House of Commons Hansard Debates for 31 Oct 1995

Ms Lynne: I was disappointed by the Minister's reply to my intervention. Local authorities that are taking positive measures should be congratulated. We must address the problem of under-representation in the work force of local authorities and what the Minister suggests will not take us far enough on that road. It is wrong that progressive local authorities such as the one in Rochdale will be blocked from taking these positive measures. Rochdale has a priority interview scheme in social services and, although we cannot totally assess it at the moment, according to the local government information unit there is benefit from it in, for instance, educating managers in how to judge a disabled candidate's ability to do a job rather than judging the perceived disadvantages, a practice that has often occurred in the past.

Column 123

We have to tackle under-representation in local authorities. For decades, they have been as guilty of discrimination as other employers. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 set a target of 3 per cent., but it has been missed by a long way. Only 1 per cent. of employees of London authorities are disabled people and the average is worse for county councils. Borough and district councils are slightly better, but it is vital to allow local authorities to tackle this problem.

I should like more clarification from the Minister on what he means by positive measures and whether he thinks they will meet the target. Under the Bill, the target is to go. Will the Minister's positive measures get more disabled people into the work force of local authorities? Priority interview schemes should be allowed to continue. The Bill repeals parts of the 1944 Act and changes to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 will prevent local authorities from pursuing such schemes. The Government must give a firm commitment on what will replace them.

Some positive measures are reinforced by the Bill. Clause 10 deals with charities and supported employment being able to take positive action. Why not local authorities? They should be able to take the same action as other employers and should have the freedom to tackle the under-representation of disabled people in the work force. I should be glad to hear the Minister spell that out in more detail because I am extremely worried about it.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Can the Minister guarantee that the powers to make regulations in Lords amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 will not be used to undermine the assistance given to disabled people under the access to work scheme? In the view of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Government are already putting undue pressure on a whole range of employers to volunteer to pay a contribution to access to work. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that any weakening of access to work would run completely contrary to the intentions set out in the Bill to tackle discrimination against disabled people in employment?

I am delighted to follow in the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster). He is as true a friend of disabled people as one will find anywhere in this country. He worked with disabled people before he came here and has shown constancy of the highest order in their service since the moment he arrived at Westminster. I count him among my most honoured parliamentary colleagues and wish him all success in what I am sure will be a deservedly long and distinguished Front-Bench career.

The Minister said that it was an important purpose of this part of the Bill to ensure that an employer could appoint the best person for any vacant post. Hon. Members will appreciate that, having legislated so extensively on disability over the past 25 years, I receive a national post from disabled people and their organisations. I am told by disabled people in all parts of Britain that they are refused access to jobs for which they are well qualified due to misconceptions on the part of employers.

I recall the case of a very capable woman who, in keen competition, won a senior post in a big police authority. Having taken the job, she was told that, because of a disability that in no way affected her job, she would be excluded from the superannuation scheme. That was a

Column 124

most important consideration as far as she was concerned. I recall the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation contacting me about that particular case. The Minister's predecessors are aware of case after case where I have been asked to do everything possible to ensure that disabled people who have proved their fitness for jobs are not disbarred by actions taken by unreasonable employers. It is that sort of gratuitous extra handicap that so upsets disabled people. In that particular case, the woman had to decide whether to carry on in the job that she had won in open competition or to look for something else. That cannot be right. We are not absolutely certain yet that there will be fewer opportunities to exploit people in that kind of difficulty if the Bill as drafted becomes law. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South talked about the 3 per cent. quota. The quota has not been implemented through legal action since the 1970s. It has many critics. The fact that is very important today for disabled people is that a Bill that seeks to increase the rights of disabled people takes a right away from them that they regard as still very important. They say, "You must not do away with an existing form of protection without introducing something stronger." My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South knew, from the work that he did among disabled people before he entered Parliament, how important the 3 per cent. quota was in terms of local government employment. He mentioned it today and I hope that the Minister will respond positively on that issue.

Let no one speak in accents of serene satisfaction about what is now proposed. That is not how disabled people see what we are doing today. They want full and enforceable civil rights and they want them without any further delay.

5 pm

Mr. Connarty: When I stand to speak in the debate, I am aware that I follow people who have ploughed a deep and clear furrow in the cause of fighting for people with disabilities, but I wish to support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and to congratulate him on his first Front-Bench appointment. I look forward to seeing him on those Front Benches for many years to come.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South made the important point that some serious concerns must exist as to the purpose of the Government's removal of the 3 per cent. quota, which was not just a protection, but the only piece of positive and affirmative action contained in the law for disabled persons.

As some people have said, in many respects it had fallen into disuse. Sixteen years of recession since the Government came to power meant that many corners were cut. That is the reality at the sharp cutting edge. People had to choose between an employee who might have had to be cosseted or protected slightly more, or whose productivity was slightly less than others. In the economic environment created by the Government, employers did not choose those people where they did in the past.

It was local authorities, in the majority of cases Labour and other non- Conservative local authorities, that took seriously the 3 per cent. quota. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South said, the "Fit for Work" award was often given when the local authority or other

Column 125

employers had not reached the 3 per cent. quota, but were seen to taking affirmative action, not just not to discriminate against disabled persons, but to discriminate in their favour.

Some people would say that the 3 per cent. quota had fallen into misuse. It was clear that employers and often local authorities, I am sorry to say, encouraged people in employment who had a minor injury or minor disability to register as a disabled person to obtain a green card for a broken limb, thumb or finger, but that was not the purpose of the original Act.

I was also a Scottish local authority leader for 10 years. We were proud to receive the "Fit for Work" award, but we did not reach the 3 per cent. target, although we tried hard to do so--not by trying to get people to register for the green card, but by seeking people who would fit that bill and then positively discriminating towards them under the 3 per cent. rule. That power has been removed by the Government in schedule 4: they are removing the positive discrimination and saying that posts must be awarded on merit. In an intervention, I asked the Minister what the Government would do and he mentioned preferential training schemes, special recruitment drives to encourage disabled people to apply for a vacancy, and interviews of all suitable disabled people for potential vacancies. In reality, however, he is saying that those people should queue up and then be chopped down on the basis of merit.

Someone will be able to say, "I deserve that job on merit, a disabled person does not deserve it on merit, and therefore he has no complaint under the Government's Bill." That is not the spirit that, in my experience, made local authorities use the 3 per cent. quota. I wish to give an example to the House. When I was leader of Stirling district council, we had a vacancy for someone to operate the switchboard and to work on reception. We were offered many people with minor ailments and disabilities, but the position was so accessible to someone with severe disability that we wanted the disablement officer to find us someone who had the ability but major problems of mobility. The council's attention was brought to a young woman called Jean--I shall not mention her second name, but I am sure that she would be proud to be mentioned. She has also been featured in many articles.

Jean was a seriously disabled person because thalidomide had been taken by her mother; she had foreshortened limbs. She had some trepidation about coming into a job, especially that of a receptionist working on a switchboard and facing the public, but she had a bold character. We made all the amendments necessary to give that young person access to the council.

Within a couple of years, Jean blossomed. She is still working with the local authority in reception, and in an upfront role. She takes the other receptionists to work in her disabled-amended car. She has a pilot's licence for gliding, and in the workplace has taken on board all the skills necessary. She has developed not only the personality for working in the reception and the technical skills, but everything required of her.

That was positive discrimination by the local authority, but it is clear that, under this Bill, no matter how one advertised the post, one would have great difficulty not

Column 126

discriminating positively--in other words, breaking the law--to give someone such as Jean the sort of job that she requires. A local authority, public employer or a large employer deserves a "Fit for Work" award when they positively discriminate, because that is what persons with disabilities are looking for. To receive such an award, it is important that an authority or large employer should be able to hold their head up among people who suffer from severe disablement. The Minister mentioned the word gung-ho in referring to the Opposition's pleasure at the Government's climbdown on a number of issues in the Lords. Over the past 18 months, we have recognised, from the way that persons with disabilities have come to the House and lobbied, that they have acquired a new, louder voice. Talk about gung-ho--we will see some gung-ho action on this Bill, because those people will fight for every chance to prove that they need more from the Government. They will batter down the doors of the House until they are given equal rights and a positive discrimination framework that gives them access to true employment, which they deserve and which they will undertake with honour.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Amendment No. 4 deals with the comparative for assessing whether an employer's treatment of an individual is less favourable. That is but one instance of a problem that we will have to reflect on and on which the Government owe the House some guidance this afternoon. We are dealing with an extremely complex piece of primary legislation, with further extensive and no doubt complex secondary legislation to follow.

The Government have not made it clear how an employer, a provider of goods and services or a disabled person is to understand what the nature of their obligations is. How is an employer to make his assessment of whether his treatment is, under the terms of the legislation, less favourable or not? The Minister sought to explain the Government's case on that, but did not cast all the light on it that may be needed.

The Minister with responsibility for disabled people told us in a debate the week before last that he had it in mind that there should be a fairly extensive system for provision of information and advice, but I do not think that the details have been made clear. This debate would provide an opportunity for the Government to make more clear to hon. Members and--very important--to the field that they have in mind. Most of what we know so far is what the Government have ruled out. We know that there is not to be a disability rights commission which would have responsibilities for briefing and education, analogous to those of the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Commission for Racial Equality. We also know that the National Disability Council is not to be involved--certainly it is not to have a role in advising in particular cases and circumstances.

We have been advised that there is to be a central helpline, perhaps located in the Department of Social Security, and we have also been told that there will be some sort of second tier and network around the country whereby advice will be made available. This is an urgent and important point. In all the complexities of this legislation, we will need advice that is clear, consistent and accessible and that is provided on a cost- effective basis, in relation both to the providers and to the seekers of the advice.

Column 127

It is important that whatever advice is on offer should be readily accessible. It would be helpful, therefore, if the Minister told us a little more about the helpline. For example, will it be a freephone? If somebody seeking to use it is held in a queue of callers, will the courtesy of a return call be offered, or will he or she have to wait, fuming and increasingly impatient and frustrated, in the queue? What will people find in the local telephone directory when they seek to discover how to take advantage of the service that the Government intend to make available? If they manage to get through and to consult someone, what guidance will be on offer?

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has spent a very great deal of time over recent years assisting people with special learning difficulties. He will be aware of the work of People First, and in particular of Simone Aspis of that organisation. She has asked that this debate should take account of young people with special learning difficulties, who will find it very hard to get the information they need about their rights. She gives the example of a young person who is refused access to a social club, a youth club, because of having Down's syndrome. A person with special learning difficulties trying to find out her rights under this legislation will have no easy task. I know that my hon. Friend is as seized of the importance of that as are many others on this side of the House.

Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend provides an excellent example of the need that I have sought to describe. It is a happy circumstance that the Minister present comes from the newly combined Department for Education and Employment, which has particular responsibility for young people, including those whom People First exists to represent and support. The Minister's Department has responsibility for the youth service--or what remains of it.

Certainly the needs of disabled young people, and the needs of the youth service that seeks to serve young people, represent an important example of an area in which there will be a demand for advice.

I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the House what guidance he and other Ministers intend to give to Whitehall, to Government agencies, to non-departmental public bodies, to quangos and to the rest of our increasingly fragmented system of government, as well as to local authorities.

At present, there is great uncertainty. The CBI suggests that the range of services to be provided will be so extensive that it may include a mediation service. I cannot see how that could be so, but it would be encouraging if it were.

What will be the nature and extent of the advice available? Where will it come from, and what can people expect to be advised upon? Will they be told the nature of their obligations under the various elements of the legislation? Will they be given guidance, for example, on the practical meaning of "reasonableness" in a particular set of circumstances? Will they be advised as to what is "best practice", and about the developing body of case law resulting from tribunal hearings? Will they be told where to go for further advice on technical and specialised matters?

Column 128

May we be told today about the funding of the system? What resources will be available for a system that must go well beyond the present PACTs--placement, assessment and counselling teams--and CEDPs--committees for the employment of disabled people? I am sure that the citizens advice bureaux will want to play what part they can in the system, and what they can do is invariably most helpful, but traditionally they have not been able to shoulder responsibilities of the sort suggested. If the Government seek to enlist them for the purpose, what will they do to help them? What resources will be provided for them?

There is already a pretty tangled and impenetrable cat's cradle of services, bodies and organisations, so it is vital that everyone concerned should know what they can expect in the way of information and advice.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), whom I warmly congratulate on his appointment to the Front Bench, said to the Minister that the Bill as amended would prevent local authorities from taking the positive action that many of them have so valuably undertaken to promote better employment opportunities for disabled people, the Minister shook his head. It is therefore important that, if he has the leave of the House to respond to the debate, the Minister makes it clear what diminution the Government intend in the scope of local authorities to support the employment of disabled people through positive action--or whether he considers that the status quo will be preserved.

5.15 pm

I put it to the Government that public authorities should set the best standards in employment, and should have every assistance and support from the Government in doing so--not only because they are major employers, but because they are public authorities, and it is right that they should set a model.

Too many public authorities do not set a good example. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has over the years tabled a series of questions and elicited much information about the disappointing performance of Whitehall Departments and other publicly funded bodies in the employment of disabled people, and the manner in which they have all too often ignored the quota by which the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 bound them.

However, many local authorities do set a high standard and provide a good model in that respect, with their positive disposition and the positive action that they have been willing to take. The Bill should at least safeguard local authorities so that they are not in a weaker position than private employers if they wish to act positively towards disabled people in their employment practices. After all, local authorities are expressive of their communities, and should take the lead within those communities in supporting those who are disadvantaged and in demonstrating best practice.

Such legislation is enormously important, not only for what it specifically provides but for its more broadly ranging declaratory effect. I mean not words without substance but legislation that articulates the values that we as a society should uphold and seek to realise in practice. Such legislation has an important educative role, and there should be nothing in it that seeks to discourage or restrain employers from best practice in the employment of disabled people.

Column 129

As it is, there are too many equivocations, omissions and vaguenesses in the Bill. As has been said, it is sad that the Government are not willing to embrace the universal principle set out in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. We should not at this stage countenance any amendment of the Bill before us that would take us backwards rather than forwards towards the realisation of what should be the objective of all of us--an end to discrimination against disabled people in employment and in the provision of goods and services.

Mr. John Heppell (Nottingham, East): I shall not speak long, but I start by congratulating those who served on the Committee, who have achieved the almost impossible in turning a sow's ear into a silk purse. I say "almost impossible", because there are still omissions from the Bill that I would like to put right. One of those is the absence of a commission, because--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We cannot at this stage debate omissions from the Bill. We have plenty to debate as it is.

Mr. Heppell: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was leading on towards the more relevant subject of the clauses concerned. First, I shall say something about the 3 per cent. quota that has disappeared. Like many other hon. Members, I have been a councillor, and I had the responsibility of being a chair of equal opportunities and the chair of a disability sub-committee. We were able to do things on that disability sub-committee that we could not do in committees on race or gender. I would like the same laws to apply in all areas, and I would like there to be a commission for disability, as is the case for both gender and race.

The 3 per cent. quota is not just a mechanism, and by removing it, the Minister is also removing something from councils. The quota gives a target and a perspective to councils. My council did not have its solicitors in the background on the subject of disability, saying, "We are not sure that the council has the power to do this," in the same way as it did on the subjects of race and gender, but that is what will happen in the future. We can see already that there some things that we can do in terms of positive action, but there are other things that we cannot do. I cannot seen any reason why the 3 per cent. quota could not have co-existed with the provisions of the Bill.

I wish to ask the Minister about Lords Amendment No. 31 which plans to insert the words

"Except in such circumstances as may be prescribed".

Will the Minister confirm my suspicion that part III of the Bill will not apply to clubs or societies in relation to the provision of services for their members?

Does that mean that a Bill designed to outlaw discrimination will allow discrimination against people who are members of a pigeon fanciers' society? Does proper access and provision need to be made by a garden centre, but not by a gardening club? It seems to me that there is an anomaly there, and the Minister should tell the House what measures the Bill contains to take action against a service provider which limits its services to members while continuing to discriminate unfairly against people with disabilities.

Column 130

Can the Minister clarify the position of business, and particularly shareholders? Will it be necessary for a company having its general meeting to make sure that the building is accessible to people with disabilities? Will the information to shareholders be sent in a form of communication that suits people--such as braille, large letters or tapes? If not, people will be discriminated against.

Will copyright matters be considered circumstances "as may be prescribed"? I understand from the Royal National Institute for the Blind that some famous authors will not allow their books to be put on tape or made into braille for blind people, thus denying blind people the right of access to those books. That is serious enough, but the fact that those books may form part of a set text for an exam that a blind person might have to take makes the matter even more serious. If that is a prescribed matter, will the Minister tell us what he proposes to do about it? Will the National Disability Council be allowed to investigate the matter further if it is prescribed? The Bill is in many ways a milestone in terms of disability discrimination legislation, but it is not the end. There are still many things which need to be done if we are to ensure that people with disabilities enjoy the same civil rights as those of us in the Chamber. After tonight, I hope that people will not say that this is the end of the chapter and that we can now forget disabled people. There is still a long way to go to make people with disabilities free and liberated in society.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East): I wish to make some brief points on this batch of amendments. The Government have again shown that they do not understand local authorities. As employers, local authorities are not the same as businesses. They are elected authorities, with particularly close links with citizens, whose values are shaped by those citizens. They must seek to shape attitudes within an area.

By not allowing the quota system to operate and not allowing positive discrimination, the Government are seriously affecting local authorities. The Derbyshire Coalition of Disabled People--an activist body working for disabled rights--is based in Clay Cross in north-east Derbyshire. That group undoubtedly has had a great impact upon local authorities throughout Derbyshire, none more than North-East Derbyshire district council.

Programmes such as "Towards Equality", in which disabled people are trained for jobs with a local authority or another organisation, are very important. Such programmes may now be taken away from local authorities because of a spurious argument about level playing fields and about how disabled people generally are to benefit from the provisions of the legislation. Local authorities are special, because the views of local people are reflected back to them, and we should take that seriously into account.

My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) visited the Derbyshire Coalition for Disabled People and the district council, and he understands the close connection between them and the impact that that organisation of disabled people run by disabled people has made. It would be a pity if the organisation now found itself fighting a harder battle with local authorities in areas where it has previously had its greatest response.

My second point arises from points raised during the debate on the first batch of amendments. It was mentioned that a cost assessment of the operation of the Bill would

Column 131

be considered. We have always asked how many people are supposed to be covered by the Disability Discrimination Bill.

We know that a cost assessment of £17 billion was made for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, and that the number of people to which the Bill applied was 6.5 million, or 10 per cent. of the population. The Government have never stated how many people this Bill is designed to apply to. If a cost assessment is likely to be made, the Government must have some idea of the number of people to whom these amendments and others apply. I hope that the Minister will give us those figures when he replies.

5.30 pm

Mr. Paice: First, I welcome the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) to his position. I join his hon. Friends in hoping that he will spend many years on the Opposition Front Bench. In a genuine expression of feeling, I join him in thanking the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), for his work; he dealt with the issues throughout Committee stage with his usual humorous, but nevertheless extremely well-meaning and deliberative, intent. We have heard a lot about quotas. As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, provisions for the abolition of the quota and everything that went with it were already a part of the Bill when it left this House. To reopen that debate at this time is hardly appropriate. We debated the quota and the fact that it required registration, and a large number of disabled people did not want to register for personal reasons, some of which were that it stigmatised and categorised them, which they did not like. That is why the priority interview scheme cannot continue. If there is no registration, there can be no scheme as practised.

The hon. Member for Paisley, South and most of his colleagues, as well as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) have pushed me further about what local authorities can do. They will be able to do virtually anything to encourage and enable disabled people to work for them, as long as they appoint the person who is most suitable for the job after they have made reasonable adjustment.

I must stress that point--it is after they have made the reasonable adjustment. There is no maximum for such adjustment. If the local authority is prepared to invest vast sums of money in making provision so that a disabled person is suitable for a job, that is up to the authority, and it has that privilege. I share the view of a number of hon. Members that local authorities are the ideal organisation to set a good example to employers, but appointing a less suitable person to a job is not a good example to set to anyone.

Mr. Corbett: No one is suggesting that.

Mr. Paice: But that is precisely what has been suggested in Opposition Members' speeches, and what has been practised in a few local authorities. We want every local authority to have the opportunity to do what it democratically decides to do to encourage and enable disabled people to apply, be interviewed and be considered for any vacancies that arise. They can do what they like in the manner of making reasonable adjustment. Ultimately, they must decide on the most suitable person for the job. The one thing that they must not do is to

Column 132

disadvantage someone who is not disabled. They must use the best person, regardless of whether or not he or she is disabled.

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks, and for giving way. May I make this matter as clear as I am able? No one is looking for privileged treatment for people with disabilities. What has been argued today and during earlier stages in the passage of the Bill is that job applicants should be judged by the same criteria for their fitness, and that if the successful applicant happens to have disabilities, that matter should properly be addressed. That is all that was being asked. My colleagues and I might have wanted to go further and ask for positive discrimination, but we did not do so.

Mr. Paice: It is a matter of interpretation. If it is as the hon. Gentleman says, then that is fine. There is no problem with local authorities considering disabled people in the manner that he described and appointing them. I was under the clear impression, however, from a number of the speeches of his hon. Friends, that they wanted to take it much further and to discriminate positively in favour of disabled people at the appointment stage, which would not be permissible under the Bill, for the reasons that I described. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) referred to employers having misconceptions. Under the Bill, any employer would have to ensure that, if he discriminated against a disabled person, the discrimination was not based on any unreasonable misconception, and he would have to justify it according to the new amendments from the other place in this group, which I support. Every employer will have to be able to stand up in an industrial tribunal, if the case gets that far, and demonstrate that discrimination was justified and that it was material to the circumstances of the case and the reasons for it were substantial. Those are important points. If he has misconceptions and brands all disabled people in some prejudicial way, it will cause him serious trouble. That is the purpose of the law--to ensure that disabled people who might suffer from such misconceptions are protected.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. The case that I raised was not a hypothetical one. It was a real case, which I referred to one of his then ministerial colleagues, who is no longer in the Government.

What it proved was that even employers in very important organisations, such as major police authorities, were not aware that they were piling handicap on handicap for a woman whose disability was totally irrelevant to the job that she was doing. To say, in her case, "You can't belong to the pension fund," really was highly culpable, yet they thought that they were acting properly. What the Minister is now saying raises the whole question of legal representation. I am sure that he recognises that many disabled people will feel unable to pursue their own cases. More fortunate people will seek the highest legal advice. That is a very important problem for disabled people who cannot afford to do so. It is not one that I am trying to create, but one that they tell me about day by day as we discuss the Bill.

Mr. Paice: I must emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that we are certainly not encouraging all cases

Column 133

to go to an industrial tribunal. I hope that he will not interpret my earlier remarks as saying so. As I made clear on Report, we are trying to change employers' attitudes and thereby change their behaviour towards disabled people.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would rightly challenge this, but what are the sanctions if they do not treat disabled people fairly? Ultimately, employers have to be prepared to defend their case in an industrial tribunal. I have no desire to see thousands of cases go to such tribunals. I want disabled people to be given their proper opportunities by employers the length and breadth of the country.

On the case of the lady to whom the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe referred, will he reflect on what I said about pensions? Although we face a slight procedural difficulty in that one of the amendments in this group refers to pensions, the next group predominantly concerns occupational pensions, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will reply at length to the right hon. Gentleman when we discuss that group.

In that lady's case, in which disability was irrelevant to the job at hand, discrimination would normally have been unreasonable. Discrimination because of a disability that is totally irrelevant to a person's suitability for a job would normally be considered unreasonable.

A number of other hon. Members spoke--largely about quotas and whether or not positive discrimination was possible. I remind the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) that positive discrimination is not allowed in race or gender legislation either, and that was enacted under a Labour Government.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, East asked about clubs and societies. Disabled people will not be covered by part III, because that is addressed to the general public; membership of a closed club or society is not a service to the public. Again, that mirrors the sex discrimination legislation.

I have responded to the principal points that were raised. I commend the amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 16 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 5, line 20, at end insert-- ("( ) This section does not apply in relation to any benefit under an occupational pension scheme or any other benefit payable in money or money's worth under a scheme or arrangement for the benefit of employees in respect of--

(a) termination of service;

(b) retirement, old age or death;

(d) any other prescribed matter.")

Mr. Burt: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 99.

Mr. Burt: Clause 4, in its present form, will cover actions of an employer in providing opportunities to employees for pensions and insurance benefits. These will fall within the existing wording of clause 4(1) and (2). However, the actions of trustees and managers of a pension scheme are not covered, as they are not the employer.

Column 134

Amendment No. 27 will imply a rule of non- discrimination against disabled people into the rules of occupational schemes. That means that any discriminatory decision taken by trustees will be contrary to the rules of the scheme. A disabled person affected will be able to seek redress through the dispute resolution mechanisms that already exist for pension schemes. The regulation-making powers in sub-paragraphs 3 and 4 of Lords amendment No. 27 modify the existing powers in part II to enable the regulations to make special provisions for trustees of pension schemes.

