| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mark Oaten (Winchester): I simply seek some clarification. Although non-discrimination notices will be public, and there will be a public database of them, will written agreements be public or private?
Mr. Smith: I expect that they will be public.
Clause 6 allows the commission to assist individuals with a range of support when they seek redress for being discriminated against. It also states the criteria that the commission will use in determining which cases to support.
We want the commission to be able to support test cases, which will help to clarify the law and help disabled people who could not secure their rights without assistance. Within the criteria, the commission will be able to take account of the impact that a person's disability has on his or her ability to pursue the case unaided. The criteria will allow ample scope to those who are likely to need help most; for example, those with mental health problems, those with learning disabilities or those with severe sensory impairments.
I recognise, too, the force of the argument that the commission itself should be able to take cases on behalf of individuals, or a group of individuals with a common complaint. It is a concern that I understand, and onethat the Government are addressing. Through the representative actions working group, the Lord Chancellor is looking at the issue of representative actions. It is a complex area that raises some fundamental issues of law, such as defining who can bring representative actions, the scope of relief and the definition of groups.
For those reasons, it is neither necessary nor sensible for us to act unilaterally by changing the Bill. However, let me assure the House that we will seek to ensure--if necessary, through legislation--that any new powers which may be conferred on bodies as a result of these considerations, will apply to the Disability Rights Commission.
Clause 7 allows the commission to recover costs of providing assistance to individuals when a court--or, more rarely, a tribunal--makes an award for costs. That replicates the arrangements which already apply to the EOC and the CRE.
Clause 8 deals with codes of practice relating to employment and access to goods and services. We believe that the commission should be charged with the role of producing codes that will give practical guidance to the public, business, service providers and others on how to avoid discrimination, promote the equalisation of opportunities and encourage good practice.
Courts and tribunals will have to have regard to the codes when considering cases of discrimination. The commission will be required to produce a draft code for consultation before it goes to the Secretary of State for approval. The codes must be laid in draft before this House and another place before they can be brought into force.
Clause 9 allows for the commission to make arrangements for the provision of a conciliation service dealing with disputes under part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995--access to goods, services, facilities and premises. Conciliation arrangements are already available in the area of employment--covered by part II of the 1995 Act--where that function is undertaken by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
We want the Disability Rights Commission to arrange for and monitor a conciliation service in the area of part III of the 1995 Act. We want it to be available to disabled people and service providers directly, rather than by first going to a business or voluntary organisation for advice, which is the somewhat cumbersome procedure currently under the Disability Access Rights Advice Service.
Clause 10 replaces the bureaucratic mechanism for reviewing the small employer's threshold below which the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 do not apply. It requires the Secretary of State to consult the Disability Rights Commission--in addition to those whom he is already required to consult--about adjustments to the small employer threshold. The commission will be in a key position to advise the Secretary of State on this important matter.
There are a few other points that I would like to mention. I would like to thank the disability rights task force, all the groups and individuals who contributed ideas and the officials who have worked on the White Paper and the Bill. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East, who have accomplished something of real value in their periods of responsibility for bringing forward the Bill.
I pay tribute also to the good work the members of the National Disability Council have done, and continue to do. That body, which is--to a limited extent--a predecessor of the Disability Rights Commission will be abolished when the commission is established.
On the composition of the commission itself, I would like to underline that the Bill provides for the majority of commissioners and either the chair or deputy chair to be disabled people or people who have had a disability.
Mr. Stephen Twigg (Enfield, Southgate):
I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the composition of the commission. As he will know, we have recently reformed the all-party group on epilepsy. Millions of
Mr. Smith:
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the reformation of the all-party group on epilepsy. Epilepsy is a serious condition that affects very many people. I am pleased to give him the assurance that epilepsy will be one of the disabilities covered by the legislation, so assistance and advice will be available.
The provision that the chair or deputy chair will be disabled or have had a disability will ensure that disabled people will be directly represented in a senior capacity on the commission and that there will be an appropriate balance of interests among the commissioners, allowing the commission to be credible with all stakeholders.
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale):
The Minister made a strong case for the provision that the chair or deputy chair should either be disabled or have a history of disability. May I press him on that point? Does he agree that, especially in the first year of the commission's existence, it would give a very strong signal indeed to the communities outside who are following this debate with great interest, if he could say that his preference would be that the chair should be someone who is disabled or with a history of disability?
Mr. Smith:
There is an enormously strong case for the first chair, in particular, to be someone who is disabled or who has had a disability, but I do not think, to be frank, that it would be right to write such a requirement into the Bill. Apart from anything else, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I--and, I believe, the public at large--want the person who chairs the commission to know that he or she was appointed as the best person for the job and not only because of having a disability. That is mainstreaming in practice; to do otherwise smacks of gesturism.
The Commission's remit will extend to England, Scotland and Wales. In Northern Ireland, the arrangements set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 will apply. The experience of existing equality commissions has shown that offices in each of England, Scotland and Wales have been necessary and invaluable. We will expect the Disability Rights Commission to operate in a similar way, but I think that it should determine what other arrangements are necessary in the light of experience. For example, the commissioners might want to consider whether the commission should establish regional offices.
As I said at the outset, the Bill is part of a wider programme to advance rights and opportunities for disabled people, and we are considering more generally how to advance disabled people's rights and counter discrimination. That is an important part of our strategy, but it would have been quite wrong for it to hold up this legislation, which has been so long and so eagerly awaited by disabled people.
The disability rights task force is considering those wider issues, especially in relation to the acknowledged inadequacies of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Recommendations from the task force are expected later this year. We all look forward to them. I can assure the
House that we will hold consultations on any administrative or legislative steps that are considered necessary, and that we regard that work, too, as very important as part of our overall strategy for comprehensive civil rights. It is an important task to win public support not just for the principle of fairness for disabled people, but for the practical action that makes it a reality.
That is why we are launching this spring a two or three-year disability hearts and minds campaign. It will counter disability discrimination by raising public awareness of the barriers that disabled people face and how they can be overcome. It will also help businesses and service providers to understand exactly what is required of them in law. The campaign is being drawn up in partnership with disability and business organisations. I am confident that, together with the Bill and all the other steps that we are taking, it will help enable disabled people to take a full part in society.
I am convinced that integration generates its own momentum, for at the bottom of much discrimination lies fear. At the root of that fear is ignorance, so the more chance everyone has to meet disabled people--in the classroom, in the workplace, in the supermarket--the more the corrosive base of prejudice will be eroded.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |