| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Oaten: Does the hon. Lady agree that the education of those companies is not helped by the fact that about 80 per cent. of companies have less than 15 employees and are exempt from some of the regulations under the DDA? That cannot help the education process that the commission will have to establish.
Mrs. May: I had intended to refer to the employer threshold issue later in my comments. It is important and has already been debated in the Standing Committee. It was raised by several of their lordships when the Bill was debated in another place.
The Minister mentioned the Government's forthcoming hearts and minds campaign, which was intended to work with business to encourage the process of changing hearts and minds. The Government should note that there is some scepticism among disability organisations about that campaign and its likely impact. We all want to ensure that hearts and minds and attitudes are changed in the right way, but, if the campaign is to be effective, the Government will have to be careful about the way in which it is put in place.
That view about the importance of working with organisations is echoed in the article to which I referred earlier, written by the chairman of the National Disability Council, David Grayson. He gave some examples of the way in which the commission could work with people, rather than against them. He referred to certain cases that had been reported in Disability Now, in which disabled people had been refused access to pubs. He continued:
A number of issues remain uncertain in the Bill and in relation to the commission. The first is not specific to the Bill, although the Minister referred to it in his speech; it is the funding of the commission. The Government have stated that they will fund the commission to the tune of £3 million this financial year for set-up costs and £11 million in 2000-01; a provisional budget of£11 million has been set for the following year.
That is less than the amount given to the Commission for Racial Equality. The Government's argument is that the CRE has to pass on about £4 million to local race equality councils--hence the difference in funding. I tried to ascertain from the Government the basis of their decision to award £11 million, given the functions of the commission. I cannot remember whether it took me three or four questions to the Minister. One of the arts that one has to learn when one becomes a Member of Parliament is that of tabling the right question at the Table Office, and I confess that I do not always get it right the first time--or even the second or third.
During a considerable period of trying, I was first told that the basis for the £11 million figure was estimated costs for the different functions of the commission; then, when I asked what the estimated costs of those different functions were, I was told that it would be up to the commission to estimate the costs of the different functions. Finally, having rephrased the question yet again, I was told:
I note that the Minister said that the issue was one that the Government would monitor in future and I recognise that the functions of the Commission for Racial Equality and the way in which it undertakes them may differ from those of the Disability Rights Commission; however, the DRC will have specific extra costs, such as those of ensuring that all information is available in forms that are accessible to all disabled people. The Government will have to consider that issue carefully and take advice from the commission in the early stages of its operation.
Mr. Andrew Smith:
No one disputes that the commission will face certain costs in connection with meeting the particular needs of disabled people. However, in the spirit of and in line with the requirements of the Bill and of the DDA, we expect the other commissions to make their material available in Braille and other forms that are accessible to disabled people, so they too face those costs.
Mrs. May:
I hesitate to suggest that, having made that statement, the Minister might now receive a call from
Another issue requiring clarification is raised on the face of the Bill itself: the relationship between the commission's work and the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998. I suspect that other hon. Members will question whether it is appropriate for that relationship to be set down on the face of the Bill, or whether it should be in regulations, as the Minister indicated. The Government need to examine closely the impact of the Human Rights Act in respect of disabled people and on Government responsibilities, such as the health service and social services provision.
Having participated in some of the debates on the Human Rights Act as it passed through its stages in the House, I am not convinced that the Government have fully and properly considered the implications that that legislation might have for some of those matters. The case reported into today's newspapers of young David Glass, whose family resuscitated him when the hospital had decided that he should be allowed to die, brings that issue sharply into focus.
One of the functions that the commission should undertake in relation to education is not specified in the Bill: advice and information are referred to, but not training. It is important that the commission should be able to provide training for those with whom it deals and those who are affected by its work. Obviously, it will work with other bodies in pursuing that function, but the Bill should not ignore the issue of training.
In response to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), I said that I would refer to the employer threshold. Many of us were surprised when the Government, who in opposition had said that they would reduce the threshold from 20 to two, reduced it from 20 to 15 on coming into power. That caused considerable consternation among disability organisations, which wondered why the Government had suddenly changed an opinion to which they had held so fast when in opposition. It has been our experience in respect of many issues that the Labour party in government is going back on many of the pledges that it made when in opposition. It is easy to make promises when in opposition, but now that Labour is in Government, it finds it cannot deliver on those pledges.
Because of amendments moved in respect of that issue, it was debated at some length in the other place. I note that the Bill mentions "the procedure for change" and there is some good argument for making sure that that procedure is rather easier than it was previously. However, the question of why the Government have not decreased the threshold further than they have is one to which many disability organisations will continue to want a proper answer.
Mr. Levitt:
Is the hon. Lady aware that, following the reduction in the threshold, well in excess of 90 per cent. of employees now work for employers who are covered by the legislation, and that only a small minority of employees continue to be excluded? The role of the DRC will be to advise the Government, not only on the number of employees at which disability organisations want the threshold to be set, but on the number that industry and
"DRC will certainly want to support test cases to establish the law or make formal investigations.
Certainly, helping companies to recognise the importance of disabled people as consumers or potential employees will be an important task for the commission. However, the issue is broader than that; the commission has a general role in raising awareness, in education and in the promotion of good practice. The body will have the scope to work to increase understanding of disability and of the rights, expectations and needs of disabled people
generally, not only among employers and service providers. That is an important function and I trust the commission will see it as a key element of its work. I repeat our belief that the commission should not be a confrontational, legalistic or litigious body, but one that works with all parties genuinely to improve the environment for disabled people.
But if it is using its brain as well as its brawn it will be creative too. It could go to major brewers like Bass and Whitbread and national representatives of pub landlords and persuade them to develop an industry-wide awareness and education campaign for pub staff. They could also promote disabled customer-friendly practices . . . British business must be persuaded to respond more energetically to the needs of disabled people in the marketplace and the workplace . . . if we mobilise our collective power as disabled consumers--plus the purchasing power of our families and friends--we can be a formidable business force too."
"interim estimates indicate 10 per cent. of that annual budget may be devoted to administrative costs; 40 per cent. to advice and information, conciliation, assistance to individuals and formal investigations; 30 per cent. to promotional work, and 20 per cent. to policy work."--[Official Report, 2 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 600.]
However, estimates were not available in respect of the specific functions as set out in the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |