| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Hodge: First, on information to service providers, which the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) mentioned, yesterday we laid before the House the code of practice that has been developed by the National Disability Council on the implementation of the first part of part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which changes policies and procedures. I hope that when hon. Members have had a chance to look at the code, they will realise that it is laid out simply, with many examples to assist service providers to meet their obligations under the disability discrimination legislation.
I am also very conscious that if the legislation is to work, the Disability Rights Commission and others will have to work closely with employers and service providers to ensure that they meet their obligations. We have taken a range of initiatives to assist service providers and employers to do just that.
I hope that hon. Members have seen the start of the "See the person" campaign, which was launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to raise awareness on disability issues a few weeks ago. That was an attempt on our part to put all disability issues more centrally on the agenda, but specifically the obligations that providers and employers have under disability discrimination legislation.
We are producing a range of new leaflets to assist employers and suppliers of goods and services; they will be available in the coming weeks. We have enhanced the DDA helpline so that organisations can use the services to assist them to comply with the new legislation.
A key duty of the new Disability Rights Commission will be not merely to support individuals to ensure that they get their civil rights in law, but to work with employers and businesses that supply goods and services to help them ensure that there is proper access and equality of opportunity for disabled people as regards employment, goods and services.
In relation to the legislative issues raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), we have seized the opportunity to learn some lessons from the operation both of race relations and sex discrimination legislation, of which we have now had more than 20 years' experience. That is why we have tried to ensure that the body will work co-operatively with businesses and suppliers of goods and services, rather than in a confrontational way. We also want to make sure that action is effective; that is why the Bill provides for written agreements to be reached without having to make formal investigations. That is a better way for businesses and individual disabled people to get proper access to goods
and services, and for people to have the opportunity to work, without having to undertake court procedures. This is the first time the concept of written agreements has been included in discrimination legislation.
The Bill includes regulatory powers to tighten up formal investigations, so that they do not go on for ever with no resolution. That has been the experience in some of the formal investigations under the race relations and sex discrimination legislation; it has met the interests neither of organisations nor of the individuals subject to discrimination.
With those assurances, I hope that hon. Members will accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms Hodge:
I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 13, line 28, at end insert--
The amendment requires the commission to produce, and make publicly available, a list of organisations that it has consulted. I hope that hon. Members will accept that we tabled the amendment in response to the reasonable amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) in Committee.
When we discussed the amendment in Committee, I said that I had sympathy with the thrust of what the hon. Lady wanted to achieve, but that I needed to look carefully at the burden that that might place on the commission, and to minimise that burden where it was practical to do so. We have, after all, said that we do not want the commission to tie itself in red tape or to waste resources. Through this amendment, I wanted to address the concerns that were expressed in debate in response to the hon. Lady's amendment. They were that the list should be useful as a point of reference and provide transparency as to whom the commission consults, but that it should not include contacts with particular individuals--such as general practitioners--in response to a particular case.
The key feature of the amendment is that the list would be publicly available, on demand. The commission could decide the best way to make it available; for example, we hope that it might be posted on the internet. That would retain the "publicness" of the list, but would be likely to reduce the cost and administrative burden of producing perhaps several thousand glossy copies--probably as part
of the commission's annual report. The list should be updated to get rid of dead-wood organisations--for example, organisations in the voluntary sector that are defunct. The amendment allows the commission to remove organisations from the list, if they have not been consulted during the previous 12 months, but does not require the commission to do so. That would mean that the DRC was obliged neither to start from scratch every year, nor to keep the list under continuous review--both of which could be administratively burdensome.
Only organisations--rather than individuals--would be included on the list, but not if an organisation had been consulted for the purposes of a formal investigation, or if the DRC was giving an individual assistance in relation to proceedings.
Mr. Oaten:
If an organisation was paid for the advice it gave, would that point be attached to the provisions that the Minister is listing?
Ms Hodge:
We have not specified that point, because we wanted to ensure that the list was more complete than I had suggested in our original exchange of views in Committee. For the sake of completeness, it would be best not to specify that point. However, nothing in the amendment would prevent the DRC from listing organisations that had received moneys for assisting the commission with its work.
With those reassurances, I hope that the amendment, tabled in response to representations from Opposition Members, will be accepted.
Mr. Boswell:
As the Minister has reminded the House, she has been as good as her word in tabling an amendment that enshrines the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). In the rather speedy transfer of responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench, I have not consulted my hon. Friend on the matter. However, she is aware of what has happened and has not expressed her dissent.
In relation to the intervention of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), I assume that, in deciding whether to state that a charge has been made, the commission will consider whether that would colour the advice that was given, or whether such a statement would be required for accountability. I am sure the commission will be sensitive about that. The same point relates to the provision that the commission should not refer to individuals, or to formal investigation. In relation to our constituencies, we sometimes write letters on the record--indeed, for the record--but there are other occasions when we want to consult individuals confidentially in the interests of our constituents.
We realise that different types of consultation have to take place, so it is important to have a good working list, which is updated by the exclusion of organisations after a period of non-consultation and shows whom the commission has approached for advice, so that those with particular interests can debate matters on which they feel that there are gaps or an undue emphasis. That is wholly consistent with the constructive way in which we have discussed these matters.
Will the Minister comment on one outstanding matter that relates to proposed sub-paragraph (4)? I gather that there was some misunderstanding--to put it charitably--
about exactly what the Government's commitment was on charging by the commission. In correspondence, the Minister pointed out that she had confirmed, on Second Reading, that the commission would not be empowered to recover any of its legal costs from compensation awarded to individuals, or agreed outside a court or tribunal. Such costs could be recovered only from an amount for costs awarded or agreed upon--there would have to be some pre-existing agreement or a separate charge for the service given by the commission to the organisation or the individual. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point.
17.--(1) The Commission shall maintain a list of the organisations it has consulted generally for the purposes of any of its functions.
(2) An organisation may be removed from the list if it has not been consulted generally in the 12 months preceding its removal.
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), consultation is general unless it relates only--
(a) to an investigation to which paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 applies,
(b) to assistance under section 7, or
(c) otherwise to a particular individual or individuals.
(4) The Commission shall make the list available to the public in whatever way it considers appropriate (subject to any charge it may impose).'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |