| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. May: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that about 80 per cent. of companies are not covered by the arrangements--[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) says, from a sedentary position, "Peanuts".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): I said people.
Mrs. May: I do apologise. In that case, I shall not proceed with the rebuke that I was going to issue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That is a very good example of how sedentary remarks are unhelpful, even when they provoke a response.
Mrs. May: They are even less helpful when I cannot hear them properly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Eighty per cent. of companies are not covered and the issue that the Government must answer is why, when Labour Members were so keen for the threshold to be reduced to two when they were in opposition, the Government failed to do that when they had the opportunity to do so.
Mr. John Healey (Wentworth):
At what level does the hon. Lady believe the threshold should be set?
Mrs. May:
We have not set a threshold--[Hon. Members: "Twenty."] I will say this: during the debate in the other place, we said that, if the threshold was to be reduced to the sort of level that many disability organisations wanted, we would question why it was to be two and not one. I fail to see why, if the level is to be reduced to such a low number, one should disadvantage sole employees of small businesses and not allow them the protection of the Disability Discrimination Act from which other employees benefit. I suspect that we may return to that issue in Committee or the later stages of the Bill.
On the question of the representational nature of the commission, the Government have indicated that half of the members of the commission should be disabled or have had a disability. It is important to consider the issue of representation, and I trust that it is not the Government's intention to say that each member of the commission is representative of a particular disability. Although it is necessary to ensure that the commission covers a wide range of types of disability, it is important that the commissioners are appointed because they are the right people with the right experience, not as individuals wearing some sort of specific representative hat.
It is also important that a cross-section of interests should be represented on the commission. That point was made when the hon. Member for Newport, East, then a Minister at the Department for Education and Employment, initially set out his intention of establishing
the commission, and I trust that the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities will confirm that that remains the Government's position. The then Education and Employment Minister said:
Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge and Chryston):
Although time is short and I know that several of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate, I begin by paying tribute to the many people who have made the Bill possible.I feel both humble and proud and, in that spirit, I congratulate warmly the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and his ministerial team on their remarkable achievement in bringing this measure before the House today.
I shall be gentle with the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). This comment would probably be more appropriate coming from the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), but any sinner who has repented is welcome. However, if the hon. Lady wants to be convincing, the last thing that she should do is refer to the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition--especially when, as Minister, he opposed everything that we have achieved today.
Mrs. May:
I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Gentleman should imply sinfulness on the part of someone who was not involved in decisions about the legislation. I hope that he does not adopt that approach to other sins, or we might all be implicated in all sorts of things.
Mr. Clarke:
I do not seek to reintroduce the idea of original sin. However, there is a Scottish expression that goes, "If you fly with the crows, you get shot with the crows." The Leader of the Opposition appointed the hon. Lady to perform an almost impossible task: to make the previous Government's policies appear decent.
In the spirit of this debate, I congratulate those who should take pride in today's achievement. Such people include my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), and a wonderful colleague in my disability team, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston--[Hon.
Members: "Erdington."] I could not get my hon. Friend's constituency right in Committee, and I cannot change my habits now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) did a wonderful job, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), who has disappeared temporarily from the Chamber, offered marvellous support for my Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 before his election to Parliament. He has continued ever since--now as a Member of Parliament--to fight for the things that he believes in. We look forward to hearing what my hon. Friends have to say if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I recognise also the tremendous work of the all-party disablement group which, led by Lord Ashley, has been the real engine room of disability campaigns. It must also be a proud day for my right hon. Friend Lord Morris of Manchester. Nor should we forget the countless numbers of unnamed disabled people and their organisations who fought the good fight when others thought the mountain was too high to climb.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to contribute to the Second Reading of a Bill that has the potential to transform dreams into reality for many millions of disabled people. The Government must be commended for their relatively early introduction of such a comprehensive and important Bill. A pledge has been honoured and a promise implemented speedily.
This is a Bill about people who constitute a substantial minority and yet continue to suffer discrimination in their daily lives that denies them the everyday rights that others take for granted. Much of that is now about to end. Such discrimination is clear to those who know the realities of life for disabled people who are seeking the equal opportunities that lie at the heart of a modern, inclusive Britain and of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Bill resembles legislation that has long been the norm in many other countries that have benefited from such measures. For example, America offers perhaps the most substantial protection in the world for disabled people. Many aspects of the proposed Disability Rights Commission will resemble measures in the United States, which I have seen for myself in operation. I have witnessed the benefits that such protection brings not only to the lives of disabled people but, importantly, to the United States economy as well. The reasons are obvious. The greater the access for disabled people, the more they, their carers, friends and families spend and contribute to the strength of the United States economy.
We have received many excellent briefings from disability organisations, and Scope deserves congratulations for making that point. It stated:
For that reason, groups such as the Employers Forum on Disability in the United Kingdom--which speaks for firms such as Marks and Spencer and Barclays--and the
CBI have long realised the beneficial effects that a Disability Rights Commission can have for the British economy as well as for our social fabric. Article 3 of the German legislation outlaws discrimination. It says:
"The Commission must be credible with all stakeholders. The body of Commissioners between them will need to have sufficient diversity of experience to be able to take account of the interests of all disabled people and to reflect the interest of all key stakeholders, including those of small businesses."--[Official Report, 21 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 519-20.]
It is important--particularly given what I have said about the way in which the commission should work with rather than confront people--to ensure that the commission represents all interests. External bodies, such as companies and service providers, must be willing and able to work happily with the commission to ensure that disabled people do not suffer the sort of discrimination that they often experienced in the past.
The average figure (the statistical mean figure) for workplace adjustments for disabled employees in the USA (October 1997) was $935, but the benefits of these to business was an average of $30,682--a 3200% return on investment."
The hon. Member for Maidenhead referred to the Confederation of British Industry. We welcome its support, and I am sure that it will take that point on board.
"Nobody shall be discriminated against because of a disability".
Unfortunately, despite many Back-Bench attempts, we were still far behind the legislation of many of our friends abroad--until today. Over the years, the House had seen attempts to introduce legislation to protect the rights of disabled people. All such attempts supported a commission and all, sadly, were in vain. It is tempting--especially in view of earlier exchanges--to dwell upon the fate of former Members of Parliament who talked out those Bills. However, on this happy occasion, I shall be positive about the future and about the anti-discrimination measures that the Bill introduces.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |