Lords Sitting of 4 July 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Lord Morris of Aberavon
The Right Honourable Sir John Morris, Knight, QC, having been created Baron Morris of Aberavon, of Aberavon in the County of West Glamorgan and of Ceredigion in the County of Dyfed, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Prys-Davies and the Lord Merlyn-Rees.

Lord Fowler
The Right Honourable Sir Peter Norman Fowler, Knight, having been created Baron Fowler, of Sutton Coldfield in the County of West Midlands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Saatchi and the Lord Brittan of Spennithorne.
Lord King of Wartnaby—Took the Oath.

ECHR: Compatibility Statements
2.50 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will undertake not to proceed with any legislation requiring Ministers to make statements of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights unless and until the Joint Committee on Human Rights has been appointed to scrutinise such statements for both Houses of Parliament.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, if the Joint Committee on Human Rights were appointed and fully operational, scrutiny by it of ministerial statements that legislation is ECHR compatible would not be a precondition of that legislation proceeding through Parliament. The committee has no power to restrict the progress of legislation. Therefore, we will not give the undertaking sought. The Session begins when Her Majesty opens it, not from the date that the Joint Committee is appointed.
However, I fully share the noble Lord's wish that the Joint Committee be appointed as soon as possible. The House agreed yesterday to a Motion appointing six of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to be members. My right honourable friend the President of the Council informed the other place on 21st June that it was his objective to get Select
812
Committees up and running before the House breaks for the Summer Recess. He has confirmed to me that that remains his objective.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the old committee and a proposed member of the new committee. I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that helpful and encouraging Answer. I did not intend my Question to fetter the legislative process and I understand the noble and learned Lord's reply, but I wonder whether he agrees that, whether the committee is set up sooner or later, the vital thing is that there should be effective scrutiny of compatibility statements by both Houses of Parliament and by the committee, as their watchdog. Does he agree that that requires not only the right machinery in place, but also reasons to be given at an early stage to the committee and to both Houses so that they are able effectively to understand the Government's reasons for considering that their legislation is or is not compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the convention rights?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, those are two questions in one. First, I decline to undertake that the House will not proceed with any Bills while there is no Joint Committee on Human Rights which can comment on their human rights implications. My reason is that that would be disproportionate. Although I do not in any way diminish the value of the committee, which I want to see up and running as soon as possible, during the Committee stage of any Bill this House is well able to scrutinise the human rights implications and to invite Ministers to explain their reasons for maintaining that particular provisions are compatible. The House did so with great vigour, for example, during the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The Joint Committee, although admirable, does not supplant the ordinary parliamentary processes of scrutiny.
However, in relation to the noble Lord's second question, I appreciate that he believes that a way forward may be for an early statement of the issues considered by a Minister to be made before he arrives at a positive decision to make a statement of compatibility. Conceivably that could be done in the Explanatory Notes. I shall certainly consider that and perhaps consult with my colleagues on it if the noble Lord makes detailed representations to me.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Lord Chancellor aware that the undertaking sought in this matter stems from the refusal of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, to give reasons in the exercise of his ministerial discretion for a decision taken by government? That, if I may say so respectfully, is quite contrary to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord that there is ample scope for reasoned debate in Committee. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that, save on grounds of national security, such ministerial discretion should not be exercised and that reasons for the decisions of government should always be given, in Committee and otherwise?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I gave some encouragement in my answer to the noble Lord's supplementary question. However, Ministers do experience a difficulty—that of the well recognised and established convention adhered to by successive governments that legal advice to government remains confidential. There is a tension between that and the giving of reasons. However, I have indicated to the noble Lord that I shall consider any detailed representations that he makes on how, in his view, consistent with maintaining the convention, which must not be breached, that legal advice must not be revealed, none the less reasons could be given for a decision to make a positive statement of compatibility which, if made, would assist both the Joint Committee and this House at Committee stage.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, in view of the ever-expanding importance of human rights issues, does my noble and learned friend now believe that the Government should seriously consider setting up a human rights commission?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we already have the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission, to name but three. The Government do not rule out a human rights commission as well, but we must not die from a surfeit of commissions. There may be a case for a single, overarching human rights commission to cover all those areas, perhaps with a divisional structure, and I should welcome representations on that. I gather also that, in its previous incarnation, the Joint Committee sent out a consultation document requesting views on what form a human rights commission might take. We shall consider carefully any recommendations which the new Joint Committee may in due course make.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Lord Chancellor recall the undertaking given by the present Leader of the House in one of his previous incarnations that, when introducing draft secondary legislation under the affirmative procedure, Ministers would make a statement of compatibility? It is my experience that that statement frequently is not made although in at least one case it was clearly called for. Now that the noble and learned Lord is in charge of human rights, will he ensure that all Ministers are aware of and comply with that undertaking?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is certainly a matter to which I shall attend.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, if a Minister certifies that a Bill, when it is published, is compatible with the convention but subsequently the new committee disagrees with that, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House whether, in the debate that ensues at Committee stage, the Government will have to explain their thinking—not the source of their legal advice, but their thinking—and their reasoning for
814
declaring the Bill to be compatible? Surely, once that debate ensues, they cannot hide behind the convention in the way that the noble Lord suggested.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, first, in my experience, in the course of the Committee stage of Bills, Ministers already explain their thinking. When amendments are put down, the purpose of which is to impugn the existing provisions on the grounds of non-compatibility, Ministers explain why in their view the statement was properly made and why the impugned provision is compatible. I agree, of course, that our thinking would be enhanced if antecedently the Joint Committee had expressed a view on any particular provision. However, I believe that the Joint Committee will have to ration itself; it cannot pronounce on every Bill or it will be in permanent session.

London Underground
3 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will decide on the future of the London Underground and whether they will publish an account of the discussions to date.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions yesterday met Robert Kiley, the chairman of London Transport. He heard Mr Kiley's report on the outcome of his negotiations with bidders and the Government are now considering how best to move forward. Our priority is to reach a resolution so that the massive programme of investment to modernise the Underground can start as soon as possible.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, if I may say so, that Answer falls short of the spellbinding. Can the noble and learned Lord point to any speech made by any Minister on this subject that is likely to give any comfort to those who suffer the daily agony of being one of London Underground's victims? Moreover, how does it come about that Ministers have so far been unable to congratulate the Mayor of London on being on the scene? He is uniquely qualified—his record and qualities fit him to do his task. His qualities are such as to indicate that anyone who gets in his way must be something of an idiot. I have one last question for the noble and learned Lord. Has it not yet occurred to the Government, with all the painful life of experience behind them, that to separate operations and safety is just plain stupid?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for not spellbinding him. My purpose in answering his Question was to give information. He asked about speeches by members of the Government

815
that would bring comfort to the users of London Underground. We sought to produce a policy that will bring substantial investment into London Underground over the long term so that standards can be radically improved. The obligation of Ministers, the commissioner of transport for London and the Mayor of London is to work together to produce a policy that will bring in that investment and radically improve the quality of London Underground. I hope that we are all working towards that. So far as separating operations from safety is concerned, the priority, as has always been made clear, is safety. The operation of London Underground will remain in the hands of London Transport and London Underground, which have the prime obligation in relation to safety because they are the bodies that will operate the Underground.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Cullen committee's report overwhelmingly demonstrates the enormous dangers—by emphasising the contribution it made to the Paddington accident—of separating those two activities? The report dealt with precisely that point.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am very conscious of what Lord Cullen's report said about Railtrack. The same proposal is not being made in relation to London Underground. The proposal is that London Underground will remain responsible for safety. It enters into long-term contracts with three contractors and it will remain responsible for safety. London Underground is the body that actually operates the trains. That is the important difference from the situation involving Railtrack.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, my noble and learned friend signally failed to spellbind the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, but will he try to cast his spell over me by reminding me where the responsibilities for under-investment in London Transport began? Did they begin in 1997 or do they go back even as far as the days when the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, had responsibilities?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not think that anyone would dispute the decades of under-investment in relation to London Underground. That is the problem. Since 1997, the Government have been seeking to ensure that there is a scheme or proposal that will lever in billions of pounds in the long term to ensure that that under-investment is remedied.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, on the question of safety, would the Minister care to comment on reports in yesterday's press that Mr Kiley has written to the Prime Minister emphasising that he could not answer for the safety of the Underground system under the present PPP arrangements?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have said, safety is pre-eminent in the proposed PPP. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, sought to suggest, similar
816
to the arrangements involving the railway system. London Underground remains responsible for safety, but that is subject to the overarching direction of the Health and Safety Executive. We believe that those proposals are adequate to ensure safety.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether there are any plans to build an Underground station at Battersea before I die? It is no good telling me to take the bus—I would have to take three buses to get here. Blocks of flats are going up all the time in Battersea and it is very expensive and inconvenient not to have a Tube.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the robustness of the noble Baroness suggests that even if the Tube were built a long time in the future, it would still be built in time. I am grateful for the signs that the noble Baroness is making towards me from a sedentary position—indeed, she is making more and more of them! I do not know the precise date, but I shall write to her about it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, over the past four years, how much has been spent on setting up the PPP?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot give the precise figures in relation to professional costs and so on. However, I am quite sure that that money is well spent. It is incredibly important that what is produced involves a durable scheme that will produce investment for the long term.

Human Cloning Ban: Prospects of Legislation
3.6 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpoolasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to introduce legislation to outlaw human cloning.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we recognise and share the concerns of many people about human reproductive cloning. However, that cannot be carried out in the UK. Any treatment using human embryos requires a licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which has stated as a matter of policy that it would not issue such a licence. We have stated our clear intention to introduce primary legislation to put this ban on a statutory footing as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, while I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, does he recall the assurances that he gave noble Lords in our debate on this subject on 22nd January? We should assuage the fears of many who believe that therapeutic cloning will inexorably pave the way for full reproductive

817
human cloning. He said that the Government would introduce legislation and the implication was that that would be brought forward very quickly. The omission of such legislation from the gracious Speech caused disappointment to many people.
The Minister will doubtless have seen the speeches made by the Italian scientist, Severino Antinori, who, heartened by our decision in January, said that he intends to proceed with reproductive cloning. Has he seen the statements by the Royal Society and by Ian Wilmut, who cloned Dolly the sheep and who said that it would be dangerous and undesirable to go in that direction? Given that there is support from all parts of your Lordships' House and from another place for giving a statutory seal to the Minister's desired wish that there should not be reproductive cloning in this country, will he say when that legislation will be forthcoming?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Question. I do not accept the proposition that therapeutic cloning research in the UK would lead to reproductive cloning elsewhere. I accept that legislation is desired by many in your Lordships' House. In the debate earlier this year on the regulations I said that legislation would be brought before the House as soon as possible. I also referred to the normal pressures on the parliamentary timetable. This Parliament still has a little time to run and the comments of noble Lords on this matter will be carefully considered.
So far as Professor Antinori is concerned, I refer the noble Lord to the article in The Times today in which Professor Evers of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology criticised Professor Antinori as,
"a pain in the neck, because he can't even offer what he says he can".
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is essential to maintain public confidence in scientific research, not least in the life sciences? Does he further agree that that makes legislation to put this matter beyond all question a very important priority? Would he therefore make representations to his colleagues and point out that this matter is perhaps somewhat more important than some of the Bills that will be coming to us through the legislative pipeline?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly accept the noble Baroness's proposition that we must do everything we can to ensure that the scientific community commands public confidence and respect. Events over the past few years have reinforced the need for that.
I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes. I want to assure the House that the Government are committed to this legislation. Of course, I am not able to say when that will be brought forward because it is not my position to do so. But the urgency in terms of our debate last January is clearly
818
understood. It is important for me to reiterate that reproductive cloning cannot take place in this country. The HFEA made it abundantly clear that it will never permit a licence for that to happen.
Baroness Young: My Lords, while we all accept the valuable work of the Committee on Human Fertilisation and Embryology, the fact is that there is a distinction between what that committee decides and legislation. Will the Minister accept that a great many of us are extremely concerned about this matter? As he will know better than I, the French Government condemned it, along with the Germans and the Americans. Therefore we are completely out of step with other countries in not legislating on this matter. It is a subject of great concern to an enormous number of people. It is not satisfactory just to say that the Government will consider it. I hope not only for an undertaking that the Minister will raise the matter with his own Secretary of State, but also that the Lord Privy Seal will give some undertaking to bring it before the Cabinet.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have already said that, as ever, the Government remain committed to introducing legislation. I certainly accept the proposition that it will add to public reassurance in this crucial matter. The record of the HFEA is such that we can have confidence that when it says that it will never permit such a thing to happen in this country, it will never so permit it.
The publication of the Chief Medical Officer's report and the passage of the regulations earlier in the year have caused considerable discussion in other countries. It is my understanding that some, including France and Canada, are now considering changes in their laws to permit embryo research to derived stem cells, mainly from using donated spare embryos.
Lord Winston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this country has the strongest and most effective legislation which controls all reproductive technology, including human cloning? Will he further confirm that every responsible scientific opinion in this country roundly condemns the practice of reproductive cloning?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is my understanding. The HFEA is a widely admired regulatory body throughout the world. It is worth recalling that in the past 10 years it received 130 applications for research licences, of which over 10 per cent have been rejected. It has a strict procedure for considering applications to ensure that they meet its requirements. We can therefore have confidence in that authority.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, will the Minister clarify what progress has been made in research on creating stem lines from adult and somatic cells rather than embryonic cells? Will he give an assurance that the Government are consulting faith communities about the moral criteria that should lie

819
behind all these matters, including legislation and the establishment of international protocols to ban human cloning?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I welcome representations from the faith communities and the Government will be happy to enter into a dialogue with them. In relation to progress in regard to adult stem cells, I understand that advances have recently been reported in the isolation and culture of stem cells from adult tissues. I shall be happy to send further information to the right reverend Prelate and place copies of that information in the Library. However, as was debated by your Lordships some months ago, the issue is not about either embryo or adult stem cells. Essentially it is that both research potentialities will aid our knowledge and understanding. Indeed, the knowledge gained from research on embryonic stem cells may well provide the information that researchers need concerning the functioning of adult stem cells, which may then have therapeutic applications.

Meat Imports
3.15 p.m.
Lord Glentoranasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they intend to take to ensure that there are no future imports into the United Kingdom of meat containing banned specified risk materials (SRM), following the discovery of such a consignment unpacked at Eastbourne, East Sussex, on 25th June.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, European law requires specified risk material to be removed at the slaughterhouse. It is illegal under such law for another EU member state to send consignments of meat containing spinal cord to the UK. The Meat Hygiene Service is checking all consignments of imported carcass meat which are delivered to licensed meat plants, which is how the discovery of spinal cord on 25th June was made. The Meat Hygiene Service will continue to carry out a robust programme of inspections.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, although I am not totally satisfied. The discovery on Monday 25th June was by no means the first case of banned SRM being found in imports from Germany. Since then they have been found in imports from Holland, Denmark and Spain. Does the Minister agree that there appear to be two standards in relation to these materials? One standard relates to mainland Europe and the other to the United Kingdom. Does he further agree that Germany is practically incapable of exporting beef to the standards required by this country? Will he tell me what Her Majesty's Government propose to do about those differing standards.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord's analysis of the situation. He is
820
right to point out that since January 2001, 16 shipments of beef from other EU member states have been found to contain meat with spinal cord still attached, in breach of the EU rules on SRM. In eight of the 16 cases the plant from which the consignment originated has had its operating licence suspended until the appropriate authorities are satisfied with the standards at that plant. I can assure the House that in each case we took up the matter robustly with the member state concerned and with the European Commission.
The noble Lord appeared to imply that there are double standards between different countries of the EU. The view that we take is clear. We must work within the established system of European law and cooperation between responsible member states. We have an established procedure under which we can raise issues of concern with other member states. I am satisfied that the Meat Hygiene Service and the Food Standards Agency acted with the utmost vigour in those cases and that the matters were then appropriately dealt with by the member states concerned. I accept that we must be ever vigilant.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare a non-pecuniary interest as chairman of Honest Food. Can the Minister say why we need to import beef into this country, either from the European Union or from African states where foot and mouth disease is endemic, when we produce the best beef in the world? Is it not time that we looked to labelling? If the consumer was allowed to choose where his beef came from, I am sure that he would choose British beef.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree that labelling is a matter of concern to the consumer in this country. There are well established rules and laws in relation to labelling, but the Foods Standards Agency is reviewing what changes might be made within the context of EU law and directions to enable more information to be given to the public. I echo the remarks of the noble Countess in relation to the quality of British beef. I am sure other noble Lords agree also. In relation to imports, at the moment imports account for around 29 per cent of beef consumption.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if it had been 16 cases of exports from Britain of banned materials, there would be a great outcry in this country and the Government would take firm and positive action that everybody in Europe would understand. What we fail to see is what action is being taken by our partners in Europe when they are exporting this material to us. Will the Minister raise that point at the highest level?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we do raise it at the highest level. I have ensured that in each case representations have been made and discussions have taken place both with the member state and with the relevant European Commissioner. I am happy to place in the Library a note of the actions taken in respect of each of the 16 cases and the subsequent action taken by the country from which the beef came.

821
Experience has shown that our own Meat Hygiene Service has been enormously alert to the problems. Obviously, we shall continue to ensure that it carries out its duties to the highest possible standard.

House of Lords: Audibility of Proceedings
3.20 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts rose to call attention to the case for improving the audibility and comprehensibility of the proceedings of the House to visitors to the public galleries; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this important issue in the House. Perhaps I may begin by clearing up a misunderstanding which I hope is not widespread. I was waiting to come into the Chamber today when a noble Lord approached me. He said, "I don't know why you're doing this because I can hear perfectly well". My Motion is about noble Lords being heard, seen and understood from the public galleries, not about whether noble Lords can see, hear and understand the debates. That is a different topic and one on which I could not comment.
My remarks fall into three sections: first, what is the problem I want to place before your Lordships; secondly, why is it an important issue which I believe we should address, and, thirdly, what should be done about it? I begin by making it clear that what I am about to say is in no way a criticism of the staff of the House or the Doorkeepers who seem to be doing the best they can in the circumstances they face. However, I believe that visitors to our public galleries have a raw deal.
Many noble Lords may never have visited the gallery. Indeed, as Members of the House we are discouraged from taking up seats there at the expense of members of the public who may wish to attend our debates. However, before I became a Member of your Lordships' House a year ago I paid such a visit and I should like to give my impressions.
When visitors arrive they are first given a booklet entitled The HOUSE of LORDS, a brief guide, an excellent publication produced in several languages. It is particularly good on the geography of the place and the overview of the Chamber. It is much less good on what is happening when you are sitting in the gallery. There is a page entitled A Typical Working Day, but it is difficult to relate what is said on that piece of paper to what is happening in the Chamber.
Visitors are also given an Order Paper, although I think I was not. I understand that the Order Paper is normally prepared for the use of your Lordships and not for visitors to the gallery, but it is generally unhelpful to an outsider. If we look at the Order Paper afresh, we see that it reinforces a feeling of remoteness. The strange language used and the fact that there is no timetable and no explanation of what is being discussed in the House do not help people to understand what we are about. Today's Order Paper is
822
reasonably clear. However, last Thursday, when I prepared my remarks, the Order Paper ran to three pages. The first third of the first page contained Questions. The last paragraph on the last page referred to the adjourned debate on the Queen's Speech. In between were three pages of Business of the House. There is no way that a visitor in the gallery would know that that business would probably be over in less than one minute; that the first part would last half an hour and that the debate referred to in the last paragraph would last three or four hours. Therefore, on the grounds of comprehensibility, we are not doing well by the people who come to see us.
Next, I refer to visibility from the gallery. The picture in the booklet is deceptive. On looking at it, we may think that a lot can be seen from the gallery, but when the photographer came to take the photograph he leant over the balcony at the front. If one is at the back of the Chamber, as I was, one can see only the top half of my noble friend Lord Henley when he rises to speak, or indeed of the noble Baroness the Minister when she speaks. Everybody to their left and right are invisible.
I am reminded of the description of the village cricket match in A G MacDonnell's England, their England where the ground slipped away behind the bowler behind one wicket so that the deep fielder behind the bowler saw nothing of the match apart from the bowler occasionally coming over the brow of the hill and disappearing, and from time to time, a ball being struck over the brow of the hill smartly in his direction.
Some noble Lords may say, "But there are television screens in the gallery". If we cast our eyes to the gallery, we see that there are two such screens which are about the size to be found in the average sitting room. Unless one has 20:20 vision or a pair of binoculars, one has considerable difficulty seeing the detail. Moreover, although one monitor is permanently set to the feed from the cameras inside the Chamber, the other gives the title of the debate and the name of the noble Lord who is speaking. That, therefore, does not overcome the problem.
Finally on this point, it is not easy to hear. There are microphones in the back of the benches but the benches were made for Victorian physiognomy. The backs are too short and the seats too narrow. If one tried to crouch down to listen, one would slip off the bench and would not be able to hear well.
Therefore, I believe that on the triple grounds of comprehensibility, audibility and visibility we are failing members of the public by not enabling them to see more clearly what we are doing in their name. Above all, visiting the gallery is a dry experience. No one will say when they get home that it was very interesting. They may have come to the Chamber and have been interested in what they saw, but no one's imagination will be caught by our proceedings.
Why does that matter? We have all read a great deal about the feeling of disconnection between the people of the country and the democratic process. Public opinion surveys and turn-outs in general and local

823
elections underline that fact. This is a serious matter for our country and we should think of how to reverse the trend.
I cannot remember, and have been unable to discern, which mediaeval saint said that he could stand persecution; it was indifference that hurt him. I believe that all too often our fellow countrymen regard us with indifference. We must try to make our proceedings more relevant to them.
If I wanted to introduce a sour party political note, I would say that the activities of this Government in so often bypassing both Chambers of Parliament have not helped. However, I do not intend to follow that line. I do not believe that reconnecting with the public will come about in one great action, by the turning on of a switch which floods the room with light; it will be by a series of incremental steps which convince people that their participation in our process is important and that what goes on here is relevant to their daily lives. Improving conditions in the public galleries is one such step, albeit small.
There is a further reason why we in this House need to explain our role more carefully. The role and utility of a reforming Chamber made up of appointed individuals is a sophisticated concept and one which is easy to "rubbish". For us to stand out against what can be—because of the structure of our Government—the tyranny of the majority is hard to explain and easy to undermine. I do not wish to be drawn into the issue of the reform of your Lordships' House. However, we need to build up our reputation in the country as a whole.
What can be done? There are tactical measures which could easily be taken. First, we could produce a better Order Paper—it would not, of course, be an Order Paper—for visitors to the gallery. It could consist of a two-page sheet. The left-hand side could contain a description of the proceedings of the House laid out in a way that makes sense of the Chamber. The right-side could contain a commentary of the proceedings and state, for example, whether the House is dealing with a Second Reading, Committee stage or Question Time. Where there is a reference to Second Reading, for example, perhaps there could be a few words on what the Bill seeks to achieve. Above all, there should be a timetable so that people visiting the gallery at, say, five o'clock will have an idea of where we are in the proceedings.
Secondly, I should like to see the television screens replaced and enlarged. Modern technology makes it possible to produce a screen many times larger and I hope that the images appearing on the two different screens can be shown on the same screen. Thus, the top half would carry the visual feed from the cameras inside the Chamber and the bottom half would carry the name of the speaker and perhaps a few words about the subject under discussion.
Thirdly, we could consider redesigning the seats in the gallery so that they are better suited to modern sizes and physiognomies.
However, there is a bigger and bolder step that we could take. Like me, noble Lords may recall being taken to galleries and museums as children and that they were flat experiences. Children visiting museums today have an altogether different experience because museums have adapted to arouse the interest and commitment of casual visitors. I believe that we ought to try to tap that expertise because there are many firms in this country whose primary expertise is in communication; communication with staff, customers and the public. I should like to think that we could have a public competition to find the best way of explaining continuously the workings of your Lordships' House to visitors in the public galleries. I am sure that firms would rush to put forward their ideas; public interest would be aroused; and many ingenious and perhaps impractical ideas would be put forward. However, I am sure that we would be able to break out of the slightly sterile mould in which we find ourselves.
Some noble Lords will say that this is Chamber is not a theatre but that such changes would make it a theatre. I respectfully suggest that this is not about theatre; it is about providing information. It is about providing information to the people who are ultimately our masters—the general public. People will also say that we cannot make any changes because of this building; this wonderful, old Victorian Chamber. Again, I respectfully suggest that we are not a wonderful, old Victorian legislature. If we put architecture ahead of our role as a 21st century legislature, we must not be surprised if the public draw certain conclusions from our making that choice in our priorities.
In summary, I want a visit to the public galleries here to be an engaging experience, not an experience which emphasises the separation between the legislature and the people it seeks to serve. I want a few hundred people each week to leave the public galleries feeling that they have had an interesting visit. I want them to tell their friends and relatives about it and then, imperceptibly, like the movement of grains of sand on a beach, the reputation of your Lordships' House will be broadened and strengthened.
I say to the Minister that in matters such as this for every solution there will be a problem. In order to make a change we will need wit, resolution and imagination; qualities which I know from hearing her speak in the Chamber she has aplenty. I look forward to hearing her display them again, particularly imagination, when she comes to speak in a few minutes' time. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.34 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, when the debate was mentioned at the previous party meeting of Liberal Democrat Peers there appeared to be a universal clamour for me to take part in it. Being an eternal optimist, I took it as being a form of compliment. However, on further reflection, I remembered that when at a meeting some weeks ago—and perhaps I was feeling slightly liverish—we had some spare time at the end I drew my noble friends' attention to the fact that,

825
no matter how interesting or important their comments, I had heard that a number of Peers were finding it hard to understand what some of them were saying. Those Peers were so fascinated that they wished they had been able to hear what had been said. Therefore I suggested that my noble friends might take care to stand in front of the appropriate microphone; that they should be careful not to put their hands in front of their mouths; that they should speak up; and that they should not always read from their notes.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate but I believe that my appearance is to some degree the revenge of my colleagues: I am having to speak on the subject that I raised at my party's meeting. However, the issue goes much further than that.
I suppose that I am an old-timer in this House, although I do not feel like one and I do not think I look like one. I and other noble Lords came here rather like new boys to a school and we trod carefully. I was terrified but I did not have the kind of background that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has. If any noble Lord cares to trawl through Who's Who? he will find several inches of impressive service to the Conservative Party. The noble Lord has been a deputy chairman of the national party; he has held high office at local level; and he is a distinguished merchant banker.
The noble Lord's appearance here today in putting forward this Motion and the suggestions he has made illustrate one of the effects of the first stages of reform. There are people coming to the House who have a good deal of knowledge and expertise, particularly in politics, which I did not have. I had never spoken in public before coming to your Lordships' House and had never spoken to more than several people gathered together, perhaps at a board meeting. It was a terrifying experience when I was thrown in at the deep end and it took me some time to get used to speaking.
However, I quickly realised that we in this House have a conversational style. Such a style is appropriate to what we do here—in amending and revising legislation and in general debates—and is preferable to having notes, bending one's head down and reading them out just to get them on to the record.
I do not know whether all noble Lords remember my late loved and respected colleague Lady Seear. She was the most remarkable speaker and performer, as an academic, in the commercial field and as a parliamentarian. I miss her greatly. Her great skill was that although she had a sheaf of small cards and notes she made the most extraordinary speeches without referring to them once. The only drawback was that when she came to the crucial point of her speech she suddenly bent down from the waist and went into a slow circular motion, which meant that because she lost the sensitivity of the microphones some of the words were lost to your Lordships. However, noble Lords were listening so carefully to what she said that very little was missed.
I must say that during the time I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have not given much thought to the public gallery. I shall do so in
826
future. It is important that people should come into the gallery, particularly foreigners, as they do in large numbers. However, the last thing we should be doing is speaking to the public gallery. If we took that to the extreme, we could become like the pantomime routine, "Are you happy?" "Yes, we are.".
I am more concerned about being heard and understood by Members of your Lordships' House. I admit that sometimes I am anxious when I am being heard by representatives of the press who are in the gallery—and I see that today there are some in the gallery. I am not aware of the television. When we were mostly an hereditary House I recall that the first televised debate attracted the largest number of speakers that I had known. The novelty quickly wore off. I do not believe that any of us speaks to be seen on television. We have grown used to the television cameras and to the press gallery and visitors' gallery.
The important point is that until we are reformed and our powers and functions are changed we must do what we do to the best of our ability. I believe that we can achieve that largely by continuing in the way we have, with the benefit of the removal of most of the hereditary Peers and the influx of highly informed and experienced people, such as the noble Lord who introduced the debate today.
The noble Lord dealt with many issues. I was remiss in that I had not read—but have now done so with care—the article that he submitted to the Lords Diary. In that article he gave a little more detail about his first impressions of the House, of which I believe he has been a Member for a little over six months. I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord's conclusions from his first six months. For example, in his piece he states that the galleries must be very confused by the fact that we in this House vote Content and Not Content rather than Ayes and Noes. He said that that was a very difficult matter to explain to cynical sixth-formers.
I have spoken to a good number of sixth-formers, most of them girls—I do not want noble Lords to laugh because I make a serious point. It was suggested that I do so by the late Alan Clark. I had not been long in the House when I met him one evening. Volunteers had been sought to speak to a girls' school. I said that I certainly would not do so but he said that I must take any opportunity to speak inside the House and outside it; otherwise, I would not gain the experience that I needed to take part in political life. Whether or not I liked it, I was in political life. That was very good advice. However, I never met a cynical sixth-former. I often explained to them the bicameral system and how things worked.
I did visit a couple of boys' school but it was not so satisfactory. The boys were not cynical. However, just one boy, who was Jack-the-Lad, did all the talking; everyone cheered him on as they would a star footballer. I preferred talking to the girls because they were more intelligent. Whether or not they continue to be more intelligent is open to debate, but they probably do.
As to clear speaking in this House, I believed that I should follow Lady Seear and others. If anybody who comes into this House believes that he needs to take

827
someone as an example I suggest that there is none better than the noble Baroness who is to respond to this debate. The noble Baroness is clear and distinct and her articulation is absolutely faultless. She is able to depart from her brief and make speeches interesting. I suggest to noble Lords who come into this House, no matter how experienced, that they study her performance, among others, at the Dispatch Box. I am quite sure that every word she utters will be heard in the public gallery by all five people who occupy it this afternoon.
I tease the noble Lord slightly. He commented on how we are perceived in the country. I do not believe that our perception in the country comes through the gallery but from the way the press reports our proceedings in this House. Sometimes the press is very remiss and misses those matters that it should cover and gives attention to others that it should not.
If, as the House moves quickly to the second stage of reform, which I doubt I shall survive—the country will become cynical, to use the noble Lord's word, if we do not do so—it retains its powers and functions, or they are increased, I suggest that in very short order the best thing it can do to get the public on its side is to drop the titles Lords and Ladies. If there is anachronism in a reformed House it is not the fabric of the building or the procedures at the State Opening of Parliament but the fact that we go through the pretence of being medieval notables. If we took that step as a voluntary measure it would be very much appreciated by the country at large. We would be seen to be serious about our future. I thank the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to move slightly away from his Motion to make that point.
In all humility—I do not like my noble friends laughing when I say that—I suggest that the noble Lord's Motion could have been phrased somewhat differently. This is a small debate, although it is none the worse for that. However, there are serious implications in what he says which are not evident from the way the Motion is phrased.
I am quite sure that the bad habits of the House will continue to increase. I believe that I am a fairly amiable soul. As I say that I hope that I do not generate any sniggers from the Benches behind. In this world very few things annoy me; for example, people who spit, wink and use initials for everything when it is quite unnecessary to do so. We must put up with acronyms. Since the first stage of reform there has been an increasing tendency to use initials for everything. I do not even like "UK" which is demeaning to the country. I believe that "United Kingdom" is much better and requires no effort. The same applies in other areas. Those are the kinds of matters which will improve our reputation in the country at large. After all, we are a relatively well-educated, articulate and sensible forum which is able to set a standard. That may not necessarily be fully appreciated in the visitors' gallery—I am sure that it is to some extent—but certainly it will be in the country through television and radio if our standards fall. I believe that we must guard against that.
828
I thank the noble Lord for introducing this debate and allowing me to range quite freely round his Motion, as I am rather apt to do.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I should like to offer my praise to the noble Baroness the Deputy Leader of the House for her clarity, comprehensibility, audibility and visibility. We look forward to her speech at the end of the debate. One was always told that if one indulged in flattery one might as well lay it on with a trowel. I follow the noble Viscount in doing just that.
I also offer my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Hodgson on introducing the debate This is an important subject but it is rather sad that it has attracted such relatively little support. That may be due to a number of different reasons; for example, the mere fact that my noble friend's Motion appeared on the Order Paper only on 25th June for ballot on 27th June, which meant that most noble Lords saw it on the Order Paper only on the 28th. It may be that in future we should look at balloted debates which are held at relatively short notice. I am not sure of the answer to that problem, or whether there is an answer. However, that is a possible explanation for the relatively few speakers. It may also be due to the fact that the holiday is to start somewhat earlier than normal and there is a relatively light load of work in the run-up to the break towards the end of the month. The Bills which the Government have seen fit to introduce are not exactly the most exciting and controversial. I am sure that all of them are of extreme importance, but some might be called good stuff for the lawyers, if not for the rest of us.
Despite the lack of interest in my noble friend's Motion, I believe that it is very important that we consider the whole visibility and audibility of this House and how we present our image outside. One should remember that until the 18th century—relatively recent in the history of Parliament—the proceedings in both Houses were not reported at all, and both Houses stuck to their right of keeping proceedings secret. Gradually pressure mounted on them until, in the late 18th and early 19th century, Hansard was developed and there was proper reporting of Parliament. That is right and should be the case. Therefore, the people to whom Parliament was accountable knew what was going on.
Similarly, there was very heavy resistance to the televising of both Houses of Parliament. I remember debates in the 1980s when this House was the first one to introduce television. There were a great many Peers and Members of another place who had considerable misgivings about the idea of bringing television into Parliament. I cannot remember what my personal view was, but I believe that all of us now completely and utterly accept the fact that both Houses of Parliament should be televised. There are many of us who would like to go even further and see a dedicated channel on terrestrial television for each House so that its proceedings are available to everyone at all times. That might come about in due course.

829
All of us accept that television is essential. It is quite right that Parliament should be televised. Most of us would accept that it has not made that much difference to how either House behaves and that it has not changed the character of this House. It might be that because so many of us now have screens and watch the proceedings in our offices, attendance has been reduced in both Chambers. That is arguable. Therefore, there are considerable advantages to television being available.
The image that this House presents to the world is very important. It will become even more so, particularly in the coming years as we await the details of the Government's plans for consultation with regard to stage two of the reform of this House, and, presumably, after that process of consultation—whatever that process is—their intentions.
When talking about the image of this House I should also offer some praise, which I am sure will be echoed by all parts of the House, to the work of the Information Office in publicising just what we do, how long we sit and with what—I always like to stress this point—economy we perform our duties compared to other legislative bodies. I refer to another place, and to the European Parliament and others. Those responsible do a very fine job indeed.
I must make an admission. Unlike my noble friend, I have never taken the opportunity of listening to our proceedings from the public gallery. I understand that what he said is probably true and that it can on occasions be somewhat difficult for some people in certain parts of the public gallery to hear, to follow and to understand our proceedings.
There are a number of possible remedies. There are also a number of routes that we should be wary of following. Obviously, there are a number of straightforward practical solutions of a kind which the Offices Committee and its appropriate subcommittee—I presume that it would be the Administration and Works Sub-Committee—could pursue. There could be developments and changes to the microphones and the speakers attached to them. The microphones have been changed in the last 20 years. I remember a time when they were much larger and more obtrusive. That indicates that in a House such as this we can always make changes even though, as my noble friend put it, there are some who are resistant to physical change in a building of this kind. But it is always possible. My noble friend made some very good points along those lines and in support of larger television screens and so on.
My noble friend mentioned seating and stressed the fact that body sizes have changed over the last 150 years and that therefore the seats in the public gallery are no longer suitable for the bodies of the 21st century. I do not know whether the same is true of the Benches down here, but certainly I find them perfectly comfortable. As my noble friend also suggested, one could pursue the idea of some new type of Order Paper.
830
I am very grateful that my noble friend referred to the brief guide to the House of Lords with its charming introduction by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the equally charming photograph of him. My noble friend said that it was quite useful but that it did not go far enough. Again it might be appropriate for some other body such as the Procedure Committee to look at what changes might be made.
I said that there were some routes that we should be wary of pursuing. In a desire to make ourselves more open we should not go down false roads. There is a frequent desire—dare I say it—for new Labour to pursue options which, in its terms, are "more modern" or "more relevant". I would strongly caution against any changes to our procedures which were promoted by the noble Baroness and her party under the guise of making our workings more understandable, or, to use another new Labour word, "more relevant". I have no objection to change in itself, but I am always suspicious of change when it is promoted by the Government under the guise of making things clearer, more modern or whatever. That is normally mere shorthand for making life easier for them.
I congratulate again my noble friend Lord Hodgson for raising what I believe is an important point. It is very important that this House makes sure that it can be understood by all those who come to observe it and that those to whom we are in the end accountable understand what we are doing, how we are doing it, and—dare I say—how well we are doing it.
3.57 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for introducing this debate and also the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for their very kind remarks.
I understand that the acoustics in this Chamber have always been the subject of criticism. Your Lordships may be interested to know that in 1921, in his book Lords and Commoners, Sir H Lucy described this very Chamber as,
"the sepulchre of speech".
He went on to state:
"There are not more than half a dozen peers who can successfully combat its grievous acoustical properties".
Another famous and graphic simile suggested that speaking in your Lordships' House was,
"like speaking by torchlight to corpses in a charnel house".
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, I believe that things are not quite as bad as that today.
The subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, relates to audibility and comprehensibility. In terms of audibility, I have listened with great care to the remarks of the noble Lord. I shall of course pass on those remarks to the House authorities to see whether matters can be improved. I should be frank with the noble Lord, I have not been aware of any complaints from any of my visitors about audibility in the galleries. Comprehensibility might be another point.

831
In recent years, a speaker system identical to the one used in the Chamber has been fitted to every bench in the gallery, and I am sure that that has improved matters. In addition, there is an induction loop for people who wear a hearing aid. I am not sure what more can reasonably be done to improve audibility except perhaps asking that your Lordships speak clearly and not too fast. Quite often, in particular when we are speaking against time limits—despite what my colleagues on their various Front Benches have said, at times we all speak very quickly when we see the clock ticking—audibility can be that much more difficult. However, I shall be happy to raise what I can with the House authorities on those points.
In relation to comprehensibility, we move into rather more interesting territory offering perhaps a little more scope. There are two separate issues here: comprehensibility of the speeches and comprehensibility of procedures. I fear that there is little that we can do about the comprehensibility of speeches. The responsibility for that lies squarely with individual Members of the House and I would not dream of making any comment. However, I take some issue with what the noble Lord said as regards whether speeches are interesting. The noble Lord said that he did not think that they are as interesting as they used to be. I think that some of the contributions to our debates are absolutely riveting. Furthermore, on those occasions when they are riveting, it is usually the case that the House is packed full so that we have standing room only.
However, we cannot escape the fact that the subject matter of speeches and the speeches themselves are enormously important. It is the quality of both that gains the interest of the House. Perhaps I may gently point out to the noble Lord that when matters of real interest are to be discussed in your Lordships' House, usually there is a very long list of speakers. Thus in my view the notion that debates used to be more interesting is simply not true. I came to the House very often as a young civil servant. I sat in the Civil Service Box and advised Ministers. Some of the longest feats of endurance were encountered during those very long watches, when handwritten amendments to legislation were accepted from our predecessors. It was not so much a matter of what was comprehensible, but what was legible to the poor people sitting in the Box. Without comprehensibility and without legibility, it was at times very difficult indeed to judge whether the matters in hand were interesting.
I shall turn to the significant efforts that have been made to make our procedures more interesting for our visitors. Every visitor to the House is now offered the booklet illustrated in colour to which the noble Lord referred: The House of Lords: a brief guide. The guides are available in English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Japanese—the languages most frequently requested by our visitors. The guide explains a good deal about your Lordships' House: what the House does; what are the stages of a Bill; what are the different items on the Order Paper; what are Statements and Introductions; what are the categories of Members in the House; how the party system works
832
in the House; and where further information can be found on paper, on television and on-line. The guides also offer some important historical background to help the visitor to place all this information in its proper context. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that it is nothing short of miraculous that so much has been included in the small space available in the guide. Furthermore, I am happy to inform noble Lords that this extremely useful and informative guide is also available in Braille for our visually impaired visitors. I join with the noble Lord, Lord. Henley, in thanking all those who have helped to draw this information together.
I should like also to thank our Doorkeepers, who so far have not been mentioned in our exchanges. The Doorkeepers do a splendid job of explaining this House to visitors to the House who visit in the mornings and up until the time that the House sits. They also help to explain matters to those visitors who come to the House while it is sitting.
It must be said that there are certain parts of the public gallery where the view is somewhat restricted. In order to try to make it easier for visitors to see what is going on, noble Lords will note that two television monitors have been fitted in the gallery. One of the monitors shows the current business while the other—perhaps more helpfully—is tuned to the Lords' annunciator so that visitors can see what business is being taken and who is the current speaker. Perhaps we should install more of those monitors.
As regards the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on televising our proceedings, again that is something that we may look into. However, I am bound to point out that that is to a certain extent a matter for the TV companies, although I understand that yesterday the administration sub-committee agreed that an investigation should be launched into the possibility of webcasting Lords' proceedings, because the BBC Parliament channel covers Lords' proceedings only when the House of Commons is not sitting. Noble Lords will know that sometimes the proceedings in this House are a great deal more interesting than are the proceedings in the other place.
The noble Lord went into some detail on the democratic process and the need for accessibility. Of course we would all agree with that. In a democracy it is of the utmost importance that visitors can see and understand what is going on in the legislature of the country. It is precisely because of that need that the House authorities are acutely aware of the need for a great deal of thought to be given to making our proceedings as transparent as possible.
As to the question of the procedures themselves, frankly, this is not a question that we shall be able to resolve today. Perhaps I may say gently to the noble Lord that in the past there have been some sterling attempts to resolve these issues. It has been argued that our language is antiquated: we are "Content" or we are "Not-Content"; we "divide" rather than vote; and we have something called a "First Reading" where nothing at all is read. Of course those descriptions have grown out of many years of history and tradition and

833
thus might not be the words that we would use today if we were starting with a blank sheet of paper. But we are not starting with a blank sheet of paper; we are where we are. If noble Lords wish to change the ways in which we conduct our business or the words we use to describe it, the answer to that is in our own hands.
The noble Lord is quite right to say that we do not have timetabling. That is partly because we are a self-regulating House. Personally, I would agree with much of what the noble Lord said about timetabling, but he will find that many in your Lordships' House regard the lack of a timetable as a legitimate lever to use when trying to come to understandings with the executive. I thought I heard quite a strong hint of that in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in relation to the possibility of timetabling. However, I should remind noble Lords that my noble friend the Leader of the House has already indicated that he is considering setting up a leaders' group to consider ways of improving the working practices of the House. I am sure that the working group will be happy to consider the representations that any noble Lord—including the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—wishes to make. No doubt when the moment comes, the noble Lord will be a doughty fighter for reform.
I have sat in the public gallery on many occasions, in particular in my younger days when I was the General Secretary of the Association of First Division Civil Servants. I should say that I did manage to hear the proceedings of your Lordships' House, but that was usually because I was very interested in what was going on. When we began this discussion I believe that some seven or eight individuals were sitting in the gallery. I see that we are now down to six, outside the press boxes.
As to the question of provision for disability, I have dealt already with the issue of monitors, but here we come up against issues of architecture. The noble Lord was rather dismissive on this point, but the fact is that English Heritage would have quite a lot to say about changes being made to the interior of your Lordships' House. I am afraid that there are many things which cannot be changed, given that we work in such splendid government buildings. Significant changes would not find acceptance in the eyes of English Heritage, which regulates us on these matters.
I hope that I have managed to convey a flavour of the facilities and the explanations which are provided for our visitors. If any noble Lord has a visitor who is in any way perplexed by what they have seen in the Chamber, I am sure that the Clerk of the Parliaments—who so far has not been the subject of any of our exchanges—would be glad to hear of any suggestions for improvement. I thank the noble Lord for drawing these matters to our attention.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I shall take only a minute or so to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for his speech. I shall resist his teasing; I have not been the beneficiary of advice from Alan
834
Clark. The noble Viscount made a wide-ranging set of remarks. Where he appeared to be sympathetic, I thank him for his support. I thank also my noble friend Lord Henley for his support and I take on board his words of caution.
I should say two things to the Minister. First, I was not making any comment about the content of speeches in the House. I was merely wondering whether they could be heard in the gallery. I was not saying whether they were more or less interesting than they were years ago. Secondly, my comments about timetabling referred to the redesigning of the Order Paper for the gallery and not to the procedures of the House.
There remains a problem which needs to be addressed. I am glad that I have had a chance to raise it. The Chinese proverb is that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I hope that we have made a single step today. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Disability Discrimination
4.10 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to call attention to the means now available under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to improve the situation of severely disabled people; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after what was said in the previous debate, I must make myself audible today. The ballot was held only a week ago, at very short notice, and the first inkling that the debate was about to come on appeared only last Thursday, so I am grateful to all Peers and Peeresses who have put down their names to speak.
My aim in the debate, and after it, is to spread more widely information about the availability and potential applications of the Disability Discrimination Act, which, from now on, I shall allude to as the DDA. Parts of the Act have been coming into effect at different times following its enactment in 1995. I should remind the House of my own situation and declare a financial interest. I have received pensions for being severely wounded and partially disabled in World War II as a regular army officer commissioned at the beginning of the war.
I should remind the House of the origins of the DDA, which was the first legislation of its kind to be introduced by any government since the war. Previously it had been left to Private Member's Bills, most of which never reached the statute book, including two of mine, one introduced in the other place and the other, later, in this House.
A notable exception was the Chronically Ill and Disabled Persons Bill 1970, a Private Member's Bill, which was introduced and piloted through by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. The Bill was supported by several noble Lords who were in that House at the time. It was a major landmark. We discussed the Bill on its 30th anniversary last year, so

835
I need not describe it now. I shall comment only that at the time it was welcomed everywhere in the field of disablement in this country.
The Private Member's Bills which never completed their passage through Parliament nevertheless served a useful purpose; they indicated to governments what needed to be done. Much discussion was made possible at various stages—for instance, at Second Reading and in Committee—in both Houses. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, became the first Minister for the Disabled. Since then, all governments have continued to designate a member of their administration in this way. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be able to confirm whether I am right in thinking that since the election last month the honourable Maria Eagle MP has been appointed to that position, or whether we are without a Minister.
I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is to reply to the debate. She has dealt with this subject for several years in this House, both as a Minister and from the Opposition Front Bench. If I may say so, she knows it all.
There was a limit to what could be done in Private Member's Bills. Many of us had been urging governments to embark on anti-discrimination legislation and were pleased when we heard that this was happening in the mid-1990s. The Bill produced by the then government became the DDA. It was a huge advance that only a government Bill could achieve, covering, as it did, many subjects.
There was some criticism at the time that it did not include education; nor was it complete on transport. I knew the reasons for this. At the time, there were serious disagreements among various organisations concerned with education—for example, as to whether mainstream schools or special schools were most appropriate for disabled pupils in various circumstances. And so, rather than allow the DDA to be delayed, education was left out to be dealt with later.
On transport, much was added during the Bill's passage through this House and the other place. It was—if I may so describe them—our "wheelchair squadron" in this House who helped to insert some of the clauses on transport.
The wisdom of the decision on education was confirmed when, to a lesser degree, similar disagreements arose when special education needs were dealt with in the recent SEN Bill. Again, the controversy was based on arguments about mainstream versus special schooling.
There was also some criticism that the DDA produced a national disablement council rather than a full-blown commission. But later it took more than three years to reach agreement and establish the Disability Rights Commission in place of the council under a separate Act of Parliament. Thank heavens that the DDA was not delayed by those events and that disabled people have been benefiting from it since its enactment six years ago.
It is important that disabled people and their carers know about the DDA and, if they have not heard about it before, learn about it, especially as different
836
parts of the Act are still coming into effect al different times. In the past few months, disability organisations have gone out of their way to tell me that disabled people and their carers are availing themselves of relevant sections of the Act. The more widely this is known, the more likely it is that others will do the same and benefit.
By 2004 the providers of services to the public will, subject to reasonable considerations, have to make physical changes to buildings, if that is found to be necessary to permit access for disabled people.
The DDA applies to mental as well as physical disabilities. The main parts of the Act are concerned with employment and the supply of goods and services. The principles of mediation and conciliation apply when complaints and disputes arise, but the law is now there if and when it is needed. That is an important background.
On employment, the Act makes it Illegal to discriminate against a disabled person, taking also into account whether the kind of job is appropriate and what is considered reasonable. A key term is "reasonable arrangements". This is similar to "reasonable accommodation", the key wording in the equivalent American legislation—the Americans With Disabilities Act—which was passed shortly before our Act.
I understand that by the beginning of this year some 5,000 complaints of disability discrimination in employment had gone before employment tribunals. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that figure or provide the latest information. It is clear that the system is working. While I am against frivolous or adventurous claims, I would encourage any severely disabled person who has a serious complaint about employment to avail himself or herself of the provisions of the DDA.
Small firms below a certain size are exempted for the time being from the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act. That exemption should gradually be ended. When the DDA was enacted, it applied to firms with fewer than 20 employees. Now the figure is 15, and is due to be reduced. Will the Minister bring us up to date on the matter? Is the aim still to apply the provisions of the Act to small firms by 2004, so that all employers are covered by its provisions regardless of size?
The explanation for the exemption lies in the quota scheme introduced towards the end of the war. Employers were required to reserve 3 per cent of places within their workforce for those who were registered disabled. In later years, that gave rise to difficulty in many areas because less than 3 per cent of the working population in those areas were registered as disabled. It became mathematically impossible for all employers to comply. Small firms were exempted because of the complications of accounting for a "fraction of a person". For example, if a total workforce was 12, then 3 per cent of those employees was 0.36 per cent of a person. Therefore, businesses employing fewer than 20 people were not obliged by law to employ anyone who was disabled.
The DDA has ended that situation. Both the quota system and the register have been abolished. There is now no reason why small firms should not be treated in the same way as others. I understand that the change is being phased simply to give small firms time to adjust to the situation.
I now turn to goods and services. It is against the provisions of the DDA for a supplier to refuse to serve a disabled person, subject to the test of reasonableness. For example, a restaurant which has a rule not to allow dogs inside must admit a guide dog needed by someone who is blind. Also in relation to dogs, Section 37 of the DDA specifies that taxis must accept guide dogs with passengers. I and other Members of this House have raised this matter at Question Time because the provision is still not being carried out.
At least one useful code of practice has been issued to help all concerned by describing the duties under the Act.Rights of Access, Goods, Facilities, Services and Premises was published in 1996. It is an easily readable brief for those who are involved with public premises and services, as well as for disabled people. I ask the Minister whether other codes of practice have been issued or whether any are in prospect?
Today, we learn that the Government are to announce proposals to place a time limit of three years on incapacity benefit—a proposal that The Times suggests is likely to upset Labour Members of Parliament. For my part, I shall examine the proposal and I shall not comment on it before doing so. There will, however, be concern among disability organisations because of what happened in the previous Parliament when reductions in benefit appeared clumsily to affect adversely some of the most seriously disabled people in the country. After protests and a revolt by Labour MPs, adjustments were made. I hope that we shall not find ourselves in that situation again.
I should mention a scheme which functions well alongside the provisions of the DDA; namely, the Access to Work scheme which began some 12 years ago. The scheme enables the Government to give grants for special equipment to enable disabled people to work. It was retained following the change of government in 1997. Its existence should be made more widely known.
I shall not now describe the special problems of war disabled ex-servicemen—most of whom received their injuries in World War II and are at least 73. That is a subject for a separate debate. I have a Motion on the "No Day Named" list which I hope may be selected in the future. It would be appropriate for the subject to be discussed in this House because, I understand there is no one left in the other place who is old enough to have been in the Armed Forces during the war.
Much remains to be done in this country to improve the quality of life for people with various disabilities. We must not be complacent. Nonetheless, the DDA was a huge step forward. I am pleased that the government initiative and the parliamentary time
838
allotted to it happened during an administration of which I was a supporter, namely, a Conservative government.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for giving us an opportunity to discuss this important issue. The noble Lord, with his vast experience, is a doughty warrior for disabled people and is an honoured member of the Parliamentary All-Party Disability Group. We treasure his contributions, both within the group and in this House. I agree with many of the points that the noble Lord made. We have been dealing with them for some time. Some have been rewarded by the Government and some still require action.
This Government deserve great credit for their policies on disability. There is a vast range of policies for which we are all grateful. They have vigorously promoted, the interests of disabled people and I congratulate them warmly on so doing.
With the best of intentions, one can slip up and fall from a pedestal. I believe that Alistair Darling's speech today was just such a slip-up. He risks losing the good will of disabled people. This revival of the unjustified slur that disabled people may be scroungers who are trying to "fiddle" is a throwback to a very unfortunate period during the Government's previous term in office. Alistair Darling has changed the atmosphere: instead of disabled people appreciating all that is being done, now many will fear that they may be challenged and have their benefits reduced, which will be disastrous for them.
There is no point in instilling fear into disabled people; they are insecure enough as it is. The matter has been badly handled. There has been no consultation with those of us who are intimately involved in disability issues. We have a very good relationship with Ministers in this House and—I thought—in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, this has been a rather aggressive move. I shall not speak at great length on the matter because it is slightly outside the terms of the remit set by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
When we come to consider discrimination against disabled people, we realise that there is, in fact, a continuum of discrimination. Many people have good will towards disabled people and would not discriminate against them. That is both admirable and welcome. Then we have the vast majority of people who, in my view, could not care less: they would discriminate if it suited their purpose. They are indifferent and, if necessary, willing to wound if it is in their interests. If it is not in their interests, they will not discriminate. However, the approach of those people can be quite damaging unless due care is taken. Then there is the minority of vicious people who will discriminate, and who will not be influenced by any kind of pleas and suggestions; or, indeed, by education and persuasion. They will discriminate because they want to do so—again, in their own interests.

839
To their great credit, this Government have brought in the Disability Rights Commission, remedying a grave weakness in the DDA. Those of us who campaigned earlier for that legislation were disappointed that no commission was established. However, we now have such a commission, with which we are delighted. We have scrutinised its work, and it is most promising. The commission has a splendid chairman in Bert Massey, who is extremely experienced in disability and who is, himself, disabled. He knows a good deal about the subject. It also has Bob Niven, who is very experienced, as its chief executive. He has shown every indication of sympathising with disabled people. He has great knowledge of such matters and is acquiring an even greater knowledge. Those two people have a fine staff to serve them. Indeed, they are very lucky to have the brilliant Agnes Fletcher working with them, as well as other people of a similar calibre. With that kind of man and woman power, the commission can hardly fail.
The commission has been co-operating with government and with employers. I am all for that kind of approach. Unless you have co-operation, you get nowhere. I believe that the work of the commission is most skilful. Members of the commission visited the all-party group and explained what they are seeking to achieve. I found them to be most impressive. However, in any walk of life there is always the danger that, if you become too "cosy" with authority, you can lose your bite. It would be regrettable, deplorable—indeed, disastrous—if the commission became too cosy with employers or my noble friend Lady Hollis, although everyone wants to co-operate with her. It could be a case of, "Let's have lunch old boy; let's have another drink; and then lunch again next week. We'll do what we can". That kind of approach is dangerous.
I repeat: I am all for co-operation and conciliation. However, I remember vividly something that happened when we were fighting for the establishment of such a commission. Certain politicians said, "We don't want a commission: what we want is education and persuasion". But how do you deal with the tough guys; that is to say, those who are recalcitrant and who say, "To hell with disabled people. I don't want them on my payroll. Fm not having them"? Those people seek to discriminate because they do not want disabled people. Admittedly, that may not be in their interests, but that is by the way. It is just too bad. Our job is to ensure that disabled people have a fair crack at the whip. If those people are allowed to get away with it merely because a policy of education and persuasion is adopted, the commission will have failed. So this is just a friendly, flag-waving exercise from me to the commission in the hope that it will buttress education and persuasion with tough court action. Where people are insistent on discrimination, I trust that they will be taken to court with all the legal expertise at the commission's command.
I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister, who has clone a great deal in the field of disability, about the "Access to Work" scheme. She may have heard of it, as, indeed, have a few experts; but many other people have not heard of it. They simply do not
840
know what is going on. Members of the public do not know about it and, similarly, many disabled people are unaware of the scheme. I believe that the Government should initiate a big PR exercise. They should really go to town on this and ensure that everyone is aware of the scheme's existence. We asked my noble friend previously to campaign on benefits as a PR exercise. This would be a second such exercise to publicise the "Access to Work" scheme. If that were to be done, I believe that the take-up would startle the Government. It would be a big step forward for disabled people.
Perhaps I may mention the subject of transport to my noble friend. At present, this is something of a no-man's land. A disabled person can go to a railway station and access is fine; there are no problems in that respect. People are not allowed to discriminate in terms of access. However, if a disabled person tries to get on a train, that is just too bad because you cannot have equality on the trains. The Government have arranged for disabled people to be able to get into a railway station with their wheelchairs, and so on, and that is admirable as far as it goes. But, thereafter, nothing—or virtually nothing—is done when disabled people wish to gain access to a train. How do you get on to the train, how do you get security on the train; indeed, how do you ensure equitable provision on the train? The Government are working on it, but, in my view, they are not working quickly enough. Some of the initiatives that the Government have in mind are admirable, but could not my noble friend the Minister bring them forward? What we really require from her today—if not today, then possibly tomorrow or the day after, but no later—is a few dates as to when the Government intend to implement such proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell—I nearly said "my noble friend", though he is, of course, my friend—mentioned small employers. Again, it is to their great credit that the Government have brought down the number of employers who must come under the Act's provisions. However, I believe that the Government made a serious mistake when they accepted the pleas of small firms to exclude many thousands of them from the discrimination legislation. I say that because the Act specifically says that only reasonable provision should be made, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. Therefore, it is impossible for unreasonable burdens to be imposed on small employers. That plea from small employers was quite bogus, but they managed to persuade the Government to exclude thousands of them from the provisions of the DDA.
However, the Government are seeking to correct that mistake. As far as I can tell, they now intend to bring all employers into that category; but they are not doing so until 2004. That is far too long a time-scale. I recently read that they may do so by the year 2003, but that is still far too long to wait. I should appreciate it if my noble friend could find some way of speeding up the process so that all these firms will no longer be allowed to discriminate in such a way against potential workers.
I should like to conclude by saying that I admire the work of my noble friend on issues of disability; and, indeed, on social security matters. Although we clash

841
on occasions, the thrust of her work is both valuable and admirable. That applies also to the Government, who perform a splendid job. Disabled people are in their debt. All I hope for is that the other elements that I have mentioned today, and which I believe to be errors of judgment, will be corrected soon.
4.39 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for initiating this debate and for giving us an opportunity to reflect on our shared life in the community. In my diocese in Guildford, we are in the process of working towards full compliance with the 1995 Act. We have appointed an officer and a team of people working closely with those most directly affected to ensure that we have made the necessary journey by 2004.
As we were thinking about making that provision, we were told a story that made us all sit up. Those who are familiar with the churches will recognise the story. It was the custom in a local parish church— many who attend church will be well aware of this—for the priest, at the end of the administration of communion, to take the sacrament to one beloved member who was brought to the service week by week in a wheelchair. One Sunday after the service, in conversation with the person who brought the man in the wheelchair, he was thanked for making the effort to ensure that the sacrament was received. However, the man in the wheelchair burst into tears. When he was able to speak he said that he had always longed to be able to go to the altar and receive communion alongside everyone else. How often, when we are responding to people with particular disabilities, do we fail to understand their feelings and their sense of belonging to a shared human community?
The Peacock Centre in Woking has an important "Shopmobility" facility and has made considerable efforts to ensure ease of access for people with disabilities. It is noticeable how many people with disabilities use that centre. I am told that there is similar provision in other places such as Telford and that people come from miles around to use the facilities there. These developments make visible what the failure to provide has made invisible.
This enabling of participation in the common life by all requires a profound change of attitudes. People with disabilities are discriminated against not just in the failure to take good steps to ensure access, but in the way in which many see them, understand them and speak of them. Two such people who had requested provision in their church for visually impaired people overheard others say after the meeting at which they had raised the issue that they were "pushy". Another who had moved into a community facility for people with learning difficulties arrived for the first time at the parish church to find that the person giving out the books was the one who had led the campaign against the building of the facility in the community. NIMBY
842
attitudes are to be found across the whole community in relation to these needs. I endorse all that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has just said about the spectrum.
The task is not simply to provide ramps, better toilet facilities, loops and books in Braille, excellent though such changes are. The real task is to shift public attitudes. In that, the 1995 Act is rooted in the soundest of doctrines about human life. It challenges the long held assumption about humanity that there are "normal" human beings and the rest who live on the margins. We are at last beginning to recognise that God gave us our humanity in a multitude of sizes and shapes. What we share is not normality but a common humanity—the same flesh and blood.
This past week I came across a wonderful definition of health by one of the Church's great theologians of recent times, Jurgan Moltmann. He states in the book, Liberate Yourselves by Accepting One Another, that health is,
"The strength to live, the strength to suffer and the strength to die. Health is not a condition of the human body. It is the power of my soul to cope with the various conditions of that body".
Because we are all different yet fundamentally sharing in a common humanity, we all need support from one another, and that support must take account of who we are and the character of our living. The largest and most challenging task is to root into the public consciousness this understanding of human life.
We have heard from the media today that the Secretary of State for Health has indicated that he would like all who are registered as disabled and unfit for work to be regularly assessed. But that raises the question of doctrine—how do we see one another? People are not just economic numbers who, if they are not at work, are a drain on the public purse. If we are to get the language right, we must get the doctrine right. How can people make a contribution if they are faced with negative attitudes in the workplace, lack of decent provision for their needs and a constant struggle to gain acceptance for who they are and what their life is all about? There is a huge and growing contribution to be made by people with particular needs, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has clearly indicated. But turning the screw on them as if they are reluctant participants is no way to go about the matter; tackling the issues which prevent people sharing in the common life is.
There is a lot to do. I understand that in my own diocese in Surrey thus far only two boroughs have appointed access officers to ensure compliance with the Act. There are many opportunities for the Government to assist in furthering these matters, and much is being done of which we are immensely appreciative. I understand, for example, that a proposal is before the Government to exempt Braille equipment from VAT. I hope that it will be sympathetically considered, for those small and large steps all convey the right message to the whole community. There are so many things we can all do to make use of the opportunities which the Act gives us.
I hope that noble Lords will not think that I have overstepped the mark in introducing doctrinal themes into our debate, but what we believe matters. It

843
matters in terms of how we think and how we behave. The 1995 Act is rooted in sound doctrine and, as such, challenges us in the Churches as much as in the wider community. Let us pray that by 2004 we shall all have made the journey with courage, joy and success.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for introducing this debate on one of the most significant pieces of legislation yet passed for disabled people in the UK. I declare my interests as a wheelchair user and as someone who receives disability living allowance.
In reviewing the impact of the Disability Discrimination Act to date it is difficult to tell how well it is working for severely disabled people; that is, those who face the greatest level of social exclusion. Blind people with guide dogs continue to be banned from restaurants and people with learning difficulties continue to face appalling levels of bullying. To my knowledge there are no readily available tools for measuring the precise impact of the DDA on that, but there are some pretty clear indicators that the law, the way in which it is being enforced and the support available to disabled people seeking redress present huge barriers. This debate offers the opportunity to consider how we can better empower disabled people to exercise their rights under the law.
First, the law is unnecessarily complex and inaccessible. You need to be a lawyer specialising in the field to understand all its intricacies. You need to know about the "triggers" for making reasonable adjustments, the "threshold for justification" and similarly obscure concepts, to have any sense of whether you have a strong case. The DDA seems to be designed to present a series of forbidding hoops to jump through, not as a user friendly tool for building a culture of respect for disabled people's rights. The Government's proposals for future legislative change outlined in the recent consultation paper, Towards Inclusion, would remove many of the unnecessary hoops but there is a wider need for all future legislation to be written in plain English and scrutinised for its accessibility.
Secondly, agencies undertaking case work with disabled people are hugely overstretched. Even with the Disability Rights Commission there is inadequate infrastructure to ensure that anyone who needs it can get advice and representation from a lawyer who specialises in DDA cases. Someone presenting themselves as a test case that may set a precedent or clarify a particularly obscure aspect of the law is more likely to get support and resources, assuming they know where to look for them in the first place. That is a major barrier in itself. Research shows that people who have to represent themselves have much less chance of success. Those problems were anticipated at the time of the passing of the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999, when higher funding for the DRC and local DDA resource bases were called for. Will the Minister assure us that the Government are prepared to revisit that?
844
Thirdly, we know little of the impact of the DDA in areas such as access to goods, services and facilities, because there is virtually no case law. Discrimination against disabled people in everyday situations can be pretty relentless, so one would expect a large number of cases to come forward under Part III, but that has not been so. By the autumn of last year, only 25 cases had been brought to the county or sheriff courts under Part III of the DDA, as against more than 5,000 to employment tribunals. Perhaps the following example will show why.
Recently, a disabled man was in court challenging a train operating company's failure to provide him with assistance at a station. No specialist lawyer was available to represent him, so he represented himself and asked for an adjournment so that lie could have another go at seeking legal representation. The judge granted the adjournment, but ordered him to pay £600. That was eventually reduced to £175 plus VAT. The train company then attempted to have the case moved to the multi-track system, which meant that if he lost he would be liable to pay the company's costs as well. That does not happen in an employment tribunal. The respondent does not get to manipulate the system to their advantage and the issue of paying their costs does not arise.
Undoubtedly, the court system provides a powerful deterrent to disabled people seeking redress. The DRC will be addressing that key issue as part of its current review, but the sooner change can happen, the better.
Compliance with the DDA is too dependent on the willingness and ability of already disadvantaged people to take the case to court or tribunal. Enabling the DRC to undertake representative actions in its own name might overcome some of those obstacles, as will the Government's proposal to place public bodies under a statutory duty to promote equality for disabled people. Such a positive, proactive duty will encourage the spread of good practice and oblige policy makers to assess the impact of their policies and decisions on disability equality.
Lastly, and most importantly for severely disabled people, they will not be able to challenge some of the more blatant abuses of their rights unless and until the DRC is empowered to bring cases involving alleged breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998. Most urgent of these are the issues concerning lack of essential local authority support services for people who need them to carry out their daily lives. The Government have said that that cannot be done immediately because of the need to secure consistency with the other equality commissions and because the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights is consulting on the establishment of a human rights commission. That may be a long way off. Will the Minister reconsider that and allow protection for severely disabled people under the Human Rights Act to be covered by the Disability Rights Commission as a matter of urgency?

845
One group who urgently require the effective protection of the Human Rights Act are those with profound and multiple disabilities and complex needs, who may find it difficult or impossible to advocate for themselves, or even communicate with their own family. That includes many who live in the last of the long-stay mental hospitals or in other forms of residential care. They may be denied the most basic rights, such as the rights to receive treatment for serious illness or to form relationships or marry. They would find it almost impossible to challenge such abuses without the support of the Disability Rights Commission. The DDA offers no protection against those abuses. Only assistance under the Human Rights Act offers that protection.
Furthermore, the complexity and multiplicity of human rights issues facing that group makes a strategic intervention by the Disability Rights Commission doubly essential, because it is uniquely placed to conceive and execute a legal strategy to tackle the most serious abuses, establish key precedents and help ensure that case law in that area develops in a positive and orderly way.
The swift introduction of regulations enabling the DRC to support disabled people in such cases would send a powerful message of much-needed hope and support to disabled people and their families. It would enhance the authority and effectiveness of the DRC and would be one of the Government's most positive and lasting achievements for severely disabled people. I hope that the Minister will be able to oblige.
4.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to make a brief intervention before the wind-up speeches. My mother was in a wheelchair for much of her life. As a teenage boy wheeling her out, I was often deeply embarrassed and very angry about the discrimination shown in the 1950s to severely disabled people like her. Thankfully, we have come a long way since then, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, have said, much remains to be done.
My particular concern in this intervention—this concern was mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley—is with Section 7 of the DDA, which has introduced discrimination of the sort that the Act is meant to oppose. A firm with fewer than 20 employees that discriminates against a person with a disability who is also female and/or black would not be guilty in law of discrimination if that discrimination was shown to be on the grounds of disability alone. The Section 7 exemption applies a numerical formula to an Act that is supposed to be about rights. Thus 34 per cent of the workforce and 96 per cent of firms are excluded from the measures. I am concerned about the delay in putting right that wrong. If, as my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford has rightly said,
846
freeing people with disabilities from discrimination is a moral quest, I cannot see why the law still allows some firms to be less moral than others.
4.57 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for this timely opportunity to review and evaluate the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which is widely recognised as landmark legislation. It is an ambitious and large-scale Act that places diverse duties on public and private sector bodies. It is right that it should be reviewed regularly so that checks can be made on progress. This debate is a welcome opportunity to do that.
In preparing for the debate, I looked at the report of the Disability Rights Task Force, From Exclusion to Inclusion, and the Government's response, Towards Inclusion. Both are wide-ranging documents, as this afternoon's debate has reflected. I shall focus on one or two particular areas and one theme.
Today's debate is timely because, despite the best efforts of some of us, during the recent election campaign the needs and rights of disabled people went without mention. Although disabled people are citizens who share common concerns with the rest of us, they have additional needs and additional qualities to bring to communal life. At the start of a new Parliament it is right to pay attention to issues that directly affect between 8 million and 10 million people in the United Kingdom. In doing so, I shall revive a theme from the last Parliament that seems to have been forgotten but should not be, particularly in relation to this subject. I refer to the phrase "joined-up government".
I have two interests to declare. As noble Lords may know, I work for Age Concern England. Secondly, and more relevantly, my mum is profoundly deaf and has been dependent on NHS hearing aids since the 1940s. She is post-lingually deaf and does not use BSL, although we all learnt to finger spell the alphabet as children in case of emergencies. Her life has been largely spent in the hearing world. We did not have adaptations in our home; we just had the television turned up very loud. People of my generation are wont to say that they used to watch "Dr Who" from behind the sofa because they were so frightened. In our house our experience of "Dr Who" was two bars of thumping, pulsating music and a voice saying, "Turn that noise off now".
It has been interesting to experience at first and second hand the effects of the policy of successive governments on the lives of individuals. When I was small my mother had an old box hearing aid with a cord. It was not until the 1980s when we moved house and she happened to come under the audiology department of a general hospital that she came to use a hearing aid which fitted behind the ear.
I can vouch for the veracity of the Audit Commission report, Fully Equipped. Obtaining the right equipment and having it properly fitted is still a matter of chance for disabled people. The

847
consequences of not finding it are severely debilitating for some disabled people. As the RNID report, Still Waiting to Hear, demonstrates, most NHS hearing aid models are over 30 years old. There are only 20 First Wave of Modernising NHS Hearing Aid services. If a deaf person does not live in one of those areas, not only does he not benefit but, as many of the means of communication become digital, he is left more and more in isolation and exclusion.
In addition, waiting times for hearing tests are becoming longer and investment in equipment and skilled staff is failing to keep pace with need. As devolution of decision making in the health service moves towards primary care, what assurances will there be that specialist services and equipment will keep pace with change and that disabled people will be able to seek the help of appropriately skilled professionals? Although the debate on reform of public services is beginning to happen, the reliance placed by severely disabled people on the NHS should not be subject to the vagaries of the market place.
On digital matters, it seems appropriate to mention one of the obvious omissions of the DDA. While terrestrial broadcasters are under an obligation to provide captioning and subtitling, digital and satellite broadcasters are not. Recent reports in newspapers suggest that some digital broadcasters are in financial difficulty and that the range of digital suppliers may decrease. It is therefore of even greater importance that those who remain have an obligation to make their broadcasts accessible. What plans do the Government have to bring digital broadcasting within the scope of the DDA?
From broadcasting I turn to advertising and information. In 1999 the Government launched the campaign, See the Person, designed to raise awareness of disability among employers and service providers by challenging misconceptions about disability. Those of us who were aware of that campaign were encouraged by the engaging and often amusing way in which the campaign challenged stereotypes of disabled people. Have the Government any evidence about the effectiveness of that campaign and similar campaigns? I am not convinced that such blanket advertising gets through effectively to those who need to change although I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. I very much welcome any evidence.
I return to the theme of joined-up government. Other noble Lords have mentioned the Government's intention to introduce the new medical check for incapacity benefit. The announcement, and the manner in which it was made without any consultation with disability groups, runs counter to the Government's stated intention of enhancing inclusion. On the one hand, the Government have accepted that conditions such as HIV serostatus and cancer should be included in the DDA. However, at the same time they propose to make disabled people prove every three years that they cannot undertake tasks which make therm suitable for work. That has a ring of discordance about it.
848
When the national minimum wage was introduced, there was a great deal of apprehension from disabled people and employers alike about the effect it could have upon disabled people who were working but whose package of benefits and support would be jeopardised by their increased earnings. Good employers, notably B&Q, did a considerable amount of work to ensure that their disabled employees could be retained. What progress has been made on that front? I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. This Government have done a great deal of positive work for disabled people.
Part of my work with Age Concern involves advising small voluntary organisations about employment matters. From my experience it is clear that there is a huge amount of ignorance particularly in small businesses and organisations about the provisions of the DDA but, most importantly, about the various sources of support for employers who wish to hire and retain staff with disabilities. The availability of money for adaptations and capital equipment is extremely valuable, as is the provision of support workers. I know of a number of instances where experienced staff have been able to carry on working following strokes which have left them with a disability. However, I wish to draw to the Minister's attention to a shortcoming in the system. While the costs of travel to work can be met, the costs of travel incurred during work cannot be recovered. For example, the cost of a taxi to enable a member of staff to carry out a home visit to someone who is housebound cannot be recovered. For small employers such matters can be a significant barrier to the retention of extremely valued and experienced staff who are disabled.
An additional limitation of the DDA is that it does not cover volunteers. Volunteering is an important and rewarding experience for many people. It is also an important opportunity to gain experience and confidence. For many it is a route to finding paid work. The fact that organisations, many quite small, cannot access resources to facilitate volunteering by disabled people in a way that can encourage employment is a barrier. I hope that the Government may reconsider the matter.
As many noble Lords have said, transport remains the most significant omission from the DDA and blunts the effectiveness of the Act in almost every respect. Although regulations have been introduced to make new trains and buses accessible, there is still no date by which all trains have to be accessible. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, spoke of equality of rail travel. He will agree with me that standards are an important issue. At present, travel can be equally miserable for disabled and able-bodied. The lack of accessible transport is a fundamental flaw not only in this Act but in many others. For example, the Health and Social Care Act places on health bodies a duty to consult with users. Many of those users are disabled people. If they cannot travel to consultation meetings, they will not be able to take part in that partnership. Many areas of government policy which espouse inclusion will fail to meet their targets as a result. At a

849
time when transport is a key issue for disabled and able-bodied people alike, joined-up thinking is of the essence. The anomaly that airlines, rail companies and car hire providers will have obligations to make their modes of transport accessible for employees but not for passengers is strange.
In passing, I make a plea for all rail companies to stop referring to their users as clients and start treating them as passengers with varying needs, all of whom would benefit from greater access.
The Disability Rights Task Force identifies a number of areas in which further work should be undertaken to strengthen the DDA. Sitting as we are today in the Victorian splendour of the Palace of Westminster, it would be remiss not to mention Part M of the building regulations and guidance on access from English Partnerships. New and old buildings alike are inaccessible and often there is much which can be done to rectify that without great expense. On these Benches, we believe that timetables for reviewing both measures should be set as soon as possible.
Finally, I refer to one factor which is not but should be in the Act: that is, disability awareness training for architects, designers and planners. Much of what the Act sets out to rectify and address are the effect of bad or ill-considered design. Much could be done through disability awareness training. To experience the world, as disabled people do every day, is a powerful means of making able-bodied people think about the world as it is for us all. I believe that it should be a compulsory part of training for anyone who is involved in design and building.
Much has changed since the 1940s when eugenicists tried to persuade politicians that there should be laws to prevent deaf people from marrying and having children with hearing people. That disabled people increasingly have the right to equal treatment, rather than having to depend upon the chance of fair consideration and charity from the rest of society, is only just. But good as the DDA is—it is widely recognised as a good law—rights without access for disabled people are pretty meaningless.
Full implementation of the Act could be the best response this Government make. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, they have made far more significant strides than have most other governments, and they have built upon the work which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, identified as being so important on the part of the previous administration.
I hope that today the Minister will give an encouraging response to suggestions that have been made not only for improving the Act but, in very direct ways, for improving the lives of disabled people.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, this is the first opportunity that I have had to welcome the noble Baroness the Minister back to the Dispatch Box. In the previous Parliament she earned a great deal of respect
850
from all sides of the House. I very much look forward to helping, critically but constructively, to improve her department's Bills in this Parliament.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on initiating this important debate. I always listen to his speeches with very great interest. The noble Lord has first-hand experience of severe disability which, since the war, he has bravely borne. That gives him a real insight into the problems of, and opportunities for, disabled people. But, beyond that, he brings to these debates imagination, energy and extensive knowledge of the parliamentary system, particularly as a former Cabinet Minister, for which I know that disability groups are very grateful.
My noble friend is right to point out the importance of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—a landmark Conservative Bill introduced in the other place by William Hague. The DDA, which built on the foundation of the 1970 Act introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, was described by the Equal Opportunities Review as,
"the most important legislation in a generation".
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, asked me to say how much he regrets being unable to speak in this debate. The DDA opened up new markets for business, new job opportunities for people who had envisaged life on benefits, and new designs for all principles built into the latest technology.
I much enjoyed the speeches of the two right reverend Prelates. As a trustee of the two Kent cathedrals, I can assure them that we work very hard to make both cathedrals as user-friendly as possible for all disabled people.
One in every four customers either has a disability or a close relative or friend who is disabled. The estimated annual purchasing power of people with disabilities is £40 billion to £50 billion. Many providers of goods and services are showing themselves willing to make their services accessible to disabled people. Increasingly, they are approaching disability organisations and consultancies proactively to ask for advice on good practice. But that is only the beginning, and my noble friend is right to call attention to the means now available under the 1995 Act to improve the situation of severely disabled people.
What else needs to be done? There is still an Everest of ignorance that needs to be climbed. Many employers are unaware of the DDA and the Access to Work scheme, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. Like my noble friend, he is also a doughty warrior for the disabled. An example of such ignorance is a recent case of 10 adults with learning disabilities who were refused permission to enter a pre-booked party at a pub. The landlady considered that they would constitute a breach of the fire regulations and affect her regulars' comfort. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, brought to our attention the bullying that takes place.

851
Earlier this year, the Disability Rights Commission carried out a survey in which they asked people about attitudes towards disabled people and awareness of the DDA. Worryingly, fewer than half—only 46 per cent—had heard of the DDA. Clearly, the Government's "See the Person" campaign, launched in June 1999, has been a hopeless flop. It was designed to raise awareness of disability and the requirements of the DDA among employers, service providers and disabled people. Many disabled people are unaware of their rights under the DDA. That can act as a deterrent to many who believe that they may have been discriminated against.
Future progress for disabled people depends on effective publicity of the DDA and its benefits. Can the Minister tell the House what plans the Government have to widen the exposure and understanding of the DDA and the work of the RDA?
Disabled people make up a large and growing proportion of the working-age population. Employers, in particular, must be made more aware of the DDA and the Access to Work scheme. Many service providers or their advice agencies and solicitors do not understand either their obligations or the huge potential opportunities that enhancing their service with disabled people could bring to their business. I know employers who tell me enthusiastically about the loyalty, abilities and hard work that disabled people have brought to their jobs and the new perspectives that they have brought to the work. Sadly, that is not the norm.
Mencap, for example, points out that a recent public opinion survey suggested that nearly 90 per cent of the general public believe that people with a learning disability are employable. However, only 10 per cent of people with learning disabilities have paid employment. Most people said that they would be happy to live next door to someone with a learning disability. Yet a high proportion experience unfair discrimination in their daily lives, and the housing of such people in the community faces regular objections from neighbours.
Access for disabled people remains a high priority. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, mentioned transport problems. We on these Benches urge the Government to set end dates by which all passenger rail vehicles must be accessible. Without a more accessible transport network, greater access to the workplace for disabled people will not follow.
We supported recent legislation establishing the Disability Rights Commission. We also welcomed the extension of the DDA to cover education. However, my noble friend Lady Blatch has expressed our concerns in relation to other aspects of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act. We are concerned that the Government require local authorities to place children with special needs—many are severely disabled—in mainstream schools, regardless of the child's interests. That push for inclusion at all costs has put pressure on special schools and has resulted in the closure of many of them.
852
Maria Eagle has been brought in with considerable fanfare as the Minister for Disabled People. She is responsible for the issues that are classified as work and pensions; namely, disability policy, the Disability Rights Commission, disability benefits and long-term care. However, it would seem that she is not the only Minister with responsibility for disability issues. In the Department for Education and Skills the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, is responsible for pupils with individual needs, such as SEN. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, is responsible for matters relating to disabled people and training in the workplace; or does that fall within the remit of Maria Eagle or Nick Brown? Which Minister within the DfES is responsible for access for disabled people to further education and higher education institutions, as provided for in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act; or does that fall under the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions?
The Cabinet Office is responsible for social exclusion, which cuts across many different government departments. Disability is a major ca use of poverty and, as Leonard Cheshire and Scope point out, many disabled people are excluded. Do the Government have any plans for the Social Exclusion Unit to pick up on disability as a special area of work?
In the Department of Health, Jacqui Smith is listed as responsible for disability services. Indeed, during health Oral Questions last Tuesday she answered a Question on the national strategy for learning disabilities, now a Department of Health issue. Clearly, there is an overlap between these four departments, with no one person responsible for issues relating to disabled people. How wide is the remit of Maria Eagle, as Minister for Disabled People, throughout Whitehall? If it is wide-ranging, does she have the resources to make this possible?
The apparent lack of arrangements for cross-departmental consultation on issues affecting disabled people is causing alarm bells to ring among the disability groups. So important is this point to the chair of one disability charity that she has taken the decision, reluctantly, to listen to our debate rather than watch Wimbledon and Tim Henman on television! Disability organisations are already concerned at the Government's welfare reform plans to toughen up conditions for the 2.3 million disabled people who currently rely on incapacity benefits. I have been fielding calls all day from different disability organisations on the MoT tests for people with disabilities.
We all want disabled people to find work, but the disability groups, with whom there has apparently been absolutely no consultation, tell me that these measures will do little to help achieve that. The measures were leaked first to the press and then announced this morning by the Secretary of State to the IPPR. Why was no Statement on such an important matter made, before anywhere else, to both Houses of Parliament?
5.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on his success in the ballot on this occasion. We have had a short, thoughtful and, as I would expect in your Lordships' House, expert debate. I also very much welcome his choice of subject. Helping severely disabled people within society is an issue which this Government have taken seriously and on which, as noble Lords around the House have acknowledged, we have made great progress. We have helped to empower, support and protect them.
Although I should like to focus, as did the noble Lord, on the Disability Discrimination Act, I shall also mention some of the other areas which noble Lords have raised, including the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, about the comments made this morning. The DDA was brought in by the previous government only after much pressure over the years from colleagues in this House and another place to provide civil rights for disabled people. I know that the involvement of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in promoting statutory help for disabled people has been very significant. I should like to pay a special tribute to my noble friend Lord Ashley—although given his concerns about "cosying up", I suspect that I can no longer take a drink from him in future—and to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for their efforts over the years to introduce and strengthen civil rights legislation for disabled people.
Although the DDA was a very welcome Act, we said from the Opposition Benches at the time that as and when we came to power it needed to be strengthened. We recognised that it provided helpful protection for around 8.5 million disabled people, but that we needed to build on it. In October we announced that we would continue to implement the access to goods and services provisions in the DDA, set up a Disability Rights Task Force and, above all—in our view this was the main omission from the 1997 Act—establish a Disability Rights Commission to "powerhouse" the Act and make actions accountable in law.
In 1997, the DDA already meant that businesses and public bodies had to treat disabled people fairly. In 1999, we made sure that service providers would also have to change the way they delivered their services to make them accessible. We also announced in 1997 that in 2004 service providers may have to make adjustments to their premises for disabled people. That might mean a ramp or a wider doorway, for instance, but only things that are reasonable for a particular provider. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was right to emphasise the word "reasonable" in that context.
We also moved quickly to set up the Disability Rights Task Force. Its first job was to make recommendations on setting up a Disability Rights Commission. In setting it up a year ago a major flaw in the DDA has been put right.
The next job we gave the task force was to look at comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. Its second and final report, which was mentioned by the
854
noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was called From Exclusion to Inclusion and contained more than 150 recommendations across all areas of life. We immediately announced that we would legislate to introduce rights for disabled pupils and students. We have now done that in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, which corrects another major flaw in the DDA.
In a thoughtful and well informed speech, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked about mainstreaming in this respect. The SEN provisions will make a drive towards the greater inclusion of children with statements into mainstream schools where parents want it and where it is compatible with the efficient education of other children. That means that we must give greater support to those parents by creating a duty to establish parent partnership services and a new duty to establish conciliation arrangements and working codes. It can be a balancing act, not so much, if I may speak personally now, where a child has a physical disability but where his or her behaviour may be severely challenging and therefore very demanding in terms of the teacher's time vis-à-vis other children. Clearly, judgments have to be made, but the push of the Act is that teachers with proper support may be able to take more such children into mainstream schools. I am sure that that will be welcomed on all sides.
In March, we published our response to the task force's recommendations. We reported on the progress we had made in education, the provision of services, travel, the environment and housing, participation in public life, local government, health, social services and social security. We made clear that we will be ending the exemption of small firms from the DDA's provisions—the 20, then the 15 limit—in 2004. I am happy to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield that as from 2004 all firms will be brought within the coverage of the DDA. More than that, we are bringing in more occupations such as police officers, fire fighters, prison officers, barristers in chambers, partners in partnerships and employees on ships and planes. That will bring nearly 7 million more jobs, including over 600,000 currently filled by disabled people, within the scope of the Act's employment provisions. That will be a huge achievement.
We are also committed to extending the DDA to cover most functions of public services—not just, as now, services to the public—and to introducing a new duty on public services to promote equalisation of opportunities for disabled people. Noble Lords asked a number of specific questions on that point. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked to what extent digital broadcasting would be included. In so far as it is a service or facility for members of the public, it comes within the remit of Part III of the Act. We are looking to see how we can improve co-ordination between various agencies. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked about the codes of practice. We have three codes of practice: one on employment, one on goods and services, and one on trade organisation. There will also be another later this year on education.

