill and decide that cases should he heard in private. The overriding principles are too important to remove them too quickly and too readily. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment, though I suspect he will not he entirely satisfied with my answer.
Lord Kilmarnock: The Minister is certainly correct in his last supposition. He adduced the Council on Tribunals models of procedure but did not explain why there had been extensive derogations from that in the exempted areas which already appear in the rules—the ones we have mentioned of national security and commercial confidentiality. So there are already some quite big holes in the basic principle which presumably the Council on Tribunals approved.
The noble Lord refers to a blanket provision. but it remains ultimately in the power of the courts to decide the issue. The situation at the moment, as far as I can read it, is that the court does not have a power to decide on a private hearing in these cases. It seems to me that at least it ought to have that permissive power.

731
The Minister referred to AIDS and HIV, and I do not conceal that that is certainly one of the motives behind the new clause, but that is not the only group of people involved. People with disfigurements and other kinds of disabilities may well also be affected. The noble Lord's remarks rather surprised me in the context of this Bill, which is supposed to make it possible for people to come forward without fear or favour and bring cases for unfair dismissal which in certain circumstances they might find it very difficult to do.
I have to agree with the noble Lord's last remark. But I am not satisfied with what he said. I shall read it carefully tomorrow morning and together with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, I shall look carefully at the text of the amendment to see whether we can modify it in a way that would meet his objections. I do not think we want to let the matter drop entirely but I shall withdraw the amendment at the present time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Regulations and orders]:
[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 142A:
Page 26, line 27, at end insert:
("(6) Subsection (I) does not require an order under section (Special authorizations) which applies only to a specified vehicle, or to vehicles of a specified person, to be made by statutory instrument but such an order shall be as capable of being amended of revoked as an order which is made by statutory instrument.").
The noble Lord said: We have already discussed this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Interpretation]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 143 and 144:
Page 26, line 28, at end insert:
(""accessibility regulations" means regulations made under section (Accessibility regulations);").
Page 26, line 40, at end insert:
(""licensing authority" means—

(a) in relation to the area to which the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 applies, the Secretary of State or the holder of any office for the time being designated by the Secretary of State; or

(b) in relation to any other area in England and Wales, the authority responsible for licensing taxis in that area;").

The noble Lord said: We have already discussed these amendments. Perhaps I may move them en bloc. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I welcome the amendments which the noble Lord introduced earlier. I missed the metaphorical bus because I was waiting for my noble friend Lady Stedman, who is much more expert in this field, to speak. I very much look forward to the day when I can use public transport and use it without major forward planning and forethought. I pay tribute to the Department of Transport for its record in working towards making transport more accessible for people with disabilities.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those remarks. I shall certainly pass them on to my colleagues in the Department of Transport.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 26, line 42, after ("1983") insert ("or the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 145 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 146. Lines 41 to 45 of Clause 38 make it clear that the term "mental impairment" as used in the Disability Discrimination Bill does not have the same meaning as in the Mental Health Act 1983. They also make it clear that the fact that an impairment would be a mental impairment for the purposes of the 1983 Act does not prevent it from being a mental impairment for the purposes of this Bill. The effect of Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 is to make the same classification for the equivalent legislation in Scotland, the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 26, line 43, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("either of those Acts").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 146A to 147A:
Page 27, line 3, at end insert:
(""public service vehicle" and "regulated public service vehicle" have the meaning given in section (PSV accessibility regulations);").
Page 27, line 3, at end insert:
(""rail vehicle" and "regulated rail vehicle" have the meaning given in section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations).").
Page 27, line 6, at end insert:
(""taxi" means a vehicle licensed under—

(a) section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, or

(b) section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869.").

Page 27, line 6, at end insert:
(—vehicle examiner" means an examiner appointed under section 66A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Enforcement and Procedure]:
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 32, leave out lines 17 to 19.
The noble Baroness said: The effect of this amendment is to remove from the Bill a limit, as yet unknown because the level of the limit has not yet been declared by the Government, on any damages which may he awarded for injury to feelings in any action brought under Clause 20 of the Bill.
This provision to prescribe in regulations a limit on damages which a court can award was not debated in the other place so we have no idea of the thinking behind this measure or the level at which the Government intend to set the limit. I suggest that whatever rationale the Government may have, it cannot be equity-based and, if in fact it is, against which standard are the Government applying it?
A ceiling on damages is also suggested, bearing in mind that they will be awarded only when the discriminated person has established injury to feelings in a court of law. That flies in the face of experience and treatment in this Bill in comparison with other legislation that we have on the statute book. For instance, when the sex discrimination legislation was introduced, a limit was included for damages. Subsequently, that was removed. When the racial equality legislation was introduced, again originally there was a limit on damages, but it has subsequently been removed.
Yet in this Bill we have the Government trying, despite the experience in both those Acts, each dealing with discrimination in one form or another, to introduce a limit. Why? Is the reason to try to keep down the level of damages? Cannot the courts be allowed to be the best arbiters in these cases? After all, they will be dealing with them. How do the Government answer the quite legitimate allegation of people with disabilities that here again in this measure, as in a number of others in the Bill, they are trying to foist on the disabled inferior treatment to the rest of the community?
This provision deals with compensation for injury to feelings where such injury has been established in a court of law. The Bill does not define what constitutes an injury to feelings. One judge expressed it, fairly in my view, as pain caused by discrimination; as being held up to hatred, ridicule or contempt. They arc descriptions of attitude which, I suggest, all too many disabled people have experienced in the course of their lives.
Are the Government concerned that the judges will have particular sympathy for disabled applicants and make high awards? If that is the case, where is the evidence? If one looks at awards for injury to feelings caused by discrimination under other legislation as a comparison, the average is about £3,000 damages in each case. Disabled persons will have to take their cases to court when they feel that their feelings have been injured, and that comes under the remit of this Bill. Let us just try to assess the trauma that an individual will go through, having to re-live the experience again in court. It will be quite enormous.
As we know, legal aid is not available for claims under £1,000 so it is crucial, if the Government are not going to move on this issue, to know what is the level that the Government intend to set under regulations. Will it be at a level below that provided for which legal aid would be available?
Of course, damages are not just for the individual. That person receives the compensation, but they also send out a strong message as to how such personal damage is viewed by the rest of society and
734
parliamentarians in making the law. An award kept deliberately low by a limit set in statute is a telling message that any injury to feelings is regarded as not really an issue of importance.
This is an issue where the courts have recognised that damages for injury to feelings, humiliation and insult due to discrimination should not be minimal, as that would trivialise or diminish respect for public policy. Those are statements made by judges in courts of law.
The Bill would be better for the elimination of those two lines. There would be no additional cost to the Government. We are talking about court awards of compensation. Accepting the amendment would leave decisions on claims for injury to feelings to the courts to decide. They would have to decide whether a claim is established and, if so, the appropriate level of compensation. We should leave that decision to the judges of the courts which decide the cases. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Monson: It is true that under the Bill as drafted compensation for injury to feelings is likely in practice to be lower than that generally awarded under race relations and sex discrimination legislation, but the conclusion to be drawn is not that the provisions of the Bill are defective, but that the potential compensation payable under the 1975 and 1976 Acts is much too high—much higher, I submit, than anyone envisaged at the time, and I was present during most of the debates when the two Bills in question were going through this House. Women who joined the Armed Services, for example, knowing perfectly well what the rules of the game were when they enlisted and who were later discharged on becoming pregnant have been awarded not only extremely high damages for loss of earnings, for which some sort of case could perhaps be made, but also preposterously high damages for injury to feelings, for which I submit no case can be made at all. In fact, in many cases such damages are higher than those awarded to people by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for quite severe physical injuries. I believe that the Government arc on the right lines in this matter.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Amendment No. 148 would delete paragraph 7 from Schedule 2 and thus remove the provision allowing for a limit to he set on the amount of damages payable in compensation for injury to feelings. I cannot agree that the power to set such a limit should he removed.
The Government have made clear their belief that there should he a limit on the amount of compensation payable for injured feelings when a disabled person has been discriminated against in access to goods and services. The provisions in paragraph 7 do not mean that we do not place a high value on the feelings of disabled people. We believe the Bill offers practical solutions to the discrimination faced by disabled people.
The Government are committed to ensuring that disabled people can avail themselves of their new rights. That is why, for example, we will he establishing an advice and support service to help disabled people to

735
obtain advice on their right of access. We intend the service to promote the resolution of disputes arising under the right of access, without the need for legal intervention.
Where litigation becomes necessary, however, we will ensure that disabled people can obtain redress quickly and effectively. The limit on the amount payable for injured feelings will help to ensure that the vast majority of cases can be dealt with under the small claims procedure, which is informal, cheap and does not usually require legal representation. There will, of course, be no limit set on the amount of damages payable for financial loss incurred in a case of discrimination. As in other anti-discrimination legislation, there will be no limit in such cases.
I believe that it is in everyone's interests for the procedures for redress to be effective and, wherever possible, informal, so as to avoid expensive and lengthy litigation. It is for those reasons that I resist Amendment No. 148 and want to keep in the Bill the powers to impose a limit.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the Minister for that reply, which has given me some more questions to ask the Minister. The noble Lord did not respond to my point about the limit that the Government envisage for the regulations. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that in the light of his comment about hoping to ensure that the majority of claims are dealt with under the procedures of the small claims court.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to respond. The noble Baroness rightly deduces that we intend to set the limit close to or at the level which applies at any time to claims which fall to be considered by the small claims court. That is currently £1,000, although my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has plans for a higher small claims limit which could affect the eventual limit to be set under the Bill. I hope that that answers the question.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the Minister for that explanation, which helps but increases my astonishment at this paragraph. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, compared this amendment with claims by service personnel under the sex discrimination legislation. We are not here dealing with the same issue. We are dealing with injury to feelings, not lack of promotion or service opportunity, or being misled about opportunities which exist to return to work after maternity leave.
The Minister said that the Government do not intend to remove this provision from the Bill because it is their intention to promote the resolution of conflict. We would all agree with that, but even removing this paragraph from the Bill and so providing no limit on compensation would not of itself exclude conciliation to resolve the problem.
With regard to the small claims court, we are clearly talking about a limit of £1,000. That is to misunderstand the hurt feelings and discrimination suffered by many disabled people. Why should people covered by the Bill be treated worse than those covered by the sex discrimination and racial equality legislation? It is not
736
equity. In this area the Bill is not treating people fairly. It discriminates against them. Clearly we shall not divide at this time of night, and so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Consequential Amendments]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 35, line 16, at end insert:
("Further and Higher Education Act 1992
. In Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (Courses of Further Education), in paragraph (j) for the words "which prepares them for entry to another course falling within paragraphs (d) to (h) above" there shall be substituted the words "as defined under section 4(6) (b) of this Act"
Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992
. In section 6 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 (further education to which section 1 applies), in subsection (1), after paragraph (f) there shall be inserted—

"(g) is designed to teach independent living and communication skills to persons with a disability which either prevents or hinders them from making use of facilities of a kind generally provided by institutions within the further education sector for persons of their age." ").

The noble Baroness said: In view of the hour I shall try not to be too long, but I shall not he very brief because this is a matter which is important and about which I feel passionately.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the responsibilities of the further education councils in England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland include the provision of essential courses of benefit to young people with severe disabilities, even when they may not lead directly to a more academic or vocational course.
The amendment is necessary because at present it is unclear whether such people are covered by the further education sector or local authority provision. In practice, some students end up with no provision. Skill (the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities) can give many examples of students with severe learning difficulties who are in that predicament.
Another group encountering problems with gaining the skills they need are those people, often elderly, who have become deaf and are in need of lipreading skills. Those courses are sometimes available within the provision made by education authorities, but it is not always so, and many people do not have the opportunity of learning new ways to communicate. Skill feels that that duty is best placed in the further education sector.
LEAs have a responsibility to provide what arc usually called leisure courses. But for students with severe learning difficulties life skills are not an optional extra. They are essential to enable them to operate as effectively as possible as independent adults. They do very much what a more academic course would do for a more academic student. The same is true for someone needing lipreading skills to survive successfully in society. We are talking, as it were, of A-levels in living. It is important that they should be able to learn such skills in a college environment surrounded by other students.
That is one of the reasons why the noble Baroness, Lady David, and I cajoled and argued at length to get life skills included in Schedule 2. We succeeded on Third Reading thanks to the most welcome co-operation of the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness. I remember how pleased we were to have achieved that. I thought also that I had understood, but I cannot find it in writing anywhere, that the wording was to be interpreted fairly loosely, so that even if a student was unlikely to go on to a more academic course, he could still go to college to learn life skills.
We should remember that there are spin-off benefits. A more independent student is more likely to contribute to society and to need less from benefits and social services. The further education sector has no duty to provide this kind of course because of the tight structure of Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act and Section 6 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act. The general duty which LEAs have to make provision available seems insufficient to ensure that those students are adequately catered for. This limbo for students with severe disability needs to be eradicated by placing a clear duty on either the LEAs or the FE sector to provide for them. Does existing legislation cover the point but the bodies involved are unclear about their role? If so it would be helpful if the Government could clarify exactly who has this duty and ensure that provision is delivered in the way most appropriate for these students.
If, however, the existing legislation does not place a duty to provide independent living and communication skills for students with severe or newly acquired disabilities, we need to amend the law to ensure that such students can gain the essential skills in the way that is most suited to them. I very much hope that the Minister will provide not only enlightenment but also encouragement. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I strongly support the amendment. During the passage of many education Bills through this Chamber various issues have caused anxiety. One was the provision of adequate education and skills for those with learning disabilities who are over the age of 19. They are not properly provided for. A second was that while the 1992 Act was going through this Chamber we were most anxious about there being flexibility so that students could take courses in further education colleges or adult colleges. There could easily be difficulties for some of those students in finding the right course at any college. It is most important that they should be able to obtain it somewhere near their homes.
I hope that the amendment, which will cover many cases, will be accepted by the Government. I also hope that the Minister will recognise the existing difficulties for people over the age of 19 who have learning disabilities. They very much need these life skills and they should he able to obtain them in a variety of places; either a further education college or an adult college. I hope that the Minister can understand the problems which exist and can accept the amendment.
Lord Rix: During our discussions on Clause 12. the Minister was kind enough to redirect me to Schedule 4.
738
Owing to the lateness of the hour, I say merely that I totally support the amendment. It would help colleges to do without unnecessary fuss and negotiations what colleges are becoming increasingly good at doing; namely, continuing the excellent work with young people with severe learning disabilities. That is begun in schools and it should continue in further education.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We on these Benches fully support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). The existing scope for FEFC provision includes in Schedule 2 basic literacy and numeracy. It is logical to argue that skills such as lip reading are part of basic communication and survival skills.
Secondly, it is necessary to ensure that this is a duty not a power in order to give equality of treatment to those people, in particular those over the age of 19, for whom this is not adult education in the normally accepted use of the term, valuable and important though that is. We should not restrict life skills and treat them as being separate because in certain cases of severity of learning difficulty they may not lead on to a recognised course. In one particular case that I came across, taking a course at post-19 led to the difference between that person being able to feed and dress himself and not being able to do so. That is equally a right in developing human potential and the potential of people who may take much longer to learn. We fully support the amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: Once again the noble Baroness has dealt with a very important aspect of helping people with severe disabilities. They are being taught life skills which enable them to become part of the community. I can see no reason why the Government should wish to resist the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), is well known for her commitment to securing education for students with disabilities. Indeed, she was responsible for the amendment to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 which brought into being the current arrangements. I am not sure whether she is now suggesting that those arrangements should he changed.
The amendment would destroy the clear division of responsibilities between the funding councils and local education authorities and the associated apportionment of funds set out in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
The councils are under a duty to secure adequate facilities for education for all part-time students over compulsory school age and full-time students over the age of 19 years where the education falls within the ambit of Schedule 2 to the Act. The schedule includes courses,
"to teach independent living and communication skills to persons having learning difficulties",
where those courses prepare students for entry to other courses listed in the schedule, including basic literacy

739
and numeracy, English as a second language and courses offering a preparation for vocational or academic provision or access to higher education. The guidance issued by the Further Education Funding Council indicates that eligible courses in independent living and communication skills must have as their primary objective progression to another course in Schedule 2. That means the objective must he to prepare students to move on to a course of basic skills, English as a second language, academic, vocational or access provision or preparatory courses. The council looks for evidence that that objective is to be achieved.
That has a two-fold aim: to ensure that all who can benefit are offered the opportunity to progress to academic, vocational or access courses; and, where that is the case, to secure that the precursor courses could also take place in further education sector colleges. In the debates on this clause during the passage of the 1992 Act, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, pointed out that many young people with learning difficulties begin to learn when they reach their late teens. The current provisions take cognisance of that.
However, there is an equally important duty on local education authorities to secure adequate facilities for further education. That duty is set out in Section 11 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, amending the 1944 Education Act. It encompasses full-time and part-time education for people over compulsory school age, including vocational, social, physical and recreational training and associated leisure-time occupation. Each of those courses is self-standing rather than necessarily leading on to something else. LEAs also have a power to supplement the provision made by the funding councils. The respective duties of the councils and of the local education authorities were recognised in the financial arrangements flowing from the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
I have set out the existing provisions and the thinking underlying them because I share the view as to the importance of securing adequate and appropriate education for disabled people and of ensuring that there is a clear understanding of existing provisions.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness that existing provisions are robust and clear. The distinction between the responsibilities of the Further Education Funding Council and the LEAs is clear. To go down the road of the noble Baroness's amendment would confuse rather than improve the position. I hope that in the light of my explanation of how we see the system, put in place largely thanks to her efforts, working, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: Is the Minister listening?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes.
Baroness David: Is the Minister satisfied that no one can fall between these stools? I think that there may he a few characters who may not lit into any of those categories and. therefore, not get exactly what they need.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was, indeed, listening. I was turning to listen to the clever little amplifier in the seating because I do not hear on both
740
cylinders. I find that it is easier to listen through the machine. However, as far as concerns particular cases, I am not aware of any. But, quite clearly, in response to both the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), if there are any cases we will of course look at them to see whether something can he done to help.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am sorry but I feel that the Minister's answer fails to grasp the point. It should he a duty for FEFCs to make provision for the full ability range as of right in the same way and in the same college as such students' peers. The narrow interpretation set out in Schedule 2 precludes that area of activity.
It is true that LEAs are empowered to make provision within what is generally termed "adult education''. That sometimes is the voluntary area and the vocation area may be involved. After listening to the Minister's response tonight, it is my belief that, had the legislation been framed in the way that many Members of the Committee wished, such a division would never have occurred in the first place. I say that because in itself that division is discriminatory. Therefore, I regret that the Minister has taken that view. It denies young people the right to equality of treatment with their peers.
It is certainly the case that basic literacy and numeracy do not have to lead rigidly to a specific course on which a student has been enrolled. As we are pioneering new ground for those with severe learning difficulties, in many cases the courses will have to follow the students being given access to them rather than the other way round.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps I may first thank all Members of the Committee who gave me such strong support at this late hour; indeed, a large proportion of those in the Chamber. I should point out that that support comes from all sides of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, attached his name to the amendment and, had he been here, he would have supported me most strongly. All those who have spoken know exactly what they are talking about.
We arc discussing a very important matter upon which people feel strongly. Clearly, it needs clarification. The Minister said that he was not sure whether I was suggesting that I now wanted to change what I had brought into being. I certainly do not want to do so; indeed. I do not want to change what I hoped I had brought into being. However, it clearly is not working quite as the noble Baroness, Lady David, and I envisaged. The problem is that one can only go to an FE college and take such a course if one is going on to join other courses.
I thank the Minister for clarifying the guidance as regards FEFCs in that "eligible courses" must have as their primary objective "progression to another course''. That is now very clear. The Minister said that there was an equally important duty on the LEAs and that they also had powers to supplement FEFC courses. But, as the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Farrington.

741
said, it clearly is not working; indeed, we would not have tabled the amendment if it had been. Skill has evidence of many incidents in that respect. There was one in my briefing but I did not read it out to the Committee and I have now lost it. I can assure the Minister that Skill can produce many instances of people who fall between the two stools. They try to go to an FE college, but the college turns them down because they are not going on to a vocational course and tells them they must go to the LEA, and the LEA says that they must go to the college.
It is clear now that both have their separate duties. However, the system is not working. Will the Minister say that he might issue encouragement to LEAs to pursue their duties? Or will he at least agree to discuss the matter further and see whether we cannot at least issue guidance to ensure that what is meant to be happening does happen?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am more than happy to have a discussion with the noble Baroness to see whether something needs to be done to make clear what I thought was a pretty clear definition of where duties fall between the Further Education Funding Council and local education authorities. Having listened to the noble Baroness, I believe that the point that she makes is not necessarily that the boundary is wrong but that one of the parties on one side of the boundary does not seem to recognise how the Act works, as I have explained it. Of course I am happy to talk to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In order to clarify the position, can the Minister make clear whether there is a duty on both the FEFC and local authorities or whether this is a power'?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not have the original Act to hand, so I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. One could go to the Library and look up Statutes in Force, but of course I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister has the advantage of the support of hordes of civil servants which we, poor things, do not.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the Minister for that reply. He summed up the position rather well. I shall he delighted to talk to him. Skill would probably like to give him some examples of where people have fallen between the two stools. Perhaps we shall he able to go forward and produce some guidance or get some encouragement.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Advice has come to hand immediately on Statutes in Force, and I can tell the Committee that there arc duties on both sides.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth); I thank the Minister once again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 35, line 38, at end Insert:

("1993 c. 62.

The Education Act 1993

In section 161(5), the words from "and in this subsection" to the end.").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Modifications of this Act in its Application to Northern Ireland]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 150A:
Page 36, line 12, at end insert:
("(2) In section 7(4) to (10) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of Economic Development", for "he" and "him" wherever they occur substitute "it" and for "his" wherever it occurs substitute "its".
(3) In section 7(9) for "Parliament" substitute "the Assembly".").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 150A I wish to speak also to all the other amendments which arc grouped with it.
The inclusion of Schedule 6 in the Bill ensures that the provisions of the Bill may have effect in Northern Ireland at the same time as the rest of the UK. Schedule 6 modifies the provisions of the Bill so that they fit within the context of Northern Ireland's existing legislation and structures while at the same time retaining their substance and effect.
Bearing in mind the lateness of the hour, it may he appropriate to speak in that way to all the amendments, and if any Member of the Committee has any particular point he or she would like to raise I shall he pleased to answer it.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps I may intervene briefly. I believe that one of the amendments deals with education in Northern Ireland, but I cannot put my finger on it. If there is, does it give Northern Ireland the same powers as are given to the rest of Great Britain in respect of further and higher education?
Lord Inglewood: I can reassure the Committee that the Department of Education in Northern Ireland has undertaken to take appropriate steps to ensure that the education provisions will he effected in Northern Ireland as in England and Wales. For example, the forthcoming Northern Ireland Education Order will be amended to take account of the Bill's provisions on the publication of information in school governors' annual reports. The further education provisions will he taken fully into account in the development of proposals for the incorporation of further education colleges. In the area of higher education existing powers will he used to follow the arrangements proposed for England and Wales.
In addition, the opportunity will be taken with the publication of the charters on further and higher education due to he published later this year to reinforce those requirements. I hope that that assists the noble Baroness. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am most grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 151 to 154:
Page 36, line 13, at beginning insert ("—(1) In section 8(3) omit "or (in Scotland) in reparation".
(2)").
Page 37, line 9, at end insert:
("12A. Omit sections (Education of disabled persons), (Further and higher education of disabled persons) and (Further and higher education of disabled persons: Scotland).
12B.—(1) In section (Accessibility regulations) (1) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Accessibility regulations) (5) omit the definition of "taxi".
12C. For section (New licences conditional on compliance with accessibility regulations) substitute—
''New licences conditional on compliance with accessibility regulations.
.—(1) The Department of the Environment shall not grant a public service vehicle licence under Article 61 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 for a taxi unless the vehicle conforms with those provisions of the accessibility regulations with which it will he required to conform if licensed.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the grant of a public service vehicle licence in respect of a taxi if the Department is renewing a public service vehicle licence which is in force in respect of that taxi immediately before the grant of that licence.
(3) The Department of the Environment may by order provide for subsection (2) to cease to have effect on such date as may he specified in the order.".
12D. Omit section (Exemption from accessibility regulations).
12E. In section (Carrying of passengers in wheelchairs) (7) for "licensing authority" substitute "Department of the Environment".
12F.—(1) In section (Carrying of guide dogs and hearing dogs) (5) and (6) for "licensing authority" substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Carrying of guide dogs and hearing dogs) (9) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".
12G. Omit section (Taxis: requirements as to disabled passengers in Scotland).").
Page 38, leave out lines 44 to 48.
Page 40, line 2, at end insert:
("(4) In section 33(7) omit "paragraph (b) of", for "1944" substitute "1945" and omit "in each case".
(5) In section 33. Omit subsection (8).").
Page 41, line 16, after ("Kingdom;" ") insert:
("() in the definition of "fire brigade" for the words from "means" to the end substitute "has the same meaning as in the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1984":
() in the definition of "prison officer" for the words from "means" to the end substitute "means any individual who holds any post. otherwise than as a medical officer. to which he has been appointed under section 2(2) of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953: and").
Page 41, line 49. at end insert:
(—accessibility regulations" means regulations made under section (Accessibility regulations);").
Page 42. line 4, at end insert:
(""the Department of the Environment' means the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.").
Page 42, line 26, at end insert:
("(aa) in Part (TAXIS) of this Act, regulations made by the Department of the Environment;").
Page 42, line 28, at end insert:
(""taxi" means a vehicle which—

(a) is licensed under Article 61 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to stand or ply for hire; and

(b) scats not more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver.").

Page 43, leave out lines 6 and 7.
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 151. At the same time I beg to move also Amendments Nos. 151A to 154.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Health Authorities Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Jobseekers Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before midnight.