| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, the time allotted for this debate has now expired. Does the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, wish to withdraw her Motion?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank all those who have participated and the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill [HL]
9.16 p.m.
Clause 5 [Extension of the 1995 Act to police etc.]:
Lord Swinfen moved the amendment:
- Page 4, line 39, leave out "to (8)" and insert ", (6) and (8)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment stands in my name, the names of my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Astor of Hever, and the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, who, unfortunately, is unable to be here today because he has been delayed in Moscow. I understand that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy is not as well as we would like him to be.
In the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 provision is made for the exemption of the Armed Forces. However, under the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, that exemption would cease to exist. As I mentioned in Committee, it is my contention that that would be a mistake. I hope that the House will agree to my amendment.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said:
- "While including them in this Bill, we can ensure that, for the Armed Forces in particular, there should be nothing to interfere with their operational effectiveness".—[Official Report, 23/1/02; col. 1533.]
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said:
- "but as modern wars are fought largely with computerised equipment and communications, the British Army would be in a sorry state if it had to call on butchers to operate those computers".—[Official Report, 6/3/02; col. 359.]
I speak mainly about the Army because I served in the Army a number of years ago. Other noble Lords will know more about the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Servicemen are trained as servicemen first and foremost. It is only later that they go on to their specialised training, whether as cooks, computer operators, mechanics, storemen, or whatever else the Armed Forces need—and, in modern warfare, they need a great many skills and trades. Wherever a soldier serves, whatever his trade, he is, and must be, first and foremost a soldier prepared to fight.
Any general worth his salt who is fighting a campaign will endeavour to knock out his opponent's headquarters. That is where a number of the clerks and computer operators work. They must be prepared to defend those headquarters; and our servicemen must be prepared and properly trained to defend our army headquarters. Any enemy will also want to cut off the lines of communication and supply, so that those fighting in the front line are starved of ammunition, food and fuel. It is up to those in the lines of communication, at headquarters far in the rear, to be able to fight and defend those headquarters if called upon to do so. I suspect that if the noble Lord's Bill goes through unamended, sadly, our Army's efficiency will be affected.
It is also the case that if by any chance the enemy does break through, it is the cooks, the computer operators, the drivers, the mechanics and the storemen who have to pick up their weapons and make a counter-attack to save the situation.
The Armed Forces already sometimes bring in people who do not have total agility—who do not have total movement in their arms or legs. They bring in some with a degree of colour blindness and possibly some with a degree of hearing loss. I am sure that that practice will continue. But it is my contention that the Armed Forces must be allowed to set the standards that they demand to make certain that we have the Armed Forces that this country deserves to defend the nation and to carry out what the politicians want them to do overseas.
I said in Committee much of what I could go on to say. Many noble Lords will have heard my remarks or will have had the opportunity of reading them in Hansard. Therefore, I shall not delay the House. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I support the amendment moved so eloquently by my noble friend. The first duty of any elected government is defence of the realm. The Government are right to insist that the Armed Forces should not be brought under the remit of the Act. They must have full fighting capability and should not be compelled to discriminate against existing servicemen and servicewomen. I do not believe
that the disability lobby, which I support enthusiastically, has anything to fear from this amendment.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I support the amendment. Perhaps I may begin by expressing my admiration for the determined and doughty way in which the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, has espoused the interests of people of all ages who are, in one way or another, deemed to be disabled.
But I also deem it important—I am sure that the noble Lord does too—that the defence of the realm is entrusted to those who are best able to undertake the duties expected of them. That is in the interest of every one of our countrymen and women, whether they are in the services or not. The ability of our Armed Forces to carry out their physically and mentally demanding, and at times dangerous, roles must never be compromised. The armed services are not a group of individuals, even if at times the bravery or dash of a single man or woman is recognised and honoured. Teamwork, with each member being able to contribute, is a key element of service life and operations.
The measure of that capability so far as clinical judgment is concerned is a matter for the Armed Forces themselves, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has argued. They are best able to make the judgments about the levels of hearing, eyesight, physique or whatever that are appropriate to the role or trade for which the individual may volunteer. To set other standards, however worthy their aim, for the services' clinical or medical use with which to judge the suitability or acceptability of an individual volunteer is to put the cart before the horse. It would seem akin to making it law that anyone who wishes to be a teacher has to teach maths, regardless of their limited mathematical capabilities.
