§ 3.16 p.m.
§ Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to implement the proposals for law reform suggested by the Disability Rights Commission.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)My Lords, our priority is to implement our manifesto commitment on extending rights and opportunities to disabled people. We have announced that we will publish a draft disability Bill later this year. On 8th May we laid draft regulations before Parliament to implement the disability provisions of the Article 13 employment directive. We shall consider the recommendations made by the Disability Rights Commission as we further develop our plans.
§ Lord Ashley of StokeMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. Is she aware that, despite the fine work done by this Government on disability, our legal framework fails to provide comprehensive civil rights for all disabled people? That is because the framework is full of holes which could have been repaired long ago. Is she further aware that the proposals put forward by the Disability Rights Commission go a long way towards solving these problems? Will the Government take on board the proposals as soon as possible? How soon will that be?
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend that he is repeating his original Question. I hope and expect that we will be producing a draft disability Bill later this year. Already by October 2004, around 70 per cent of the original task force recommendations will have come into law, and the proposed disability Bill will extend those recommendations further. The additional recommendations identified by the DRC referred to by my noble friend will assist our future legislative plans and obviously we shall consider them.
Lord Campbell of CroyMy Lords, will the Government give special consideration to the commission's proposal that disability discrimination cases should be started in the relevant tribunals rather than go straight to the courts? This would be helpful to the disabled people concerned.
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, again, we shall look as soon as possible at those and related proposals in the DRC report, which we have only just received.
§ Lord CarterMy Lords, when considering the various proposals regarding disability, will my noble 368 friend give any thought to bringing forward improvements to the Access to Work Scheme? Furthermore, if the disability Bill is published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny, does my noble friend agree that such scrutiny would be an ideal subject for a Joint Select Committee of both Houses?
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, perhaps I may respond first to my noble friend's second question. Given that the Bill will be subject to prior scrutiny, which I am sure would be very desirable, I understand that we shall have three options available. First, we could set up an ad hoc committee of either House. Secondly, as my noble friend suggested—and I see the advantages of the proposal—we could have a Joint Committee of both Houses. Thirdly, such a draft Bill could equally be referred to the House of Commons Select Committee responsible for matters affecting the Department for Work and Pensions. Those options are being considered. As soon as a decision has been arrived at, it will of course be made public.
On my noble friend's first point regarding the Access to Work Scheme, he is right to point out that we have a good record on this. The scheme was started by the previous administration. Since its introduction, over 100,000 people with disabilities have either gone into work or stayed in work as a result of the programme, which gives them support equipment. Since 1997, I am pleased and proud to tell the House that the Government's expenditure on the scheme has trebled.
§ Lord AddingtonMy Lords, I thank the Minister for the encouraging remarks she made in her previous answers. But does she not agree that it is very important that we plug all the holes and take an all-encompassing approach? If we do not do that, the current situation will continue; that is to say, people with a degenerative disease or who are predetermined to develop a degenerative condition have no defence in law if they are sacked because of it. The Government should attempt to block such a hole.
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right. It is one of the issues that have been raised with the Government. In our previous debate in the House, a fortnight ago, I made clear that one of the areas that we expected such a draft disability Bill to address was the precise one that he raised: extending the protection of the DDA to people with HIV and cancer whose symptoms are not yet evident. At present, they can be discriminated against. That is one of the proposals that we expect to bring forward.
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, given the Communications Bill, which received pre-legislative scrutiny and is being discussed today, yet again, in the House, perhaps the noble Baroness will reconsider whether pre-legislative scrutiny is a good idea, whether in this or any other area. Does she agree that it is no longer good enough that the 40,000 or so statutory and 369 political office-holders, magistrates and school governors are still excluded from the Disability Discrimination Act?
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, in response to the first point, no. On the second point, which relates to magistrates and councillors, I share the noble Lord's view. We are looking at the matter. Different circumstances affect councillors, magistrates, members of voluntary bodies, public appointments and quangos.
§ Baroness WilkinsMy Lords, can the Minister assure us that all aspects of the consultation process on the draft disability Bill will be accessible to as wide a number of disabled people as possible, and that the Bill will be available in alternative formats at the same time as it is published in print form?
§ Baroness Hollis of HeighamMy Lords, I shall seek to ensure that.