| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. I will do no such thing. This is a Private Member's Bill, not a government Bill. My noble friend has already held discussions with the Minister with responsibilities for disabled people. We agree that certain issues associated with disability need clarifying independently and beyond the effects of the European directive coming into play with British legislation. If and when legislative time permits, the Government may seek to intervene on those issues. It is not the case
that the Government have any view on or support my noble friend's Bill—which must take its chances in the other place, as with all private Members' legislation.
Lord Astor of Hever: With respect, that was not my question. If the Bill fails, do the Government have an aspiration to come forward . . .
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. The Government accept that there are issues—not necessarily those raised by the Bill, debated tonight or covered by amendments. The Government may wish to revisit aspects of the 1995 Act in light of concerns that have emerged since and of European legislation. It is for the Government to decide whether that is an appropriate priority. My noble friend's Bill is a private activity. I am here to keep a watching brief. If it helps the Committee to provide information, I shall seek to do so—but in no sense will I offer a view on whether or not I support a particular amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: The debate has come down to a tango. I will comment briefly on the three amendments, which are some of the most important.
Of course I hope that any future Bill would incorporate a comprehensive listing, to avoid the many misunderstandings of the past. I extend the greatest understanding, as always, to my noble friend Lady Hollis, but she seems anxious to distance herself from the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: While I understand that she must, as a Minister, avoid giving a specific commitment, I am sure that when Members of the Committee raise points with her, she will be as forthcoming and comprehensive as possible.
After the detailed and comprehensive explanation given by my noble friend Lord Bragg, anything that I add may be superfluous. He more or less said it all. Nevertheless, one should bear in mind my noble friend's comment at Second Reading that mental illness is not regarded as equal to physical illness. There is a great deal of public confusion about mental illness—particularly the definition of a clinically well-recognised mental illness, with which Amendment No. 1 is concerned. The problems range from personal idiosyncrasies to severe schizophrenia—and the boundaries at different stages are hazy. The amendment would amend the Act's existing requirement for a mental illness to be clinically well recognised, which is unfortunate and irrelevant and should go. This admirable amendment is the best instrument.
Amendment No. 2 also deserves the support of the Committee, given that the 1995 Act was aimed primarily at physical disability. The Act's requirement that a disability must have a long-term adverse effect rules out anyone with acute depression that does not last 12 months, which is clearly absurd. As my noble friend Lord Bragg said, the definition of long term is
some 12 months. Although that may be reasonable for physical disability, it should not debar people with mental illness from enjoying the protection of the Act. No one can deny that many people with severe but short-lived mental illness are likely to suffer discrimination in years ahead. They deserve and need the Act's protection.Amendment No. 3 deals with another anomaly in the 1995 Act—its preoccupation with physical disability. The Act lists day-to-day activities that have to be affected for the person to qualify. Most are physical. The amendment properly inserts provisions that are relevant to individuals with mental illness and thereby makes the Act a vehicle for helping mentally ill people and a more rounded whole. I accept the three amendments.
Lord Bragg: I am warmed by the welcome given to the amendments and the support that they have received in all parts of the Committee. I know that many people who suffer from mental disability will also be warmed, because they have high hopes for the Bill. I hope that no one feels that I am being too selective by particularly thanking my noble friend Lord Ashley for his Bill and for the opportunity to table and speak to the amendments.
My thanks go also to my noble friend the Minister for taking questions and a wonderful display of shadow boxing, which I greatly enjoyed. I would appreciate a detailed letter covering some of the points that were raised. I was speaking strictly to the notion of mental disability. It would be interesting to study in some detail the challenges brought against my arguments. I reiterate my thanks to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bragg moved Amendment No. 2:
- Page 1, line 5, at end insert "—
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bragg moved Amendment No. 3:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Wilkins moved Amendment No. 4:
The noble Baroness said: I should like to express my appreciation to Caroline Ellis of the RNIB for her advice on this matter.
The purpose of Amendment No. 4 is to ensure that those who are certified as blind or partially sighted are automatically counted as disabled for the purpose of the DDA. It should be an uncontroversial amendment as it falls in line with the Disability Rights Task Force recommendation and the Government's proposal in Towards Inclusion—their final response to the DRTF recommendations.
As the DRTF and the Government both acknowledged, all visually impaired people, and certainly those certified or certifiable as blind or partially sighted, ought to meet the definition of disability under the DDA. They further acknowledged that, in practice, employers and service providers have sought to challenge this even when someone has been registered. That has been very distressing and stressful and has led to at least one person becoming clinically depressed. Visually impaired people have also been faced with an uphill struggle in establishing before a tribunal that they are disabled people for the purposes of the Act.
Being certified as blind or partially sighted is traumatic enough without further being required to prove one's impairment or being forced to go into endless details about its impact on one's life. The amendment proposes that people should be able to use either registration with a local authority or certification by a consultant ophthalmologist as proof of being blind or partially sighted because documentary evidence of one may sometimes be more easily available than the other. There is often considerable delay between certification and registration.
I feel sure that my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke will accept this amendment as it would assist the applicant in discrimination cases, provide certainty to the respondent, and allow the tribunal to move to the substance of the case and address the discrimination that may have occurred. Currently, more time is being spent arguing over whether someone is "disabled" under the tortuous criteria set out in the Act and guidance than addressing discrimination. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: The amendment promotes a very sensible principle: in legislation dealing with certain types of disability, we should not have to provide endless definitions; one definition should be acceptable. There have been cases involving disabilities other than blindness in which it has been questioned whether a condition actually constitutes a disability. Surely we should be able to agree on definitions that are established and agreed by
Lord Ashley of Stoke: This amendment would bring much-needed clarification to a confused and confusing situation. Although it is stating the obvious, I remind the Committee that blind and partially sighted people see nothing or very little. They surely have a profound disability. It seems wrong to me that people certified as blind or partially sighted are not regarded as disabled. But that is what happens. This amendment would give them a guarantee that their certification is accepted as proof of disability and that they will accordingly be entitled to the protection of the DDA. I accept the amendment.
( ) at the end of paragraph 2(1) insert "; or
(d) if the mental impairment consists of or results from depression, it has lasted or is likely to last at least three months","
Page 1, line 5, at end insert "—
( ) at the end of paragraph 4(1) insert—
"(i) ability to care for oneself;
(j) ability to communicate and interact with other people; or
(k) ability to perceive reality","
9 p.m.
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
"7B (1) A person who has been certified by a consultant ophthalmologist as blind or partially sighted is to be deemed to have a disability and hence to be a disabled person.
(2) A copy of a record of examination to certify a person as blind or partially sighted or a record of registration as such with a local authority shall be conclusive evidence, in relation to the person to whom it was issued, of the matters certified.
(3) Unless the contrary is shown, any document purporting to be a record of examination or registration shall be taken to be such a record and to have been validly issued.""
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page