---

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for the careful way in which she introduced the Bill, for which disabled people have been waiting for a very long time. It is a measure to counter discrimination against disabled people, which regretfully still goes on. In her speech the Minister cited several instances to illustrate that.

The legislation is also by definition very complicated in that it builds, not for the first time, on an Act of Parliament which had its inception in the time of the last Conservative government. As the noble Baroness said, last year, this Government made further additions to the Act by order in the field of transport. The Opposition were pleased to see those additions, as, on the whole, we are to see this Bill. However, both are legislation by reference.

The result of the two amendments—the order and the Bill—is that the legislation as a whole is difficult to comprehend. The pre-legislative scrutiny committee, so convincingly chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carter—to whom I pay tribute—must have found reading through the whole subject as difficult as I have. Indeed, it alluded to that point in its excellent report. It requested, as I did in responding to the regulations last year, that once the current Bill has been enacted, the three pieces of legislation should be consolidated, perhaps under a new title. While I agree with the committee on that—something that I cannot do on every recommendation—I strongly believe that for our consideration of the Bill we need something of this sort much, much faster. The noble Baroness has facilities that are not available to us. I would therefore press her strongly to make a Keeling-type schedule available before we start Grand Committee.

Turning to the Bill itself, I start from the proposition—which I hope cannot be gainsaid—that disabled people are people first, disabled second and discriminated against in their various activities third. It therefore follows that, despite their disabilities, whether mental or physical, they should not be put in a more advantaged position than able-bodied people. I have looked at the Bill and the Joint Committee's report in that light.

In this speech I should like to comment not so much on the Bill itself but on some of the recommendations of the Joint Committee, which decided to stick to the policy of the Bill and to ignore the drafting. There will
 
6 Dec 2004 : Column 673
 
no doubt be drafting points in Committee, and the noble Baroness, in particular, will appreciate that I would not be running true to form if I did not make them. However, when all is said and done, Second Reading should be about policy and nothing else.

A major change to policy has been that the Government now recognise that HIV/AIDS, cancer and multiple sclerosis should be recognised as disabilities. Although I welcome that, I find it very odd that the Bill may not cover all cancers. I know that the noble Baroness has said a little about that, but I still find it very odd that some cancers may be excluded by future orders. We shall certainly probe this matter much further in Committee.

I also question the Government's approach to depression. I accept that, by definition, mental illness is treatable. Nevertheless, it is not normally treatable very quickly. I do not think that the Joint Committee was unreasonable in its request that depression should be definable by the number of times it presents itself.

Consistent with my general approach to the Bill, I do not believe that it is the place to deal with non-disabled people. Therefore, people who are associated with disability should be excluded from its provisions. As the noble Baroness mentioned, there is a plethora of other anti-discrimination legislation and they should be covered by that. Nor do I believe that anyone on disability benefits should automatically fall within its provisions, especially in the current climate of suspicion that a number of disability claimants should be on unemployment benefit.

The Bill contains a most peculiar clause in regard to the Armed Forces, members of which, despite what the Joint Committee says, are not and should not be covered by the Bill. I agree with the Government on that. However, why on earth are they to be covered when—and, it appears, only when—they are employed at the Government Communications Headquarters? It would, after all, not be unusual for them to switch from there to front-line duties and vice versa.

Turning to transport issues, which are of major concern to disabled people, we welcome the fact that the Government came moderately clean on the subject of an end date for the suitable adaptation of railway carriages last week by announcing that the end date for completion will be 2020 rather than five years later. However, there is some confusion in my mind about when that will obviate the need for exemption certificates, which of course are very much a part of the Bill as currently drafted.

As to whether DRC codes of practice should be made by affirmative or negative order, I have no doubt that your Lordships' Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will have something to say on the matter. I await its findings with interest.

There is a great deal in the Bill in regard to public authorities. It is noteworthy that the legislation does not cover Members of Parliament, or even the Government, in carrying out their duties; everything is about regional and locally elected people and their appointees. I find that very strange, especially when
 
6 Dec 2004 : Column 674
 
Members of the Scottish Parliament are to be included in certain circumstances. All, I believe, are overdue for coverage.

I agree, however, that quangos need to be excluded from the provision, but only as and when they disappear from the political map. As to a duty for them to promote good relations in their areas of operation, I confess to being rather agnostic. For now, I am prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. As I am on the subject of compliance notices, we had more than enough of those in the Pensions Bill, without having any more.

Access to housing is a basic human right for all our citizens. Clearly, suitable adaptations will be necessary in a large number of cases. I noted the committee's recommendation that a landlord should not unreasonably withhold his consent to the making of physical alterations. That is obviously a problem, but it is one of the most expensive suggestions that the committee made. For the Government to say, "Well, it is only 16p maximum per rented dwelling", does not portray the full picture, as that is clearly an average figure across the whole rented sector.

The figure will be very much larger for houses and flats that need to be adapted to be suitable for letting to disabled people—totalling, I see again from the RIA, somewhat more than half a million pounds. I believe that the Government realise that, which is why they have stated in the Bill that landlords should not be compelled to take steps that would involve the removal or alteration of a physical feature. The noble Baroness mentioned doorways. To my mind, stairways would be a suitable addition to the list—as would stair-lifts, which are expensive to install, difficult to mount, and, unless the building is continuously used for disabled people, would have to be removed for re-letting to an able-bodied person.

I agree with the Government that tenants should not be able to make such alterations without the landlord's consent. We strongly believe, though, that it is necessary to have a register of affordable housing, both for disabled people and for the general rented stock. I am encouraged by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, when speaking recently on the Housing Bill, that such a thing would be useful. We will probe in Committee whether that would be appropriate for the discrete purposes of this Bill.

The Bill quite rightly covers discriminatory advertisements for employment, an issue which has occasionally been a problem. The Government, it seems, have not found such advertisements dealing with the provision of goods, facilities or services. Have they consulted the Disability Rights Commission on that? I am surprised that there does not seem to be a problem, as the Government seem to be saying. Legislation on the issue would, at the very least, stop a mischief at source.

The activities of employment tribunals also came under discussion in the Joint Committee, which requested that there should be a power to insist on the reinstatement or re-engagement of an employee in disability discrimination cases. I would have thought
 
6 Dec 2004 : Column 675
 
that if such a power were necessary, tribunals could use their existing powers to order just that. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness, when she replies to the debate, could confirm whether I am right.

I am glad that the Government have now seen fit to include general qualification bodies within the scope of the legislation. The move could, however, be seen as the start down a slippery slope. Bodies awarding professional qualifications—what the Government call "awarding bodies"—will sometimes be included and sometimes they will not. It would be useful to have a list of which of them will be in and which will be ruled out.

We should also consider the Joint Committee's recommendations requesting a review or consultation exercise. That would include reviewing the eligibility criteria for all disability benefits. I have uncoupled this from my earlier comments on passporting from benefit to coverage under the Bill. I should like to hear from the Minister that all the benefits for which her department are responsible are being kept under continuous review.

Other recommendations relate to reviewing the application of the duty on listed authorities to assess whether amendment is required; consulting on and then producing a code of practice for volunteers, resulting, if necessary, in a regulation-making power enabling volunteers under the umbrella of the Bill; and reviewing the case for a support fund for volunteers. I am surprised that the Government are not even prepared to consider all these areas. Although the consideration might come to nothing, at the end of the day they would have lost nothing by taking these recommendations more seriously than they appear to have done so far.

Lastly, this is a Bill that, like almost all Department for Work and Pensions legislation, is littered with regulation-making powers. I have no doubt that some regulations will already be in draft, and that the department has a pretty good idea of when it hopes to lay them. It would be extremely helpful to all noble Lords if the Minister would let us have sight of them as soon as possible in our consideration of the Bill. In the immediate past, she has been extremely good in this regard, and I trust that she will not blot her copybook now.

This is a needed Bill which could be made better. My noble friend Lord Higgins and I will do all in our power to make it so.

---