HL Deb 23 March 1999 vol 598 cc1237-53

9.3 p.m.

Read a third time.

Clause 2 [General functions]:

The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone) moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 16, leave out from ("persons") to end of line 17 and insert— ("(ba) to take such steps as it considers appropriate with a view to encouraging good practice in the treatment of disabled persons; and").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 6. I take account of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and other noble Lords who spoke during Committee and Report on the matter. Recognising the strength of feeling on the issue, I am content for the commission's responsibilities with regard to good practice to be expressed as a duty rather than a power. That is the intention behind Amendment No. 1.

Amendment No. 3 is consequential. The power in Clause 2(2) to encourage good practice is redundant as a result of the duty set out in Amendment No. 1. In preparing the amendments it was helpful, as the noble Baroness suggested, to draw on the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I am grateful to him. Amendment No. 1 also seeks to remove the words "in all fields of activity" from the commission's duty to promote the equalisation of opportunities. Those words were originally included in the Bill to ensure that it was made clear beyond doubt that promoting equalisation of opportunities was not confined to activities covered by the Disability Discrimination Act.

However, on further consideration the Government have decided that the better legal view is that it would be safe to delete the words. This is merely a tidying up measure. I am happy to place on record that the commission's activities in respect of promoting the equalisation of opportunities and encouraging good practice go wider than those areas covered by the Disability Discrimination Act.

I hope that these amendments meet the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and other noble Lords on the matter. I beg to move.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I welcome this group of amendments. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, with whom I worked closely at earlier stages of the Bill, would welcome them. I am delighted that this group of amendments makes it a duty on the commission to encourage good practice in the treatment of people with disabilities rather than just establishing a hope.

However, might the wording of my noble friend's amendment be preferable as I suspect that it is slightly better English, being rather briefer?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness most warmly for the letters that I and I suspect other Members have received since the last stage of the Bill. They have been helpful. It is clear that the Minister has moved a long way to meet some of the concerns expressed at that stage. I am deeply grateful to the noble Baroness.

The amendments respond positively to a convincing case put to the Minster at Committee and Report stages. However, even at this late stage and at the risk of sounding churlish—that is not my intention—I should like to recommend that the House accepts Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 rather than Amendments Nos. 1 and 6.

If my Amendment No. 2 were accepted there would be the need for a minor amendment to Schedule 1. That could be tidied up as the Bill moves to another place. The reason given for removing the words "in any field of activity" was not convincing. The Minister said that they appeared in order to make the Bill clear beyond any doubt whatever. I suspect that they have been removed because someone in the back room—probably counsel—said that it is safe to do so, but without giving any intellectual reasons.

I believe that the words "in any field of activity" make clear that the provision goes wider than the Disability Discrimination Act. It gives those who must put the commission's work into practice a feeling that under the Bill they have a right to move into all fields of activity which impact on the lives and work of disabled people. Therefore, I should like a further and deeper explanation of why those words should be removed.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for supporting my amendment because it provides a straightforward form of words in keeping with the crisp way in which Clause 2 is set out. It provides that: 'The Commission shall have the following duties … to work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled persons … to promote the equalisation of opportunities"— and, if my amendment were accepted— to encourage good practice regarding the treatment of disabled persons". It is clear and straightforward. It is not couched around "to take such steps as it considers appropriate". Of course, the commission will only act when appropriate; that goes without saying and does not have to be written into statute. The phrase: to take such steps as it considers appropriate with a view to encouraging good practice", is not as crisp or direct as putting the duty on the commission, to encourage good practice regarding the treatment of disabled persons in any field of activity". In thanking the Minister most warmly for all the help she has given since the previous stage of the Bill, the difference between us is a little more than semantics. It is not only plain English, but a clear statement of duty. I would leave it to the commission to determine when it is appropriate to act. It is highly unlikely that it would act when not appropriate or would take action which was not with a view to encouraging good practice. I hope that the noble Baroness will come a little further along the road.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth

My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome the Minister's amendment in response to that tabled by my noble friend Lord Rix. He is sorry that he cannot be here, but I pay tribute to him and to the Minister for their diligence in pursuit of the matter.

Does not the Minister agree that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is wider and firmer than her amendment? When I read that the Minister was removing the words, "in any field of activity" I wondered whether we were losing something.

Lord Addington

My Lords, this short debate addresses the question: what is the best of two good options? It seems churlish to say more than that. However, the noble Baroness has proved again that, in the elegant expression of my noble friend Lord Russell, she has become part of the country party on this. I was thinking of saying something about her being gamekeeper-turned-poacher, but I am afraid that under no circumstances can I see her sneaking across a field with a sackful of dead rabbits and a ferret.

Lord Ashley of Stoke

My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is trying to do, but I wish to speak in support of the Minister's amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not pursue her request to the House to reject Amendment No. 1.

As my noble friend Lady Blackstone explained, Amendment No. 1 is designed to overcome the controversy of using "shall" or "may" in relation to good practice. It places the encouragement of good practice firmly among the commission's duties and together with other duties. It permits the commission to carry out the task as it wishes, giving it certain flexibilities. It is an issue in respect of which it is best not to tie the hands of the commission on specific methods.

The words in the Bill which precede the amendment of my noble friend Lady Blackstone are so vital to disabled people. They are: to promote the equalisation of opportunities". That is the equalisation which disabled people want. They want to be treated like everybody else. The word "equalisation" is clear, specific and crucial. All action to bring about equalisation is welcome. I believe that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, would do just that. I hope the House will support Amendment No. 1.

9.15 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone

I am very grateful for the comments that noble Lords have made in response to these amendments and I am glad that I have been able to meet at least some of the concerns addressed in previous debates. In fact, I think I have met the concerns; it is a question of arguing about the wording.

Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness. The amendment seeks to remove the words "in all fields of activity" from the commission's duty to promote the equalisation of opportunities. I have to repeat what I said before: these words were originally included in the Bill to ensure that it was made clear beyond doubt that promoting equalisation of opportunities was not confined to activities covered by the Disability Discrimination Act. I hope that explains why the amendment has been put in the form of words that the Government have brought forward.

Placing a rigid duty on the commission to encourage good practice, which would be the effect of the noble Baroness's amendment, could lead to a conflict with its other main duties. For example, working towards the elimination of discrimination will sometimes involve the commission in doing things other than encouraging good practice, such as supporting individuals taking cases to court or tribunal.

Where the case involves a question of principle there may not be an established body of good practice on which to rely. Moreover, even if there were to be some good practice relevant to the issue under consideration, the commission may judge that the principle should be tested so that the law is clarified for the benefit of all. The government amendment is designed therefore to allow the commission some flexibility while placing on the commission the duty to encourage good practice. In framing such a provision we need to take care not to constrain the commission too closely. We also have to guard against a provision that is so rigid that it may expose the commission to judicial review for not encouraging good practice where, in the judgment of the commission, another course of action is appropriate.

I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness is able to accept that the Government's amendments here are very much in the spirit of what she wants to achieve and will avoid some possible disadvantage as regards her formulation.

Baroness Blatch

I certainly will not press my amendment and if I have to concede the other amendment of course I will do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, these are two amendments both trying to achieve the same thing. There was a slight difference of emphasis between us. I should like it to be more clear cut, but I do not believe it is.

On the other point of Amendment No. 1, the noble Baroness has given very good reasons why those words should be on the face of the Bill. The noble Baroness has not given good reasons why they should be removed from the face of the Bill. The reason why they should be on the face of the Bill, if I may paraphrase what the noble Baroness said, was to make it absolutely clear beyond any doubt whatever that the commission will have a responsibility that goes wider than the Disability Discrimination Act, and yet those words are being removed. If they were there to put this beyond doubt, they have been removed to introduce a doubt. I find that very strange indeed. I will not press that, but I do leave this debate to be continued in another place. Sadly, of course, the Bill will go to another place without these words in the Bill. I suspect that the disability groups who are outside this Chamber will read this with very great interest and will seek, I suspect, informally to find out from the department why it was that those words were removed. I will not be moving my amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 20, leave out subsection (2).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 [Agreements in lieu of enforcement action]:

Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 4:

Page 3, line 38, at beginning insert ("to suspend or").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in dealing with Amendment No. 4 I refer to the explanation in the very helpful letter of 19th March, although I have to say that it was an extraordinarily technical explanation and did take two or three readings before I managed to understand what it was telling me. It does, I believe, meet my concerns about a stage in the process which allows for a further opportunity to return to the investigation stage in the event that the terms of an agreement were not met. In other words, as I understand it, it gives another chance to delay (or even, we hope, prevent altogether) the need to resort to court proceedings. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation and I shall not move my amendment.

[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

Clause 8 [Codes of practice]:

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 7, line 6, at end insert— ("(10) An order under subsection (6)(c) shall be made by statutory instrument; and no such statutory instrument shall be made until it has been laid in draft before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament. "").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 5 we are returning to that old parliamentary chestnut of affirmative or negative resolution. In responding to my amendment on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made my case for me and reinforced the argument as to the use of the affirmative rather than negative resolution procedure,

On Report, the noble Lord said: subsection (6)(c) allows the Secretary of State to revoke a code of practice", so that it is not merely an amending regulation, by order at the request of the commission. Such orders would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The purpose of the noble Baroness's amendment is to make these orders subject to the affirmative resolution procedure … it seems that it would be unusual for a code of practice to be revoked rather than simply being revised and reissued". —[Official Report, 11/3/99; col. 411.] The noble Lord said that any revocation of a code of practice would be an extremely serious issue. Indeed, it would happen only on rare occasions. As I said, I am not talking about a simple amending regulation whereby extremely minor changes are made which update a code of practice. We are talking about revocation of the code itself. That may be linked to European legislation or to major shifts in legislative practice which mean that substantial changes must be made to the code.

It will be a very important code of practice. Given that it will not happen very often, it is a matter which should come before the House to be dealt with. Therefore, I ask the Minister to think again. They have confirmed that it is a serious issue and revocation will happen only rarely. But when it happens it will happen for important reasons. There will be no revocation of the code unless there is good reason for it. It seems to me that on those rare occasions the two Houses of Parliament should be given an opportunity to discuss any changes. I beg to move.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth

My Lords, I firmly support the amendment. Just because something is rare does not mean that it is unnecessary to do something about it. I have read what the noble Lord said in Committee at cols. 411 and 412 when the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to a European directive making such a major difference in the law that it would mean the withdrawal of the existing code. I felt that that was very much in support of the noble Baroness's amendment. I hope that the Government will accept it.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I too support the amendment. As the House knows, I have spent many years fighting for the rights of disabled people. The beginning of the clause refers to, employers, service providers or other persons". The codes of practice referred to in the clause are relevant not only to disabled people. They affect large chunks of the business community and other communities in this country. They may have a considerable effect on them. I think it only fair to them, as well as to disabled people, that the matter should be discussed properly in Parliament. That means that an affirmative rather than a negative resolution procedure should be used. I am sure that Parliament as a whole, with the affirmative resolution, will make certain that the rights of disabled people are looked after and balanced properly with the needs of the business community at the same time.

We must remember that if we make life too onerous for businesses, there will not be employment for anyone, let alone disabled people. There is still a tendency among many people to let disabled employees go before their able-bodied employees. Many able-bodied people still have no understanding of disability or what disabled people are capable of doing. I believe that the amendment is much more important than my noble friend indicated when she moved it.

Lord Addington

My Lords, we on these Benches have had a fairly consistent attitude towards secondary legislation and feel that it should be examined and discussed wherever possible. I feel a considerable degree of sympathy for the amendment and with this general approach and hope that the Government are able to give a reasonably positive response. This is a matter of principle that we should encourage. It must be remembered that disability legislation has a great tradition of being driven into Parliament from pressure groups and that could happen again. Generally speaking, this sort of legislation should be open to the greatest possible level of scrutiny.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, stated, we return again to this Parliamentary chestnut and to the debate on whether orders made by the Secretary of State revoking the code of practice should be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. I have considered the amendment further, but I have to say that I am not persuaded to change my mind.

I refer to the points that I made both in Committee and on Report. First, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation has given careful consideration to all the regulation-making powers contained in the Bill and indicated that it was content. The Committee was set up with a specific function to consider all forthcoming Government legislation and to advise on whether the regulation-making powers contained in each Bill allow for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that we must have regard to those views.

Secondly, in the majority of cases, revoking of a code of practice would be a tidying-up exercise brought about simply by the fact that the old code was so substantially changed that it would be a new, rather than a revised, code. I accept the point to which the noble; Baroness referred—the point that I made on Report—that there may be unusual circumstances surrounding the revocation of a code of practice where Parliament may have views.

However, that does not suggest that all orders revoking codes of practice should automatically be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The really substantive point is that the negative resolution procedure would allow debate to take place if the circumstances of revoking a particular order warranted it. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not feel it necessary to press her amendment.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, it is true that we greatly value the work done by the scrutiny committee. I believe that the House has a very fine record of always accepting its views, particularly the recommendations made where it believes that a power is being exceeded. However, we do not have to stop there or hide behind what a committee does not say. Therefore, I do not believe that is an argument for not accepting the amendment.

I believe this to be an important issue, in particular because of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. We are now at a time where European directives make substantial differences to the way in which our own legislation works. There has to be modification.

Perhaps I may refer once more to revocation of the whole code rather than amending regulation. Revocation of the whole code is done for substantial reason. That will not be done very often but, where it is, it seems to me that, in the interests of the workings of the Disability Discrimination Act and of the disability rights commission, it is important that both Houses have an opportunity to discuss any substantial changes.

I heard what the Minister said about the House possibly having an opportunity to discuss it, but that is only if the government of the day and the usual channels decide that time would be given for that. What we are talking about—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am sorry, but that is simply not the case. If there is a Prayer against a negative resolution instrument, it will be taken, as the noble Baroness knows. She has never had one refused under this Government.

9.30 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, that is, of course, true, but perhaps I may also point out that I do not receive regulations from the department as regularly as I receive press notices. I get all the glitzy press notices, but I do not get the regulations. Several came through during the Summer Recess and I did not receive them. I arrived back here at the end of the Summer Recess to find that by the time that I had discovered those regulations I was out of time and out of date for taking action. This is too hit and miss. Some detective work is required on the part of those of us who are not backed up in the way in which the Minister is backed up in her department. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, shakes her head— and, no, I am not a stupid whatever-it-was, as the noble Lord said in an aside that was less than sotto voce. I am talking of my direct experience of the way in which I am treated by the Department for Education and Employment. As I have said, I receive some things from the department and sometimes I receive several copies of the same thing, but what I do not receive, and what I have never received, are the regulations in draft form—

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, the Department for Education and Employment sends the noble Baroness many, many documents—far more than I ever received when I was the Opposition spokesman when the noble Baroness was the Minister. I never, ever received regulations from the department when she was the Minister. I expected my Whip to provide information on such matters. I think that the noble Baroness is being wholly unreasonable in castigating the department in this way.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am talking from first-hand experience of the department. As a Minister, my office on my instructions always contacted my opposite numbers, whether I was at the Home Office, the Department of the Environment or the Department for Education, to talk about the business in the pipeline and opportunities to discuss it before it reached Parliament. There was never anything that was not shared with the Opposition when I was a Minister. I do not think that I was a Minister opposite the noble Baroness on the other side of the fence; I am talking about the way in which I operated as a Minister and about my first-hand experience at the department.

Perhaps I may give an example because it seems that the noble Baroness does not believe what I am saying. When the teachers' pay review document was received, in the course of one day I received, one at a time, eight copies of exactly the same document. Indeed, on many occasions I do not receive any copies of a document. All that I am saying is that there is a very schizophrenic system in the department. Some parts of the department operate very efficiently; others do not.

I had to telephone the department this weekend because I had not been aware of the A-level presentation other than from what I had read in the newspapers or heard on the media. That information arrived at my home at 10 o'clock on Saturday night by personal courier. That was as a result of my own request to the office of the noble Baroness. What I am saying is that—

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, perhaps I may clarify something. I made it absolutely clear to my officials before there was any request from the noble Baroness that, as the announcement was made on a Friday and the House was not sitting, the press notice about A-levels should be sent to the noble Baroness and that we should make sure that she got it over the weekend.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, that does not alter the fact that I telephoned the office of the noble Baroness on Thursday about the rumours and the information that was then appearing in public, in the press and on the radio and television media.

I am not happy about this. It is an important point. On Report, I was supported by Members on all sides of the House, including from the Government Benches. I beg to test the opinion of the House.

9.33 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 81.

Division No. 5
CONTENTS
Annaly, L. Leigh, L.
Blatch, B. McConnell, L.
Bridgeman, V. Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Burnham, L. [Teller.] Masham of Ilton, B.
Byford, B. Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Colwyn L Millerof Hendon, B.
Courtown. E. Mountevans. L
Glentoran, L. Norton of Louth, L.
Goschen, V. Palmer, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L. Rees, L.
Harmsworth, L. Rowallan, L.
Henley, L. [Teller.] Seccombe, B.
Higgins, L. Stockton, E.
Hooper, B. Swinfen, L.
Kingsland, L. Taylor of Warwick, L.
Lamont of Lerwick, L. Wise, L.
Wynford, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L. Bragg, L.
Addington, L. Brookman, L.
Alli, L. Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Amos, B. Burlison, L.
Ampthill, L. Carlisle, E.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Carter, L. [Teller.]
Bach, L. Chandos, V.
Blackstone, B. Christopher, L.
Blease, L. Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Borrie, L. Clinton-Davis, L.
David, B. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. Mackie of Benshie, L.
Dixon, L.. Mallalieu, B.
Donoughue, L. Mar and Kellie, E.
Dormand of Easington, L. Monkswell, L.
Dubs, L. Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Evans of Parkside, L. Nicol, B.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. Orme, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Pitkeathley, B.
Geraint, L. Plant of Highfield, L.
Gilbert, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Goudie, B. Prys-Davies, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Grenfell, L. Razzall, L.
Grey, E. Renwick of Clifton, L.
Hacking, L. Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Hardie, L. Sawyer, L.
Hardy of Wath, L. Scotland of Asthal, B.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Harris of Haringey, L. Sewel, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Simon, V.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L. Simon of Highbury, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Howie of Troon, L. Steel of Aikwood, L.
Hoyle, L. Stone of Blackheath, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L. Taylor of Blackbum, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Thomas of Gresford, L.
Judd, L. Thomas of Macclesfield, L.
Kennet, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Kintore, E Uddin, B.
Linklater of Butterstone, B. Warner, L.
Lockwood, B. Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. Whitty, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.] Williams of Mostyn, L.
Young of Old Scone, B.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

9.41 p.m.

Schedule 1 [Constitution etc.]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 12, line 22, leave out ("and (b) and (2)") and insert ("to (ba)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Formal investigations and non-discrimination notices]:

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 7:

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: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7 I speak also to Amendment No. 8. Again I return to the helpful letter sent by the noble Baroness following the Report stage. Amendment No. 7presumes in favour of giving reasons, Where the Commission refuses to receive oral representations under sub-paragraph (4)". In her letter the noble Baroness said that the Government were prepared to accept the idea behind my amendment. I am grateful for that.

Amendment No. 8 seeks to make provision for the disability rights commission to remove a non-discrimination notice from the public register, when the action required by the notice has been complied with". Again the Government declare themselves sympathetic to this point in the letter from the noble Baroness. I am also pleased about that. However, the noble Baroness suggests that there may be practical issues which need to be addressed. We discussed those at the previous stage of the Bill. I believe it is important that a timescale be considered. There will be a number of practical consequences of such an amendment. I believe those are precisely the kind of matters that need to be dealt within secondary legislation. I believe they should be dealt with by the negative procedure as they will be relatively straightforward, technical criteria concerning how the provisions work in practice.

The noble Baroness also states in her letter that both of these amendments may have implications for future policy with regard to the powers of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. I accept that. The noble Baroness states in her letter: I am pleased to confirm that we are currently consulting other relevant departments with a view to bringing forward government amendments in the House of Commons". I hope that the House will forgive my cynicism about interdepartmental discussions. Time is now short. The Bill goes to the Commons tomorrow. It is a short Bill. I understand from my colleague in another place that it will be dealt with in a short timescale. Therefore I am not confident that there will be discussions with the Equal Opportunities Commission, lawyers, counsel and all the people who need to be consulted in order to obtain an appropriate form of words or for my amendments to be accepted.

I therefore wish to make what I hope is a reasonable plea to the Minister—with their majority in another place the Government are able to do absolutely anything with the amendments—that the Government put something on the face of the Bill. I suggest that both of my amendments should be accepted. The Government agree with the principle behind them; they are negotiating to discover how it can be achieved; and they have promised that there will be an amendment in another place. But if that is not achieved, if the negotiations are not complete, then an amendment cannot be tabled in another place. That means that the Bill will return to this House and there will be no opportunity for this House to take a view as to whether it should treat the disability rights commission as a separate entity from the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality.

Each amendment stands alone. Amendment No. 7 seeks to establish that there should be a presumption in favour of giving reasons why someone should not make an oral presentation. There should also be a provision for exceptions where there are good reasons why someone should not make an oral presentation.

Amendment No. 8 deals with the removal of a non-discrimination notice from the register. A company may have genuinely complied with absolutely everything but may be unwittingly in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act. The commission has come along and persuaded it to make changes. The company makes changes—it has complied—but the non-discrimination notice is on the register. Just as criminals have records removed from registers after a certain period of time, it is important for the reputation of companies that have done the decent thing that there should be an opportunity for them to have their names removed from the register. It is a reasonable request.

If the Government do not like my amendments they can simply remove them completely. If they want to amend them they can do so in a way that meets the objectives. They can do almost anything. It would be hugely helpful to give this House an opportunity to have the last say on whether we need to come back and do something quite specific and free-standing for the disabled community. I beg to move.

9.45 p.m.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth

My Lords, I strongly support the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 8. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made some very valid points about time and timing. It struck me that this would not be a matter for primary legislation, but that the detail could be worked out later. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment or at least give a strong assurance that something will be done in another place.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I support both amendments. Amendment No. 7 provides that the commission shall give reasons in writing for a refusal to accept an oral submission. It is an important amendment. In paragraph 10 of the schedule we come to appeals against a non-discrimination notice. It may well be that part of the appeal will be the objection to receiving oral representations from someone that the commission considers to be unsuitable. It might be unusual, but it is possible that that could form part of the appeal. Therefore it is right that my noble friend's first amendment should be accepted. It may need to be improved in another place. I am quite happy with that.

Amendment No. 8 provides that the removal of a non-discrimination notice from the register should happen when it has been complied with. Again, it may be right and proper that the non-discrimination notice should remain on the register for a time—perhaps months or several years. But it should be removed eventually; otherwise, a young person starting a company in his or her early twenties who unwittingly makes mistakes will cause the name of the company and himself or herself to be on the register; and they can still be there 40 years later. Some unpleasant individual can raise the matter against that person when he or she is in their sixties. I strongly support both amendments.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for tabling Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. It gives me an opportunity to confirm the Government's intentions with regard to them.

Amendment No. 7 seeks to make provision in the Bill for the commission to give reasons in writing why it has refused to receive oral representations from a person to whom it reasonably objects as being unsuitable.

My noble friend Lord Hunt argued on Report that we should leave it to the commission to exercise its judgment in a fair and balanced manner. However, in view of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, I am prepared to accept the principle behind the amendment and can confirm that we shall be bringing forward a government amendment at the next stage. I hope that that commitment is one that noble Lords can accept and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment No. 8 seeks to make provision for the commission to arrange for the removal of a non-discrimination notice from the public register when the action required by the notice has been complied with. As my noble friend Lord Hunt indicated, we are sympathetic to the idea behind the amendment, although it raises a number of practical issues which need to be addressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to them. For example, as the noble Baroness said, we need to be clear about the period after which a non-discrimination notice should be removed from the register and when the period should be calculated as starting.

I am pleased to confirm the statement in my letter. We are currently considering the practical issues raised by this amendment with ministerial colleagues. We need to consult them as it has implications for future policy on the powers of the EOC and CRE, as I think the noble Baroness recognised.

I give the noble Baroness an absolute assurance that there can be no question of inadequate time being allowed for the interdepartmental discussion before the Bill is considered in another place. There will be plenty of time. While I hope that it will be possible to bring forward a government amendment at the next stage, I am sure the noble Baroness will understand that I cannot give an absolutely firm commitment at this point until that interdepartmental discussion has taken place.

Noble Lords will also be aware that we are seeking cross-government agreement for a proposal defining the scope of non-discrimination notices on the face of the Bill. I have already made clear that, given cross-government agreement, we shall bring forward an amendment providing for that too.

I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured by our intentions on both amendments and will therefore agree to withdraw them.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I would like to say I was but the noble Baroness made two totally conflicting statements. At one stage she said—and I wrote it down verbatim—we will bring forward an amendment. However, a little later she said that she could not guarantee it because the negotiations might not be complete in time. Perhaps she will be able to do two things. First, can she explain to the House what negotiations are taking place and what is the timescale? Secondly, if the negotiations are not complete before the Bill proceeds through another place, does it mean that there will not be an amendment to the Bill? The answers to those questions are important. Unless something goes on the face of the Bill as it leaves this House, this House will have no further opportunity to return to those important matters. We all know—it happens with all governments—that once a piece of legislation is passed it is many years before we return to it in order to amend it.

Perhaps I may also ask for clarification of another point the noble Baroness made. She appeared to make a distinction between the two amendments. As I read her letter, it says, referring to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8: Both these amendments may have implications for future policy on the powers of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. I am pleased to confirm that we are currently consulting other relevant Departments with a view to bringing forward Government amendments in the House of Commons". The noble Baroness referred to that, relating to the second amendment and not the first. I should like clarification that it refers to both amendments and that, irrespective of whether negotiations are completed or not, amendments will be put on the face of the Bill in another place.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, there is absolutely nothing conflicting in what I said. I thought I made it clear that we would be bringing forward a government amendment on the noble Baroness's amendment, Amendment No. 7. I thought I made that clear. What I said was, as concerns Amendment No. 8, that we were still consulting ministerial colleagues. Until that consultation was complete, I could not give her an absolute guarantee that the Government would be able to bring forward an amendment in another place in relation to the second issue covered by Amendment No. 8.

The reason I can make a commitment with respect to the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 7 is that there is already intergovernmental agreement about it. However, the more complicated issue covered by Amendment No. 8 has as yet not had the intergovernmental discussion necessary. I hope that that clarifies the position and that in the light of it the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful for that clarification, but it is different from the letter. The letter refers to both amendments in the same sentence. I will read the letter again. It states: I am pleased to confirm that we are currently consulting other relevant Departments with a view to bringing forward Government amendments in the House of Commons". That refers to both amendments.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. As concerns the first amendment, the consultations are complete and there is agreement. That is why I can give the absolute guarantee that we will bring forward a government amendment. On the second amendment, those consultations are not yet complete.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am grateful for that, but the explanation I am getting now is not the explanation that came in the letter. All I was saying is that the letter I received was different.

I do not see the problem with the second amendment. If a company is found in breach of its obligations under the Act and a discrimination notice is put on the public register and the company quite willingly and without delay remedies that, it seems to me only fair that at some stage the name should be removed from the register; that is, given the practical difficulties about what the time-lag should be.

The noble Baroness cannot give a timescale, she cannot even guarantee now that there will be an amendment in another place. That means that companies' names will go on the register; good will will be lost and the reputation of the company will remain tainted. As long as it is on the register for having been in breach and is never removed, even though it has conformed quickly, it will be on the register with the names of people who have been laggardly about conforming. They will be on the same register as people who have conformed without delay. That is unfortunate. It would destroy a great deal of good will from the very people for whom the disability rights commission will be in business, to work with them and encourage them. I am deeply disappointed in what the noble Baroness said about Amendment No. 8. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 7.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 17, line 6, at end insert— ("( ) The Commission shall arrange for the removal of a non-discrimination notice from the register when the action required by the notice has been complied with. ").

9.58 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contends, 33; Not-Contents, 91.

An amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.