Lords Sitting of 4 February 1999

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwell): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Viscount Greenwood—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

Finsbury Park Mosque
Lord Rowallan Lord Rowallan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will investigate the allegation that a terrorist cell is being run within the mosque in Finsbury Park in north London.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, investigations into any activities in this country that may involve criminal or terrorist offences are a matter for the police and the Security Service. All allegations of this kind are, of course, studied closely by the interested agencies. Your Lordships will understand that it would not be right for me to discuss any current inquiries that they may be undertaking.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which I nevertheless find slightly unsatisfactory. Will he confirm that as a result of the trial of six of his henchmen in the Yemen at the moment, including his son and stepson, an official request has been received for the extradition of Abu Hamza who is the leader of the Supporters of Sharia? If that is a fact, will the Minister further confirm that the Government will accede to that request and that he will take the necessary steps to stop the activities of Abu Hamza's supporters within the mosque which must contravene the 1998 criminal justice Act which makes it an offence to commit terrorist offences abroad?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it would not be suitable or appropriate for me to comment on judicial proceedings which are still continuing in another jurisdiction. All governments have adhered to the policy which I shall repeat—I think to the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan—namely, we never confirm or deny that any such request has been received.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, will my noble friend please assure the House that the Government will take great care that in dealing with cases of this kind they will not stigmatise the Moslem communities of this country? Is he aware that the vast majority of members of those communities are law-abiding, honourable, decent citizens who add a great deal to the diversity and decency of this country
1606
in which we are fortunate to live? The greatest of care must be taken not to attribute to a community the possible sins of individuals within it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. There is remarkable ignorance in many quarters about the true nature of Islam. It is a tradition of great beauty and wisdom. It has enriched our lives in many, many ways, not least through art, science and philosophy.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, how effective has the terrorism and conspiracy Act been in identifying terrorist cells in this country? Will the Minister make sure that the ethnic minority press is used extensively to demonstrate clearly the provisions of that Act and to make it clear that we in this democracy will not tolerate at any stage acts of terrorism committed either in this country or abroad? I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said; namely, that a large number of Moslems in this country are law-abiding citizens and we should value the contribution they make to the good name of this country.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The overwhelming majority of Moslems in this country are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who detest any suggestion that their religion is polluted by the alleged activities of those who are extreme. Your Lordships will know that the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act has been on the statute book only since August. I believe that it will be an extremely effective tool, as I pointed out when I introduced it, in circumstances not entirely free of controversy.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Supporters of Sharia have a website in which they proclaim that,
"the walls of oppression and humiliation cannot be demolished except in a rain of bullets"?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am aware that incendiary material of that kind is on websites. I stress that I believe the legislation we have is extremely effective. I remind the House—I hope to assist your Lordships—that a consultation paper on the subject of taking a new look at anti-terrorism legislation was published in December last year. It followed the admirable report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. The consultation period is quite limited and comes to an end on 16th March this year. When we have the results of that consultation we shall have to focus carefully on any gaps which exist in our anti-terrorism legislation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the problem really arises in the form in which the Question is put which confuses its purpose? Does he agree that it is not for the Government on any showing to investigate this matter? It is for the police to investigate it. It would be proper to ask if the Government are aware of investigations that are

1607
proceeding and so forth, but to ask them to investigate the matter is frankly impossible. Does the noble Lord agree?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, my Lords. That is why I answered in the form I did; namely, that investigations into the alleged activities are a matter for the police and the Security Service. I repeat that it would be extremely imprudent for me to comment on any investigations that may be continuing at the moment. It would simply help those who may or may not be being investigated.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, with regard to the question about the website, are words that are threatening, abusive or insulting within the meaning of the Public Order Act caught by that legislation if they appear on a website just as if they appeared on a hard copy document?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, any publication in any form is capable of being caught by the present law.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I endorse strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, but as we have a serious, ongoing terrorist threat ourselves in this country and constantly ask for the assistance of other governments in dealing with it, is it not right that we should assist friendly governments in this matter whenever we can?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this Government, like our predecessors, have a good record in assisting in that kind of request. The person whom the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, may have in mind is a British citizen, that citizenship having been granted by our predecessor government.

House of Lords: Members' Interests
3.10 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked the Leader of the House:
Whether she will arrange for a committee of the House to consider whether it should now be made mandatory for those Lords who have taken the oath to register matters which they consider may affect the public perception of the way they discharge their parliamentary duties.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the straightforward answer to the noble Lord is yes, I will certainly consider establishing such a committee in due course. My understanding of the feeling of the House at present is that this is not regarded as an appropriate time to undertake this particular remit. If I am given countersignals from Members of the House in all quarters, and there is consensus that it would be appropriate to move ahead rapidly with this, I will certainly listen to that advice.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for the first part of her Answer. Given the sensible scope of our present register, does the noble Baroness agree that on any occasion when there is adverse publicity—for instance, when a Member of the House has failed to declare an interest which the public as a whole feel should have been declared—such publicity damages the reputation of the House? In this context, does she further agree that the public make no distinction between Law Lords and the rest of us? Does she not accept that this is a matter of urgency and that the sooner the loophole is closed the better it will be for the reputation of your Lordships' House?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, on the noble Lord's general point about the perception of your Lordships' House from outside, I am not sure that I entirely agree. The many people who understand the way in which the House works appreciate that we are not paid to be Members and that it is not in that sense a professional body which needs the kind of arrangements which are perhaps more appropriate in another place.
As to the specific question about the judicial element of your Lordships' House, noble Lords will be aware that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has written recently to the senior Law Lord on this question. At present there are no plans to introduce a separate judicial register of interests.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, apart from one or two exceptions, the current rules on the register of interests work extremely well? Can the noble Baroness give her opinion of the future of the register, given the changes to the composition of this House which are laid out in a Bill that is before another place? If that Bill is passed, will the noble Baroness support a tougher regime of interests?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said in answer to the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I am very happy to consider a further inquiry into the current regime, if it is the feeling of the House that that should be done with any urgency. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the present system has worked to the extent that it was only set up in 1995. As I understand it, the committee designed to look into any potential difficulties has not had to address any difficulties of a formal kind.
As to the nature of the House which may develop as a result of the legislation which, as the noble Lord rightly said, is in front of another place at the moment, when that Bill is passed its provisions will be considered in the light of what I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about the re-opening of this issue in that context.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, what has happened to the old idea of honour in this country? Can my noble friend explain the thinking behind a further inquiry? Is she aware that every time your Lordships' House or the other place concedes one more inquiry, we just feed the idea that politicians, from beginning to end,

1609
are corrupt? Has my noble friend seen the outcome of a recent opinion poll which showed that 35 per cent. of the people of this country trust politicians. That is not a very high percentage, but at least it is 20 per cent. higher than the percentage of people who trust journalists—15 per cent.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. On the basis of some opinion polls that I have recently seen, he probably exaggerates the enthusiasm of the public for professional politicians. No doubt we have been looking at different polls.
The point about re-opening an inquiry—and perhaps I use the word unadvisedly—was to look at the matter again through a Committee of the Whole House, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said in his original Question. It certainly was not intended to imply any inquisitorial activity. I would remind my noble friend that it was your Lordships' Procedure Committee which suggested that it was time to look again at this issue—but, I re-emphasise, not in an inquisitorial way.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that no Member of your Lordships' House would deny the imperative necessity of everyone declaring an interest, as we are all enjoined to do. Does the noble Baroness agree that there is equally a danger the other way—which is perhaps becoming increasingly apparent in another place—that if declaration becomes so onerous, not only would it encourage a witch hunt of the kind to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, alluded, but it might discourage able people, from all walks of life, from becoming interested in a career in politics?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I entirely accept in general terms what the noble Viscount has to say. Again I refer to my earlier answer: one of the factors that should always be taken into account when considering the nature of your Lordships' House is that people are not here in the capacity of professional, full-time, salaried politicians. That is obviously of relevance. In the context of the noble Viscount's question, I re-emphasise that the voluntary register of interests is being revised at the moment. The noble Viscount is right to point out that that is widely accepted and understood by your Lordships. The register is open for further additions until the 15th of this month.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the particular matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred is, as the noble Baroness has said, a matter for the judiciary and, particularly, the Lord Chancellor. I was a member of the Griffiths Committee at the time of the debate in your Lordships' House and I was inclined to take the view that the register should go further than was then intended. Despite that—although 1995 is not long ago—I see no evidence at all to show that the decision made by your Lordships' House at that time was not the right one.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. They seem to be consistent with my original reply.

Parthenon Sculptures
3.17 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will respond favourably to the Greek Government's request for the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Athens.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords we have no plans to reconsider the decision that the Parthenon sculptures should remain in the British Museum.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he is widely recognised as the Government's Pooh-Bah in this Chamber? Is he further aware that on this occasion he has been rather poorly briefed, perhaps through unawareness of the latest developments in this matter. Among those developments are polls which show that there is a substantial majority in favour of the return of the Parthenon marbles to Greece; that 69 Members of another place have signed an Early Day Motion to that effect; that the Greek Government have issued from their embassy here an invitation to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to meet with their representatives for a friendly discussion? In all those circumstances, will he recommend to his right honourable friend that he should accept that invitation—a copy of which I shall now hand to him? Will my noble friend pass the invitation on to his right honourable friend and recommend to him that he at least accepts the offer of an open and friendly discussion?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend asked me the same question in the first week after the Government were formed. I can assure him that I have kept in close touch with all the debates that have taken place on this issue. If I and the Government have not changed our minds, it is for very good reasons. We are aware of all the matters to which my noble friend has referred; we remain of the view that to return the Parthenon sculptures to Greece would be a mistake. It would raise the issue of a worldwide return of works of art to their places of origin. If our museums and galleries contained only works of art from the cities or countries in which they are located it would be a disaster for world culture.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I intervene as a former trustee and chairman of the British Museum. I make that declaration in the light of the exchanges to which we have just listened. Is the Minister aware that there will be broad general agreement with his Answer that the Government see no grounds for reconsidering their policy on the return of the Elgin Marbles to Athens? Does he accept there is widespread support for the view that to do otherwise would open the door to claims from many other parts of the world for the

1611
restitution of countless valuable museum objects which are seen by huge numbers of people—6 million in the British Museum alone each year?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the views I have expressed not only on my own behalf but on behalf of the Government.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the views of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney are not always those held by his colleagues on this side of the House? Is he further aware that I fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said? Will he confirm that the announcement by the Secretary of State for Culture in the first week after the last election that the Elgin Marbles, which were accepted perfectly legally, would not be returned to Athens still holds?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I will of course confirm that that still holds. But just in case any noble Lords should be under the illusion that we have been hasty and lacking in consideration over this matter, I should say that my right honourable friend Chris Smith has been in correspondence with the Greek Minister of Culture over the past year and that, in terms of the recommendation of the UNESCO committee on cultural property, we certainly accept the resolution which requires the Director General of UNESCO to undertake further initiatives to promote bilateral negotiations. We have always been willing to take part in such bilateral negotiations.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, is it not perfectly respectable for a country or a region of a country to say, "We want things brought back to us to which, for historical and cultural reasons, we believe we have a claim"? On the other hand, is there not a perfectly good argument that it is paramount that these treasures should be kept in the best place possible and that the best access to those treasures should be provided? Is it not then a question of reaching a consensus? That is the nub of the question. How does one get consensus between the two views?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope I have never impugned the motives of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney. Nor have I ever suggested that his views were not shared by a very large number of people, including those who sign Early Day Motions in another place and a large number of members of the European Parliament. I fully recognise the sincerity of their views. I just happen to believe that they are wrong. I think that the wider considerations to which we have referred are more important.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do the Government not agree that if Lord Elgin had not rescued the marbles in the 19th century it is very likely that they would have been destroyed or that they would have disintegrated by now? Therefore, we have saved them and we should keep them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that that would be sufficient reason for arguing for the retention of the Parthenon sculptures in the British Museum. Yes, of course it is true that they have been better preserved because they have been preserved indoors in a cleaner atmosphere, but that argument alone would not be enough.
Lord Rea: My Lords, considering the very high symbolic value which the Greeks put on the Elgin Marbles and the fact that we have had them—indeed, we have taken quite good care of them—for more than a century and a half, is it not time that the Greeks were given a chance to house them in their own country? The objection raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, no longer applies. A new museum with proper air-conditioning is now ready to house them and the pollution level in Athens is, I understand, getting better.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is exactly why I did not accept the invitation of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, to argue that that was sufficient reason for them to be returned. I go back to the Government's previous argument that there are wider issues and that the return of works of art, from wherever they come, unless there are overwhelming reasons to the contrary, is an undesirable precedent.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is one overwhelming reason for the retention of the Marbles in London, which is that, because of its geographic location, it provides the best venue for the enjoyment of the Marbles both by the general public and by art and architecture students who come to London from all over the world?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I do not agree with the noble Earl although I know he wishes to be helpful. There are many works of art of outstanding international importance in the museum in Sao Paulo in Brazil which I would love to be able to see but I cannot go there. I do not say that that is an argument for them to be removed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as a general principle, is not this House in favour of the return of marbles?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It depends on who has lost them, my Lords.

Dennis Halliday: UK Visit
3.26 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any Minister or other representative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office met Dennis Halliday, the former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General and Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Iraq, during his recent visit to the United Kingdom; and, if not, why not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government are well aware of Mr. Halliday's views as he is of the Government's. We did not believe that a meeting between Mr. Halliday and a representative of Her Majesty's Government would bring our positions any closer. We share Mr. Halliday's concern for the well-being of the Iraqi people, but we do not share his view that sanctions are the cause of their suffering. Rather, Her Majesty's Government agree with the Gulf Co-operation Council communiqué of 9th December which held the Iraqi Government fully responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people.
We continue to discuss possible improvements to the oil-for-food programme in the UN Security Council with Mr. Halliday's successor, Mr. Hans von Sponeck, and we are pursuing a possible humanitarian initiative with our EU partners.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which is very much as I expected. Might it not have been useful and indeed courteous for Her Majesty's Government to have heard the testimony of Mr. Halliday, who is a former high official of the United Nations and a man of great integrity? His views contest with considerable evidence the explanation that my noble friend has given. Is she aware that the oil-for-food programme, even when it is working effectively, is still insufficient to reverse the serious malnutrition and high mortality of Iraqi children—that has been confirmed by the World Health Organisation—let alone repair the wrecked state of the civil infrastructure in Iraq? Is it not time to review our policy towards Iraq, which has now reached stalemate, and join with the rest of the world in favouring a policy that will reach a solution which will involve lifting sanctions in return, it is to be hoped, for a carefully policed arms limitation treaty affecting the whole of the middle east?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I have explained to the House why Her Majesty's Government did not think that such a meeting would get anywhere and why it was not appropriate. My noble friend raises two issues. One is the question of the suffering of the Iraqi people. We have not seen the details of the source of Mr. Halliday's claims. We know, from the UN Secretary-General's report in November 1998 that infant malnutrition is decreasing in the northern governorates and that 2.5 billion dollars' worth of foodstuffs has been arriving in Iraq. But that still begs the question, even if there is suffering in Iraq, as to why that is the case. I am afraid that Her Majesty's Government take a different view from that expressed by Mr. Halliday, which I suspect is supported by my noble friend. The Government take the view that it is because of the intransigent position taken by the Government of Iraq.
Let us consider that the latest distribution plan put forward by Iraq on the oil-for-food issue includes an allocation of 25 million dollars' worth to a machine that will count banknotes and 100 million dollars' worth for the purchase of telecommunications. That does not strike me as a regime that is interested in the suffering of its own people.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, since we cannot force Iraq to sell oil and buy food and medicine—a fact so clearly demonstrated by the Minister—given the current oil-for-food programme, under which Saddam Hussein plans to order less food and medicine for the Iraqi people than in the previous phases, and given the large amount of medicine that is still sitting, undistributed, in ministry of health warehouses, how does the Minister anticipate that the expansion of the oil-for-food facility, which would eliminate the 5.2 billion ceiling on funds from oil exports, will succeed in easing the humanitarian situation in Iraq, which must be our first priority?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support on the matters of fact in relation to the reductions that the Iraqis want and the calorific content of the food. Iraq is selling food to its neighbours—it is certainly selling to Syria and attempting to do so to Jordan. How can we address the matter? An important step was taken at the UN Security Council on 30th January in the setting up of three panels, one of which will examine the humanitarian considerations; another the problem of the missing Kuwaiti prisoners of war; and the third the issues of weapons of mass destruction. Those issues are being considered, not only at United Nations level with the support of the full Security Council, but also with our EU partners. We are alive to the difficulty and are attempting to address it in the fora that are open to us.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the whole House agrees that Saddam Hussein is, by any standards, one of the most evil and dangerous men in the world? That said, will she also accept that, up to now, our sanctions policy seems to have affected the ruling government in Iraq very little and the people of Iraq very much? In the light of that, in the negotiations that are to take place will she bear in mind ways in which sanctions could be more directly targeted at the élite group in Iraq, thus avoiding some of the suffering of the people?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I hope that I have addressed those concerned by pointing out to the House ways in which Her Majesty's Government are endeavouring to do this, both through the European Union and the panels set up on 30th January by the Security Council.
We should not, however, write off some of the successes of the oil-for-food programme. For example, the sewerage system in Baghdad has directly benefited from the programme. Improvements of some 20 per cent. have been recorded. We have seen 56 million dollars' worth of food and goods arriving in the agricultural areas of the country. We have also seen an improvement in some of the very distressing infant mortality rates in the northern governorates. Those reports came from the UN Secretary-General as recently as November last year. So, while improvement is needed, it is not all bad news in relation to aid getting through in the oil-for-food programme.

Business
3.34 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, it is anticipated that the Easter Recess will include the week beginning Monday 5th April and the Whitsun Recess will include the week beginning Monday 31st May.
The House may also like to note that there will be a debate on Monday 22nd February to draw attention to the White Paper on reform of the House of Lords.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord the Chief Whip for offering us at least one day to debate the White Paper, having initially and rather inexplicably refused the requests of the official Opposition for such a debate. I also thank the noble Lord for partially offering us the dates for both the Easter and the Whitsun Recesses. I hope that at the earliest possible stage he will give the House the exact start and finish dates so that noble Lords who wish to make arrangements, for instance, to travel abroad can get ahead with buying tickets and making their plans.
Will the noble Lord also confirm that another place will be taking a few days' extra holiday the week after next? Does he think that we in this House should be taking an extra holiday? What assurances can he give that, in so doing, another place will not further exacerbate the legislative log-jam which we nearly always experience towards the end of the summer? What guarantees can the noble Lord give that we shall not be sitting into August and that we shall rise at a decent time in July?
Lord Carter: My Lords, as always, the noble Lord receives full marks for a good try. I did not refuse the request he made; I said that I would consider it.
The other place is taking only a two-day break, on Wednesday 17th and Thursday 18th. I had been considering the possibility of a long weekend for your Lordships. However, the official Opposition were so insistent that a debate on Lords' reform was required that I felt bound to oblige them—even though the House has recently held a two-day debate on this topic; debated the reform on a traditional Queen's Speech day; and even though a Bill is to be debated during this Session. I am afraid that the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip cannot have it both ways.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clause 1,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 2 to 7,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 8 to 14,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 15 to 22,
Schedule 4,
Clauses 23 to 34,
Schedule 5,
Clauses 35 and 36,
Schedule 6,
Clauses 37 to 50,
Schedule 7,
Clause 51,
Schedule 8,
Clauses 52 to 60,
Schedule 9,
Clauses 61 to 74,
Schedule 10,
Clause 75,
Schedule 11,
Clauses 76 to 79.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Rights Commission Bill [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Disability Rights Commission]:
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert ("and fulfil its duties as established by section 2(1).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is set in the framework of an important and warmly welcomed Bill. It is a very significant measure. I hope that the amendment will be accepted by the Committee expeditiously. I intend to speak as briefly as possible to this and other amendments so that the Bill has a fair wind.
The purpose of the amendment is to discuss the adequacy of the amount of money allocated by the Government—which I believe to be inadequate. I am not saying that many more millions of pounds are needed; however, I believe that the commission will stutter along unless it is adequately financed. The £11 million allocated by the Government, plus £3 million for start-up, is nothing like the amount of money that the Commission for Racial Equality has. There can be no doubt that the problems of disability are far greater than those of race or sex in so far as disability issues are far more complicated. There are between 5 and 7 million disabled people. In addition, the Disability Discrimination Act is very complicated.
For all those reasons much more money must be provided. Susan Scott-Parker of the Employers' Forum on Disability, who is a considerable expert on these matters, has said that given the complexity of the legislation and the number of disabled people the commission's budget should be significantly more and not less than that of the CRE.
I believe that the Committee is entitled to an explanation of how the Government have reached this figure. I should like to receive a full explanation of it from my noble friend. In response to a Parliamentary Question in the other place all the Minister did was to explain how the money might be allocated. That is helpful information. But how did the Government arrive at this figure? On what criteria did they base the figure? If the Minister responds to those points we shall be able to discuss this Bill far more intelligently than at present. At the moment we are in the dark.
The word "reasonable" runs throughout the Act with which this Bill is concerned. As no one knows what is reasonable until the courts have decided the matter there will be many cases that seek to define what is reasonable. I hope that an adequate sum of money will be allocated for all of these cases. The commission must be a state-of-the-art model, fully accessible and provide information in alternate and alternative ways. For example, different formats are required for blind people, deaf people and those with learning disabilities. I hope that that will be accepted. The fact is that the full White Paper on the disability rights commission was not available in Braille even on request. Braille readers must make do with a very short summary. This is an inadequate provision. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give this amendment a fair wind. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am glad that at the beginning of our debate in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, raises the question of the amount of money that is to be made available. As I understand it, the Government have indicated that about £3 million will be available to set up the commission and that it will run on £11 million a year. The disability organisations that have contacted me believe that that cannot possibly be enough. I recognise that nothing will ever be enough to meet all of the aspirations that have been raised.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that there are all kinds of disabilities. This body is not like the Equal Opportunities or Race Relations Commissions. There are very many different kinds of disability, for example the blind and the deaf to whom the noble Lord referred. Within that there are many degrees of severity of disability. A huge number of rights of all kinds will be raised. As I indicated at Second Reading, it will be difficult for the commission to decide where to begin and what should and should not be recognised as serious rights that have been infringed. I should also like to hear at an early stage the Government's response to the noble Lord's amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: As the Committee is aware, for many years my noble friend Lord Ashley chaired the All-Party Disablement Group of MPs and
1618
Peers, of which he is now joint chairman. What he said in moving the amendment reflects the concern of that important group about the vital necessity to ensure adequate funding of the disability rights commission. As he said, disability organisations are not convinced that the funding announced is adequate to support the substantial duties of the commission. They seek an explanation from the Government of how the figure of £11 million has been calculated. Nor are they alone. As my noble friend said, the Employers' Forum on Disability, too, has expressed concern about the budget. Its chief executive has commented:
"The Forum has sought a legislative framework which positions disability clearly on a par with race and gender as a national priority, and we welcome the establishment of a central authoritative body. Our concern, however, must be that unless sufficient moneys are allocated parity will simply not be achieved".
Substantial funds need to be set aside for its work in supporting disabled people and on communication aids and advocacy. The commission will need to be a model of accessibility. This will include providing information in alternative formats and supporting people with learning disabilities, about which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will want to speak.
It was most disturbing that, as my noble friend said, the full White Paper on the disability rights commission was not available in Braille even on request. Braille readers had to make do with a short summary. Full access for all disabled people may require a specialist team of workers within the commission. The commission itself will be liable under the Disability Discrimination Act and, as a public body, under the Human Rights Act. Should the commission use its power to set up regional offices to provide local information, advice and support to disabled people and business, £11 million is unlikely to be adequate. The Commission for Racial Equality has such a regional presence and has funding of £14.5 million. Given the extra costs related to accessibility and advising on the complicated issue of reasonable adjustments, the costs of the disability rights commission may be significantly higher.
This amendment like others tabled by my noble friend merits a positive response from the Government. I know that my noble friend the Minister will at least want to assure us today that the funding announced so far is not unalterable and that she will do all that she can to help in conveying our concern to her ministerial colleagues.
Lord Renton: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, that the commission should have the widest possible power to meet its expenses. But I am sorry to say that from a technical point of view the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, would have the opposite effect. This is a technical matter. I hope that in the absence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor I may be realistic and use the Latin expression,
"expressio unius est exclusio alterius".
If one expresses one thing one excludes another or others.

