Sitting of 20 July 1995

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Whitemoor Prison: Disorders
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What disorders have recently occurred at Whitemoor Prison.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, since January 1995 there have been eight acts of collective disorder, eight serious assaults and a number of individual protests which include the so-called dirty protests.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Baroness has been fairly economical in her statement of the truth.
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sorry. I was repeating the obvious. However, I should be surprised if any noble Lord has visited Whitemoor Prison more recently than me; I have visited the place many times. Does the noble Baroness realise that the staff now face great difficulties in Whitemoor Prison? I again welcome the advent of the new Home Office Minister responsible for prisons, as I did yesterday. Will the noble Baroness persuade the new Minister for prisons that the Government should abandon their hostility to the Prison Officers' Association and seek some understanding with that body?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl suggests that I have somehow concealed part of the Answer. I have given an absolutely straightforward, truthful answer to his Question.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Blatch: If I may say so, some of the incidents have been protests against new measures and a tightening up of the regime in response to the recommendation in the Woodcock Report.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister draw the attention of her right honourable friend to the great sensitivity of certain protests by a small number of prisoners? Will the Home Office maintain the closest possible liaison with the Northern Ireland Office on this matter?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not think that I need to remind either my right honourable friend the Home Secretary or my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about understanding the sensitivity of Northern Ireland or keeping the closest possible liaison.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, although all of us want the peace process in Northern Ireland to succeed, is the noble Baroness aware that we find the dirty protest campaign by a limited number of prisoners at Whitemoor Prison entirely unacceptable? We very much hope that there is no question of the Government giving in to blackmail of that character.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance. First, I believe that it is absolutely right that all prisoners are treated equally in these matters. The prisoners referred to in the noble Earl's Question are serving a punishment at this moment. They are given a daily opportunity to clean their cells, which so far they have refused. If, at the end of serving this punishment, they are given another opportunity to clean their cells and they refuse, they will receive further punishment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister find it all strange that the charge should have been made of hostility on the part of the Home Secretary towards the Prison Officers' Association when to many of us who have been reading the papers for some time past the boot could appear to be on the other foot?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what we want to do, and what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary wants to do, is to support prison officers in their very difficult job. I believe that responding positively to the Woodcock Report is helping prison officers to manage some very difficult people in a more effective and efficient way.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind what the Minister said, are any points of substance between the authorities and the Prison Officers' Association operating against the good running of the prison? If so, would it not be better for the Government quickly to resolve the issue with the Prison Officers' Association in everyone's interest?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is a very real policy of open access to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and to the Minister responsible for prisons to discuss any outstanding matters. We wish to do all we can to support prison officers in the very difficult job they have to do.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the noble Baroness consent to visit the prison before the autumn when I shall be able to put down another Question? Would she discover one prison officer who has one good word to say for "Howardism"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that that remark was offensive. Whitemoor Prison is a local prison to me, and I have visited it.

Reserve Armed Forces
3.7 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the future of the Territorial Army and the equivalent naval and air services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the Government are fully committed to the Reserves as an integral part of our Armed Forces. Following the restructuring which resulted from the end of the Cold War, they can now look forward to the future with confidence.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. He knows full well of the Territorial Army, the Royal Naval Reserve and the Auxiliary Air Force. Many young men wish to join those organisations. Many have written to me. They do not know what action to take. Would it be possible for the Minister to consider that point? Perhaps he could give some answer which would help those young people who are keen to join. Not only would that be good for their upbringing, but I believe that it would also be a good contribution to the defence of our country.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I entirely associate myself with the last part of the noble Lord's question. Indeed, we expect and receive the same dedication from our reserve forces as from our regular forces.
The Royal Naval Reserve is now more closely integrated with the Royal Navy and can offer excellent opportunities for sea-going service. The Territorial Army is taking on new tasks including an armoured delivery regiment and the Army's only nuclear, biological and chemical defence regiment. The RAF's reserves are manning Rapier air defence missiles and conducting air crew trials. I believe that we are making useful progress in enhancing the role of our reserve forces.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in last Friday's defence debate I pointed out that I may not have received the draft Bill to which the noble Earl referred. I apologise to the noble Earl. I intervened only because I receive many documents—for example, those entitled Stable forces in a strong Britain, Managing people in tomorrow's Armed Forces, and Strength in reserve; or (if I may wear my other hat) Our future homes, Biodiversity challenge, or (I do not accuse the Government in this regard) Lady Porter's Old Friends. Will the noble Earl please accept my apologies for that previous intervention? I am sure that I received the document.
As to my noble friend's Question, will the noble Earl accept that the reserves are not just there to provide specialist services, as contained in the draft Bill, but to perform the function of being a link between the Armed Forces and the public at large? It is a good way for the public to understand what the role of the Armed Forces could and should be. Is it not important to preserve that link?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I am delighted that he is being kept so well informed by my department. I only add that I believe that the reserve forces are not only a useful link between the Armed Forces and the public but they also serve to demonstrate to employers the value of having well trained manpower at their disposal. I hope and believe that the new reserve forces Bill which we hope to introduce at the earliest opportunity will encourage more employers to take on employees who are prepared to give a commitment. We
372
recognise that the reserve forces have to be structured, equipped and trained to take their place alongside the regular forces. We are committed to that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that by making the Territorial Army part of the reserves, the Government bring the Territorial Army into a state of readiness which increases its importance? It will be a great encouragement to those serving in it. Speaking for myself, I congratulate the Government on this development of policy.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. As he will know, the main component of the Bill will be more flexible provisions for the call out of our reserves, coupled with the ability to use reservists without call out where that is appropriate. We also propose to create new categories of reservists, as well as safeguards for the interests of the reservist and his or her civilian employer.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have given my apologies to the noble Earl. Will he now expand on the matter of sponsored reserves in the draft Bill? Will he please tell us what it means? Will he also give the House an assurance not that the Bill will be introduced at the appropriate time when parliamentary time permits, but, given the urgency, that it will be introduced in the next Session?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for me to anticipate Her Majesty's gracious Speech. However, we have placed the Bill very high on our list of priorities. I hope that it will be included in the next Session.
To answer the specific question on sponsored reserves, this idea will permit the Ministry of Defence to let more of the support activities to contract, in the knowledge that the reserve element will allow that task to be continued in an operational environment by uniformed personnel. In other words, the contract would be let to people who are prepared to sign up for the reserves, that is, one or other of the reserve forces. During a time of conflict, it would be an easy matter for those people to don military uniform.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their good intentions for the reserves, but I hope that the noble Earl can assure me that they will not wallow in self-content. The regular forces in the Army are heavily stretched. Can the noble Earl assure us that the Government will not forget that a few second battalions in the Regular Army are an important aim in order to keep the country abreast of developments when the necessity arises?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The United Kingdom has always relied on its reserve forces for its mobilised capability. However, I do not agree that our forces are stretched. We must ensure that we have the flexibility available to call up our reserves when we need them. That is what I believe the new Bill will deliver.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, will the Minister recognise the importance of the roles and the job of the Territorial Army associations and the Territorial

373
Army Council? Will he assure the House that there will be no reduction in the numbers of the associations and recognise the important job they have done in promoting the territorial forces over recent months?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount because I am an enthusiast for the role of those bodies. I have had the privilege of meeting one or two of them in my short time so far with the Ministry of Defence.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, can the Minister confirm the value of the University Air Squadrons to the Royal Air Force in improving good relations between the Royal Air Force, service personnel and university people? Can he confirm that following the Defence Costs Study last year, in which it was decided that the University Air Squadrons have great value, there is now no intention of making any reduction in the numbers of the University Air Squadrons?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I too place great value on the role of the University Air Squadrons. The noble and gallant Lord may like to know that the flying hours of the squadrons are not being increased and we believe that that will be to the advantage of the squadrons. We are committed to maintaining the squadrons at their present level.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it is satisfactory to note that the territorial force will be regarded as an integral part of the reserves. Can the noble Earl assure us that it will be provided with the necessary equipment and resources to perform its role? Can he say that we shall not again have the situation which arose at the start of the last world war, in which I was involved? My sole armament then was a Lee-Enfield rifle without ammunition!
Earl Howe: My Lords, the thought of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, without ammunition is almost beyond my understanding! I do not believe that there is any risk of underfunding of our reserves in the respect which the noble Lord fears. What we have done is to determine the future size and shape of the reserve forces. That decision has now been taken. As I said, we now need more flexibility in the governing legislation to ensure that the reserves can be used to best effect in operations which may be likely to arise.

Spelthorne, Surrey: Local Government Review
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultations took place before the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 22nd June that the district of Spelthorne in the county of Surrey would be added to the list of reviews to be considered by the Local Government Commission with effect from the beginning of July.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we decided that the case for a review of Spelthorne was made in the written representations we received and from the evidence presented by the Local Government Commission in its final report for Surrey.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I accept that in his announcements on 2nd and 21st March the Secretary of State did not promise to consult on the rare additional requests for reviews from districts not individually named in the announcements. However, does the noble Lord recall that Spelthorne has a population of only about 90,000? That is many fewer than any of the six unitaries into which Berkshire may be divided and which, in his announcement, the Secretary of State compared with Spelthorne. There are probably fewer—
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Spelthorne also has fewer inhabitants than all the 20 other districts which are being referred to the new review process? Is he also aware that by far the largest number of those who replied to the MORI poll during the initial consultation were in favour of retaining the status quo? Has the Minister considered—
Noble Lords: Order! Too many questions.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will be able to reply. Perhaps I may write to him putting the questions that I was not able to ask.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is doubtless aware, my right honourable friend acts in these matters as the final judge and jury when the commission reports. I therefore do not wish to be drawn on any of the particular matters that she raises. We are well aware that Surrey County Council opposes the idea that Spelthorne should be a unitary authority. We await the report of the commission, and I hope that my right honourable friend will arrive at an answer that is satisfactory to all.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Minister is not the final judge and jury on these matters? It is Parliament that is the final judge and jury.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I stand corrected.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, is the Minister able to tell the House whether exactly the same consultation took place in the case of this district of Surrey as took place with all the other districts and counties in England before the Secretary of State made his decision?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, so far as I understood the noble Baroness's question, yes.

Former Yugoslavia
3.21 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further action, if any, they propose to take, through the United Nations or NATO, regarding the situation in Bosnia and other parts of former Yugoslavia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the situation in Bosnia and other parts of the former Yugoslavia is under constant review by Her Majesty's Government, each troop contributor and by the UN and NATO. The UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution (SCR 1004) on 12th July condemning the Bosnian Serb offensive against Srebrenica. The international meeting in London tomorrow will consider the position of UN forces in Bosnia in the light of increased fighting there.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that British policy in former Yugoslavia should be dictated by what lies in the interests of this country? Will she further agree that British interests are not enhanced by a policy of appeasement; a policy that allows ethnic killing to go on; a policy that has undermined the authority of the United Nations; and a policy that has put into danger in future years small countries which may fear nationalist aggression? Is it not time that our policy of appeasement, and the West's policy of appeasement, stopped and that we played fair by the people of Bosnia and protected their lives and their interests?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I assure the House that British policy will be dictated by British interests. There is no way in which Britain can act alone and in defiance of, or disagreement with, others. I assure the noble Lord that there is, and will be, no appeasement. Britain is the second largest troop contributor; we have contributed some £271 million in assistance over the past three years; we have now agreed to raise the number of British troops from the 4,400 currently in theatre to over 8,000; we have by our efforts helped to reduce the number of lives lost, which was running at some 130,000 in 1992, down to about 2,500 in 1994 and less until very recently; and we will go on working on the political front, playing a key role in the contact group and fully supporting the work of Carl Bilt and Stoltenberg so that we do everything we can to bring the two sides to sense. The only sense is for them both to stop fighting.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that this subject is of such vital and immediate importance that it does not really lend itself to oral question and answer at Question Time?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. He is absolutely right. We are not in Bosnia to fight a war. UNPROFOR is not in Bosnia to fight a war. But we cannot impose a peace. UNPROFOR has already been asked to do too much with too little. What we have to do is make sure that UNPROFOR is better able to meet the mandate that it has been given.
Lord Richard: My Lords, while the Minister is absolutely right, and perhaps this is not a suitable subject for a question and answer session, unless it is a very long one, if the role of British forces in Bosnia were to change, either by intent or in fact—in other
376
words, if the Government ascribe a new role to them or if in fact they become involved in fighting—will the, Minister accept that we should then expect the issue to be dealt with by a recall of Parliament?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am quite certain that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is well aware of this matter. We must see how things go. I shall not speculate. It is dangerous. There are British lives and Bosnian lives at risk. We must do the best that we can. I assure the House that that is exactly what we are engaged in at present.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the attempt to interfere in the complicated civil war in Yugoslavia was doomed from the start? Does she agree that we must now consider the best way to get our troops out safely before any more of them are killed in a hopeless attempt to pacify the area? For any such attempt, at least half a million troops would be required, and when they had left, the sides would begin fighting each other again.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I note the views of the noble Lord. However, there is no single right answer in this difficult situation. I frankly think that the least said the better it is for our troops and for all those in Bosnia who are suffering so terribly at the present time.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that our troops in UNPROFOR have done a remarkable job in preventing the conflict from spreading to Kosovo and Macedonia, let alone Bulgaria, Albania and other parts of the Balkans? Therefore, is it not vital that we continue to keep those borders monitored?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am very much in sympathy with my noble friend's remarks about the role that UNPROFOR has already played. As I said at the beginning, the number of lives saved has improved greatly with UNPROFOR's presence on the ground. There is no doubt that the observers in Macedonia and other bordering nations have helped to prevent the spread of war. However, there may come a time in the future when UNPROFOR cannot carry out its job, or cannot carry it out with less risk than now exists. We shall have to face that situation when it occurs.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one is very conscious that one does not want to say anything that makes things more difficult for the military commanders on the ground and those in the capitals who must take these painful decisions? Does she agree that there will be profound hope in many places that it will prove possible to find an effective means of protecting Gorazde and getting a relief channel through to Sarajevo? Does she further agree that the alternative to UNPROFOR sustaining its credibility is the possibility of much more suffering on the ground inside Bosnia and many more dangers in the region, and indeed more widely than that region altogether?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand very well what the noble Lord has just said. Obviously, we are concerned not only with the safety

377
and security of the British troops both in Gorazde and in other parts of Bosnia but also with doing all that we can to see that there is an end to this horrific war. We are confident that the appropriate planning is in place to safeguard the security of our troops. I cannot go into any further detail. The noble Lord's first comments were so apt, and I thank him.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will not agree with me, but has not the time come to consider whether to arm the Moslem forces in Bosnia? Does she not agree that there is an unfortunate parallel with our government's policy in the 1930s of non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War? That too seemed incomprehensible when both Hitler and Mussolini were arming General Franco's forces.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, as he supposed. There is no way in which we should be seeking to fuel this war further.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that there was a three-hour debate in another place only last evening when both the Government and Official Opposition spokesmen were urging the utmost caution against any precipitate military action, as has just been suggested, because of the dangers to which it could lead? Would it not be better if we all waited until the Prime Minister reports on the conference being held this weekend?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord's suggestion is very valuable.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that if there is a major change of circumstance, the point made by my noble friend Lord Richard is one that should commend itself to the House? After all, it is important for the Government to carry the House with them in the policies that they undertake in that area. Does the Minister agree also that talk of withdrawal simply spurs the Karadzic Serbs to further violations? It is extremely important in those circumstances that we must be vigorous in our determination to fulfil the United Nations' mandate by strengthening the position of the forces that are available there. Finally, does the Minister agree that it is a dangerous illusion to imagine that this deteriorating situation can be resolved by air power alone, which seems to be a prevailing view in the United States Congress?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Should there be a major change of circumstance, my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and the Leader of the Opposition in this House will no doubt consider whether your Lordships should be recalled. There is already a strengthening of the UNPROFOR forces by some 4,000 troops from Britain. They will ensure that we do whatever is necessary to bring this situation to a state of peace and cease-fire such as we enjoyed for nearly a year, or take whatever action then deemed necessary.
I agree with the noble Lord that some of the calls for action from various countries and individuals have been a long way from the reasonable and possible outcome
378
to this tragic situation. There can be no military solution to this conflict. There is urgent need for a cease-fire—for a political settlement—and that is why we continue to work to that end.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
3.33 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords offices be agreed to.
Moved, That the Fourth Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 84).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Annual Report and Accounts
The Committee approved a draft Annual Report and Accounts for the financial year 1994–95. The Report and Accounts will be published and circulated in October.
2. Bequest
The Committee agreed that a bequest of £45,000, left by a Mrs. Dearsley for the maintenance of the Palace of Westminster, would be spent on stained glass windows to replace those missing from the openings opposite the bookstall in St. Stephen's Hall.
3. Changes in the provision of vaccination services
The Committee agreed that members and staff of the House should be advised to use the vaccination service provided at St. Thomas' Hospital rather than that provided by the Civil Service Occupational Health Service. This would result in savings to the Administration Vote without any loss in the quality of service to the House.
4. Annunciator in Princes Chamber
An annunciator will be installed in the Princes Chamber so that the duty whip and other Lords can know how business is progressing in the Chamber.
5. Handrails in Chamber
Handrails will be installed in the Chamber to facilitate access for disabled and other persons.
6. Summer works programme
The Committee has noted that the relocation of numerous offices during the summer recess, in addition to a heavy parliamentary works programme, will affect adversely those using the House in August and September. Disruption will be kept to a minimum. Details have been circulated.
7. Painting of the House in session
The Committee was informed that Mr. Andrew Festing has been commissioned to undertake the painting of the House in session. The work is likely to be completed by early 1997.
8. Disabled lift in Westminster Hall
The Committee approved the installation of a lift at the Grand Committee Room staircase in Westminster Hall to improve disabled access.
9. Refreshment Department Pay
Following the conclusion of the review of grading in the Refreshment Department, the Committee agreed:
—the establishment of a fifth House of Lords Catering Grade for Senior Chefs de Partie;
—the regrading of the following posts:

Senior Chef de Partie (Larder) Band 10 to CG5

Chef de Partie (Vegetables) Band 10 to CG4

Chef de Partie (Vegetables) Band 10 to CG4

Senior Chef de Partie (Larder) Band 14 to CG5

Chef de Partie (Larder) Band 10 to CG4

Senior Chef de Partie (Sauce) Band 10 to CG5

Senior Chef de Partie (Starters) Band 10 to CG5

379
—the application to junior chef and cook posts of the provisions already agreed for other former industrial staff, namely extra pay points and a simple staff reporting system; reduction in hours of work to 41 gross, 36 net by April 1997; and cash incentives to give up cash and weekly pay;
—the replacement of current Catering Manager grades by new House of Lords Chef and Catering Manager grades 1–4;
—the regrading to Grade 7 of the post of Superintendent of the Refreshment Department;
—the appointment of an additional Executive Officer and Assistant Banqueting Manager; and
—the appointment of a Manager, Chef and eight other staff to serve the new outlets in the South East Return in March 1996.
10. Private Bill Fees
The Committee agreed that with effect from next session the fees payable at first and third readings of private bills should be increased from £2,500 to £3,500; and that other fees should be increased proportionately.
11. Staff of the House
The Committee agreed:
—the extension of the post of Administration Officer to September 1998;
—the payment of a 22 per cent. share in the salary cost of a new Grade 7 to be appointed in the House of Commons Information Systems Office; and
—the appointment of an additional Library Clerk.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I have in the past drawn attention to my impression—I put it no stronger than that—that reports of this nature seem to come before the House just before we rise. Tomorrow we shall receive the Liaison Committee report. That impression has been denied by the authorities, but I am tempted to do an analysis.
I should like to refer to paragraph 6, "Summer works programme". It talks of the relocation of offices and a heavy parliamentary programme. It says,
"Disruption will be kept to a minimum".
I should like to know whether or not the House authorities realise what disruption is caused. I raise the matter because I gain access to my office by means of lift HOP13. I wrote to Black Rod asking for a history of the breakdowns for the lift and was supplied with a list of the breakdowns from July 1994 to July 1995. There were 31 entries in total, of which eight said the lift was running on the arrival of the fitter and three said the lift was stopped for a survey; so we are really only talking about 20 registered breakdowns over a year.
I showed the list to other Members who use the lift regularly. It was received with both incredulity and derision. Those of us who have to use the lift know that it can break down three or four days on the trot. I ask therefore how the House registers the disruption which is caused in the way of works and whether the authorities are aware of to how much trouble Members are put.
The other point I wish to raise concerns the "Painting of the House in session"—paragraph 7. That is the wrong title. It should be, "Painting of Members of the House in Session who are prepared to pay £130". The way in which the House approaches this matter is undignified and unworthy. A number of paintings of the House in Session appear around the building. Sometimes a great occasion is chosen. But on every
380
occasion, so far as I can make out from my limited knowledge, a reasonable portrayal is made of the House as it actually is.
It is possible that people who attend this House perhaps once or twice a year will be seated in a prominent position because they have paid their money, whereas other people who regularly service the House, but find that this is an objectionable and mundane way of making selections, will not be featured. Further thought should be given to this matter. When the issue was first mooted in the House, I asked what criteria were to be used for selecting people who were to appear in the painting, and quoted from experience in another place on a similar issue. No proper answer was given then and I hope that the Chairman of Committees can respond today.
We are saying that what might be (for reasons that are well understood) the last time this House will be painted in its present form and set-up is to be represented on such a mercenary basis. I cannot understand why more thought and imagination cannot be given to this. We are told that the painter has been commissioned to do the work; presumably the fee has been arranged on the basis of the number of people who indicated that they are prepared to pay. No doubt somebody will suddenly realise that some prominent Front-Bencher or Government Minister has forgotten to put his name in, and he will have to be added. The whole thing is a mess. I suggest to the Chairman of Committees that during the Recess he might informally contact his colleagues to see whether some better criterion cannot be established for carrying out what may be a valuable historic painting.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, in relation to the first point of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, I was anxious that your Lordships should not go away for the Summer Recess without an opportunity to receive the report of the Offices Committee. It took place after the usual scheduled and timetabled series of meetings of the sub-committees in the first place, followed only last week by a meeting of the Offices Committee. I sought to place the report before your Lordships at the earliest moment in order that your Lordships should have an opportunity to see it and consider it before we rise tomorrow for the Summer Recess.
In relation to the question of disruption, extensive consultations have taken place in that regard. Great consideration has been given to those matters, both by the Administration and Works Sub-Committee of the Offices Committee, the Offices Committee itself and others in authority in the House. It is recognised that with a series of works operations on this scale designed to improve facilities for your Lordships and, through your Lordships for the public as well, there was bound to be considerable disruption. However, as a result of measures taken, the disruption will be kept to an absolute minimum. If any noble Lord feels incommoded either now or as work develops, the appropriate department will do its utmost to seek to deal with the problems as best it can.
So far as the lift is concerned, if your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, will forgive me, I shall not detain the House on the detail of the

381
matter, partly because I do not have all of the details myself anyway. But I shall, if need be, look into them after your Lordships have considered the report; and if there is some useful information that I can give the noble Lord, I shall certainly ensure that that is done.
The noble Lord asked about the painting. This matter has received very thorough consideration both by your Lordships' advisory panel on works of art—in effect, a sub-committee of the Offices Committee—and the Offices Committee itself. Perhaps I may say at this point that I am very grateful indeed to the chairman of the advisory panel, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and to the members for the exemplary work they have been undertaking on this matter.
There were two fundamental matters, among others, for consideration. Those were very much in the minds of the Offices Committee, the advisory panel and those who have been considering the question of the painting. The matter of the painting has, of course, been approved in principle by your Lordships. The considerations are, first, that it was thought very strongly by those concerned, and by a sizeable number of Members of your Lordships' House not directly involved in the arrangements, that the painting should be self-supporting, as indeed the painting was in another place, and that it would be wrong, particularly at this time and when other matters are in the public mind, for this to be in any way, other than for partial and absolutely necessary purposes, a drain on public funds. It was thought that that should not be done and that the painting should be self-supporting. I appreciate that that will not be wholly acceptable to everyone. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, has made a perfectly understandable point and he is not alone in his view. I am conscious of that. But it was felt that this would perhaps be the best way of meeting two rather essential criteria whereby the public were not put to expense other than for partial and absolutely inescapable purposes.
Perhaps I may revert to the figure, which I know is not a popular matter with the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. I should make it clear for the benefit of your Lordships that the figure proposed is not £130 but £150.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, with regard to the painting, will the same arrangements be made as were made in 1962 for the painting by Alfred Thomson which hangs in the Cholmondeley Room? The placing of the figures was done through the usual channels, which seems to me the only fair way to do it. Can we therefore ensure that the number appearing in the painting is restricted to those who are regular attenders of the House?
I wish to make a small point about the bequest. It is a very generous bequest and I am so glad that it is to be used in the way proposed. However, I do object to the rather discourteous way in which the lady who left the money has been described. Could we not have found out her Christian name, or her husband's name, or how she wished to be described? I do deprecate the way she is described as "a Mrs Dearsley". I have come across this outside the House in connection with charitable bequests. It is a modern fashion which I deprecate. The House might begin to make a good example in this
382
respect. I absolve the noble Lord himself whom we know to be the most courteous of Peers. But whoever wrote that description or was responsible for the information might be reminded about a more courteous way of describing people.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, on the noble Lord's second point, I thank him for his kind words about me. However, I see the draft report beforehand and therefore I would have had—indeed, did have—an opportunity to attend to the wording. Had I noticed the point I would certainly have taken what the noble Lord has said into account. I agree with him; there are better ways. I have no doubt that as this matter is carried forward a proper means will be found to express our warm thanks to Mrs. Dearsley. I am sure that we are all very grateful—and no doubt those in another place are as well—to Mrs. Dearsley for this bequest which will be for the benefit not only of the Palace but of people generally who will have the advantage of seeing these panels when they are eventually in place.
On the noble Lord's first point, he is correct that it is through the usual channels that these matters are being done. The particular additional point he mentioned will be taken into account.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I ask the indulgence of the House to use this occasion to draw the attention not only of the Offices Committee but of the Government themselves to the appalling acoustic conditions in some of the committee rooms upstairs. Anyone who has been a member of any of the Select Committees, no matter what kind they may be, is well aware of this. It is often quite difficult not only to hear witnesses, some of them from other countries; it is sometimes very difficult even to hear one's colleagues across the table. I am quite sure that they can always hear me, but that is another question.
The acoustic conditions in the committee rooms is a disgrace to Parliament—an absolute disgrace. There should be proper amplification facilities so that all witnesses can be heard and all the members of the Select Committees can be heard by one another. This has been mentioned in subterranean channels for a long time. I am sure that most members of Select Committees will entirely agree with me.
It is not as though it would cost a large sum of money. Perhaps I may address myself to the Government here. It would cost but a small fraction of the 16 per cent. of the European Parliament's expenditure on equipment where the lush facilities would be the envy of any Member of your Lordships' House or indeed another place. It should be possible to provide reasonably adequate facilities in the committee rooms upstairs. We should not have to apologise when, as happens quite frequently, people from abroad are giving evidence. It is most degrading to have to say, "Would you mind speaking up a little because the acoustic properties of this room are very bad?" They would not endure it in the European Parliament for 10 minutes. They would have a deputation to the various committees and next day workmen would be swarming all over the place in order to provide quite expensive facilities.

383
May I ask that this matter at last be given some attention? Even if it costs a small fraction of the annual sum that we waste in many quarters of the European Community, it is something we ought to do for our own honour and efficiency and for the perpetuation, we trust, of a decent form of audible democracy in our country.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, let me say that it is a blessing that we are never in any danger whatsoever of not hearing the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, on whatever matter it may be. I am in some difficulty here. I am in danger of transgressing the rules of order of your Lordships' House because the point raised by the noble Lord, does not feature in this report. I would be in grave danger of severe criticism were I to indulge in discussing all matters which did not arise on a particular report, but which were raised simply because they were not there.
Had I been able to remain within the terms of order, and had I—as I am always anxious to do—been able to assist the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I would have said to him in those circumstances that we are all very conscious indeed of the difficulties as regards the acoustics in various parts of your Lordships' House, not least in the Committee Rooms and one in particular which the noble Lord has not mentioned; namely, the Moses Room. Extensive activities have taken place over the years to try to improve these matters. We know that some improvements have been made. I take the noble Lord's point. I cannot guarantee that we shall be able to put in further improvements or the volumes of money which the European Parliament might be able to put in. We shall look at what the noble Lord has said and see whether further improvements can be made in future.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, may I return for a moment—it is a long time since we discussed this point—to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, about buying a position in the picture? It seems to me to be an absolutely improper idea. I would like to be in the picture, but I would not dream of paying money to do so and I hope that nobody else will.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I have already explained that quite considerable attention has been given to this point. I sought to explain the way in which it arose. I know that your Lordships—including myself—are not invariably guided or persuaded by what happens in another place, but that is what happened there. We need to be very conscious of demands on public funds.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.52 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to
384
speak in Committee on recommitment. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the, order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee on recommitment. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment).—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on recommitment) accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Arrangements where children arrested]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 29, line 44, leave out ("sitting summarily").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment corrects an error in the consolidation. This amendment, as with the other amendments tabled in my name to this Bill, and the Criminal Procedure (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, have been considered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I can inform the Committee that he is content that the amendments do not alter the character of the respective Bills. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 30, line 9, leave out from ("Reporter") to end of line 19.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is necessary in consequence of an amendment made in your Lordships' House to the Bill which yesterday became the Children (Scotland) Act, which amends the legislation being consolidated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 to 116 agreed to.
Clause 117 [Presence of appellant or applicant at hearing]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 79, line 35, at end insert:
("(9) When the High Court fixes the date for the hearing of an appeal, or of an application under section 111(2) of this Act, the Clerk of Justiciary shall give notice to the Crown Agent and to the solicitor of the convicted person, or to the convicted person himself if he has no known solicitor.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment inserts material which was omitted in error from the consolidation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 118 to 271 agreed to.
Clause 272 [Evidence of children: special provisions]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 177, line 39, leave out ("or is likely to be").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 correct an error in the way in which the consolidation deals with amendments made by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 178, line 17, after ("been") insert ("or is likely to be")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 272, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Criminal Procedure (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.57 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment).—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMIIIEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 59, line 36, leave out ("92") and insert ("100").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is necessary in consequence of amendments made in another place to the Bill which yesterday became the Pensions Act 1995. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Disability Discrimination Bill
4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 34 [The National Disability Council]:
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 86A, I should point out that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 88.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 86A:
Page 26, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) It shall be the duty of the Council—

(a) to work towards the elimination of discrimination disability; and

(b) to keep under review the working of this Act, and when they are so required to do so by the Secretary of State or otherwise think it necessary, to draw up and submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amending this Act.

(2A) In discharging these duties the Council shall have the following powers—

(a) to investigate such complaints as are made to them of failure to comply with any provision of this Act in an individual case, and where it seem appropriate, conciliate in relation to such complaints;

(b) to provide assistance, including legal and financial assistance, to disabled persons in enforcing their rights under this Act;

(c) to provide advice and assistance to businesses in complying with their duties under this Act;

(d) to undertake or assist (financially or otherwise) the undertaking by other persons of any research and any educational activities, which appear to the Council necessary or expedient for the purposes of subsection (2) above.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 100. Grouped with these amendments is an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, Amendment No. 91. I should start by apologising to the House for the number of alterations that have been made to the group of amendments between Committee stage and today. That has happened because we have been trying to take into account all that was said in Committee and all that people wanted.
At the moment the council can only advise, it cannot act to prevent discrimination, and it can only advise the Secretary of State; it cannot give advice to businesses or disabled people. It has no remit to cover the employment aspects of the Bill. In other words, at the moment it has a very narrow role. The amendments would broaden this role beyond that of purely advising the Secretary of State. Most importantly, they give the NDC powers to advise and support businesses and disabled people.
Businesses are very worried about where they can get advice from. Representatives from the CBI and from the Employers Forum on Disability made this clear when they came to talk to the all-party group last month. The CBI calls for consistent support throughout the UK,

387
coherent across employment and access issues, readily accessible at local and national level, available to providers of goods and services, and employers. With these amendments, the council's assistance to disabled people could include carrying out investigations into complaints, providing conciliation, and providing legal and financial assistance so that the disabled person could enforce the right not to be discriminated against.
The Government have said that employers and disabled people will get advice on employment issues from PACTs and ACAS. They have given no indication of who is going to provide advice on access to goods and services. My noble friend Lord Mackay said that PACTs and ACAS have adequate resources to meet the obligations placed upon them. That is not the experience of disability organisations, which are often being contacted by disabled people having difficulty getting what they need through their local PACTs. PACTs have been repeatedly criticised by both disabled people and employers for being under-trained and under-resourced. I note that the CBI wants assurances that the funding of ACAS and PACTs will be expanded to cover their new obligations. The employers forum points out that it was because employers found it so difficult to find advice and support on disability that it—the employers forum—was founded.
I understand that 10,000 telephone calls were received seeking advice and guidance when the codes of practice to the Sex Discrimination Act were issued. This legislation is in many ways more complicated in that it requires businesses to make adjustments. Therefore, there are likely to be more queries. Where can businesses go for expert and consistent advice on their rights and obligations?
Businesses will not only have to act in accordance with the statute; they will also have to keep up with the way in which the law has been interpreted by the tribunals and courts. Many of the concepts in this law are new and there are a number of key areas where the bare outline of the statute will be filled in through interpretation by the tribunals and courts. Who is going to advise employers on recent industrial tribunal cases and the policies and procedures they need?
On goods and services, the Bill says that the Secretary of State may make arrangements for the provision of advice and assistance to persons with a view to promoting settlements. My noble friend Lord Mackay said on 13th June that the Government would be establishing a network of advice points on the right of access to goods and services and these would be readily accessible and locally available, but he then went on to admit that the Government were only currently exploring how this network will be provided. He said that he was sure there would be plenty of organisations that would be prepared to help once the Bill had become law, but went on to say:
"I do not have a crystal ball. I do not know who will be prepared to provide the advice".—[Official Report, 13/6/95; col. 1699.]
My noble friend Lord Mackay also said that the local advice points had to be in place before the first provisions of the Act came into force, which he said would be in the second half of next year. This means
388
that government are expecting to establish a network of advice points between November and next summer, through organisations that have yet to be identified.
Few disability organisations have a network of local branches. Most disability organisations have expertise in one particular disability. Few local branches or local organisations have the resources necessary to cope with all the inquiries that are likely to arise. Most have no staff; others are staffed by volunteers. Of course local disability organisations will try to help disabled people who contact them, but they will not have the resources, breadth of knowledge or legal expertise to deal with the sort of issues that are likely to arise.
In 1988 a Coopers & Lybrand report produced for the Department of Health criticised existing information services for their fragmentation and uneven quality. It also emphasised that the profusion of organisations meant that the cost of providing information was higher than necessary. Having a number of different organisations providing information and support is likely to lead to conflicting advice.
Employers recognise the importance of good support services, not only to themselves but also to disabled people. Northern Foods states:
"we know that dealing with claimants who do not have access to expert help only results in an additional cost burden in terms of time and resources on the employer".
IBM said:
"If the new legislative framework is to have credibility in the eyes of both employers and disabled people it must be seen to be backed by the same commitment to guidance, support and enforcement which underpins the EOC and the CRE".
The lack of legal support for disabled people is of particular concern. Who will help disabled people who feel that they have been discriminated against bring a legal case to an industrial tribunal (where there is no legal aid) or to court? Without support many disabled people will shy away from going to court. Research has shown that without an adequate system of representation it is very difficult for an individual to prove discrimination. A spokesperson for British Rail said:
"Without the force of a law enforcing body businesses will not comply with the legislation".
Another power that this amendment would give the NDC is to carry out or commission independent research and undertake educational activities. Experience both in the USA and here has shown how vital these are to securing implementation. I know that the CBI is particularly concerned about this role, and I am happy to support Amendment No. 88 in the name of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, which also gives the council powers to initiate independent research.
Under the Bill as currently drafted the power to advise the Secretary of State for Employment about employment, self-employment and training of disabled people rests with the National Advisory Council on the Employment of People with Disabilities. Many Members of both Houses have expressed concern that two separate bodies will be advising two different Ministers. Presumably it will be the new Department for Education and Employment that will now deal with the employment parts of the Bill—though industrial

389
tribunals will now come under the Department of Trade and Industry, and health and safety will be under the Department of Environment.
Employers are certainly concerned. Both the Employers Forum and the CBI have urged the Government to look again at this aspect. The Employer's Forum says
"A central authoritative body is required to draw together both sides of the Bill's provisions (employment and access to goods and services) and to assure the successful and coherent delivery of the Bill's worthy aims".
The CBI says
"the CBI believes that the NDC should be an authoritative body able to offer consistent advice across the fields of employment and goods and services".
The NACEPD does not have the remit to combat discrimination or to monitor the legislation. Nor does it have the resources. It is only able to advise the Government, and the Government can ignore its advice—as of course they have done on the Bill because NACEPD has also called on the Government to set up a single authoritative body with enforcement powers, to cover all aspects including employment.
In his response to my amendments in Committee my noble friend said that the Government had a three-pronged approach: a powerful body to advise government, information for business and disabled people, and conciliation, advice and support to help resolve disputes. But the NDC will not be powerful: it will have very limited resources and no independent status. It will not even have its own budget to commission research. Neither disabled people nor businesses are satisfied that the arrangements for information, advice and support will be adequate. In the case of access to goods and services those arrangements are not even in place. Without good quality advice and appropriate support services the law is unlikely to function effectively. On conciliation, the Government propose that ACAS should deal with cases, but ACAS is already struggling to cope with rising numbers of employment cases and lacks the necessary expertise. There are no proposals as to who will provide conciliation in the area of access to goods and services. The Government's three-pronged approach has, I am afraid, failed to impress businesses and disabled people. Nor does it impress me.
In my amendments I have sought to cover the concerns that those groups have expressed. They have cross-party support. They have the support of the All Party Disablement Group. Sir John Hannam, its co-chairman, has written to Members of this House to say that the group believes that it is essential that the powers of the council are strengthened. He writes that members of the group fear that the lack of a central authoritative body is likely to undermine the legislation. Giving the council enforcement powers is also supported in a paper, entitled New Abilities, produced by the Bow Group.
These amendments concentrate on information, advice and support. The investigative powers are restricted to investigating individual complaints of discrimination. They are the powers that a solicitor would have if approached by an individual disabled person wishing to take a case of discrimination to court.
390
They are not the investigative powers included in my amendments for the Committee stage to which my noble friend Lord Mackay objected. He was concerned that they would create a backlash from businesses. While I do not agree, in the spirit of compromise, I have focused on those powers which I believe to be particularly essential. If these amendments are carried, then disabled people will believe that the Government have listened to their concerns. If these amendments are passed, then employers will be reassured that there will be a single central authoritative body able to give them the advice and support for which they are asking. I do not believe that businesses would be against the powers that these amendments give the NDC. I know that businesses and the Government want the Bill to succeed, and to bring an end to discrimination against disabled people. These amendments will help achieve that aim, and I hope that the House will give them their support. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I give my wholehearted support to the amendments so clearly and forcefully explained by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. In Committee I expressed my concern about who would advise individual disabled people in the area of goods and services, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has already said, the Minister said that he did not have a crystal ball and could not predict who would do that.
It was only Tuesday night, when the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, spoke about the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, having departed from the Bill to the Lottery and the RSC, that I started to wonder whether the noble Lord had still been able to help his noble friend the Minister: has Mystic Mac now got his crystal ball? Or perhaps a quick trip to the blasted heath has brought enlightenment to the Thane of Ardbrecknish. I hope that we will be told.
Today I should like to change tack and focus my concern on the fact that the National Disability Council was not to cover employment unless NACEPD were abolished. Those arrangements have three basic flaws. First, the Bill's implementation needs to be overseen in its entirety. The abolition of discrimination cannot be divided neatly into topics. For example, one cannot separate access to a shop for its disabled customers and access to the shop for its disabled employees. That is why there has been so much consistent campaigning for comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation. I am therefore delighted that the Government have expanded the Bill to cover education and transport.
The second flaw arises if NACEPD is abolished eventually, leaving the NDC to handle all areas covered by the Bill. That stems from a mistaken assumption that by eliminating discrimination one solves all the problems faced by disabled people. NACEPD has kept an eye on sickness benefit and the jobseekers' allowance. It has been involved with the careers service. It will still be necessary.
The third flaw arises from the significant difference in composition of the proposed NDC and NACEPD. The former will need full-time paid disability experts; the latter is served by dedicated part-timers who give their services free. I feel strongly that disabled people will end up frustrated and confused if we have two bodies to

391
try to oversee and monitor the Act. We need a strong NDC to attend professionally to all areas covered by the Bill and to help individual disabled people. I hope that noble Lords will give the amendments their strong support.
Lord Rix: My Lords, it is with some frustration that I support the amendments: frustration because I had hoped that by now the Government might have gone some way towards recognising the validity of the case which has been made with eloquence and passion by many noble Lords on all sides of the House on behalf of disabled people and their organisations.
I want to concentrate a few remarks upon Amendments Nos. 86A and 92 which deal with assistance by the council. I can assure the Minister that without some such provision for the NDC few, if any, people with a learning disability will be able to seek redress under the Bill.
In Committee, the Minister told us that it costs nothing to take a case to a tribunal and only a few pounds to go to a small claims court, and that both mechanisms are designed to be used by individuals without legal representation, with the tribunal or judge specifically charged to draw out the facts of the case. The few pounds, the legal representation, the support and the advice on how to present the case are crucial, particularly for people with a learning disability. They are not incidental, as the Minister seemed to suggest.
Organisations such as MENCAP will of course advise people with learning disabilities on how to seek redress under the legislation, as it does of course with all legislation. I for one will be sorely disappointed if the Government do not at last recognise that sometimes we need the bite as well as the bark. Therefore I support all these amendments with great enthusiasm.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the strength of this House is that noble Lords of all parties, and of none, can combine to persuade the Government to improve legislation. That is the unique capacity of the House, and we are all proud of that. Today we are witnessing an attempt by noble Lords on all sides of the House to make the Bill a genuine vehicle for change. That is what they are trying to do, and they deserve success, because at present the Bill is like a vehicle without an engine.
No amount of hyperbole from Ministers about the Bill being an historic step forward can obscure the central fact that it is simply not enforceable; that the proposed council has no real power; that disabled people have no champion; and that their organisations are almost unanimous in supporting the amendments put forward so eloquently by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.
It is truly astonishing that the Government should refuse to make this Bill readily and easily enforceable, given the vivid lesson of history which Ministers themselves have been preaching. Time and again Ministers have condemned the quota system of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 as an unworkable failure. Time and again they have been right. It was an unworkable failure because successive governments refused to enforce it.
392
The quota system held high promise for disabled people. However, the problem was that it was ignored. It fell into disrepute; it let disabled people down. Without the powers spelt out in these amendments, this Bill too will be ignored. It too will fall into disrepute; it too will let disabled people down.
The Government maintain that their legal area of tribunals and small claims courts are means of enforcement. But that argument is fundamentally flawed. It rests on the mistaken ministerial assumption that all disabled people are as vigorous and as actively militant as the few who demonstrate in Whitehall. They are not. Most disabled people find it very difficult to cope. They battle against severe disability and they lack confidence and the experience of the methods of complaining. They simply do not have such experience. It is absurd to expect such people to fight their individual way through tribunals and so forth.
This House loves its lawyers—or, at any rate, most of them! But most disabled people would sooner suffer than tangle with lawyers. They simply do not want to fight. I believe that many disabled people would rather go without their rights than become embroiled in legal tangles in tribunals or small claims courts.
If the amendments were accepted the council would be available to support and advise disabled people. It would be available to undertake the actual fighting on key issues of principle. That would be marvellous. And it could happen as a result of your Lordships' votes in a few moments' time.
I know that the Government maintain that hundreds of voluntary organisations are available to offer advice. That is true, but none can replace the functions of a strong central council. There is no doubt whatever that the Government underrate the importance of a simple focal point for all disabled people. They need to go to one authoritative body which can give them guidance and practical assistance.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, rightly says that those in business want a body to which they can go for guidance. I am co-chairman of the All-Party Disablement Group. I am glad to see so many distinguished members here today. Employers have attended meetings of the group in order to explain that they need the central focal point of a powerful council. That was outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. My point is that Ministers should be aware that if they want people to take up their offers they should provide one point of contact. Any good marketing man will tell them that. Why else must we dial 999 for police, fire and ambulance? People, in particular disabled people, must know where to turn because they can become lost. The need for that focal point is important in respect of disabled people, more so than in respect of race and gender.
As the Minister said, there are varying disabilities—indeed, there are multifarious disabilities—and a need for adjustment. However, I am afraid that the Government interpret those varying disabilities in a perverse and misleading way. They say that a single focal authority would not work simply because of the diversity of disabilities as distinct from the homogeneity of race and sex. They do not use those exact words—

393
they are my words—but I believe that I have not distorted the Minister's meaning. I am sure that he will correct me if I have. But the Bill does not deal with the diversity of disability; it deals with the simple basic issue of discrimination. When discrimination occurs it must be dealt with. As a body of case law is built up the issues will become even more simple and more amenable to solutions.
The final misconception of the Government is that if the amendments are accepted somehow there will be a backlash, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Time and again, Ministers have uttered that refrain without justification. It is an example of the Government misunderstanding the effect of their own Bill. The fact is that any provision for disabled people in the Bill must be reasonable in accordance with the terms of the Bill. The Bill lays down the fact that the provisions must be reasonable. Unreasonable provisions cannot be forced because the Bill ensures that they cannot be unreasonable. No undue burdens can be imposed in any business. That is spelt out specifically in the terms of the Bill. Those provisions make a nonsense of the claim that there would be a backlash.
It would be infinitely sad if the plea from all sides of the House was rejected by the Government. It would mean the betrayal of millions of disabled people. They have lived in the hope that Parliament would effectively outlaw unjustified discrimination with proper enforcement measures so that they could have the same human rights to employment and to goods and services as anyone else. It is a reasonable, modest and, indeed, moral demand that is put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. If the Government fail disabled people, I hope that your Lordships will support those people with their votes in the Division Lobby.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, I wish to associate myself strongly with the amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. At an earlier stage in the long debate on this issue I raised two matters of grave anxiety. One related to education and the other to the powers given to the national disability council. I am grateful to the Government for the amendments that have been made as regards education. However, in terms of the powers given to the NDC, we are, effectively, where we were at the beginning of the debate.
I do not know whether the Government are aware as yet of the strength of feeling which is being engendered in this area. The presence of the right reverend Prelates sitting on my left is an expression of that. The pressure applied by the different disability organisations is another example.
My fear is that unless the amendment is accepted by the House, the Bill will fall into the sand. It would be a tragedy if, after all the strength of feeling that has been expressed and the very good intentions which the Government clearly have in that regard, the Bill were to go into the sand because it did not empower any group to bring it into effect and to operate it.
394
I must confess that I am bemused and puzzled by the fact that we are still where we were. I urge the House and the Government to look very carefully at this issue and I hope that the House will support the amendment on a Division.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I too am happy to support my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I believe that it is essential that the powers of the council are strengthened so that it is able to act as a central, authoritative body which advises business and disabled people and so that it has enforcement powers to ensure that serious cases of discrimination do not go unchallenged. I hope that the Minster will look again at that aspect of the Bill and will agree to strengthen the powers of the National Disability Council.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I would hope to speak now because I intend to present some points which are rather different from those which have been expressed hitherto.
This group of amendments would have the effect of changing substantially the nature of the proposed council. It would become similar to the commissions which deal with issues of race and sex, as has been pointed out in previous debates at earlier stages.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen and others have explained their reasons for trying to make a major change on Report after the Bill's passage through the other place. Their aims and sincerity are clear and laudable.
We all want the Bill to be fully effective when it is enacted. The question is whether the council is being given a large enough role. In our debate in Committee, I put some questions to the Minister. First, I asked whether the council could make it known publicly, if it wished, that its advice was not being accepted by the Government. I thought that my noble friend gave me a satisfactory reply when he said that it could do so.
Secondly, I asked about research. That is the subject of a later amendment. The Minister told me that the requirements for research would be channelled through the Government so that any research, or the results of it, that was already taking place would be available and that would avoid duplication. The council would not necessarily be aware of all the research that had been or was being carried out in different spheres.
On a third point, the Minister confirmed that the council would not be excluded from the employment provisions in Part II and that it would take over more in that field when NACEPD—I use that acronym with which we are all now familiar—comes to the end of its life.
There is one matter remaining for me; that is, the resources available to the council. The figure so far indicated by the Government seems somewhat meagre. The CBI is also concerned about whether sufficient finances will be available also to ACAS and the PACTS teams of the Employment Service because of the functions which the Government expect them to perform in pursuance of the aims of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on those matters.

395
I have received from the CBI today, as no doubt have other noble Lords, a note containing a summary of its latest views on these amendments. The CBI suggests that the council should be able to initiate research and be empowered to produce codes of practice. In both cases, that is written into the Bill but the approval of the Government is required. I hope that the Government would not withhold consent in any reasonable circumstances. Indeed, under Clause 35, the council is expected to prepare some of the codes of practice at the request of the Secretary of State.
The CBI suggests also that the proposed council should be the:
"lead body pursuing the aims of the legislation".
I hope that the Government will be the lead body, but I know what the CBI means. The CBI states—and I agree—that the council:
"will need to be seen to do more than simply maintain a dialogue with the Secretary of State".
No doubt the CBI has also made its ideas clear to the Government. It is not proposing major changes to the Bill, as I interpret its views, but recommends that it should be implemented in the way that it suggests.
When my noble friend Lord Swinfen was winding up a similar debate on 27th June, he agreed with me that discrimination in the sphere of disability is different from that of race and sex but that the principle is the same. He then referred to employment only and not to goods and services. Only about one-fifth of the disabled people in the United Kingdom are of working age. Over 5 million are retired or over working age. Under Part III, which deals with goods and services, they will all come under the umbrella of the Bill. The issue will not be simply whether someone is or is not accepted for employment, as in the case of race or sex. Often it will involve also the making of adjustments not only to the workplace but to methods of working in employment. Also it will be relevant in relation to the provision of goods and services to the public.
The public in the United Kingdom contains about six times more disabled persons who are retired or over working age than of working age. Their disabilities vary to a vast extent both as to the types and degree of disability. In Committee, the Minister gave examples of a wide variety of forms of disablement. I shall not give more examples now, especially since I initiated a debate in your Lordships' House on 14th December after this Bill had been announced. Speakers in that debate provided a mine of information which can be looked up.
Today I shall add another personal example at the suggestion of one of the doctors and surgeons who have been seeing me two or three times a week for the past two months because of present troubles. Those doctors and surgeons have wished me to take part in these debates, provided I obey their strict orders. Some noble Lords will have seen me doing that.
When troubles have arisen from my disabilities such as they are—the disabilities were caused 50 years ago—doctors both abroad and in this country have sent me back to St. Bartholomew's hospital where I spent 14 months being repaired at the end of World War 2. I have
396
been in changing situations of disablement since then, sometimes on my pins and sometimes not. My disabilities were caused by a bullet passing through my middle—an infrequent occurrence in peacetime, one hopes. Its legacy is unusual and I am regarded as a one-off case. My Lords, I am lucky to be alive; I am not complaining.
Further, I am told that if the bullet had been an inch higher or lower, or had struck me in the front at a different angle, the disabilities would have been different, if I had survived, depending on what was severed, smashed or punctured on its way through and depending on what it just missed. I should add that the skilled surgery and nursing of those at Bart's and others has always been equal to the occasion.
The point that I am making is that the disabled are not a single, homogeneous group or category. It is a mistake to over simplify by making that assumption. Arrangements to abolish disability discrimination are bound to be much more complex and wide reaching than those for race and sex. For 36 years, in both Houses of Parliament, I have been encouraging governments to bring in legislation themselves on the subject. I have made that clear; and, indeed have made it clear that I thought the resources of the departments of government were needed when I introduced my own two Private Members' Bills, having been successful in ballots.
Now the Government are at last doing that and tackling a huge area of this vast subject. I believe that the Government have to be the lead body, while having an independent, well qualified advisory council. It may be said that I am influenced by the years that I spent in another place as a Member of governments and of the Cabinet. I agree that, to some extent, that may be so. My experience tells me that action under the Bill is mainly a job for government.
It may also be said that the Government may drag their heels or, indeed, that future governments will do so when the Bill becomes law. If that happens, I am sure that Members of both Houses will be chasing Ministers and continually raising what needs to be done, especially those of us who meet in the Parliamentary Disablement Group.
I find that I reach a rather different conclusion on the amendments from my colleagues in the Parliamentary Disablement Group—certainly as regards those who have spoken so far—because I would not wish to see the major changes made in the role of the council which the amendments would bring about. I hope that they will be proved to be unnecessary.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. The issue is crystal clear to me. The National Disability Council is virtually worthless without the powers to advise business and industry, to advise disabled people and to investigate complaints. At the moment the National Disability Council only has powers to advise the Secretary of State.
This is a truly historic moment for the disabled. Let us not mess it up with inadequate legislation. The big question must be: can it really work in its current form? The Association of Disabled Professionals has grave

397
doubts. It has received 67 submissions from disability organisations and individuals. Some of them include—the Royal National Institute for the Blind; the Royal National Institute for the Deaf; Scope (formerly the Spastics Society); the Spinal Injuries Association; the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities; Age Concern, and many others.
All those disability organisations are of one voice. They all have serious misgivings about the current proposed legislation. They all believe that anti-discrimination legislation must include a strong central council with adequate powers and funding. I believe that the heart of my noble friend the Minister is in the right place and that he genuinely believes that the NDC will function adequately in its current proposed form. However, his view is not shared by the disabled and the professional organisations who represent them. In fact, I have heard one disability organisation say:
"We are concerned that the wrong signals will be sent out about the commitment of the Government to dealing with discrimination against disabled people if they do not back it up with an authoritative NDC".
Business and industry support the concept of a strong central council that is able to advise them about their legal rights and responsibility under the new law.
In conclusion, we have come so far and raised so many hopes, let us not fall at the last fence. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister might give a little ground and allow the NDC sufficient authority to help make the new law workable, both for disabled people and their prospective employers.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, it is the wish of all organisations and individuals who have contacted me over the matter that there should be a body which will be independent and be able to sort out the problems and advise employers, organisations and individuals on all the various problems that will arise. There must be an overview.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, was most effective in explaining to the House that she was in a unique position: being a woman, belonging to an ethnic group and having a very severely disabled husband. On that occasion, the noble Baroness said that, of course, the disabled problems needed a commission as much as the other two groups. The noble Baroness has given me permission to mention her unique situation.
The fact is that sex and race are much more straightforward than disability, which has such a multitude of different aspects to be covered. Each problem can involve a different individual. There are about 6 million disabled people in the country. Can the Minister spell out clearly what the proposed council will do and who will run it? It was a good idea to suggest that it should be linked with the Citizens Advice Bureaux, but I can see that they already have more than they can cope with.
Would it not be possible to have a commission which is independent and restricted to, say, five or 10 years to start with, so that if it was not working or proved to be
398
unnecessary it could then be changed or wound up? I do not know why the Government want to discriminate between disabled matters and those of sex and race.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, after the protestation of affection—although, perhaps, not undying affection—of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, I feel that I owe him a short intervention. Unless the amendment or something of its kind is accepted, it seems to me that there is a serious risk of the Short Title of the Bill, the Disability Discrimination Bill, becoming even shorter and ending up merely as the Disability Bill. I say that because it will contain within its own pages an essential disability; namely, the lack of any authoritative body with appropriate powers. Without such powers, I cannot see how one can expect the law to function effectively. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long on the matter. I have very seldom participated in a debate on an amendment which received such tremendous support from so many parts of the House. We are now talking about something which is effectively the engine which will drive the legislation on and make it successful. If we do not have something which will give real teeth to what is put into the legislation, it will fail and fail miserably.
At present, disabled people—that is, people who have difficulty with reading, writing or mobility—are being asked to take on cases by themselves. We need the proposed amendment or something very like it. If the Government have had a change of heart at this point I should be very glad to hear it; but I do not believe that they have. The legislation will provide a body which has the legal powers and, it is to be hoped, the financial power, to ensure that we give effect to the regulations within it. Without such powers, much of the rest of the Bill is pointless because it will not have any effect. Historically an Act which has had no mechanism to support it has not been effective. I refer, for example, to the Factory Acts of the 19th century. Those Acts had no effect until inspectors were appointed to inspect factories. An Act that is not backed up in this way might as well not exist. I ask the House in all sincerity whether there is any real point in having this Act unless we have strong enforcement powers.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate referred towards the end of his speech to his confusion in this matter. I, too, am somewhat perplexed. Even though I have not uttered upon it until this moment it was many weeks ago that my noble friend the Minister first aroused my interest in this Bill. I have listened to the debates in the Chamber and I attended meetings outside it. Even if my noble friend had not aroused my interest, as chairman of the Stroke Association sooner or later I would have sparked on certain aspects of this Bill. Stroke, which affects an extra 100,000 people every year, can occur at any age. The youngest person we have recorded with stroke-like symptoms had not even been born. Those symptoms occurred in the womb. The next youngest was only two years old. Although one usually thinks of stroke as an impairment of people's later years, that is not the case. One only has to look around this Chamber to know that there is life after stroke. Therefore it behoves us to

399
think what kind of life that is. Will it be a working life? It could well be with the right sort of advice and the right sort of encouragement.
That rapid introduction brings me straight to the meat of these amendments. It seems to me that the protagonists are like two dinosaurs locking horns. On the one hand, we have a concordat, not only of all the disability charities, but also of the Employers Forum on Disability. They believe that the Government have produced a good, even a very good Bill, on the rights of disabled people, but that it has one fatal flaw to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has just referred. The disability commission proposed in this Bill seems to do nothing for anyone except the Secretary of State. He certainly needs up-to-date advice on the state of the law and practice affecting disabled people. But—it is a very big but—so do disabled people and their possible employers.
The Government, of course, are my other horned dinosaur. They know full well what is needed: an organisation to protect disabled people from the possible sins of employers—ACAS, we are told, can do that—and an organisation to advise on access for disabled people. The advice centres proposed by my noble friend in Committee are an obvious route. But what we simply do not have is a one-stop shop, and it is that that all the workers in the field desperately believe is needed.
I can readily understand the Government's reluctance to set up a national proselytising body: the equivalent perhaps of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I am sure that body does a lot of good work but that is marred—and I am afraid, badly marred—by the occasional howler. I recently came across one such in my capacity as a governor of a large comprehensive school in Taunton. An opinion was sought from that body on the law and practice of schoolgirls wearing skirts at school. I shall not weary the House with all the details but I shall be happy to place a copy of the document in your Lordships' Library for information. A short extract will suffice on this occasion. Paragraph 5 is headed "Stereotype". It states,
"Uniform skirts and trousers encourage boys and girls to identify with the behaviour of adults of the same sex. This leads to a perpetuation in the new generation of the sharply different roles of the sexes in earlier generations. The skirt reminds the girls' teachers and male peers that she is female, that sex differences are important"—
wait for it—
"that society expects her to be less of a scholar than a boy".
This is in a school which has recently been the subject of an Ofsted report in which it was praised for having produced boys' results of the same high educational standard as the girls' results. Paragraph 5 continues,
"Forbidding girls to wear trousers, therefore, forces girls into role playing and stereotyped attitudes which define the treatment of individuals according to social expectations of what is appropriate for each sex".
I leave noble Lords to draw their own conclusions from that.
No one, certainly not I, will wish for a proselytising body. I therefore believe that these amendments fall at the last fence; namely, in Amendment No. 86A the proposed new subsection (2A) (d) states that the new council is,
"to undertake … any educational activities".
400
I stress the word "any". Amendment No. 92 states in the proposed new subsection (3),
"Assistance by the Council under this section may include—giving advice".
I would have no problem with that if the words were changed slightly to read,
"responding to requests for advice".
However, to spit it out willy-nilly is not something that I can support. An organisation which the Secretary of State, disabled people and employers can use and respect is infinitely to be desired.
The Government's other main worry, as I understand it, is costs. I believe that that is a real and sensible concern. If I am right about employers wanting the new commission or council, call it what you will, they have the obvious remedy. They can either be charged by the advisory council, or disband their existing forum on disability and put the money towards a more general council such as these amendments provide for.
I am in a quandary. I want a broader council but, equally, I believe that the Government have won some, even most, of the arguments. I hope that my noble friend Lord Mackay will produce further arguments for my voting with the Government today. If not, I am afraid that I still cannot support any of these amendments for the reasons I have given. I shall therefore abstain.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I make a brief point for clarification. We are not discussing Amendment No. 92—
Noble Lords: We are on Report!
Lord Renton: My Lords, everyone who has spoken in favour of these amendments seems to have overlooked a vital fundamental factor: that we are to have one disability council. Its work is to cover the whole of the United Kingdom, including even Northern Ireland. In the amendment it is suggested that it should be given power to consider individual cases of various kinds and in various circumstances. I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, did not notice this. It seems that it is even, as stated in the proposed new subsection (2A) (b) of Amendment No. 86A,
"to provide assistance, including legal and financial assistance … in enforcing their rights under this Act—";
that is, going to court. The body is to have a jurisdiction with regard to legal aid. How can it consider individual cases and deal with all these particular matters which will arise locally all over the United Kingdom from one central body? I should have thought that regional offices would not be enough. One would have to have at least one in every district. That would add tremendously to the cost of administering the Bill. I do not think it is necessary because I personally have sufficient faith in the system of enforcement that is already in the Bill which provides industrial tribunals for employment cases and the courts in other cases. I greatly respect all those who have spoken and all the outside pressure groups who have advised them but I really do not feel that in practice it would be wise to accept my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I was brought to my feet by something said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who had a distinguished career as a legal

401
practitioner. I think that a large number of legal practitioners would have been surprised at what he said a moment ago which implied that this amendment really did not address a problem. For the moment I shall not trouble your Lordships with an argument as to whether there may be other ways to address it. But to suggest that he has sufficient faith in the existing means of redress is something that will puzzle very many people who are actively engaged before industrial tribunals.
The fact is that someone who appears for himself before any tribunal has an ordeal which those of us who have not experienced it ourselves may find difficult to imagine. It is an unfamiliar atmosphere in which the person is faced with unfamiliar proceedings and complicated matters of law which sometimes even lawyers have difficulty in understanding. As my noble friend Lord Ashley has said, many people who suffer from disabilities are extremely articulate and can be very persuasive, but that in itself is not enough to cope with the kinds of questions that may be directed at them when they appear before an industrial tribunal.
Perhaps I may paraphrase what I believe the noble Lord said at Committee stage. If the suggestion is that there is no need to worry because the chairman of an industrial tribunal is perfectly capable of eliciting the bones of the applicant's case in the course of the hearing, no one who has not been in the position of such a chairman will find it easy to imagine the task that we seek to impose upon him. In the first place, he has to be, and appear to be, objective. If he goes out of his way to elicit the case of one of the parties, that will place his objectivity in question. On occasions, all of us have had to interview people who have had a problem. It may take quite some time to ascertain what the problem is, particularly the arguments that should be used in the person's favour. To attempt to do that in a public hearing does not allow for the kind of problems which we seek to impose upon industrial tribunals.
On occasion I have been in the presence of judges who have just been told that they are to hear a litigant in person. I have watched their faces. Never once have I heard a judge say that there is no problem and he is not troubled in the least because he will be able to ascertain the litigant's case in the course of the hearing. That certainly is not the approach of the judiciary.
I add two further pieces of evidence. First, in the commercial courts of this country where litigation takes place between people who usually can afford to be represented, it is not often that one hears someone say that he does not need to be represented because he is perfectly capable of putting his own case. Those who can afford to do so believe that skilled representation is an asset. Secondly, I refer to the report of Professor Hazel Genn. She did a great deal of research into this matter two or three years ago. I know that in the course of debates on this Bill I have sought to impose a good deal of reading on the noble Lord. If he has not read that report I commend it to him. What emerges from those pages is the sheer uncomprehending puzzlement of many people who are unfamiliar with tribunal proceedings when they find that they have to go to a tribunal. Many do not know what question is being addressed, what the issue is or what they have to say to
402
the tribunal. Many of them leave the tribunal without ever knowing what the whole proceedings are about. It is clear from the report that across a whole range of tribunals one's prospects of succeeding are very much greater if one has skilled representation, not always by a lawyer.
I am not certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Renton, intended to suggest that there was no problem in relation to conciliation procedures. The noble Lord indicates that he was not. If not, then there is a problem in relation to conciliation procedures, and it is incumbent upon us to address the point. In more and more cases nowadays those who are concerned with these matters believe that a great deal of court time can be saved and that there are many other advantages if conciliation procedures come into operation before the matter is litigated.
Offhand, I can think of three advantages. First, if the parties can be assisted to resolve their dispute, that is enormously preferable to someone having to arbitrate so that one wins and the other loses. Secondly, most the courts and tribunals of this country keep abreast of their workload but frequently do not do very much more than that. A slight increase in workload produces a problem. The question of how many cases to put into a day's list is always a nightmare. If a substantial number of those cases can be diverted, there will be an enormous saving to the courts and the Treasury, which no doubt the Government will welcome. Thirdly, the costs both to the public and to the parties to the litigation can be avoided if these cases can be diverted from the process in the first place.
That is a point well taken in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, Access to Justice I shall not add to the noble Lord's burden of reading. However, Chapter 18 contains a great deal of what the noble and learned Lord has to say about the advantages of dispute resolution procedures as they have been tried out in the United States, Canada and Australia. It does not follow that this amendment is the only possible way to address the problem but certainly the case has been made out overwhelmingly that there is a problem to be addressed.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as someone who has sat for over 20 years as a member of an industrial tribunal, I believe that I must put the other side of the picture. I had not intended to speak to this amendment, although I intend to vote with the Government against it. The noble Lord pointed out that many judges were horrified when they discovered that ordinary litigants would speak. I believe that that reflects upon the judiciary. Fortunately, I do not believe that it applies to all of them. My experience of an industrial tribunal is that very often the applicant is much better off unrepresented. There is nothing worse than to be badly represented. I believe that most tribunals go to enormous lengths to see that the litigant has the opportunity to put his or her case. I believe that to be the whole merit of the industrial tribunal procedure as it is. If counsel appear on both sides, it simply doubles, trebles or quadruples the time that is taken up by the case.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, we have had a long debate on this amendment, but I am afraid that some confusion still remains. Several noble Lords have said

403
that the CBI supports an authoritative central body. The latest briefing from the CBI says that to fulfil its role in the institutional framework the National Disability Council will need to be authoritative; that is, to command respect and be able to influence the shape and delivery of the supporting framework. That is a matter which the CBI has been pushing throughout this series of debates.
Business expects of the National Disability Council and the legislative framework that it can be seen as the hub of the institutional infrastructure which supports the aims of the Bill. Currently, some indications have been given of what that framework will look like. While the CBI recognises that the precise way in which this will be delivered must be an evolutionary process, it may be helpful to mention what employers really need. They need advice that is independent, authoritative, consistent and readily available at national and local level, whoever and however it is provided and delivered. They also want a helpline facility. There is a particular need for independent advice and conciliation services to be provided for business, as ACAS has on employment, in cases relating to the provision of goods and services. At the moment that does not exist. This should help to filter weak claims and encourage settlements, thereby reducing the need for recourse to the courts. The NDC should be empowered to produce codes of practice and guidance and ultimately be responsible for issues relevant to employment, as well as access at the point when members' tenure on NACEPD is complete in June 1997. Co-ordination is essential for consistency in the interim, particularly given the recent changes to departmental responsibilities which bring in at least three separate government departments: the DTI, the DSS and the DFEE. The codes of practice produced under the legislation to inform and assist all those required to follow their guidance must be heavily publicised and widely distributed.
During Second Reading and at Report stage, we had much help from the Government indicating that, indeed, the will is there and that they believe the means will be likewise.
There are factors in the amendment which obviously meet the concerns of the CBI. However, it disagrees with paragraph (a) of new Section 2A; namely, the proposal for a power of investigation. I think that businesses have appreciated the change in the way in which the EOC and the CRE have approached the elimination of discrimination in business, particularly the greater emphasis now on high quality guidance. For example, the CRE's Racial Equality Standard for Employers is a splendid document and is widely supported. Similarly accessible documents will be needed to support the legislation with which we are currently dealing.
However, by including the power of investigation in my noble friend's amendment, there is a shift away from consensus and elimination of misunderstanding to a more confrontational approach. Surely that is not the right way forward, particularly in an area as complex as this, as many noble Lords have mentioned. One case of disability can be so very different from another.
404
The power of investigation is not an approach which will maximise goodwill. We want to avoid people facing each other across a courtroom. Experience with other ant-discrimination legislation, and the bodies which support it—namely, the CRE and the EOC—suggests that businesses are worried by the joint role of adviser and enforcer, a situation which can create unnecessary tension.
The arguments for assistance and conciliation are valid, but, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy stated, point to better resourcing of the promised conciliation and advice mechanisms rather than enforcement powers. I still have faith that the Government's conception in that respect can work. Therefore I must reluctantly say that I cannot support the amendment as drafted because of new Section 2A(a) but urge that the Government consider the other elements of the amendment, in particular on research, and incorporate those at Third Reading.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I may trouble your Lordships for a moment or so. I am not a habitual or fervent admirer of the legislation which governments bring before us from time to time. I am, therefore, a little surprised to find myself this afternoon quite willingly supporting my noble friend Lord Mackay—at least I believe that that is so—in rejecting these amendments. I hope that no one will be foolish enough to accuse me of any lack of sympathy with the disabled.
I put forward two reasons. First, I simply cannot bring myself to believe that a government will go through all the labour of producing a Bill of this kind, but will not then wish to see it work, will ignore the advice for which they have asked, and would expect to get away with such folly. I do not believe that for a moment. That is one reason why I should be reluctant to support the amendment.
Secondly, I was impressed and moved, as I am sure most noble Lords were, by the words of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. He knows a good deal about the problem. He referred to the complexity which attaches to enforcement. He was absolutely right in saying that enforcement was a job for government and that a government who do not enforce such a Bill would incur very heavy blame. I should be reluctant to believe that this Government will not be as enthusiastic as possible to see that it works. Therefore, I do not believe that it would be right to accept the amendments. I very much fear what could easily become the habit of distributing those very considerable powers to people other than governments. Professional enforcers of the law are bad enough; amateurs would be much worse.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, my noble friend's amendments are seductive. Indeed at a whole variety of levels, they also appear both worthy and worthwhile. However, I am uncertain that the National Disability Council, strengthened in the way that my noble friend envisages, would necessarily act in the best interests of either the disabled or of the Bill itself.

405
To my mind, what lies at the heart of the Bill is "consensual reasonableness"; as it were, a contract of best practice between those who are disabled and the rest of society. What will define whether it achieves its objectives is its capacity to persuade rather than to prescribe, to coax rather than to coerce. If the Bill is to become an enforceable and effective Act, it has to carry the whole of society with its spirit as well as its actual words. My own view, perhaps rather simplistic, is that the NDC espoused by the amendments threatens that.
I believe that it would be a tragedy to inveigle the enforcement and investigative powers implicit in my noble friend's amendments upon the NDC thereby serving to undermine this concept of consensual reasonableness and ultimately alienate an opinion within society that has been so hard fought for and hard won. In effect, it would be nonsensical to have won the battle of changing attitudes only to sacrifice the war by imposing upon those attitudes in an overbearing way.
Much has also been made of the fact that commissions with enforcement and investigative powers exist in the fields of gender and ethnic discrimination. The fundamental differences between their character and that of discrimination of the disabled, as addressed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, is an issue here and an important one. I shall not dwell on that. Suffice it to say that the issues that the NDC, whatever its ultimate form, will have to consider will not be able to be contained by any general, universal or central set of rules or judgments.
A more important issue needs to be considered. Such an argument presupposes that the CRE and EOC as constituted, and with their wide-ranging powers, are the correct structures in this day and age to defend and obtain the redress and rights to which those discriminated against are rightfully entitled. I question that.
That is not to say in any way that their work over the years has been anything other than extremely valuable. It is to say that we have moved on since their formulation. For example, Herman Ouseley, in his introduction to the 1994 annual report from the CRE, stresses, in my view quite rightly, the imperative for persuasion as the best means to achieve the statutory duties of the commission. He wrote thus:
"Our priority goal is to use our power to conduct formal investigations as 'a weapon of last resort', and to persuade more employers and organisations instead to enter into voluntary agreements to take action for equality".
That should inform us that the prevailing circumstances are better served by a "carrot" rather than a "stick" approach, the more so if we reflect that the Bill will impose upon society the requirement to implement what my noble friend the Minister defined at Committee as "additional arrangements".
We all want the Bill to work, and to work effectively. We all acknowledge that the injustice of discrimination of the disabled has endured for far too long. But now that we have the mechanism of redress before us, we should guard against our enthusiasm seducing us into what I believe would be an overcompensation. I am convinced that if we accept the amendments of my noble friend, we shall be stating our desire to prescribe
406
rather than to persuade, to coerce rather than to coax, and that would not serve the interests of either the disabled or of society at large.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Bill is a good Bill. It is a Bill of which Government have every right and every reason to be proud. Since it is a good Bill, what is the problem? I believe that the problem is that the Bill has a hole at the heart of it. In the words of the CBI, used frequently throughout its briefing, the Bill lacks, but needs, a central authoritative body in order to make it work.
I am confident that every Member of your Lordships' House wants the Bill to work. But those who know most about it—employers on the one hand and disabled people on the other—do not believe it will work without a central authoritative body. That is what the amendment will provide. It does not expand the scope of the Bill or alter its content. It makes the Bill work.
All that the Government have proposed so far is an advisory committee which advises only and exclusively the Secretary of State, no one else. Is that sensible? As everyone admits, it is a complicated Bill. British employers have a sound and fine record of complying with legislation in the field. They do not seek to circumvent or avoid it. They seek and wish to act lawfully. But they will need help, precisely because the Bill is so complicated about what the law means and requires. What does "reasonable" mean? What does "severe disability" mean? Where will the employer go to find that out? That is why employers want a central authoritative body. But so do disabled people.
As my noble friend Lord Ashley said, if you are disabled you are not tough, not very well and not confident; you are somewhat isolated and probably rather poor. You cannot afford a solicitor and you have no access to legal aid. Yet you are expected to plough your lonely way through the courts and the industrial tribunal system. You do not know whether your complaint is reasonable or frivolous; or whether other people have complained in that way before. Behind you, you need a strong friend to advise you, to discourage frivolous claims, to filter out what is unreasonable and to conciliate, where possible. The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, was absolutely right about the need to conciliate and persuade where possible. At the end of the day, you need help to enforce your rights if there is nothing else you can do. I suggest that disabled people are entitled to that.
At the moment, there is nowhere for employers or disabled people to turn to because there is no body at the centre, nothing. As a result, the same points and the same issues will be revisited time and again all round the country. The consequence will be incoherent, inconsistent and fragmented judgments by courts and tribunals so that employers and disabled people will not know where they stand.
Why are the Government so resistant to the proposal? After all, under the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, the Secretary of State would appoint all the members and staff, and control the resources. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was right to raise the issue; such a body will in no sense be an EOC or CRE. It will

407
not have that range of powers. If the amendment were accepted today, the National Disability Council would not have the power to go into companies and investigate their practices. It will not have the authority to take cases to the European courts. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, the amendment recognises precisely that disability is not the same as race and gender, it is much more complicated. It is precisely because it is complicated that individual employers, organisations and disabled people will want a central authoritative body to interpret the law for them. Would the council, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, feared, displace the existing framework of tribunals and courts? No. Instead, it will filter out the frivolous and unreasonable and ensure that the judgments of tribunals and courts are shared widely so that future cases do not need continually and repetitively to be tested in courts and tribunals. Would the council add bureaucracy? No. It would simply add additional functions to the existing body which the Secretary of State proposes to set up, but make it outward-looking rather than introspective.
The Government may argue that all the functions are already in place. Then why are the CBI and disability organisations so worried that the Bill, which they want, will not work? Will it produce a backlash? I suggest that the backlash will come not because there is a central authoritative body in place but because there is no central authoritative body in place. Employers are faced with the nightmare of lawmaking by litigation—frivolous complaints based on a host of test cases, judgments and verdicts, often contradictory, ad hoc and fragmented. They will not know where they stand.
The reason for the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and why we hope your Lordships will support it tonight, is simple. The central authoritative body will produce firm ground on which employers and disabled people alike will stand. With its help they will know what the law means and how it affects them. Without the amendment, they will not. The ground will shift underneath them.
This could be a landmark Bill. It will only deliver what it promises if tonight your Lordships support the amendment which will place at the heart of the Bill a central authoritative body to make it work. We support it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before I turn to the substantive issue before us, on behalf of the whole House I express our pleasure at seeing the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, back in his place. When the Chairman of Committees was dealing with the portrait that is to be painted, I thought of demanding, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and myself, the right to be painted at the Dispatch Box. It is where we seem to spend most of our time!
Indeed, we have already spent a considerable time on the amendment or one like it. My noble friend introduced a similar amendment at Committee stage and, if my recollection is right, after a debate lasting about two-and-a-half hours he withdrew it. Today, we have been over largely the same ground. The arguments directed at me are much the same as then. No doubt in a little while I shall be accused of advancing exactly the
408
same arguments as I did on that occasion. I do not believe that the position has changed much since we argued the matter in Committee.
I wish to take up one point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, when she prayed the CBI in aid. I am sure she did not mean to do so, but it is wrong to pray the CBI in aid on 411 aspects of my noble friend's clause. The CBI may be asking for an authoritative body to give advice and assistance, but so far as I can see it is not asking for an authoritative body with the policing and legal powers called for in the amendment. So the noble Baroness has attempted to pray in aid the CBI today in exactly the same way as she attempted to pray in aid the Employers Forum on Disability and the views of all its members at the Committee stage. Noble Lords who were there will recall the debate. The Employers Forum has now made clear that it was not speaking on behalf of all those public sector organisations like the Benefits Agency, as was implied at the Committee stage.
However, we should remember that we are all trying to achieve the same ends in the matter. We are all trying to achieve the elimination of discrimination against disabled people. It is on that one aspect of the commission—which my opponents want and which I think would be wrong—that we differ. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Zouche for the points they made about the way the Government have listened and moved. My noble friend Lord Henley or I myself have moved, for example, on education. We have imported into the Bill a great deal of new material on transport which has been widely welcomed. As recently as Tuesday I was happy to accept an argument from my noble friend Lady Gardner on the subject of HIV. When I hear myself being beaten about the head this afternoon, I wonder whether all my kindness over the past few days has simply gone unnoticed.
Amendment No. 86A seeks to replace the National Disability Council's duties as drafted in the Bill with two very similar duties, drawn from the Sex Discrimination Act. Together with consequential Amendment No. 89, it would create a commission by another name. As is usual with my noble friend's amendments—I have chided him about this before—he does not indicate what price tab may be carried by the proposal, and how costly such a commission would be to the taxpayer and to business.
I apologise if I have to repeat some of the arguments that I stated in Committee. I said then that there were three principal reasons why we oppose a commission. First, we do not believe that it would work. Disability anti-discrimination legislation differs markedly from sex and race legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, indicated. It is the duty of the existing commissions to promote equality of opportunity between men and women, and to promote equality of opportunity, and good relations, between persons of different racial groups generally. The amendments do not attempt to reflect this requirement. These amendments would not set up a body to look after everyone's interest equally. They seek to create a powerful executive body charged with the explicit duty

409
to act in the interest of disabled people, without a statutory responsibility to have regard to the effect its advice and actions would have on the rest of society.
A council with the duties proposed in these amendments would not be capable of bringing about the changes that we all seek. Government, business and voluntary organisations need to work together to achieve these aims. In this new and sensitive area we need an independent body to give balanced and practical advice on the wide range of issues relating to discrimination. The National Disability Council we propose would be positioned to give this advice and to influence change. I have already said that we expect it to take an active role in persuading business to take account of the needs of disabled people in areas which cannot be dealt with through rights-based legislation—for example, as we discussed earlier in the week, in the area of the design and manufacturing of products. It will provide advice to business and disabled people through its codes of practice. It will be consulted on our plans to publicise the rights and responsibilities created by this Bill and indeed on our plans to publicise the codes of practice prepared by the NDC. And my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has already made clear that the NDC would not only be providing us with independent advice on how the Act and the advice and support services are operating once the provisions come into force, but will be advising us on the setting up of the service in the first place. It would be a powerful voice for disabled people and have the respect of business. It will be the lead body in pursuing the aims of the legislation. It would provide advice to the Secretary of State which, once accepted, would be implemented with the full backing of government.
As my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Peyton of Yeovil said, the Government do not intend to wash their hands of the Bill once it receives Royal Assent. Ministers and their departments have come together to produce this Bill and they will want to see it implemented in line with the policy intention. The Bill itself, which spans the responsibilities of a number of departments, is a very clear example of the way in which government can work in a co-ordinated way. This will continue. I know my honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People, Mr. Alistair Burt, backed up by the disability unit, will be taking an active role in co-ordinating the Bill's implementation and operation.
The second reason why I do not agree with the idea of a commission is that it would run the risk of causing a backlash. Those noble Lords who wait just a little while this afternoon and into the evening will hear the problems that are being raised, because we wish to bring forward minimum access standards for taxis, and how much resentment there can be to the imposition of new duties. Indeed, there are already ominous signs of this in the United States of America, where the Americans with Disabilities Act is losing political support.
As I have said on a number of occasions, the provisions needed to overcome discrimination against disabled people must go much further than the sex and race legislation. The sex and race legislation requires essentially that the same service is extended to people without regard to their sex or racial origin. But this legislation requires service providers and employers not
410
only to stop discriminating in the sense of the sex and race legislation, but also to change the way in which they offer services or organise jobs, to overcome the problems that disabled people encounter. This sets the boundaries for eliminating discrimination against disabled people much wider than those for sex and race.
A centralised bureaucracy would not be well placed to provide advice and support on individual cases. It would be distant and therefore unfamiliar with the local environment; for example, with the layout of a restaurant, the nature of an employer's business, or the nature of a town or village itself. Without this local knowledge it would be difficult for a person trying to provide advice to take a view on what was appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case. Well meaning, but inappropriate advice, mixed with the inevitable dose of political correctness and bureaucracy will do little to change attitudes and actions that affect disabled people. But it could create a backlash.
My third argument against a commission is that there is a huge difference between the world of the 1970s, when the two commissions were set up, and the world of the 1990s. Many conceptions and ideas that were worshipped, if I may so describe it, in the 1970s have now been discarded. During the 1980s the Government, under my noble friend Lady Thatcher, slayed many of the dragons that haunted the land in the 1970s. Indeed, perhaps we see the Labour Party attempting to distance itself from those beliefs. The world has moved on very significantly since the 1970s. The solutions of the 1970s are not appropriate for the end of the century.
This proposal also ignores completely the hundreds of voluntary groups and other organisations, including many bodies set up by the Government, which work very actively to promote the interests of disabled people and which simply did not exist in the 1970s on the sex and race front.
I spoke on a number of occasions during the Committee and Report stages of our shared recognition of the need for conciliation, advice and support services. We intend setting up advice and support services on the goods and services provisions which would be available locally. We shall also look to ACAS to provide conciliation on the new employment rights in that Bill. Our intention is that the organisations providing these services will receive support from government in the way of detailed information about the provisions of the Act and comprehensive training packages. They will also have recourse to expertise. This will ensure that a consistent approach to the giving of advice is maintained across the country and that instances where a disabled person does not have a realistic legal case can be filtered out at an early stage.
I am confident that the majority of cases where there appears to be a genuine grievance can be settled short of legal action. But in a situation where both parties believe they have right on their side, they will have recourse to an arbitration hearing in the local small claims court under the right of access to goods and services, and access to ACAS under employment rights.
We are proposing to put the means to obtain redress into the hands of the people concerned, not a centralised bureaucracy. We are convinced this will be successful.

411
Some 90 per cent. of cases under the sex discrimination and equal pay legislation are taken to tribunals without the aid of the EOC. It is therefore wrong to assume that people cannot secure their rights without the aid of a commission with investigative powers as was proposed in Amendment No. 86A.
I will talk about test cases in detail later when we debate Amendment No. 92. Suffice it to say, at present we do not believe that they would have the wide application they can have in sex discrimination cases because disability has its own individual characteristics and therefore requires individual solutions. My argument on this was made far better than I could possibly make it by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, with all the personal experience that he has had over 50 years—50 years during which he has shown that disabled people can go right to the top in the profession of politics. We also believe that if the policy intention needs to be clarified and the boundaries of the law changed, it should be for the Government and Parliament to make these decisions, based on the advice of the NDC. The sex and race relations Acts, simply do not have the regulation-making powers which this Bill contains. They allow for fine tuning. From debates on other Bills I know the whole House agrees that the law should be made here in Parliament. I was slightly surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, supporting a commission that might take some of the responsibilities away from Parliament, where they should properly be.
The Government's approach is to work with the grain of existing provisions—to build on their valuable work and secure for disabled people their rights under this anti-discrimination legislation. That makes a lot more sense than placing all the duties on a new and untried commission.
These amendments also propose that the NDC should be able to undertake or commission research and educational activities. I can assure your Lordships that the NDC will have access to research undertaken independently. I shall be speaking further to that matter when we debate Amendment No. 88. As I said previously, the Department for Education and Employment and my own department are planning a major publicity campaign to support the implementation of the provisions in the Bill. We have set aside more than £3 million to do this. We are also considering setting up a national telephone helpline for businesses and disabled people to ensure that everyone knows where to go for help and advice. It is for all those reasons that I cannot accept my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 86A and 89.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am sure that he is not misleading the House, but no commission actually applies the law. It brings a case to the law courts as a result of its investigations; it is then the law courts which impose the law. There is no question of the commission acting as a legal body.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Baroness looks at the amendments we are discussing and asks what interpretation can be put on them.
412
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 90 and 91—as I have not yet finished and not yet sat down—which deal with the separate question of the role of the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities, NACEPD. Let me try to explain why we believe that NACEPD should be retained and why I hope that my noble friend will withdraw these two amendments.
In summary, our aims are to: avoid institutional duplication; retain expertise while the employment code of practice is being drawn up; and ensure that government receive advice in the long term on employment and training matters from whichever body is then most appropriate to provide it. The NDC will be the primary source of advice to government on general issues and will be the lead body pursuing the aims of the legislation. What we are seeking to do in subsections (9) and (10) of Clause 34 is to ensure that the NDC does not waste its time by looking at issues which more naturally fall to an existing statutory body, that is to say, NACEPD.
NACEPD's members are appointed because of their knowledge and expertise of employment and disability issues. Ministers in the former employment department have drawn on their advice in making decisions and senior officials meet with members regularly to discuss programmes, services and policies affecting people with disabilities. Moreover, we need their help now. Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 provide for the deletion of Clauses 37 and 38 of the Bill, which provide for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to draw up and issue a code of practice to support employment rights.
Employers and voluntary organisations want a code to be available in time to help them become familiar with the law and advise them on the steps they might need to take. NACEPD will perform immediately the task of helping us with the code of practice and guidance. That is the reason I hope my noble friend will not press Amendments Nos. 100 and 101.
This debate turns on two points: first, whether the Government, acting on the advice of influential and independent advisory bodies, should take responsibility for implementing this ambitious legislation or whether we should delegate this responsibility to a new, untried, centralised bureaucracy. We do not believe that government and Parliament should abandon their responsibility in this new and sensitive area. The second point is how best to change attitudes and actions in society to ensure that disabled people are able to secure their rights. We believe the mechanisms provided in this Bill are the best approach to bringing about the necessary changes and ensuring that disabled people get the help they need at the right time and the right place effectively to secure their rights.
It is in the nature of pressure groups always to want more for the people they represent. But it is the duty of government and the House to bring forward measures which take account of the needs of all members of society. That is why again I hope that, having heard my explanations, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment. If he does not seek to withdraw it and presses the issue to a vote, I hope that not only my noble friends but also other noble Lords who look seriously at this issue will join me in the Lobbies.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, this has been a long and interesting debate, particularly when coupled with the even longer debate that we had at Committee stage. There is some confusion over the investigative powers in these amendments. A number of those who have spoken suggested that they are general investigative powers; that the NDC could go into a place of work and investigate the general ideas behind the way that that operator was dealing with disabled people. These powers are no more than the powers one would need to investigate an individual case before carrying out—preferably—a conciliation rather than going off to a tribunal.
My noble friend Lord Renton mentioned that under these amendments the NDC would have to set up branches throughout the country. There is no disputing that. The Government have already said that they would have to set up a number of organisations throughout the country or make use of existing organisations, and presumably fund them; so there is no difference between us.
There has been some talk of the cost of this body. I realise that this is a difficult area because it is a new subject. I understand that the EOC costs £7 million and the CRE £15 million annually. But these amendments do not give the NDC the same powers—it would not be so powerful—though I recognise that it is a difficult area. Money would need to be spent to ensure that the powers behind the Bill were enforced. That would be the case whether or not my amendments were accepted. The importance that the Government appear to give to the NDC, without these amendments, may be recognised by the suggestion that it will cost only £250,000 a year.
I listened with interest to what my noble friend and others said. I have not been satisfied and should therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
5.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 86A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 136; Not-Contents, 164.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Addington, L.

Carter, L.

Airedale, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Coventry, Bp.

Astor of Hever, L. [Teller]

Craigavon, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Birk, B.

Darcy(de Knayth), B.

Birmingham, Bp.

David, B.

Blease, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Blyth, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Brightman, L.

Desai, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Diamond, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

414

Donoughue, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dubs, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Eatwell, L.

Methuen, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkender, B.

Monkswell, L.

Falkland, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Nelson, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nicol, B.

Flowers, L.

Ogmore, L.

Foot, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Freyberg, L.

Parry, L.

Gallacher, L.

Peston, L.

Geraint, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rea, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

Grey, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rix, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rochester, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Haskel, L.

Russell, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

St. Albans, Bp.

Hollick, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Bp.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Hooson, L.

Sandwich, E.

Howell, L.

Seear, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Shannon, E.

Inchyra, L.

Shepherd, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Simon, V.

Jacques, L.

Stallard, L.

Jay, L.

Stedman, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jeger, B.

Strafford, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

Judd, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kennet, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Tordoff, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Leigh, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Waverley, V.

Lock wood, B.

Weatherill, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Wharton, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

White, B.

McCarthy, L.

Wilberforce, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

McNair, L.

Wise, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Ailsa, M.

Brookes, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Burnham, L.

Butterworth, L.

Arran, E.

Byron, L.

Balfour, E.

Cadman, L.

Barber, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Beloff, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Belstead, L.

Carnock, L.

Birdwood, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Blaker, L.

Carrington, L.

Blatch, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Borthwick, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Brentford, V.

Coleraine, L.

415

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cross, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Mancroft, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Davidson, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L.

Mersey, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Digby, L.

Milverton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Donegall, M.

Monk Bretton, L.

Monson, L.

Downshire, M.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dundee, b.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Eccles, V.

Mountevans, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Moyne, L.

Elles, B.

Munster, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Newall, L.

Faithfull, B.

Northesk, E.

Foley, L.

O' Brien of Lothbury, L.

Forte, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pender, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gisborough, L.

Pym, L.

Goschen, V.

Quinton, L.

Haig, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rawlings, B.

Reay, L.

Hambro, L.

Rees, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Rennell, L.

Renton, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Romney, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Hemphill, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Henley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hogg, B.

Savile, L.

Hood, V.

Seccombe, B.

Hooper, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hothfield, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Howe, E.

Strange, B.

Inglewood, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Kenilworth, L.

Sudeley, L.

Killearn, L.

Teviot, L.

Kimball, L.

Thatcher, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Tollemache, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Torphichen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lindsay, E.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Ullswater, V.

Lucas, L.

Vivian, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wakeham, L.

Lyell, L.

Waterford, M.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

McConnell, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.57 p.m.
[Amendment No. 87 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 88:
Page 26, line 13, at end insert ("and for these purposes the Council may, where it deems it appropriate, initiate or have recourse to independent research").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the point raised in the amendment, which concerns the NDC, was covered by my noble friend the Minister in his comments on the previous amendment. It encapsulates the point I have made before that the NDC will also need to be informed and must be able to initiate and access independent research in support of its work. In the last part of the speech of my noble friend the Minister I think I heard him say that it would be able to commission independent research. Therefore, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 89 to 91 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 92:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
("National Disability Council: actual or prospective complainants
.—(1) The Council may assist, in accordance with the provisions of this section, actual or prospective complainants under this Act.
(2) Where, in relation to proceedings or prospective proceedings under this Act, an individual who is an actual or prospective complainant applies to the Council for assistance under this section, the Council shall consider the application and may grant it if they think fit to do so on the ground that—

(a) the case raises a question of principle, or

(b) it is unreasonable, having regard to the complexity of the case or the applicant's position in relation to the respondent or another person involved or any other matter, to expect the applicant to deal with the case unaided.

(3) Assistance by the Council under this section may include—

(a) giving advice;

(b) procuring or attempting to procure the settlement of any matter in dispute;

(c) arranging for the giving of advice or assistance by a solicitor or counsel;

(d) arranging for representation by any person including all such assistance as is usually given by a solicitor or counsel in the steps, preliminary or incidental to any proceedings, or in arriving at or giving effect to a compromise to avoid or bring to an end any proceedings;

(e) any other form of assistance which the Council may consider appropriate,

but paragraph (d) shall not affect the law and practice regulating the descriptions of persons who may appear in, conduct, defend and address the court in any proceedings.
(4) In so far as expenses are incurred by the Council in providing the applicant with assistance under this section the recovery of those expenses (as taxed or assessed in such manner as may be prescribed by rules or regulations) shall constitute a first charge for the benefit of the Council—

(a) on any costs or expenses which (whether by virtue of a judgment or order of a court or tribunal or an agreement or otherwise) are payable to the applicant by any other person in respect of the matter in connection with which the assistance is given, and

(b) so far as relates to any costs or expenses, on his rights under any compromise or settlement arrived at in connection with that matter to avoid or bring to an end any proceedings.

417
(5) The charge conferred by subsection (4) is subject to any charge under the Legal Aid Act 1988, or any charge or obligation for payment in priority to other debts under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986, and is subject to any provision in either of those Acts for payment of any sum to the Legal Aid Board or into the Scottish Legal Aid Fund.
(6) In this section "respondent" includes a prospective respondent and "rules or regulations"—

(a) in relation to county court proceedings, means county court rules;

(b) in relation to sheriff court proceedings, means sheriff court rules;

(c) in relation to industrial tribunal proceedings, means regulations made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment even though it does not stand in my name in the Marshalled List, but in those of several other much more distinguished noble Lords. I should own up to the fact that the drafting of the amendment owes a great deal to the sex discrimination and race relations Acts. I realise that much of the ground of this amendment has been covered already in debating Amendment No. 86A. Nevertheless, I move the amendment because it raises narrower and somewhat different issues.
This amendment has the limited and important purpose of empowering the council to assist individuals in preparing and presenting their cases and conducting legal proceedings under the Acts. Under the amendment the council will be empowered, but not required—and I emphasise "not required"—to exercise this limited power only in two kinds of case. The first is in raising matters of public importance, including legal interpretation of the Bill and, secondly, in cases where individuals have no other source of assistance.
Nothing in this amendment empowers the council, as distinct from the courts of the land, to decide what the law is; and neither, if I may say to the Minister, did Amendment No. 86A do any such thing. This amendment quite clearly does not give any law-making powers to the council. Unlike Amendment No. 86A, this amendment will not make the council in any way similar to the EOC or the CRE except for this power. It confers no power to investigate nor to carry out research or education. It does not prevent the Government, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, from being the lead body. It will not create a proselytising body.
The amendment is a slightly more limited version of the similar power conferred on the EOC by Section 75 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Subsection (4) of the clause would enable the council to claw back costs or expenses paid to the applicant by the respondent.
I suggest that there are two main arguments in favour of this modest amendment. The first is based on the basic right of access to justice. The second is based on the need for complex social legislation of this kind to be implemented in a sensible and practical way, avoiding unnecessary conflict and misguided and costly litigation.
If Parliament enacts legislation conferring civil rights and imposing obligations on individuals and companies, it is essential that what is enacted should be implemented in practice. Everyone in this House will
418
agree with that. It is also essential that everyone should enjoy effective access to tribunals and courts in the determination of their civil rights and obligations. That right of effective access to justice is so elementary and important that it is guaranteed on the international plane by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There was the case of Ayre v. Ireland where the court decided that in complicated civil cases there is a positive obligation on the state to ensure effective access to justice. That obligation binds this country as much as Ireland.
Complaints of disability discrimination in the employment field will be adjudicated on, as noble Lords know, in industrial tribunals where legal aid is still not available. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, has already explained the problems of appearing unrepresented at industrial tribunals. Although I accept that in the ordinary run-of-the-mill unfair dismissal case, an individual can perfectly well appear without the benefit—sometimes dubious benefit—of legal representation, everyone who practises in the discrimination field in complicated cases will, I believe, accept that those cases require skilled representation on both sides.
Complaints of discrimination in the non-employment field will be dealt with in county courts and sheriff courts where legal aid is available, but only to the poorest of the poor. That is one important reason why Parliament has empowered the existing commissions to give assistance to those complaining of sex and race discrimination so that they are able to enjoy effective access to justice. Although the Minister has said that much has changed since the mid-1970s, I am sure he will agree that effective access to justice is as important in 1995 as it was in 1975.
I come to my second argument. It is equally important for employers and the providers of goods, services and facilities, as well as for those who suffer from unlawful discrimination, that the legislation should be interpreted and applied in a wide and practical way by courts and tribunals and ordinary men and women. One of the great advantages of the council's power to assist would be that it would enable an expert administrative agency to take up test cases raising serious points of principle, while denying assistance to misconceived, frivolous or relatively trivial cases. Such a limited power assists not only individuals but also tribunals, courts and employers or service providers.
If I may say so without in any way being self-regarding, I have had 30 years' practical experience as an advocate in the discrimination field. I really know how useful it is to have an expert body able to sieve the wheat from the chaff in this way. I spend much of my time in cases which are assisted by the EOC, advising that body that cases are hopeless and should not be pursued. I am sure that lawyers perform a prophylactic role of that kind.
The Minister referred to the price tag and I come to that straightaway. The EOC and the CRE may be accused of many things, but no one can criticise them for being extravagant or imprudent in the exercise of their comparable powers of assistance. Last year, the EOC received 1,629 applications for legal assistance. It

419
granted assistance in 108 cases. If my arithmetic is right, in only 6.6 per cent. of the cases was assistance granted. Public expenditure under this head amounted for the whole year to £330,000. That is not a large sum to cover all assisted legal proceedings from industrial tribunals and county courts, all the way to this House.
I am still dealing with the price tag. The statistics for the CRE, which has a significantly larger budget, are roughly comparable. It received a larger number of cases. It spent £882,000 on assisting 228 cases, which was 11.8 per cent. of 1,937 applications.
In answer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, earlier, neither of those bodies has had to create any expensive regional legal aid offices in order to deal with this in any expensively bureaucratic way. The price tag is the tag that I have just referred to—not huge in the context of this social legislation.
What the statistics do not reveal is that these agencies provide a huge amount of valuable advice and assistance, both in exercising their formal power and also in acting under the general power, to a wide cross-section of society. They do so in cases which never ripen into adversarial litigation because they are sensibly settled by informal conciliation and dispute resolution. What begins as a request for legal assistance often results in the avoidance of legal conflict in this way. But in my view what is essential is that the council should have this limited power, not only to be used carefully and sparingly in legal proceedings, but also to be used in this wider way.
Finally, I make this general point. There is surely no good reason to fetter effective access to justice for disabled people who are victims of unfair, unreasonable and unlawful discrimination, on the ground of their disability, compared with the victims of sex and race discrimination or, for that matter, the victims of religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. Surely, I ask rhetorically, all those categories of victims are entitled to the equal protection of the law and to equal access to legal remedies. Surely applicants should be able to obtain advice and assistance as do respondents; otherwise I am concerned that a well-aimed Bill could result in real injustice and could even result in complex cases in breaches of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the principles enunciated in the Ayre case. We should not enact a law which is unlikely to be enforced. This modest amendment would make it much more likely that the law would indeed be translated into practical reality. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I can well understand why the proposers of the amendment passed it in the general direction of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who has considerable expertise in these matters. I suppose that in the midst of his speech and while telling us of his expertise,. he was, in these post-Nolan days, declaring his considerable financial interest in this aspect of the law—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this amendment—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will, on reflection, withdraw the implication of that remark.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if the noble Lord thought that there was an implication, I must tell him that there was none. I was just pointing to the fact that he is known to be very successful in this general field and that I can therefore understand why the four Peers who put their names to this amendment decided to ask him to move it. If I have said anything to which the noble Lord takes exception, I withdraw it.
This is simply a subset of the argument that we have just had, and I am not going to rehearse for the third time my arguments on the commission and so on. That has already been done.
The amendment seeks to insert a new clause setting out the circumstances in which and the categories of people to whom the National Disability Council could provide assistance. It stems from two basic thoughts: that disabled people will require legal assistance and that there will be a need for test cases to be taken. I have already explained the reasons why the Government believe that the advice and support services that we propose, together with ACAS, will be the best means of providing disabled people with the assistance they will need to secure their new rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, took me up on an earlier point by saying that the amendment gives no new law-making powers to the NDC. That is not what I implied in my previous speech. It is true that the amendment gives no law-making powers to the council, but it gives the council a power to choose which cases to take to court. Inevitably, there will be a temptation for the council to choose those cases offering the best chance of widening the scope of the legislation in areas where there is room for interpretation. That is what I mean when I say that this amendment, like the previous amendment, would give the council a role in determining how the law would apply. I should prefer these matters to be left to government and eventually, if the matter has to come to regulations, to Parliament. That is the point that I was making and I make it again.
Turning to the amendment, it makes provision—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord agrees that he did not in the least intend to imply in the previous debate, as a great many noble Lords thought that he did, that there would be new law-making powers for this body which it does not have and which would be usurping the position of the courts? Are we now quite clear that the noble Lord did not mean that?
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think that I have made my position clear. I do not want to revisit the argument that we have just had and settled. I hope that the noble Baroness now understands the position. If I did not make myself clear, I hope that I have now done so.
As I was about to say, this amendment makes provision for assistance to be granted to cases which raise a question of principle. Members opposite will

421
doubtless think that a commission is needed to take test cases to court to establish precedents. However, test cases will have little general application in the area of disability. The fact that we use the single word "disability" should not mislead us into thinking that disabled people form a single group with common characteristics. That is not the case, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy argued convincingly from a position of considerable strength and knowledge in the previous debate. What an elderly person with a hearing impairment might need to access a service is completely different from what a person with a sight impairment might need to access the same service. Even with similar impairments, there will be significant differences in effect. Somebody encountering mobility problems in his sixties faces very different challenges from someone who is born with mobility difficulties. While a central body taking test cases to a court may be of help in setting precedents on behalf of women, there is little scope for it to do the same for disabled people who form such a diverse group.
As I have already indicated—I should like to underline this point for the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—should it become apparent that the policy intention or the practical advice needs to be clarified, we believe this should be undertaken by government and Parliament based on the advice of the National Disability Council. The regulation-making powers and the provisions for codes of practice, are designed to provide the Government, Parliament and the NDC with the flexibility to do this. The sex and race legislation does not contain similar powers, and does not require anything like the amount of change that this Bill will require. It is right that the boundaries of this legislation should be fixed by government and Parliament.
It is unrealistic to think that the provisions of this amendment could work in tandem with the advice and support services we have proposed. The notion that only a limited number of cases would apply for this kind of assistance is mistaken. Rather than going to the advice and support service as a first course, people would naturally go to the NDC—and they would be encouraged to do so. The NDC would then be faced with the huge task of examining and filtering every allegation without the benefit of local knowledge. That would be totally impractical and would run the risk of greatly protracting the length of time needed to reach a satisfactory solution to a claim of discrimination. I should point out that the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission in the United States should serve as a warning to us here. In 1994, it had a backlog of more than 85,000 cases which was an increase of about one-third on the previous year.
If these proposals were successful, we would also increase the risk of creating a backlash. I explained that previously and I have no desire to go over the same argument. Perhaps I may describe the provisions as a "back-stop" for the people who want a commission. The amendment draws back a little from the powers that they would have given a commission under the previous amendment, but, for exactly the same arguments as I used previously and for those which I have just brought before your Lordships' House, I suggest that the
422
amendment is wrong. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it, but, if he does not, I hope that my noble friends will support me in the Division Lobby.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I think that the Minister was suggesting that in some way I might have been motivated in what I said by self-interest. I am glad that the Minister has now withdrawn that suggestion and shall not therefore deal with it further.
However, I should like to deal with some of the points that the Minister has made. Almost all of his objections would apply with equal force to the power to give assistance which is already possessed by the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. I had thought that governments of both main parties had for two decades or more supported the notion that there should be effective access to justice by the victims of sex and race discrimination. The Minister has not explained to the House why there should be unequal access to justice as regards the victims of disability discrimination, except to suggest that somehow the problems of the victims of disability discrimination are different.
I suggest that, as far as the law is concerned, there will be difficult problems about the legal meaning of the definition of "unlawful discrimination" and about the scope of the many exceptions contained in the Bill. Again, speaking from practical experience, I believe that industrial tribunals, sheriff courts and the county courts will have great difficulty making sense of a Bill which confers on them such wide powers of interpretation. The Minister said that he would prefer the Government and Parliament to decide the law. Of course, the Government and Parliament are now deciding the law, but in the end the only bodies in this country to decide how to interpret the law are the courts and tribunals. It is no use leaving the courts and tribunals with misconceived, sometimes frivolous and unsupported cases, which are badly argued, leaving inexperienced industrial tribunal chairmen and chairwomen and sheriff and county court judges without the assistance that they need in complicated discrimination cases. In the amendment, there is no question of trying to create a commission. There is no hidden agenda. The purpose is merely to try to secure more effective access to justice. I submit that test cases will be as important under this Bill as they are under existing discrimination legislation.
The Minister has also not referred to, nor would I expect him in fairness to do so, to the point I raised about Article 6, paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the positive obligation that that places upon the Government and Parliament to ensure effective access to civil justice. I should be grateful if the Minister could reflect upon that point. He might find it convenient to write to me about it in the comparatively near future.
The Minister put forward one further argument which I hope he will, on reflection, agree is entirely without merit. He suggested that the proposed power would delay legal proceedings and lead to an American-style backlog. That is a bad point because the equivalent power in the Sex Discrimination Act in no way affects the short time limits within which applicants must bring their cases. They still have to bring them within three

423
months in industrial tribunals and within six months in county courts and sheriff courts. This power would do nothing to prolong the period within which cases had to be brought or within which they would have to be fought.
I hope, therefore, even at this last moment—the Bill's 11th hour—that the Government might think again that a narrow and limited power with a mean Treasury-driven budget for legal assistance, to ensure no extravagance—the present budgets of the EOC and the CRE are controlled by the Treasury and are limited and mean—with the Government controlling the purse strings in a way they already do, and find it within themselves to accept this amendment, or something even narrower, to allow assistance to be given in this way. Otherwise, Cassandra-like, I predict that one day not very long from now an applicant will say, "I have a very complicated case. I cannot do it myself. I cannot get legal assistance, and that is a breach of my Article 6 rights". That is something I do not wish to see, even though the Minister might think that I would earn money from representing such a person before the European Commission and Court of Human Rights.
Your Lordships have only recently voted on a broader amendment which incorporated part of this amendment. I do not wish to tax your Lordships' patience by seeking your opinion. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [The National Disability Council]:
[Amendments Nos. 93 to 95 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No, 96:
Page 51, leave out lines 37 to 42.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 120, 180, 181, 196 and 197. The purpose of this group of amendments is to tidy up and clarify the wording of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 96, 180, 181, 196 and 197 correct a minor drafting error. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 at present refers to the House of Commons Disqualification Act and the Northern Ireland Assembly Act. The provision is modified in relation to Northern Ireland in Schedule 7. However, as the House of Commons Disqualification Act is a UK-wide Act, there is no need for its inclusion in Schedule 7.
Amendment No. 96 deletes the provision on the House of Commons Disqualification Act in Schedule 4, and Amendments Nos. 196 and 197 remove the unnecessary provision from Schedule 7. Amendment No. 181 combines the provisions currently in the schedules and inserts them into Clause 62 for clarity. Amendment No. 180 is a consequential amendment which rewords subsection (2) of Clause 62 to take account of the change to be made by Amendment No. 181.
The effect is to bring the Northern Ireland Disability Council, together with the National Disability Council, within the provisions of the House of Commons Disqualification Act and the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act. This is a standard provision to
424
prevent members of the National Disability Council or the Northern Ireland Disability Council from becoming Members of Parliament or representatives of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Similar provisions are included in other Bills which create statutory or non-governmental bodies. Amendment No. 96 removes paragraph 8 of Schedule 4. Amendment No. 181 inserts the provision into Clause 62 and makes reference to the Northern Ireland Disability Council.
Amendment No. 102 would change the wording of Clause 41 to ensure that it is consistent with that used in other parts of the Bill which deal with criminal acts. With that explanation, I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 97:
Before Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Restriction of publicity
.—(1) Schedule 9 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (regulations for industrial tribunals) shall be amended by the insertion in paragraph 1 of the following.
(2) After sub-paragraph (5A) there shall be inserted—
"(5B) The regulations may include provision—

(a) for cases involving allegations of the commission of discrimination offences against disabled persons, for securing that the registration or other making available of documents or decisions shall be so effected as to prevent the identification of any person affected by or making the allegation;

(b) for cases involving allegations of such offences, enabling an industrial tribunal or the Employment Appeal Tribunal, on the application of any party to proceedings before it or its own motion, to make a restricted reporting order having effect (if not revoked earlier) until the promulgation of the decision of the tribunal or Employment Appeal Tribunal.

In this sub-paragraph—
"discrimination offences against disabled persons" means those prescribed in the Disability Discrimination Act 1955."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 166 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, which is a version of a similar amendment that he moved in Committee where I believe it was Amendment No. 141. My amendment to which I am now speaking, although I shall refer to the noble Lord's amendment, is more limited than his. It is more limited in that it is confined to the employment areas of the Bill. It works on those parts of the Bill which produce claims before industrial tribunals. It does not deal with the non-employment aspects of the Bill, whereas of course the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, dealt with both.
I am not putting the amendment forward because I do not believe that the noble Lord was right to say that something should be done on the subject matter of the clause in respect of employment and non-employment cases. I do. It seems to me that the need is slightly stronger on the employment side. In so far as I understood the arguments put forward by the Government when the amendment was moved in Committee, it seems to me that they had some slight case on their side when dealing with non-employment matters because they said that there was a procedure

425
whereby people complaining of discrimination in goods and services could take their claims through the small claims arbitration procedure and so find a way of doing what we want to do with the amendment tonight.
My amendment is trying to do something about industrial tribunals. It follows, as faithfully as I can, the model of Sections 40 and 41 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. They had to do with restricted publicity in cases involving sexual misconduct. What the House agreed to do then was based on a government amendment. The Government brought forward Section 40 to the House, although it was widened at that point to make it fairer and more equitable. The Government then wanted to deal with publicity which arose in cases of alleged sexual misconduct before industrial tribunals.
The Government said that employers, in particular, were receiving unfavourable publicity in circumstances in which frequently when the case was heard by the tribunal there was found to be nothing in it. My noble friend Lady Turner suggested to the House on that occasion that if we were going to protect employers from unfavourable publicity, it would be only fair to protect employees. Once that was pointed out to the Government, they agreed.
In the amendment we are trying to achieve the same in the area of discrimination. The Government have already accepted (col. 729 of Hansard of 27th June) that there already are cases—for example, in national security, or where there may be a substantial degree of injury to the undertaking, and, as I have said, in cases of sexual misconduct—where tribunals are allowed to curtail the degree of publicity. Restrictions on publicity orders are made, and they last, of course, only until the decision of the tribunal. Therefore, it is not a case of justice not being seen to be done. It is seen to be done when it has been done; when the tribunal has made a decision it becomes public. Only during the period of the hearing can the tribunal, if it agrees, impose a restriction on publicity in the cases of alleged sexual misconduct.
I believe that there is no real difference between cases of discrimination or alleged sexual misconduct. When the issue was debated in Committee we gave many examples involving cases of HIV or AIDS and mental illness in which appellants did not want discussions and reports of allegations to appear in newspapers. We also gave examples of hotel employers facing allegations of laying people open to viral infections which led to their disability. Of course, the tribunal might decide that that was not the case but until the matter was decided one way or another, understandably, employers said that they wanted a degree of protection.
The fact is that in cases of disability we can put forward a set of examples showing that, reasonably, people want a degree of privacy until the tribunal decides the matter. That is what my amendment seeks to provide. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was kind enough to refer to Amendment No. 166 which stands in our names and that of the noble
426
Baroness, Lady Masham. It is a revised version of a similar new clause which was moved and discussed in Committee.
On re-reading the debate, I concluded that the Minister had a point because as the new clause then read it would have introduced a blanket privacy provision. That was not our intention. I did not draft the amendment but took it over at the last minute. Had I scrutinised it more carefully I might have discovered that problem in advance.
The amendment has been revised and I wrote to the Minister giving him advance notice. It has been made perfectly clear that what is proposed is purely a permissive and enabling measure and not mandatory on any tribunal. It seems reasonable that a court or tribunal should have at least the same powers as those in Section 40 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, to which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred. The amendment standing in his name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is closely modelled on that.
As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said, my new clause goes a little wider, covering employment and non-employment cases. Subsection (1) (a) enables a hearing to be held in private. We are talking only of a discretionary power and therefore I do not see why that possibility should be excluded. After all, the capacity for a hearing in private is provided in Section 8(2) and (3) of the Industrial Tribunal Constitution and Rules Procedure 1993. Subsections (1) (b) and (c) reflect closely the provisions of subsections (2) (a) and (b) of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in their effects.
I am in some doubt as to whether I should rally behind the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in the hope that his amendment is more acceptable to the Government. I find it hard to see how they can refuse the noble Lord's amendment, even if they believe that mine goes a little wider than they would wish. I strongly believe that the Bill should contain provisions relating to confidentiality. There are none at present. I can think of a number of instances in which, from the point of view of both the employer and the employee, it might be desirable for proceedings of a delicate nature to have reporting restrictions placed on them.
I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says and I shall make up my mind at the end of the debate.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 166. I hope that the Minister will consider these sensitive issues. Disability brings all kinds of problems which relate not only to the disabled person but also to his family. They can relate not only to HIV and AIDS and mental illness but to genetic disabilities in particular. I hope that the Minister will merge the two amendments and will bring forward a proposal on Third Reading.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we debated these issues in Committee—late at night, if my memory serves me correctly. The amendments before the House today are slightly less sweeping than those

427
then tabled. I have reflected on the discussion that we had and I hope that I shall be able to offer words of reassurance to your Lordships.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I have a great deal of sympathy with the problems that she presented and the intentions behind the amendment. However, I wish to remind your Lordships that it is fundamental to our system of jurisprudence that judicial proceedings should be open, except in the most exceptional circumstances. That ensures that justice is not only done but that it is seen to be done.
This principle is reflected in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that:
"in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing".
This principle is closely adhered to by the Council on Tribunals in its Model Rules of Procedure for Tribunals.
Perhaps I may deal with the courts first. As I pointed out in Committee, it is already open to parties to proceedings to request that their case be heard in camera. Subject to the judge's discretion, this would mean the case being heard in private and details of the case and documents used in the evidence would not be in the public domain.
The onus has always been on those who are seeking an exception to the principle of an open and public hearing of a case to demonstrate that it is in the interests of justice for a case to be heard in private on the grounds, for example, of national security, public order, decency, safety or the protection of minors. It is then for the discretion of the relevant judicial authority to decide upon the facts presented to it. I do not believe that Amendment No. 166 is necessary as far as the courts are concerned.
Moreover, we are confident that the majority of cases brought under Part III of the Bill can be settled short of legal action. But in a situation where both parties believe that they have right on their side they will have recourse to an arbitration hearing in the local small claims court. As your Lordships are aware, the arbitration procedure is informal and is usually conducted in private. The Government's decision to set a financial limit on claims for injury to feelings will ensure that the small claims procedure will almost always be appropriate. I believe that as regards court proceedings, there is no need for any changes to the current position.
I now turn to tribunals. In Committee and today I listened carefully to the points made about the need for a degree of confidentiality for disabled people bringing cases to tribunals under this legislation. As I have indicated, I understand and share some of that concern. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, drew my attention in particular to those suffering from HIV, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to people suffering from mental or genetic problems.
I have said already, and I repeat it, that restrictions on the freedom of the press should be avoided wherever possible. We certainly could not support the introduction of a power for such hearings to be in private. However, I understand the desire at least to make possible confidentiality in cases which are brought
428
to tribunals under this legislation. As under the small claims procedure, tribunal proceedings are also designed to be informal, but, as I have said, I appreciate that someone who brings an action because he feels that he has been discriminated against on the grounds that he was HIV positive may not be quite so keen to do that if he believes that it will receive a lot of publicity in the local press. Similarly, an employer may not wish it to be widely known that he is employing somebody with HIV. I could have used other examples but that was the example that was used in Committee.
I should like to take away the question of reporting restrictions in tribunals in order to consult interested parties and the Council on Tribunals as regards the scope for a discretionary power in that area with a view to bringing forward an amendment on Third Reading if I reach the conclusion that that is appropriate. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, homed in on tribunals, and I hope that he will feel that I am making a helpful suggestion.
I hope that I have explained satisfactorily that the courts already have those powers. I shall consult interested parties and the Council on Tribunals to see whether something needs to be done at Third Reading. I hope that, with that undertaking, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, yes, of course—delightful and delicious. I hope that the noble Lord will read the debates as regards the introduction of Sections 40 and 41 into the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act. I simply remind the Minister that the Government said that under the existing rules, which covered national security and so on, cases of sexual misconduct were not covered. Therefore, the Government asked the House to introduce that additional provision. If that is the case, I suggest that discrimination is also not covered and the same arguments apply. But certainly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Codes of practice prepared by the Secretary of State]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 98 and 99:
Page 29, line 2, leave out ("an employer") and insert ("a person").
Page 29, line 18, at end insert:
("(8) In subsection (1) (a), "discrimination in the field of employment" includes discrimination of a kind mentioned in section (Discrimination against contract workers) or (Discrimination by trade organizations).
(9) In subsection (1) (b), "employment" includes contract work (as defined by section (Discrimination against contract workers) (6).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 51. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Further provision about codes issued under section 37]:
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Clause 41 [Aiding unlawful acts]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 31, line 35, leave out ("commits") and insert ("is guilty of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 103:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Disabled persons: monitoring of numbers employed
—(1) It shall be the duty of local authorities, health authorities, government departments and government agencies to keep such records regarding the numbers of disabled persons employed by them as the Secretary of State shall by Regulation prescribe.
(2) Regulations may prescribe:

(a) the definition of disabled person to be used for recording purposes;

(b) what particulars shall be recorded;

(c) the manner in which such particulars shall be collected and published.

(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) (b) may, in particular, make provision for particulars to be collected separately with respect to different categories of employee.
(4) Regulations made under subsection (2) (c) may, in particular, make provision for the confidentiality of information collected about individual employees.
(5) In preparing such Regulations the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) The National Advisory Council on the Employment of People with Disabilities; and

(b) such organisations representing the interests of disabled persons or employers or employees as he considers appropriate.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a very similar amendment to one which was moved in Committee. At that stage, the Minister gave a detailed reply. However, it was not at all reassuring and that is why we have returned to the matter.
The amendment will require all public sector bodies to monitor the numbers of disabled people that they employ. It will also respect the confidentiality of those individuals where that is sought.
In Committee the Minister said that the Government want to monitor the position of disabled people in the labour market after the implementation of the Bill. He went on to say that the Cabinet Office already takes positive steps to achieve equal opportunities for government employees in the Civil Service and that government departments and agencies are required to carry out monitoring. Will that policy remain when this Bill becomes law? It is obviously helpful. The Government must feel that it is helpful and that there is a reason for doing it. We support that and we think that they are right. But we say that that should be extended and provided for in regulations.
As with all employers employing more than 20 people, local authorities keep registers of disabled employees. Therefore, there will be no extra work if the amendment is accepted. Indeed, taking that one stage further, the Employment Service believes that it is worth while keeping statistics and carrying out surveys because it awards a symbol to employers which denotes that an employer is carrying out good practice by
430
surveying the workforce for both registered and non-registered disabled employees. What are the plans for that scheme if the Bill goes through without this amendment? Will the Employment Service continue to award that symbol where the employers operate good practice and survey their workforce?
The report from the Employment Select Committee of another place on the operation of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, which was published in April this year, stated that the maintenance of accurate statistics on the position of disabled people in employment was essential. I agree with that. We should develop that policy, monitor the progress or otherwise and assess whether the Act is working and, if it is not, why it is not. It is absolutely essential to have complete and accurate statistics.
The view of the Select Committee, of the Employers Forum on Disability and of this side of the House is that it is essential that we have proper statistics. This amendment will require the public sector to keep those statistics. Indeed, the amendment supports the Government's policy of requiring that to happen. There will be no added burden on resources because the public sector already does that.
The intentions behind the Bill are indeed creditable. It is essential to monitor the effects of the Bill on the workplace so that we can assess how it is or is not succeeding. I suggest that without those accurate statistics, that will not be possible. We should not have to rely on ad hoc research or this piece of work or that piece of work. Those figures should be continuously to hand and, if they are not, that will act to the great detriment of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I wish to raise one point on which I touched at an earlier stage. I am in favour of monitoring in the public service as far as possible and I agree that there should be confidentiality. However, we face the difficult problem of why disabled people did not register under the quota scheme, which still continues.
It has been suggested by RADAR that whether or not an individual is prepared to indicate his disability in a survey is in part an indication of the confidence that he feels that his employer will not treat him less favourably on that basis. It is a measure of a disabled employee's trust in his employer. I believe that it is a very small part. There are varying reasons why disabled people do not register. That is something with which I have been involved over the past 40 years. Most of them are not employed. They are unemployed and should be on the register. Therefore, it is no reflection on their attitude towards a particular employer. The fact must be faced that some obviously disabled people do not register and do not want to be included in the category of disabled. That may be obstinate. They appear to have conscientious objections to being put in that category. That has been one of the problems which has made the quota system so difficult to operate. Therefore, I hope that that point will be addressed. I would encourage all disabled people to register; indeed, I have always done so. I hope that, under any monitoring in public service departments, or elsewhere, such encouragement will be given.

431
However, I recognise that there are certain people who are, as I say, conscientious objectors in the field. My question is: would they automatically be included? For my own part, I agree with the proposals that disabled people should identify themselves for confidential monitoring purposes. I would be against pressing such people to be included if they conscientiously objected to the process.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, down that stony path. I totally agree with him that there has been terrible trouble with the registration system due to the fact that people will not register. However, we must try to move away from that position. If we are to take active help forward, we must have something along the lines of the amendment for the simple reason that knowledge can be turned into action; in other words, knowledge of a problem can be turned into an action to resolve it. Therefore, as I said, the amendment proposed, or something very like it, is required.
Further, the advantage of this fairly limited amendment is that it would deal with local authorities, health authorities, government departments and government agencies. Perhaps we should try to convince disabled people that, if they admit to a confidential registration, it will not go any further than becoming a statistic. After all, when all is said and done, we are all statistics. If such people can become part of a list without having a name attached to them, they will try to help themselves and others. Surely that is something that we should encourage.
I do not know whether the amendment proposed is the best one for the purpose, but certainly something along those lines should be included. We must try to get our hands on the facts, and government-related activities are probably the best areas in which to start looking for such information. As regards conscientious objections to being monitored, the same argument could be applied to national insurance numbers and beyond. Therefore, that really is not an argument which should prevent monitoring and the collection of such valuable information.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, it is possible that some people do not know whether or not they are classified as disabled. Perhaps there should be more information available. Certainly most people will come forward if there is a benefit, a carrot or a point in so doing. But, if there is not, they may think there is no point in being registered; indeed, it may be a disadvantage to be registered as disabled. Therefore, more clarification is needed in the matter. For example, is someone who has diabetes classified as being disabled? There are so many different disabilities. It is quite complicated. Perhaps a solution can be found to the problem.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness stated that we debated a similar amendment in Committee and that we discussed it for quite a long time. I have to say that I believed we debated a more or less identical, if not identical, amendment (bar the rubric), at considerable length in Committee when my noble friend Lord Inglewood answered for the Government. I am not
432
sure that much has been said that has added to the argument; and, indeed, I am not sure that there is much that I can add on the Government's behalf.
I certainly understand what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve by way of her amendment. Its purpose is to introduce a provision which will compel the specified bodies that she named—local authorities, health authorities, government departments and government agencies—to monitor in a prescribed fashion their employment of disabled people and, by so doing, set an example of good practice for other employers to follow.
The Government can, of course, and do already, arrange by administrative measures, for government departments and agencies to monitor their employment of people with disabilities. Under the Civil Service Management Code, government departments and agencies are required to monitor the numbers of their staff and applicants who are disabled. Moreover, the Cabinet Office has recently taken steps to reinforce that requirement by promoting a "Programme for Action to Achieve Equality of Opportunity in the Civil Service for Disabled People". The amendment that we are now debating covers a very much wider range of bodies on which I do not believe it would make any sense to impose such a uniform approach.
The noble Baroness asked me about the disability symbol, something with which, I have to say, I am familiar from my earlier days in the Department of Employment and for which I am most honoured, in returning to the department, to reacquire responsibility. I can tell the noble Baroness that the code of practice which is to be brought forward under the Bill will obviously encourage employers to introduce a wide range of good practices including monitoring the number of disabled people whom they employ. We hope that many employers will look to establish such systems as the code may recommend.
The disability symbol is increasingly being used by employers; indeed, I understand that the figure stands at over 1,400 at present. When I left the department a little over a year ago, a mere 900 employers were involved. Therefore, we have seen quite a dramatic increase over the year. That gives some indication of those employers who have made a positive commitment towards employing disabled people. I can give the noble Baroness an assurance that I shall certainly be doing my bit—as indeed will the Employment Service and the department as a whole—to encourage employers to continue to use the symbol and to continue to develop policies so that they can acquire it. Obviously the commitment made by employers who use the symbol will need a degree of review in the light of the provisions in the legislation. However, any requirement for monitoring will continue to be voluntary.
The amendment would impose a bureaucratic and rigid monitoring system which would be unable to take account of the different needs, circumstances and requirements of those bodies that it would affect. As I have made pretty clear, the Government accept the case for encouraging employers—most certainly encouraging those in the public sector—to monitor the numbers of people with disabilities whom they employ. We believe

433
that educating and persuading employers of the benefits of employing disabled people is the right way to achieve that aim. Indeed, that has always been high on the Government's agenda. The legislation itself will, over time, help to change attitudes, but I do not believe that we can compel employers to adhere to good practice. There is no point in any employer collecting numbers if his management is not committed to good practice. It is that commitment by all employers that we seek to win.
As the noble Baroness will be aware, we will be bringing forward the code of practice under powers laid down in the Bill. It will encourage employers to implement a variety of good practices, including monitoring the numbers of disabled people they employ. But its guidance on monitoring will set it firmly in the context of employers' own policies on disability. Information gathered by employers will be of value only if it suits the needs and circumstances of the individual employer and his employees.
I believe that a prescriptive system, such as that proposed in the amendment, would be inflexible and that, frankly, the results would be questionable. With that explanation, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment on this second occasion.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for responding to the two particular questions that I put to him. I am also—I hope, rightly—assured. The noble Lord said that when he left the department 900 companies were registered and that a year later the figure had risen to 1,400. Well, if the Minister is committed, let us hope that that record will be doubled over the next year. I would certainly suggest that the code of practice and its content may or may not he an encouragement for such numbers to rise. Therefore, we shall be watching the progress of the code of practice closely.
The Minister said that collecting numbers is no use if the employer is not committed. However, I suggest that, if the employer is not committed and numbers are not collected, that would lead to an even worse situation because you cannot assess where you are or consider the policy which is applicable.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Addington, for their support. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is particularly exercised by the concern that disabled persons have as regards registering. He made that point on a previous occasion and I have reflected on it. I believe that is not just an indication of the way they believe that employers will view them but also an indication of the way that people with disabilities believe that everyone in the community views them as individuals. Obviously I am disappointed with the response. I have no regrets at all for having brought this measure forward a second time. I hope that the Minister will take note of the desire on this side of the House that there should be proper statistics on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1995
7.1 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Section 44 and Schedule 4(2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 abolish committal for trial and replace it with a new procedure of transfer for trial.
This instrument makes a purely technical amendment to the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) Regulations 1989, consequential on the transfer for trial provisions. The amendment is intended to preserve the current scope of legal advice and assistance under the Magistrates' Court Duty Solicitor scheme as far as is possible under the new procedure. It will come into force at the same time as the transfer for trial provisions are implemented. That is to say, it will be enforced but it will take effect at the same time as the transfer for trial provisions are implemented. The amendment is intended neither to extend nor to reduce the scope of assistance or representation and I commend this instrument to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.2 to 8 p.m.]

Disability Discrimination Bill
Consideration of amendments on 'Report resumed.
Lord Rix moved Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 104:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Representation of the People Act 1983:
voting rights
—(1.) In section 5(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 ("the 1983 Act"), at the end there shall be inserted—
"or

(c) by reason of detention at any place by virtue of any enactment relating to persons suffering from mental disorder."

(2) Section 5(3) of the 1983 Act shall not apply to a person who is detained at any place by virtue of any enactment relating to persons suffering from mental disorder.
(3) Section 7 of the 1983 Act shall cease to have effect.
(4) In section 12(1) (a) of the 1983 Act the words "section 7(3) above, as to a person who on the qualifying date is a voluntary patient, and" shall cease to have effect.
(5) In section 12(3) (a) of the 1983 Act the words "section 7(3) above, as to a person who on the qualifying date is a voluntary mental patient, and" shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with trepidation I introduce an amendment which at this stage I regard rather as a marker than a measure in its final form. Discussions have taken place with officials for some time, and I have exchanged messages with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who has agreed that the issues merit an airing. First, perhaps I may anticipate some points of criticism and explain briefly what the proposals are intended to achieve. That I start with defensive remarks illustrates my nervousness, not because of any weakness in the case for doing what we want to do (which I shall turn to in a moment) but probably because I am flying solo on this occasion and this is the first time that I have been on the Bill immediately after the interval.
I am conscious that to extend the franchise is a matter more appropriate for debate in another place. Had the issue been recognised in good time it would have been raised there and probably successfully dealt with. It was not recognised and so was not raised during the early stages of the Bill. Since the issue is of great importance for some people with learning disabilities, I raise it now and seek your Lordships' indulgence.
Secondly, the intention would be to extend voting rights only to those patients who, if they were being looked after in a different place or different sort of hospital or had not been in hospital quite so long, would have had the vote. Because there may be some misunderstanding on the point, I should like to make clear that in MENCAP's experience a good many people with quite severe learning disabilities in their daily lives are politically aware and interested in politics, knowing that political decisions closely affect their lives. Some of your Lordships may recall that on 22nd May on Second Reading (col. 839 of the Official Report) I quoted a conversation I had had with Miss Simone Aspis in which she had given me her point of view and those of others. Many people with learning difficulties will tell you with great feeling how social services committees have voted to cut day centres or bring in charges. That awareness and interest do not stop at the hospital gates.
There is no intention that voting rights should be extended to people whose learning disability is too severe or whose mental health is too poor for them to be able to decide which person or party to vote for; nor is there any intention that voting rights should be extended to people who have gone to hospitals as convicted criminals and still have an unexpired sentence. However, the reality is that 12 years on from the Representation of the People Act and the Mental Health Act—passed at a time when some of us had our eyes much more on the latter than the former, although I know that my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale raised this very issue in the House in 1985—radical changes in services have left the special provisions about voting in general and registration in particular (which never did make much sense) looking very odd indeed.
Briefly, if one is in one of the old-fashioned mental handicap or mental illness hospitals and not registered to vote elsewhere, one cannot register that hospital as one's home. If one is being looked after in an ordinary hospital or residential home one can use that address.
436
To use the old language, the patient in the mental hospital who is not on a section—in other words, a voluntary patient—can register at another address, but only by going through a convoluted process of form filling "without assistance". When it is realised that someone with a learning disability can register as his place of residence the cottage in a Welsh valley where he or she. was born but which is now under 200 feet of water because it has since become an artificial lake, it will be understood why hospital staff have as much difficulty with the procedure as the patient. We ought not to require of people the ability to understand what is really incomprehensible as well as, quite properly, the ability to understand what it means to vote. The sectioned patient cannot name an alternative address. That may sound logical until it is recalled that in certain circumstances we are all entitled to use for voting purposes addresses that we cannot get to at the time. Furthermore, patients who are on a section can and do get leave from hospital. As far as I can see, it is possible for a sectioned patient to be home on leave with his family on polling day but not be allowed to vote because he is not permitted to have an address. What the amendment proposes does is to allow patients who are in a fit state of mind to vote—perhaps hundreds rather than thousands of the hospital population—to register using either the hospital address or their home address.
What appeared to be behind the denial of the right to use the hospital address 10 years ago was the fear that in the days of the very large mental hospitals thousands of patients would be discharged or could be registered and all of them would vote the same way and change the local political geography. It was hardly a tenable argument 10 or 12 years ago; it is certainly not a tenable argument today.
I shall be interested to hear your Lordships' comments and the Minister's reply. I beg leave to move the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord's amendment, which raises a very interesting point. I hope that the Government will consider it in detail. I had not thought of it, and the noble Lord's words convinced me that he had a case.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not persuaded that the amendment should be accepted. However, the Government understand the concerns that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. As I believe the noble Lord indicated in his speech, the issue is complex. I hope that, the noble Lord having raised it and my having put some replies on the record, MENCAP and MIND will be able to carry on their discussions with officials of the Home Office about some of the detail.
There is no express statutory prohibition on detained mental patients voting at elections. However, Section 7(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 prohibits them from being treated as resident at the hospital where they are detained. That may be a funny way to look at the problem, but that is how it is approached. The Home Office has taken the view, based on decisions of the court and as a matter of statutory

437
construction, that those detained in mental hospitals cannot be regarded as resident at an address outside the hospital. As a consequence, detained mental patients are effectively prevented from voting.
It is always dangerous to generalise but as a general rule those detained in hospital are suffering from the more severe mental illnesses and the Government think that it is reasonable to draw a line between them and non-detained patients in deciding who may or may not vote. In practice, those detained for short periods (for example, under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act) are unlikely to lose their voting rights because they will probably continue to be registered at their normal home address.
The amendment does not distinguish between various categories of detained patients. While the effect of the amendment would be to exempt from its effect patients who had been transferred to hospital from prison, it would not exempt some other categories of detained patients, such as those committed to hospitals by the courts, among whom are some committed under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act. This is clearly an issue which would need to be looked at in some detail.
Another consideration is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, detained mental patients cover a wide spectrum of mental illness. Some are clearly incapable of voting while others may be well able to vote. And there will be those whose mental state varies, who may be capable of voting on some occasions but not on others. It follows that there would be occasions when someone had to decide whether a detained mental patient was or was not capable of voting. I understand that the idea behind the amendment is that such a decision should be taken by electoral officials. However, the Home Office has spoken to a number of those officials who have told the Home Office that it is not a decision that they feel qualified to make. Although it might appear that electoral registration officers already take such decisions in respect of patients in the community, I understand that in practice they are rarely required to make such judgments except in fairly straightforward cases such as those involving a severe degree of mental impairment. Clearly, we would need to consult them formally, but all our initial indications are that they would not be happy about new arrangements which rested on their taking decisions about what they argue are essentially medical judgments.
I believe, too, that there are other issues that would need to be addressed. For example, it seems likely that in practice most detained mental patients would vote by post. The alternative—being escorted to the polling place—seems likely to be the exception rather than the rule. But postal voting in this way does carry some risk of fraud and the Government would want to consider whether existing safeguards on postal voting were sufficient. Similarly, the Government would want to look further at the position on residence.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister also state how the law applies to proxy voting?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if the people involved do not have a vote, they cannot have a proxy vote. I am a little puzzled. Perhaps I missed the point.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the point I sought to establish was that if someone could not vote because he was detained—in other words, he simply was not allowed to leave —obviously there is a possibility of a postal vote, as the Minister rightly said. As he also rightly said, there is the possibility of collusive fraud. We all know that the alternative would be for that vote to be vested in a member of the detained person's family. That is proxy voting. It would seem to overcome some of the suggestions that the noble Lord made and to a degree might meet the provisions in the noble Lord's amendment. The detained person could make his intentions clear.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if my recollection serves me well, the conditions on proxy voting would then have to be considered. I do not think that one can have a proxy vote if one is at a known address and can vote by post. I believe that there has to be some other reason for needing a proxy vote.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have one.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Baroness has a proxy vote. I have a postal vote but I would not consider that I was eligible for a proxy vote. Of course, we do not have a vote; I presume we refer to a local election. I have just remembered that.
However, the noble Baroness makes a point about the use of proxy voting. Obviously, I am prepared to consider the matter. I had not realised that the rules on proxy voting were quite so broadly drawn (I shall not use the word lax) that people who were simply away from home in the same country could have a proxy vote. Until now, I had always thought such a vote was for people who were totally unable to vote by post or at the polling station.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the position has changed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am assured that the position has changed. I accept that. To return to the point, that may be another aspect that we shall have to consider.
I was about to say that the new clause, which expands Section 5(2) of the 1983 Act, would allow detained patients to register at what would be their home address if they were not detained. But the amendment also seeks to annul Section 7 of the Act, the effect of which would be to allow detained patients to use the hospital at which they are detained as an address for registration purposes. This would create the situation whereby a detained patient had the right to register in either of two places, or perhaps in both. What would be the criteria used to make the decision?

439
The amendment also seeks to annul Section 7 of the 1983 Act, thereby allowing voluntary mental patients to use the hospital in which they are living as an address for registration purposes, and no longer to have to make a patient's declaration as to their address outside the hospital. The Government do not believe that it would be right to accept those changes.
As regards the first effect of the amendment, that of allowing voluntary patients to use the hospital as their registration address—the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to the point; he did not think that the situation applied any longer—the Government believe that this would have a distorting effect on the electorate in a number of areas in which psychiatric hospitals are still located. The Government acknowledge that care in the community means that there are now far fewer such hospitals than was the case 10 years ago, when a similar amendment was put down during the passage of the Representation of the People Act 1985. But there are still a number of areas where distortion of the local electorate is possible.
The Government do not accept that the need for voluntary mental patients to make a declaration as to an address outside the hospital in which they are staying is discriminatory, or that it creates a major disincentive to registration to vote. Similar declarations are required from other groups of electors whose actual residence is different from where they are to be registered. Overseas electors—they have to declare their last registered address in England—and service electors make such declarations, and the arrangements appear to work satisfactorily.
The Government also believe that the declaration has some utility in that the ability to make such a declaration provides some measure of the mental patient's capacity to vote.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, indicated that he is aware of the difficulties. While I cannot accept his amendment, I suggest again that, having put some of the problems on the record, MIND and MENCAP may continue to discuss the matters with the Home Office to see whether there are some practical solutions to some of the cases.
I was interested that the noble Lord expressed a little reservation about whether this was the correct House in which to discuss these matters. I do not have any objection to our discussing them, but as we are all denied the vote in parliamentary elections, I believe that a decision on the issue ought to be left to another place. With my experience of having been a Member of another place in a previous existence, perhaps I am a little more conscious of their special position on these matters.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the other place could not take a decision on the matter on this Bill unless we made a decision and asked it to overturn it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I appreciate that point. When I considered the issue, I wondered whether someone would pull me up in just the way that my noble friend has done. However, I still believe that, while it is perfectly proper for us to debate
440
the matter, if anything is to be done it ought to start in the other place. After all, it is their electorate and that is it.
On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will now withdraw his amendment. I hope that discussions will continue to see whether we can do something for those in this group who would be capable of voting but are currently prevented from doing so.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful comments and for his recognition of the delicacy of the subject. I, too, was warned by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale that the other Chamber could well be the appropriate place for the matter to be discussed. I am not quite sure under what procedure that would take place.
However, as has been suggested, I hope that our advisers from both MENCAP and MIND can get together with the advisers from the noble Lord's department and the Home Office during the Summer Recess, and perhaps come to 'some meaningful conclusion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Taxi accessibility regulations]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 20, line 39, leave out ("("accessibility") and insert ("("taxi accessibility").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 105 I wish to speak at the same time to a fairly long list of amendments: Amendments Nos. 107, 108, 110 to 112, 116, 118, 119, 121 to 125, 128 to 130, 132, 136 to 144, 148 to 151, 152, 157, 167 and 170.
Noble Lords will see that many of the amendments to which I am speaking are simply matters of good housekeeping. We propose to move Clauses 46 to 55 into Part V and to rename the part "Public Transport". That will make for a much tidier Bill and Amendment No. 157 deals with that simple provision.
The clauses dealing with PSVs and rail vehicles use the terms "PSV accessibility regulations" and "rail vehicle accessibility regulations", but on taxis, Clause 27 is currently drafted in terms of "accessibility regulations". For consistency we feel that this should be changed to "taxi accessibility regulations" and Amendments Nos. 105, 107, 111, 119 and 123 cover that point. Additionally, Amendment No. 108 provides further clarification of the definition of a "taxi".
Amendments Nos. 110, 116 and 118 which deal with Clause 28, seek to clarify these provisions. There is only one substantive change to the effect of the clause; it is Amendment No. 112. Where a person already has a taxi which is not wheelchair accessible (for example, a saloon car), we do not want him to have to replace it prematurely. So Clause 28 as now drafted allows the local authority to relicense such a vehicle which is currently used as a taxi, provided that the new licence comes into force immediately on the expiry of the old. But we recognise that there can be practical problems when a taxi is presented for relicensing, which usually involves an MOT or similar test. Remedial work may need to be done and parts may need to be obtained

441
before the vehicle is acceptable as a taxi. So Amendment No. 112 allows a 28-day period of grace between the expiry of the old taxi licence and the commencement of the new. Of course, the vehicle cannot be used as a taxi while it is unlicensed. Amendment No. 124 is simply to clarify that the person to accompany the hirer is a disabled person. Amendment No. 125 removes Clause 32. By virtue of Amendment No. 138 the forgery provisions will be swept up in Clause 50 with those relating to PSVs.
Amendment No. 167 to Clause 59 will enable regulations to be made for different areas and localities. We are therefore proposing Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 which remove similar provisions in the existing Clause 46. Amendment No. 148 to Clause 53 proposes the same approach for rail vehicles. Amendments Nos. 130 and 132 remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult before making a special authorisation order and imposes a requirement to consult DPTAC and other representative organisations before he makes any regulations relating to accessibility certificates or approval certificates.
Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 are proposed to make clearer that the words "as he thinks fit" apply to the examining of the vehicle rather than to the issuing of a certificate. Amendments Nos. 139, 140, 141, 142 and 143 are consequential on Amendment No. 138 which, in sweeping up the provision of Clauses 30 and 31 in the proposed amendments to Clause 50, establishes a new term "relevant document" to describe the certificates and notices which might be falsified.
Amendment No. 144 requires the Secretary of State to consult representative organisations before making fees regulations. Amendment No. 170 ensures that the regulation-making provisions for taxis, rail vehicles and PSVs do not restrict the general regulation-making powers under Clause 59.
The amendments to Clause 60, are consequential amendments dealing with interpretation of the terms which are introduced in the transport clauses. In providing for this in Clause 60, Amendment No. 122 is required to remove a duplicate provision in Clause 30.
During the Committee stage, I emphasised that the regulations which would be made under these transport provisions would apply only to new vehicles. This point was recognised in the amendment which was tabled by the Opposition in the other place. On rail vehicles, though, I indicated that we would be coming forward with an amendment to make this position absolutely clear.
I must make clear that this does not, in any way, represent a diminution of the Government's commitment to achieving access to rail vehicles. Indeed, the passenger trains which have been brought into service in recent years provide a good and improving standard of accessibility; and that has been achieved without any legislative requirement to do so. Amendment No. 151 provides for this concept of "new" vehicles to be made explicit on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me coming in at this late stage of proceedings on the Bill. However, I am concerned about
442
some of the rural areas in Scotland. The only way in which any taxi service has been provided is by people using cars which do not have the facilities which are written into the Bill. In discussions in my own county and with county officials, the providers of taxi services said that if we wished to ensure that facilities were provided for the disabled, the people operating taxi services would cease to operate that side of their business. They would carry on with ordinary garage work.
The other point about which I wonder is on Amendment No. 108. It also appears elsewhere in the Bill. I am pretty certain that neither the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 nor the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 applies to Scotland. I feel that it is worth making those comments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side of the House broadly support the Government's position on taxis. We believe that they are public service vehicles. Taxis are an important ingredient of public service transport and, therefore, they must be accessible to disabled people on a flexible and realistic basis. We believe, as the Bill lays down, that new vehicles introduced must be fully wheelchair accessible.
It is worth reminding ourselves that virtually all existing vehicles can be made accessible at reasonable expense if they are not already so. I understand from the briefing which I was kindly sent that the Fairway, which represents the majority of London cabs at the moment, has additional clip on steps and swivel seats fitted as standard on all new models. The older FX4 can be converted at a cost of about £1,400. Those figures were new to me and I find them interesting. As for the Metrocab, it can be fitted with a powered swivel seat at about £700, while the saloon cars mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, can, I understand, have a swivel seat at between £250 and £450. I believe that that is a reasonable cost to expect for a vehicle to be made accessible for the broad range of disabilities.
We support regulations that as the vehicles are replaced, the new ones should be fully wheelchair accessible and that existing vehicles should be adapted. We recognise that the situation is different in rural areas where swivel seat saloon cars may be more comfortable and appropriate. It is worth reminding ourselves that of the disabled people who prefer red/black cabs, 30 per cent. could not physically manage the saloon car, whereas of the disabled people who preferred saloon cars, only 3 per cent. could not manage a black cab.
I do not wish to trespass too far on the cluster of amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. However, we also believe that it is right that local authorities should be able to make a case for exemption to the Secretary of State, where there is no unmet need. But we would not and could not support a position where it was left entirely to local authority discretion as to whether there should be a mixed fleet. We believe that otherwise conflicting criteria would apply from place to place. The trade has fought vigorously, but as one who helped impose the black London taxi cab on a fleet that was often of fairly battered saloon cars, as a way of professionalising the service in my city, I know to a modest degree how

443
resistant the trade can be to such changes. However, the Government are right to insist on the changes for which they are asking.
I have some questions. Will regulations relating to guide dogs also apply to private hire cars or only to hackney carriages? What are the Government doing about assisting the development of a new design of taxi to meet the needs both of disabled people and of the drivers themselves, some of whom may, for example, be women or themselves be disabled or in poor health and could not reasonably be expected to struggle with a wheelchair? Given that the Secretary of State has the power to give exemptions to local authorities, what criteria, apart from "no unmet need", is he likely to apply?
Turning to other forms of public transport such as buses, in Committee the Minister emphasised that accessibility had to be compatible with viability. How will that be defined and assessed? What sort of timescale is he operating to?
As to rail, and some of the amendments that the noble Lord addressed in his opening remarks, given the splintering of British Rail—to which I believe all of us on this side are bitterly opposed and which the country as a whole bitterly regrets—who will be responsible for ensuring, for example, that ramps onto trains are available? Will it be the train company or will it be the station operators where these are separately owned? There are many problems affecting disabled people so far as the "Balkanisation" of British Rail is concerned, and this is certainly one of them.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have great respect for the noble Baroness and for the wonderful work she has done on this Bill. I have to tell her that when we come to consider my amendments next, I hope to give her a broader view of the facts of life in this matter, which I hope may cause her to modify her views.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to return to an issue that I discussed late one night in Committee; namely, airports and stations—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it would be helpful to me if the noble Lord would perhaps indicate which of the amendments I need to look at at this stage.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot do that. I hoped that the Minister would not ask that question. Perhaps I may continue.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurances on a point to which I shall come in a moment. In Committee he said that he would look at the issues that I raised, but I have heard nothing since, and there was nothing in the Minister's speech this evening.
This matter begins with the report of the Transport Committee in the House of Commons on taxis and private hire vehicles. In the paragraph on airports and stations, the Committee stated:
"Land, including roads, at airports and stations is usually privately owned and can be controlled by the airport operator or station owner. This gives them the right to regulate the use of their premises
444
by taxis and PHVs and, in some cases, to levy charges. Sometimes, as at Gatwick Airport, the concession is granted to a single taxi or PHV company".
Perhaps I may interpose here the fact that the contract has been given to two private hire companies. The committee goes on to state:
"While we note that the Government is "not entirely convinced" of the merits of granting this type of concession, as opposed to allowing any locally licensed taxis to operate at such premises, there may on occasion be arguments for such an arrangement, for example in order to avoid congestion. Sole concessions should only be awarded after an open competition, which should give preference to companies which undertake to provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles".
The Government's response to that comment by the committee was as follows:
"The Government appreciates the sentiment behind this recommendation. However, it would not seem appropriate to control this by regulation. Hire vehicles at airports and stations (taxis and PHVs) are there to make access to and from the station or airport attractive to passengers. It is therefore in the interest of the owning authority or company to ensure that appropriate facilities are provided".
If airports and railway stations decide to invite tenders for the provision of taxi services for their passengers, and those contracts are won by private hire vehicle operators, as they have been at Gatwick, then they are not covered by this legislation and there is no requirement to provide vehicles suitable to wheelchair users. To be fair, the companies that won the contracts at Gatwick earlier this year for three years do have a number of vehicles with swivel seats, but they have no vehicles that can carry a disabled person in a wheelchair.
I return to the concern that I expressed in Committee; namely, that disabled passengers arriving at railway stations and airports in wheelchairs could have difficulty in finding suitable transport by taxi because the monopoly provider of the taxi service is a private hire vehicle operator, not covered by this legislation. Can the Minister give us some assurances on this matter?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in seeking the Minister's assurances, and perhaps I ought to declare an interest. I use the facilities at airports and railway stations, and taxis. It would be very serious if any of these facilities deteriorated. In fact, they need to progress even more. There are still some trains that are very difficult for disabled people to use. It is of concern when one hears that these facilities might disappear.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am in some difficulty in dealing with this issue, as many of the points are not very relevant to the amendments that I have in front of me. Perhaps noble Lords will bear with me, since I can answer some of the points far better in the next debate, to be led by my noble friend Lord Renton, when we shall go into the detail of his concerns, which relate to some of the questions asked. I should be straying well out of order if I began to answer questions about amendments that are not actually before us at the moment. If noble Lords will allow me to do that, I shall return to some of these points, as I fully anticipated I should have to do, when we come to the more relevant group of amendments in the name of my noble friend.

445
I shall try to say a few words. One thing I certainly can say is that my noble friend Lord Balfour is quite right Amendment No. 108 applies to England and Wales in the one case and to London in the second case. The position in Scotland is that Clause 33 allows similar provisions to be made for Scotland by order. Because Scottish taxi legislation, as the noble Lord will know, is more modern, the provision can be made much more simply. So Scotland will be covered via Clause 33 and its more modern legislation.
It might be better for completeness of debate if I answer some of the other points in the next debate. Otherwise, we shall be repeating ourselves in very close order, and that would not be sensible. I undertake to allow myself to postulate on the other questions what my answer would be, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees gave me an example this afternoon, if they were in order when we come to that debate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 20, line 44, at end insert (", when required).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. With it are grouped Amendment No. 109, which is the substantive one, and some consequential amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 113 to 115, 117 and 120.
Perhaps I may first thank my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish for his understanding of my reasons for moving these amendments. He corresponded with me and we discussed the matter. I am very appreciative of his capacity for listening. That is very important in Ministers, if I may say so without appearing to be patronising.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that local licensing authorities shall have a discretion when granting new licences for taxis to decide which ones should be wheelchair accessible, but they shall have an obligation to require that all taxis shall conform with the regulations which will be made relating to the carriage of disabled people otherwise than in wheelchairs. In other words, we anticipate that under the regulations all taxis and all saloon cars used for carrying disabled people under the Hackney Carriage legislation, shall be easily accessible to them. Indeed, there ought to be a swivel seat, possibly in the seat next to the driver, to enable disabled people to get into the car.
When my severely handicapped daughter wants to get into my ordinary car, I have no difficulty. I have a swivel seat (which cost me only £20, not the £450 that was mentioned) in order to allow her to get onto the seat easily. It can then be turned round so that she is facing the front. Then I fold up the wheelchair. I used to put it in the boot when I had one; now I have a small estate car and it goes in there comfortably.
I suggest that discretion and obligation are achieved by Amendment No. 109. I need not read it out; it is self-explanatory. I should add that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friend Lord Holderness added their names to the amendment, but neither could be here today. Nevertheless, they asked me to say that they strongly support the amendment.
For the benefit of the noble Baroness I shall put forward some figures produced by the Public Office of Census Surveys. The first is that we have a population of 55 million people. The second is that around 6 million of them are disabled in one way or another, including large numbers of mentally handicapped people who may or may not be physically disabled. Of that 6 million people, 430,000 use wheelchairs. That is one in 120 of the total population. Of those 430,000, only 7,500 are wheelchair bound; in other words, if they want to get into a vehicle, they have to stay in their wheelchairs. That means that we are only concerned with 7,500 people. Many of the 430,000 wheelchair users can and do use saloon car taxis, if there is some adaptation to enable them to get in and sit down.
Your Lordships will remember that at the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish added to the Bill what are now Clauses 27 to 30, the effect of which is to require that all taxis shall become wheelchair accessible unless the Secretary of State makes a regulation under Clause 29 enabling a licensing authority to apply to him for an exemption order. Only then would the local authority have a discretion in the matter. If we are to have—and I suggest we need to have—some flexibility as to the types of taxi used in each area and, in particular, how many of them should be wheelchair accessible, is it not better to leave it to the discretion of the local licensing authority, which knows the area, rather than cause delay and add to the cost of administration by requiring the licensing authority to apply to Whitehall for exemption? Generally, local people know better than the gentlemen in Whitehall. If Amendment No. 109 is accepted, Clause 29 will be unnecessary and should therefore be deleted from the Bill.
I suggest that it is not a sensible policy to insist that all taxis be wheelchair accessible in the years to come. It is all right in London and the big cities where there is a great demand for taxis anyway. But in the smaller towns like Huntingdon, which I know so well, and out in the country, it will lead to there being fewer taxis. Nobody can deny that. If any noble Lord can deny that, I hope that he will say so. I will give way immediately. There would be fewer taxis and that would be to the disadvantage of disabled people and the community as a whole. Therefore, flexibility should be the aim. We need some of each type of vehicle and we should let the local licensing authority decide how many wheelchair accessible cabs there should be.
Finally, I remind your Lordships once more that it is only a small percentage of the many disabled people who live in wheelchairs. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is right that as the Bill stands licensing authorities should be able to make a case for exemption of their areas where they can show that there is no significant level of unmet need. But the criteria used in determining that should be decided nationally and applied consistently and in consultation with the appropriate bodies. As it stands the Bill already produces sufficient flexibility in that area.

447
Transferring discretion from the Secretary of State to local licensing authorities will only weaken the Bill. For that reason, we are opposed to this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton mentioned the number of people who use wheelchairs on a permanent basis.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is 7,500.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, it is a figure I do not deny because I simply do not know. He is forgetting that it is either one in 10 or one in six of us who use a wheelchair on a temporary basis for some part of our lives. That means that the number of people using wheelchairs at any one time is probably considerably higher than the figure he gave. At the time of temporary illness or disability those people will not be able to use their own cars.
I entirely agree with my noble friend that there should be some flexibility. As I understand it, the Bill produces quite a lot of flexibility already. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to indicate whether or not he knows of any developments in the design of a vehicle that will meet both the requirements of my noble friend as well as of those who use wheelchairs for their general mobility. The time will come when clever people will be able to produce a vehicle that will do both. It may not look like the London black cab but it would be welcome if we had a more versatile vehicle.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, the noble Lord's amendments would, as he explained, give local authorities powers to decide whether they wished to have wheelchair-accessible taxis as opposed to the powers in the Bill whereby local authorities may seek exemption for all accessible taxis accessible to both wheelchair users and ambulant disabled people from the Secretary of State who must then consult DPTAC, as the Minister explained when speaking to his earlier amendment.
I want to stress at the outset that we need taxis which are easily accessible to both wheelchair users and ambulant disabled people, some of whom I know encounter difficulties in using the London-type wheelchair-accessible taxis. But it is my understanding that, thanks to initiatives being pursued by the Department of Transport, Clauses 27 to 33 of the Bill are concerned with a new breed of taxi, one that is equally accessible to wheelchair users and ambulant disabled people and, indeed, the able-bodied public at large.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that it would be better to leave it to the local authorities to decide. If these amendments go through it will be for the individual disabled person to convince local authorities that disabled people should have access to local taxis. That could be very difficult indeed for the individual disabled person when the local authority is being backed by powerful local taxi business interests. The amendment seems to allow mixed fleets. Such flexibility is already possible under the Bill. Even if all local taxis are made accessible, local areas will also be served by hire cars that need not be accessible.
448
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, argues for flexibility but truly mixed fleets—some inaccessible and some accessible taxis—do not solve the problem. Waiting for taxis in the cold and in the rain can be difficult enough for anyone. Waiting for the accessible taxi from a mixed fleet could be very difficult indeed for a disabled person. In London today, with its current mixed fleet, I have heard of several instances of disabled people missing trains as a result of having to wait 30 minutes or so for an accessible taxi to arrive. Indeed, on 13th July Bert Massie, the director of RADAR, wrote to Steven Norris, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, saying:
"Even though almost half of London's taxis are accessible, last week eight empty taxis passed me before I could get one that I could stop that I could get my wheelchair into".
Another difficulty would be, if local authorities were allowed to renege too easily on their responsibilities under the national regulations, with or without the encouragement of local taxi firms, that disabled visitors would not know whether the taxis in an area they went to were accessible. That would discourage the use of taxis by disabled people who need to know in advance of a visit what they can expect in the area. We need all taxis that are able to ply for hire to be accessible to all disabled people—ambulant, in wheelchairs, blind, and partially sighted. The amendments introduced by the Government at the Committee stage have been tremendously welcome. It is therefore with sadness, because I admire the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is, I hope, my friend in a non-political sense, but with no hesitation, that I oppose these amendments.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, where do the minicabs in London fit in? They are not licensed in the way minicabs are in every other part of the country. It is very important for us to be aware of that. I think that to have every vehicle available for disabled people or for wheelchair access would be too much. The black cabs in London had that imposed on them by the Department of Transport and they must all be accessible by the year 2000; but we have this extraordinary situation where the minicabs do not even have to be roadworthy. They are not assessed in any way. I want to know where they fit in.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I wonder whether he can deal with another aspect of the problem which is similar to the one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). I refer to the taxis which refuse to stop because they see that a person is in a wheelchair and they cannot be bothered to stop and pick up the wheelchair user. There is another problem with a mixed fleet which concerns a person who rings up and specifies the type of taxi he needs without saying he is a wheelchair user. However, by specifying the type of taxi, it is clear that he is a wheelchair user. Such people just do not get a taxi because the taxi cannot be bothered to put on the ramps and so on. If local authorities had the freedom which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, proposes, would not the problem be even worse?
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Renton, a question about his daughter. The modern wheelchair taxis with the black

449
handles—the silver handled ones are no good—are so much more acceptable to my noble kinsman who has tremendous difficulty getting into a silver handled taxi because the door is so narrow. He is an ambulant person but he is a little disabled now because he has a stiff leg. The wide door and handles of the black handled taxi make such a difference. I do not see what difference one of these accessible taxis would make because the noble Lord's daughter would still have a problem. She would have to use a car such as a minicab because no doubt she has to sit in the front of the car wearing a seat-belt. I do not see that that will solve the problem.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may answer that question. I hope I am in order in doing so. My daughter is cared for at a place 100 miles from my home. I fetch her from there several times a year and I normally take her in my own car. She sits beside me, the driver, on a swivel seat and travels comfortably. She is a marvellous traveller. On an occasion when I put her in a black cab she did not have to be in her wheelchair, because I can get her out of it, but she did not sit comfortably on the back seat of the black cab and she did not have a happy journey. That is the simple answer.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I ask the House not to accept the amendments. If they are accepted they will go a long way to ensuring that we make very little progress on the question of accessible transport. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State has the power to introduce regulations to enable disabled people, including wheelchair users, to use taxis. There is the provision for the regulations to be modified, if it is appropriate, for different parts of the country and DPTAC must he consulted, half of whose members are disabled people. Disabled people will therefore have some say in the regulations that are brought forward. However, under the noble Lord's proposals the local authorities would decide whether they wished to have accessible taxis instead of the local authorities having to make a case to the Secretary of State to justify not following the national rules. That means that disabled people would have to make their case to the local authorities that they should be able to use accessible taxis. They would probably then come up against the organised opposition of some of the taxi trade.
These amendments are completely out of place in a Bill that is designed to help disabled people. The amendments would allow mixed fleets. Some would be accessible but many or most of them might turn out not to be accessible. Surely a fully accessible fleet of those that ply for hire must be our goal—that is what we are striving for in the Bill—so that a disabled person, like any one of us in this House, can use the first taxi on the rank or on a street, as do those of us who are not disabled. Private hire vehicles are not included in the Bill. There are twice as many taxis for private hire available as there are Hackney cabs. So those people who prefer to use a private hire car or saloon car would still be able to have one without any difficulty.
I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 are designed more to protect current drivers from having to cater for disabled passengers. They mean that only new licence holders
450
will have to make provision, and then only if required to do so by their local authority. Perhaps I may ask the Minister this question: am I right in believing that the Town Police Clauses Act clearly states that the licence is granted to the vehicle and that when a new vehicle is bought, it requires a new licence? Is it correct that it is not the old licence which is being renewed, but a new licence which is attached to the vehicle? If the noble Lord's intention is to protect current drivers at the expense of new drivers, in my opinion these amendments do not achieve that.
There is no dispute that not all disabled people can use the London taxi, but that is already addressed in the Bill. There are new taxi designs in the offing to meet the needs of the population and they are under consideration and going ahead. Further improvements are being made day-by-day to the traditional taxi. It is also the case that in some parts of the country disabled people are unable to use taxis at all because there are not any that they can use with their disabilities. If these amendments are accepted, I believe that they will ensure that that situation continues into the future. If Clause 29 is also omitted, that could lead to the taxi policy that we are trying to create here being killed off.
I am advised that Fish Insurance in Preston insures over 50,000 electric cars, which are used by disabled people and over 80,000 people use a wheelchair all day and every day. Those are the figures which I have been given. It depends on the sources as to which figures one uses. The Government have listened and their amendments have been a notable success in this Bill. As it now stands, the Bill will do much to promote the independence of, and give mobility to, disabled people. If these proposals are weakened, then there will be significant undermining of the whole concept of accessible transport.
Accessible trains are very useful, but they would be much more useful if people could reach them by an accessible taxi and if they could complete their journey at their destination in the same way. When the whole fleet of local taxis is accessible it will exemplify the principle of integration which my organisation—PHAB—of which I am proud to be a vice-president, and many other organisations under the umbrella of RADAR have striven to achieve for so many years.
The Government have been co-operative and helpful. We are very grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for the help that we have received. I do not believe that we should let this possibility and opportunity for advance be weakened here and now. I hope that, if the noble Lord presses his amendments to a vote, the House will reject them.
9 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for the kind remarks she made about the transport provisions which we have inserted into the Bill. As I said about a previous group of amendments perhaps I may do a bit of "sweeping up" before I get down to the substantive points which my noble friend raised in his amendments and those taken up by other noble Lords. It would be quite sensible to get one or two points out of the way.

