Joint Committee on the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill Written Evidence


DDB 3 Department of Work and Pensions

DRAFT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION BILL AND ITS APPLICATION TO PARLIAMENT

MEMORANDUM TO THE JOINT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS

1.  This memorandum sets out the reasoning behind the exclusion of Parliament from clauses 4 and 8 of the draft Bill. When drawing up these provisions the Government was conscious of a number of factors which are set out in the attached annex.

2.  Services provided by Parliament to the public at large, such as to visitors, or information provided on the parliament.uk website, along with employment, are already covered by virtue of s65 of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). The effect of bringing Parliament into clauses 4 and 8 would be to bring within the DDA those other things Parliament does. The Government does not think that this can be done without breaching the fundamental constitutional principle that the courts should not interfere with the proceedings of Parliament.

3.  The Government does not believe that there are any functions of Parliament that it would be appropriate to cover by the DDA beyond those already covered in Parts 2 and 3 of the DDA. That is, the Government is not aware that Parliament has any additional public functions other than those covered by Parliamentary Privilege. However, the Government will of course listen carefully to any representations made on this matter during the scrutiny process, and would be interested in the Committee's views on this point.

4.  Notwithstanding any restriction on the scope of the draft Bill, the Houses of Parliament will of course be able, if they wish, to act as if those clauses applied to them. However, that would be a matter for the Houses themselves, and it would not be possible to enforce those duties through the courts.


Department for Work and Pensions

5 January 2004

Annex

Matters considered when deciding to exclude Parliament from the scope of clauses 4 and 8 of the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill

a)  That Parliament needs to be left free to exercise its rights and privileges.

b)  That Parliamentary Privilege means the courts, whether by judicial review, or otherwise, would not be able to consider how Parliament conducted itself when debating or legislating.

c)  That extending the DDA to how Parliament exercises its public functions would conflict with Parliamentary Privilege.

d)  That the normal course when drafting legislation is to assume that it does not apply to Parliament, unless it expressly states that it will.

e)  Section 65 of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) makes it clear that the employment and goods and services provisions do apply to Parliament, and makes it clear which of the House Authorities is liable in each case.

f)  The employment and goods and services provisions do not interfere with the functions or privileges of Parliament as they deal only with how private individuals interact with Parliament and the house authorities.

g)  That the corresponding provisions in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act do not cover Parliament.

h)  That Parliament is not subject to the Human Rights Act.

i)  The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, which reported in 1999, recommended that both Houses should continue to be the sole judges of the lawfulness of their proceedings, but that matters not closely related to those proceedings should be subject to the same laws as elsewhere.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 23 April 2004