| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Page 67, line 16, at end insert--
. In Article 3(1) of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (interpretation), in the definition of "regulations" after "subject" insert "(except in Article 23(3)(a)(ii))".
. In Article 2(2) of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (interpretation), in the definition of "regulations" for "Article 359(5)" substitute "Articles 359(5) and 375(3)(b)(ii)".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commmons.
9.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone) moved Amendment No. 1:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 6. I take account of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and other noble Lords who spoke during Committee and Report on the matter. Recognising the strength of feeling on the issue, I am content for the commission's responsibilities with
Amendment No. 3 is consequential. The power in Clause 2(2) to encourage good practice is redundant as a result of the duty set out in Amendment No. 1. In preparing the amendments it was helpful, as the noble Baroness suggested, to draw on the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I am grateful to him. Amendment No. 1 also seeks to remove the words "in all fields of activity" from the commission's duty to promote the equalisation of opportunities. Those words were originally included in the Bill to ensure that it was made clear beyond doubt that promoting equalisation of opportunities was not confined to activities covered by the Disability Discrimination Act.
However, on further consideration the Government have decided that the better legal view is that it would be safe to delete the words. This is merely a tidying up measure. I am happy to place on record that the commission's activities in respect of promoting the equalisation of opportunities and encouraging good practice go wider than those areas covered by the Disability Discrimination Act.
I hope that these amendments meet the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and other noble Lords on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I welcome this group of amendments. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, with whom I worked closely at earlier stages of the Bill, would welcome them. I am delighted that this group of amendments makes it a duty on the commission to encourage good practice in the treatment of people with disabilities rather than just establishing a hope.
However, might the wording of my noble friend's amendment be preferable as I suspect that it is slightly better English, being rather briefer?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness most warmly for the letters that I and I suspect other Members have received since the last stage of the Bill. They have been helpful. It is clear that the Minister has moved a long way to meet some of the concerns expressed at that stage. I am deeply grateful to the noble Baroness.
The amendments respond positively to a convincing case put to the Minster at Committee and Report stages. However, even at this late stage and at the risk of sounding churlish--that is not my intention--I should like to recommend that the House accepts Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 rather than Amendments Nos. 1 and 6.
If my Amendment No. 2 were accepted there would be the need for a minor amendment to Schedule 1. That could be tidied up as the Bill moves to another place. The reason given for removing the words "in any field of activity" was not convincing. The Minister said that they appeared in order to make the Bill clear beyond any doubt whatever. I suspect that they have been removed because someone in the back room--probably counsel--said that it is safe to do so, but without giving any intellectual reasons.
I believe that the words "in any field of activity" make clear that the provision goes wider than the Disability Discrimination Act. It gives those who must put the commission's work into practice a feeling that under the Bill they have a right to move into all fields of activity which impact on the lives and work of disabled people. Therefore, I should like a further and deeper explanation of why those words should be removed.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for supporting my amendment because it provides a straightforward form of words in keeping with the crisp way in which Clause 2 is set out. It provides that:
In thanking the Minister most warmly for all the help she has given since the previous stage of the Bill, the difference between us is a little more than semantics. It is not only plain English, but a clear statement of duty. I would leave it to the commission to determine when it is appropriate to act. It is highly unlikely that it would act when not appropriate or would take action which was not with a view to encouraging good practice. I hope that the noble Baroness will come a little further along the road.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome the Minister's amendment in response to that tabled by my noble friend Lord Rix. He is sorry that he cannot be here, but I pay tribute to him and to the Minister for their diligence in pursuit of the matter.
Does not the Minister agree that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is wider and firmer than her amendment? When I read that the Minister was removing the words, "in any field of activity" I wondered whether we were losing something.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this short debate addresses the question: what is the best of two good options? It seems churlish to say more than that. However, the noble Baroness has proved again that, in the elegant expression of my noble friend Lord Russell, she has become part of the country party on this. I was thinking of saying something about her being gamekeeper-turned-poacher, but I am afraid that under no circumstances can I see her sneaking across a field with a sackful of dead rabbits and a ferret.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is trying to do, but I
As my noble friend Lady Blackstone explained, Amendment No. 1 is designed to overcome the controversy of using "shall" or "may" in relation to good practice. It places the encouragement of good practice firmly among the commission's duties and together with other duties. It permits the commission to carry out the task as it wishes, giving it certain flexibilities. It is an issue in respect of which it is best not to tie the hands of the commission on specific methods.
The words in the Bill which precede the amendment of my noble friend Lady Blackstone are so vital to disabled people. They are:
Baroness Blackstone: I am very grateful for the comments that noble Lords have made in response to these amendments and I am glad that I have been able to meet at least some of the concerns addressed in previous debates. In fact, I think I have met the concerns; it is a question of arguing about the wording.
Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness. The amendment seeks to remove the words "in all fields of activity" from the commission's duty to promote the equalisation of opportunities. I have to repeat what I said before: these words were originally included in the Bill to ensure that it was made clear beyond doubt that promoting equalisation of opportunities was not confined to activities covered by the Disability Discrimination Act. I hope that explains why the amendment has been put in the form of words that the Government have brought forward.
Placing a rigid duty on the commission to encourage good practice, which would be the effect of the noble Baroness's amendment, could lead to a conflict with its other main duties. For example, working towards the elimination of discrimination will sometimes involve the commission in doing things other than encouraging good practice, such as supporting individuals taking cases to court or tribunal.
Where the case involves a question of principle there may not be an established body of good practice on which to rely. Moreover, even if there were to be some good practice relevant to the issue under consideration, the commission may judge that the principle should be tested so that the law is clarified for the benefit of all. The government amendment is designed therefore to allow the commission some flexibility while placing on the commission the duty to encourage good practice. In framing such a provision we need to take care not to
I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness is able to accept that the Government's amendments here are very much in the spirit of what she wants to achieve and will avoid some possible disadvantage as regards her formulation.
Page 1, line 16, leave out from ("persons") to end of line 17 and insert--
("(ba) to take such steps as it considers appropriate with a view to encouraging good practice in the treatment of disabled persons; and").
"The Commission shall have the following duties ... to work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled persons ... to promote the equalisation of opportunities"--
and, if my amendment were accepted--
"to encourage good practice regarding the treatment of disabled persons".
It is clear and straightforward. It is not couched around "to take such steps as it considers appropriate". Of course, the commission will only act when appropriate; that goes without saying and does not have to be written into statute. The phrase:
"to take such steps as it considers appropriate with a view to encouraging good practice",
is not as crisp or direct as putting the duty on the commission,
"to encourage good practice regarding the treatment of disabled persons in any field of activity".
"to promote the equalisation of opportunities".
That is the equalisation which disabled people want. They want to be treated like everybody else. The word "equalisation" is clear, specific and crucial. All action to bring about equalisation is welcome. I believe that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, would do just that. I hope the House will support Amendment No. 1.
9.15 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page