To go to the meat of the matter, where a disabled applicant has a pre- existing medical condition which is likely to increase the risk of ill health retirement or death in service, it is important that employers should be able to take just as much account of that as they would if the person were not disabled. However, employers will want to ensure that their decisions are based on sound advice, such as actuarial or medical advice. Many disabled people have disabilities that do not affect their life expectancy or likelihood of ill health retirement, and the amendments will make sure that they can no longer be unfairly denied access to an employer's pension scheme. The amendment to clause 6, Lords amendment No. 17, will disapply the duty of reasonable adjustment for occupational pensions and certain other similar benefits and provides a regulation- making power to prescribe benefits for additional types of risk to be covered by this exclusion. Again, we will consult on the use of that power- -for example, as to whether the list of benefits is felt to be complete. Occupational pension schemes are not the only means whereby employers can make provision for their employees' future. There are also other insurance benefits. Lords amendment No. 28 inserts a new clause on insurance benefits and covers the situation where an employer makes arrangements with an insurance company for insurance benefits such as private health insurance or the opportunity for such benefits to be received by the employer's employees.

The insurance company will act unlawfully against the disabled person under this new clause if it treats that person in a way that would be an act of discrimination under part III if done by the company with regard to a member of the public. A disabled person would be able to take a complaint against the insurance company, and the employer at the same time if necessary, and an industrial tribunal would decide whether there was discrimination by either of them on the basis of a full view of the evidence.

Lords amendment No. 99 provides that the term "occupational pension scheme" is to have the same meaning in the Bill as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993.

The amendments provide the right balance between meeting the needs of disabled people and non-disabled people in occupational pension schemes and placing necessary requirements on employers. I believe that they achieve the Government's objective, and I commend the amendments to the House.

5.45 pm

Mr. McMaster: Now that the Government's Bill is taking its final shape, the United Kingdom's 6.5 million disabled people will judge it against the civil rights legislation that they have wanted so much for so long--

Column 135

the legislation that was offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who was responsible for much of its drafting, and by some of my other hon. Friends since. Despite the fact that the Bill as it stands today has been improved by the Opposition, following concession after concession, climbdown after climbdown and U-turn after U-turn by the Government--I was not on the Committee, but I have studied its proceedings and it is clear that the Opposition have managed to force the Government to change course since the Bill started out on its parliamentary voyage--the Bill is still a pale shadow of what it could and should be. The measure of the Bill must be whether it makes disabled people full and equal citizens. Against that yardstick, it does not measure up. One of the great holes in the Bill is its failure to give disabled people full or equal rights in the provision of occupational pensions and insurance benefits. The fact that the Government have introduced amendments, albeit at the eleventh hour, that bring such matters into the ambit of the Bill should have been a good thing, but the effect--and I suspect the purpose--of those measures, is to enshrine in law the discrimination that already exists rather than to outlaw it.

On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, speaking on behalf of the Government, suggested that employers and insurance companies will be able to exclude--or limit the benefits offered to-- disabled people considered to be higher risk. He said that the Government were

"preventing the weighting of risk on grounds of disability but retaining it for health".--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 24 October 1995; Vol. 566, c. 1000.]

On Report, he had stated that there would be cases where less favourable treatment would be justifiable. By no stretch of the imagination could that be called full and equal citizenship. Will the Minister tell us exactly what that means in practice? What criteria will he use to determine the distinction between disability and ill health? Disputes and grey areas are inevitable and people will look to the Minister and his Department to sort them out. In the absence of a powerful commission to enforce the legislation, how will the Minister ensure that the measure is applied consistently, fairly and with equity?

The amendments allow for cost to be a justification for discrimination, yet, according to a recent research report by the Minister's own Department, there is no evidence to suggest that disabled people go off work due to sickness more often than do able-bodied people. In fact, the report shows that 44 per cent. of employers said that they found no difference in absence levels and 32 per cent. said that disabled staff were absent less often. The amendments exclude occupational pensions and other benefits from the requirement on employers to make reasonable adjustments to assist the employment of disabled people. That exclusion is important. The Bill as it stands lists factors that are to be taken into account when deciding if it is reasonable to expect an employer to make adjustments-- factors such as the impact, cost and practicality of the adjustment. To exclude pensions and insurance makes the non-discrimination rule in the amendments little more than window dressing. In the name of anti- discrimination legislation, the Government are institutionalising the unfairness that disabled people already face in obtaining equitable pensions and benefits.

Next Section

Home Page