1619
Under subsection (2) as it stands there is no limitation:
"The Secretary of State shall pay to the Commission such sums as he thinks fit to enable it to meet its expenses".
That is without limitation. Therefore, in my humble opinion, if the wishes of the noble Lord are to be fulfilled he should leave the Bill as it is and not press his amendment.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I should like to support the amendment briefly and touch on one or two matters referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. He made reference to the assertion of the Employers' Forum on Disability that the funding was inadequate. It is worth reminding ourselves that if it proves to be inadequate it will considerably disadvantage businesses as much as disabled people.
The noble Lord said that the commission needs to be a model of best practice, with all the support services required. Those are expensive. One nasty thought has been expressed to me. Might the commission be accused of discrimination if it is unable to provide adequate access to its services and building? No one wants that to happen. Everyone wants the commission to be a great success; we welcome it tremendously. I am sure the Minister also wants it to succeed. I hope that she can be encouraging and say that it will not falter through lack of funding.
Lord Rix: In supporting the amendment, I refer to the remarks of two noble Lords who have spoken. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the only Latin I can remember from my school days is from Ovid:
"Dum vires annique sinunt tolerate labores
Iam veniet tacito curva senecta pede".
Roughly translated, that means, "While years and strength allow, tolerate labour. Soon will come bent old age with silent foot". I regret that that probably applies to many of us in this Chamber. However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is a shining example to us all.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, used the phrase "learning difficulties". At the outset of the Committee stage, perhaps I may stress that when we talk about "learning difficulties" we are not talking about "learning disabilities". The Bill applies to learning disabilities, originally known as mental handicap. "Mental handicap" is a phrase no longer used by the department, people with learning disabilities or, indeed, MENCAP. The phrase "learning difficulties" means something different. Millions of people in this country have learning difficulties which have nothing to do with learning disability: people with short sight; those who are hard of hearing; people with dyslexia. Those are learning difficulties. I hope that for the purposes of the Bill we shall stick to the phrase "learning disability".
I accept with great happiness my fourth billing to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. Can the Government give us any assurances that they will take into full account the cost implications of
1620
providing advocacy support in addition to the standard operational costs of the commission to which reference has already been made?
Lord Swinfen: I, too, have put my name to the amendment. I take on board the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton. I would not wish to press the amendment at this stage. Its purpose is to elicit information from the Government. I hope that the Minister will be fulsome in her answer in providing a lot of information on how the figure has been worked out by the Treasury. Did the Treasury talk to any other department? Did it talk to the Department of Trade and Industry to see what would be required? Did it talk to employers' organisations and trade union organisations?
I suspect that once the commission is up and running there will be far more work than may be envisaged at present. Where will the commission be based? How many regional offices will it have? If it is properly to help employers to provide adequate alterations to their premises, equipment and working practices, it will need people based all over the country. It is a practical point; it is not nebulous.
There is no point in taking the time and trouble to debate the Bill in both Houses of Parliament if the Government are not prepared to produce the funds to make it work properly. I am sure the Government want it to work properly. When the Disability Discrimination Bill was going through this House some years ago, I was one who advocated that a commission should be incorporated in that Bill. Members on the Labour Benches—at that time in Opposition—gave me considerable support, for which I was grateful. They have now brought forward this Bill and I hope that their baby will be properly clothed and not allowed to come into the world naked and cold where it will perish through lack of proper funding.
Lord Addington: Has the Minister any figures as regards the number of man hours and the skills required? I refer to the supply of information about the workings of the commission. Can the amount of money provided be based on that information? It is not enough to say that there will be almost as much money as that provided for another commission.
The amendment may be technically defective, but we are at Committee stage and wish to elicit information. It is to be hoped that, if we receive the right answers, we can drop this matter and move to other issues. However, if the Government cannot assure us that sufficient funds will be available, we shall have to revisit the subject on numerous occasions. I hope that the Minister will give us answers which refer to the technicalities of the job.
Baroness Blatch: When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope she will confirm that the word "expenses" is understood in the wider sense rather than in the narrow sense of "expenses", and that any funding of the body is intended to fulfil the duties established by Clause 2(1). Clause 2(1) provides that the commission shall have duties,
"to work towards the elimination of discrimination …. ; to promote the equalisation of opportunities …. ; and to keep under review the working of the Disability Discrimination Act".

1621
There are two issues here. One is adequacy. My noble friends, Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Croy, have said that there will never be enough money. Any government in power will have to make a judgment about what can be afforded. But the important point is that we want the commission to work. We also want to minimise the need for litigation. For this body to do its job properly and to keep cases out of court it needs to be practical on the ground, around the country, and proffer helpful advice in particular to business, commerce and institutions which will have obligations not only under this legislation but under the Disability Discrimination Act. It needs to work alongside people. That will be costly.
It is inexplicable why the Commission for Racial Equality is to be funded so much more generously. I believe that the work of the commission will be far more complex. It will address the needs of many more people in the community than does the CRE. Its work will be more practical and on the ground. It will involve all four corners of the country. For that reason it would be helpful to know the technical work which was undertaken by the Government to arrive at the figure referred to. What is their justification for funding the CRE more generously than this body?
The body must work effectively in the interests of disabled people in this country. It must do so in the most practical and positive way; that is, by helping people in a practical way to meet their obligations under the legislation without having to resort to the courts which, at the end of the day, will be more expensive.
Baroness Blackstone: I am not sure that I shall be able to match the Latin quotations. My O-level Latin may not run to that in responding to the debate.
The sums payable by the Secretary of State are intended to allow the commission to fulfil all its main functions. The wording of Clause 1(2) is intended to achieve that. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made clear, Amendment No. 1 is unnecessary and I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw it. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, indicated that it is a probing amendment.
Before answering the various questions, perhaps I may put the record straight. There appears to be confusion about whether the White Paper was available in braille. I understand that the whole White Paper was indeed available in braille on request to anyone who wanted it. A number of copies were sent to a member of the taskforce representing the RNIB.
The amendment raises an issue about the level of funding for the commission. That is what my noble friend and others who have supported the amendment wish to debate. I accept that and understand their concerns. The provisional estimate—it must be provisional at this time—of the running costs for the commission, which is £11 million a year, compares well with the existing commission, where the functions are similar. I shall turn to that issue in a moment.
The commission is a new organisation working in a complex area and therefore we have allocated it considerably more resources than its sister organisation,
1622
the Equal Opportunities Commission. However, Members of the Committee will appreciate that it is not right to compare the allocation for the disability rights commission with the £15 million budget of the Commission for Racial Equality. That issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
I must explain that £4 million of the £15 million is spent on funding racial equality councils. They are not part of the CRE, but seek to replicate the type of network which exists in the context of disability through many voluntary organisations and other arrangements. Therefore, the funding comparison should be with the £11 million remainder for the Commission for Racial Equality. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will agree that the funding is equitable.
I assure the Committee that the Government are determined that the disability rights commission should be funded to carry out its role effectively. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the Explanatory Notes, which were published alongside the Bill, made it clear that £3 million had been set aside for 1999 to 2000 to establish the commission and that there will be a provisional allocation of £11 million for 2000 to 2001 and 2001 to 2002. The real point is that the figures for the two later years may be adjusted in the light of experience within the overall comprehensive spending review settlement of the Department for Education and Employment.
I am not sure whether I shall satisfy my noble friend Lord Ashley or other noble Lords who asked for a breakdown of the £11 million. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked about discussions between departments. Of course we have discussed with the Treasury the funding for this new body, but the final decision on how much was needed was made after extensive consideration, and with other departments, by my own department. The estimates were made using the best information available at the time, including experience with comparable public bodies. Obviously, there is no public body which is completely comparable and so the exercise is difficult. It will be for the commission to determine how to allocate its resources once it has been established.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, that we would expect the commission to spend most of its budget on providing advice and information, conciliation, assistance to individuals, formal investigations and promotion and policy work, with central administrative costs being tightly controlled. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, rightly said that we want it to work without too much litigation. It will have succeeded if we have a minimal amount of litigation. We want practical, common sense approaches to ensure that discrimination against disabled people does not exist.
There is no reason to believe that the funding will not be adequate for the commission to undertake its enforcement work and promotional activities. However, it is always the case that when drawing up a budget for a new body we must rely on estimates. It is not possible to be as precise as the noble Lord, Lord Addington,

1623
implied. It would be asking a lot of the Government to work out now exactly what the man hours of the commission will be. It is rather early.
Lord Addington: I wonder what process has been undertaken in order to arrive at the figure. Many of us are worried about that. We would like to know what process has been undertaken in arriving at the figure and the amount of expertise required. We do not have that information, but if it could be provided we might be able to conclude the debate quickly.
Baroness Blackstone: As I have said, the figure is an estimate. I do not believe that it would be useful to go through longwinded processes. The estimate is based on comparable public bodies, including the Commission for Racial Equality. The amount is much more than the Equal Opportunities Commission has. I stress to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester that on Second Reading I made it clear that the Government are willing to review the position in the light of the operating experience of the commission. We would be unreasonable were we not prepared to do so. In the meantime, I am as confident as it is possible to be that the estimates are reasonable and that the commission will have the resources to enable it to make an effective start. That is in all our interests.
I hope that I have provided my noble friend and other noble Lords with as satisfactory an answer as possible about funding. While I recognise the wish to put down a marker, I hope that my noble friend and others will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister referred to comparability with other bodies. A number of us who have spoken to the amendment made it clear that we believe that the work of the body will be infinitely greater than that of the CRE. The Minister also referred to £4 million being used by the Commission for Racial Equality for outpostings around the country. Is she suggesting that there will be no need for this body to outpost around the country? I believe that there will be a very real need for its work to be seen to be effective on the ground, and more so in that access for people whose rights are being protected by the commission are such that the more locally the service is delivered the better.
Lord Swinfen: I, too, asked the Minister whether there would be regional offices and if so how many. I believe that there must be regional offices so that in each region there will be places from which people can go out to firms, industry and employers of one kind or another in order to give advice and deal with all the duties of the commission. It cannot all be done from one place. Where does the Minister envisage their headquarters will be?
Baroness Blackstone: I cannot yet answer the question as to where the headquarters will be; that is still to be decided. We are anticipating a later amendment on the issue of regional offices and perhaps further
1624
discussion ought to wait until we reach that point. There will be regional offices in Scotland and in Wales. However, we should try to stick to the amendment we are considering and not discuss later ones at this stage.
Perhaps I may elaborate a little on what I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The Disability Rights Task Force considered carefully how the disability rights commission should operate within existing local and national networks. While it recognised the clear benefits of working with and developing further those networks, it did not feel that the statute should be prescriptive. The relationship between the disability rights commission and existing networks will be completely different to that between the Commission for Racial Equality and the race equality councils. They are different kinds of bodies. The commission will need to explore how best to develop the relationship.
It would be a mistake at this point, by putting provisions on the face of the Bill, to ask the commission to accept specific forms of network, particularly in view of the fact that many already exist. In the light of that explanation, I hope that Members of the Committee understand the difference between the CRE and the new commission.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, will she answer my question as to whether advocacy support provision has been included in the estimates?
Baroness Blackstone: The DRC will have to provide for advocacy for those who need it. Given that it is a commission for disabled people, it will certainly consider the needs of all people with disabilities and impairments. That may answer the second point the noble Lord raised.
Baroness Blatch: I have to say to the noble Baroness that I am no clearer as to the distinction between the work of the CRE and that of the commission. The noble Baroness did not address the specific point as to why the CRE has a stronger case for working through outposts than the new commission.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I should try once again to explain that when the Commission for Racial Equality was set up, it did not have the kind of network that exists already in the field of disability and therefore it was decided many years ago that there should be race equality councils. As I understand it, they operate separately from the CRE itself and have slightly different kinds of functions.
Nothing is ruled out in terms of the commission wishing to establish at some later date a network along similar lines. But we must take into account what the Disability Rights Task Force said on this matter. It was quite clear. It did not wish it to be expressed on the face of the Bill; it did not want prescription. It would be wrong to reject that argument at this point.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My noble friend the Minister said that there are differences between the proposed commission and the CRE, and she is right. But there are other differences too.

1625
I suggest that the question of race or sex is far simpler than that of disability. Race is a simple matter of "ethnic or not". People are either male or female and there are just two choices. Disability is phenomenally complicated. There are around 8 million disabled people in Britain, every one with a different kind of disability. Most of them react differently and most are treated differently. They require all kinds of different assistance.
The Commission for Racial Equality has a simple task by comparison. How my noble friend can compare the two and conclude by saying that they get about the same money proves to me that her staff should do a bit more work on this. I hope that she will take into account the fact that practically everyone who spoke—with the glittering exception of the noble Lord, Lord Renton—is in favour of the amendment. My noble friend should take the matter away and think about it.
My noble friend says that she will review the matter later. But, again, that is the wrong kind of judgment. It is better to get it right now rather than botch it at the beginning and come back saying, "We have made mistakes; it was penny-pinching; we were short. What shall we do?" If my noble friend will take this away and come back with something positive on Report, then we will make progress.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I can say this. I agree with all his motives, but I am afraid that his amendment may defeat them.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall leave the matter with my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [General functions]:
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert ("; and
( ) to keep under review those parts of the Human Rights Act 1998 which it deems applicable to the elimination of discrimination against disabled people.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, with permission I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15 which has a similar objective.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Before the noble Lord continues, perhaps I can intervene; the noble Lord has been given notice of this. The grouping shows that Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 are to be taken together. That seemed to me to be most inappropriate. Amendment No. 2 deals with the Human Rights Act whereas Amendment No. 6 is the one to which the noble Baroness referred just now and deals with regional offices. That is a completely different subject and is not dependent on human rights.
1626
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, as I imagined would be the case, that he wants to speak to Amendment No. 15 which also deals with human rights. If the Committee agrees, perhaps Amendment No. 6 could be dealt with separately.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: We welcome guidance on this matter. Judging from the face of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and that of the Minister, that will be warmly welcomed. It worried me enormously. I do not propose to speak to Amendment No. 6, but to Amendments Nos. 2 and 15 instead.
Amendment No. 2 provides for the Human Rights Act to be included in the statute rather than sanctioned by regulation. It has been argued that inserting the Act through regulation gives it some flexibility, given that the Human Rights Act is not to be implemented until the year 2000 and these issues need clarifying. That is a reasonable point of view. On the other hand, if the Government have that in mind, there is no reason why the power should not be on the face of the Bill.
The issues about the implementation of the Human Rights Act ought to have been clarified by the time the new commission is active. Amendment No. 2 simply seeks to put the Human Rights Act on the face of the Bill. That will offer important new rights to individuals in relation to how they are treated by public institutions. It does not apply to private sector organisations.
These amendments will give the commission the power to assist individuals at proceedings and help in the elimination of discrimination. To include a reference to the 1998 Act in this legislation would cause no delay for disabled people in cases where the Act would help them and would be most valuable.
The amendment confers no new rights on disabled people but merely provides for the commission, as the repository of expertise on disability, to help disabled people to secure their rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 does not concern business but relates to what is due to individuals from public institutions, many of them part of government.
I was pleased to hear my noble friend the Minister quoting the Disability Rights Task Force. She obviously thinks the world of it, as we all do. As my noble friend thinks so much of it, I am sure that she has noticed that that authoritative body recommended that the 1998 Act should be on the face of the Bill. In view of the fact that my noble friend thinks so highly of the task force, I am sure that she is minded to say, "Yes, we accept". I beg to move.
Lord Rix: I have put my name to Amendment No. 15, which I presume we are now taking with Amendment No. 2.
The Human Rights Act 1998 is of the greatest possible importance in the protection of people with learning disabilities. I support both amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke.
Lord Swinfen: Both amendments are so logical that the Government may have some difficulty with them. I hope not.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This group of amendments is concerned with advising the Government on the Human Rights Act 1998.
In addition to its general duties, noble Lords will be aware that Clause 2(3)(a) of the Bill already includes a power for the commission to give advice to the Government on any aspect of the law or proposed changes to the law, for any purpose connected with the elimination of discrimination and the performance of its other functions. That extends to all legislation applying to England, Scotland and Wales, including Community law and the international obligations of the UK.
Turning to Amendment No. 2 tabled by my noble friend, Lord Ashley of Stoke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, the Government are not opposed in principle to the commission providing government with its views on the Human Rights Act 1998 where its provisions have relevance to the elimination of discrimination. There is, then, nothing to prevent the commission from making recommendations to government concerning that Act.
We do not, however, believe that it is necessary to express that power as a duty to be included on the face of the Bill. The disability rights commission will pursue its duties vigorously and it will certainly take an interest in the 1998 Act where it considers it relevant to do so. We believe that the core duties of the commission in relation to legislation should be focused more directly on addressing disability discrimination issues. That is why we have provided in Clause 2(1)(c) for it to have a duty to keep under review the workings of the Disability Discrimination Act 1998 and this Bill when it becomes an Act.
Amendment No. 15 concerns the disability rights commission's power to assist individuals in cases that involve breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government share the determination of the noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have spoken that the commission shall be a body with sufficient powers to tackle effectively discrimination against disabled people. In recommendations on the role and functions of a disability rights commission, the Disability Rights Task Force urged the Government to consider carefully the impact of the 1998 Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. That is why we raised the issue in the White Paper, Promoting Disabled People's Rights. We intend to keep faith with that recommendation.
We have included powers in Clause 6(1)(b) that would allow the extension of the commission's powers, and we have made clear our intention to consider extending through regulations the range of legal proceedings in which the commission can assist individuals. That will provide a degree of flexibility, to allow us to respond to changing circumstances and needs, and also to review the powers of the commission in the light of experience.
1628
The explanatory notes that accompany the Bill indicate that we will certainly consider including in the regulations Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires public authorities not to act in a way that is incompatible with a right under the European Convention on Human Rights.
This issue involves complex questions of law and practice and we want to consider the detail carefully in consultation with others. The Human Rights Act 1998 has only recently received Royal Assent. Many of its provisions have yet to come into force and many will not do so for some time. We do not expect Section 6 to come into force before the year 2000. By then, we hope to have considered the issue in more detail.
We do not need to rush into taking a decision. We have time to approach it in a measured way. I hope that noble Lords will see that there is wisdom in that approach. We are advocating caution, which should not be mistaken for avoidance. I stress that the reasons for proceeding that way are entirely practical. The regulation-making power will give us time to consider the many complicated issues involved and to seek advice where necessary. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ashley agrees that including a regulation-making power, as has been done in Clause 6, is the proper way to approach this complex issue and will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am grateful for that explanation but I was not happy to hear my noble friend say that the commission will "take an interest". We are seeking something much more. My noble friend said that the Government will need time to consider the matter, which I appreciate and understand. I ask my noble friend to give the issue consideration before Report stage and return with a more constructive response. I appreciate the difficulty that faces him. The matter is terribly complex and difficult. I am not pressing the matter strongly at this stage but I hope that my noble friend will be able to do a bit better and accommodate us more at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: I wish to couple my remarks on this amendment with Amendment No. 4. There will be a ring of familiarity about an amendment to leave out "may" and insert "shall" because it comes up in almost every Bill and is the bugbear of every official in Whitehall. They do not like such amendments, and neither do the Treasury counsel, but it gives this particular Bill important emphasis.
One key concern is to ensure that the commission does not merely litigate or encourage litigation. Returning to my old theme, the commission should not be legalistic but work with people, employers and others, to ensure that they understand the obligations and how to apply the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which is practical work for the commission in eliminating as far as possible the need to end up in court.
An essential element of the commission's work is education, and that will be high-profile. The amendment proposes strengthening the reference to the commission's role in encouraging good practice, by making it a requirement, not permissive, to do just that. We do not want the commission abandoning the encouragement of good practice to focus on a legalistic approach. Nor do we want its educational role to be permissive. We want a requirement that the commission gets into the business of providing information and practical support. That way, the commission is more likely to achieve what is needed for disabled people. That will encourage the right environment and atmosphere for companies to meet their requirements and obligations, rather than view the commission's work as an unwelcome imposition leading to greater costs.
I have a simple point to make on Amendment No. 4. The Bill does not refer to agencies, so the purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the power covers government agencies. That may well be implicit in the wording of the Bill. However, in the light of Pepper v. Hart and the importance of having a full understanding of what the Bill means, I should like to have on the record the fact that agencies are subsumed in the wording of the Bill. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: As the noble Baroness says, the argument about "may" and "shall" is familiar. I think that this is the first time that we have been on the same side in a "may" and "shall" argument. I hope that that is a sign of good things to come.
As the noble Baroness said, the provision encourages the commission to take on the role of providing information. That would be good practice and would strengthen the Bill. The lawyers already have enough paydays!
The Government should welcome Amendment No. 4 with open arms, at least in principle, because it calls for "joined-up government". I believe that that is the expression. I hope that the Government will tell us that at least that concept is taken on board. It would help if they could point to the exact part of the Bill which achieves that, even if the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I support my noble friend Lady Blatch on this amendment. Since the passing of the 1995 Act, Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for the Disabled, for which I work, has put an enormous amount of effort into selling the merits of that Act to people by way of persuasion, which I understood was the original purpose of the Act. We are anxious that the commission handles legal proceedings with delicate hands. We spend over £600,000 every year—money collected from the public—to pay for our work. Included in that is a lot of propaganda about getting disabled people into employment. We have now had two presentations of the Ease of Access, Services and Employer (EASE) awards, first, at the Dorchester and this year at the Hilton Hotel. Awards are given for employing and providing services for disabled people.
1630
My anxiety is that by bringing the law into this arena in a heavy-handed fashion people will be put off and that much of the work done and the money spent will disappear down the drain because people will become antagonistic towards disabled people. Therefore, I could not endorse the amendments more, and I support them entirely.
Lord Swinfen: I think that it is intended in the Bill—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the commission will encourage good practice, and it will have a duty to do so. The word "may" is purely permissive and may also be considered as "may not". The word "shall" is an imperative and has to be obeyed.
Lord Rix: I consider that the word "may" is as much a weasel word as the phrase "when resources allow". I should have thought that it was perfectly easy to remove subsection (2) and to make it part of Clause 2(1) as a new paragraph (d). Clause 2 would then read:
"The Commission shall have the following duties—…
(d) to encourage good practice regarding the treatment of disabled persons in any field of activity".
That would seem to be a simple amendment and one that would follow on naturally.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have not been a Member of your Lordships' House for very long, but long enough to know that the issue of "shall" and "may" provides us with many happy hours of debate. I would hazard a guess that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has been on the other side of the fence, in times past, on this issue.
The noble Baroness seeks, through Amendment No. 3 to make it a duty of the commission to encourage good practice. It may be helpful if I provide some clarification. Clause 2(1) of the Bill sets out the commission's primary duties, which include working towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people and promoting the equalisation of opportunities for disabled people. There is some overlap between the duty to promote the equalisation of opportunities and encouraging good practice. However, to avoid any doubt, Clause 2(2) makes clear the commission's ability, within its general duties, to encourage good practice.
Noble Lords are, of course, aware of the importance of encouraging good practice in the context of disability. It will be essential that organisations learn from each other, and from disabled people, how to avoid discrimination and how to find solutions to difficulties which may arise.
Sometimes what is useful and most effective goes beyond what is strictly required by legislation. Simple things like disability awareness and disability etiquette training can do much to change attitudes as well as help to avoid unlawful acts of discrimination. There is no doubt that the disability rights commission will have a key role to play in identifying good practice and helping to spread the message to others who may benefit from adopting it.

1631
I do not disagree at all with the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have remarked on the importance of education.
The intention of the drafting of Clause 2(2) is to allow the commission flexibility in how it promotes good practice where it thinks it appropriate. I hope that all noble Lords will agree with me that the commission should be free to decide—and indeed would be best placed to know—what that is at all times. I fear that placing a duty on the commission to do so may well have the effect of constraining it, rather than giving it flexibility.
Perhaps I may illustrate that. The duty extends to any field of activity in the context of disability discrimination. That covers many fields. One must ask whether it would be right to make it mandatory for the commission to be active in every one of those fields at all times, or does the best use of the DRC's time and resources require the exercise of good judgment and discretion? Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 4. Of course, the commission should have the ability to offer advice on the practical application of the law—to government agencies, for example, the Health and Safety Executive, and to others—whenever it believes it necessary or sensible in connection with its general duties, with a view to eliminating discrimination or equalising opportunities for disabled people. I can confirm that the Bill allows for it to do so.
Clause 2(3)(a) refers specifically to providing advice and information, but Clause 2(1) provides the terms of the commission's general duties and allows the commission to do anything that it wants, within those general duties—that is, anything that works towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people and/or equalises opportunities for disabled people in any field of activity. That applies to government agencies also.
I hope that noble Lords are persuaded that Clause 2 allows the commission sufficient powers in this respect and that this amendment is unnecessary. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to move it.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. However, I am not entirely satisfied with what has been said. Nevertheless, it is still only "may" encourage good practice regarding the treatment of disabled persons in any field of activity. The noble Lord has not emphasised the duty to do so. The Bill provides only for the commission to do what it wants to do. Given that encouraging good practice will be the commission's predominant task, there should be a requirement on it to do so, rather than the commission having merely a discretionary power, as is provided on the face of the Bill.
I do not mind how that is achieved. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, made a good and practical suggestion. I would support achieving our objective in that way. We shall
1632
certainly return to this amendment at the next stage because it is important to press such a duty on the commission.
On Amendment No. 4, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for specifically asking for us to be guided to the part of the Bill where the Government's intention is made clear. In fact, the Minister guided us to Clause 2(3)(a). There is nothing in that provision which, in a legal sense, gives a duty to advise government agencies. It simply says that there is no limit to the commission's powers and that it can, if it wishes, advise anybody it likes. What I was trying to say is that it should be required and have a duty pressed upon it to advise government agencies as well as government. Why, for example, have a subsection (3)(a) and a subsection (3)(b) if we are not prepared to consider including government agencies? They provide a very large part of public services these days.
I am decidedly dissatisfied with the response given by the noble Lord. I am sorry he cannot be more encouraging in saying that it will be spelt out somewhere on the face of the Bill that "government departments" includes government agencies. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, too, has put down an amendment referring to government programmes. I feel that agencies should be referred to in a much more specific way. We shall certainly return to this, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 3.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
("() The Commission shall have the power to initiate proceedings in its own name or to apply to intervene in proceedings if it believes that an unlawful act has occurred or is about to occur under the 1995 Act.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. This is very important and I hope it will be given a warm welcome by my noble friend the Minister. It is going to save the Government money, and anything put forward in that respect ought to be welcomed by any Minister.
Basically, this amendment will enable prevention—which, as we know, is far less costly than expensive cures—and as it stands the Bill means that the commission can only assist individuals to bring cases. The CRE and the EOC have greater powers, which enable them to take action under their own name in some circumstances. If the commission could initiate such proceedings and prevent discrimination from occurring, there would be no need for all the paraphernalia of non-discriminatory notices, tribunals, courts and all the rest of it.
My noble friend says that she is anxious not to have too many legal cases and so become too involved and too absorbed in the law. I fully agree; and we all hope that this commission will be constructive. Nevertheless, if we are going to avoid that kind of thing, the sooner we can stop discriminatory action arising the better. In situations where discrimination has been practised, it would be more effective if the commission could act with disabled people as witnesses.
The experience of other commissions has shown that the promotion of equality and the eradication of discrimination cannot be achieved through individual cases alone. The combined strategy of test cases, powers to investigate and provision for action plans is required. Relevant powers should be in place from the start. To take a point I was making a little earlier, if we are able to stop something from happening, it is far better than trying to fix it if it is not broken. A classic example perhaps might be if a bus company decided to build a new bus station that was inaccessible, contrary to the requirements of the Act. The commission should not have to wait for someone to complain to it while the bus station is being built. If it had the power to bring an injunction to stop that building going ahead, we could avoid a very great deal of trouble.
The EOC and CRE have called for the power that we are asking for by means of this amendment to be granted. Experience has indicated very clearly to them that this power is vital to the proper running of a commission and these commissions know from their own experience that it is necessary. I should be very surprised if my noble friend is unable to meet us on this issue. This is one of the most important amendments of this whole batch brought before the committee. If my noble friend is unable to agree, then I am afraid this is something which will be fought very strongly both in your Lordships' Chamber and in the other place. We feel very deeply about this and, given her usual co-operative attitude, I fully expect this amendment to be met with the words, "We accept this amendment without debate".
4.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I support this amendment. Disabled people, as a general rule, are not as wealthy as those who are not disabled and they may well not be able to bring cases on their own behalf because they cannot afford it. With the changes that are being made to the legal aid system, in my view they are going to be even less likely to afford it.
If the commission has the power to bring actions, that power alone will very often be sufficient to persuade those who are being discriminatory to stop their bad practices, and to move them in the right direction. If you do not have a stick you cannot wave it. I am not advocating that people should go round with sticks, waving them or using them, but they are very useful to have in the back of the car on occasions.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I should like to support this amendment. I agree very much with the point which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has made. It is a question not only of whether a disabled person can actually afford it but a question of the distress and the very long time that it takes for these cases to be heard in court. There are some very complex cases and I wonder, both in terms of money and of people who have the ability to sit through long cases and those who cannot, whether the Act in itself is not being discriminatory, since it is discriminating between those people who can afford it and those who cannot, and those who have the ability to take a long case and those who have not.
1634
If there are many people involved in a case, why should one name have to be picked out as the person who actually takes that case? I feel that is very wrong indeed. Surely it is just common sense and, as my noble friend Lord Ashley said, much better and more cost-effective for a joint case to be taken. There may also be instances where a case should be taken but the person concerned does not have the ability to take that case, either because he or she has learning disabilities or communication disabilities, and has nobody to look to for support. I feel that this matter really does deserve serious examination.
Nor is the concept new. I remember many years ago being involved in the case of Sikh men who wished to wear turbans in order to travel on Leeds city buses, which is where I was involved. It seemed to me then that it was necessary for them to take a case jointly in order to succeed. They did that and they actually got the law changed. So this is not new and it should be something which we are prepared to accept. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is already considering the question of class actions, and if he were to decide in favour of allowing them, provision would still be needed in the Act to allow the commission to proceed. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that that is the case and that this will be built into the Act.
Lord Morris of Manchester: This is a deeply important amendment. When your Lordships gave the Bill a Second Reading on 17th December last, I paid warm tribute to Sir Peter Large who, as long ago as 1982, spelt out the case for a disability rights commission in the report of the committee of inquiry he chaired into hurtful discrimination against disabled people. His thoughts have again been most helpful to me in relation to this amendment and others we are debating today. I am most grateful to him, as I am also to Agnes Fletcher of the All-Party Disablement Group, Alun Thomas of the RNIB, Rowena Daw of the RNID and Hadas Altwarg of Scope for all their work on the amendments and the briefing in which they have documented the cases.
Giving the commission power to initiate proceedings in its own name would greatly increase its ability to perform its agreed basic functions, which are set down in Clause 2(1). It might be argued that such powers are unnecessary as the commission is already empowered to undertake formal investigations and issue non-discrimination notices. Some may think that these powers are sufficient. In this respect, Sir Peter Large says in a letter to me:
"In some instances, however, a formal investigation culminating in a non-discrimination order would constitute a mail order for a sledgehammer to crack a nut".
He goes on to say that this would certainly be the result of serving an injunction to stop a company constructing some inaccessible public facility. His fear is that, by the time a non-discrimination order is posted, the facility would be complete and discrimination have become unavoidable.
The use of such a power to initiate proceedings in its own name could be particularly valuable to the commission in the early days of the Disability

1635
Discrimination Act when knowledge of its scope, the reasons for it and how discrimination can be avoided are still rare among the public at large. It is interesting to note that both the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality asked for similar powers to those now sought by this amendment. Let us learn from their experiences over many years and provide the disability rights commission with such powers from the start. In my opinion some swift, inexpensive mechanism to prevent wrongdoing would greatly enhance the ability of the commission to fulfill its responsibilities.
That unjustified discrimination against disabled people is still alive and well is clear to everyone who knows the realities of life for disabled people seeking equal opportunities at work. Many noble Lords will have seen the disturbing report today which shows that disabled people emerged as the biggest losers in the Government's performance pay system, which it is hoped to extend to millions of people in the public sector. Only 1 per cent. of disabled staff at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions received a grade "A", which compared with 5.8 per cent. of able bodied employees. That, like so much other evidence, points to the importance of this Bill and the urgency of the need to make it as strong and effective as we can. I know that my noble friend the Minister will again want to respond as helpfully as she can to the debate.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said that this was a very important amendment and stressed that we feel most strongly about it. Indeed, I have attached my name to it. I should like to say briefly that I think that it is extremely important. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, mentioned that it is a useful power because it would enable swift action to be brought to avoid, for example, a bus station being made inaccessible. I have in mind Oxford Station a few years ago, which was made inaccessible and cost a tremendous amount of money. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, nodding his head in agreement. It was a disaster and such a power would perhaps have been most useful at that time. The power will also be useful for bringing test cases to clarify the law. It would also be a cheap and cost-effective way to develop law; and there is a dearth of this in the disability field.
Baroness Blatch: I have one brief question for the Minister. My understanding is that the Lord Chancellor is already considering the whole issue of bringing class actions before the courts. I just wonder what progress that work has achieved. If the noble and learned Lord were to bring forward an amendment to the law specifying that class actions could be brought by organisations, can the Minister say that that would include the commission?
Lord Addington: Most of what I had intended to say has already been said by other speakers. However, I ask the Government to bear in mind one very simple fact. If we managed to insert such a power in the Bill, we could
1636
end up saving money and not wasting time. Before I add great eloquent words about carrying a large stick but speaking softly, perhaps I may point out that basically that is all we are asking for. We have got to try to create a situation where people know what the law is. It should not be dependent on someone having to go through the heartache and disturbance of finding himself discriminated against and then having to take legal action.
Surely these are very laudable aims and we should do something to bring them about. If the amendment is not acceptable, perhaps the Government can bring something forward at the next stage. Indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, just put forward a suggestion which may well be the answer. I hope that the Minister can give us a positive answer.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: At the outset, I have to emphasise that, while in appearance the amendment seems quite simple and may well save money and lead to some of the other benefits that have been mentioned, it is in fact a very radical and legally complex proposal. In explaining the great difficulties associated with it, I am afraid that I shall have to draw heavily upon the legal advice that I have received. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is no longer in the Chamber, because I believe that he might well be able to support me in what I am saying. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I set out in some detail the legal points which may seem a little arcane in places. In effect, it means that I have to say to my noble friend Lord Ashley that I shall not be able to agree with him as he requested. It is not that I want to dismiss in any way what I think lies behind the proposal; it is just that it is legally not possible.
First, it seems to me that there is some kind of misunderstanding involved. Contrary to what my noble friend said, neither the Commission for Racial Equality nor the Equal Opportunities Commission has any comparable power to that which the amendment seeks to give to the disability rights commission. The reason they do not, and the reason the Bill as drafted gives the DRC no such power, lies in the way in which our courts necessarily—I emphasise the word "necessarily"—approach litigation of the kind arising under Part II and Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act, and the respect which must be given to the right of the individual disabled person to be able to decide when and if he or she wishes litigation to be initiated which concerns him or her personally.
It is fundamental to proceedings under the Disability Discrimination Act that a person must: first, establish that he or she is entitled to come before the court or tribunal; secondly, establish by evidence that the actions of the other party damages him or her; and, thirdly, establish that the court or tribunal can give some form of relief to alleviate that damage. By giving the DRC an entitlement to initiate proceedings and so come before the court or tribunal, this amendment addresses only the first of those matters. In order to have any effect it would have to address both of the other requirements.

1637
I do not point that out merely to make a point about defects in the drafting but much more as a prelude to examining the second and third requirements.
In addressing those requirements the starting point is, of course, that the DRC could never itself establish a cause of action under Part II or Part III of the 1995 Act. Quite simply, the DRC is not itself a disabled person—that, I believe, is fairly obvious—and cannot be discriminated against as such. Rather the intention of the amendment is for the DRC to be able to show by evidence that one or more specific disabled persons have been discriminated against and have suffered damage. Then, the DRC will not ask the court or tribunal to award compensation to itself but rather to award compensation or give other relief to those disabled persons. It would not suffice in such a case for the DRC to ask the court to speculate that some unknown disabled person might have suffered discrimination, nor to try to demonstrate by argument rather than evidence that all disabled persons must of necessity have suffered or be about to suffer damage. To establish that such an unlawful act has occurred or is about to occur under Part II or Part III of the 1995 Act, it is a necessity for the court to be satisfied by evidence that a particular disabled person has suffered unlawful discrimination or will suffer it and has been or will be damaged by it.
That brings me to the main point. If the DRC is able to call before the court or tribunal willing evidence from one or more disabled persons who themselves have a cause of action under the 1995 Act, why can it not do the simple thing; namely, provide assistance to that disabled person to bring his or her own case? That is exactly what the provision in Clause 6(1)(a) of the Bill allows the DRC to do. The only case where the act of discrimination could not be brought before the court or tribunal in that perfectly straightforward way is when the disabled person concerned did not himself or herself want to initiate legal proceedings.
We have to ask whether it can really be right for the DRC—the very body which a disabled person can perhaps most expect to give respect to his or her views and dignity—to be in a position to act in such a way. We have to ask ourselves whether it can be right for the DRC to have the power to initiate proceedings which could end up dragging disabled persons unwillingly before courts or tribunals to give evidence which they themselves do not wish to advance and to have unwanted redress forced upon them.
I must add a secondary point. My comments are addressed only to legal proceedings of the kind referred to in the amendment; that is, proceedings which focus on individual redress for wrongs suffered by particular individuals. I indicated at the outset that neither the CRE nor the EOC enjoy any comparable power to that which the amendment gives. But I stress that both those bodies can perfectly well initiate applications to the High Court when they wish to challenge decisions made by any of the bodies amenable to judicial review where the decisions concerned lie within their proper frame of reference. Likewise, this Bill as drafted allows the DRC to initiate applications for judicial review. It is important that I make it clear that the DRC is able to initiate proceedings of that kind.
1638
But, over and above that, the contrast between the nature of applications for judicial review and the nature of the proceedings addressed by the amendment may assist your Lordships in considering the legal points which I have made. Judical review proceeds on affidavit evidence about matters in which the bodies concerned can and do have direct knowledge and the remedies sought can perfectly well—indeed usually do—have a wide application, benefiting a class rather than an individual. No individual disabled person need be involved in a judicial review; in other words, the same objection as exists to the power given by this amendment does not exist and there is no question of dragging any disabled person unwillingly before the court to deal with matters personal to them.
I turn now to the question of the DRC intervening in litigation. There is nothing in the Bill as drafted which prevents the DRC from making an application to any court whose procedures allow such applications to be entertained. That certainly includes appellate courts such as the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee of this House. The Committee may recall that in the recent consideration of Mr. Pinochet's case Amnesty International and later the Government of Chile made successful applications to be heard. It is usually only at the appellate stage, when issues of fact have been decided, that it is possible to see that a question of principle has arisen so as to make representation to the court by a body such as the DRC appropriate. I repeat that the DRC is fully entitled under the powers it is given in this Bill as drafted to make application to be heard in such circumstances. On this point there is no need for the amendment.
Perhaps I may refer to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Gould and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who raised the issue of class actions. This issue is raised in Amendment No. 14 and perhaps we could therefore deal with it when we reach that amendment. My noble friend Lady Gould raised issues that are covered by Clause 6, which allows the DRC to give all the necessary help, financial and otherwise, for bringing cases. If a group of disabled people, rather than a single disabled person, want to bring a case, they can certainly do so as long as they have all suffered the same unlawful discrimination.
I hope that, with that rather long and complicated legal explanation, I have clarified the position. If my noble friend obtains different legal advice between now and Report, perhaps he would let me know.
5 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: Before my noble friend sits down, she said that neither the Equal Opportunities Commission nor the Commission for Racial Equality have the powers sought by this amendment. But am I not right in thinking that, on the basis of their long experience, both bodies have recommended that they should have similar powers to those that we are seeking?
Baroness Blackstone: No, I do not think that that is right. Again there is a confusion here with issues which arise under a later clause. I think we can discuss this matter when we reach Amendment No. 14.

1639
I hope that, in the light of what I have said, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment. He may, of course, wish to seek further legal advice between now and Report stage.
Lord Swinfen: Before the noble Baroness sits down, so that it is on the official record, will she confirm that the disability rights commission will be able to fund a disabled person in taking an action under the Disability Discrimination Act?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes.
Baroness Darcy De Knayth: Perhaps I may ask a question before the noble Lord decides what to do. I am not an expert in this field, but is it not true that the EOC and the CRE can, in very limited circumstances, initiate proceedings in their own name in the case of discriminatory advertisements and of persistent discriminators? I may be wrong.
Baroness Blackstone: I believe that that is the case, but I do not believe that that matter is covered by this amendment. It raises a different set of issues.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am sure that the Committee will agree that my noble friend has done justice to the amendment in taking so much trouble to put forward a very sophisticated and, as she called it, arcane legal argument, as she ought to do. It is clear that her advisers and our advisers differ. Our understanding clearly was that the CRE and the EOC had some of these powers and that they had recommended that these powers should be given in the Bill. We shall find out in the course of the next few weeks before Report who is right. We are taking no bets on it.
My noble friend used some rather far-fetched phrases that I have never heard of when she talked about dragging disabled people before the courts and "unwanted redress". I have never in my life heard the phrase "unwanted redress". Every human being that I know who is hurt or damaged in any way naturally wants redress. What is unwanted redress? What kind of story is the Minister telling us? Is she saying that disabled people by the million say: "No, no, no, we do not want the money, we do not want justice; we want to do nothing". I do not believe it. I believe that disabled people, like anyone else, want fairness and justice. They will get that if the commission has the power to initiate proceedings.
My noble friend said that under the provisions of the Bill the commission will be able to initiate proceedings in certain circumstances. I do not dispute that. We are seeking broader power, that is all.
I find it very difficult to accept my noble friend's general thesis. In terms of legal complexity, she is right. We shall consult our lawyers—whom we do not pay, by the way—and she can consult hers and before Report we shall try to get all these issues clarified. Meanwhile, I am grateful to her for the trouble she has taken. However, I reiterate my point that this is a crucially
1640
important amendment for which we have fought strongly. Nevertheless I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) The Commission shall have the power to set up regional offices as it deems necessary in pursuance of its duties under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to establish regional offices for the commission. A few moments ago my noble friend said that she was not sure where the headquarters would be. That is understandable. However, I think it is wrong to claim—as this Bill does—that it is enough for the commission to be able to decide the matter of regional branches after it is established. I believe that funding is essential here. This issue is so important that it must be decided by Parliament; otherwise, the money will simply not be available.
It is also wrong to assume that everything can be done by letter, fax or telephone. Clearly in some circumstances there is no substitute for personal contact. This is even more the case as regards disabled people than as regards any other group of people. We simply must enable disabled people to obtain the advice, guidance, or any other help they need from the commission in ways that suit them. This measure is also relevant to businesses, especially small businesses.
It is unrealistic to assume that disabled people can go trotting off to London when they need face to face contact with the commission. The mind boggles at the thought of the stress, inconvenience, frustration, annoyance and distress that would be suffered by disabled people struggling to get to London when what they need is to talk directly to a near by informed person.
I recognise that the commission may not be based in London, the Midlands or the North. However, one location will be inadequate. As my noble friend has said, there will be offices in Scotland and in Wales, but what we really need is a regional and local presence to supplement the national one. That is what this amendment seeks. I hope very much that we shall obtain that provision because disabled people, local employers and service providers need a regional or local point of contact staffed by people who know the characteristics of the local environment. Some severely disabled people may need home visits and face to face contact. I believe they should have that. I hope that my noble friend will be sympathetic to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I believe it has already been announced that it is proposed the commission should have separate offices in Scotland and Wales. I should be grateful if the Minister will confirm that. There may well be a case for regional offices in England, perhaps in Manchester. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, would probably have something to say about that. It may also be found necessary to establish a regional office or two within Scotland because of the great distances involved in Scotland and

1641
the wide spread of population. Is it possible for that to be done under the Bill, both in England and in Scotland? If so, would the commission take the decisions with regard to those offices?
It is not widely known that health in Scotland is a completely devolved subject and has been for at least 40 years. I can vouch for that because I was a junior Minister in the Scottish Office 36 years ago. When I was Secretary of State for Scotland early in the 1970s I was responsible for health in Scotland. The Department of Health has no functions in Scotland, although of course it is the lead department and leads on international matters for the UK.
There are two other subjects that have great relevance to disabled people. The departments which deal with those subjects are Great Britain departments and therefore they cover both England and Wales. Those subjects are employment and social security. Those departments have local offices spread throughout Scotland as well as throughout England. I should, of course, mention education which is now combined with employment as one department. That department does not have functions in Scotland because again education has been completely devolved to Scotland for many years, as is the case with health. The proposed office of the commission in Scotland will therefore need to establish good communications with the Scottish presences of these other departments. I, too, would be glad to hear what the Government have in mind concerning the setting up of offices in different parts of Great Britain.
Lord Rix: In supporting this amendment, to which my name is added, I remind the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, touched on the point that providing regional offices for the disability rights commission would offer great benefits to the business community. I stress that the benefit would be mutual both to service providers and to people with disabilities. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, stressed the difficulties that people with disabilities experience when travelling to London and the cost of telephone calls to London etcetera. I cannot stress enough the importance for people with learning disabilities of establishing regional offices.
As is mentioned in one of my amendments to Schedule 1, I believe there must be scope for reviewing the constitution of the commission so that the operation of regional offices, or indeed the, option of commissioners overseeing regions, can be formally investigated.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I support this amendment. On Second Reading of the Bill my noble friend the Minister indicated—I hope I have interpreted this correctly—that rather than establishing regional offices at this stage consideration might be given to setting up regional seminars and workshops and to commission staff travelling from one site to another. What worries me about that comment is that such provision might be fine once contact has been made, but it is the initial contact that disabled people need to be
1642
able to make. They need to know where to go. The place they must go to needs to be accessible. The peripatetic nature of the activities that are proposed will not assist those people who may be unaware that such activity is taking place. I believe that nothing can replace face to face contact and talking through the issues. One cannot do that in the same way in a letter or on the telephone. Even in these days of new technology I do not think one can do that satisfactorily by e-mail. Disabled people need to receive a sympathetic hearing in a sympathetic setting. Therefore I believe it is absolutely essential that regional offices are established.
Baroness Blatch: I have studied the Bill to ascertain the basis for establishing regional offices in Scotland and Wales. I note also that my noble friend Lord Mackay when speaking at Second Reading posed a number of questions in relation to Scotland. He asked whether a reserved power or a devolved power was involved and the degree to which the commission would be accountable to the Scottish Parliament, who would appoint the Scottish members of the commission and so forth. I may be missing something but I did not notice any answers to those questions in the wind-up speech. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has written to my noble friend between Second Reading and today's proceedings and I have not seen the letter. However, it would be helpful to be given answers to those questions. I should like to know the basis on which the regional offices will be established.
If there are powers to establish regional offices in Wales and Scotland, can I assume from that that the commission would have the freedom and the powers to set up regional offices anywhere else in the United Kingdom where it wished to do so? That, of course, raises the thorny question of finance and does not totally tie up with the response the noble Baroness gave to an earlier amendment when she said that she would respond in detail to this issue when responding to this amendment.
Whether the commission sets up outposts around the country, or simply puts some of its work out using the organisations that already exist on the network of organisations concerned with services to disabled people, either way, it will need funding. I come back to the point about the £4 million which the CRE has to fund out-posting of its work, albeit the way in which it started off is slightly different. Nevertheless, if there is to be a delivery of some of these services at a local level, it will need to be funded. That brings us back to the basic question.
There are two issues: first, the particular specific Scottish dimension; and, secondly, if the power is in the Bill, where is it—and does that power subsume the right of the commission to set-up regional and/or area offices anywhere it wishes throughout the United Kingdom?
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: I support this proposal. I am surprised that when noble Lords talk about regions they seem to run out of examples after Wales and Scotland, and maybe Manchester. There are other regions in this kingdom—and if you lived in Norwich, you would not be very grateful for a regional office in Manchester.

