| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Clause 4
Ms Hodge: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 6, leave out 'and finalise'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 10 to 13 and 20.
Ms Hodge: These amendments are minor and technical and have been recommended by parliamentary counsel at this late stage to tidy up the drafting of the Bill. They are designed simply to clarify the provisions in the Bill and to ensure that all cross-references are consistent. They have no effect on the substance of the provisions in the Bill. I ask the House to accept the amendments.
Mr. Boswell: I shall be brief, as I shall certainly not suggest that we divide the House on the amendments. I am rather glad that they have been tabled, although I am little less happy that they have been tabled at such a late stage.
We all know that the parliamentary draftsperson's job is a difficult one and that it is hard to get legislation right. Errors occur that have to be corrected at the end of the House's deliberations. However, it is worth noting that, although the Bill has been considered in the House of Lords--to which all hon. Members, regardless of party, would defer in matters of law--these little matters have been neglected.
Enforcement is always important. I gather that these provisions will be enforceable, in England and Wales, under section 55 of the County Courts Act 1984 and, in Scotland, under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The provision will therefore not be self-verified under schedule 3 of the Bill.
I am sure that that will add a great deal to the sum of human knowledge, but the embarrassing situation could have arisen in which provisions that had been agreed could not be enforced. However, if the Minister says that the matter has been put right, I shall defer to her and agree to the amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 2, in page 3, line 10, leave out
and insert
Ms Hodge:
I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 43, leave out subsection (10).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 7, 9, 14 to 17, 19 and 21 to 25.
Ms Hodge:
I begin by reassuring the hon. Member for Daventry that I, too, find it profoundly irritating that the
Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull):
Do not hold your breath.
Ms Hodge:
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I am afraid that the comments of the hon. Member for Daventry in relation to the previous group of amendments are also relevant to these drafting amendments.
This group of amendments relates to the enforcement of orders made under clause 5 and schedule 3 of theBill. These sections cover written agreements, non- discrimination notices and action plans.
Amendment No. 16 is technical and simply puts right an incorrect reference to the fact that an order made under paragraph 18(3) of schedule 3 of the Bill would be enforceable under paragraph 23. In fact, the draftsmen have found that the order would be enforceable under section 55 of the County Courts Act 1984 in England and Wales and the Contempt of Court Act 1981 in Scotland, to which paragraph 23 refers.
Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 have also been recommended by parliamentary counsel, to improve the drafting of the Bill by bringing all the provisions relating to the enforcement of orders under clause 5(8) and schedule 3 together in one place--that is, under paragraph 23 of schedule 3. Amendments Nos. 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 21 are consequential on amendments Nos. 22 to 25 and would delete what would become unnecessary cross-references to enforcement.
Amendment No. 25 has been drafted to have one further effect, which I would like to cover briefly. This amendment would add a new sub-paragraph to paragraph 23 to replace paragraphs 18(5) and 18(6), which have been drafted in more general terms. Paragraphs 18(5) and 18(6) as drafted enable orders relating to action plans to be modified to alter any time limit so that in the order it is clear that the commission can return to the court for repeated fines in the case of persistent offenders. The new sub-paragraph has been drafted in more general terms so that it covers all orders--for example, those relating to written agreements--not merely those listed under paragraph 18.
The effects of the amendment are limited, as most orders have continuing effect and would not need modification in any event. However, it does mean that, where an order requires something to be done by a particular time and it is not, it is clear that the commission would be able to return to the court for repeated fines until the person complies with the order. In that respect, I hope that hon. Members will agree that the amendment improves the provisions as well as the drafting of the Bill.
I therefore ask hon. Members to accept amendment No. 25 and the other amendments in this group.
Mr. Boswell:
Very briefly, I thank the hon. Lady for correcting my confusion--perhaps it was a good indication that these are complex matters. If she has, as I suspect and hope, the opportunity and privilege of bringing further legislation to the House, she will find that it is just as difficult the second time around because these things always seem to happen. It has even occasionally
I draw a slight moral from all this--not in any contentious sense--in that it will be important for the commission to understand how the process works. It will need good operational rules, bearing in mind that the nature of the operation means that we do not wanta series--perish the thought--of parliamentary draftspersons advising people on their disability concerns. We want people who are able to get a clear understanding of how the law operates and to explain it. That is also very important to service providers. If there is to be a cumulative penalty, as the hon. Lady explained, it is extremely important that people do not fail to comply because they cannot understand the notice that they receive.
May I alert the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities to the fact that I found this an interesting point? I do not dispute its legality, but it reawakened my interest in the matter even before the transfer of responsibilities when I received a letter from him stating that Members of Parliament would be required to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in their capacity as service providers. My only reason for eyebrow lifting at that is that we are not normally paid for the services that we provide, although we are paid to be service providers.
Within the spirit in which this legislation has been pursued and the way in which we are debating it today, it is important that people should appreciate that the way in which it works needs to be clear. No service provider--acting as a reasonable person, we hope--should be in any doubt as to his or her obligations or as to the way in which they will be enforced if people decide or fail to fulfil them.
I have no difficulty with the provisions. The hon.Lady has explained them well and corrected my misunderstanding, in a letter that was designed to be helpful. I too would give the amendments a fair wind.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough):
Listening to the debate one might think that we were discussing highly technical drafting matters, which in a sense we are, but the section of the Bill to which the amendments apply is the section that could cause the most problems. I therefore want an assurance from the Minister that she wants to work very much with the grain of good business practice.
'that action plan is finalised'
'an action plan proposed by him has become final'.--[Ms Hodge.]
Amendment made: No. 3, in page 3, line 45, after 'the' insert 'unlawful'.--[Ms Hodge.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |