Orders of the Day — Disability Rights Commission Bill [Lords]

House of Commons, 30 June 1999.

ACTION PLANS

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Before I speak to the new clause, I make it clear to the House that I am new to the responsibility of speaking on disability issues for my party. That will perhaps become apparent in a few moments. I take up that burden with some diffidence, but with a degree of satisfaction. It is important for all of us who have constituency and other experience of these issues to be aware of the importance of achieving their proper resolution—for the individuals concerned, and their families and carers, and in respect of setting the tone of society. We must show that we have a collective responsibility and a collective readiness to care for, protect, support and empower the people who may benefit from the Bill. It will be particularly appropriate to consider whether those who are not in a position to be articulate in their own interests might be able to use the commission to advance their rights. On a personal note, I express my gratitude to my immediate boss, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who previously assumed this burden and took the Bill through Committee. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who participated constructively in those debates. In the same vein, may I say how pleased I am to have the opportunity to debate this matter, on this and no doubt on subsequent occasions, with the Government team? I am glad to see on the Government Front Bench the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who had to bear the burden of taking the Bill through Committee. She has had to think about the amendments and respond to them, and one could fairly say that she has done a good job. She has come back with a number of serious amendments, which we shall discuss in due course. They reflect the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends and others in Committee and offer a degree of tidying up as well. Given the context, and the failure to achieve consensus in the past, but also given the real advances that successive Governments have made in this area, it is right that there has been some consensus on this matter. It is in that spirit that we move our new clause. One might almost call it "Opposition lite", in the sense that it is the only new clause that we are moving. The selectors, in their wisdom, precluded consideration of one or two other matters, which may already have been touched on in Committee. This provision would add a new element. I recognise that the Under-Secretary is in a difficult position because this comes right at the end of our consideration of the Bill and their Lordships have already dealt with the Bill. If she does not quite like what we have said, there is not much that we can do about it, but she may be able to reflect our thinking and that of the disability groups that contacted us. In that case, we will have supplied a draft and she can decide what to do about it. The hon. Lady knows better than I do that clause 4 sets out how the commission may make a formal investigation and serve notices on individuals or legal persons to do something about the discrimination that has been found to be practised. That is a practical and sensible approach, because the clause suggests that The notice may require the person concerned…to propose and finalise an adequate action plan (subject to an in accordance with Part III of schedule 3)…and…once that action plan is finalised, to take any action which…is specified in the plan; and which he has not already taken". I emphasise to the House that action can be taken only in the context of a complaint or an investigation that has shown a defect in the arrangements when someone has gone to the person concerned and said, in English, "What are you going to do about it?" That is reasonable enough. The new clause goes further and builds on the concept by looking at action that might be taken—occasionally, my classical training comes back into my mind—proleptically, which means ahead of being forced to do it, before a formal investigation. Hon. Members with Treasury experience will be familiar with the concept of taking an idea to the Inland Revenue and saying, "We are minded to do this; would you take note of it and advise us whether it is acceptable?" That is the background to our thinking. We are not trying to subvert the concept of action plans. We want to build on the idea and extend it to cases in which the commission has made no formal request for action. The disability interests who have lobbied us have said that it would further assist service providers and disabled people if the commission were able to be proactive, helping with the development of action plans for organisations that it was not proceeding against for discrimination. Service providers who were genuinely trying to act responsibly and take account of the Act and who wanted to be sure that they were taking the reasonable steps required of them under part III might feel reassured if their action plan were endorsed—or run—by the commission, even if that does not in itself admit to an exemption. We are not trying to produce an elaborate means of hoodwinking the commission, drawing the wool over its eyes or doing a sweetheart deal. We are saying that it would be helpful for those with a problem to be able to explain to the commission in good faith how they would like to deal with it and ask the commission for a response. We expect the commission to be heavily engaged initially. We are not saying that it should be required to take a role on action plans if it does not want to. It could politely decline to comment. We recommend that the commission should be given the chance to develop that side of its activity without subsequent onerous primary legislation to make that possible. Equally, the commission must have the discretion to make provision for action plans that meet its requirement to be lodged with it. The issue of precedent is bound to be raised at this point. It was suggested in Committee that action plans had no precedent in UK law. I remember at least the concept of action plans in relation to education. We were considering education action zones in the Education Act 1993. Local education authorities or schools were required to produce them. The idea is not new. My wife is not a speaker of Welsh, but the Welsh Language Act 1967 provides for mandatory action plans, called statutory schemes, for public authorities in Wales. There is also Australian legislation that provides for similar action plans, as well as the precedent, which I have cited before, of what the Inland Revenue can do. Nobody wants to overload the new commission. Nobody wants it to be tricked into signing up to something that is unsatisfactory or second rate. We want to enable it to give advice in good faith about plans before push comes to shove in litigation or legal process. That is consistent with many of the points that the Conservatives have made on the Bill. The Government like to emphasise the importance of partnership, consensuality and trying to get things agreed rather than people taking what I might call narrow-minded, litigious attitudes, if that can be avoided. I refreshed my memory about that in relation to the general functions of the commission and, if the hon. Lady cannot accept the new clause as drafted—if she can, of course, I shall be delighted—I would like her to say something about the possibility of the commission's at least considering giving assistance to service providers, as part of its general duties. The commission is supposed to work towards the elimination of discrimination … to promote equalisation of opportunities and to take such steps as it considers appropriate with a view to encouraging good practice in the treatment of disabled persons". Those are general obligations, but they might also be applicable to the particular case. In any event, we are anxious, and the new clause is an attempt to put down a marker that says, "Let us be as constructive and flexible as possible. Let us encourage people to think about their actions ahead of the event, before they are forced to." The result could be better-planned action taken in better time, and matters might be resolved before it is ever necessary to get involved in the rather messy—and, one hopes, infrequently used—business of enforcement. I commend the new clause to the House, and I shall be interested in any comment made about it on either side of the House, as well as in the Minister's response.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

The concept of the action plan certainly has some appeal, but my concern about the new clause is that it would be in danger of adding to the several different tiers of action that the commission could take. At present, there are three powers. The first, which we all welcome, is an education role, which involves going out and talking to organisations, working with them and trying to put good practice in place. The second, slightly tougher, power is the power to enter into written agreements. Perhaps we shall debate later whether those should be private or public. The commission can certainly say, "Something isn't right, and we need to put a written agreement in place to tie up some of the issues." The third key area—the last resort—is the issuing of non-discrimination orders. My problem with the action plan is that it could cover any of those powers. I can envisage an action plan involving a management consultancy function, in which an organisation would want to get involved as part of its education work. Organisations could welcome the commission in and say, "Give us advice." In those circumstances, it is almost inconceivable that, by the very nature of its work, the commission would not come back with an action plan describing what the organisation should do. That would happen almost naturally, as part of the education process. As for written agreements, I must ask: what will an agreement be about? Surely it has to be about what the organisation should do to put things right—the very point at which the action plan would, by default, apply. Thirdly, a non-discrimination order would also need to set out the reasons why it was being made, and why things needed to be put right. Therefore, although I welcome the concept behind the new clause, I think that, by default, actions plans will be made at several stages anyway. Indeed, I would be extremely concerned if they were not, because that would make nonsense of the commission's existing procedures. On that basis, I do not support the Opposition's proposal, because it clouds the issue and would put in place a fourth tier and, because of the other powers already provided, that will not be necessary.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I welcome the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) to his Opposition Front-Bench position. I look forward to working with him on a whole range of issues involving people with disabilities, and I hope that there can be unanimous agreement across the Floor of the House on many of the issues that we face and the policies that we shall try to develop. I hope that, having read our proceedings in Committee, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we tried to respond to amendments and incorporate them if they improved the Bill. I hope that he will listen to my reasoning on the new clause and withdraw the motion. I am sad that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has left. I have certainly enjoyed working with her on these issues. I first met her when she stood against me in Barking. At that time she was Essex girl, but now she represents the royal county of Berkshire. I do not know what effect that has had on her; I prefer to remain Essex girl, representing Barking.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

If the Minister cares to consult my CV, she will see that I was born in Brentwood. I am inextinguishably and indelibly Essex man.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

A combination of Essex man and Essex girl will do wonders for our proceedings. I agree entirely that it makes sense for organisations to plan to meet their duties under all parts of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, including part III, and that it often makes sense to prepare an action plan. Indeed, the disability rights task force—which I am currently chairing and which is examining what further amendments may be required in legislation and what further action needs to be taken to improve civil rights for people with disabilities—has considered the issue and come to the preliminary view that action plans should be voluntary, not compulsory, for the private sector. I also agree that the commission may want to help organisations to develop action plans. The difference arises over whether it would be appropriate or whether there is a need to make provision for regulations in the Bill to allow that to occur.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

The Minister is being very helpful. Can she confirm that we do not need to make a special provision for the commission to be helpful to those who volunteer to prepare the plans, because the Bill as drafted provides for that?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I was just about to say that. The commission can decide whether to produce guidance for service providers on the form and content that action plans might take, and there is nothing in the legislation that would prevent it from doing so. Indeed, I would imagine that the commission will find it appropriate to provide guidance for organisations seeking to fulfil their duties under part III of the 1995 Act. I hope that it will reassure the hon. Gentleman further to hear that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a service provider from approaching the commission for advice on the development of an action plan. I have some concerns about the new clause. I understand that the concept is drawn from the Australian legislation, which is quite distinct from ours. In Australia, the production of an action plan can lead to an exemption from specified provisions of the legislation for a specified period, as long as the service provider sticks to the plan. Individual cases going to court in Australia are subject to a form of central control that is reminiscent of old Labour and is certainly not embodied in the Bill, which is why I wonder why the official Opposition are in favour of the new clause. A case can be taken to court only with the consent of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission in Australia. There are incentives in the Australian model to work with the commission to establish action plans. If new clause 2 were agreed to and an action plan were in place, a disabled person could be prevented from taking action in the United Kingdom. If, for example, an organisation had adjusted the service that it provides, such as by providing signing, and a blind person entered the organisation's premises wanting to be taken somewhere, but the organisation refused to oblige, the individual could not take action against the organisation for failing to provide that additional service, which was necessary to exercise his or her rights, if there had been an action plan stating that signing provision was sufficient. Therefore, in the United Kingdom context, an action plan could limit individuals' rights to service provision as provided by part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

The hon. Lady has perhaps slightly over-argued her case. She mentioned a situation in which it might be impossible to deal with a particular individual's disability on the grounds that the action plan had whitewashed the general issue, making it inappropriate to apply a plan's provisions to that individual. A case can be made for that possibility, which concerned me when I considered the Bill. However, I think that if an action plan were signed on a new and different type of disability, it would not be sufficient simply to have regard to previous provision, unless it were clearly done in the context of a progressive improvement in standards generally. I said rather little about the impact of plans on business, as I was anxious that there should be—as the hon. Lady rightly said that there should be—a coincidence of commitment, interest and involvement by business and the commission in getting the matter right. I also did not try to suggest that plans should take away individuals' rights or make matters more inflexible than they need to be. Nevertheless—it would be churlish of me not to say so—the hon. Lady had already given me an entirely satisfactory assurance on the voluntary aspects of the commission's work. It is important—both in general education and, as the hon. Member for Winchester said, at all levels—that there should be proper collaboration and sharing of good practice. It is also very reassuring to hear that the commission may engage itself in the affairs of a particular service provider and seek to give advice. The advice will not in itself be binding, by precluding the law, and I did not really want it to be. Nevertheless, the advice will help people to seek and implement best practice. That is what we all want to do. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

NON-DISCRIMINATION NOTICES

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 6, leave out 'and finalise'.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 10 to 13 and 20.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

These amendments are minor and technical and have been recommended by parliamentary counsel at this late stage to tidy up the drafting of the Bill. They are designed simply to clarify the provisions in the Bill and to ensure that all cross-references are consistent. They have no effect on the substance of the provisions in the Bill. I ask the House to accept the amendments.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I shall be brief, as I shall certainly not suggest that we divide the House on the amendments. I am rather glad that they have been tabled, although I am little less happy that they have been tabled at such a late stage. We all know that the parliamentary draftsperson's job is a difficult one and that it is hard to get legislation right. Errors occur that have to be corrected at the end of the House's deliberations. However, it is worth noting that, although the Bill has been considered in the House of Lords—to which all hon. Members, regardless of party, would defer in matters of law—these little matters have been neglected. Enforcement is always important. I gather that these provisions will be enforceable, in England and Wales, under section 55 of the County Courts Act 1984 and, in Scotland, under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The provision will therefore not be self-verified under schedule 3 of the Bill. I am sure that that will add a great deal to the sum of human knowledge, but the embarrassing situation could have arisen in which provisions that had been agreed could not be enforced. However, if the Minister says that the matter has been put right, I shall defer to her and agree to the amendments.

AGREEMENTS IN LIEU OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 43, leave out subsection (10).

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I begin by reassuring the hon. Member for Daventry that I, too, find it profoundly irritating that the House must consider these drafting amendments at this late stage. However, this is the first Bill that I have steered through the House, and I hope that next time there will be less need for such last-minute amendments.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Do not hold your breath.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I am afraid that the comments of the hon. Member for Daventry in relation to the previous group of amendments are also relevant to these drafting amendments. This group of amendments relates to the enforcement of orders made under clause 5 and schedule 3 of the Bill. These sections cover written agreements, nondiscrimination notices and action plans. Amendment No. 16 is technical and simply puts right an incorrect reference to the fact that an order made under paragraph 18(3) of schedule 3 of the Bill would be enforceable under paragraph 23. In fact, the draftsmen have found that the order would be enforceable under section 55 of the County Courts Act 1984 in England and Wales and the Contempt of Court Act 1981 in Scotland, to which paragraph 23 refers. Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 have also been recommended by parliamentary counsel, to improve the drafting of the Bill by bringing all the provisions relating to the enforcement of orders under clause 5(8) and schedule 3 together in one place—that is, under paragraph 23 of schedule 3. Amendments Nos. 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 21 are consequential on amendments Nos. 22 to 25 and would delete what would become unnecessary cross-references to enforcement. Amendment No. 25 has been drafted to have one further effect, which I would like to cover briefly. This amendment would add a new sub-paragraph to paragraph 23 to replace paragraphs 18(5) and 18(6), which have been drafted in more general terms. Paragraphs 18(5) and 18(6) as drafted enable orders relating to action plans to be modified to alter any time limit so that in the order it is clear that the commission can return to the court for repeated fines in the case of persistent offenders. The new sub-paragraph has been drafted in more general terms so that it covers all orders—for example, those relating to written agreements—not merely those listed under paragraph 18. The effects of the amendment are limited, as most orders have continuing effect and would not need modification in any event. However, it does mean that, where an order requires something to be done by a particular time and it is not, it is clear that the commission would be able to return to the court for repeated fines until the person complies with the order. In that respect, I hope that hon. Members will agree that the amendment improves the provisions as well as the drafting of the Bill. I therefore ask hon. Members to accept amendment No. 25 and the other amendments in this group.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Very briefly, I thank the hon. Lady for correcting my confusion—perhaps it was a good indication that these are complex matters. If she has, as I suspect and hope, the opportunity and privilege of bringing further legislation to the House, she will find that it is just as difficult the second time around because these things always seem to happen. It has even occasionally been known for Opposition Members to spot the errors ahead of the parliamentary draftsperson, but I claim no credit for that. It is a complicated area to get right and it is important that the provisions for sanctions and penalties should be appropriate. The hon. Lady explained well how penalties and sanctions should work. I draw a slight moral from all this—not in any contentious sense—in that it will be important for the commission to understand how the process works. It will need good operational rules, bearing in mind that the nature of the operation means that we do not want a series—perish the thought—of parliamentary draftspersons advising people on their disability concerns. We want people who are able to get a clear understanding of how the law operates and to explain it. That is also very important to service providers. If there is to be a cumulative penalty, as the hon. Lady explained, it is extremely important that people do not fail to comply because they cannot understand the notice that they receive. May I alert the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities to the fact that I found this an interesting point? I do not dispute its legality, but it reawakened my interest in the matter even before the transfer of responsibilities when I received a letter from him stating that Members of Parliament would be required to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in their capacity as service providers. My only reason for eyebrow lifting at that is that we are not normally paid for the services that we provide, although we are paid to be service providers. As an example, it is commendable and perhaps exemplary that the Government have told us that we had better do our thing, and I am in no sense seeking to renege on my responsibilities to do so. Indeed, I have had to make adjustments to, and will have to make at least one further change in, the arrangements for my constituency advice bureau to facilitate the provisions; I am sure that other hon. Members will be thinking that they must do the same. 5.15 pm Within the spirit in which this legislation has been pursued and the way in which we are debating it today, it is important that people should appreciate that the way in which it works needs to be clear. No service provider—acting as a reasonable person, we hope—should be in any doubt as to his or her obligations or as to the way in which they will be enforced if people decide or fail to fulfil them. I have no difficulty with the provisions. The hon. Lady has explained them well and corrected my misunderstanding, in a letter that was designed to be helpful. I too would give the amendments a fair wind.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Listening to the debate one might think that we were discussing highly technical drafting matters, which in a sense we are, but the section of the Bill to which the amendments apply is the section that could cause the most problems. I therefore want an assurance from the Minister that she wants to work very much with the grain of good business practice. In particular, I want to ask her about the agreement in lieu of enforcement action. I want a commitment from her that when those agreements are drawn up, business, in particular small business, will be able to understand exactly what is happening; and that the procedure will not be unduly bureaucratic. Will those matters be dealt with through forms or letters? How protracted will the process be? Will the commission be working on the assumption that we should normally proceed in that way rather than through more onerous action against anyone who may be in breach of their undertakings? I very much hope that the Minister can give me that reassurance, which will be welcomed by the business community in general.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

First, on information to service providers, which the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) mentioned, yesterday we laid before the House the code of practice that has been developed by the National Disability Council on the implementation of the first part of part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which changes policies and procedures. I hope that when hon. Members have had a chance to look at the code, they will realise that it is laid out simply, with many examples to assist service providers to meet their obligations under the disability discrimination legislation. I am also very conscious that if the legislation is to work, the Disability Rights Commission and others will have to work closely with employers and service providers to ensure that they meet their obligations. We have taken a range of initiatives to assist service providers and employers to do just that. I hope that hon. Members have seen the start of the "See the person" campaign, which was launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to raise awareness on disability issues a few weeks ago. That was an attempt on our part to put all disability issues more centrally on the agenda, but specifically the obligations that providers and employers have under disability discrimination legislation. We are producing a range of new leaflets to assist employers and suppliers of goods and services; they will be available in the coming weeks. We have enhanced the DDA helpline so that organisations can use the services to assist them to comply with the new legislation. A key duty of the new Disability Rights Commission will be not merely to support individuals to ensure that they get their civil rights in law, but to work with employers and businesses that supply goods and services to help them ensure that there is proper access and equality of opportunity for disabled people as regards employment, goods and services. In relation to the legislative issues raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), we have seized the opportunity to learn some lessons from the operation both of race relations and sex discrimination legislation, of which we have now had more than 20 years' experience. That is why we have tried to ensure that the body will work co-operatively with businesses and suppliers of goods and services, rather than in a confrontational way. We also want to make sure that action is effective; that is why the Bill provides for written agreements to be reached without having to make formal investigations. That is a better way for businesses and individual disabled people to get proper access to goods and services, and for people to have the opportunity to work, without having to undertake court procedures. This is the first time the concept of written agreements has been included in discrimination legislation. The Bill includes regulatory powers to tighten up formal investigations, so that they do not go on for ever with no resolution. That has been the experience in some of the formal investigations under the race relations and sex discrimination legislation; it has met the interests neither of organisations nor of the individuals subject to discrimination. With those assurances, I hope that hon. Members will accept the amendment.

CONSTITUTION ETC

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 13, line 28, at end insert— 'List of consultees 17.—(1) The Commission shall maintain a list of the organisations it has consulted generally for the purposes of any of its functions. (2) An organisation may be removed from the list if it has not been consulted generally in the 12 months preceding its removal. (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), consultation is general unless it relates only— (a) to an investigation to which paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 applies, (b) to assistance under section 7, or (c) otherwise to a particular individual or individuals. (4) The Commission shall make the list available to the public in whatever way it considers appropriate (subject to any charge it may impose).'. The amendment requires the commission to produce, and make publicly available, a list of organisations that it has consulted. I hope that hon. Members will accept that we tabled the amendment in response to the reasonable amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) in Committee. When we discussed the amendment in Committee, I said that I had sympathy with the thrust of what the hon. Lady wanted to achieve, but that I needed to look carefully at the burden that that might place on the commission, and to minimise that burden where it was practical to do so. We have, after all, said that we do not want the commission to tie itself in red tape or to waste resources. Through this amendment, I wanted to address the concerns that were expressed in debate in response to the hon. Lady's amendment. They were that the list should be useful as a point of reference and provide transparency as to whom the commission consults, but that it should not include contacts with particular individuals—such as general practitioners—in response to a particular case. The key feature of the amendment is that the list would be publicly available, on demand. The commission could decide the best way to make it available; for example, we hope that it might be posted on the internet. That would retain the "publicness" of the list, but would be likely to reduce the cost and administrative burden of producing perhaps several thousand glossy copies—probably as part of the commission's annual report. The list should be updated to get rid of dead-wood organisations—for example, organisations in the voluntary sector that are defunct. The amendment allows the commission to remove organisations from the list, if they have not been consulted during the previous 12 months, but does not require the commission to do so. That would mean that the DRC was obliged neither to start from scratch every year, nor to keep the list under continuous review—both of which could be administratively burdensome. Only organisations—rather than individuals—would be included on the list, but not if an organisation had been consulted for the purposes of a formal investigation, or if the DRC was giving an individual assistance in relation to proceedings.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

If an organisation was paid for the advice it gave, would that point be attached to the provisions that the Minister is listing?

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

We have not specified that point, because we wanted to ensure that the list was more complete than I had suggested in our original exchange of views in Committee. For the sake of completeness, it would be best not to specify that point. However, nothing in the amendment would prevent the DRC from listing organisations that had received moneys for assisting the commission with its work. With those reassurances, I hope that the amendment, tabled in response to representations from Opposition Members, will be accepted.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

As the Minister has reminded the House, she has been as good as her word in tabling an amendment that enshrines the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). In the rather speedy transfer of responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench, I have not consulted my hon. Friend on the matter. However, she is aware of what has happened and has not expressed her dissent. In relation to the intervention of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), I assume that, in deciding whether to state that a charge has been made, the commission will consider whether that would colour the advice that was given, or whether such a statement would be required for accountability. I am sure the commission will be sensitive about that. The same point relates to the provision that the commission should not refer to individuals, or to formal investigation. In relation to our constituencies, we sometimes write letters on the record—indeed, for the record—but there are other occasions when we want to consult individuals confidentially in the interests of our constituents. We realise that different types of consultation have to take place, so it is important to have a good working list, which is updated by the exclusion of organisations after a period of non-consultation and shows whom the commission has approached for advice, so that those with particular interests can debate matters on which they feel that there are gaps or an undue emphasis. That is wholly consistent with the constructive way in which we have discussed these matters. Will the Minister comment on one outstanding matter that relates to proposed sub-paragraph (4)? I gather that there was some misunderstanding—to put it charitably— about exactly what the Government's commitment was on charging by the commission. In correspondence, the Minister pointed out that she had confirmed, on Second Reading, that the commission would not be empowered to recover any of its legal costs from compensation awarded to individuals, or agreed outside a court or tribunal. Such costs could be recovered only from an amount for costs awarded or agreed upon—there would have to be some pre-existing agreement or a separate charge for the service given by the commission to the organisation or the individual. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point. There is a general duty on public bodies—for which the Cabinet Office and others publish advice—that they should have a reasonable schedule of charges. From time to time, we all complain that some of the charges that are imposed are excessive—as indeed sometimes they are, and we are right to complain. However, such bodies should be able to institute a reasonable charging policy. If we can complain when we believe the policy to be unreasonable, and if they can explain the rationale for their charges, they should be able to implement them, subject only to the following qualification. We are dealing with people who, by definition, have some difficulties, and with organisations that are often voluntary and do not have large assets. They will not welcome heavy charging by Government or para-governmental organisations. As technology improves, no doubt much of that information may be available on the website and may be free to the user. I hope that it will be. We certainly do not want anyone who has a genuine interest in checking such material to be inhibited by a charge for accessing information. I should be grateful if the Minister would speak to those points and give me the confirmation that I seek. I repeat my thanks and those of Opposition Members to her for responding to the point put to her in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Maintaining a list of organisations to be consulted is important. I take an interest in social security matters and I serve on the Select Committee on Social Security. It is often a feature of social security matters that, compared with many other areas, there is no well funded, widely based group of natural consultees. In contrast, the agricultural sector has some of the best organised lobbyists in the country, as does defence. If one is taking a decision in such matters, there is almost an embarrassment of riches in terms of consultation. However, the number of people who are sufficiently well funded and interested in social security matters to understand the technical nature of the subject, and who are prepared to be consulted and want to submit good proposals to Government is limited.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

I rise merely on a factual point to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. He referred to a list of organisations to be consulted. That is not what this list is. This is a list of organisations that have been consulted in the course of the commission carrying out its duties. I am certain that it is not intended to be a list of the great and the good of approved organizations for consultation. I would hope that a huge range of organisations—any organisation—could be consulted if the commission thought fit.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing up that point. The point that I want to make is that, although often on social security matters there is a dearth of people to be consulted, or who have been consulted or may be consulted, there is a well organised disability lobby, and that is a good thing. It is the one social security area on which the Select Committee receives excellent briefings from those who might be affected by a proposal. Therefore, I am not too worried about the list of consultees with regard to the disability lobby. It is good, well organised and can put its case across extremely well. However, I am concerned with the other side of the picture—the business lobby. Full transparency is important. Two obvious business organisations that might be consulted about a proposal are the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors. However, it is often difficult for such organisations, particularly the CBI, and particularly in relation to issues that might be under discussion by the commission, to take a robust, pro-business approach, if I may put it that way. Obviously, we are dealing with a sensitive area. We are dealing with people who may have severe disabilities and no business organisation, particularly those such as the CBI, wants to receive the bad publicity that it might receive if it is seen to be unduly negative about any proposal. The Minister presumably has an idea of the sort of people who will be consulted, and I want to be assured that the list of consultees will go further than the large business organisations, which may find it difficult, in public at least, to take a robust attitude. It is important that they should take a robust attitude, that there should be a debate about these issues and that the two sides of the argument should be put. We are potentially talking about a lot of small businesses that might find enforcement of these procedures extremely onerous. That is not because they are unsympathetic to disabled people, but simply because they have limited resources. I use the amendment as a peg to seek the Minister's reassurance that she understands that the consultation should not simply be limited in the business world to the Institute of Directors or the CBI, but should go wider—perhaps down to a local level, such as the chambers of trade and commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses—so that we ensure that the commission has before it both sides of an argument. Unless that happens, this could be an extremely intrusive organisation which proves damaging to the interests of business and, eventually, to disabled people themselves.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

What I have to say follows from what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has just said. It relates not simply to what one might characterise as the awkward customers in the business lobby, but to the awkward customers in the disability lobby. It is clearly important that those who have clear and original thoughts should be included in the list of consultees and should be consulted by the commission. What slightly concerns me about the amendment is that it gives the commission the right to remove from the list any organisation that it has not consulted for the past 12 months, without a right of appeal by that organisation. Whether that is a small business organisation of the kind described by my hon. Friend, or a small disability rights lobby—[Interruption.] Labour Members disagree, but I feel a little uncomfortable when I read: An organisation may be removed from the list if it has not been consulted generally in the 12 months preceding its removal. I see no corresponding right for that organisation—disability rights organisation, commercial organisation or whatever—to appeal against that removal. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) looks amazed and aghast at that idea, but it is entirely possible. I welcome the principle of open consultation and this addition to the Bill, but I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the commission will not exclude any body—I mean body in the legal sense, not individuals—or any organisation that could reasonably be expected to be included in consultation.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I am happy to confirm to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), in relation to the recovery of costs from individuals, that the Bill relates to the recovery of costs when an award for costs is made. That mirrors the position that exists for the other commissions. The Bill does not provide for the Disability Rights Commission to recover costs from compensation. Neither can they be recovered from settlements reached outside courts or tribunals, unless an amount for costs has been identified therein. In relation to the charging policy, it will be for the commission to decide for which services it wishes to charge—for example, the distribution of papers. The commission is not expected to charge for general advice. As I said, I hope that the list of organisations will be placed on the internet where it will be free. However, if a particular organisation requires thousands of copies, it would not be unreasonable for the commission to charge. With regard to whom the commission will consult and the specific request that it consult the business community, I reassure the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) that the commission has been designed to take an evenhanded approach between those individuals who will be seeking to exercise their rights in relation to discrimination and those organisations providing goods and services to the public or acting as an employer. It may reassure the hon. Member for Gainsborough to know that, on the disability rights task force, which I chair and which is discussing what further steps are needed to secure further comprehensive civil rights for disabled people, are representatives from not just the CBI and the Institute of Directors, but from the Federation of Small Businesses and the chambers of commerce. So we are aware of the need to ensure a broad spread of representation on that body. We have yet to determine the precise composition of the new commission. We have not been able to do that because the Bill is not law yet, but as soon as it is, we shall ensure that it, too, reflects the broad spectrum of people who have an interest in the commission's workings. I expect there to be strong representation from the business community, the trade union movement, local government and perhaps the health service. It will, at the end of the day, be for the Disability Rights Commission to decide whom it chooses to consult on particular issues. The purpose behind the amendment, for hon. Members who were not present in the Committee, is to ensure that the process of consultation is transparent and that when the commission comes out with a policy proposal or new code of practice, we all know who has been consulted. It was in the interests of transparency, and perhaps to meet some of the fears expressed by Opposition Members, that we have moved the amendment.

FORMAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NON-DISCRIMINATION NOTICES

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 20, line 25, leave out 'with immediate effect'. The amendment relates to new provisions now contained in clause 4 and schedule 3, following Committee consideration, on non-discrimination notices and action plans, to which we have already referred. The Bill as it now stands enables the commission to require a person to submit an action plan to address any unlawful acts that have been committed and which are specified in a non-discrimination notice. The amendment relates to paragraph 19 of schedule 3, which would enable an action plan which has become final to be varied with the agreement of the commission and the person concerned. The amendment would allow flexibility in terms of when any variations would take effect. The Bill as currently drafted would mean that any changes agreed would take immediate effect. By taking out the words "immediate effect", we would enable the commission, the individual and the organisation to respond to those occasions when the commission and the person concerned wanted to agree a variation in advance. It may help if I give an example. A person may be making provision for a disabled person in a particular way in accordance with the action plan, but realise that, on moving premises, it would be better to change the way in which that provision had been made. The original action plan may have been that someone would work on the ground floor. In a changed premises, there may be a possibility of installing a lift that would lead to a change. In that case, the person might want to agree a change to the plan, but to provide that the change would take effect only once the move was completed. Amendment No. 18 would remove the words "with immediate effect" in paragraph 19 and thus leave it to the parties to decide, as part of their agreement, when any variation would take effect.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

The Government are importing a welcome measure of flexibility into the provisions, which are already fairly flexible. We are pleased that they are moving the amendment. It means that we will not be tied to having everything done immediately. I imagine that it would be possible to contrive to overcome that problem by providing that the variation should be agreed and come into effect on the day on which it was necessary, but then one could have a series of rather complicated provisions leading to a series of variation orders or agreements. So it is probably sensible to proceed as the Government are doing. The only point on which I seek assurance is that there is no scope for monkey business and non-compliance with the action plan. If the instruction is that the thing should take immediate effect, that is fairly easily pursued, judged and, if necessary, proceeded on. If some date in the future is stipulated, especially if it relates to a contingent event that may not be easy to define, such as "the day I finish moving house", which may not even be easy for a court to determine, the situation will be a little vague. I hope that that can be overcome. I do not think that it is an objection to proceeding with the amendment.

Margaret Hodge (Labour, Barking)

There is absolutely no intention of using the amendment to weaken the facilities in the Bill to eliminate discrimination. I simply draw it to the hon. Gentleman's attention that it would require the agreement of all parties to vary the timing of implementation of the action plan.

Andrew Smith (Labour, Oxford East)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. The debates on this Bill on Second Reading, on Report and in Committee have been good-spirited, as befits a thoroughly good measure. The standing of the commission will be all the stronger and its work all the more effective for the breadth and depth of support now being expressed for its establishment. The consensus behind the commission is such that I have no need to detain the House with a prolonged speech. I should just like to say that securing this commission is a great tribute to all those who have campaigned long and hard to bring it about. A debt of thanks is owed to the people involved from disability organisations and in the general public, to many Members of this House and another place, to the disability rights task force and to the all-party disablement group. It can be a bit invidious to single out names, but I know that the House would want to join me in voicing particular thanks for the pioneering work of Jack Ashley and Alf Morris, which comes to fruition today in this Bill. I should also like to thank all hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee, and the Opposition parties for their constructive contribution. This was a very good Bill when it started its passage through the House, and it is an even better Bill now. I should also like to thank the civil servants, the parliamentary officials—and Hansard staff and the police—and all who have worked on the Bill's proceedings. It is all the better for their invaluable input. May I say a particular thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East Mr. (Howarth), who put a lot of work into getting this Bill under way, and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has thrown herself body and soul into seeing the Bill through so successfully in a good spirit of partnership with disability organisations and others. We will now at last have a proper independent body to help disabled people to secure their rights. Together with the work of the disability rights task force, the extension of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the new deal for disabled people, the disabled persons tax credit and income guarantee and the hearts and minds campaign, this measure marks decisive progress towards comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. The establishment of the Disability Rights Commission and the action that will flow from that are achievements of which this Labour Government, the disability rights movement and the whole House can be proud. What really matters is the difference that it will make in the lives of disabled people as we open up opportunity, challenge prejudice and discrimination, and enable people to live lives of dignity and fulfilment. The Disability Rights Commission has an enormous role to play. It is long overdue. Disabled people have waited more than long enough. Let us give the Bill a Third Reading so that they wait no longer.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

The Minister moved Third Reading in a broad and generous spirit. He has expressed thanks to almost all parties, and rightly so. I shall not repeat those thanks, not because I do not share his sentiments but because they have already been expressed. He injected the minimum of partisanship. That is proper because although we may have had our differences in the past on some disability issues, we have now all come together on this measure. It is right that occasionally in this place we find ourselves all on the same side, just as it is entirely right that on other occasions we vigorously debate matters of political tension and hardship. I think that we have found the right balance in this instance, and it respects the circumstances of the case. I shall not repeat those thanks; I shall merely refer to my diffidence, in that it is almost unprecedented for me to have my first outing on a Bill on Report when others have done all the spadework. However, I believe that even in these short contributions I have reinforced the attitude that we have taken on these matters. As for how the Bill will work, we have obtained useful assurances and, as the Minister rightly said, the Bill has been improved in response to points made by hon. Members from both sides of the House. The first matter that should concern people is whether the commission will have sufficient resources to do its job. We shall have to see whether there is a sudden flood of cases that have been pent up and not adequately developed. I hope that they can be managed, and that the commission will have the right resources to keep that under review. The second major concern will be the way in which the commission approaches consultation with the service provider and the business interests that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) mentioned in several interventions. The Under-Secretary referred to the need for maximum discussion to achieve positive results without cracking the legislative whip. I am sure that that is the right general approach, and I am relieved that that view is shared across the House. It would be unfortunate if this measure were seen not as a matter of civil rights—I do not dissent from that view—but as a fruitful vehicle for contention and litigation whenever possible. The moral should be to improve awareness and consciousness, to move on to good practice and—if necessary—prescription, and to introduce the big stick only when absolutely necessary and when there is recalcitrance. I do not wish to take away the obligations of employers or service providers, but they should have a chance to behave reasonably. My strong hope and belief is that most of them, given that opportunity, will want to manage their affairs in such a way as to be helpful to the interests of persons with disabilities. My concluding remarks will be addressed to people with disabilities as they look forward to their new rights. It is important that we do not oversell what we have achieved in the Bill. That is in no sense to diminish its importance or the fact that we have reached agreement on it, but it does not, by itself, remove discrimination and deal with entrenched attitudes and insensitivity. Perhaps no one could legislate to deal with those problems effectively. We must do what we can in legislation, but we should realise that litigation is a difficult process, and for persons with disabilities it is even more stressful. Having just come to this issue, I was struck by the survey carried out by the university of Sussex for the Institute for Employment Studies, which examined the cases brought during the first 19 months under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It interviewed 180 parties and 40 lawyers in 92 cases, and found that the process was daunting and that the problems for disabled people of being in court were enormous. That is undoubtedly true. The assistance of the commission may help to support some of these cases appropriately. It is important that if attempts to enforce rights come to litigation, lawyers on all sides should bear in mind the circumstances of the parties. We cannot tolerate a situation in which public authorities, private employers or service providers sit it out in the hope that the problem will go away through what was once memorably and chillingly called the biological solution. The answer is to give people their rights and to understand that there will be differences of interpretation. The commission must be used positively and constructively to articulate and determine the rights of disabled people, and to find a practical way of resolving the problem. If possible, it should not become a battleground between the political parties or employers and service providers and persons with a disability. This is a sensitive issue. I am encouraged by the way in which all parties have worked together. The Government and other parties have worked to try to produce the best possible outcome. We must cast it into existence on Third Reading, with Lords consideration completed, and on to the tide of history. We hope that it will flow in the direction we all want it to flow. I believe that the spirit in which we are dispatching it may modestly help to bring about that objective.