451
As regards Amendment No. 108, which I have just moved and about which I responded to my noble friend Lord Balfour, the definition of "taxi" is there, as it is elsewhere in the Bill. It clearly says what we mean by "taxi". I make it absolutely clear that private hire vehicles are not in fact covered by the provisions of the Bill because they do not fall within the definitions of taxi in the Bill. That is the first point. The provision regarding the carriage of guide dogs will not refer to private hire vehicles, but taxis as defined.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes asked me about minicabs in London. We are aware of their position in London and it is totally unsatisfactory. In a recent Command Paper we made clear our intention to license minicabs, which will require legislation. That is not for this Bill because it goes a good deal wider than the problem of disabled people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, asked me about changing cars and whether the licence carried on in a seamless way. I can confirm that, under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, it is the taxi which is licensed and the licence is not granted to an individual. The licence must be renewed annually. The same provision exists for London in the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act. I hope that that answers her concern that a taxi driver might be able to evade the law into the future by continuing with a new car and does not obey the law as regards his old licence. I do not believe that that will be possible.
Perhaps I may now deal with the question of taxis at Gatwick before I reach the question of taxis in the countryside. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, asked about this. I am advised that the terms which the airport has negotiated with hire car companies include the provision that a wheelchair-accessible vehicle is quickly available when required. There is no power to force Gatwick to do more than that because the service operates from its private property. I hope that that is helpful and that the answer I have given about the terms imposed will be of help to any disabled person who needs a taxi from Gatwick.
I was asked whether the taxi took one to the railway station and then on to the train—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, can the Minister ensure that a public notice is displayed to that effect? It is clearly a problem and the situation is open to abuse. A notice displayed that any disabled person may request or require a wheelchair-accessible taxi as part of the undertaking of that contract, would meet some of the concerns of my noble friend.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is a problem. I certainly doubt whether I have the power to order people to put up a notice. I shall certainly look into the question. Even if I do not have the power, I suppose I might manage the power to sign a letter to somebody during the Recess. I have got the taxi to the railway station and on that basis I shall try to answer the question about bridging the gap between the platform and the train. I can envisage in the future trains having a ramp built into them. That may well come about. I believe I spoke about this in
452
Committee. I said then that it is a difficult issue. We shall have to discuss it with all the interested parties before we reach a final decision. That will be one of our priorities in the coming months. We are satisfied that we have the legal powers needed to reach a solution and to make sure that that solution, whatever it may be, actually works.
I turn now to the more substantive debate on my noble friend's amendments which are based on his concern that we shall be insisting on wheelchair-accessible taxis in all rural areas and that that may damage trade in areas where there is only a limited taxi trade anyway. I think that that encapsulates my noble friend's points—
Lord Renton: My Lords, it would also be to the disadvantage of disabled people.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, yes, but it could be to the disadvantage of absolutely everybody. I understand the point that my noble friend is making, but this is a difficult problem. I can understand the theoretical attraction of having what I would describe as a "mixed fleet". That idea has been around for a long time, but it is fraught with difficulties, not least of which is how the local authority will decide which taxi should provide full access and which should not. When I considered the matter after our Committee stage, I envisaged first that the drivers might meet annually and draw lots to see who would have to provide the accessible taxi. There is a huge difficulty in this regard. Any kind of selection and any kind of pointing of the finger at one taxi operator and saying, "You'll have to provide the accessible taxi but the other fellow does not need to", is fraught with a great deal of difficulty. That is the point of view of the licensing authority and the taxi owners. I think that there might be complaints from the poor man who drew the short straw and had to ensure that his taxi was wheelchair-accessible.
I shall not dwell on the other problem which has been raised by other noble Lords. I refer to what happens when some taxis are not wheelchair-accessible and somebody at a station or leaving a restaurant tries to hail a taxi. There is the problem of the odds of finding a wheelchair-accessible taxi at such a time. Sod's Law is bound to work and none of the taxis that pass will be wheelchair accessible, just as Sod's Law works on a wet night so that no taxi with its light on ever seems to pass me when I am looking for one. This is a real problem. We want to make sure that disabled people can have exactly the same freedom to travel and to get a taxi as able-bodied people and that they do not have to hope that the law of chance is operating benignly every time they want to hail a taxi. They do not want to be left in the position of merely hoping that they will be more successful than in the National Lottery. It should not be a question of mere luck if the first taxi that comes along is wheelchair-accessible. As I have said, there is a real problem with mixed fleets.
On the question of exemptions, we recognise that there may be local circumstances which preclude the effective and sustainable use of accessible taxis, and we have provided a power for the Secretary of State to grant an order exempting an authority from the requirements of the

453
Bill. Some of the criteria that will be applied to, say, the concept of unmet need are set out in Clause 29 and relate to the circumstances of an area and the effect on the number of taxis in the area of requiring full accessibility. A judgment will need to be made in each case. The granting of the exemption will depend on the authority in question being able to meet the specified criteria.
I should not like to prejudge how many authorities would seek to use the provision. However, it may well be that some areas will choose to do so, and I know that that is a matter of particular concern. I have been asked why I am putting it that way round and not merely giving the authorities the right to come to a decision on their own without going to the Secretary of State. In recent years there has been an increase in the number of legal challenges against local authorities which have sought to make wheelchair access a licensing requirement in their areas. That can be costly and is always time-consuming. The provisions of the Bill will ensure consistency across the country and I believe that they will be welcomed by most local authorities because they should reduce the risk of a legal challenge.
Perhaps I may turn now to the point about vehicle development. In Committee I tried to make sure that I dealt with one of the real problems in this regard and I seek to do so again now. There is a mistaken belief that in future we will be requiring the universal use of the London-type "black cab". This is not so. The point continues to be widely misunderstood and misinterpreted by sections of the trade. We recognise the valid criticism which has been levelled at the current models of wheelchair-accessible taxi that, while they can satisfactorily accommodate the vast majority of wheelchair users, they are difficult—or indeed impossible—for many elderly and disabled people. We want to ensure that the accessible taxis of the future do not come under the same criticism and I want to make it absolutely clear that we are not talking about a universal requirement for the current purpose-built taxi designs.
In consultation with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and the taxi industry we shall be defining design parameters based on research and experience to provide optimum levels of accessibility for all disabled people. We would expect a range of manufacturers to address the market that will be created. Those design parameters, which will form the basis of the regulations, will apply to new vehicles only. I would also like to make it absolutely clear, as I have done already in writing to my noble friend, that the period over which these requirements will be introduced will be long enough for existing non-wheelchair accessible vehicles to have reached the end of their useful life. There is simply no question of us introducing requirements in such a way as to undermine the viability of existing businesses. As my noble friend has rightly pointed out to me on a number of occasions, that would be in no one's best interest. We have no intention of doing that.
Perhaps I may sum up by saying that noble Lords will have noticed that I have not said anything at any stage about when the provisions might take effect. We shall want to discuss this issue in much more detail with the industry and DPTAC before we come to any conclusion.
454
I can assure your Lordships that the dates that will be fixed in regulations will the realistic and will be achievable by manufacturers and operators alike.
I hope that with those assurances I have been able to calm my noble friend's fears, which I understand coming as I do from a rural area. Taxi operators in rural areas have nothing to fear from—if I may describe it like this—the gentle and understanding way in which this provision will be implemented.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. He has given the most open-minded reply he could have given in the circumstances. It is consistent with what he said on Second Reading. He has just told us that there will be no universal use of the black cab. That is good news. It is consistent with what he said on Second Reading—that he could assure the House that there is no intention to require every new taxi to be purpose-built.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, especially the two noble Baronesses in the wheelchairs who speak from great personal experience. I always admire not just their sincerity but the articulate and influential way in which they express their views. Tonight was no exception. Several noble Lords have pointed out the need for flexibility, and there is a need. It would be wrong for us to be rigid in this matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is an old friend, although not in the political sense. She and I, after all, live not far from each other. She referred to RADAR. I was once chairman of what I believe is the largest pressure group in this country; namely, MENCAP. I was always worried lest we should exercise a wrong judgment. Sometimes great pressure groups do exercise a wrong judgment, and I believe in this case RADAR did. Its attitude was rather urban-based, whereas as my noble friend the Minister pointed out in earlier debates, as many noble Lords know, we must think not just of London and the great cities but of rural areas too.
If we follow the national rules in the sense in which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, referred to them, we shall have fewer cabs. That will not be in the interests of disabled people. I gather from what my noble friend the Minister said that the Government will be giving further serious thought to this issue before Third Reading. If I can be of further assistance, I am at their disposal. With the hope that we shall reach a workable, sensible, just solution, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 107 and 108:
Page 21, line 3, at beginning insert ("Taxi").
Page 21, line 33, after (""taxi"") insert ("means a vehicle licensed under—

(a) section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, or

(b) section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869, but").

The noble Lord said My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 28 [New licences conditional on compliance with taxi accessibility regulations]:
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments No. 110 to 112:
Page 21, line 35, leave out ("("a new licence")").
Page 21, line 37, after ("the") insert ("taxi").
Page 21, line 39, leave out from ("apply") to end of line 43 and insert ("if such a licence was in force with respect to the vehicle at any time during the period of 28 days immediately before the day on which the licence is granted.").
The noble Lord said My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendments. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 112 is agreed to Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 are pre-empted.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 113 to 115 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 21, line 44, leave out ("subsections (2) and (3)") and insert ("subsection (2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 21, line 47, at end insert ("or localities").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Exemption from taxi accessibility regulations]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 22, line 34, after ("to") insert ("taxi").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Carrying of passengers in wheelchairs]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 121 to 123:
Page 23, line 2, at end insert ("and").
Page 23, line 3, leave out from ("concerned") to end of line 4.
Page 23, line 32, after second ("the") insert ("taxi").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 31 [Carrying of guide dogs and hearing dogs]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 24, line 7, after second ("a") insert ("disabled").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Forgery of exemption certificates]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 125:
Leave out Clause 32.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [PSV accessibility regulations]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 34, line 34, at end insert:
("( ) to be fully orientated whilst carried in the vehicle").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 126, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 127, 145 to 147 and 156. The amendments are designed to ensure that regulations published in respect of public transport take into account the need of visually impaired people. The current wording of the Bill and much of the debate in Committee centred on the physical accessibility of public transport. When undertaking research among blind and partially sighted people for a major RNIB report to be published this autumn, it was noted that one of the commonest complaints involved difficulties in using public transport and general mobility difficulties.
The fact that bus and train stops are often not announced makes it difficult for a blind or visually impaired person to get about easily. Many of the changes which would make all the difference to blind and partially sighted people are easy to implement and cost-effective. Some progress has already been undertaken to address those issues. For instance, a "talking" bus operates as a pilot project on Route 29 between Wood Green and Trafalgar Square in London. The Victoria and Central Underground lines provide audible announcements, as do most Intercity trains. Other countries have long-established provisions for audible announcements. They are provided on buses in Paris and, although I have not been there, I understand they are provided on all trains in Finland.
A lack of audible announcements is not only inconvenient but it can place blind and partially sighted people in danger. Getting off at the wrong railway station may lead to false assumptions about the station exits. Audible announcements are especially important on commuter or rural regional railway lines because there is less likely to be help available to blind and partially sighted people if they get off at the wrong station.
The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which was established in 1985 to advise the Department of Transport, published guidelines in 1994 on improving access to local buses. Those guidelines made reference to good communications, internal lighting and the positioning, colouring and texture of handrails and stanchions. I believe that the wording included in the Bill should reflect the fact that access to public transport goes wider than wheelchair access alone.
Amendments Nos. 126, 127, 145 and 146 deal with audible announcements and good design practice. Amendment No. 147 addresses the importance of developing uniform standards where possible in relation to rail services. I recognise the need to include provisions allowing regulations to differentiate between class of vehicle and geographic area. However, I believe that the uniform provision of audible announcements is both achievable and necessary. I consider that many of the changes needed for visually impaired people can be incorporated either immediately or during major

457
refurbishment of coaches, buses and trains. I do not seek to bring forward an amendment to that effect, but I am keen that that point should be made.
Amendment No. 156 ensures that all land-based public transport has a duty to carry guide dogs and hearing dogs. That principle has already been conceded in relation to taxis. Thankfully, there are fewer examples of buses and trains refusing to take guide dogs and hearing dogs compared with taxis. However, the RNIB has found at least one example of a bus which refused to take a guide dog. The general exemption of public transport from the provisions of Part III make it necessary to spell out that obligation.
It is important that the Bill is amended to ensure that wider access issues are covered. Having audible announcements and good design practice would also be of benefit to those with poor eyesight, over and above those registered blind and partially sighted. Incidentally, audible announcements will probably be of assistance to tourists.
Finally, in Amendment No. 126 the expression:
"to be fully orientated whilst carried in the vehicle",
means that someone who is blind or partially sighted knows which way he is facing—forwards, sideways or backwards—and where is the exit so that he can alight unaided. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support these amendments. The noble Lord has put his finger on a very grave weakness in much of the transport provision in this country. Also I should point out that audible announcements would not only be beneficial for the blind but also for many other groups—foreign tourists, people who fall asleep and people who do not know the line generally. This provision will not hurt the rest of the community. Other groups—for example, dyslexics and those with learning disabilities who have problems with reading—may also benefit from the proposal. I can see no reason why such an amendment should not be incorporated in the Bill either now or at some future date.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we were glad to add our name to the amendments because they are important and we hope that the Minister will be able to deal with the important points that have been raised. I should declare an interest in that a member of my family is blind, has a hearing loss and is a user of a guide dog.
As it stands, the Bill does not address adequately the concerns of those with sensory impairments. Any regulations should address the need for clear, audible announcements, good lighting and clear signs with colour contrast. Regulations will allow variations in accessibility standards for rail vehicles according to networks, the class of vehicle and geographical region. However, the Bill does not stress the need to maximise uniform standards where that is eminently achievable. It is an anomaly that the Bill prevents taxis from discriminating in the carriage of service animals used by disabled people without making a direct reference to the obligations on public transport in general.
I know from the experience of a member of my family that audible announcements and colour contrast for the visually handicapped are extremely important. Perhaps I may give a simple example of an
458
Underground station. Unless you know where you are getting off, you are sure about that and you are on a station with an island platform, there is a very real problem. The person may not know whether he is going across the platform towards the rail or along the platform towards the exit. If a blind person gets off a bus at the wrong stop but thinks it is the right stop, he will be completely disoriented and may spend a long time trying to find his way.
British Rail is very good at providing assistance. One may ring ahead to say that a disabled person is on the train in a particular coach and assistance will be provided at the station where the person alights. That is good. Of course, it happens at mainline stations but it does not happen at unstaffed stations.
On the whole, the stated policy of British Rail is quite good as regards the marking of stations and colour contrast, and so on; but, in practice, it does not seem to follow its own policy. I believe that I am correct in saying that the magnificent new Liverpool Street station is largely grey. Those concerned missed the opportunity to put in some colour contrast around the station so that the visually handicapped could see where the edges of steps are, where the railings are, and the rest of it. I dread to think what will happen with Railtrack as regards the mix-up of responsibility between the operating companies and the owners of the stations.
The other problem is parking on pavements. In our family, we carry around stickers provided by the pedestrians association. When we see a car which is parked on a pavement we place a sticker upon it which says, "Pavements are for pedestrians, not for cars". When the association issued the stickers, it had to issue a warning to all those who use them to be careful not to stick them on car windows because, if that involved the paintwork, they could be charged with causing damage to the car.
In the case of guide dogs, I cannot imagine that any operator of a public service or a rail vehicle would prevent a guide dog owner from travelling with his dog or allow that person to be separated from his dog. It is not that long ago, I know, that some guide dog owners were asked to travel with their dog in the guard's van. However, I am sure—at least, I hope I am—that that no longer applies.
There is also a problem with the Underground as regards escalators. One must never take a guide dog on a moving escalator because of the danger that could be caused to the dog's paws if they become caught. That means that a blind person either has to find in every tube station, or know where there is, a solid staircase; or he has to ask for the escalator to be stopped so that he can use it. In fact, when I have been travelling with my daughter, who uses a guide-dog, I have picked up the dog to save time and carried it on the up escalator. It has caused some consternation to those on the downward escalator to see a gentleman holding a large labrador in his arms as he goes up the escalator.
If anyone did try to separate a guide dog owner from his or her dog, that person should perhaps receive the rejoinder that was given by a guide dog owner whom I know well. She was offered entry to a restaurant so long

459
as her dog stayed outside. She asked politely, "How would you get on if you were asked to leave your eyes at the door?"
I hope that the Government can assure us that the purpose of such admirable amendments is already covered by the Bill. If not, the Government should either accept them, or, if they cannot do so, they should take them away for redrafting and bring back suitable amendments on Third Reading which would deal with what seems to be an anomaly in the legislation and is a very real problem.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that I have my own group of amendments on public service vehicles and trains following those of my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I listened with interest to the debate and did not wish to comment, but we seem to be in the realms of personal experience. I listened intently to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I can recall well over 30 years ago, in an area that the noble Lord knows well, that I once took a blind gentleman from Preston Circus at Seven Dials in the rush hour. Well, I rather forgot, and the poor man had to cross the road at Seven Dials which is quite an undertaking. After that, I told all passengers when they asked for directions that I had a mind like a sieve and added, "Don't hesitate to ask me umpteen times; I shan't be the least offended, so go on doing it".
The audible announcements could be of help. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say on the matter. I should point out to your Lordships that there are dangers in allowing more than one dog on a vehicle at any one time. I witnessed an unfortunate incident in which one dog bit the other dog's owner. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister would like to comment on that and on whether it is wise to accept Amendment No. 156 on the face of the Bill. Although it appears immensely plausible, one can see the particular dangers at present when the weather is so hot and humid, which can affect a guide dog even more than a human being.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Teviot that the case that he cited would certainly be a much better story if it had been "man bites dog". I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for explaining what he was seeking to achieve by way of amendments. When I first saw the amendment which talks about being "fully orientated", I actually thought that it had something to do with the proverbial Glasgow man on a bus telling the world that he belonged to Glasgow on a Saturday night. However, my noble friend has now explained to me what his amendment actually means. Indeed, I had a rather interesting discussion about the various new techniques which are available for helping people—not in this case wheelchair users who, in a way, have tended to dominate our debate, but other people who are equally disabled when it comes to mobility.
First, I would like to make it absolutely clear that we intend the regulations made under the new clauses covering PSVs and rail vehicles to deal not only with
460
the needs of wheelchair users but to make provision for the needs of other disabled people, including those who are blind, partially sighted, deaf or hard of hearing. There are provisions which we would propose to include in regulations which would help to ensure that visually impaired people could move about inside vehicles confidently. For example, the use of colour contrast on handrails and seating and improved lighting levels. We will also, through codes of practice, give guidance on how drivers and other transport staff can assist visually impaired people, for example, by giving them clear instructions about where the nearest suitable seat is located. That point in particular is already included in the Department of Transport's video, "Make it work", which provides disability awareness training for bus drivers, and it is also included in the new customer care training package which was launched recently by Bus and Coach Training Ltd.
As regards Amendments Nos. 127 and 146, I would point out that the list of items to be provided in accessibility regulations is not exhaustive. I accept that they may appear to be oriented towards the needs of wheelchair users, but my noble friend and other noble Lords who have taken part can be assured that we intend to build on the work which has already been done, in particular by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, in ensuring that the regulations make provision for sensory impaired people and ambulant disabled people, as well as those who use wheelchairs.
In relation to Amendments Nos. 126, 145 and 147 we would envisage that the codes of practice which will be issued to rail operators will deal with the issue of audible announcements. Indeed, the rail regulator's code of practice, Meeting the needs of disabled passengers, already covers this issue. As train development improves, the number of signs for disabled people in train carriages will increase and become more widespread around the country. We hope that announcements, too, will become clearer. I hope that that is the case whether one can hear in whole or in part. That would be a good thing. These issues will be covered.
I now turn to Amendment No. 156. The Public Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 already make certain provision for guide dogs on PSVs. However, as currently drafted, they do not cover hearing dogs and there are no similar legislative provisions covering rail vehicles. London Underground's conditions of carriage allow for any dog to be carried free of charge provided it is kept under control, which, of course, in the case of guide dogs should present no difficulties at all. But I accept that this is an issue which merits further consideration.
I hope that on the basis of the explanations I have given about our intentions, my noble friend will agree to withdraw these amendments. I shall take away, if I may, Amendment No. 156 to consider it in more detail. If we are persuaded that something more needs to be done, we shall bring forward appropriate amendments at a later stage.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and with the leave of the House, I hope I may make one point. As he says, Clause 46(2) is all about wheelchairs. It seems a shame that the Bill would appear

461
to deal only with wheelchairs and everything else will be left to regulation. Will the Government consider whether they should at Third Reading introduce an amendment which would make it clear that adaptations to public service vehicles will not be just for wheelchair users? It is a common mistake to think just of that aspect when one is considering the matter. As we all know, there are many forms of disability. I believe that it would be helpful if the Government spelt out on the face of the Bill the sort of adaptations that they would expect rather than just those which appear to apply only in regard to wheelchairs, leaving everything else to regulation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall consider what the noble Lord has said. I am sure he appreciates that in many ways the wheelchair problem, if I can call it that, is sometimes the more difficult one to resolve. I certainly hope that I have given enough clear assurance that we are dealing with accessibility for all disabled people and not just for wheelchair users. However, I shall consider the point that he has just made.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his extremely encouraging reply. I am delighted to hear that he will look seriously at all of the amendments, but in particular will bring Amendment No. 156 back himself, even though it may be redrafted at Third Reading.
He mentioned clear announcements. Like him, I suffer from unclear announcements on railway stations and other places, very often not because of the equipment but because the person who makes the announcements has not been taught how to use it properly. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 128 to 130:
Page 35, leave out line 23.
Page 35, line 24, leave out subsection (7).
Page 35, line 26, leave out ("or order").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 128 to 130. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 35, line 27, after ("section") insert ("13, 14, 15, 16,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 131 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 132A, 133, 135, 151A, 153, 153A, 153B, 154, 155A and 174B. As usual, I have pleasure in declaring an interest. For many years I have been involved in the bus and coach industry.
This important Bill rightly makes provision for greater access to employment, goods and services for the disabled. My particular concern is about access to transport services. Much has been achieved but more remains to be done. I should like to pay tribute to the excellent services provided by community transport organisations and services such as Dial-A-Ride. The bus and coach industry has already embraced on a voluntary
462
basis the need to improve accessibility of vehicles. All new vehicles, and the majority of those in service, now incorporate features recommended by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has taken us down memory lane. I very much take his point about people in wheelchairs. Years ago, as a conductor, I found that those who suffered the tortures of the damned were those who suffered from arthritis. They had great difficulty in boarding buses, sitting down, standing, getting off and having to orientate themselves in order to proceed further. That may be an area that DPTAC can look at. That body is probably already doing so, but what I say is completely off the cuff.
The recent voluntary introduction of low-floor buses has been welcomed, and trials are helping to get the new designs suitable for all terrain. The Confederation of Passenger Transport has welcomed the dialogue with the Department of Transport about how best to move towards greater accessibility. Clearly, in a Bill of this nature it is not possible to make provision for all eventualities. Some of the detail must be a matter for regulation at a later date. That is why I welcome the obligation upon future Ministers to consult before making regulations on certain types of transport.
Amendment No. 131 seeks to add to those parts of the Bill on which the Secretary of State is required to consult. It is recognised that Clauses 13 to 16 do not at present apply to any means of transport. However, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a reversal of that situation at a future date.
Amendment No. 132A recognises that it may not be appropriate to consult in all circumstances. Amendment No. 133 proposes two new subsections of Clause 46 which seeks to exclude heritage vehicles and vehicles in current use. A definition of heritage vehicles is included in a consequential amendment to Clause 60: Amendment No. 174B. It is also recognised that these regulations apply only to new vehicles. However, heritage enterprises often build replica vehicles, i.e. those that conform in appearance and character to earlier vehicles, when existing vehicles wear out. It is clearly important to ensure that those vehicles are brought within the exclusion.
Amendment No. 135 seeks to provide an additional option for the issue of an accessibility certificate. It links that new procedure with the issue of a certificate of initial fitness which all public service vehicles are required to possess.
Amendments. Nos. 151A, 153, 153A, 153B and 154 seek a requirement to consult before laying regulations or orders concerning rail and tramway vehicles. Additionally, it seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State shall have regard to the following: the time, the cost and the practicability of designing, testing, manufacturing and introducing rail vehicles with provision for wheelchair accommodation.
Finally, Amendment No. 155A deals with the exemption for road vehicles from accessibility regulations. It makes provision for the Secretary of State to provide a blanket exemption order. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I should state at the outset that we do not consider the provisions of Part III of the Bill to be appropriate for dealing with access to existing public transport. We made that clear in the early stages of the Bill. It is why transport vehicles are excluded from Part III and why we introduced provisions dealing with transport vehicles as free-standing amendments. In relation to those transport clauses we have ensured that consultation with interested parties is a key requirement. We believe that that should go far enough in providing reassurance for the transport industries and disability interests.
I also have to point out the DPTAC has a statutory duty in relation to transport issues, but it does not have expertise in other areas, for example, education or access to shops and public buildings. Amendment No. 131 is therefore misconceived in that it would require consultation on issues outside the committee's field of expertise. I have taken every opportunity to stress that we intend the accessibility regulations to apply only to new vehicles.
There are several other reasons, too, why I consider the first part of Amendment No. 133 unnecessary. First, it seeks to exclude heritage vehicles from Part III of the Bill, which deals with the general right of access to goods and services. But public transport vehicles generally are already excluded from that part of the Bill, and that general exemption also applies to heritage vehicles. Similarly, since the amendment would specifically exclude heritage vehicles from the scope of Clause 47, I can see no justification for then exempting them from the provisions of Clause 49. As drafted, that clause allows for special authorisations to be made for vehicles which would otherwise have to comply with the accessibility regulations. That in itself will allow us to deal with vehicles which might otherwise have to comply with the accessibility regulations. That in itself will allow us to deal with vehicles which might otherwise unreasonably be caught by the provisions.
I should like to take this opportunity to reassure my noble friend that we have no intention of undermining the tradition of heritage vehicles in this country. We are sure that the provisions in the Bill will give us the flexibility to ensure that we achieve that.
Turning to the second part of the amendment, which proposes to exclude "vehicles in current use", once again we have said as clearly as we can that the provisions will only apply to "new" vehicles. That was the concept first discussed in the other place and it is one to which we are totally committed. But even if there was a need to clarify this in the Bill—and I do not believe that there is—this particular amendment would not achieve it. The term "in current use" is not defined and as such would be open to the widest interpretation. Clearly, I could not accept that.
We intend that the system for issuing accessibility certificates is as simple and straightforward as possible. We do not want to add to bureaucracy or impose additional burdens on the industry. We have always envisaged that an accessibility certificate would be issued at the same time as a certificate of initial fitness. We have made that clear to industry.
464
Amendments Nos. 153 and 153A seek to make similar provisions for rail vehicles as Amendments Nos. 131 and 132A do for PSVs. I would extend the same arguments against this amendment.
It is clear that my noble friend, through a number of his amendments, is trying to ensure that consultation is an integral part in the preparation of regulations and orders under the provisions of this Bill. He need have no concerns about that as I can assure the House that full consultation, where appropriate, will be carried out.
In any event, Amendment No. 151A has no effect. There is no order-making power in Clause 53, and, even if we were to accept Amendment No. 153, there are no order-making powers in Part III on which the amendment could bite. The order-making power in Clause 54 is already subject to a consultation requirement.
I can see no justification for Amendment No. 154. We are making it clear in the Bill that accessibility regulations will apply only to new rail vehicles. We are committed to ensuring that heritage vehicles are not caught by the provisions of the accessibility regulations. The very fact that we are taking powers only for new vehicles will mean that there is no prospect of them being affected in the immediate future. In the longer term we would be able to realise our intention to exempt either by expressly excluding heritage vehicles from the scope of the regulations or by granting exemptions.
Turning to Amendment No. 153B, which seeks to establish a list of matters which should be considered as part of the regulation-making process, I would point out that these are issues which would as a matter of course be addressed. There is no need to make special provision for them, which only burdens the Bill to no additional advantage. Indeed, no Secretary of State acting properly could fail to take the matters listed in my noble friend's amendments into account.
Regulations under Clause 54 could lay down publication requirements. We believe that that approach is right. Applications will need to be considered on their merits and evaluated in the light of local conditions. That will not be achieved if we widen the provisions to include group applications, and I do not consider that to be a desirable way to approach the matter.
I hope that, with the reassurances that I have given and what I have said today about the whole issue of PSV vehicles, my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, in a few moments I shall withdraw them. I shall read every word that my noble friend has said, but there is one point which I hope I made clear to him and, if not, then I do so now. It is that I was aware that new vehicles are the only ones concerned in the regulations. However, I was talking about heritage vehicles and replicas. I do not believe that the Minister commented on the definition in Amendment No. 174B. He did not mention it. However, I am sure that the point can be sorted out.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may help my noble friend about replica vehicles. I had some trouble with the point myself today because one can have a new replica vehicle. It is a new vehicle built

465
to look like a replica, and if it is built to an old design, it will fall within a pre-1999 class. We have covered the point because in that case the class, or the new vehicle, would not be caught if it is a replica vehicle. It is a little late at night to consider all this.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, in view of that, the best thing I can do is to withdraw the amendment and sit down. I am grateful to the Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 35, line 27, leave out ("49") and insert ("48").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 132A and 133 not moved.]
Clause 47 [Accessibility certificates]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 35, line 30, at end insert ("after 1st January 1998").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that from the end of the previous discussion which I have just heard, the comments may have contained the answers to many of my questions. Both amendments concern a time limit for existing vehicles—not new vehicles—to have full access for disabled people. Amendment No. 134 was inspired by Age Concern, which was worried about rural areas and people not being able to use bus services as a result of the deregulation of older buses which are now in operation. However, if I heard him correctly, the Minister will not be looking favourably at any particular time limit. The same is true in relation to the proposal dealing with the rail service. I ask the Minister, however, as I shall move this amendment formally, whether he can give me an idea as to roughly when we can expect to have some sort of regulation and roughly when we can expect to find a general level of access to the services that are available. I beg to move.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am sorry to tell the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that I am afraid I am unable to support his amendment as the date proposed is too early. The Department of Transport, as I hope my noble friend will confirm, proposes 1st January 1999 as the earliest specifiable date for a bus or coach. Further categories will fall into place after that date. For example, there is no accessible version of the minibus and midibus up to, say, a capacity of 30 passengers. Time has to be allowed for a suitable vehicle to be designed, tested and brought into production. As I hope the noble Lord will realise, this cannot be done in the next two-and-a-half years. These buses are particularly popular across the country, especially since deregulation in 1986.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I support these amendments. I can see the purpose behind them. It would be helpful if the Minister could give an answer (this is obviously a probing amendment) as to the sort of timetable that is envisaged and when he thinks these various adaptations and changes will come into effect.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the last questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, are quite difficult to answer in a definitive way. As my noble friend Lord Teviot has just explained, one must not set
466
unrealistic timetables in this regard because clearly they will be impossible to meet and still allow services in the countryside to continue. We certainly could not possibly envisage imposing the kind of timeframe proposed in Amendment No. 134 in the case of compliance with PSV accessibility regulations.
As I explained in Committee, although we are well advanced in the development of accessible PSVs, there remain some classes, most notably minibuses and coaches, where we do not yet have viable access solutions. We are committed to working with the industry on that, but it will take time to ensure that the solutions that are adopted can provide effective and sustainable transport services.
Manufacturers and operators would be unable to achieve the deadline which this amendment would impose. To stay in business, operators would have to resort to applications for special authorisations to continue to operate their vehicle fleets. That would impose an unreasonable burden on them and on the administrators. At the same time, the amendment would have failed to achieve its purpose of securing a fully accessible fleet.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that we are wholly committed to moving these provisions along as quickly as possible. But we also have to recognise the operational and economic issues. Losing bus and coach services would undermine public transport across the country; no one would have the services they want, and disabled people would not have secured the access to those services that we all want them to achieve.
I now turn to the noble Lord's other amendment, Amendment No. 155, which relates to rail vehicles. We have made it clear that the timetable for compliance with rail vehicle accessibility regulations will have to recognise the operating life of the vehicles, as well as the aspirations of disabled people. The intention behind the amendment is that all rail vehicles should meet the requirements of accessibility before the end of 1997. That is simply unreasonable. It would involve expensive modification and, more importantly, the premature scrapping of existing vehicles.
Even if the rail operators could afford to make the change within that timeframe, it is unlikely that manufacturers could meet the demand. Orders for rail vehicles are often delivered over a two to three-year period. But operators would have to be sure about the requirements of the accessibility regulations before they could place their orders. So the timeframe for compliance imposed by this amendment would effectively be reduced to perhaps a year or 18 months. That is simply unachievable and would be likely to result in the withdrawal of services across the country. I know that nobody wants that.
I do not want to be a bit of damp squib at this time of the evening, but there are some problems in this field. While solutions are available in some parts of the field, the problem is that difficulties remain. Therefore I am afraid that I am unable to advise the House to accept the noble Lord's amendment. I am sure that he will withdraw it. Equally, I should not like to hazard a guess as to the possible dates when this operation would begin. It is dependent on how successfully we can reach

467
conclusions on technical solutions to some of the problems. I hope that, with that explanation and assurance, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
10 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for being so candid in his answer. Basically he is saying that we cannot do it so fast because the resources are not available. At 10 o'clock at night, when we are not able to put extra effort into this point for various reasons, many of them very practical, I will not press the matter. I thank the noble Lord for his answer; at least we know where we stand. I hope the pressure groups which inspired me to table the amendment will pay attention to what has been said and come forward at the next stage with an answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
Clause 48 [Approval certificates]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 136 and 137:
Page 36, line 15, after ("examining") insert ("(if he thinks fit)").
Page 36, line 16, leave out ("if he thinks fit").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments. With the leave of the House I will move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 50 [Forgery of certificates and false statements]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 138 to 143:
Page 37, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("(1) In this section "relevant document" means—

(a) a certificate of exemption issued under section 30 or 31;

(b) a notice of a kind mentioned in section 30(9) (b) or 31(8) (b);

(c) an accessibility certificate; or

(d) an approval certificate.").

Page 37, line 10, leave out ("certificate to which this section applies") and insert ("relevant document").
Page 37, line 11, leave out ("such a certificate") and insert ("a relevant document").
Page 37, line 12, leave out ("such a certificate") and insert ("a relevant document").
Page 37, line 14, leave out ("such a certificate") and insert ("a relevant document").
Page 37, line 21, leave out ("a certificate to which this section applies") and insert ("an accessibility certificate or an approval certificate").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments. With the leave of the House I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 52 [Fees]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 38, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) Before making any regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult such representative organisations as he thinks fit.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Rail vehicle accessibility regulations]:
[Amendments Nos. 145 to 147 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 148 to 151:
Page 39, leave out line 4.
Page 39, line 11, after second ("vehicle") insert ("—
(a)").
Page 39, line 12, at end insert ("and
(b) first brought into use, or belonging to a class of vehicle first brought into use, after 31st December 1998;").
Page 39, line 21, at end insert:
("(7A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the time when a rail vehicle, or a class of rail vehicle, is to be treated, for the purposes of this section, as first brought into use.
(7B) Regulations under subsection (7A) may include provision for disregarding periods of testing and other prescribed periods of use.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments. With the leave of the House I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 151A not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 39, line 25, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 153 to 155 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations]:
[Amendment No. 155A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]
Clause 55 [Offences by bodies corporate etc.]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 157:
Transpose Clauses 46 to 49, 51 to 55 and 50 to after Clause 33.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Application to Crown etc.]:
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley)The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley) moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 41, line 1, after ("Police") insert (", the British Transport Police, the Royal Parks Constabulary or the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 158 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 159 to 165. In another place it was made clear that four occupations were to be excluded—the Armed Forces, the police, firefighters and prison staff. Amendments were passed to make clear that the Aimed Forces will not be covered by the Bill. Firefighters, prison officers and the MoD police were then specifically excluded.
The amendments now before us make minor additions to the existing exclusions, but remain within the four occupation groups. They exempt from the employment provisions prison custody officers, MoD firefighters, specially constituted national police forces—that is, the Atomic Energy Authorities Constabulary, British Transport police and the Royal Parks Constabulary.
That completes the list of occupations that we intend to exclude from the employment right and there is no power in the Bill to make more. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we understand the purport of the Government's amendments and obviously debated them fairly thoroughly at Committee stage. In terms of the Armed Forces, we would not particularly dissent from the position of the Government. But it is clear that with some of the other services, where one does not expect every person involved to be in the "firing line"—to use a military metaphor:—in terms of police, the fire or prison service, there are occupations within those services which can be perfectly well occupied by people with a disability. It is important that that be remembered. Men and women serving in those disciplined forces may well incur an injury or disability in the course of their work and would like to feel that they would have the opportunity to continue their career and employment within those services in appropriate occupations, whether it be behind desks, in lost property, reception work or the like.
I appreciate that those services are exempt as they now stand, but I know that the Police Federation, and I understand that this may also apply to the Prison Officers' Association, would welcome reassurances that the Government will at least encourage the directors of those forces—chief constables and so forth—while respecting the fact that they are exempt from the operation of the Act, nonetheless to seek to make accommodation wherever possible for disabled officers, particularly those whose disability has been incurred in the course of service.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I start by expressing just a faint degree of surprise at the noble Baroness's remarks. She accepts that the Armed Forces should be excluded, which I welcome, and she made that quite clear at Report stage. What surprised me was that on Tuesday her noble friend Lord McCarthy said (at col. 177 of Hansard) that noble Lords on his side of the House had attempted to have the Armed Forces included in the Bill. I always find it rather confusing when different noble Lords from the Front Bench opposite make rather confusing statements.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, at the Committee stage we sought to include those occupations within the Armed Forces which were not in the firing line. However, we accepted the Minister's argument that one of the distinctions between the Armed Forces and the other civilian disciplined forces was that at the last resort every member of the Armed Forces—even, for example, canteen cooks—might be expected to bear arms and so on, and since then we have concentrated on the other services.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness says. We do not mind what the noble Baroness's noble friends say from the Back Benches, but we expect a degree of consistency from the Front Bench. The noble Baroness said perfectly clearly in Committee that she would not argue the case to include the Armed Forces in the employment provisions. I was therefore a little surprised by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on Tuesday that noble Lords on his side had attempted to have the Armed Forces included in the Bill. If the noble Lord wants to check his remarks, he can look at col. 177 of the Official Report for Tuesday, 18th July.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Henley: No, my Lords, I am not going to take an intervention. I just make the point that I prefer to have a little consistency.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord is amazingly easily surprised.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I just make the point that I expect some consistency.
Perhaps I may make one or two points in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I accept her remark that not all those in the police force or those whom I have just described are necessarily in the firing line, as she put it. The important point is exactly the same as the point we made about the Armed Forces. All those in the Armed Forces expect that they might be in the firing line.
Her more substantive point about those who acquire disabilities while they are in those services is perfectly valid. What I should like to do is to refer back to my experience from my time in the Ministry of Defence and my knowledge of the Armed Forces. Where people do acquire disabilities the Armed Forces bend over backwards to retain them where it is possible. If it is not possible, they will have to be discharged from the Armed Forces, but with pensions and so on. I note the noble Baroness's remarks about encouraging the other services to which she referred to retain, where it is possible, individual members with the disabilities that they have acquired without detriment to those services as a whole. That is obviously desirable. I see the odd nod from the noble Baroness opposite. I hope that she accepts the merits of the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 159 to 165:
Page 41, line 1, leave out ("or").
Page 41, line 2, at end insert ("; or
( ) for purposes of a Minister of the Crown or government department having functions with respect to defence as a person who is or may be required by his terms of service to engage in fire fighting.").
Page 41, line 9, at end insert:
('"'British Transport Police" means the constables appointed, or deemed to have been appointed, under section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949;").
Page 41, line 20, leave out from second ("of) to end of line 24 and insert ("that Act;").
Page 41, line 24, at end insert:
(""Royal Parks Constabulary" means the park constables appointed under the Parks Regulation Act 1872;").
Page 41, line 29, leave out ("and").
Page 41, line 30, at end insert ("; and
"United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary" means the special constables appointed under section 3 of the Special Constables Act 1923 on the nomination of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
Clause 59 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 42, line 18, at end insert ("or localities").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 42, line 29, after ("section") insert ("3(9)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 14 on Tuesday. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 42, line 35, at end insert:
("( ) Nothing in section 28(5), 46(6) or 53(5) affects the powers conferred by subsections (2) and (3).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Interpretation]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 42, line 36, at end insert:
(""accessibility certificate" means a certificate issued under section 47(1) (a);").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 171 and speak to Amendments Nos. 172, 174, 174A, 175, 176, 177 and 178. Amendment No. 174A is a consequential amendment to Clause 60 resulting from the inclusion of trade organisations and clarifies the meaning of "benefits" for the purpose of Part II of the Bill. The remaining amendments to Clause 60, beginning with Amendment No. 171, are consequential amendments dealing with the interpretation of the terms which have been introduced in the transport clauses. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 172 to 174A:
Page 42, leave out line 37.
Page 42, line 38, at end insert:
(""approval certificate" means a certificate issued under section 48(4);").
Page 42, line 38, at end insert:
(""benefits", in Part II, has the meaning given in section 4(4);").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 174B not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 175 to 178:
Page 43, line 22, at end insert:
(""PSV accessibility regulations" means regulations made under section 46(1);").
Page 43, line 24, at end insert:
(""rail vehicle accessibility regulations" means regulations made under section 53(1);").
Page 43, line 28, leave out from (""taxi"") to end of line 30 and insert ("and "regulated taxi" have the meaning given in section 27;").
Page 43, line 30, at end insert:
(""taxi accessibility regulations" means regulations made under section 27(1);").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 171. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 43, line 30, at end insert:
(""trade organisation" has the meaning given in section (Discrimination by trade organisations).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 51.1 beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Short title, commencement, extent etc]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 180 and 181:
Page 44, line 8, leave out ("and (5)") and insert (", (5) and (6A)").
Page 44, line 17, at end insert:
("(6A) In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies whose members are disqualified) in each case insert at the appropriate places—

"The National Disability Council."

"The Northern Ireland Disability Council."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Modifications of this Act in its Application to Northern Ireland]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 55, leave out line 11 and insert:
("(2) In section (taxi accessibility regulations) (5) for the definition of "taxi" substitute —
""taxi" means a vehicle which—

(a) is licensed under Article 61 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to stand or ply for hire; and

(b) seats not more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 183 to 195. As the House will be aware, Northern Ireland has its own separate body of legislation and administrative structures. Schedule 7 sets out modifications to the provisions of the Bill so that they fit in with existing Northern Ireland legislation and structures. These amendments contain some further modifications to Schedule 7 and ensure that the provisions of the Bill are implemented in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom. For those reasons I invite the House to accept them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 183 to195:
Page 55, line 16, after second ("the") insert ("taxi").
Page 55, line 18, leave out from ("apply") to end of line 22 and insert ("if, immediately before the grant of the licence, such a licence is in force with respect to the vehicle.").
Page 55, line 33, at end insert:
(".—(1) In section (PSV accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (PSV accessibility regulations) (5) for the definition of "public service vehicle" substitute—
""public service vehicle" means a vehicle which—

(a) seats more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver; and

(b) is a public service vehicle for the purposes of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981;".

(3) In section (PSV accessibility regulations) (8) for the words from "the Disabled" to the end substitute "such representative organisations as it thinks fit".
.—(1) In section (Accessibility certificates) (2) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Accessibility certificates) for subsections (3) and (4) substitute—
"(3) Any person who uses a regulated public service vehicle in contravention of this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.".
.—(1) In section (Approval certificates) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Approval certificates) (1) for "he" substitute "it".
(3) In section (Approval certificates) (6) for "his" substitute "its".
. In section (Special authorizations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
.—(1) In section (Reviews and appeals) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Reviews and appeals) (2) for "him" substitute "it".
(3) In section (Reviews and appeals) (6) for "he" substitute "it" and for "his" substitute "its".
.—(1) In section (Fees) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Fees) (2) for "him" substitute "it" and at the end add "of Northern Ireland".
.—(1) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (6) in the definition of "rail vehicle" for the words "on any railway, tramway or prescribed system" substitute "by rail".
(3) Omit section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (7).
(4) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (9) for the words from "the Disabled" to the end substitute "such representative organisations as it thinks fit".
.—(1) In section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (3) for the words "the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other persons as he" substitute "such persons as it" and for "he" substitute "it".
. Omit section (Offences by bodies corporate etc.) (3).").
Page 59, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) In section 56(5) (a) omit the words from ", the British" to the end.").
(".—(1) In section (PSV accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (PSV accessibility regulations) (5) for the definition of "public service vehicle" substitute—
""public service vehicle" means a vehicle which—

(a) seats more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver; and

(b) is a public service vehicle for the purposes of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981;".

(3) In section (PSV accessibility regulations) (8) for the words from "the Disabled" to the end substitute "such representative organisations as it thinks fit".
.—(1) In section (Accessibility certificates) (2) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Accessibility certificates) for subsections (3) and (4) substitute —
"(3) Any person who uses a regulated public service vehicle in contravention of this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.".
.—(1) In section (Approval certificates) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Approval certificates) (1) for "he" substitute "it".
(3) In section (Approval certificates) (6) for "his" substitute "its".
. In section (Special authorizations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
.—(1) In section (Reviews and appeals) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Reviews and appeals) (2) for "him" substitute "it".
(3) In section (Reviews and appeals) (6) for "he" substitute "it" and for "his" substitute "its".
.—(1) In section (Fees) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Fees) (2) for "him" substitute "it" and at the end add "of Northern Ireland".
.—(1) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (6) in the definition of "rail vehicle" for the words "on any railway, tramway or prescribed system" substitute "by rail".
(3) Omit section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (7).
(4) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (9) for the words from "the Disabled" to the end substitute "such representative organisations as it thinks fit".
.—(1) In section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (3) for the words "the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other persons as he" substitute "such persons as it" and for "he" substitute "it".
. Omit section (Offences by bodies corporate etc.) (3).").
Page 59, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) omit the definitions of "British Transport Police", "Royal Parks Constabulary" and "United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary";").
Page 59, line 42, leave out ("and").
Page 59, line 45, at end insert:
(".Omit section (Application to Parliament)").
Page 60, line 24, at end insert:
("(7) Subsection (1) does not require an order under section (Special authorizations) which applies only to a specified vehicle, or to vehicles of a specified person, to be made by statutory rule.
(8) Nothing in section (PSV accessibility regulations) (6) or (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (5) affects the powers conferred by subsections (2) and (3).").
Page 60, leave out line 27 and insert:
(""accessibility certificate" means a certificate issued under section (Accessibility certificates) (1) (a);").
Page 60, line 29, at end insert:
(""approval certificate" means a certificate issued under section (Approval certificates) (4);").
Page 60, line 51, at end insert:
(""public service vehicle" and "regulated public service vehicle" have the meaning given in section (PSV accessibility regulations);
"PSV accessibility regulations" means regulations made under section (PSV accessibility regulations) (1);
"rail vehicle" and "regulated rail vehicle" have the meaning given in section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations);
"rail vehicle accessibility regulations" means regulations made under section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) (l);").
Page 61, leave out lines 10 to 15 and insert:
(""taxi" and "regulated taxi" have the meaning given in section (Taxi accessibility regulations);
"taxi accessibility regulations" means regulations made under section (Taxi accessibility regulations) (1);
476
"vehicle examiner" means an officer of the Department of the Environment authorised by that Department for the purposes of sections (Accessibility certificates) and (Approval certificates)''').
Page 61, line 17, at end insert:
("(3) In section 60(6) for "1944" substitute "(Northern Ireland) 1945".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 196 and 197:
Page 62, leave out line 13.
Page 62, leave out lines 19 to 26.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  Emma Humphries: Court Transcripts
  Emma Humphries: Court Transcripts
  Resolution (77)31
  Resolution (77)31
  Recommendation R(80)2
  Recommendation R(80)2
  HB 876 Anti-personnel Mine
  HB 876 Anti-personnel Mine
  Lead in Drinking Water: Leaflet
  Lead in Drinking Water: Leaflet
  Latent Defects Liability and "Build" Insurance
  Latent Defects Liability and "Build" Insurance
  Countryside Commission Chairman
  Countryside Commission Chairman
  PPG6: Revised Draft
  PPG6: Revised Draft
  Environment Agency: Regional Boundaries
  Environment Agency: Regional Boundaries
  No. 2 Marsham Street: Redevelopment
  No. 2 Marsham Street: Redevelopment
  Planning Conditions: Development Control
  Planning Conditions: Development Control
  "Our Future Homes": Statements
  "Our Future Homes": Statements
  Wembley Stadium: Noise
  Wembley Stadium: Noise
  Planning Conditions: Enforcement
  Planning Conditions: Enforcement
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link: Design Standard
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link: Design Standard
  Alleged Gulf War Syndrome and French Servicemen
  Alleged Gulf War Syndrome and French Servicemen
  Alleged Gulf War Syndrome: Liaison with US
  Alleged Gulf War Syndrome: Liaison with US
  Commonwealth Development Corporation: New Approvals
  Commonwealth Development Corporation: New Approvals
  Sierra Leone: Military Assistance
  Sierra Leone: Military Assistance
  Palestinians Detained by Israel
  Palestinians Detained by Israel
  Croatia: Military Operation
  Croatia: Military Operation
  Foreign Affairs Council
  Foreign Affairs Council
  Court of Final Appeal, Hong Kong
  Court of Final Appeal, Hong Kong
  Turkish Operation in Northern Iraq
  Turkish Operation in Northern Iraq
  Turkey, Arrests in Ankara, 6th July
  Turkey, Arrests in Ankara, 6th July
  EU Judgments: Consistency
  EU Judgments: Consistency
  CAP: Reform
  CAP: Reform
  China: Human Rights
  China: Human Rights
  Standards in Public Life
  Standards in Public Life
  Eurostar Services: Immigration Controls
  Eurostar Services: Immigration Controls
  Airport Immigration Controls: Channelling Arrangements
  Airport Immigration Controls: Channelling Arrangements
  Oxford Prison: Category of Prisoners
  Oxford Prison: Category of Prisoners
  M.77 and A.77 Road Improvements
  M.77 and A.77 Road Improvements
  Highlands and Islands Veterinary Services
  Highlands and Islands Veterinary Services
  Shetland Oil Spill: Response to Report
  Shetland Oil Spill: Response to Report
  Prospective Adopters of Babies from China: Procedure
  Prospective Adopters of Babies from China: Procedure
  Homeless Mentally Ill: Rehabilitation
  Homeless Mentally Ill: Rehabilitation
  "Community Study of Physical Violence to Children in the Home and Associated Variables"
  "Community Study of Physical Violence to Children in the Home and Associated Variables"
  European Affairs: Cabinet Responsibility
  European Affairs: Cabinet Responsibility
  First Secretary of State: House of Lords Ministerial Responsibility
  First Secretary of State: House of Lords Ministerial Responsibility