Examination of Witnesses (Questions 644
- 659)
WEDNESDAY 31 MARCH 2004
MS MARIA
EAGLE MP AND
MR TONY
MCNULTY
MP
Q644 Chairman: Good afternoon. Thank
you very much for joining us. There is a list of the Members'
interests which are relevant to this inquiry if you wish to see
it. We are being web-cast, so if you would be kind enough to introduce
yourselves so that those who can hear but not see you will know
who you are.
Maria Eagle: I am Maria Eagle,
I am Minister for Disabled People.
Mr McNulty: Tony McNulty, Minister
for Transport.
Q645 Chairman: If you would like
to make an opening statement, now is the time.
Maria Eagle: Can I, first of all,
welcome this opportunity to come and explain to the Committee
what the thoughts behind the Bill have been. We are not starting
with a blank sheet of paper. When elected in 1997 we had a manifesto
commitment to improve civil rights for disabled people and our
actions since then have been aimed at doing just that. The Disability
Rights Taskforce was established to advise us on the best way
of implementing that commitment, and its report from exclusion
to inclusion and our response towards inclusion are our blue-print
for action. We decided to build on the Disability Discrimination
Act to strengthen, widen and deepen its coverage and also to implement
fully its provisions. Since 1997 we have, amongst other things,
set up the Disability Rights Commission, introduced the Special
Educational Needs and Disabilities Act, which extends coverage
of the DDA to education, introduced a range of regulations to
make transport vehicles accessible and from October will be ending
the small firms exemption and almost all other occupational exemptions
from Part 2 and commencing the duty on service providers to tackle
physical barriers in Part 3. The draft Bill extends further the
coverage of the DDA to other functions of public authorities as
well as employment and service provision, to public transport
services, to renting premises, to membership of larger private
clubs and to local councillors; and it strengthens the DDA by
placing a duty to promote equality of opportunity for disabled
people on the public sector and by protecting more people with
HIV, cancer and MS. This is important, not just because of our
manifesto commitment, but because the latest and most up-to-date
statistics on the numbers of people in Britain covered by the
DDA definition of disability indicate that almost 10 million people
are covered. That is 22 per cent of all adults and a higher figure
than that suggested by the 1996 figures, which were based on a
medicalised international classification that did not properly
reflect the definition in our legislation. So this matters to
a lot of people. The Bill completes our manifesto commitment from
2001 to take forward the Task Force's recommendations. I hope
it will be helpful if I make two further general points to assist
the Committee about the thinking that underpins the Bill. First,
at a time when we are still implementing its provisions, we have
resisted the temptation to start making significant changes to
the definition of "disability", for very practical reasons.
We want those upon whom obligations are being placed, often for
the first time, to be able to understand who is and who is not
covered and in what way their obligations will work. That is dependent
on some stability in the definition so that they can rely on current
guidance and case law. We have sought to avoid moving the goal
posts, in other words, just at the point at which new players
are coming onto the field. In October a million small employers
will be covered for the first time by Part 2 and 7 million jobs,
including formerly excluded occupations. So we seek to ensure
that those newly covered can get to know who is included and how.
For that reason, we have also avoided making changes to well-known
and increasingly well-understood concepts, such as reasonable
adjustment. Secondly, we have sought always to bear in mind that
this legislation has to represent a fair balance between the rights
of disabled people to participate in all aspects of our society
and the obligations of those upon whom the law impinges; for in
the end we want this legislation to be approved and understood
across our society and implemented, because all sectors and stakeholders
believe that it should be, rather than simply to provide disabled
people with theoretical rights which must be litigated to be made
real. So I hope that the Committee will bear in mind this need
for legislation if it is to transform opportunities for disabled
people to balance their rights with the obligations upon those
who have to reply to them in a fair and reasonable way. With that,
Chair, I would be happy to take questions.