1643
Part of the commission's duties relates to the provision of advice for employers, and certainly one of the elements in the legislation relating to regional development authorities concerns social exclusion—the addressing of social regeneration in the regions. Would it not be a good thing if there was a determined effort from the very beginning to ensure that the interests and concerns of disabled people were fully on the agenda in regional developmental authorities?
As the noble Baroness has just said, it is clearly a matter of money. One has to look and ask what will be the most effective deployment of the undoubted limited resources which will be available to pursue this work. We already have plenty of regional structures which are charged with policies relating to social regeneration. Social exclusion is part of their brief, and therefore there is a ready-made vehicle for the intentions of this amendment.
Earl Russell: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has said about the costs of travel to other parts of the country. Recently I was listening to a member of a working group from the north of England who was complaining that it cost him £150 a time to attend meetings of the group. This is a very considerable sum of money. In the context of the Bill, we are discussing the concept of equality. When you hear people expressing concerns about equality, it is increasingly often a concern for equality between London and the rest of the British Isles. If you look at the situation from north of the Trent or from west of the Tamar, you tend to see London as an over-privileged place. It does not of course seem that way to me, but then "it wouldn't, would it?".
I apologise if my next point was covered in the debate on Amendment No. 1, from which I was unavoidably absent. I think I can script in my sleep the ministerial reply to an amendment of this kind: "This amendment is unnecessary. The Government have the power to do this already. Why is this brought before the House?" On the hypothesis that that is the reply we are likely to get, I would ask the noble Lord this question: when the funding level for the commission was reached, was it intended to be sufficient to fund the setting up of regional offices? If so, on what scale?
Lord Morris of Manchester: I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Burlison, for informing me that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, had suggested that I might wish to comment on the proposal that there could be a regional centre in Manchester. I hope very much that there will be. I remind the Committee that the head office of the Equal Opportunities Commission was in Manchester and, by common consent, succeeded extremely well there in its important work. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and I hope that the Minister will bear in mind this suggestion when he comes to reply.
Lord Swinfen: I, too, welcome this amendment. I make no apologies whatever for having raised the subject under Amendment No. 1. It has a bearing on the necessary funding for the commission, and the funding of the commission has a bearing on the number of offices it will have.
The noble Baroness has said that there will be an office in Scotland, which is a very large place. I think that there will need to be more than one office, purely to do away with the additional time and costs incurred in travel. Wales could also need more than one office. I understand that if you live in North Wales and need to go down to Cardiff, you have to leave the Principality and go via England, which is quicker and easier. There may well need to be two offices in Wales.
The right reverent Prelate mentioned having an office in Norwich. From some parts of the country it is extremely difficult to get to Norwich. It is also difficult to get to Exeter, Leeds, Newcastle and all sorts of places. In order for the commission to do its job properly, it is absolutely essential that it does not operate from one place; it must have several different offices. I hope that the noble Lord will tell us that the commission will have several offices, and possibly give us an indication of the number. The Government have avoided answering this question; now is the time when an answer would be very helpful.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We have had a good debate on the issue of regional offices, both here and in the discussion on Amendment No. 1. I refer your Lordships to the consideration of the disability rights task force which gave this matter its full consideration and concluded that regional offices did not necessarily offer the best way forward for making services to disabled people as accessible as possible. Nor did they offer best value for money. The task force felt that much in the way of service delivery might be achieved through alternative methods. For example, as my noble friend Lady Gould suggested, the commission could conduct regional seminars or workshops.
As to the suggestion that disabled people might be required to travel to the national office of the commission, one would rather put it the other way round; equally, the commission staff could travel to the client rather than the person being required to come to them.
Any of us who have been involved in national organisations which have regional structures, will know from experience that very often regional offices are not at all accessible, particularly in large regions. Nor must we forget the use that could be made of modern technological methods, which for some disabled people could mean accessing the commission from home.
Having said that, the commission will be free to establish regional offices if it decides in the light of experience that it is appropriate. It is that experience which will be invaluable in deciding not only whether to have regional offices but where they might be located and what resources they should have.

1645
In relation to funding, I must reject any notion that not providing immediately for regional offices can simply be presented as a cost-saving exercise. Value for money is a two sided equation and one that has to be balanced—
5.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: Would I be correct in construing what the Minister has just said as an admission that the budget is not sufficient to cover the costs of regional offices?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, I do not think the noble Earl can construe that at all. I am talking about the priorities which the commission will have to set for the various tasks that it is being called upon to play. Like any organisation, it has to balance those priorities. In the light of experience it will be better able to make that kind of judgment.
A number of questions were asked about the potential headquarters of the commission. I remind the Committee that at the Second Reading of the Bill my noble friend Lady Blackstone said that the commission will be established with an office in England and also one in Wales and one in Scotland. As regards the office to be placed in England, we are clearly at a very early stage. We cannot be in a position to know where the office will be located.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about the impact of devolution. Equal opportunities are a matter reserved to the Westminster Parliament. The commission will cover Great Britain and the matter will not be devolved to Scotland and Wales post-devolution. Provision has been made by government agreement for one commissioner to be appointed in consultation with Scottish Ministers and one in consultation with the First Secretary for Wales on behalf of the Welsh Assembly. The annual reports of the commission will be provided to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. As I have already said, an office of the commission will be located in both Wales and Scotland.
I was asked about the performance and operation of the offices in relation to racial equality councils. It is worth making the point that these are independent organisations that work locally to support local networks. The distinction with disability is that those networks in relation to disabled people are already in place. The role for the disability rights commission is to work with those networks that are in place and not to replace them.
Perhaps I may conclude my remarks by re-emphasising that the Bill does not constrain the commission in this area. It allows the commission to establish regional offices but I believe that these decisions are best made in the light of experience and in the judgment of the commission.
Baroness Blatch: Can the Minister name some of the organisations to which he is referring when he talks about the network of organisations concerned with disability in local communities? My experience is that organisations such as Scope and MENCAP rely almost entirely on voluntary fundraising, whether it be local
1646
fundraising or national fundraising. That is different from the funding of the Commission for Racial Equality at local level, which receives statutory funding both from national government and local government.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In contrast to the position in relation to racial equality issues at the start, we are fortunately blessed with many effective local groups for disabled people. Therefore, an important role for the new commission will be to work with those networks. Such networks were not in place in relation to racial equality issues.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister is missing my point. We are now placing on the commission statutory obligations. If the commission determines to use those organisations which rely at the moment on voluntary contributions, it will, just as the racial equality organisations do, expect to receive statutory funding to meet those statutory obligations.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Many of those local organisations are, in one way or another, in receipt of grants. If the disability rights commission is to be effective, it will need to have in place an effective network in order to communicate with these local groups. What I dispute with the noble Baroness is the case that, necessarily, one needs regional offices to assist that process. That decision is much better taken by the commission when it has had time to establish itself.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may correct the impression that the majority of MENCAP's local societies, of which there are more than 400 in this country, certainly receive government funding. They may do indirectly—occasionally for projects and there is some European funding—but as a weekly, monthly or annual income, that is certainly not so.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I certainly did not mean to convey the impression that the noble Lord picked up. I was simply making the point that grants and resources from statutory organisations are available to many groups. I would certainly wish to acknowledge the work that many groups do without statutory support. The substantive issue is the role of the commission in ensuring an effective network with these groups and with disabled people locally. The question of whether regional offices can help that process is best left to the commission. It has that power to establish those offices. I think it best if we leave it to the commission to make those decisions.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may make one final point. I think I speak on behalf of MENCAP even though I am now president and not chairman, when I say that if the Government felt so minded as to fund our MENCAP family adviser service in the regions—it will also cover Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—so that we were able to act as, as it

1647
were, a conduit for the disability rights commission, I am sure that we would be delighted to receive the money.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I take note of the noble Lord's point but there is no commitment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: It has been an excellent debate. However, I now find that we are beginning to hurl recommendations of the task force at each other. The score now is two to the Government and one to us. I was able to quote the task force against my noble friend on one occasion. But now it is two to one against us so I think we will call it a draw and not use the task force to support our argument, as we may lose it anyhow.
My noble friend managed to convey some criticism of regional organisations. I accept that there can be things wrong with regions but it is not simply a matter of regional organisations. In these amendments, I was thinking of local organisations as well. The argument that regions cannot be brilliant is not necessarily a good one.
I wish to turn to the argument about networks. My noble friend seems to think that the commission will be able to work with what he calls a network of voluntary organisations—I am sure it can—but the functions are entirely different. What the commission will be doing is very different from what MENCAP and the RNIB are doing. But if he wants them to work together, surely a network can work better with a network. Regional and local organisations will be better able to work with the network of voluntary organisations to which he referred.
We have covered this issue very well in this debate. I am grateful to my noble friend for his words. We may return to this issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to focus briefly on the question of access to polling stations, which was mentioned briefly at Second Reading on 17th December, when regrettably I could not be present. I have no wish to delay the progress of the Committee or take away from the general thrust of the amendments. I therefore raise the matter at this point in order to clarify the position.
During the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, envisaged (at col. 1468) that commissioners might have to decide whether right of access to polling booths should be enforced. He later said that,
"nobody would regard it as a right when there is the perfectly good alternative of postal voting".
The Minister replied:
"The Government entirely accept that that is a perfectly good alternative"—[Official Report, 17/12/98; col. 1494.]
1648
Yes, it is fine as an alternative—that is, if there is a choice—but it is not acceptable as the only available voting method for a person with a disability. It is segregation on what is a very important day for everyone.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, knew that I should raise this matter. He knows that we disagree about it. He also knows how much I appreciate all that he has accomplished for himself and for disabled people in general, and that he has had a good many more years' experience of living with a disability than I have. What we do agree on is that the commissioners should not have to spend time sorting this matter out. I hope that that will be because we shall move swiftly towards ensuring that polling stations can easily accommodate people with physical, sensory and learning difficulties. The proposal would also accommodate people with arthritis, or those with pushchairs etc. It would apply to the general public.
Many disabled people feel very strongly that they should have the opportunity to vote in person, along with the rest of the community. Scope and RADAR have long campaigned for access to polling stations, and successive governments have been supportive.
I wish to make two main points, the first on polling stations and the second on the postal vote. The vast majority of polling stations are in public buildings—schools, libraries and community centres—which should be accessible to everyone all the year round, not merely on election day. Scope's latest survey, taken in 1997, of over 1,200 polling stations indicated that 92 per cent. were in public buildings.
Postal voters must send off the envelope some days before the election date to be certain of its arrival. Yet politicians campaign right up to the last moment. I do not need to tell your Lordships, who unlike me have parties, that people sometimes take voting decisions extremely late in the day. Noble Lords are aware of how elections have been lost and won during the final days of a campaign. The postal vote may suit those who are very sure in their choice, but it should not be the only method of voting instead of allowing people the choice of taking part with everyone else on the day.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give a strong and encouraging message to electors with disabilities, many of whom feel very strongly about this issue.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, kindly gave me notice that she intended to raise this issue as she was unable to be present at Second Reading. I gave this as an example of what might be claimed as a right, but said that I hoped it could be settled locally without it being a matter that the commission had to look into in great depth. There are alternative arrangements. I have always voted by post. At various times over the past 54 years I have been in a wheelchair or on crutches and have decided, even when I was an MP voting in my own constituency where my home is, that the sensible thing was for me to apply well beforehand and be registered as a postal voter.
My concern since then, in the other place and as the Member of the Cabinet responsible for these matters, was to attempt to enable as many people as possible to

1649
know about the need to register long beforehand if they were going to have difficulties. I entirely understand some people's preference for being there in person. However, I hope that this matter will not take up much of the commission's time and the money which it is so difficult to produce, as there are so many important areas where discrimination needs to be removed.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Perhaps I may intervene briefly. Local authorities receive small grants in order to enable them to make polling stations accessible. The question is whether they ever use those grants. The Scope survey that was referred to indicated that only 6 per cent. of polling stations are fully accessible. That is absolutely disgraceful considering that money is available.
Other matters need to be mentioned which do not cost anything. For instance, within a polling station the polling booth is often too high for wheelchair users. Also, the ballot box is often placed on a table, presumably so that able-bodied people will not have to bend down, but it does not help anyone who is in a wheelchair and cannot reach it.
On the question of the postal vote, I agree with the noble Baroness. It is not an alternative; it should be an available option. The right to vote in person is fundamental. The postal vote is complex. There is a problem over timing and many people find out about it much too late. In addition, an examination is needed of the electoral registration process itself, which is complicated. If political parties want people to be involved in the political process, they should examine the way in which they communicate their policies.
A Home Office committee is examining various aspects of the electoral process. I hope that the commission will be able to ensure that when its work is complete and legislation is passed, which will ultimately happen, all these points are taken into account in that legislation.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue. The entitlement to vote is at the heart of our democracy. At the same time I wish to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that I do not believe this matter need take up the time of the commission.
It is the case that some disabled people feel effectively almost prevented from exercising their right to vote as they are unable to gain access to a polling station. The Government are committed to helping disabled people to exercise their right to vote and to do so in person if that is their choice. It is important that we should try to make that choice available to as many people as possible. Polling stations are public facilities. They are covered by the goods and services provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. The decision as to which building to select for a polling station is a matter for the relevant local authority. However, the Home Office provides guidance to returning officers on issues that they ought to consider when making that decision and suggesting how access to a polling station might be assessed.
1650
I confirm the remarks of my noble friend Lady Gould. The Home Office makes substantial grants available to returning officers to help them provide auxiliary aids and services in the form of temporary ramps and accessible polling booths. Further consolidated and enhanced guidance, including advice on national access standards, will be issued to all returning officers shortly. I very much hope that they will take that guidance on board, and indeed my noble friend's remarks.
Noble Lords may also be aware that the Government's working party on electoral procedures has recommended to the Home Secretary the need to introduce legislation proposing changes to provide for the introduction of polling aids for disabled people to assist voting in person at polling stations. The working party will continue to consider the question of access for disabled people to electoral services of all kinds, including the possibility of introducing in the future pilot schemes to test the effect for all electors of alternative electoral procedures. These pilots may include: voting anywhere in an electoral area; mobile polling; early voting; all-postal ballots; and electronic voting. All of those may well have considerable benefits for those electors who are disabled and everyone else.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Formal investigations]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.7:
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("decide to").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to advocate the deletion of "decide to". In doing so I hope that I may qualify for a plain English award. My argument is that those words are otiose. If the commission decides to conduct a formal investigation it does not need to decide to do so; it will do it. Therefore, these words are superfluous. I hope that parliamentary counsel will allow the Minister also to agree that they are superfluous. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Parliamentary counsel has not allowed or advised me to say that this amendment can be accepted. However, I am content to take the amendment away to see whether we can accommodate the suggestion of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: I am very grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Non-discrimination notices]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No.8 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 inclusive.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.8:
Page 2, line 43, leave out from beginning to ("provisions") in line 2 on page 3 and insert ("The notice may include").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8 and speak also to Amendment No.12. I leave others to speak to Amendments Nos. 9 to 11. As drafted, the clause provides that certain items may be included

1651
in regulations from the Secretary of State on the content of non-discrimination notices. My amendments aim to bring those items that may be included into the Bill rather than leave them to secondary legislation. The Bill sets out those matters in any case, but leaves them to secondary legislation. Presumably, it is accepted by the Government, if I read it correctly, that these are valid items for inclusion in a non-discrimination notice. In that case, why not include them in the Bill? If one looks at sub-section (4) one sees:

"(a) to take steps with a view to avoiding the commission by [the individual] of unlawful acts and to inform the Commission that he has taken such steps;

(b) to inform the Commission of any other steps which he needs to take in order to comply with the notice …

(c) to give the Commission any other information for the purpose of verifying that the notice has been complied with; and

(d) to take steps with a view to making available to other persons any information about the notice or the things [required] to be done".

That is pretty comprehensive and allows almost anything to do with the effective enforcement of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 9 to 11. Their purpose is to move the powers that the Secretary of State may give to the commission directly onto the statute rather than by regulation which is the current intention of the Bill. We have rehearsed these arguments in the context of a different amendment. I do not know whether we are going over similar ground. I believe that the value of this commission will be considerably enhanced if it has statutory powers to prescribe changes. This is particularly the case if in addition a timetable is prescribed.
The unfortunate experience of other commissions illustrates this difficulty. A non-discrimination notice issued by the CRE or the EOC cannot prescribe particular changes in practice although both commissions have asked for this power. It may well be that our advisers have reached different conclusions on this matter. I shall be glad to hear from my noble friend if that is the case. If both of these established commissions have asked for this power it is a very significant argument in favour of giving it to this commission. It is notable that the Fair Employment Commission uses these powers to co-operate with business. I emphasise the co-operative aspect.
These powers will be especially important as structural barriers place disabled people at a very big disadvantage. It would be far more effective if the commission specified that a service provider must instal a ramp or, say, an induction loop rather than merely promote general non-discriminatory attitudes within an organisation. Business will find it very helpful if the commission has the power to tell it exactly what should be done to avoid discrimination and to work within the
1652
law rather than to wait for a court decision. Given the value of this power to all interested parties it would be very helpful if the Minister could accept the amendment.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I agree that these amendments are tremendously important, and I agree with all that the noble Lord has said.
Lord Addington: When it comes to action to help avoid discrimination and to help the disabled this amendment should already have been included in the Bill. It gives power to tell organisations what they should do. This is not guidance and people should not have to struggle with it. If something like this can be included in the Bill we can carry out the age-old task in this House of ensuring that the lawyers do not have another case. This is what we should be about here. If we can do something along these lines it should be done. It may well be that the noble Lord's amendment is not perfect, but I believe I know him well enough by now to appreciate that if he is told that there is a better form of words he will readily accept them. We should put something in the Bill and become proactive. If we merely say, "Thou shalt not", it will take a very long time to establish what thou shalt do. Let us find the most direct and positive way forward in the hope that we can discover what can be done, and do it quickly.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I rise to speak to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Ashley. In the consultation process on the establishment of a disability rights commission the Association of Disabled Professionals made the following comment about regulatory powers:
"We think that the principal Act setting up the DRC should be as flexible as possible to allow changes in the future to be made easily in the light of experience. We suggest that this could best be achieved by means of powers in the principal Act to make and amend regulations covering all the various issues that are as yet not entirely clear or on which future changes may be desirable".
Clearly, because they are so precisely worded, the reason for placing these important—indeed essential—features of non-discrimination notices in regulation-making powers cannot be to provide this flexibility. Why are these important provisions left to the whim of the Secretary of State? Why are they not covered by the constructively decisive "shall" of subsection (2) rather than the worryingly woolly "may" of subsection (3)? It seems to me to be of the first importance to have these provisions in non-discrimination notices. Without them the value of a non-discrimination notice would be less and the work of the commission made more arduous and costly.
If, then, these provisions are required, as the careful drafters of this Bill appear to concede they are in so precisely wording them and calling for them to be included, why should they have to await the Secretary of State's decision on other possible requirements that could be included in non-discrimination notices? It is crucially important to establish time limits by which someone served with a non-discrimination notice is required to act. Without any such time limits one can foresee procrastinators having the time of their lives emasculating the powers of the commission and

1653
devaluing the purpose of a non-discrimination notice. Such procrastination could easily add unnecessarily to the costs of the commission.
To some extent I can understand why the setting of times within which the requirements of a non-discrimination notice have to be met has been left to regulations. Arguments about legislative flexibility apply here. Not all the requirements have been set down and what may be reasonable time limits for different requirements have not yet been determined. However, I cannot possibly understand why this crucially important issue of time limits has been left so vaguely within the powers of the Secretary of State. He or she may make regulations which may specify the time within which some requirement must be met. It is merely a "may" and another "may". Could anything be more unsatisfactorily vague?
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has touched a chord with us all with his invocation of the phrase "a worryingly woolly may". But that, like all our views here, is a parliamentary view. If we consider the issue from the other side of the net, the word "may" is all too delightfully precise. The purpose of parliamentary legislation is to tie the hands of the Executive. The purpose of the Executive, regardless of party, is to untie its hands. So as soon as the word "may" appears in a statute, the Executive has untied its hands to that extent. That is why I say that from that point of view it is all too delightfully precise.
I am sure the Minister will reply that all these amendments are unnecessary. Executives love saying that amendments are unnecessary. The Minister will point to the word "may" and say that the whole thing can be done by regulation. Yes, exactly. But the disadvantage of doing something by regulation is that it cannot be amended. In extreme circumstances it can be voted down, but it cannot be amended, and voting down is an extremely blunt instrument. So the wealth of experience in this Chamber—it is very considerable—cannot be brought to bear on the wording of a regulation. The Executive may do whatever it likes.
The Executive reply—I have heard it so many times that I could script it in my sleep—will be that it gives flexibility, that it makes the provision easier to change if it finds that it has made a mistake. On that argument it is perfectly correct. But the Executive's flexibility is our inflexibility. Because the Executive can change when it finds it has made a mistake, we can do nothing when we find there is a mistake.
That seems a slightly one-sided arrangement. I understand why it commends itself to Ministers, but is that a good reason why it should commend itself to the rest of us?
Baroness Blackstone: I welcome the amendments as they demonstrate agreement between us that the arguments for extending the scope of non-discrimination notices issued by the disability rights commission are strong. I think on that there can be no disagreement
1654
between us. Our differences arise on whether the detail of how that might be best achieved should be on the face of the Bill or in regulations.
The Bill makes provision for the disability rights commission to issue a non-discrimination notice when it becomes satisfied in the course of a formal investigation that a person is committing, or has committed, an act of unlawful discrimination. The notice allows the commission to state that it has found the person concerned to have committed, or to be committing, an act of unlawful discrimination and requires the person to stop discriminating and acting the same way in future. I am sure noble Lords will agree that, where the commission has found a person to be discriminating, it should be able to issue a notice to that person which would be enforceable requiring him to stop discriminating. That underlies what all noble Lords who spoke in the debate said.
The purpose of the amendments is to specify on the face of the Bill the ability of the disability rights commission, in addition, to prescribe in a non-discrimination notice particular changes in practice that it considers are required to avoid unlawful acts. I can confirm what my noble friend Lord Ashley said. This proposal emanates from the reviews by the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality of their establishing legislation. In that context, perhaps I should say that I may have misled my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester earlier. The CRE and the EOC have asked in their review to be able to initiate proceedings. But that raises the complicated legal issues which I mentioned earlier.
This proposal was considered by the disability rights task force. The task force was keen to ensure that the non-discrimination stage of the formal investigation process should be made as effective as possible. There was concern that prescription in all the areas that the amendments would cover may not be the best way forward. In particular there were concerns that the proposal may allow the disability rights commission to impose a particular way of addressing an issue which has led to discrimination when there might be other ways of addressing them than those prescribed. The Disability Discrimination Act is relatively new and more complex than other anti-discrimination legislation. There is no well-established body of accepted practice upon which the disability rights commission could draw in framing the requirements on employers and service providers. There was concern, too, that a very high level of understanding as to the way businesses operate is required in order to determine exactly what might be practical in a particular situation. The task force recommended that the issue should be considered in the light of the outcome of the reviews of the existing equality commissions.
The Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State to be able to make regulations extending the scope of a non-discrimination notice and to make related provisions. I noted what the noble Earl said on that, but I wish to reassure him that, were the Government not to accept the amendment, regulations would be made. The regulation-making power would allow a degree of flexibility so as to ensure that a consistent approach is

1655
taken for each equality commission where this is appropriate and allow the detail of the administrative arrangements to be specified and modified in the light of experience. However, in the light of the strong views expressed today I should be happy to consider the issue again at Report stage.
Baroness Blatch: In the light of the promise that the Minister will consider the issue between now and Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.9 to 12 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Agreements in lieu of enforcement action]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.13:
Page 3, line 34, at beginning insert ("to suspend or").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to tease out whether an agreement of the kind referred to is intended always to replace an investigation. As soon as an agreement has been entered into does a case fall? Alternatively, in some circumstances the commission might enter into an agreement, having suspended the investigation but with the proviso that it might return to the investigation. It appears that once an agreement has been entered into the only action is recourse to the court if the terms of the agreement are not met. If the commission had the power to return to an investigation, that might provide another tool to its armoury.
It is possible that some people might object to the measure in that it might lead to a further delay and a court action, but it would provide another course of action for the commission. My proposal to insert the words "to suspend or" will reinforce the commission's armoury in cases where notice has been given and an unsatisfactory attempt at suspension has been applied. It will enable a case to be kept out of court for as long as possible; in other words, living up to my constant theme of using recourse to the court as a last resort. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Clause 5 is an unusual provision. I do not remember seeing anything like it previously. I believe that it will be difficult to administer. Instead of coming to the rescue of people whose disability rights have been infringed, there may be a compromise agreement. That is most unusual. I believe that my noble friend's amendment is commendable because it enables the commission either to suspend the investigation or to take no further steps in investigating the unlawful acts.
We must be very careful about granting such an unusual power to the commission. I believe that my noble friend's amendment gives a desirable flexibility.
Baroness Darcy De Knayth: I support the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I hope that I can set noble Lords' concerns at rest. The amendment seeks to allow a formal investigation to be stopped if the
1656
disability rights commission and a person being investigated agree to enter into a written agreement. It may be helpful if I briefly explain the background to this provision and how it is intended that it should operate.
If the disability rights commission has reason to believe that a person has committed or is committing an unlawful act and decides to conduct an investigation, Clause 5 gives it the power to stop the investigation and enter into a written agreement with that person. By entering into a written agreement, the person whose actions were under investigation will agree to abide by the requirements set out in the statutory agreement. These requirements must be within the scope of those which could be specified in a non-discrimination notice.
The Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality have both made use of written agreements informally and consider them a valuable tool in the formal investigation process. Indeed, there are a number of advantages to this approach. In contrast to non-discrimination notices, they could be arrived at relatively quickly; they are likely to be less confrontational than non-discrimination notices and more effective in encouraging employers and service providers to tackle discrimination in a positive manner; and they could limit the need for lengthy and expensive formal investigations. I would like to reassure noble Lords that there will be no requirement to enter into a written agreement—it will be voluntary for both parties.
I noted with interest the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the potential compromise character of those agreements. I would prefer to write to him about that.
Compliance with a written agreement would be enforceable by the commission through the courts. However, it is open to the parties to agree, when deciding the terms of a written agreement, that a breach of the agreement should result in the formal investigation being re-opened. This is one of a range of possible steps allowed by the provision as drafted. Specifying that a formal investigation should be suspended as one of the alternatives neither adds nor subtracts anything and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister rightly said that entering into an agreement is a voluntary activity on the part of both parties. However, a sword of Damocles hangs over the party being taken to task by the commission because if he does not enter into an agreement the investigation proceeds. I wished to put in place a degree of flexibility and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for his support. I propose that where there is an attempt to conform, and for one reason or another either wittingly or unwittingly it does not conform, the investigation can be suspended but if

1657
necessary proceeded with at a later stage. I am not sure whether the Minister is saying that all that I want from my amendment is subsumed and assumed in the Bill, or that my amendment is not necessary, in which case I would disagree with him.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I believe that I made it clear that it is open to the parties when deciding the terms of a written agreement that a breach should result in a formal investigation being re-opened. That seemed to meet the point raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: If once an agreement has been entered into voluntarily by both parties the only action which can be taken is to the court if the terms of the agreement are not met. My argument for allowing a suspension to be one more tool in the armoury of the commission is to postpone going to court by reinstating the investigation. The agreement could then be modified and re-agreed, which would keep the case out of court, because the breach may have been the result of a misunderstanding. My amendment allows a little more flexibility.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The provision as drafted allows a range of possible steps to be agreed, including simple suspension. That would allow the revival of a formal investigation, but it would also allow the investigation to be brought to an end. Specifying one of the various alternatives neither adds to nor subtracts from the clause.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to read more carefully what the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I have not given notice, but I wish to raise a short, general point. I am very much afraid that the clause will give rise to considerable difficulties. I believe that it will be open to anyone who feels aggrieved to take the matter to court—it would have to be to the High Court—in order to have the application of the clause put right or to seek an injunction for the annulment of any unsatisfactory agreement.
I do not expect an answer from the Minister today, but I would ask him to bear the matter in mind. I hope that between now and the Report stage the Government will reconsider the clause. I believe that it will give rise to litigation and to practical difficulties, and will occasionally result in injustice, the rectification of which will be delayed for some months. It is a difficult matter and I hope that the Government will give it careful thought.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As he requested, we shall consider the points he raised alongside the earlier point in relation to the character of the agreement.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Assistance in relation to proceedings]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No.14:
Page 4, line 27, after ("individual") insert ("or organisation representing groups of individuals").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 14, I shall speak briefly also to Amendments Nos.16 and 17.
A number of references have been made this afternoon to class actions, but I hazard a guess that this amendment may not be strictly appropriate until the outcome of the Lord Chancellor's Department's investigation into their feasibility. Nevertheless, it is important to look towards the introduction of group representation under the Disability Discrimination Act because it may prove to be particularly effective in supporting groups of excluded, vulnerable people who are lacking individual support. It is evident that there will be circumstances in which the commission would wish to bring class actions to protect against institutional discrimination and that should be made clear on the face of the Bill.
In relation to Amendment No. 16, the Government rightly recognise that the commission will need to provide assistance to individuals in relation to proceedings on the grounds that the applicants may be unable to deal with their cases unaided. It is an important measure in the Bill and will ensure that people with learning disabilities are given practical help and support to redress their grievances under the law—something which many other people take for granted.
I should like to draw one rather obvious point to the Committee's attention: that is, that it is highly unlikely that a person with a learning disability will approach the commission independently for help in relation to proceedings. That means that a supporter, a relative or carer may be involved very early on and continue to be involved right through the person's experience with the commission—assisting in new situations, helping the individual to handle detailed documents or helping the individual to communicate effectively. For that reason I wish to add to the list of forms of assistance that the commission may provide. I believe that support, including financial support, should be provided or arranged for an applicant's relatives or carers because those people may be put to a lot of time and effort supporting the person who has been discriminated against. Amendment No. 16 clearly covers that point.
Finally, Amendment No. 17 concerns a minor point, but one that may have a bearing on assistance available to individuals in relation to proceedings. If the commission itself cannot provide assistance which it deems appropriate, then it ought to be able to arrange for that assistance to be provided by somebody else. The focus here should be on what helps the individual, not on forcing the commission to be an expert on providing support for every eventuality. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Here we are trying to protect people who are essentially vulnerable. I am thinking not only of those who are represented by MENCAP—perhaps I may say in passing, as the father

1659
of a daughter who is severely handicapped both physically and mentally, that the expression "learning disabilities" is an unfortunate, limited and unrealistic one—but of any organisation which can help the person or the group of people involved. They should have the opportunity of representing disabled people under Clause 6.
MENCAP is one of our largest charities, but there are many others; for instance, the British Legion. I am sure the Committee will agree that nearly every human ailment now has a charity or pressure group to represent and support it. It would be most unfortunate if, in the administration of this Bill, those charities and pressure groups were not given the opportunity of helping vulnerable people.
Lord Addington: I too support this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has brought forward the reality of the situation; that is, that support staff will be involved with any action under the Bill. That must be recognised and brought within the scope of the Bill.
There will always be pressure groups helping the vulnerable in the field of disability. They may not always have been legally recognised, but we all knew that they were there. Indeed, many such organisations will have helped to draw up these amendments. That is the reality and I suggest that by squaring up to that reality and accepting these amendments we will be doing ourselves a great favour.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I wish to speak briefly, though strongly in support of Amendment No. 14. The disability rights commission represents a huge step forward for people with disabilities, their support organisations and families. It is vital that we make it work as well as we can. That means making it as relevant and accessible as possible to as many people as possible. For many people access to the functions of the commission will be dependent on whether or not support can be provided to their relatives, carers or an organisation in the form of expenses, access to papers and extra time. I hope that the Government will be able to accept these amendments.
Earl Russell: As my noble friend said, Amendment No. 14 recognises the reality of the situation. When we were discussing the Human Rights Bill we came to exactly the same point of issue. The Minister may remember—if not, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, certainly will—that my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill raised exactly the same point about the definition of "victim" in the Human Rights Bill. So we are faced here with the same failure to make a good design, which we welcome, effective and fully complete on exactly the same point in both Bills.
People outside, even if not people here, are bound to ask whether that is a coincidence. If the Government do not accept the amendment, they may risk giving the impression which I am sure they do not intend that their
1660
sympathy with campaigning organisations is a little less than total. I am sure that they do not want to do that so perhaps they will accept the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I rise simply to reiterate my question raised on an earlier amendment which was deferred till now: that is, my understanding is that the Lord Chancellor is working on this issue. If class actions were to be agreed and the law modified, would it be intended to extend the power to the commission just as it would presumably apply to other organisations such as the EOC and CRE?
The Lord Bishop of Ely: I want to support the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in his amendment and add to the point he has already made on behalf of those who suffer from learning disabilities. These amendments are extremely important, especially Amendment No. 16, for those who suffer from problems of mental ill health. Everything that the noble Lord said in relation to those with learning difficulties applies a fortiori to this other group and therefore I support Amendment No. 14.
Lord Swinfen: My name is to this group of amendments and obviously I want to support them. Civil rights can only be individual rights, but sometimes it needs groups of people to support individuals in their effort to gain and keep those rights. These amendments will help that. It may be an advance in the law towards class actions. It is possible that some would consider that premature but sometimes we have to take the first step. This is possibly that necessary first step. We should put something of this kind into the Bill, even if the wording is slightly different.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Everyone agrees that the Disability Rights Commission will have a key role to play in assisting individuals to secure their rights. The effect of Amendment No. 14 would be to allow the commission to back legal proceedings in which the applicant was a pressure group, not a particular disabled person or a group of particular disabled persons.
The only proceedings that a pressure group can presently institute on behalf of disabled people is an application for judicial review. Under the general law, the commission could perfectly well decide to take any part it sees fit in such proceedings where it considers that to do so helps it to fulfill its general duties. It could join with another pressure group to institute such proceedings, give evidence in such proceedings or agree to fund such proceedings in which it is taking no other part.
As the law stands, a pressure group cannot bring a representative, or class action on behalf of a group of disabled people because such proceedings are, as yet, unknown to our law. Like the noble Lords, Lord Rix, Lord Swinfen, and Lord Addington and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, I see some merit in representative actions—to be able to resolve, through one action, a matter involving a number of disabled people against, perhaps, a single employer or service provider. However, while I have some concerns about

1661
eroding the principle that the commission should be there to assist individuals who have experienced discrimination rather than groups who represent them, that is not my main concern about the amendment.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is presently considering the issue of representative actions in a much wider context. This is a fundamental issue of law and one which therefore raises some significant and complex issues. I understand that a consultation paper is expected to be published later this year.
As regards the ability of the disability rights commission to take representative actions, we have already made clear our intentions on this matter in our White Paper, which set out proposals for the establishment of the commission. That made clear that, subject to the outcome of the Lord Chancellor's consultation, the commission should be able to bring representative actions in the same way as other bodies to which a new right to bring such actions may extend. That reflects also the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force, who considered the matter carefully. Responses to the White Paper also indicated that this proposal attracted considerable support.
To sum up, the amendment relates to an issue that is part of a wider legal review and it is important not to pre-empt that review. We must allow proper, detailed consideration of what is a complex matter, and one that goes well beyond the confines of the Bill. In view of that, I hope that those who put their names to the amendment will withdraw it.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 relate to the range of assistance that the commission might provide. Amendment No. 16 seeks to allow the commission to provide or arrange support for relatives and carers of disabled people whom it is assisting in relation to proceedings. I recognise that there may be instances where it is appropriate to provide or arrange support for relatives or carers of disabled people—for example, when the disabled person needs their help to make his or her case. The Bill makes provision for the commission to
"provide any other assistance which it thinks appropriate".
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will not press his amendment.
Amendment No. 17 seeks to make provision for the commission to be able to arrange for any other assistance that it thinks appropriate in relation to assisting individuals as well as providing it itself. I recognise that there will be cases where the method adopted by the commission in the course of providing assistance will be by way of arranging that the particular assistance needed is given by others. The Bill contains a general provision for the DRC to provide any other assistance that it thinks appropriate, but I agree that the wording suggested by the amendment may be clearer. I am happy to concede that point.
1662
This has been an interesting debate and I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance as to our intentions in relation to assisting individuals and the class action issues raised earlier.
Lord Rix Lord Rix rose—
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Rix, replies, I feel obliged to mention to the. Minister that Amendment No. 14 offers a short, simple solution to a practical problem that is bound to arise as soon as the Bill comes into force. Of course there can be a wider inquiry into all kinds of legal and judicial matters by the Lord Chancellor but that does not dispel the need for an amendment on these lines. Would there be a solution in time for it to be implemented in the Bill by Report stage in your Lordships' House? Failing that, when the Bill goes to another place, could the solution be implemented there? Or would that happen some months after Royal Assent? If that is the position, it is unacceptable.
Earl Russell: In thanking the Minister for her reply, I ask her to go a little further. I ask her for a small undertaking that I hope will not be too much to give. Could she draw this debate—and in particular the remarks made just now by the noble Lord, Lord Renton—to the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor?
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: The noble Baroness may already have answered this question but I would like her to make something clear. We are all totally persuaded by the arguments of my noble friend Lord Renton and of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that there will be people who require the support of organisations. I thought that I caught an inkling of a suggestion that the Minister would not be so enthusiastic about a lobby that chose somebody who happened in a predicament to pursue a cause in the interests of that particular lobby. While one cannot help being totally in favour of the one, at the same time one is introducing the possibility of the other.
Lord Swinfen: The Minister said that the matter is already being considered by the Lord Chancellor. Am I right in thinking that if Parliament wills it, it will be done; that Parliament is paramount; and that if both Houses agree on the matter, it will become law?
Baroness Blackstone: I shall be extremely happy to draw this debate to the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It is right and proper that I do so. However, we are in some danger of getting ourselves into a legal quagmire, by pre-empting something being considered and where there is a larger issue of representative class actions. I am advised that such proceedings are as yet unknown in our law and that we need to consider the matter in a fundamental way. It is a complex issue. The right thing will be for me to draw this debate to the attention of my noble and learned friend, then we can return to it at the next stage.
Lord Rix Lord Rix rose—
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to continue to prevent the noble Lord, Lord Rix, from coming in. Can the

1663
noble Baroness give us a ballpark figure as to when the Lord Chancellor will come to a conclusion on this matter? The question posed by my noble friend Lord Renton is a very real one. There are two issues. First, there is the general issue as to whether a power should be taken for class representation in such cases. The second issue is whether the case for class representation stands alone in its own right and on its own merits. I believe that the Committee would like to take that into consideration if it knew, in advance, that it was unlikely that the Lord Chancellor would come to a conclusion either in time for it to be considered in this place or in another place.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry; I had meant to reply to that point earlier. I forgot that it had been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Regrettably, there will not be a conclusion to this matter before the Bill has gone through both this House and another place because the Lord Chancellor intends to consult widely about what I believe is a fairly major and complex change to our legal system. It would be wrong to introduce such a change without proper consultation with many different parties. I regret that I cannot give the reassurance for which I was asked that this matter will be dealt with before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Lord Rix: In that case, does not that underline the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and to a lesser extent the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in as much as the Bill could be on the statute book when the Lord Chancellor brings forth the conclusions of the review and then it will be too late to include such a provision on what will then be an Act? It seems that practically every Member of the Committee is on the side of this amendment or a form of this amendment. I cannot believe that it can be delayed until such time as the Lord Chancellor's Department comes forward with conclusions on class actions. Could the Minister give me an answer?
Baroness Blackstone: As I said earlier, this is a matter for consultation with the Lord Chancellor. I have already agreed to that. I can write to the noble Lord, and others who have taken part in the debate, to give him the answer, if that would be helpful.
Lord Swinfen: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will the Government consider including such a measure in the Bill, but bringing it into effect at a later date, possibly by order? There is a provision allowing various clauses of Bills to come into effect at varying times. Perhaps that is a way forward.
Baroness Blackstone: Yet again, I think that it is right for me to consult on this before giving a clear answer.
I have just been handed a note which says that if the outcome of the Lord Chancellor's review is legislation, the necessary consequential amendments will be made, including to this legislation. I was going to say that it is never too late to amend an Act of this sort. The outcome
1664
of the consultations will probably require legislation and all existing Acts that need to be amended can be amended by that legislation.
Lord Rix: With that assurance, I shall seek leave to withdraw Amendment No. 14. However, I have two final questions before the Minister sits down. Am I to understand that the wording in Clause 6(3)(d),
"provide any other assistance which it thinks appropriate",
will cover a range of support for advocates, relatives and carers? Am I also to understand that my Amendment No. 17, which seeks after the word "provide" to insert "or arrange", has been accepted? If the Minister can give me those assurances, I shall withdraw Amendment No. 14.
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, I can give that assurance to the noble Lord.
Lord Rix: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Codes of practice]:
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 21, at end insert—
("(5A) A written statement under subsection (5) may include proposals for changes to the code.
(5B) Where the Secretary of State has proposed changes to the code under subsection (5A), the Commission may undertake further consultation as it considers appropriate on the proposals from the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: I can be relatively brief in speaking to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. The Bill enables the Secretary of State to refuse to approve a code of practice and to give his reasons, but not to provide proposed changes. I am introducing into the Bill flexibility for the Secretary of State to do just that: to propose changes and to enable the commission to consult on any such changes.
My second amendment allows for the affirmative resolution to be used, should an order be made under subsection (6)(c). I believe that it would be appropriate to seek the approval of both Houses in such circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The provisions in the Bill for the disability rights commission to produce codes of practice are very similar to the arrangements for similar bodies. However, they have been updated in the light of experience to ensure that changes to draft codes on which the Secretary of State and the disability rights commission agree can be made speedily and would not involve a bureaucratic process. Therefore, I hope it would be a rare occasion that the Secretary of State would need to refuse to approve a code of practice.

1665
However, turning specifically to the first amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, this seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to propose changes to draft codes of practice which he is unable to accept for any reason and then to allow the commission to consult further on his proposals. Far from having any argument with the purpose of this amendment, the present provisions of the Bill already allow both processes to take place. They would allow the Secretary of State to explain how the code might be improved. Similarly, if the commission felt that any of the Secretary of State's proposed changes significantly altered the code, there would be nothing to prevent the commission consulting further on it. I hope that that has allowed clarification. I hope that it has also persuaded noble Lords that such a provision as suggested is unnecessary on the face of the Bill.
On the second amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I recognise that there may be circumstances relating to the revocation of a code of practice about which Parliament might well have views because it would indeed be unusual for a code to be revoked rather than revised and reissued.
It is for this reason that orders revoking codes of practice will be subject to the negative resolution procedure and, as such, a copy of the order will be laid before Parliament and Members of both Houses will be free to request a debate if they so wish. This is in line with the advice of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. It has given consideration to the appropriateness of the regulation-making powers in the Bill and has made no comment. In the light of that, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to my first amendment. I shall read carefully what he said, but I assume that everything that I sought to achieve by Amendment No. 18 is subsumed in the Bill and that, therefore, my amendment is surplus to requirements.
On the point about the affirmative resolution, that is an old argument that I had put to me many times when I sat on that side of the House. I am afraid that I used to do battle in my department on behalf of those who argued for the use of the affirmative resolution. The argument was that it takes up valuable parliamentary time. However, there is a powerful argument for the affirmative resolution procedure to be used automatically and not to wait for people to pray against a regulation when it comes before the House. I am sorry to say that I have to put the noble Lord the Minister on notice that I will return to my plea at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Procedure for amending s.7(1) of the 1995 Act]:
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 8, leave out lines 9 to 17 and insert—

("(a) such organisations representing employers as he considers appropriate;

(b) such organisations representing disabled persons as he considers appropriate; and

(c) once it has been established, the Disability Rights Commission.

(4) A consultation under subsection (3) shall be commenced on or before 1st January 2000.
(5) In the event that the Secretary of State decides to make an order under subsection (2) the order shall be made within six months of the completion of the consultation process under subsection (3)."").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 20. The trouble with Clause 10 is that, as it stands, there would have to be some very considerable time to elapse before the Government could change the small employer exemption in the Disability Discrimination Act, because we would have to await the establishment of this commission, and the long wait is both unnecessary and undesirable.
Your Lordships will recall that the Government lowered the exemption from that Act from firms with 20 or fewer workers to firms with 15 or fewer. To the uninitiated this sounds impressive, but the reality is very different. The fact is that the Government bought a pup. The Government have accepted the view of the Small Employers' Federation. This is a crazy view; that by including more small firms within the scope of this Act the Government would impose unreasonable burdens on them. Well fancy that!
The Disability Discrimination Act says specifically that employers are required to do all that is "reasonable" to avoid discrimination. What is "reasonable" will vary with the size and the resources of an employer and so I suggest that it is impossible to impose "unreasonable" burdens on a small employer because of the provisions of the Act. Even the most cunning and sophisticated barrister could bamboozle a court into believing that the provisions of an Act containing the word "reasonable" could be defined as "unreasonable", but Ministers accepted that.
Naturally, business will oppose any change with a potential cost implication, but I believe that Parliament must take a wider view. The benefits need to be pointed out of associating with disabled people and being able to provide them with goods and services. The Government's reasons for wanting a staged approach for lowering the exemption are, I believe, feeble. What is required now is an early review and a ministerial change of mind.
All that we are asking is that there should be an early movement on bringing more small firms into the Disability Discrimination Act, and asking for no discrimination against disabled people. That is all we are asking for—by law, that no unreasonable burdens be

1667
placed on them. What more could one ask for? How much more reasonable could one be with an amendment of this kind? I beg to move.
Lord Addington: Very simply, I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and it comes as no surprise to me, because when we were originally dealing with the Bill I fought for a clause to be withdrawn. The Labour Party followed me into the Division Lobby, and I believe they provided the tellers for it.
The argument does not seem to have changed dramatically since then. If something is unreasonable, I suggest that means that it is unreasonable no matter what the size of the firm may be. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, put it most clearly, and I support him. If we are going to get into the position where you can draw an arbitrary line and say that for some reason this arbitrary line applies now and it does not matter about the reasonableness of the case, you are actually throwing out the main protection that employers have in the whole Bill, in theory anyway.
There is the idea that it is not reasonable to do it in this case because of the nature of the work, or because the work cannot be done efficiently or that it will be damaging to the employer, in which case they will not be able to carry on their business. That is all we are asking here: that this very strong safeguard to the employer is kept in place and this arbitrary line thrown away. That is all it is.
Lord Morris of Manchester: Time is now at a premium and I will be brief. The aim of my noble friend's amendment is to speed up the process by which small employers are brought within the DDA. The Government committed themselves to reviewing the current threshold of 15 employees with a view to a phased reduction, but they have set no time when this should occur. It is the unanimous view of disability organisations in the last review that the threshold should be reduced to two employees.
Far too much emphasis has been placed on the difficulties that employers with fewer than 15 employees have to face in employing disabled people. So I am delighted to know that the conference to be held soon by RADAR, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, will offer specific advice to such employers. In particular, detailed guidance will be given on the kind of "reasonable adjustments" that this Bill, when enacted, will stipulate should be made to accommodate disabled employees. As Nick Goss, RADAR's education, training and employment officer says:
"This may be as simple as giving someone time off for physiotherapy".
He believes that operating and monitoring a policy on disabled employees is easier in a business with a small staff. Allowing staff to work from home could also be easier to monitor. RADAR has given an imaginative lead by arranging this conference: one which I hope will persuade others not to exaggerate the problems to which

1668
approval of this amendment would give rise. Where there is a will there is a way, and RADAR deserves high praise for its initiative.
Lord Rix: A somewhat mischievous point has been made to me by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Clause 10(3)(c) reads:
"such organisations representing the interests of disabled persons in employment or seeking employment as he considers appropriate"—
which is virtually the same wording as I placed in Amendment No. 14. I hope that the Minister will draw this to the attention of the parliamentary draftsman and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his department when they are considering the class action matter.
On a less frivolous note, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, in this amendment. I think it is a monstrous assumption that people with a disability will be forced upon small employers. I believe they will be employed if they are suitable for the work, capable of work and can provide the same value for money at all times—which most of them can—as a fully able person.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I believe that this is a very important amendment. As he has done on many occasions, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, summed it up in a sentence. If the concept of "reasonableness" is to mean anything, the arbitrary line negates the whole principle: it should go. I think an employer of 16 people will find it extremely difficult to understand why an employer of 14 people needs that line as well, if the concept of "reasonableness" means anything.
Lord Swinfen: I should also like to support this amendment very briefly. I shall not come out with any statistics because I was told I was wrong at Second Reading: I never have been very good at statistics. I think it is quite unreasonable not to have a level playing field among employers. It is unfair on the employers and it is also unfair on disabled people. The vast number of disabled people do not want to travel very far from their homes, and that very often means that they can only go to small employers.
We should also bear in mind, as has been mentioned, that it is a reasonable adjustment that they have to make: not very expensive and not very much. However, what has not been mentioned is that there is a period in which employers can get rid of an employee after they have joined who turns out not to be suitable. That applies to able-bodied people: it applies just as well to disabled people. I believe this to be a very important amendment. I hope the Government will be able to see their way to agreeing to it.
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, pointed out that perhaps too much has been made of the difficulties of small employers, but possibly not enough has been made of the difficulties of employees in small firms. If you are dealing with an employer because you want some sort of adjustment to allow you to continue to do your job and you are doing

1669
this in a large company, it is a reasonably impersonal process. Indeed, however it is done, it goes through channels; there is no personal element.
However, if you are dealing with a small employer, you will probably do so face to face. Workforces in businesses that small are not very easy to unionise, so you cannot expect to do it through a formal channel and have someone to represent you. You have to confront a person to whom your proposal may create certain practical difficulties. In fact, you may create a real degree of irritation. If you are going to do that, you need some form of legal or institutional protection. Because the institutional protection is less available in a small business, I should have thought that that might be an argument for saying that more rather than less legal protection is needed.
Baroness Blatch: Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I shall be interested to hear the Government's response to the amendment. This is an extremely difficult issue. It would be helpful to know whether the Government have carried out any current work on cost-compliance because, if we are to make legislation in this way, it is important for us to know what the costs of meeting the obligations under the law would be for small businesses.
I am afraid that I am going to touch upon one or two statistics, even at the risk of being marginally longer in my remarks. The ballpark figures show that about 10 per cent. of companies in this country, which can be deemed to be large, do in fact employ a very large proportion of the population. However, something like 90 per cent. of all companies employ very few employees. Therefore, we are talking about a large number of companies but a smaller number of employees. I take the point about a level playing field for employees; indeed, it is a very powerful point.
I have two further comments to make about small employers. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, touched on a very important point as far as concerns small employers; namely, the fact that they do meet their employees face to face on a daily basis. It has always been my view that, rather than being very critical of them, employers are very often extremely sensitive to the needs of their employees and, in a wholly voluntary capacity, do in fact go a long way towards meeting their needs, including the needs of the disabled.
We are about to embark on the setting up of a commission. I think it would be wise to do two things: first, we should continue talking to employers about the degree to which they are able, in a voluntary capacity, to meet the needs of disabled employees. Secondly, I also believe that with the advent of the commission there should be an increased impetus that will actively work with employers right across the board, whether or not they have an obligation under the law, to help them meet their obligations more and more. The obligations for many companies will be legal. The obligations in respect of employers with fewer than 15 employees will not be legal obligations; nevertheless, there will be a moral obligation to do the best that they can for their employees.
1670
At the end of the day we cannot get away from the fact that the choice for a small employer, especially a very small employer—that is, one employing three to half-a-dozen people—may well be a matter of survival. It may not be a question of whether or not he can meet all his obligations under the law. The heavy hand of the law can be pretty inflexible and unremitting. It may mean that some employers will be unable to meet the costs involved with the arrangements for disabled employees, which may not be perfect but which, nevertheless, allow them to go to work and to hold down a job with their needs being met as far as possible by the employer. Indeed, the cost to some employers of meeting such obligations under the law may be beyond their ability. In that case, as I said, it may be a question of survival.
I believe that we must be somewhat cautious in going down this road without greater consultation with employers. We must also give the commission the opportunity to work with employers to help them meet the needs of the disabled, without necessarily resorting to the heavy hand of the law in the case of very small employers.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I agree absolutely and entirely with what my noble friend has just said. I believe that small firms do employ disabled people, but they do so because they are enlightened and have goodwill, not because they are compelled to by law. When we were discussing the 1995 Act, I questioned how one actually manages to corner someone for discrimination as regards not employing a disabled person. For example, there may be half a dozen prospective employees sitting in a room, one of whom has a disability. If the employer knows the law, I have never been able to understand how he can be accused of discrimination. Of course, if he turns round and says, "We don't employ people with disabilities here", he will find himself in court. However, if he simply says, "I think that there is a most magnificent collection of candidates here; you all have marvellous qualifications, but I think that A fits the bill better than B"—who may have a disability—I do not understand how he could be accused of discrimination.
I wonder whether we are going to have something like the process suggested to me by an American. He told me how they do it there. Apparently, one looks around a whole collection of firms and if, for a number of years, some of them never employ a person with a disability, you prosecute them. That would be totally undesirable. I have never been able to understand how this works. Perhaps the Minister can explain it to me.
Lord Rix: Following on from what the noble Lord has just said, I have one question to ask. I am inclined to agree with him. I do not believe that small employers are forced to take on disabled people just because they are disabled. Surely there is no positive discrimination in any part of the legislation. When people are in front of you seeking a job, you have a choice and you take the best person available. If that person happens to be disabled, so be it. However, you make that choice at the time. If you discriminate against that person because of

1671
his disability then, as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, pointed out, you would be contravening the Act. If there were six equal people in front of you, you would have the choice of one of them. Am I not correct in so thinking?
Baroness Blackstone: I should like to begin by responding not to the point that the noble Lord has just made but to the tongue-in-cheek comment he made earlier. I shall certainly be delighted to draw the similarity in drafting to the attention of parliamentary counsel. I have to say that, in practice, the effects of this amendment would be ambiguous. However, I am sure that the purpose of the noble Lords, Lord Ashley, Lord Addington and Lord Swinfen, in tabling the amendment was to try to encourage the Government to reduce the small employers' threshold without waiting for the DRC to be established.
The Government's aim is to ensure comprehensive rights for disabled people. In response to the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I should point out that we are of course sympathetic to the idea that smaller firms should be covered by the DDA's employment provisions. I think the noble Lord spoke a little unfairly and seemed to suggest that we had done absolutely nothing in this respect. In fact, we lowered the threshold very soon after coming to office. Where we differ from those who attached their names to the amendment is largely in the timing of such change and how we ensure that it is effective.
The Government believe that effective rights for disabled people can best be achieved with the support of business. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that we need actively to work with employers. I strongly agree with her. It is not in the interests of disabled people if employers try to avoid employing or retaining disabled people because they misunderstand the issues or fear the consequences of the law. Again, as the noble Baroness said, the disability rights commission itself has a very important role to play both in advising us and in improving awareness among employers. That is, I am sure, an objective that we all share.
The Committee will recall that the reduction we made in December from 20 employees to 15 was not insignificant. I believe that it was an important step forward. It has widened the coverage of the employment provisions of the DDA to bring in 45,000 more employers with around 800,000 employees, any of whom might need protection in the future and 70,000 of whom are currently disabled. All disabled applicants for jobs in these firms are now also covered. In all, over 75 per cent. of disabled employees are now covered by the DDA's employment provisions.
That does not mean that we think enough has been done, and I recognise how strongly people who have campaigned on this issue for so long, including Members of this House, feel about it. It does mean, however, that we want to avoid going too far too soon. It also means that we intend to involve the commission on this issue, which seems entirely right given that we are establishing it in part to advise us on reviewing the working of the DDA.
1672
I am pleased to say that many small firms already employ disabled people. However, many do not and many do not know as much about disability as larger firms, nor always how to respond effectively to the needs of individual disabled people. We have to deal with the situation as we find it and I think we would be foolish to assume greater understanding of the issues than is the case.
It has been argued in the debate that the concept of reasonableness protects small employers. The Committee will recall that the DDA places a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments in certain circumstances which might help disabled people get or keep jobs. This might involve changes to their employment practices or their premises in a range of ways.
Clearly "reasonableness" is likely to go a long way to ensuring that small employers are not unfairly burdened. But we need to find out more about how the courts and tribunals are interpreting the concept of reasonableness to help us inform and reassure these small employers. At the moment, for example, early evidence from research, which we hope will be published in the spring, is that there was concern about what might count as reasonable among employers who were asked. These employers are those who have been covered by the DDA since December 1995. There was an expectation among such employers that case law would probably make the position clearer over time but also a belief that more guidance was needed despite a detailed code of practice. Guidance is one of the things which the commission will be able to provide.
We have to help improve the situation for disabled people, but I am not sure that the right way is to have the very smallest employers simply learn by trial and error how this law applies to them and their disabled employees and recruits. Such employers do not generally have specialist personnel who can devote time and expertise to dealing with some of these issues. I know that some small firms and their representative organisations are concerned about the consequences of making relatively small mistakes but paying a heavy price at an employment tribunal. Legal costs, even if an employer is in the right, can be large.
Of course, disability issues are often fairly straightforward, particularly if the employer is sensible enough to ask the disabled individual about what might be needed. As regards what my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester said, I certainly would not want to give the impression that disability is a problem for employers, nor that employing disabled people is an expensive issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about compliance costs. The cost of lowering the threshold further is not huge when spread over all the employers concerned. Our consultation document suggested that it might cost employers an extra £2.7 million had the threshold been lowered to its minimum of two. However, in practice, as I am sure the noble Baroness had in mind when she spoke earlier, the costs are not spread evenly but fall unevenly on individual employers. Much of the extra costs are legal costs and it

1673
is those which understandably concern small employers, who fear that they may be the ones who face the cost of having in some cases made an unintentional mistake.
The Employment Service will continue to provide specialist help to employers wishing to take on or keep disabled employees, although it cannot give advice on the law; but the DRC will also help to ensure that there is appropriate awareness-raising and provision of information and advice.
We have already begun the process by improving the DDA helpline. It provides an increasing range of information on the DDA and can now assist business and others with queries about employing disabled people by helping them make contact with specialist organisations. I am pleased that so many voluntary organisations have joined with us to make this system work. My honourable friend the Minister for disabled people is also developing a communications strategy, in co-operation with the National Disability Council and disability and employer bodies, to help ensure that small businesses and others are more informed and aware. We are also undertaking a range of research which will help us further inform and reassure business and underpin future decisions concerning small employers.
In response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, where the DDA is not clear, case law will establish uncertain points. I am confident that our courts will never resort to resolving such issues by counting up total numbers of disabled employees.
In the ways that I have set out, we are trying to establish a climate in which the DRC can look positively at whether the time is right for further change and we are building up evidence to ensure that any change is effective. On that basis, the Government consider that they should wait for the establishment of the DRC before considering when and how the threshold should be lowered. Recognising how strongly my noble friend feels about this, I hope that in these circumstances in the light of what I have said, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I do feel strongly, as my noble friend said. This has been an extraordinary debate. I am very disappointed with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch; I am astounded at some of the points she raised. I am also disappointed with my noble friend the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that small businesses are sensitive to the needs of their workers. I do not see how she can generalise in that way. Does she mean all small businesses? We are not concerned with those who are sensitive to the needs of their workers. Good luck to them; we all support them. We are concerned only with those who are insensitive. Unless the noble Baroness can prove to the Committee that all small businesses are sensitive, there is a need to tackle the minority—admittedly, it is a minority—of small businesses which are insensitive. That must be taken into account.
Someone mentioned moral obligations. That is wonderful language and a fine and noble concept, but we do not guarantee a defence against discrimination by
1674
moral obligations. We are concerned only with those small employers who do not care about moral obligations and are prepared to discriminate.
It is said that small employers want to act voluntarily. That again is a great philanthropic attitude. I support and applaud those small employers who want voluntarily to avoid discriminating against their workers, but we must take into account the small minority.
My noble friend talked about timing. I do not see that timing is relevant; it is utterly irrelevant. All we seek to do to implement this change is to enable the Government to include practically all small employers in the measure, apart from those with fewer than two workers. That is all we seek. Where is the problem as regards timing?
As regards difficulties of small employers, I repeat that it is not possible for any barrister, solicitor or judge to say that unreasonable burdens can be imposed on small employers. The Disability Discrimination Act specifically states that only reasonable accommodation must be made. Therefore it is not possible to establish a ruling in the courts that unreasonable burdens will be imposed.
My noble friend also referred to the concept of going too far too soon. I am prepared to forgive her for that as it is the first cliché she has used in two hours of debate. Therefore I shall let her get away with that. But why are we going too far? We are simply asking small employers not to discriminate. What is unreasonable about that? What is so horrific in that for small employers? What is horrific about not discriminating against disabled people? We are not asking for the moon. We are simply asking for fairness and, to mention a high-flown concept, justice.
I am afraid that my noble friend has let us down today. We cannot accept that because Margaret Hodge and her colleagues are discussing a communications strategy and research, that is the answer. That is not the answer. We welcome a communications strategy and research, but what we want basically is a defence for disabled people against those small employers who are prepared to discriminate against them. However, as my noble friend will obviously consider this matter, lose much sleep over it, and try to come back on Report with a positive suggestion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to return to a point that he made. If I referred to all small employers, I apologise. I thought I had said that many employers address the needs of their employees in a sensitive manner, particularly as regards their disabled employees. I made the point that the noble Earl made; namely, the likelihood of an employer addressing the needs of his employees is greater where a small number of employees is involved and where therefore the employers come face to face with their employees and with the physical difficulties that many of them experience. Therefore, as I say, I think in that case it is more likely that those needs will be attended to.
I made an appeal for the commission to be set up and to allow it to spend some of its time and its energy working with small employers to help them meet the

1675
needs of their employees—sometimes these needs are not met through ignorance—at a cost which they can bear. However, at the end of the day, the cost of compliance may threaten the survival of some small employers. That fact cannot be completely disregarded. One must consider the implications of having a job, albeit with imperfect arrangements being made for employees, as opposed to having no job at all. That is at least a consideration that has to be taken into account. I was appealing for that factor to be taken into account, but for the commission to continue to work with employers in this regard.
Further, I see no argument for exempting businesses with two employees. I can see an argument for exempting a business comprising one person as at least a self-employed person can reach a judgment as to whether the arrangements he or she is working under are acceptable. However, if we include firms with two employees in the provision, why not include those with one employee as and when that is possible with the agreement and consensus of employers, and when the Government have assessed how the commission is working?
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Carter: Before we proceed to the next amendment, I must put a proposition to the Committee. I know that there is a desire to finish the Committee stage before we discuss the orders. However, to be fair to those who will discuss the orders we should try to finish the Committee stage by about eight o'clock. I do not in any way wish to curtail the debate. If it is not possible to finish by that time, we shall have to break for dinner and then return to the Committee stage. However, if we could finish the Committee stage by eight o'clock I believe that would be in everyone's interest.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 9, line 6, after ("day") insert ("no later than 1st January 2000").
The noble Lord said: I firmly believe that by securing an early legislative opportunity for the establishment of a disability rights commission this Government have signalled their commitment to civil rights for disabled people. This is a move which all of us here wholeheartedly welcome. Some may therefore consider it a trite point to seek a definitive date for the full operation of the commission. However, history has taught caution in these matters. We should consider the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act which was given Royal Assent in 1986. Four sections of the Act have never been implemented over a decade later. Five sections were implemented in the year following Royal Assent and
1676
only two sections came into effect in the same year as the Bill was passed. We need a commission to enforce the rights of disabled people as a matter of urgency. The Disability Discrimination Act has lacked teeth for far too long. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I support this amendment. In the 22 years that I have spent in this Chamber I have seen many parts of Acts passed which have not yet been brought into force. Some of those have been repealed before they have been brought into force. That adds weight to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I believe that to impose a deadline with regard to this measure is a sensible step and would concentrate the Government's mind wonderfully.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is in a hurry to establish the commission, and understandably so. I know that view is shared by many Members of the Committee who over the years have spent so much time in promoting the rights of disabled people. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, was kind enough to say, the Government share that sense of urgency. The Disability Rights Task Force was announced within months of the Government coming into power and established in December 1997. It made its recommendations on the role and functions of the disability rights commission before Easter 1998. Those recommendations formed the basis of a White Paper that was launched in July 1998. The public consultation lasted until October and the Bill received its Second Reading on 17th December. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that we have worked to a tight timetable.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has pointed out, his amendment seeks to include on the face of the Bill a deadline for the establishment of the commission and bringing into effect all the provisions of this Bill.
However, we must ensure that when the commission is established, it is able to begin to address the tasks that will face it. The preparatory work involved in setting up a new commission is considerable, for example the appointment of commissioners; the recruitment and training of staff; the procurement and possible adaptation of premises; and the design and installation of communication and office systems. Initial planning of this work has already begun but much of this work cannot commence until the Bill has received Royal Assent and the Chairman and Commissioners are appointed. It must be right for them to lead the work on putting in place the arrangements for this independent body.
While I am sure we all share the view that the commission should be operational as soon as possible, we do not believe that it would be realistic to complete the preparatory work in six months. My honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People has indicated that we expect the DRC to be established in spring 2000. We think that this is the earliest practicable date if we are to expect this new body of commissioners to get things right. But of course final decisions will need to be taken in consultation with the chairman. For those reasons I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Rix: If the Minister could possibly define when the spring of 2000 will be, I would feel able to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It would be a very unwary Minister who defined the meaning of "spring" in parliamentary or Whitehall terms. I cannot do anything more than say that spring 2000 is the date when the commission is expected to be established. The Government are determined to speed this along as much as we possibly can.
Lord Rix: I assume that we are now talking about the spring equinox, 21st March 2000. I hope that that date will be noted by the Minister. With that possible prompt for a speedy introduction of the disability rights commission, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Constitution etc.]:
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 10, line 11, at end insert (", some of whom shall have knowledge and experience of sensory impairment, learning disability and mental health problems").
The noble Lord said: At the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke, whose name is on the Marshalled List, I rise to move Amendment No. 22 and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 23. Again, I shall be brief.
The purpose of Amendment No. 22 is to trigger debate on the necessary breadth of knowledge, understanding and experience—both of types of impairment and disability discrimination—that it will be necessary to have among the commissioners. It is important that between them the commissioners should have knowledge of the full range of impairments and of disability discrimination. It is also important that among them there should be people with direct experience of the major types of impairment: physical and sensory impairments, as well as learning disabilities.
The purpose of Amendment No. 23 is to ensure that the proviso that more than half the commissioners should at all times be disabled people holds for all appointments. This is an issue of principle for disability organisations, which believe that personal experience of disability should be an important aspect informing the work of the commissioners. While there are many other necessary attributes for the post, if one accepts the premise that personal experience is desirable, the clause exempting the Secretary of State from applying the 51 per cent. quota for the position of chair sends the message that there are no suitably qualified disabled candidates. The chairman is the public face of the commission and can send a powerful message to employers and service providers about the abilities and rights of disabled people, among whom there will be many suitable candidates for the chairmanship.
I look forward very much to what my very good friend the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will say about the amendment. I know that it will be eminently worth our attention. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: In withdrawing my amendment which was specifically about learning disability in order to support the more general amendment, Amendment No. 22, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, I still wish to press the point regarding the importance of a person with a learning disability, with appropriate support, serving as a commissioner. I have already expressed this view to the Minister and I received a most courteous but, alas, fairly negative reply.
I agree that to capture the range of impairments in five or six categories may seem artificial and that it would tend towards the medical rather than the social model of disability—I am referring to her letter. Nevertheless, I believe that people with a learning disability are in a very definite category of their own. To begin with, the greatest cause of disability at birth is a learning disability. At first, the problems may be confined to the medical arena. However, as learning disabled people grow from babyhood to childhood, from childhood to adolescence to adulthood, the medical needs of many become no more and no less than their peers born without a disability. The problems then are social, educational and of course the quality of life.
Recently MENCAP has altered its constitution to ensure that people with a learning disability are on its councils. The Minister, Paul Boateng, when involved with the Department of Health, promised at the MENCAP conference in September last year that people with a learning disability would be serving on the health authorities and health boards before the end of this Parliament. The Royal College of Psychiatrists believes that these changes will have a profound effect for the better on the self-belief of people with a learning disability.
Recently the Millennium Commission awarded MENCAP nearly £2 million to ensure that people with a learning disability would receive training to enable them to take up many more responsible positions in life. Some of the money will be spent on training 150 people with a learning disability each year for three years, plus their enablers-900 people in all—to make it possible for them to serve on committees, councils, boards—and to be commissioners.
I know that there are many who believe that a person with a learning disability serving on a committee is a contradiction in terms. If you have been concerned with learning disability as long as I have, you will know that the range of ability is very great indeed—from those who are profoundly and multiply disabled, to those who are severely disabled, like my daughter, to those who have a learning disability which is barely indistinguishable from a learning difficulty.
Unhappily, the world outside seems to think of the needs of a person with a physical disability as being paramount. Next in the queue—if they are lucky—come

1679
people with sensory impairments, while people with a learning disability or a mental health problem are not considered to be fit to join the queue at all.
Acceptance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will ensure that the Government are in no way a party to that view, and a major step will have been taken to ensure that the least respected and least represented in our society are truly being granted their disability rights.
Lord Swinfen: I support these amendments. There is a fear of people with learning disabilities which also extends to people with physical disabilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, there is a range of learning disabilities. The Committee knows that for a number of years I have spoken in the House about disability. For a number of years I have been briefed on Bills by people with learning disabilities—and very good they have been too. They know their subject very much better than I do and I found it extremely useful. I say this to emphasise the fact that the commission must have among its commissioners people with a wide range of experience of different types of disability.
As to Amendment No. 29, I am sure that there will be commissioners who are profoundly deaf. They will need interpreters for sign language. We must have people there for the purposes of advocacy or communication support for the commissioners. There will be other support staff, but let us not forget these special ones.
Lord Addington: The purpose of these amendments is to draw the Government's attention to the fact that the people who know these problems best are those who have direct experience of them. If you are disabled, you know what that is like and you know what discrimination is like. These amendments draw to the Government's attention that unless they include these people they are ignoring those who have the best knowledge of the subject. If they accept these amendments—or some like them—they will be drawing in expertise to the exact place where it can do the most good.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I warmly support Amendment No. 22. It is important to have commissioners with experience of each of the major types of disability. It is particularly important to mention those with learning disabilities and those with mental health problems. MIND says that the latter face particular discrimination and stigma. I was horrified to read on page 15 of the February issue of Disability Now that David Grayson, who is the chair of the National Disability Council, says that when a person with a mental disability tries to explain in a job interview the gaps in his CV he will sometimes attribute it to his being in prison because he thinks that someone who has been in prison has a better chance of getting the job than someone who has a history of mental health difficulties.
I just want to say from personal experience—my noble friend Lady Masham would also say this but, unfortunately, she cannot be present today—that the
1680
best way of getting to understand people's problems is by getting to know them and going around with them. When I have been the only person with a disability on a committee the other members have learnt by going to the canteen with me and going around seeing things. That is the way they learn. They say, "My goodness, I did not realise the problems you face". It is not the obvious problems but the others in day-to-day life that they discover. In its briefing MENCAP says that choosing a commissioner with a learning disability will be a positive message to people with learning difficulties. I think it will be an extremely positive message and a real learning experience for the other commissioners and the people with whom the commissioners will come into contact in the course of their work.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: As we will run past eight o'clock if we are not careful, I want just 30 seconds to express my support for the amendment in my name. Only disabled people know what disability means. Therefore, that knowledge is crucial to being on the commission. I believe that the chairman should be disabled. I know of the argument that there should be a random sample, but I believe that the chairman should be disabled. That would send a signal to the great British public about how well disabled people can do the job. The experience is vital.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to speak briefly to my Amendment No. 28, which is looking more and more anomalous in this group of amendments. It should be for the commission to appoint its chief executive and not the Secretary of State.
Lord Thurlow: I should like strongly to support the substance of Amendment No. 22 in relation to mental health. I say "the substance" because I am not happy about the amendment's wording. My point is that the field of mental health is a separate universe in the realm of medicine. One cannot handle problems of mental health unless one has had experience of it. I do not think the present wording would meet the problem. One does not necessarily want on the commission people who are mentally ill or have mental illness. It is more important that the other half of the commission should have someone with this specific knowledge and experience. I do not see how the commission can responsibly deal with mental health problems otherwise. Subject to that reservation about the wording, I strongly support the substance of the amendment.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may begin with some general remarks about this group of amendments. In common with all public bodies, the appointment of commissioners to the commission will be made in accordance with guidance issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. As such, the process will be open, transparent and fair.
Through Amendment No. 22, my noble friends seek to ensure that some commissioners have knowledge of sensory impairment, learning difficulties and mental

1681
health problems. It must be right that between them the commissioners have the range of experience necessary to ensure from the start that the commission establishes credibility with all its key stakeholders. To do its job properly, it must understand the needs of disabled people and also those of employers and service providers. The Secretary of State will of course seek to appoint commissioners so that, collectively, they have a wide range of knowledge and experience and so that an appropriate balance is struck between the relevant interests. Much can be expected of a commission of 10 to 15 strong, and when making the appointments the Secretary of State will, I am sure, be keen to try to ensure that there are commissioners with a knowledge of the issues affecting people with sensory impairments, learning difficulties—about which so many Members of the Committee have spoken in the debate—and those with mental health problems.
The Disability Rights Task Force considered the question of whether the legislation should specify the type of experience the commissioners should have. It concluded that that would not be appropriate as it would incline towards the medical rather than the social model of disability. It also concluded that it would be impossible to ensure that people with personal experience of all types of disabilities and impairments were appointed, given the need to keep the number of commissioners at a reasonable level.
I am sure noble Lords will appreciate the difficulties of including a list in legislation. Were we to accept that approach, would we not have to consider extending the list further? For example, what about people with a knowledge of physical impairment? Any list is unlikely to be exhaustive; and if it were, it would be impossible that a commission of 10 to 15 members could have direct knowledge and experience of everything on the list.
The commission will be able to draw in expertise from elsewhere, as and when required, and it will have an important role in working with organisations representing the whole range of interests. This will help in no small measure to ensure that the commission has at its disposal the range of expertise that it will need.
Before addressing Amendment No. 23, I shall need to speak first about Amendment No. 24, which seeks to ensure that the chair or deputy chair has personal experience of disability. I can be very brief about this. It seems inconceivable that people with a disability will not present themselves as the best people for the job of chairman or deputy chairman or possibly both.
I return now to Amendment No. 23. I welcome the debate on the issue of the first three appointments in that it gives me an opportunity to clarify the Government's intention. I can assure the Committee that the intention is not that the first three appointments should not be disabled people. Indeed, the provision would allow the first three appointments to be disabled people. But to do without the provision would mean that the first two appointments must be disabled people. Noble Lords will, I am sure, understand that there needs to be flexibility in the order of the appointment of commissioners. The provision to include the first three
1682
appointments from majority arrangements is just a practical one. The ultimate aim is to ensure a majority of disabled commissioners. We certainly will not want to lose sight of that.
I turn briefly to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It is important that the first chief executive has a role in shaping the commission before it is open for business. Indeed, he or she must be appointed early enough in the process to take a lead in setting up the practical arrangements for the commission. We want to get on as fast as possible with that. It is important that he or she is appointed as soon as possible after Royal Assent if we are to be up and running by the Spring of 2000. The commission would hardly be in a position to undertake the appointment at this early stage but I can assure the noble Baroness that the Secretary of State will consult fully the newly appointed chair over the appointment of the chief executive. In the light of what I have said, I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morris of Manchester: Although I am strongly convinced that we must return to this issue, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 10, line 22, at end insert ("so long as his total continuous term of office does not exceed 10 years").
The noble Baroness said: I shall be brief. Amendments Nos. 25 and 27 are in my name, and Amendment No. 26 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley; however, they all meet the same point. We seek to introduce into the Bill limited terms of office both for commissioners and for the chairman and deputy chairman. The amendments are self-evident regarding the time limits for the appointments. However, I wish to point out that I have included the word "continuous" in Amendment No. 25 in order that a person could be re-appointed at some later date but could not serve a continuous appointment for longer than 10 years. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gardner of Parkes): I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 26 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 27.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Amendment No. 25 from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, seeks to put a 10-year limit on the amount of time a commissioner may serve. Amendment No. 26 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Ashley, Lord Addington and Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, seeks to ensure that the chair and deputy chair of the commission serve for specified periods. Amendment No. 27 from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has a similar effect.
The guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments indicates that we should allow flexibility so that appointments can be made for between

1683
two and five years and Schedule 1 to the Bill replicates that. The guidance recognises that re-appointments are also acceptable. It stipulates that, overall, and taking account of one re-appointment, posts should normally be held for no longer than between six and 10 years. Given the terms of the guidance, it is inconceivable that a commissioner will ever serve longer than 10 years.
Regarding chairs and deputy chairs, noble Lords will, I am sure, understand that to appoint a chairman and deputy chairman rigidly for a minimum of four years—or indeed a fixed term of five years—is inflexible and may not necessarily prove to be in the best interests of the commission and its key stakeholders. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise the wisdom of avoiding a situation in which several, if not most, of the commissioners, including the chair and deputy chair, are required to stand down during the same year, for no reason other than that the Secretary of State was required by this amendment to appoint them for a similar fixed term. Furthermore, noble Lords will sympathise with the personal circumstances of potential commissioners who are simply not in a position to accept re-appointment lasting for a minimum of four years, and who may be forced therefore to decline the offer of appointment or re-appointment. Generally, it will be our intention to make these appointments for more than two years in the first instance.
For those reasons, I ask the noble Lords and the noble Baroness to withdraw these amendments.
Baroness Blatch: I shall read the Minister's remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 not moved.]
Baroness Gould of Potternewton Baroness Gould of Potternewton moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 12, leave out line 28 and insert ("publish it within six weeks").
The noble Baroness said: I, too, wish to lend my support to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31.
I tabled this amendment in order to receive clarification that the annual report would be publicly available. The report is important for three reasons. It will provide ways in which the public and people with disabilities will be able to judge how effectively the commission is working, how it is carrying out its functions and responsibilities. A study of the proceedings of the Disability Rights Commission will provide an indicator as to the effectiveness of the Disability Discrimination Act, its strengths and weaknesses. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, an understanding of the work of the commission will help voluntary organisations to be more effective in their own work of campaigning, raising awareness etc. Information such as the details of the number of cases, the type of issues and what kind of action was undertaken by the commission will enable organisations which represent people with disabilities to see where particular difficulties arise. A voluntary organisation might then, for instance, choose to direct
1684
awareness-raising campaigns towards training for a particular group—employers, cinema managers, social security or council officers etc.
To satisfy any of those points, publication of the report will need to be prompt and not be delayed for any reasons. I am not certain that the present wording ensures that. It may be that it is mandatory on the Secretary of State to publish the report. If that is the case, it should be clearly expressed.
I specified a period of six weeks in the amendment. It is a rather arbitrary limit. I should be happy if the period were much shorter.
I wish to say a brief word on Amendment No. 31 on accessible formats. The commission must clearly comply with the Act and publish the report in accessible formats for people with disabilities. Further, it should be in plain English and simple language so that it is easily communicable to all people with disabilities. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I support this group of amendments. In relation to Amendment No. 31 on accessible formats perhaps I may put in a little plug for a brownie point for the White Paper which contained the proposals for establishing the commission. MENCAP said that it was a model of good practice from the point of view of clarity for people with learning disabilities. Therefore, it is only logical that the report should be equally so.
Lord Rix: Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 stand in my name. I shall be brief as the time available is very short. It is a sine qua non that the report needs to be published in a formula accessible to people with sensory impairments or learning disability. I cannot believe that the Government would rule against Amendment No. 31.
Turning to Amendment No. 32, the constitution of the commission should be subject to review so that improvements could be made—possibly the guaranteed insertion of people with physical disabilities, sensory disabilities, learning disabilities and mental health problems.
Earl Russell: I support Amendment No. 30. All governments have published controversial reports on the day before the Summer Recess!
Lord Swinfen: I wish to ask a rather impish question. Some time ago the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that the report would be presented to the Welsh Assembly. Will it be in Welsh?
Baroness Blackstone: Starting with Amendment No. 30, on speed of publication, I assure my noble friend Lady Gould that publication of the annual report will occur as soon as is practicable after all the necessary administrative procedures have been dealt with. Indeed, I believe it is common practice for the reports to be published on the day that they are laid before Parliament. To provide a statutory timescale in legislation would, I believe, unnecessarily constrain matters. I hope that my noble friend will agree not to press her amendment.

1685
I turn now to Amendment No. 31. It must be right that the Disability Rights Commission should produce its annual report in a range of formats that will make it accessible to a wide range of disabled people—not just on demand, but in anticipation of a clear need. To that extent, I welcome the intention behind the amendment. Noble Lords will appreciate that experience and time will inform what that need is. Indeed, I hope and expect that the commission will adopt this principle when it issues other documentation intended for use by disabled people.
I turn now to Amendment No. 32. As a non-departmental public body, the commission will be subject to a review every five years, during which it will have to show that it provides the best framework for carrying out the functions with which it is charged. The review may consider both the powers and the constitution of the body. In addition, the Department for Education and Employment has a policy of subjecting every new non-departmental public body to a financial management survey 18 months after establishment. The commission will also have to produce and lay before Parliament an annual report. Noble Lords need be in no doubt that the commission will be under close scrutiny from many quarters to ensure that it is meeting its obligations. We do not believe that an additional review of the constitution of the commission will add anything to the quality of its service. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, the DRC report will need to comply with the requirements of the Welsh Language Act.
8 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: In light of the Minister's reply and the assurance that there will be early publication of the report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Formal investigations and nondiscrimination notices]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 16, line 7, at end insert—
("(5) Where the Commission refuses to receive oral representations under sub-paragraph (4), it shall give reasons for that refusal in writing to the parties concerned.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall be very brief in moving Amendment No. 33. The simple request behind this amendment is that where the commission refuses to receive oral representations under sub-paragraph (4) it shall give reasons for that refusal in writing. I believe that the Minister will find it hard to refuse that request. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Schedule 3 provides for the person on whom a non-discrimination notice is served to have the opportunity to make both written and oral representations. Furthermore, it allows a period of 28 days for any such representations to be made.
1686
Paragraph 8(4) enables the commission to refuse to receive oral representations on behalf of the person concerned by someone whom it has reasonable grounds to consider unsuitable. Similar provisions to this are to be found in the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act. As far as I am aware, there have been no suggestions that the existing commissions have exercised their powers inappropriately, and I believe the new commission must be trusted to exercise its judgment in a fair and balanced manner.
I reassure the Committee that the Government fully expect that almost invariably it will be right for the commission to give its reasons and that in 99.9 per cent. of cases it will do so. However, should it decide in the unusual circumstances of a particular case that some good reason exists to refuse to do so, then the courts, which will be able to approach the matter knowing the exact circumstances that have arisen, will be well placed to adjudicate. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand the case for being chary about imposing a rigid rule on the commission in such circumstances and therefore will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I shall withdraw the amendment, but I believe that the arguments for giving reasons are very powerful. I shall return to this matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No.2) Order 1999
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Amos Baroness Amos rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Baroness Hollis of Heigham I beg to move the order standing in her name on the Order Paper.
During the drafting of the original uprating order a transcription error meant that the amount of benefit for widowers' pensions in industrial injuries benefits was shown as £66.25 whereas the actual uprated amount equals £66.75. This is the corrected order. This matter was fully discussed in the House on the 21st January. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice No.5)Order 1998
8.5 p.m.
Lord Hoyle Lord Hoyle rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 15th December 1998 be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, police powers to stop and search are contained in a number of different statutes. The Code of Practice A issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) is a very important document because it specifies how the police should exercise their powers to conduct stops and searches. A draft revised Code A has been laid before Parliament because it is necessary to update it to reflect changes in legislation. At the same time the opportunity is being taken to clarify how searches under stop and search powers are to be conducted. The majority of the proposed revisions to Code A are purely consequential to the changes in legislation which have already been approved by Parliament.
Section 8 of the Knives Act 1997 amended Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It allows an inspector to authorise the exercise of stop and search powers for up to 24 hours if he or she reasonably believes that incidents involving serious violence may take place or that people are carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons in a specified locality in the police area. Section 25 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 further amended Section 60 of the 1994 Act. It provides a power for a constable to require the removal of, and to seize, items used to conceal identity within the specified locality for which authority under Section 60 of the 1994 Act has been given. Section 13B of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 allows an officer of the rank of assistant chief constable, where it appears expedient to do so to prevent acts of terrorism, to authorise his officers in a specific area to stop and search pedestrians and anything carried by them for articles which could be used for terrorist purposes.
As for the conduct of searches under stop/search powers, Code A currently requires any search involving more than the removal of an outer coat, jacket or gloves to be done,
"out of public view, for example in a police van or police station if there is one nearby".
Code A does not currently specify the extent of a search that may be conducted in a police van, nor does it specify how searches conducted at a nearby police station are to be conducted. Consequently, there is uncertainty about the procedures for conducting these searches and the relationship with the procedures for searching detainees at police stations contained in PACE Code C on detention. A revision is proposed so that searches involving exposure of intimate parts of the body may not take place in the back of a police van. If such a search involves a juvenile (under 17 years old) the presence of an appropriate adult will be required, as is already required for similar searches under Code C on detention.
It is a statutory requirement under Section 67 of PACE that when the Secretary of State wishes to revise a PACE code of practice there must be a public consultation exercise before the revised code is placed before Parliament for approval. A draft revised Code A was therefore published together with a consultation paper in August 1998. I am pleased to say that in general the proposed revisions were welcomed. In particular, all of the police associations have welcomed the proposed revisions resulting from changes in legislation. Both the Police Federation and the Superintendents Association have warmly welcomed the clarification on the conduct of searches under stop/search powers. This is a most encouraging response from the police service.
There is concern about the actual way in which the police exercise their stop and search powers. Publication last December of the results of the second year's ethnic monitoring of police activity shows black people in particular are still getting disproportionate attention from the police.
We are currently awaiting the report of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence. Getting to grips with the issue of stop and search will be one of the key challenges for the police service as it works to gain the trust and confidence of all sections of the community.
The Government welcome the initiative that is under way in the Metropolitan Police Service to ensure that stop and search is used fairly and effectively—by focusing on ensuring that managers control the way in which the power is used and challenge unfair practices. Also most welcome is the work being taken forward by the Association of Chief Police Officers which will lead to a good practice guide for forces on the effective use of ethnic monitoring data.
Managing the use of the power is the key. That is why we have included a new note for guidance in the draft code which emphasises the importance of supervising officers considering and addressing any evidence that stop and search powers were being used in a discriminatory way.
The Government propose to commence Section 8 of the Knives Act and Section 25 of the Crime and Disorder Act at the same time that the revised Code A would, subject to the agreement of this House, come into force—that is, on 1st March 1999. Section 13B of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act came into force on 3rd April 1996. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. We on these Benches are content with the order.
Lord McNally: My Lords, when an order such as this comes before the House it is important that we have some discussion of its implications. As a society we have a somewhat schizophrenic view of police powers. Polls indicate that people are concerned about crime, even in areas where the level of crime is relatively low. They want to see the bobby on the beat. They want a tough line against criminals and terrorists; yet that same society is jealous of its civil liberties and reluctant to give the police excessive powers.

1689
I wish to draw attention to one part of the code. As the Minister indicated, it is a matter of ongoing concern and, I suspect, ongoing debate. I refer to the use of stop and search powers in relation to ethnic minorities. In his evidence to the Lawrence Inquiry, Sir Paul Condon said:
There is considerable concern about the disproportionate application of police powers to some minority ethnic groups, especially those powers involving a significant element of discretion. London is becoming increasingly diverse and we accept that our officers are not fully equipped to deal with the increasingly rich diversity of the public we serve".
As the Minister said, black people are five times more likely to be stopped and searched. Sir Herman Ouseley said:
"For too long the police in particular have acted as if they are untouchable when it comes to any disciplinary action involving ethnic minorities or allegations of racism. They have felt few constraints preventing them from treating black people as more likely to be criminals than the victims of crime, even though the facts show this not to be the case".
We on these Benches particularly welcome Note 4DA of the guidance which asks supervising officers to monitor any evidence that officers are using their discretion on the basis of stereotype images of certain persons or groups. There is a need for the police to be aware that the powers in this order are special powers to be used in specified circumstances. We welcome the emphasis of courteousness and consideration and the request to be aware of religious sensitivities.
We live in a less deferential society, and in many ways a society more difficult to police. As I have said in previous debates, I grew up on stories from my father of a very tough part of Liverpool which was policed by a policeman affectionately known as "Klearoff' because when he saw trouble brewing that is what he told the assembly to do. Today's police have to deal with much tougher problems: drugs; terrorism; an increased use of firearms and knives; and an increase in casual violence. On these Benches we recognise that when the police have to implement such orders, they are not dealing with choir boys or even choir girls. We recognise that we often ask our police officers to go into extremely tough and dangerous situations.
We also recognise the fact—it is a matter in which we can take considerable pride—that the sight of a policeman coming round the corner in our society in the main is a reassuring rather than a threatening sight for the great majority of our citizens. That is a matter in which both the police and we can take pride. But that remains true as long as both Parliament and police are alert to the implications of legislation, and that legislation should be drawn up not only with the operational needs of the police in mind but also with due care to civil liberties.
We believe that in the order and guidance the Government have got it right. We urge that in their implementation there should be consistency, sensitivity and integrity. In that way the police will retain public confidence and trust, which is the prerequisite of good policing in a free and civilised society.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the officer to whom the noble Lord referred was unlike some policemen I have
1690
heard on Merseyside in using a phrase like "Clear off'. I thought that he might have used the somewhat stronger language to which we are accustomed in the north-west.
I welcome the support given for the order. Perhaps I may add to what has been said about the need for stop and search powers to be used fairly. The Association of Chief Police Officers has set up a project to develop the effective use of Section 95 data which will inform the development of a good practice guide. The Metropolitan Police Service has reviewed its use of stop and search and has developed a plan to manage the tactic fairly and effectively. It will pilot that on five sites of the Metropolitan Police Service. It will also be tried out at one site in Nottinghamshire.
The HMIC thematic inspection report on police community and race relations and the reinspection of 15 forces which is nearing completion will be used also to assess progress. A new contract providing the police service with training on police, race and community relations began on 1st January 1999. The move is a force-based approach to training because that will allow local needs to be identified and addressed. I hope that that also meets the needs of the noble Lords who spoke tonight.
I trust that the House will approve the draft order which will allow the revised code to come into effect on 1st March.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 1999
8.20 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 1999.
The purpose of this order is to adjust temporarily the shares of National Lottery income to good causes so as to provide the New Opportunities Fund with the funding we promised it in September last to deliver three new initiatives.
The Government announced their intention in the 1997 White Paper, The People's Lottery, to establish a New Opportunities Fund. The National Lottery Act 1998 made this a reality. NOF, as it is generally known, will fund initiatives in health, education and the environment. There is no question of the lottery taking over core funding responsibilities for these areas. This expenditure will be additional to core government support. NOF was officially launched last Friday, when it invited applications for its first initiative—healthy living centres.
We were able to create NOF without disadvantaging the existing good causes. It had originally been told to plan on the basis that it would receive 20 per cent. of the £9 billion which it was anticipated would be raised over the course of the operator's licence, which ends in

1691
September 2001. This amounted to £1.8 billion each. In the event, it became clear that the National Lottery was likely to raise an additional £1 billion, taking income to the good causes to £10 billion. It is this additional £1 billion which made possible the initial NOF programmes.
The National Lottery continues to be a great success. We now estimate that income to the good causes will be at least £10.6 billion over the lifetime of the licence, which is £600 million more than our previous estimate. We announced in September last year that this additional money would be split between NOF, which would get an additional £400 million, and arts, sports, heritage and charities—which would get an additional £50 million each. So rather than £1.8 billion, arts, sports, heritage and charities can now expect £1.85 billion over the life of the licence. The Millennium Commission, about which I will say more later, is not affected.
In deciding how best to allocate the additional £600 million, we kept in mind the pressures on the good causes. But we also needed to balance this against the opportunity to use the additional money for pressing priorities in health, education and environment. We believe that the split proposed strikes the right balance. It gives arts, sports, heritage and charities £50 million more than originally expected. And it allows NOF to launch significant new initiatives.
The original three initiatives were announced in September and will support regular out-of-school activities; training teachers and librarians to use technology; and a core network of healthy living centres. The additional £400 million will allow NOF to develop three further initiatives. We published our proposals for these in November last year, in the consultation document, New Links for the Lottery. The three initiatives are: green spaces and sustainable communities, which will help urban and rural communities across the UK to understand, improve and care for their natural and living environment; cancer prevention, detection, treatment and care, which will build on local fund-raising to address local needs; community access to lifelong learning. We also proposed an expansion to the after schools initiative to find 250,000 new summer school places.
We have received well over 300 responses to our consultation and are currently considering them. The vast majority welcomed our ideas. We hope very soon to bring to the House an order to establish the new initiatives.
The order changes the percentage shares of the affected good causes. If we did not do so, the current percentage split would mean that only £200 million of the additional £600 million would flow through to NOF, rather than £400 million as intended. The purpose of this order, therefore, is to transfer a further £200 million to NOF.
The Secretary of State and officials have been in discussion with the distribution bodies about how they would prefer this to be done. They decided that they would prefer a quick reduction as early as possible, followed by a return to their current percentage shares.
1692
This is what the order before you does. It reduces the percentage income shares to arts, sports, heritage and charities from 16⅔ per cent. to 5 per cent. for 13 weeks from 15th February until 16th May. At the end of this period, their share of lottery income reverts to 16⅔ per cent. During the same period, NOF's share increases to 60 per cent. before reverting to 13⅓ per cent. All the good causes have substantial reserves sitting in the National Lottery distribution fund and can meet all of their commitments during this period and afterwards.
We appreciate that these changes can make it more difficult for the distributing bodies to plan ahead. And we are very grateful to them for the constructive way in which they have approached this issue. The Secretary of State was able to announce yesterday for the first time that we will not change again the percentage shares to arts, sports, heritage and charities for the remainder of the licence period. This is in addition to the undertaking already given that these good causes are each guaranteed 16⅔ per cent. of lottery proceeds after the current licence expires.
This order does not directly affect the Millennium Commission, but it may be helpful if I set out how we anticipate its future funding stream developing. As we have previously announced, the Millennium Commission is assured £2.017 billion over its lifetime. At present the Millennium Commission gets 20 per cent. of money going to the good causes. It was originally planned, however, that at the end of September 1999 the percentage shares for the Millennium Commission and NOF would switch so that the Millennium Commission would receive 13⅓ per cent. (rather than 20 per cent. as at present) and NOF 20 per cent. (rather than 13⅓ per cent. as at present).
We have now decided that the Millennium Commission's share of lottery income should remain unchanged at 20 per cent. until it reaches its target of £2.017 billion. Once that figure has been reached, all of the Millennium Commission's 20 per cent. will go to NOF.
I would stress that these are our best estimates. Accurately predicting future lottery income is almost as difficult as predicting an individual draw. That is why our plans are made on the basis of cautious forecasts. if, as we all hope, more money comes through, then all the good causes will share in it. We are clear that the continued success of the National Lottery is very good news indeed for all the good causes. It is changing the face of the United Kingdom for the better and bringing benefits, direct and indirect, to all of us.
I must stress that this order does not change policy, it gives effect to policies announced last September. We have gone beyond that announcement, however, by giving the distributing bodies an undertaking that there will be no further change to their percentage shares during the rest of this licence. And this, as I have said, is in addition to the undertaking already given that these good causes are each guaranteed 16⅔ per cent. of lottery proceeds after the current licence expires. I am sure that the good causes welcome the greater certainty which this will give them now and into the future. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
8.28 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. However, I must make it clear that when the Motion is put to the House I cannot give the Government any assistance in its passage. The convention of this House is that the Opposition Front Bench does not oppose the making of an order, and I shall indeed abide by that convention. Let me make it clear, too, that I am of course in general favour of the projects which will benefit from this order in so far as at this stage we know anything much about them.
My objection is simple. It is that the Government are raiding the arts, sports and good causes lottery fund to provide for them. I was intrigued to note that the Minister said that yesterday it was possible for the Secretary of State to announce that he would not change the system of funding again. When one reads the report of the Standing Committee, the words read rather differently. What actually happened was that the Secretary of State said:
"There will be no further raid on that money".
The Secretary of State for the first time admitted that the Government are carrying out a raid on lottery funds. His admission is now on the record.
When the National Lottery was established in 1994 that was done in order to:
"restore our heritage and promote projects which will become a source of national pride".
It became a massive success story. Lottery money brought about a renaissance in the arts of Britain. It revolutionised sport. Hundreds of amateur dramatic societies, small sports clubs and local museums benefited from it. The lottery boosted the work of our charities.
The Labour Party's main source of opposition to the National Lottery at the time of its inception was that, given time, the Conservative Party would use its proceeds as a surrogate for government expenditure. Time and again it accused us of that—and it was untrue. Throughout the three years that the Conservative government presided over the lottery, no such action was taken. Today that action is being taken by a Labour Government.
We are being asked to agree to an extra £200 million being taken away from the original good causes, which are already being hit by the cuts in their allocations from 20 per cent. to 16⅔ per cent. However much the Government try to argue that the arts and good causes will still have funding, they cannot escape the fact that the lottery funds have been raided by this order—the Secretary of State himself said so.
This order also makes a mockery of the additionality principle under which it was established, despite the Minister's valiant attempt to argue that this money will
1694
not go to core funding. The Prime Minister himself originally supported the principle of additionality. He said:
"We don't believe it would be right for lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities".
That must be right. The National Lottery was not intended to be used to fund projects which are the Government's responsibilities, such as cancer care. The Government state that the New Opportunities Fund initiatives must be:
"additional to government expenditure and not a substitute for it".
The reality of the matter is that the initiatives will indeed be a substitute for government expenditure. Again, I do not for one moment say that the projects which will be funded by moneys diverted from the arts and good causes will be misspent as such. I anticipate that all the projects will be most useful and most welcome. But I argue that they should not rely upon the lottery for their funds. At the moment, of course, we do not have the details of these projects and I would not expect that we would. I appreciate that many of them are likely to be popular, but the public has not yet grasped what these raids on the lottery funds really mean for them, for the arts and for good causes. We shall do our best over the coming months to lift that veil.
In the meantime, I would be grateful on a technical matter if the Minister could explain to the House how it is possible for the New Opportunities Fund—the Minister conveniently refers to it as NOF and, in the context of the last order before this House we were told the police in Liverpool told people to "clear off'; so I wonder whether NOF will not now become something of a rude acronym in this House—to draw down 86 per cent. of its funds (£244 million) without publishing the causes to which it goes, while the rest of the five original good causes have drawn down an average of 35 per cent. because they have to wait for a private matching first.
Also, I do not believe that the Government have thought through the full implications of the New Opportunities Fund and the way in which it sits within the funding structure of central and local government departments. What happens if the Government raid the lottery to provide funds for excellent schemes which depend for their very existence—their core funding, as well as the Government's—on services funded by local governments who cannot sustain those services? To turn from the abstract to a practical example, I refer briefly to the issue of libraries.
On 1st December the Government announced that it would use part of the NOF for grants for library ICT projects. The press release of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stated that the public library network is to become a key means of giving the information have-nots access to the benefits of education and training initiatives—welcome initiatives. But the situation in our public libraries is critical. At least 50 libraries are at risk of being shut. Barnsley plans to close 23 branch libraries. My own county of Surrey is reported to be closing 16 branch libraries, and Haringey, the Minister may note, may close two or three. Islington may cut its library service so that only

1695
five open at the weekends. Librarians say that the impending closures threaten to undermine the National Year of Reading and the drive to raise literacy levels among the young.
A spokesperson of the Library Association, Sherry Jespersen, said that,
"There is a huge gap between the government's vision for libraries and the reality of closures, reduced opening hours and cutbacks".
It is not much use a central government raiding the New Opportunities Fund of arts' and charities' money to put into grants for library projects if the libraries are being closed down by local government at a fast rate of knots.
I began by saying that there was one small crumb of comfort in the Secretary of State's speech yesterday; he did pledge that the Government would not raid the lottery again. But even if that pledge is kept, there are still manifest dangers in the passage of this order. The London firm of Farrer and Co. described those dangers graphically in its response to the Secretary of State's comprehensive spending review last year. It stated:
"We fear that there is a danger in the boundary between lottery funding and Grant-in-Aid becoming so blurred as to remove any tangible difference between the two".
It concluded that:
"the loss of any practical distinction between lottery funding and Grant-in-Aid and the tying of the process of lottery distribution more closely to the strategic priorities of the department will inevitably lead to the adoption of lottery funding as an adjunct to public spending. This may result in a consequential loss of public support for the lottery, which until now has been a highly successful means of raising funds for cultural initiatives".
The danger has been identified. The warning has been given. The passage of this order is a threat to the long-term health of the lottery.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches believe that the draft report and order are excellent documents if one believes the underlying philosophy, which we do not. There is no point rehearsing the arguments; we have done that on numerous occasions and the Government will have their way. The Government have drawn away from the basic philosophy of the original lottery legislation and whether or not it is "raiding"—the noble Baroness used that word very effectively—
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I was merely quoting the Secretary of State.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, then the Secretary of State used the word "effectively". I shall not use it myself but there is no doubt that sports and the arts are underfunded in relation to those areas in many other countries and have suffered with this shift away by the Government from that which was generally agreed when the original lottery Bill went through both Houses of Parliament. But that is the way things have happened and there is nothing we can do with this order either.
My friends are now very interested in what is going on in this place for other reasons, and I tell them that our business here is amending and revising. But a lot of
1696
good it is amending and revising 60 per cent. of the time when more and more legislation comes through in this form. I understand from the White Paper that has been published on reform of the House that there is an intention that this House, however it is composed, will have even less say on legislation of this kind.
However, the original five causes have suffered. There is no getting away from that. Assuming the same input to the lottery during the first months of this year as was taken in the same period last year, each of the original five causes will lose around £47 million and receive only £20 million instead of the roughly £67 million that they should have received. On the other hand, the New Opportunities Fund will receive around £188 million more of the £244 million, instead of the £53.76 million it expected to receive.
Most of the beneficiaries of the fund—health, education and the environment—as we have argued before, should be government funded. We still hold to that view. They should not be funded from the lottery. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs particularly when the party of government so fully supported the original philosophy of the lottery—to support activities and areas of our national life that could not expect the right level of funding from normal government sources. The shift away from that philosophy has done no good. I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, but I think that the country is the poorer as a result of the legislation and the draft order.
As to the millennium fund, the millennium dome has received in the region of £450 million. That amount does not appear to be included in any figures published by the Lottery Board or the Government, which is curious.
I shall not go further because that would be pointless. The order will happen, and sport and the arts will struggle as they have always struggled. The noble Lord who is answering the debate will do his best in those areas, as he always does. It is just a great pity that we could not have organised ourselves in such a way that the lottery would be dealt with by another department of state and we could have a proper champion for the arts. If only the great skill and eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, could be used to champion the arts against another department that is trying to impose changes upon us, the country would be the richer.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: I thank the Minister for introducing the order, and I will concentrate on one point. Basically, the lottery is a tax on the working class for the benefit of the middle class. The people who administer the lottery are becoming increasingly self-conscious about that fact. My honourable friends in the other place are vociferous in raising that issue and I welcome growing awareness by the Government of what is actually happening.
I became aware of the situation when, as vice-chairman of the BBC, I used to visit the regions and talk to staff in the news departments—particularly the people producing local news. They used to tell me about applications and failures, and it soon became clear

1697
that there was a dearth of money going into working-class areas. One might argue that that was anecdotal evidence, so today I approached Camelot to ascertain the facts. They were able to identify participants by social groups. They were groups A and B, 21 per cent.; group C1, 27 per cent.; group C2 24 per cent.; and groups D and E, 28 per cent. Note the nice, even balance, with the lowest figure being 21 per cent. and the highest 28 per cent. All groups seem to be doing well and are much the same. However, those percentages do not mean anything unless one knows the number in each group and the spend per head.
When I asked Camelot they said, "We no longer track the amounts spent on the lottery by different social groups. We did once but we stopped 12 to 18 months after the lottery began". I wonder why. I have a naturally suspicious mind, so I believe that one reason that those calculations slipped out of sight was that they blew the gaff and showed that some of the poorest people in the country were coughing up to improve the conditions of the extremely well off.
I have in the past raised in the House the question of how we have been bounced by the chattering classes into constitutional reform in which virtually no one has any interest. The Prime Minister said recently that we are all becoming middle class. That is a jolly good thing because the middle class know how to work the system. The need to provide matching funds makes it much easier for middle-class areas to raise matching funds and get lottery money. There is even the new profession of consultants who will advise groups on how to milk the lottery.
The middle class are familiar with lobbying and pressurising, so it is a natural extension to use consultants to get even more money. The working class, because of their traditions and so on, are not so familiar with such methods and are therefore suffering.
I hope that the Government will continue their efforts to improve the distribution of lottery funds between social groups. It is quite wrong to have a system that plays on the hopes of one class who are hoping for a material improvement in their conditions—and for whom the lottery is a major source of secondary poverty—but which actually benefits another class, who are already comfortably off and are just looking around for subsidised entertainment to enjoy in their leisure time. I hope that my noble friend will carry on with his efforts to make lottery fund distribution much more equitable.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I have no desire to detain the House too long as we approach the unusually civilised hour at which the House is to rise this evening.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who comes to the House as well briefed as always. I also read the exchanges in Standing Committee in the other place last night, when the Secretary of State made the remarks to which my noble friend alluded and which persuaded me to speak this evening. Those remarks rather horrified me.
1698
I have no desire to enter the debate about the manner in which lottery funds are allocated or will be in future, and I do not want to score points on the theology behind the principle of additionality—which I had never heard of before reading the Standing Committee report. Nor do I question the desirability of specific projects on which the new opportunities fund will spend its money in the areas of health, education and the environment. On the face of it, those seem to be perfectly reasonable areas of expenditure for the Government to embark upon.
The nub of the matter is that however Ministers choose to portray them, those areas should, without a shadow of a doubt, benefit from mainstream government expenditure. In 1993—which seems a lifetime ago—when we started to talk in this House, in the other place and around the country about a national lottery, there were numerous debates about how and where the money should be spent. Everyone took a different view, undoubtedly slanted by their particular areas of interest. The one view that everyone had in common—none more resolutely than the then Labour Opposition—was that the fund should not be controlled by the Government and on no account should it be spent as a substitute for normal government expenditure.
Even those of us who did not like the lottery very much agreed that its purpose was to fund those things that, while worthy and desirable—such as sports, the arts, charities, national heritage and other areas—are difficult for government to fund directly for reasons we all know. What we have today is very different from that envisaged.
I have always been unhappy about the level of duty paid by the lottery to the Treasury. Few state or national lotteries that I know of pay tax to their governments—certainly not at the level imposed in the United Kingdom. I have always felt that the millennium fund is more a tool for inflating the egos of the politicians most closely involved with it and is of limited worth. However, the millennium fund was agreed by Parliament and I was personally comforted by the knowledge that it would not continue indefinitely. That comfort has evaporated with the advent of the new opportunities fund and the inflated amount that it has received at the expense of the original good causes.
The result, which no amount of clever accounting and persuasive debate can change, is that the Government now extract more money from the national lottery than any other state or national lottery in the world. The Government will have their order tonight because governments always do, but the Government should be in no doubt that their policy will widely and correctly be seen as extremely shabby and their conduct as dishonourable—both of which are to the detriment of the original and real good causes.
8.50 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Chris Smith and I learned a lesson yesterday and today that irony goes down very badly in either House of Parliament, particularly when what has been said is read in cold print after the event. Anybody who knows what

1699
happened yesterday knows perfectly well that the Secretary of State made a speech that had a text lasting perhaps 10 or 12 minutes, but which actually took three-quarters of an hour to deliver. The reason was that he was constantly attacked by a large number of Conservative Back-Benchers, not members of the committee, who went along to make and enjoy a show. Ironically, he said that there would be no further raid on that money. That is fine. The noble Baroness and the noble Viscount can make as much of a meal of it as they like. I do not begrudge them that.
However, that does not mean that any change in government policy is implied by the order. We are bringing into force something that we announced very early on. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who accused us of shabby and dishonourable conduct—those are the very words that he used—that the announcement being brought into effect by the order was made not only in the White Paper of July 1997, but also in a Labour Party document before the election when we made it absolutely clear to the electorate that we were going to do what we are doing now. We said that we were going to extend the provisions—the good causes of the lottery—from the arts, sport, heritage and charities to include initiatives in health, education and the environment.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I am certain that the noble Lord is correct when he says that. He always is. However, telling someone that you are going to behave badly does not make the behaviour better.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to behaving badly, but that is very different from what he said before about behaving shabbily and dishonourably. He and I disagree about whether that is behaving badly. I shall give my reasons for thinking that that is not behaving badly. However, he cannot legitimately claim that the behaviour is shabby or dishonourable. I fundamentally reject—
Lord Morris: My Lords, the noble Lord misses the point that the original idea of the lottery was to fund those projects that could not be funded, or had difficulty in being funded, other than through direct taxation. My noble friend was raising the point that the lottery was being abused to fund those projects that should be funded from other sources.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I regret giving way to the noble Lord. He was not in the Chamber when I first spoke to the order. He has seriously misunderstood what the Government are doing. Nevertheless, because it is my duty, I shall attempt to answer all the points raised.
I fundamentally reject the view that somehow the expenditure of lottery money on the arts, sport, heritage, charities and the millennium is good and that such expenditure on health, education and the environment is bad. I fundamentally reject the thinking behind that which is, and can only be, that expenditure on the arts, sport, heritage, charities and the millennium is
1700
expenditure which would not have come out of core government expenditure and that expenditure on initiatives on health, education and the environment is expenditure that would have come out of core government expenditure.
I take what I believe to be the more liberal view that expenditure on the arts, sport, heritage and charities by government is an essential part of the range of activities that a government should support from their own resources—in other words, from taxpayers' money. Since the lottery was established, much more has been made possible by the availability of money for expanding activities, for funding new activities, and for the allocation of moneys in accordance with the principle of additionality. That is exactly the case—no noble Lord has challenged that—for the initiatives that we announced last year in health and education and for the new initiatives on health, education and the environment that I set out in only the broadest outline today, but which will come before your Lordships in the form of an order, before Easter, I hope.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, gave the example of cancer care. We have given a good deal of detail of what is proposed for the cancer care initiative. That is not medical expenditure on the treatment of cancer. It relates to local work, in conjunction with, and in addition to, the vast amounts of money spent by charities on cancer care to improve the quality of delivery of cancer care treatment. Indeed, if that were not money additional to government expenditure, because it is so comparable to charitable money, the noble Baroness would be accusing the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, for example, of putting money into projects which should be paid for by taxpayers. She is not doing that. It is clear that the combination of charitable and lottery money (in adding to core government expenditure on cancer care) is legitimate and in line with the original intention of those who set up the National Lottery.
There is nothing in the argument that the new opportunities fund—I shall not say "NOF" if the noble Baroness does not like it—is drawing down extra money in advance whereas others have to wait for private, matching funding. Last year the National Lottery Act specifically and deliberately relaxed some of the conditions that the distributing bodies had imposed on expenditure by demanding private, matching funding. There is no difficulty in any of the existing good causes drawing down the money that they need. I made that clear in my opening speech.
The noble Baroness certainly has a point about local authority expenditure on libraries. I hasten to assure her that my circular from my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, the leader of my council, assures me that any cuts will not affect the libraries in Haringey. I do not know about the others, but it is certainly true that libraries in many parts of the country are having difficulties. Of course, the expenditure on libraries from the new opportunities fund, particularly for IT and IT training in libraries, is additional to anything which had been considered by this Government or any previous governments.

1701
I shall not trade definitions of "additionality". I have a whole series of them and I used them at excessive length when dealing with the National Lottery Bill. I believe that we have a more effective definition than the very narrow definitions which were used, for example, by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in the previous government.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that the original five good causes have suffered. I thought that I had made it quite clear that the original five good causes have not only received as much as they expected to receive when the National Lottery was set up under the first National Lottery Act, but, as a result of what is proposed today, they are receiving more than they had expected then. We are able to set up the new opportunities fund and NESTA because it has been proved that there is more money coming into the good causes from the National Lottery. It is simply not true to say that they have suffered. I cut out that bit of my speech that set out the exact distribution to the millennium fund, but I can confirm that the £2 billion for the millennium fund, to which I referred, includes the money for the Dome. However, the great bulk of funding for the millennium is for projects around the country rather than for the dome itself.
My noble friend Lord Cocks made a valid point when he said that the National Lottery is paid for disproportionately by poorer people and that in the past
1702
some of the National Lottery funds have gone to those who, as he put it, play the system. The National Lottery is not a tax and participation is voluntary. I do not know whether it consoles my noble friend to know that the average spend of household buying on on-line draw tickets twice a week is less than £6. Nevertheless, he has a valid point.
Let me give him an example of some of the ways in which poorer people do benefit from the existing good causes—from the grant of £70,000 to Relate, the former Marriage Guidance Council in Bristol. It has got this £70,000 for access deliberately for poorer people for marriage guidance counselling. I know that will not reassure him fully, but I thought that at least he would recognise the example that I gave.
I think I have already replied to the claims of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on additionality. It is simply not the case that the five original good causes were sacrosanct. What we have done is to extend the benefits of additional funding which has become available from the National Lottery to a wider range of good causes. I persist in the view, as do the Government, that these are both to the benefit of the British people as a whole and they escape the charges which have been made by noble Lords opposite. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes past nine o'clock.