| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, before the noble Baroness moves off that subject, clearly this morning's announcement was very important. Why was it made to the IPPR rather than in the form of a Statement to both Houses of Parliament?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first, it is not a major new initiative, as the noble Lord opposite seems to think. We already repeatedly check eligibility for all benefits, whether it is disability living allowance, housing benefit, JSA--the noble Lord will know because he took part in those debates--and of course with IB. We are now proposing the three-year repeat interviews in the job centre plus environment with the help of a personal adviser. Those interviews will be work-focused to go over the range of opportunities.
It seemed to me important that this matter, which will be included in a Bill later this autumn, should be in the public domain so that disabled people can comment and consult on it, particularly when our proposals are worked through in greater detail. Given that this Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech and it was made clear then that it would include broad proposals addressing incapacity benefit, there could not be any question of impropriety in the speech made by my right honourable friend this morning.
In conclusion, we want a society where there is opportunity for everyone and not just a few. We want it free of discrimination and prejudice. We want everyone to play a full part. But some people, particularly those with more severe disabilities, need extra help and support. We have, as noble Lords today acknowledged, made important changes, specifically for severely disabled people. We need to do more. Employers and service providers will have to consider making reasonable adjustments for any disabled person. It is intolerable that physical barriers, for example, or out-of-date stereotypes which at reasonable expense can be adjusted to bring disabled people into the full life of our society, including the life of work, should stand in their way. Our job is to help them move those hurdles and barriers.
Our record over the past four years in supporting civil rights for disabled people shows we mean business. Your Lordships have always been expert, supportive, helpful and, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, well-judged; constructively critical. I expect nothing less from your Lordships as we go into the new Parliament ahead.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank all who have spoken in this debate. Perhaps I may deal briefly with some of the points raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, spoke about "Access to Work" and, I am glad to say, supported the words in my opening speech urging wider publicity for that scheme. I would add that it is not expensive. The provision of a small piece of special equipment, with
the cost shared by the Government and the employer, could make all the difference as to whether or not an individual could be employed.The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, spoke about the difficulties of representation when cases are brought before tribunals and courts. I am sure we were interested to hear those experiences and her comments will no doubt be read elsewhere.
I felt very much complimented by the fact that two right reverend Prelates decided to take part in this debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield referred to Section 7. But I believe his concerns have been answered. I tried to answer them in my opening speech and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said more. Section 7 originally laid down that small firms employing fewer than 20 employees would be excluded from the legislation. But subsections (2) and the following subsections laid down the way in which those numbers can be reduced. That has already happened once. The figure of 20 is now 15. In answer to me the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that that will continue and will come to nought in 2004. So the right reverend Prelate need not worry. It is not a discrimination in favour of small firms that will continue for long.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, spoke of the need to spread public awareness. She is absolutely right. I speak having had the experience of being appointed to take a prominent part in the United Kingdom, in 1981, in the International Year of Disabled People. We decided then to make promoting public awareness one of our primary aims. It was estimated afterwards that we managed to do more in that one year than in 10 normal years. But that is 20 years ago and a great deal still needs to be done.
I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who replied to all the points raised in the debate. Perhaps I can just say that she spoke of the number of cases with which the DRC is presently dealing. But what will really matter are the results of those cases; how they go and whether or not at the end of it the disabled people concerned actually benefit or feel that they have been well treated or badly treated.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving the figure of 9,000 cases where tribunals were concerned. My figure of 5,000, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, also quoted, was for the end of last year. We did not have any later information. I am glad to hear that the figure is now 9,000.
My only quibble with the remarks of the noble Baroness is that she described the omission of education in the 1995 Act as a flaw. I would regard it as an omission which was to be dealt with later. It is a pity if the DDA was to be described as "flawed" which is the next stage, given current parlance.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may take back the word "flawed" and say "incomplete".
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I hope that the departmental briefs will be
altered in future. Within the past year I have heard another Minister--I shall not mention her name--describe the DDA as "flawed" on the same count. I am sure that the government of the day would like to have included education. However, as I indicated, there were so many arguments going on within the educational world that rather than hold up all the other subjects and delay the Bill so that it would not have been passed in 1995, it was best to wait on education until there was some agreement on the important subject of which kinds of school disabled pupils should attend. That was dealt with in a later Act.I am grateful to everybody who has taken part in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
- House adjourned at seven minutes before six o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |