| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Again, I have been invited to comment on the situation. As I understand it, university and HE careers services are not at present required to continue to make provision for graduates once they have left the institution for study, irrespective of whether the students are disabled. It has been recommended that higher education institutions should do so, and obviously some do. In that sense, no act of discrimination is taking place because it is a matter for the individual institution whether or not it continues to make services available. I speak from experience of my university. As I understand it, a continuing careers service is not currently a requirement of university provision for any students. The issue therefore does not arise.
Obviously, it would be deeply unacceptable if universities made provision for non-disabled students but failed to give the same service to disabled students. My understanding is that at present they are treated in the same way: neither group of students has an automatic entitlement to a continuing service once they have left university.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall ask for some advice. I shall see what
Skill say about that. I find it rather alarming; I should say that disabled graduates probably need advice even more than non-disabled graduates.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not arguing about whether disabled graduates need advice; I am certainly not arguing that they should not be covered in a way that non-disabled students would take for granted. All that I am saying is that my understanding of the law as it stands—I shall write to the noble Baroness if I am wrong—is that no graduates of a university are automatically entitled to continuing careers advice once they have left the institution.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask her what she feels about the community use of schools by parents and siblings of schoolchildren who are disabled.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is a different issue. We are talking there about physical access to premises and whether that counts as a service and therefore falls within the 2004 remit. That is a very different point. If I may say so, the noble Baroness is brigading together two important but rather different issues.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank the Minister, but I would welcome her writing to me if there is anything further. We will have a communication outside the Chamber.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: The Minister has again been very helpful to our debate. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has raised this important issue. It is rare for legislation to achieve perfection in the eyes of its beneficiaries when it comes to implementing new laws. Anomalies and loopholes are bound to appear.
There is some controversy about the issue. At least, we will get full clarification at a later date. I am happy to accept the amendment.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. We need to clarify things, and I will continue a dialogue with the Minister outside the Chamber, with the help of SKILL and the DRC.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 11:
- After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
The noble Lord said: This amendment would ensure that awarding and examining bodies had a clear duty under the DDA to strengthen the rights of disabled learners in respect of tests and examinations in education and training.
The position of such people in respect of testing has been strengthened by recent legislation. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 has done much to help and has brought most people taking examinations under Part III of the DDA. However, there is one area in which there may be a loophole, and the Minister may be required to answer on this issue. Whether an awarding body is caught by Part III will depend on whether it is deemed to be providing a service to the public or a section of the public. SKILL and the RNIB believe that the service provided by awarding bodies is the award itself, which is a service to students.
If that means that certain sections and certain qualifications are not covered, we must examine it again. If the Minister can assure me that I am wrong, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, as there is no point in using the Bill to insert useless wording. If the Minister is in some doubt, we should have it in to guard ourselves. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There seems to be an assumption that this is a government Bill and that I am responsible for deciding on the desirability of amendments. I have tried to make it clear that I am happy to provide information, but I am at arm's length from the Bill. It is not reasonable for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to say that, if I can give a satisfactory answer, he will withdraw the amendment and, if not, he will press it. That is not my responsibility; that is about his relationship to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke.
Awarding bodies will be covered by Part III of the DDA where they provide a service to the public. Whether they are doing so in a particular instance is determined case by case.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: It is because the Minister is so popular that we want to hear from her on every subject. That is why we keep asking her questions. I thought that she would be willing to give the clarification asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but, of course, we recognise her situation.
The amendment would give duties to awarding and examining bodies under the DDA. It would strengthen disabled learners' rights regarding tests and exams. People should not be penalised because of irrelevant disabilities. I am happy to accept the amendment.
Lord Addington: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for his acceptance. I am sorry that the Minister felt that she was bounced into that question; it was a purely technical point. The answer that she gave was that the matter would be considered case by case. That should not be so. If there is an examination open to all and someone has to take it, those running the examination should make sure that some form of reasonable adjustment is made.
The noble Baroness has been very helpful. According to my logic, she has proved that there is a need for the amendment. In thanking her for the technical information, I hope that the Committee will feel able to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Wilkins moved Amendment No. 12:
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, for which I am indebted to Ruth Scott and Jonah Grunsell of Scope, and to Caroline Ellis of the RNIB, for their help.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that electoral services are included on the face of the DDA as services to the public, subject to the duties under Part 3 of the Act. It would also require local authorities to prepare and implement a comprehensive elections accessibility strategy so as to ensure equal access to the whole electoral process for disabled voters.
Over the last three general elections, Scope has conducted the Polls Apart campaign, amassing evidence of the discrimination which disabled people face in the election process. It revealed that in the 1997 general election, 94 per cent of polling stations were inaccessible and discrimination against disabled voters was widespread. For instance, many disabled people
This was one disabled voter's experience in Chichester: "I had to shout from outside two sets of doors to try and get someone to help. Eventually another voter asked someone to come out and help me. There was no provision at all for disabled people. I had to vote in a car park and pass my vote to a stranger to put in the ballot box. I hope that they did. To top it all, it was raining and I had to wait outside during all this".
The Representation of the People Act 2000 introduced a number of measures to remedy this situation, but as the Polls Apart report of the 2001 general election revealed, while a significant amount of work had been done by the Government and returning officers, 69 per cent of polling stations could still be inaccessible. Some 38 per cent did not have a large print notice of the ballot paper on display, and 49 per cent had no tactile template available for blind and partially sighted people—both legal requirements of the Representation of the People Act. The RNIB concludes that for visually impaired people, the right to vote independently and in secret is for the most part still a right denied.
The current legal position is that no one can say with certainty whether electoral services and polling stations are covered under the DDA, and if so, in what ways. If it was clear that electoral services and facilities were subject to Part III of the DDA, with guidance to local authorities and disabled people explaining how the duties apply, then local authorities would give the matter the priority it needs and disabled people would know their rights and be in a position to challenge unacceptable provision.
Amendments to electoral law as recommended in the Disability Rights Task Force report would not provide the necessary protection against disability discrimination. It would not provide an avenue for redress if a disabled person was treated in a worse manner than non disabled voters or in a discriminatory way by polling staff.
Consequently, this amendment seeks to ensure that polling stations and electoral services are specifically included under Part III of the DDA in order to guarantee disabled voters' rights to vote in secret and with dignity.
The second part of the amendment addresses the clear need revealed by the Polls Apart campaign that local authorities be required to create a comprehensive strategy for improving access in the long term. Such a strategy should be regularly reviewed in consultation with disabled voters and local disability groups. It should specify a detailed time-scale for improvements and ensure that adequate resources are allocated to fund the strategy.
Due to the lateness of the hour I will not argue this in detail, but at a time when there is widespread concern about voter apathy, it seems utterly foolish to allow barriers to remain in place for one group of voters who are desperate to vote. Now more than ever, as we begin
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept that much more needs to be done to honour the civil and human rights of disabled people to participate in this democratic life—I do not expect her to reply—and the amendment seeks to ensure this. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I support the amendment because it relates to an issue I have long been pursuing. The new e-mail voting and other measures will be extremely useful because they should be very accessible. It is extremely important that that should be so. It has always been a question of accessible polling booths. My local polling station—the local school—has been accessible for a long time. The importance of that was brought home to me because I am allowed to vote in European elections. I changed my mind three days before polling day and I would have been furious to think that my vote was inexorably winging its way towards the wrong target.
"EXAMINATION, TEST AND ASSESSMENT SERVICES
(1) The 1995 Act is amended as follows.
(2) In section 19 after subsection (3)(h) insert—
"(i) the provision of examination, test and assessment services in relation to education and training by an awarding or other body."
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
"( ) In subsection (3)(i)—
"awarding body" means any body involved in awarding general, vocational or other qualifications not directly linked to entry to a particular trade or profession and which is not a responsible body for the purposes of Part 4;
"other body" includes bodies such as the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority for England which provide statutory assessment test papers for disabled learners.""
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
"EXTENSION OF THE 1995 ACT TO POLLING STATIONS AND ELECTORAL SERVICES
(1) The 1995 Act is amended as follows.
(2) In section 19, after subsection (3)(h) insert—
"(i) access to and use of electoral services and facilities".
(3) After section 21, insert—
"21B ELECTIONS ACCESSIBILITY STRATEGY
(1) It is the duty of each local authority to prepare and implement an elections accessibility strategy.
(2) An elections accessibility strategy is a strategy for, over a prescribed period, ensuring that disabled voters are able to participate fully and equally in all aspects of the registration system and electoral procedures and facilities for parliamentary, local government and European parliamentary elections by—
(a) ensuring the physical accessibility of polling stations for disabled voters;
(b) ensuring the accessibility of electoral registration and electoral procedures for disabled voters;
(c) ensuring the accessibility of postal voting information and procedures for disabled people;
(d) ensuring the delivery to disabled voters—
(i) within a reasonable time, and
(ii) in ways which are determined after taking into account their disabilities and any preferences expressed by them, of information about electoral services, procedures and facilities which is provided to non-disabled voters or which concerns arrangements for securing their access to electoral services, procedures and facilities; and
(e) taking steps to ensure any pilot schemes including arrangements for e-voting are fully accessible to disabled voters.
(3) An elections accessibility strategy must be in writing.
(4) Each local authority must keep their elections accessibility strategy under review during the period to which it relates and, if necessary, revise it.
(5) In preparing and revising their elections accessibility strategy a local authority must consult—
(a) disabled people in the local authority area, and
(b) organisations representing disabled people in the area.
(6) A local authority must have regard to any guidance issued as to compliance with the requirements of this section.
(7) In preparing their elections accessibility strategy, a local authority must have regard to—
(a) the need to allocate adequate resources for implementing the strategy; and
(b) any guidance issued as to—
(i) the content of an accessibility strategy;
(ii) the form in which it is to be produced; and
(iii) persons who must be sent copies of the strategy.
(8) As soon as practicable after any occasion when they prepare a new strategy or alter their strategy, the local authority must—
(a) publish the strategy or the strategy as altered in such manner as they think fit; and
(b) send a copy of it to the Secretary of State (in the case of an authority whose area is in England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in the case of an authority whose area is in Wales) and to such other persons (if any) as may be specified in guidance.
(9) The authority must also—
(a) cause a copy of their elections accessibility plan to be made available for inspection (at all reasonable hours) at such places as they think fit;
(b) give notice, by such means as they think expedient for bringing it to the attention of the public, as to the places at which a copy of it may be inspected; and
(c) supply a copy of it (or any part of it) to any person on request, either free of charge or at a charge representing no more than the cost of providing the copy.
(10) Guidance under this section may be issued—
(a) for England, by the Secretary of State; and
(b) for Wales, by the National Assembly.
(11) In this section—
"prescribed" in relation to Wales means prescribed in regulations made by the National Assembly;
"disabled voter" means a disabled person who is entitled to vote as an elector at parliamentary, local government or European parliamentary elections.""
10 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page