855
My noble friend Lord Ashley picked up the role of the Disability Rights Commission. He was warm in his praise of Bert Massie, its chairman. I am sure that my noble friend agrees with Bert Massie, who said that this is the most significant programme of reforms since disability rights legislation was first introduced 30 years ago.
My noble friend understandably asked—or perhaps I should say that he worried about—whether the fact that the Disability Rights Commission sought to work through conciliation and negotiation at least as much as through consultation meant that it would, in his words, "cosy up" too easily to the establishment in its various forms. Knowing Bert Massie as I have done over many years—my noble friend has also known him for a long time—and knowing that he has suffered from discrimination that I personally would find deeply offensive, I cannot easily believe that he could be bought off by the old boy network in the way in which my noble friend might fear.
Just for the record, the Disability Rights Commission has already taken on 2,000 cases, although the predicted number for this first year was 200. That sounds pretty tough.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I hope that there was no misunderstanding about my statement about being too cosy. No allegation was made against Bert Massie or Bob Niven; I praise them lavishly. I was referring to a trend that is normal and natural. I was giving the warning, "Just be careful".
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will be the first to keep Bert Massie up to the mark in his task as chair of the Disability Rights Commission and in relation to its efforts to combat discrimination, should he need any scrutiny.
The DRC brought to the courts 40 cases last year and 70 cases this year. Again, that is a strong record. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, suggested that 5,000 cases had been brought to employment tribunals. My understanding is that as of last September there were 9,000 cases. Most of them were settled or withdrawn but, of the 1,165 cases that were heard, about one-quarter were successful. I say to my noble friend Lady Wilkins that the funding of the DRC must and will be kept under review.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, indicated that the Acts were being used. It may reaffirm what he said to point out that the DRC and the Government had expected that during the DRC's first year of operation there would be about 45,000 calls or inquiries to it; in fact, there were more than 62,000 calls. Interestingly, 20 per cent of them were from employers or providers. Again, that shows that the DRC is undertaking a helpful role.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked who was responsible for the employment and training of disabled people. My right honourable friend Nick Brown, who is in the other place, is responsible for the New Deal for Disabled People. Colleagues in the
856
Department for Education and Skills are responsible for training. Maria Eagle is the Minister responsible for disabled people; specifically, she is responsible for civil rights, disability benefits and access to work in Remploy, and she co-ordinates work across government. I hope that that meets my noble friend's point.
I was asked about transport. The Government will be consulting separately on the task force's transport recommendations. My noble friend Lord Ashley will know that we have already improved accessibility for new rail vehicles from 1st January 1999 and for new buses from 31st December 2000. There are currently proposals in the pipeline for further improvements, such as those relating to small vehicles—that is, those that seat fewer than 22 people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about building regulations. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has surveyed the matter and it is considering its response. The DRC is taking on board issues such as ensuring that architects and so on are well briefed. My experience of local government is that many authorities have superb records in that field.
I was pressed by my noble friend Lady Wilkins on human rights. Last year we signed up to the European Union employment directive, which will ensure that all member states protect disabled people against discrimination in employment and training. That would make it easier for disabled people from the UK to work in other member states. I hope that it does not sound boastful but, with the possible exception of Ireland and Sweden, the UK has more widely drawn, comprehensive and enforceable rights for disabled people than anywhere else in the EU. My noble friend, who raised a point about human rights, was right: we need to ensure that there are coherent arrangements. The new parliamentary Joint Committee will consider that and we do not want to pre-empt it. We shall obviously take seriously its recommendations.
Legislation is only one issue. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said in his moving speech, we also need to change attitudes about disability and about raising awareness. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, gave some interesting figures about learning difficulties; his statistics were compelling and his point was absolutely right. They convey the mountain that many disabled people still have to climb. There is a need to confront, in the best possible way, people's stereotypes. People too often see the disability first. We have to change attitudes—we have to "read" people for their ability and contribution, not for their disability, which may be the most minor part of their lives. The Government recently launched a publicity campaign that was aimed largely at showing smaller businesses how easy it can be to help their disabled customers. The DRC is also working in that field.
A third area in which we have needed to focus our attention has been in providing practical help for disabled people who want to work or to stay in work. Most disabled people can and do use the same

857
employment services as non-disabled people. However, some need additional or separate help, especially those with more severe disabilities. We have about 600 specialist disability employment advisers working at job centres. Our work preparation programme delivers employment rehabilitation for those who need it to become ready for work. Access to work—the comments of my noble friend Lord Ashley on this matter were absolutely right—provides important help for about 25,000 disabled people who face employment barriers. Our expenditure has doubled over the past few years and twice as many are being helped compared with the figures for four years ago. We spend £300,000 publicising its services, but we should do so to a greater extent. I shall draw that to the attention of my honourable friend Maria Eagle. Having facilities that are not fully utilised is such a waste of potential and talent.
Workstep is our newly developed programme of supported employment. We are investing an additional £40 million to give it a good start. Under our New Deal for Disabled People we have been testing ways of supporting disabled people to get or to keep jobs. Our disabled person's tax credit, together with the national minimum wage, ensures that for disabled people, work pays. We are also giving greater support to those who are most severely disabled, who need help and for whom income from work is not the whole answer. The disability income guarantee has ensured that the poorest, most severely disabled people who are below pension age will receive an income of at least £142 a week for a single person and £186 for a couple. About 130,000 families and 30,000 families with severely disabled children have benefited from that.
Those noble Lords who have taken a particular interest in this area, including above all my noble friend Lord Ashley, will know that we have moved to help severely disabled people who are victims of vaccine damage. That has not been mentioned so far today but it is very much on the Government's agenda. Nothing can make up for what happened to the affected people but we have a duty to support them. Last year we increased vaccine damage payments to £100,000, including back-dated top-ups for people who had received earlier settlements. I am delighted that we shall also be legislating to reduce the disability threshold for a payment from 80 per cent to 60 per cent and to extend the limit on claiming for children to the age of 21. We shall shortly be issuing a consultation document on those changes. Noble Lords have pressed me on such matters in this House on many occasions and I am delighted that we have been able to respond in this way.
Before I conclude I turn to a point that was raised by many noble Lords; namely, the comments in the press on the speech this morning by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the Institute for Public Policy Research. There may be some misunderstanding of what the situation is now for people on incapacity benefit and perhaps I can help to set it in context. I hope that noble Lords will distance themselves from
858
comments like "MOTs" and so forth, which I find offensive, inappropriate and deeply degrading. The use of such language helps no one.
At the moment the Benefits Agency carries out 1 million personal capability assessments every year. Half of those tests are repeat assessments, the other half are first-time applications. So all new claims for incapacity benefit are now subject to review at some point between the timespan of six months and five years. There is nothing new about checking ongoing claims for incapacity benefit.
An obvious example is somebody who may be receiving IB because they had been on kidney dialysis, which had implications for their health, but subsequently went on to receive a kidney transplant. Their situation, their capacity for work and their dependence on incapacity benefit would have been transformed almost within a matter of weeks. It would be absurd then to regard TB as a benefit for life when the disability from which that person suffered had been overcome.
In a Bill later this year we are proposing that new claimants of incapacity benefits be normally subject to a review after three years. It is not about forcing people off benefit if they are still unable to work. The review will look at people's condition after they have been on benefit for three years, rather than the more random six months, five years and now three years. It is about helping people back into work, where possible, by offering the necessary help and support through the personal advisory service at job centres. It has been a huge success for other groups of people, including lone parents. We may be talking about rehabilitation, the new developments that have emerged; we may be talking about re-skilling, and someone who was previously a manual worker may be happy to take on computer skills which open up new fields of employment; we may be reminding people on IB that they can test the water for work, but that with the benefit of linking rules they have nothing to lose.
There is a range of issues which are worth exploring which will support disabled people in making the same choices that all of us take for granted. Such new claimants will normally attend a work-focused interview, though of course if somebody is terminally ill the requirement can be waived. We will be listening to all views on this proposal, both before and during the passage of the Bill. We are still considering the detail of the proposals and how they will work in practice. A version of them will come forward in the forthcoming Welfare Reform Bill. But I emphasise that I regard this as an opportunity, not a threat. We already carry out fairly regular repeat interviews for a vast number of people on incapacity benefit, and certainly all new claimants. What we have not done in the past is offer them the personal adviser service, focusing on work and opportunities, that so many disabled people tell us they would welcome.
One million disabled people say that they can work; a further 400,000 believe that they could work if given the right support. Our proposals will deliver that increased support. I hope that they will he welcomed by disabled people.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, before the noble Baroness moves off that subject, clearly this morning's announcement was very important. Why was it made to the IPPR rather than in the form of a Statement to both Houses of Parliament?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first, it is not a major new initiative, as the noble Lord opposite seems to think. We already repeatedly check eligibility for all benefits, whether it is disability living allowance, housing benefit, JSA—the noble Lord will know because he took part in those debates—and of course with IB. We are now proposing the three-year repeat interviews in the job centre plus environment with the help of a personal adviser. Those interviews will be work-focused to go over the range of opportunities.
It seemed to me important that this matter, which will be included in a Bill later this autumn, should be in the public domain so that disabled people can comment and consult on it, particularly when our proposals are worked through in greater detail. Given that this Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech and it was made clear then that it would include broad proposals addressing incapacity benefit, there could not be any question of impropriety in the speech made by my right honourable friend this morning.
In conclusion. we want a society where there is opportunity for everyone and not just a few. We want it free of discrimination and prejudice. We want everyone to play a full part. But some people, particularly those with more severe disabilities, need extra help and support. We have, as noble Lords today acknowledged, made important changes, specifically for severely disabled people. We need to do more. Employers and service providers will have to consider making reasonable adjustments for any disabled person. It is intolerable that physical barriers, for example, or out-of-date stereotypes which at reasonable expense can be adjusted to bring disabled people into the full life of our society, including the life of work, should stand in their way. Our job is to help them move those hurdles and barriers.
Our record over the past four years in supporting civil rights for disabled people shows we mean business. Your Lordships have always been expert, supportive, helpful and, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, well-judged; constructively critical. I expect nothing less from your Lordships as we go into the new Parliament ahead.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank all who have spoken in this debate. Perhaps I may deal briefly with some of the points raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, spoke about "Access to Work" and, I am glad to say, supported the words in my opening speech urging wider publicity for that scheme. I would add that it is not expensive. The provision of a small piece of special equipment, with
860
the cost shared by the Government and the employer, could make all the difference as to whether or not an individual could be employed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, spoke about the difficulties of representation when cases are brought before tribunals and courts. I am sure we were interested to hear those experiences and her comments will no doubt be read elsewhere.
I felt very much complimented by the fact that two right reverend Prelates decided to take part in this debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield referred to Section 7. But I believe his concerns have been answered. I tried to answer them in my opening speech and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said more. Section 7 originally laid down that small firms employing fewer than 20 employees would be excluded from the legislation. But subsections (2) and the following subsections laid down the way in which those numbers can be reduced. That has already happened once. The figure of 20 is now 15. In answer to me the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that that will continue and will come to nought in 2004. So the right reverend Prelate need not worry. It is not a discrimination in favour of small firms that will continue for long.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, spoke of the need to spread public awareness. She is absolutely right. I speak having had the experience of being appointed to take a prominent part in the United Kingdom, in 1981, in the International Year of Disabled People. We decided then to make promoting public awareness one of our primary aims. It was estimated after wards that we managed to do more in that one year than in 10 normal years. But that is 20 years ago and a great deal still needs to be done.
I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who replied to all the points raised in the debate. Perhaps I can just say that she spoke of the number of cases with which the DRC is presently dealing. But what will really matter are the results of those cases; how they go and whether or not at the end of it the disabled people concerned actually benefit or feel that they have been well treated or badly treated.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving the figure of 9,000 cases where tribunals were concerned. My figure of 5,000, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, also quoted, was for the end of last year. We did not have any later information. I am glad to hear that the figure is now 9,000.
My only quibble with the remarks of the noble Baroness is that she described the omission of education in the 1995 Act as a flaw. I would regard it as an omission which was to be dealt with later. It is a pity if the DDA was to be described as "flawed" which is the next stage, given current parlance.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may take back the word "flawed" and say "incomplete".
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I hope that the departmental briefs will be

861
altered in future. Within the past year I have heard another Minister—I shall not mention her name—describe the DDA as "flawed" on the same count. I am sure that the government of the day would like to have included education. However, as I indicated, there were so many arguments going on within the educational world that rather than hold up all the other subjects and delay the Bill so that it would not have been passed in 1995, it was best to wait on
862
education until there was some agreement on the important subject of which kinds of school disabled pupils should attend. That was dealt with in a later Act.
I am grateful to everybody who has taken part in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at seven minutes before six o'clock.