| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dixon-Smith: I do not apologise for initiating the discussion, even if the Minister would have preferred us to have bit-by-bit discussions and try to
amend parts of the clause. I could not see how we could do that. We have had a discussion in the round, and that is what was required.As I said, I suspected that the Government's motives were good: in fact, they are good. However, whether the Minister's response has satisfied everyone is an entirely different matter. Those who said that it was the worst clause in the Bill had a point. Sadly, the clause is open to misinterpretation because of the way in which it is drafted. That may be unfortunate, and I know that it is not the intention that the effect should be malign. However, the way in which the Bill is drafted means that, in the wrong hands, the clause could be misinterpreted.
The Minister has given a good explanation. The contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Condon, was significant. I was also aware of the problems that had occurred from time to time and how they cause difficulty. I am grateful to my noble friends who have contributed.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 311 not moved.]
Baroness Wilkins moved Amendment No. 311A:
- After Clause 61, insert the following new clause—
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke apologises to your Lordships. He is unable to be present because of a long-standing engagement that he could not break.
The amendment would remove irrelevant barriers to joining the police force. It would remove the police from the employer exemptions in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In doing so, it mirrors provisions in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which brought the police within the remit of anti-discrimination legislation.
The amendment follows the recommendation made by the Disability Rights Task Force in its report From Exclusion to Inclusion, published over two years ago. In its response, entitled Towards Inclusion—Civil Rights for Disabled People, the Government accepted that recommendation and, following on from the EU directive on equality in employment, which required the UK to remove this and other employment exemptions, the Government have confirmed their intention to do so by October 2004.
We must agree with the Disability Rights Commission that it is a basic question of justice that all employees, wherever they work, should be protected against discrimination. The Disability Discrimination Act enacted by your Lordships in 1995 provides a flexible framework that can recognise the particular requirements of occupations such as the police, containing, as it does, the concept of reasonableness, which has emerged as a supremely workable attribute of the law relating to disability. The duty to make reasonable adjustments need not imply any negative impact on operational effectiveness or safety. The police would not be required to take on anyone who could not do the job.
The amendment might help with recruitment and retention. As the case of a police officer cited in research published by Diabetes UK into the nature and extent of discrimination against people with diabetes shows, discriminating attitudes can impede disabled people from making a contribution to society more than the effect of any impairment. The police officer was removed from driving duties and made
In paragraph 2.34 of the White Paper Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform, the Government argued the need for a diverse workforce representative of all sections of the community. Agreement to the amendment would help to make the Government's aim a reality. The White Paper sets a target of increasing police numbers to 130,000 by spring 2003. If the DDA were extended to cover police officers, the pool of people from which the new officers could be recruited in order to meet that target would be increased.
According to the National Institute for the Blind, currently the Metropolitan Police refuse people simply for being colour blind or for being very short-sighted. Disabled people have been employed for a long time as civilians in the police force and allowing some disabled people to serve as police officers would be consistent with the proposals in the White Paper which suggest a blurring of lines between jobs done by civilians and officers.
The Police Reform Bill is proposing a number of major changes to the police force. Given that situation, surely it would make sense to accept this amendment and extend the Disability Discrimination Act to police officers now so that they will not be subject to continual change. I urge Members of the Committee to accept this amendment and to enact all the changes at once rather than wait for another piecemeal reform in the year 2004. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: I am delighted to support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has a unique record of taking on issues of disability. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, has made out a very sound case about the need to extend the Disability Discrimination Act to cover police officers.
I very much welcome this amendment because it is an important debate in the context of police reform and one on which I hope the Government will reflect very carefully. The Government's decision to bring the police within the remit of anti-discrimination legislation through the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, was extremely welcome and positive. It is now quite proper and timely to look very seriously at extending that principle to disability.
Policing must reflect, recognise and respond effectively to the many and varied elements of today's society. It is a credit to this Government that they
It is therefore right that we not only support it, but make provisions which are appropriate. I believe that we must also proceed carefully. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, has rightly pointed out some of the difficulties that may exist. Clearly, many aspects of policing can be physically demanding. This House must also bear in mind the wider requirements of the criminal justice system. The police are under mounting pressure to ensure all cases are watertight and capable of withstanding intense scrutiny from defence barristers looking for the slightest issue on which to cast doubt on the credibility of the overall case. What impact might there be on a case if the credibility of the evidence of a police constable was brought into doubt owing to concerns, for example, about eyesight?
I do not have the answer to this particular question, but my point in raising it is simple. The police service operates to some very high standards which are required by the criminal justice system. We cannot ignore them. They are a reality and they place demands on those people who hold the office of constable. Minimum standards are absolutely necessary. Yet the police service must also be an inclusive service if it is to retain the confidence of all sections of society. The police service is doing itself no favours if it fails to take advantage of the wealth of skills and experience which people with disabilities have and which can be of great advantage to the service.
