Overview
18. It is disappointing that, once again, a Parliamentary
scrutiny committee has been forced to examine an incomplete draft
bill. One clause (clause 15, which outlaws discrimination against
local councillors) was not published until February, giving the
Committee little time to examine it. Another important set of
provisions relating to transport - in particular, a proposed power
to set a date by which all rail vehicles must be accessible to
disabled people - was not available to the Committee at all. We
have done our best to divine and assess the Government's intentions
on the rail end date, but the lack of key clauses has hampered
our work. The Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill also
recently noted that the failure to provide complete draft bills
reduces the effectiveness of pre-legislative scrutiny. [13]
We strongly endorse the recommendation of that Committee that
the Government should make the full text of draft bills available
to pre-legislative scrutiny committees in good time before the
committees are asked to report.
19. The Committee notes that the easy read version
of the draft bill was not available until several weeks after
the publication of the standard format draft bill. The Committee
was concerned at this delay, and its effect on the ability of
people with learning disabilities to give evidence to us.[14]
For the future, we suggest that Government publications which
particularly affect disabled people should be made available in
appropriate alternative formats at the same time as the standard
format document is published.
20. The draft bill was supported in principle,
if not necessarily in detail, by a very large number of witnesses.[15]
The DRC warmly welcomed the draft bill and said that it would
"greatly enhance the life chances of disabled people, promoting
independence, safe mobility and employability." Some witnesses
argued, however, that the approach
embodied by the DDA and the draft bill was
fatally flawed and that the existing legislation should be repealed
and replaced by a disabled people's rights and freedoms bill.[16]
Other witnesses thought that, while the DDA was seriously defective,
the draft bill could nonetheless bring worthwhile benefits.[17]
21. The Committee considers it crucial that the
proposed extensions to anti-discrimination legislation represented
by the draft bill are, along with our own recommendations, implemented
promptly. We believe our recommendations can easily be incorporated
into the bill. We therefore recommend that the full bill should
be introduced into Parliament as soon as possible in the current
session.
22. This would mean that Parliamentary scrutiny
of the bill could begin shortly before or after the summer recess.
If it were carried over into the next session, it should be assured
of receiving Royal Assent before the next general election. After
Royal Assent, the new provisions should be implemented as quickly
as possible.
23. We have received and considered a great deal
of evidence from a wide range of sources, including groups representing
disabled people, organisations and individuals who will be affected
by the proposals, trade unions and others, and our recommendations
are based on this evidence. A strong case was made that there
have been unintended consequences arising from the way the original
legislation was framed. Some of our recommendations address these
issues and we consider that they could easily and promptly be
incorporated into the full bill.
24. We also received evidence of a lack of consistency
between some of the Government's stated intentions and the draft
bill. In some cases, the draft bill is inconsistent with the existing
DDA. Many of our recommendations seek to address these inconsistencies
and, we believe, will prevent further unintended consequences
in the implementation of the legislation.
25. We also conclude that, where it is appropriate,
the bill should be consistent with other similar anti-discrimination
legislation, in particular that applying to sex and race. This
will give clarity to individuals and organisations who will be
affected by the bill, and enable them to build on their work under
other anti-discrimination legislation and to carry out their responsibilities
with confidence and consistency.
26. Finally in this regard, last year the Government
published a draft Mental Incapacity Bill, and later this year
they intend to publish a draft Mental Health Bill. We recommend
that the Government review the provisions of these three bills
to ensure that they are consistent with each other.
27. The Committee was grateful to receive from
the Government an informal "illustrative version" of
how the DDA would look if it were amended by the draft bill, incorporating
changes already made to the DDA by various regulations. Without
it the Committee's work would have been difficult, and when the
bill becomes law users of the DDA are likely to experience similar
problems. We recommend that, once the bill is enacted, the
Government consolidate all the anti-disability discrimination
legislation into a single Act. The Minister for Disabled People
indicated her support for this idea in her evidence to us on 31
March.[18]
28. The Committee was scrutinising what is in
some respects a skeleton bill. Over 25 separate provisions authorise
the Secretary of State to make regulations on nearly every aspect
of the draft bill, ranging from transport to housing to the new
duties on public authorities. Only four of the fifteen clauses
available to us do not contain any delegated powers. We received
useful memoranda from the Government on these delegated powers,
and extremely helpful evidence from the House of Lords Delegated
Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.[19]
We comment on specific delegated powers in the appropriate chapters.
In this general overview we recommend that where a draft bill
contains significant delegated powers, the Government should as
a matter of routine provide the appropriate Parliamentary committee
with a memorandum explaining the purpose and effect of those powers
(as was provided for us). We also welcome the Delegated Powers
Committee's willingness to give preliminary scrutiny to draft
bills.
Title of the bill
29. Before we turn to the provisions of the draft
bill, we first consider the short title. We understand that the
title of a bill or Act has no legislative effect, but it can send
a powerful message, and it should properly reflect the intention
behind the measure. As the purpose of the bill is to combat discrimination
against disabled people, we recommend that the Government consider
changing the short title to the Disability Anti-Discrimination
Bill.
Structure of the report
30. We do not report on the draft bill in clause
order. We look first in chapter 2 at clause 12 and the key question
of the definition of "disability" in the DDA; in other
words, who should be protected from discrimination. In chapters
3 to 8 we examine the other key areas addressed by the draft bill:
transport, the new duties on public authorities, protection of
local councillors and other office holders, private clubs and
housing. In chapter 9 we assess the remaining clauses. In chapters
10 to 12 we examine the key proposals made by witnesses for extending
the scope of the draft bill: volunteers, employment tribunals,
and examining bodies and standard setting agencies. In chapters
13 and 14 we examine two issues which apply across several of
the subjects covered by the draft bill: triggers and financial
implications. Chapter 15 lists our conclusions and recommendations.
31. We include as appendices to our report:
- List of Members, together with
declarations of interests
- List of witnesses
- Our call for written evidence
- Schedule listing witnesses' comments on the draft
bill, with Government responses
- List of acronyms
- Formal Minutes
1 By the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment)
Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1673), referred to in this report as
the "DDA Amendment Regulations 2003" and the Disability
Discrimination Act 1995 (Pensions) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/2770),
referred to as the "DDA Pensions Regulations 2003". Back
2
We use the term "service providers" to mean providers
of goods, facilities and services. Back
3
Statutory Instrument 1998/2456 Back
4
Statutory Instrument 2000/1970. Further information is given by
the Government in Ev 287 Back
5
Statutory Instrument 2000/2990 Back
6
Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs etc) Act 2002 Back
7
House of Commons Debates, 28 October 2003, col 10WS: Disability
Discrimination Act (Taxis) Back
8
Labour Party Election Manifesto 1997 Back
9
Further information about the Disability Rights Commission, and
its codes of practice, are available from the DRC website: www.drc-gb.org.uk. Back
10
The Draft Bill was published as Command Paper Cm 6058-I, together
with Explanatory Notes (Cm 6058-II) and a draft Regulatory Impact
Assessment (Cm 6058-III). Back
11
House of Commons Transport Committee, Disabled People's Access
to Transport (6th Report, Session 2003-04, HC 439); Delegated
Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, Ev 419; Joint Committee
on Human Rights, Ev 441 Back
12
Described in this report as the Minister for Disabled People and
the Transport Minister respectively. Back
13
Report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill (Session
2003-04, HL Paper 63-I, HC 139-I), p12 Back
14
Q 143 (Mr Betteridge) and Groups representing people with a learning
disability, Ev 300 Back
15
Including DRC, Ev 1, para 1.1; Welsh Local Government Association,
Ev 292; Law Society, Ev 174; Shelter, Ev 294; Disability Charities
Consortium, Ev 76; TUC, Ev 163; British Polio Fellowship, Ev 297;
Rethink, Ev 204; Spinal Injury Association, Ev 311; Metropolitan
Police, Ev 312; Terence Higgins Trust, Ev 419; Skill, Ev 420;
Turning Point, Ev 328; NATFHE, Ev 334; Disability Agenda Scotland,
Ev 337; Northern TUC, Ev 338; HoDis, Ev 340, para 2.1; Macmillan
Cancer Relief, Ev 341, para 1.1; Sense, Ev 342, para 1.3; John
Grooms, Ev 354; Action for Blind People, Ev 357; RADAR, Ev 361;
Arthritis Care, Ev 368; Discrimination Law Association, Ev 374;
National Centre for Independent Living, Ev 384; LGA, Ev 112; Multiple
Sclerosis Society, Ev 389; Mayor of London, Ev 398; Sir Peter
Large CBE, Ev 430; Advocacy Across London, Ev 416; ECNI, Ev 217 Back
16
Including Greenwich Association of Disabled People, Ev 452; Disabled
People's Direct Action Network, Ev 284; Lindsay Carter, Ev 476;
Developmental Neuro-Diversity Association, Ev 418 Back
17
Including National Federation for the Blind of the United Kingdom,
Ev 282; British Council of Disabled People, Ev 135; Greater London
Action on Disability, Ev 406 Back
18
Q 649 Back
19
Ev 228 & Ev 248; Ev 419 Back