I hope that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will accept that there is a finite limit to the good that he is trying to achieve. There are many alternatives for those who wish to serve their country that enable them to contribute to its good and its security but do not amount to seeking to impose on the Armed Forces medical standards that do not accord with the roles and responsibilities of our servicemen and women.
It has been argued that there have been many—and some very famous—individuals who have become disabled after joining their service and have gone on to give continued service. The counter to that argument is that they were already trained. If such people can continue to give service that is acceptable medically, good luck to them. However, it is not reasonable to argue that because a pilot who lost a leg in an accident may be retained in one of the services in a ground role, or possibly even in a restricted flying role, it is therefore acceptable that all one-legged individuals who wish to be pilots should be recruited, trained at great expense and then restricted to the types of aircraft that their disability would not preclude them
from flying—and all at the expense of a fully medically acceptable individual who will not start out with a restricted employment category.Today's services no longer have places for the non-combatant individual in their ranks, if they ever did. Every job and task that could be identified as fitting such a description is no longer filled by a man or woman in uniform. The post will have been civilianised or contracted out, because that is a less expensive way of covering the task. Today, all who are in uniform are potential front-line individuals, even if at times they are filling headquarters or other less exposed appointments. Career development and structures also have a part to play in this argument. Those who are to go on to lead and command their services at higher rank must gain experience from the range of appointments open to them, both combatant and in headquarters.
I think I have said enough to explain why I strongly support the amendment. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will agree with me and the other noble Lords who feel as strongly about the issue as I do. He will thereby strengthen his case, rather than weakening it by going over the top.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. As your Lordships have heard, it would remove the exemption for disabled civilians to join Her Majesty's Armed Forces. The role of the Armed Forces is to defend the realm and to meet the Government's foreign and defence policy commitments. To do that, all service personnel must be fully fit and combat effective to meet obligations on a worldwide operational liability. They must be able to be deployed at short notice to the trouble spots of the world. It would endanger the lives of servicemen and servicewomen if one of the team was disabled and therefore not combat effective. Furthermore, it could place the life of the disabled individual in peril.
All service personnel, whether they be cooks or clerks, must conform to the basic military training and fitness standards. However, that does not mean that a number of disabled civilians could not join civilian firms that are contracted to the Ministry of Defence. There are many such contracts in existence. Some of the firms into which they could be incorporated are companies dealing with security, clerical and information technology work, catering, electrical and mechanical engineering, driving and maintenance instruction, store keeping and many others. At the same time, many disabled civilians can join the Civil Service and be employed in the Ministry of Defence.
There is no need for the disabled to join the Armed Forces, and if they did so it would reduce combat effectiveness. I strongly support the amendment and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will agree with our proposals.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this series of arguments seems to be charging around in a circle. I believe that
the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, himself said that we do not want blind bus drivers. By the same token, he is not attempting now to place in the Armed Forces those who are incapable of doing the job.So where does that leave us on the amendment, which seeks to maintain the status quo? Most of the objections to the status quo centre on the fact that a blanket ban is being applied to a very wide variety of people with various abilities, precluding them from joining a profession. Over the years, dyslexics have comprised large parts of all the Armed Forces. I have also been told in a private conversation that, because of the current recruitment problems, the chances are minimal that people who are dyslexic would be refused entrance to the Armed Forces as infantry soldiers simply because of their dyslexia. However, when unemployment levels are high, for example, they could be refused entrance because of that blanket ban. That is the objection to the status quo.
I would be happier if the Bill simply stated that those who cannot complete basic training, because of a disability or any other reason, should be excluded. I think that that would be a much more sensible, middle way. I should now, however, put up my hand and say that I have not tabled an amendment to that effect; the rearrangement of the House's business has prevented me from doing so. The issue for us now, however, is the amendment. I do not think that there is much ground between us on the issue. I think that everyone agrees that the concept of reasonableness, as argued in the courts, would cover most of the objections. Let us also be clear that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is not the most perfect vehicle for addressing the issue.
I feel that this issue should not stand in the way of the Bill's passage. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will be able to shrug and say, "95 per cent of a loaf is better than nothing". I also think that we shall return to the issue. The Armed Forces change slowly—not so long ago it was unimaginable that women would carry weapons. Other arguments will arise, and technical advances may remove some disabilities. There have been advances in restoring hearing, and other disabilities may simply cease to exist.
I believe that this Bill and the underlying arguments are more important than this one issue. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, but I accept that he has an argument that will have to be answered at another time and in another place. I simply hope that this Bill is passed.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page