In conclusion, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will give this amendment very careful consideration. I believe there is a balance between the needs and demands of policing and the equally pressing need to avoid discrimination. We must think very carefully about the detail of the issue to ensure that we strike the right balance. If the noble Lord believes that the Home Office needs more time to consider the issue before coming back with government amendments at Report stage to put into effect the spirit of this amendment, then let it be so. But I very much hope that he will signal a clear commitment tonight that the Government will act on this important issue.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for the great ingenuity that they have exercised in finding a vehicle to bring forward this very worthwhile proposition and to seek to end various employment exemptions from the Disability Discrimination Act. By tabling this amendment to the Police Reform Bill they are replicating Clause 4 of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord
My noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham made clear when speaking for the Government at both Second Reading of the noble Lord's Bill on 23rd January and in Committee last week, that they are not yet ready to amend the Disability Discrimination Act. As she pointed out quite properly, we are still developing, through a thorough and widespread consultation, our overall legislative strategy for improving the Act. In that respect the noble Lord's Bill and this amendment before us today are a little premature as the noble Baroness said. We set ourselves a target deadline of October 2004 and it is the Government's intention to stick to it.
We have made it clear that we will be implementing a comprehensive employment and vocational training protection scheme for disabled people, represented currently in the employment directive brought forward under Article 13 of the EC Treaty, when we bring forward proposals in 2004. That would cover most of the important proposals made in our response to the Disability Rights Task Force document Towards Inclusion, including most of those items which would be brought about by this amendment with the exception, which I believe is widely understood, of the Armed Forces. There it is the government's intention to retain the current exemption in the Disability Discrimination Act.
I recognise that my response sounds a little bureaucratic, negative and something of a killjoy. But the Government's case is that we need to have a comprehensive approach and to address matters of detail in that approach. It has been rightly pointed out that we seek to reflect broadly the diversity of our population in the workforce of the police service, which is right. I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported that objective. I believe that we have made great strides in that direction. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was kind enough to pay tribute to the Government for their record on race legislation and, more importantly, on action. I believe that we are all proud to have been associated with it.
However, in this instance, although we recognise the value of this amendment and that it would bring forward matters that we intend to deal with later, it is right that our strategy should be comprehensive and that the issues raised in this amendment are picked up in a broader and more thorough way than it allows. I have not studied its detail, but there may well be matters which are lacking. I do not know. There are broader considerations at work. We welcome the debate and the fact that we have had the opportunity to put on record again our commitment. We look forward to bringing forward a comprehensive package in due course.
With those words of encouragement, which is what they are intended to be, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment.
"DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
(1) Section 64 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50) is amended as follows.
(2) Subsection (5A) is omitted.
(3) After subsection (8), insert—
"(8A) For the purposes of this Part, the holding of the office of constable shall be treated as employment—
(a) by the chief officer of police as respects any act done by him in relation to a constable or that office;
(b) by the police authority as respects any act done by them in relation to a constable or that office.
(8B) There shall be paid out of the police fund—
(a) any compensation, costs or expenses awarded against a chief officer of police in any proceedings brought against him under this Act, and any costs or expenses incurred by him in any such proceedings so far as not recovered by him in the proceedings; and
(b) any sum required by a chief officer of police for the settlement of any claim made against him under this Act if the settlement is approved by the police authority.
(8C) Any proceedings under this Act which, by virtue of this subsection, would lie against a chief officer of police shall be brought against the chief officer of police for the time being or, in the case of a vacancy in that office, against the person for the time being performing the functions of that office; and references in this section to the chief officer of police shall be construed accordingly.
(8D) This section applies to a police cadet and appointment as a police cadet as it applies to a constable and the office of constable.
(4) In this section—
"chief officer of police"—
(a) in relation to a person appointed, or an appointment falling to be made, under a specified Act, has the same meaning as in the Police Act,
(b) in relation to any other person or appointment, means the office who has the direction and control of the body of constables or cadets in question;
"the Police Act" means, for England and Wales, the Police Act 1996 (c. 16), or, for Scotland, the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 77);
"police authority"—
(a) in relation to a person appointed or an appointment falling to be made, under a specified Act, has the same meaning as in the Police Act,
(b) in relation to any other person or appointment, means the authority by whom the person in question is or on appointment would be paid;
"police cadet" means any person appointed to undergo training with a view to becoming a constable;
"police fund" in relation to a chief officer of police within paragraph (a) of the above definition of that term has the same meaning as in the Police Act, and in any other case means money provided by the police authority;
"specified Act" means the Metropolitan Police Act 1829 (c. 44), the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 (c. 47) or the Police Act."
"Being a diabetic has changed my life. I think it has made me a better and more responsible person. If I were treated more fairly I could live quite happily with diabetes. I have never felt it restricts me—officialdom has always managed to more than fill that role".
As the Government have accepted the case for the inclusion of the police in the DDA, I urge them to take the opportunity presented by this Bill to legislate on the exemption now, rather than wait until late in 2004.
7.15 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page