Mr McNulty: Thank you. Maria has
explained the wider provisions of the Bill. I clearly want to
dwell on the specific transport provisions. The Disability Rights
Task Force recognised that it would not be appropriate to apply
all the provisions of Part 3 to transport vehicles. For public
transport, for example, it is intended that they should be subject
only to the provisions of the Act dealing with gratuitous discrimination—and
also policies, procedures and practices and those auxiliary aids
which do not require physical alteration. We are not proposing
that the Part 3 duties in relation to physical alterations should
be applied to transport generally, as you well know, Part 5 already
allows for the provision of accessibility regulations. I will
turn to the exceptions to that approach shortly. The Bill provisions
will allow us to apply Part 3 to different transport vehicles
at different times, and we propose initially to make regulations
covering public transport: trains, buses and coaches, taxis and
private hire vehicles. I have seen from earlier sessions that
there has been concern about timing. I would like to put on the
record that we intend to lift the exemption in respect of public
transport services as soon as is practical after Royal Assent,
and it is certainly our intention to have draft regulations ready
to consult on when the Bill is introduced. On aviation, which
I understand has been the subject of much attention during the
scrutiny process, we are, as you know, committed to applying legislation
if the Department's code of practice on meeting the needs of disabled
people proves ineffective. Work is already in hand to monitor
compliance, and that is due to report towards the end of next
year. I would point out, however, that the airports and travel
agents are already covered by Part 3; so it is only with respect
to the airlines themselves that the issue of legislation arises.
Similarly, on shipping we are awaiting the results of research
being commissioned by DPTAC on the industry's compliance with
the International Maritime Organisation's guidance and DPTAC's
own more detailed guidance before we take a decision on lifting
the exemption, and that work is due to report next year. I would
point out, however, that in the case of both aviation and shipping
the new clause 3 would provide us with the necessary powers to
bring those modes within scope by means of secondary legislation.
Finally, we are also committed to applying Part 3 to tourism and
leisure transport services, car hire services and breakdown services.
On timing, as with public transport, we would aim to lift the
exemption for those services as soon as practicable after Royal
Assent. We propose that the Disability Rights Commission will
produce a new code of practice, offering further advice to transport
operators, advising them on what might constitute reasonable adjustments
for the industry, and it will be for the DRC to determine the
best means for taking that work forward. We would expect the transport
industries to be involved in the process that might help allay
some of the concerns which I have seen submitted to the Committee.
The DRTF (Disability Rights Task Force) also recommended that
an end date by which all passenger rail vehicles should comply
with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (RVAR) should
be introduced and the power should be taken to introduce refurbishment
regulations. Although proposals to implement this recommendation
are not included in the draft Bill, it is our intention, subject
to the outcome of the recent consultation, that the rail provision
will form part of the Bill when it is introduced. As well as the
DRTF proposals, we are proposing to take the opportunity to revise
the existing Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulation Provisions
to amend the way regulations are enforced and remove the need
for individual exemptions to be made by statutory instrument.
On the major issues, as you will have seen from the responses
to the consultation, there is a fairly even split between the
industry, which would favour a later end date, and disability
organisations which are pressing for an earlier one. You will
recall that our preferred date was 2025, which we consider to
strike a reasonable balance between the needs of disabled people
and the operating conditions for the industry. I am not able to
give you a final position on our proposals. I have submitted a
short position paper for information, but, as you will appreciate,
any firm proposals must be cleared across Whitehall and that has
not been possible in the timeframe for scrutiny. I can confirm,
however, that, subject to that process, we would intend to consult
on draft regulations when the Bill is formally introduced so that
everyone is clear about our intentions with regard to dates and
details of refurbishment regulations. I have also noted there
has been some interest in the Blue Badge Scheme, and the omission
from this Bill of any provision to give effect to the DPTAC recommendations.
I am sure the Committee is aware that we introduced an amendment
to the Traffic Management Bill in the Commons at the third reading
to introduce a power for enforcement officers and police to inspect
blue badges at a local level. On the other provisions requiring
primary legislation, namely the removal of the term "institution",
which we all would now regard as inappropriate, and the establishment
of reciprocal arrangements with other countries, not least the
EU, we are currently considering the best means for taking these
forward in terms of legislation. I know that DPTAC also recommended
the establishment of a national database. On that point I would
say that before we can legislate we first need to look at the
feasibility of such a system and we will be commissioning research
in the next few months to do precisely that. I would say, finally,
that we believe that the transport provisions of the draft Bill
will have a significant benefit for the mobility and independence
of disabled people and will build on the progress which has already
been made in improving transport opportunities.
Q646 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. I believe you have to go, Mr McNulty, so perhaps we can
ask you the transport questions first, but, before we do, can
I put a general point. I think you have half-answered this already,
but just for the record, some of our witnesses have proposed the
DDA should be repealed and replaced with a new comprehensive piece
of disability equality legislation. Why have the Government not
taken this approach? I think you have answered this already, but
just for the record, would you reply?
Maria Eagle: We took the view,
following advice from the Disability Rights Task Force, that we
should build on what was there, and that was the Disability Discrimination
Act. By the time this Bill is passed, if it gets a fair passage
through both Houses, as we would intend, we believe it will be
pretty comprehensive. So we have taken the view that we should
build on what is there and improve it rather than start from scratch.
I think if we were to start from scratch we would inevitably cause
confusion, but we would also be reintroducing some of the concepts
that are already in legislation.
Q647 Chairman: Thank you very much.
Just before we move on to transport, there is a supplementary
to that. You mention the Bills, the Acts indeed, that the Government
has already passed. There will, perhaps by the end of this Parliament,
be a Mental Capacity Act, a Disability Discrimination Act and
perhaps a Mental Health Act. I think that we would all expect
that the various departments involved will try to ensure there
is a read-across between those three Acts which all deal with
disability in different ways but, of course, it is important that
they are linked in some way and that they do not conflict with
each other? I am sure you would agree with that.
Maria Eagle: I would agree with
that. We do our best to make sure that we do not pass Acts of
Parliament that contradict each other. I think each of those proposed
pieces of legislation deal with very different aspects of disabled
peoples' lives, and I do not think it would be possible to put
it all into one piece of legislation or have common definitions,
but, certainly across Whitehall, we do our utmost to make sure
we do not contradict each other. It is not always as easy as it
might seem, but we do our best.
Chairman: Can we move on to transport
questions.
Lord Swinfen: Can I ask a supplementary?
Chairman: Please do, yes.
Q648 Lord Swinfen: Are you going
to be including a Keeling schedule in the Bill when it is introduced
to Parliament?
Maria Eagle: We will do as much
as we can to make sure that people understand where the links
are between our legislation and other bits of legislation.
Q649 Lord Swinfen: But a Keeling
schedule would, in fact, be the DDA 1995 as amended by this Bill
and any regulations that have been brought into force altogether,
and it would make it much clearer to everyone, both members of
Parliament and those outside, what the end result would be?
Maria Eagle: I take the view this
legislation needs to be consolidated once we have got to the end
of changing it, because it is difficult to follow at present.
Certainly when we passed the Article 13 regulations we produced
a version of the DDA as it would have looked had all the changes
to the regulations been introduced, and we certainly intend to
make sure that people can see something, whether it is a Keeling
schedule or a version of what it would look like consolidated,
so that they can follow it, because it is becoming increasingly
complex to follow it on the face of Acts and Bills and with amending
statutory instruments.
Q650 Lord Swinfen: When do you anticipate
bringing forward consolidation legislation?
Maria Eagle: I cannot say, I just
think it would need to be done.
Chairman: The Department has, extremely
helpfully, produced a consolidated document bringing together
the 1995 Act, the draft Bill and all the regulations which have
amended the 1995 Act.
Q651 Miss Begg: Obviously this is
the first question on transport. In your opening remarks you said
that there was going to be a timetable for lifting the transport
service exemptions in the different sectors. Will that be a different
timetable for each sector? Can you outline to us what you see
as the timescales involved in bringing each of the different transport
sectors under the obligations of the Act?
Mr McNulty: Well, all the processes
are essentially done, in the sense that, firstly, it is dependent
on what the absolute legislative timetable is. We will certainly
circulate or publish draft regulations during the course of the
Bill's legislative passage and before Royal Assent and thereafter
will issue the regulations. At this stage it is difficult to unpick
from that quite in which order each of the regulations will come
out and be enforced and exemptions ultimately lifted, but the
commitment is to absolutely use those powers and do it for all
areas after Royal Assent as soon as is practical.
Q652 Miss Begg: I assume you will
be taking evidence from people to guide you, whatever that timetable
will be, but what kind of evidence is going to be considered?
Who will you listen to and how are you going to evaluate it?
Mr McNulty: There will be the
whole range of evidence that there has been from this process
which will be factored into that process. We want to get the draft
regulations out as early as possible so that there can be, I would
hope at least a few rounds, two rounds of consultation with as
wide a base as possible. Clearly the greater agreement and consensus
there is—there will not be absolutely—the regulations
as they end up will be reflective of the extent to which there
has been very, very detailed consultation. So that process itself
needs to unfold as the Bill unfolds, and we would hope to be in
a position where the regulations as they come out for each sector
subsequently, the arguments and the discussions have already been
handled and they are robust regulations that can be improved as
soon as possible, but it is difficult to throw out separate timetables
for each sector just off the top of my head.
Q653 Miss Begg: But that will be
coming from the next Queen's speech. You will be looking to have
that kind of timetable that people can study and look at?
Mr McNulty: I would hope, at the
very least, as part of the consultation process on draft regulations
all the way up to Royal Assent that we would start to get an idea
during that process of quite what the timetable will be, subsequent
to Royal Assent, for each and every area lifting the exemption.
Q654 Lord Rix: Can you provide the
Committee with details of the key context of the regulations and
what will be left for the DRC to cover in codes of practice? Also,
as a little addition, I gather you are committed to make the exemption
in as short a time as possible between the regulations?
Mr McNulty: Absolutely to the
second point. In terms of the details of key context, they will
not be detailed technical regulations such as there are for transport
vehicles under Part 5, they will simply set out what specific
provisions of Part 3 will apply for each transport system. For
example, for the public transport services we are proposing duties
relating to, as you would expect, gratuitous discrimination and
changes to practices, policy and procedures that will make it
impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use
the service. In the case of auxiliary aids, it would be limited
to those provisions that do not require physical alteration of
the actual vehicle itself. We think that approach is consistent
with the overall approach and the interplay between Part 3 and
Part 5; but, for example, for car hire services, it is likely
that we will need to invoke the 2004 physical alterations duty
in order to address the provision of car adaptations for disabled
motorists in the area of car hire services. For breakdown services,
you can expect that it will be necessary to make them subject
to similar duties to cover the case of providing a recovery service.
The format of the DRC code is still to be determined, but the
idea would be that it would provide the industry with the kind
of guidance which is made available under the existing DRC code,
although it will clearly be specific to transport services.
Q655 Lord Rix: Would the regulations
require a transport provider to consider providing a reasonable
alternative means of accessing the service? Would that be possible?
Mr McNulty: It may well be something
we look at, but, as you will know from all your deliberations,
"reasonable" is open to a huge array in terms of a definition
and a substantive definition. I would say, where appropriate in
the specific transport sector, that there will be some alternative—that
is something we should perhaps look at—although, where it
is appropriate, to adapt what is already there, like simply adapting
a car for hire so that it is able to be utilised by a disabled
driver, would already be the way to do it.
Q656 Lord Tebbit: It is fine, if
I may say so, Chairman, to talk about adapting vehicles for disabled
drivers, but what about adapting vehicles for people who are wheelchair
bound who are not drivers and are severely disabled. Are you going
to require car hire firms to provide vehicles of that kind?
Mr McNulty: To the extent that
we do, that would be under Part 5 rather than Part 3 of the physical
adaptations. For Part 3, the lifting of exemptions, I do not think
that would be the case.
Q657 Lord Tebbit: Could you make
your intention plain; and might I say that I have what I think
is fashionable to call these days "a hearing disability".
That means "I am a bit deaf" in old-fashioned language.
Could you speak up and more clearly, please?
Mr McNulty: I would happily do
so. If I look aghast, it is because that is not something that
I am often requested to do, given the volume. I do apologise.
I would say not under Part 3 necessarily, but it may well be something
we need to look at more under Part 5 and the whole issue of physical
alterations, but it is crucially where practicable.
Q658 Mr Berry: With respect to Part
5, the end date, the rail end date consultation that I think was
completed in January, are you able to tell us what the results
of that exercise are?
Mr McNulty: As I said earlier,
I did circulate a schedule in terms of the rail consultation,
and that goes into some detail about what the various responses
were from SRA, industry and disability organisations. I guess
on one level the array or continuum in terms of the preferences
for end dates range from 2017 to 2020 in terms of disability organisations
through, if you just follow the natural life cycle of replacement
from the industry side, to 2035. We have said previously that
at this stage something like 2025 seems to strike a reasonable
balance between cost factorability and all the other issues.
Q659 Mr Berry: I understand the document
has been received, but the clerk tells me the Members of the Committee
have not yet been able to read it. It is not that we have not
read it, we have not received it?
Mr McNulty: I assumed it was in
front of you.
|
