| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Business
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient point around 1.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will repeat a Statement, which is being made in another place, on proposals for the EU in 2005.
3 Feb 2005 : Column 363
Business of the House: Debate this Day
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Amos, I beg to move the first Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Mitchell set down for today shall be limited to two hours.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Business of the House: Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Bill
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Amos, I beg to move the second Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Second Reading of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Bill from Tuesday 8 February to Monday 7 February.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Disability Discrimination Bill [HL]
Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 1:
"PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
(1) In the 1995 Act, Part 2 shall have effect with the following amendments.
(2) In section 4C(3)(a) the words "and in respect of which they are entitled to remuneration" are omitted.
(3) In section 4C(3)(b) at the end the words "or regional or local authority" are inserted."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Bill brings public authorities within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act for the first time, covering local authorities, hospital authorities, schools to a great extent and various others.
However, I find it anomalous that office holders must be paid if they are to be covered by the Act as regards it being illegal to discriminate against, or harass disabled people, or make reasonable adjustments for them. There is an amendment in the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and others about that.
One can think of many occasions when someone is unpaid, but still directs things and other people within the province of local authorities. This amendment would extend the protection of disability legislation to public appointments made by Ministers, government departments, the Scottish Administration and the
3 Feb 2005 : Column 364
Welsh Assembly who do not receive remuneration. It would also cover appointments made by regional and local authorities such as some school governors.
The record of many public bodies in promoting the inclusion of disabled people is poor. Government figures show that only 3.1 per cent of public appointments are held by disabled people. Among the reasons why disabled people are excluded from public life is the failure of many public bodies to make reasonable adjustments to allow disabled people to participate in their work. Factors acting against the involvement of disabled people include public bodies choosing to meet in inaccessible locations, not providing loop induction facilities and/or failing to provide relevant material in alternative formats. In some instances, public bodies can practise outright discrimination against disabled members.
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 extended the protection of the Act's employment provision to public office holders where
"post is one to which appointments is made by a Minister of the Crown, a government department, the National Assembly for Wales or any part of the Scottish Administration".
This has created the anomalous situation that a disabled person seeking or holding a public appointment which is subject to some remuneration, no matter how small, is protected under the Act, while an unremunerated post holder is not so protected. The reason why some public appointments are remunerated while others are not are often very strange, historical and arbitrary. For example, members of the Industrial Development Advisory Board, which has
are unpaid while non-executive board members of local primary care trusts receive, I am told, £5,673 a year. Similarly, lay magistrates, who have the power to impose custodial sentences, are not paid, while members of area courts boards, whose functions are purely advisory, receive £1,300 a year.
Although we covered to an extent this subject in Grand Committee, I cannot see why the Government believe that there is a sustainable argument that unremunerated public posts and appointments by regional and local authorities should not enjoy the same statutory protection. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, this clause is intended to protect disabled people from discrimination if they are involved in public representation. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, expressed his concerns very clearly. This is precisely what we would expect to achieve once the DDA has been amended by this Bill. Current DDA protection, together with the changes in the Bill, will ensure that the DDA's protection will be at least as comprehensive as that provided by the Race Relations Act.
3 Feb 2005 : Column 365
As I explained during Grand Committee, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 transposed the disability aspects of the European Framework Directive on equal treatment in employment. So in brief the DDA now protects those who are appointed to an office to discharge functions personally, are remunerated, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, identified, and who perform their duties under the direction of another, and also those who are appointed by government or on advice of Ministers.
Clause 1 of the Bill will extend DDA cover to local councillors, fulfilling a promise made in Towards Inclusion. In addition, Clause 2 of the Bill will ensure that in broad terms all activities in the public sector are covered by the DDA including functions relating to public office holders.
There were some concerns on the first day of Committee about the cover which Clause 2 will afford office holders, once our package of provisions is in place. In particular school governors were mentioned. The debate was led by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and it prompted me to consider carefully whether the Bill met our intentions. It does appear that public office holders would not be covered as comprehensively as we had intended.
At the moment, Clause 2 covers the appointment of a person to a post, but not the relationship once a person is in post. In our attempt to prevent an overlap of provisions within the DDA, we inadvertently failed to protect public office holders when in post. So it is very useful that we were able to explore the matter as we did in Grand Committee.
Clearly, we shall be putting this right to ensure comprehensive protection for holders of public office. We will bring forward an amendment as regards Clause 2 to ensure that Section 21B(1)will also apply to public functions exercisable in relation to office holders once they are in post unless they are covered elsewhere in the DDA.
The appointment of a school governor is a good example of something already falling within Clause 2. With our amendment all school governors, as we always intended but did not achieve, will be protected when in post. To give a further example, members of the management boards of the new NHS Foundation Trusts will also now be protected. I am grateful for the scrutiny offered. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will withdraw his amendment knowing, as I say, that we have responded to his concerns and that we shall be coming forward with an amendment of our own.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not gob smacked—that is a very inelegant expression—but I am overcome. Of course I shall withdraw the amendment and will look forward to the government amendment when it appears at Third Reading.
The matter that I did not mention about this particular amendment is that Part 2 offers better protection in situations of direct discrimination and harassment. There is a lower threshold under Part 2 in respect of the duty to make reasonable adjustments—and these
3 Feb 2005 : Column 366
provisions relate to the Act not the Bill. Unlike Part 3, failure of the duty to make reasonable adjustments cannot be justified under Part 2. Therefore, I hope that when we see the government amendment at Third Reading that these discrepancies will also be covered within it.
However, as I said, I am very pleased. I hope that this reassurance will enable us to make better progress on the Bill than might otherwise be the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |