Disability Rights Legislation (Hansard, 24 July 2002)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)
My Lords, no. That is why we will be significantly extending the rights of disabled workers and job applicants in 2004, when we will also be giving improved rights to disabled customers to help them get access to goods and services.

§ Lord Morris of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and welcome the Chancellor's recent decision to increase the budget of the Disability Rights Commission by 14 per cent, just as I share the deep concern expressed by her Secretary of State on 10th July that, disabled people are still seven times more likely than other people to be out of work, levels of awareness and understanding of disability are too low and barriers to inclusion too high". This being so—and recalling our manifesto commitments—precisely what improvements do the Government envisage in the civil and employment rights of disabled people in the months and years immediately ahead?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, my noble friend is right to congratulate the Disability Rights Commission on an impressive record of achievement over the past one or two years. Approximately 145,000 calls have been handled, together with 4,500 cases. The record of the DRC has been impressive. However, as I believe my noble friend has acknowledged, so has the Government's record. Not only have we extended hugely levels of financial support to disabled people through disabled person's tax credits, we have also introduced work opportunities through the New Deal for disabled people, through activities offering support in the intermediate labour markets and, above all, in the changes proposed for 2004 to remove the small firms exemption. Across a whole array of financial support, civil rights, pension opportunities and employment prospects, the Government have made sound progress.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, does the Minister believe that either a law should be enacted or at least an obligation put on local authorities to ensure 362 that all new buildings are accessible to disabled people? Furthermore, is she as horrified as I am to learn that in Portcullis House the round door knobs are extremely difficult for disabled people to open?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I understand that since Part M of the building regulations was introduced, all new residential buildings have had to be accessible to disabled people. However, if there is a particular aspect of Portcullis House which the noble Baroness would like me to follow up, then I shall be happy to do so.

§ Lord Addington
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the process by which we deal with disability legislation—that is, it tends to be a rather piecemeal approach—is one that means that, no matter how much progress we make, we always refer back to the issues? Is there not an arguable case for introducing a comprehensive piece of legislation stating that disabled people shall be conferred rights across the board as opposed to chasing backwards and forwards between departments, trying to ensure that the disabled have a slightly better deal?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, the original Disability Discrimination Act 1995, warmly supported and welcomed by noble Lords, had within it plenty of headspace to allow for subsequent developments that have been brought forward through regulations. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that progress should not be measured only by another piece of primary legislation. I do not seek to anticipate the Queen's Speech, but solid progress can and is being made through secondary legislation, which is both quicker and simpler. As I said in an earlier response, the Government's record on this is impressive.

§ Lord Ashley of Stoke
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench that the Labour Government have a good record on disability. They have achieved many fine things of which they can be very proud. But the record is not good enough, given that vast numbers of disabled people suffer discrimination every day of their lives. That can be stopped only by comprehensive legislation. Either the Government will agree that we need to introduce a comprehensive Bill—in which case, why have they not brought one forward or promised it for the next Session of Parliament?— or they disagree with the need for a Bill—in which case, why did they promise to bring forward comprehensive legislation in the last manifesto?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, my noble friend knows as well as I do what was promised in the last manifesto from the Labour Government; namely, that we are now committed, to extending basic rights and opportunities, as indicated in our response to the Disability Rights Taskforce". That is precisely what we have done. As my noble friend will know, commencing in 2004, there will be some 7 million new jobs, 600,000 disabled workers and 363 1.2 million firms will be brought within the DDA, either by primary legislation or through secondary legislation as we seek to abolish the small firms' exemption. That is only one example of many of the ways in which the Government are meeting their manifesto commitments. Beyond that, however, my noble friend knows perfectly well that no Minister can comment at this stage on what may or may not be in the Queen's Speech.

§ Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, when will the Government's consultation document on the transport recommendations of the DRT be published? The document was supposed to be issued a year ago. What is the justification for such a huge delay?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, part of the difficulty with regard to transportation is that some of the issues are what might be termed as "home grown". The noble Lord is right to press me on those; they affect our trains, taxis, minicabs and so forth. However, some of the more intransigent issues are associated with shipping and aviation which require action on an international basis. On those matters we are still seeking consultation.

§ Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that primary legislation is required to outlaw continuing discrimination in housing, transport and the built environment? Otherwise there will still be gaping holes in the civil rights legislation.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, quite a lot has already been done in regard to transport. From 2005, for example, all new buses must be available and readily accessible for disabled people, and for people with small children, heavy luggage and so on. We shall see also a further extension of our remit on trains. My noble friend is right. If we were to carry out a major extension of disability rights into, for example, the relationship between tenants and landlord, it would require primary legislation. I am not yet persuaded that that would be necessarily the right way to go. It would certainly have to follow extensive consultation.

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, has the Minister made any progress with the situation at St John's Church Smith Square?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I was delighted to be a supper guest of the trustees, chairman—I am trying to get the titles right but I know I shall get them wrong—and the senior executives of St John's Smith Square. They were anxious to expedite the issues that the noble Baroness wisely raised in the House. She has altered minds.

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, in the context of legislation, is my noble friend aware—I am sure that she is—of the proposals that are circulating for an equality Act and a single equality commission to deal with issues of race, gender, disability and sexual orientation? If such 364 proposals exist, will she bear in mind that problems for the disabled relate not only to attitude but to physical problems of access to employment, buildings and transport? Will the Government bear in mind that distinction when considering such proposals.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, that is a very real point. Clearly there are strong views. Were we to have six commissions, this would be a foolish way to proceed. We would need to integrate them because they would be dealing with common issues. But equally, as my noble friend said, we must not overlook the distinct differences for disabled people in regard to access and so on which cannot be read across into, for example, EOC issues and CRE issues. The proposals are very much under discussion—there has not been a done deal—and it is extremely important that, whatever happens, the proud record, identified by my noble friend Lord Morris, of the newly-established DRC is not lost through rapid legislative change.