Roger Berry (Labour, Kingswood)

I warmly welcome the Bill, personally and on behalf of the all-party disablement group. I am sure that the many disability organisations that this afternoon issued a press release welcoming the Bill would also wish me to say on their behalf how welcome it is. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said that we should not overstate the importance of a Bill to establish a Disability Rights Commission. I tend to think that there is a great danger of underestimating its significance. It is easy to say that this is an historic occasion for 9 million disabled people in Britain. We have said that before, but it remains true. The more I reflect on the Bill, the more I suspect that we are not yet clear about what its effects will be. I believe that they will be extremely far-reaching. As of today, there is no statutory body to assist in promoting equal rights for disabled people. The Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality deal with discrimination on the grounds of gender and race, but there is no statutory body to assist in tackling discrimination against disabled people. Yet we know that the extent of that discrimination is very great—whether it is in employment, education, housing, transport or in any other area of human life. Therefore, I believe that the Bill is profoundly important. It is a measure for which campaigners outside and inside the House have worked for almost 20 years.

John Healey (Labour, Wentworth)

My hon. Friend talked about the Bill's campaigners, but no one has worked harder or for longer than he has for this measure. Does he agree that one feature that gives cause for optimism about the implementation of the Bill and the new commission is the wide support that it has received not just from disability organisations but from employers' organisations, including the Employers Forum on Disability, the Confederation of British Industry and even the Institute of Directors, which has welcomed the Bill with reservations?

Roger Berry (Labour, Kingswood)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those kind comments. I agree very much with his point. I welcome, with the greatest possible enthusiasm, the extent of support for the Bill. One cannot forget entirely the fact that the previous Government were forced to introduce the Disability Discrimination Act in 1995 after years of doing everything imaginable—and even things that I thought were unimaginable—to block that legislation. One of the most glaring omissions from the Disability Discrimination Act was the lack of any effective enforcement mechanism—the lack of a commission, for which many people had argued at the time. The then Government established the National Disability Council, and it is no criticism of its members—they have done a very good job and I pay tribute to the chair, David Grayson, and his colleagues—that it was never given the power or the terms of reference to do what was necessary. The National Disability Council is the only Government agency that I can recall that campaigned for its own abolition almost from day one. It recognised that we needed a commission, and the Bill will deliver that commission. Let us be perfectly frank: change has come about first and foremost because we have a Labour Government. Let no one pretend that we would today be debating the Third Reading of the Disability Rights Commission Bill without a Labour victory at the last general election. We are debating the Bill also because the Government have moved with great speed: they found the legislative time to introduce this legislation within a mere two years of taking office. I believe that is a great achievement, not least because of the enormous pressures on parliamentary time. Every right hon. and hon. Member must be bombarded, day in and day out, with requests for the Government to do this, that and the other—and, in most cases, we agree with all of those requests. That suggests that an enormous amount of legislation is required after 18 years of Conservative Government. The fact that the Government have found the time and given priority to establish a Disability Rights Commission within two years of the general election is a tribute to them and to their commitment to tackling discrimination against disabled people. I also acknowledge the fact that the disability rights task force, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister referred, has been very effective in advising the Government and in facilitating a dialogue between them and not only disabled people but employers, trade unions and all of those who have a legitimate interest in this field. That reflects an inclusive approach to policy making that should be welcomed warmly. In their press release this afternoon, the disability organisations particularly applauded the fact that they have been involved in the process. They have been consulted and listened to and they feel that they have ownership of the exercise. That is how Government Departments should operate, and I congratulate my colleagues on functioning in that way. In this month's Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation bulletin, the organisation's director, Bert Massie, says: It is a credit to disability organisations and the Government that this milestone in the rights of disabled people had been reached less than halfway through this Parliament. The disability organisations are correct, and I join them in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), on the way in which they have steered the legislation through Parliament and have consulted and listened to people. Many improvements were made to the Bill in Committee, and some were made on Report this afternoon. As a result of contributions made on Second Reading and of proposals advanced by disability organisations throughout the whole process, we have a better Bill. I also place on record my appreciation—and I am sure that of the House—of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), who was the first Under-Secretary of State after the election to have responsibility for disability issues. I worked with him when we were in different political parties—I hope that those on his Front Bench knew about it at the time—and I pay tribute to him now that we are in a better position: namely, members of the same party. I think that disabled people and the Government have an enormous amount to be proud of today, but there are others for whom this is also an important milestone. I refer first to the Conservatives. I congratulate the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on his new post. It was a pleasure to share a platform with him at a meeting organised by Sense and Deafblind UK at the end of last week, and I wish him well. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Conservatives are recent converts to the need for comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people—I offer that comment merely as a fact. Therefore, support for the legislation is an important milestone for the Conservative party, and I welcome it most genuinely. The Bill is also a milestone for many other people—some of whom are perhaps not aware of it. I have in mind employers. Equal opportunities is about much more than equal access to rights and responsibilities. Effective equal opportunities means that employers can be certain that they have employed the best person for the job. Without an effective equal opportunities policy, how can any business know that it has found the most effective employee? Finding ways of overcoming the prejudices and the barriers to employing disabled people allows businesses to employ the best person and to become richer in every sense. Today is a milestone for employers up and down the country because the Bill will help them to ensure that they are employing the best people for the job, irrespective of any disability that they might have. When the Disability Rights Commission opens its doors on 1 April next year, not only disabled people will seek its assistance to overcome discrimination: I think businesses will also queue up for advice and information about how to open themselves to the wider community. Those will be the businesses that, to paraphrase the slogan from the current campaign, want to see the person, and understand that social inclusion is about social justice and economic efficiency. Hon. Members will be aware that I do not often quote President George Bush with approval but, on this memorable occasion, I will. When he enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, he said that it would let the shameful walls of exclusion finally come tumbling down". That is what the Bill will help to achieve in Britain. It deserves the unanimous support of the House, and I am delighted that it will, in all probability, receive it.

Mark Oaten (Liberal Democrat, Winchester)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who has done an enormous amount of work in this field. He must be very proud today that the Bill is being passed. We can see the obvious pleasure and delight that he takes in that, and he displayed more pleasure than he did when I last heard him speak in the Chamber. I warmly congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who mentioned earlier that this is the first Bill that she has taken through the House. It has been a pleasure to watch her doing that with incredible openness. Certainly in Committee, she was very open to points made by Opposition parties. As a new Member who has been somewhat disappointed by the yah-boo politics in this place, I find it refreshing to play a small part in a process in which I have seen how politics can work in an extraordinarily constructive way. I congratulate the Minister on her role in that. Clearly, Liberal Democrat Members welcome this important landmark in disability legislation. I do not want to hold up the House, because many of the points were made on Second Reading and we have debated the Bill at length. The legislation is long overdue, and the process that we have undergone today has strengthened existing legislation. We have passed a Bill for which disabled groups have been arguing for many years, and we can all be proud of having played a part in that. There are, however, challenges ahead for the Disability Rights Commission, and we should not be so enthusiastic that we do not recognise that it will face difficult hurdles. Sadly, attitudes are still very tough, and that is why we need such an organisation. Although businesses and the public have certainly changed their attitudes towards disabled people, we still badly need the commission, and it will have many obstacles to overcome, not least the limits on its powers in the areas within which it will be able to operate. I know that the Government have made it clear that they hope to extend the Bill's provisions to education, policing and transport. Those are fundamental areas, and although the commission will be able to make good progress in the areas included in the Bill, it will find it hard to make progress where there is no legislation for it to enforce. If we are to take a holistic—I hate that word—approach to disabled people, having two such fundamental areas as education and transport outside the Bill's provisions will restrain progress. I hope that the commission will work with the Government to ensure that those areas are brought within the scope of its powers. y Similarly, I have concerns about the commission working with business. It is a shame that not all businesses are included in the Bill. Those with fewer than 15 employees are exempt, which means that about 80 per cent. of companies are excluded from the Bill's provisions. It must be an urgent priority for the Disability Rights Commission to bring that to the attention of politicians and to put pressure on and work with the Government to change that threshold. It will be difficult for the commission to send out a positive message and to educate businesses if many are not legally required to comply. We have spoken in previous debates about the Disability Rights Commission's requirement for resources. I have taken comfort from the Government's comments about that. That position needs to be monitored; otherwise, we may find that in two or three years the commission's education work expands, as we hope it will, and its resources are too stretched to allow it to help individuals who are trying to be positive and making constant demands for help. If the commission had to refuse help to those people, and it was unable to begin charging them for help, that would be a missed opportunity, and the funding would have to be reconsidered. I referred earlier to the three-tier process of education, written agreements and the final resort of nondiscrimination notices. I am assured that it is sensible, and I think that it will work well. I am slightly concerned about the written agreements, and when the Minister winds up the debate, I should welcome a little more clarification about whether those agreements will be public. I understand the need to have a positive dialogue with businesses, so that they feel that they can be open about their difficulties. It would not be helpful if that was all made public. Nevertheless, if those written agreements deal with serious cases in which the commission believes that a company has failed in its duties, and an agreement is the last stop before issuing a non-discrimination notice, the public, the company's work force and people who may want to apply to the company have a right to know about the concerns expressed in the agreement. Private written agreements could prevent businesses from being accountable. A concern that has not been allayed by the amendments relates to the commission's ability to try to tackle organisations that may be about to act in a way that is anti disabled people. It will be difficult for the commission to deal with such problems. It will need to work on events that have already happened, where it believes that the company's actions are discriminatory. We can all think of examples in which companies may be preparing to act in a discriminatory manner. I am thinking particularly of the building trade, which I mentioned in Committee. Builders may be about to take action that is discriminatory because they have not built a building in the right way or they have not complied with the Government's new legislation on building requirements, but the commission will not have the power to step in at that point. That is a disappointment, because it must be better to try to tackle discrimination before, for example, a disabled person turns up at a house and cannot get inside. Clearly, at that point, the building company will have committed an offence. When the commission is up and running, it will come across such difficulties week in and week out, and those will have to be reconsidered in the future. y This is a super Bill, and we should all be proud of taking part in its consideration. I envisage having to call the commission in a year or so to check that I am myself complying with the provisions and to get help and advice. In a city such as Winchester it is difficult to get offices and buildings converted. As an MP, I have found it extremely difficult to find out how I can follow good practice. The commission will face many demands to do the part of its work that we all want it to do—persuading, educating and taking a positive approach. I am reassured, however, that when things go wrong and that education does not work, the commission will be able to take a firm hand. By putting that provision in place, the House sends those organisations who want to ignore the disabled a strong message that they can no longer do so. We have created a body that will be on their case, and I warmly welcome that and the Bill.

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

I am delighted to be able to speak in support of Third Reading. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 made an important start in providing disabled people with rights of access to employment, goods, services and premises. Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), acknowledged to the Select Committee on Education and Employment, of which I am a member, that the first two or three years of that Act's operation had provoked cases and a momentum similar to those created by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the setting up of the Equal Opportunities Commission. Bearing in mind the positive contribution that they made to transforming our society, the Disability Discrimination Act was a good start. However, the 1995 Act did not provide a platform from which individuals could make a progression. It was a blunt instrument. I believe that the Disability Rights Commission, which I hope that the House is about to bring into being, will give an edge and a temper to everything for which disability campaigners have fought for so long. y I share the delight of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) that a Labour Government are introducing the Bill, but it is only fair to say that it builds on the efforts of members of all parties. I add my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, but I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—and to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who presented the Opposition's position very constructively this afternoon. The Bill ties in with the overall thrust of Government policy to aid and empower disabled people—the new deal for disabled people, the special educational needs Green Paper, the new role for personal advisers in the single gateway, and other measures that the Government are bringing forward, which are giving teeth to the Tomlinson report proposals. I am delighted that the Bill is being taken through the House by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who, as others have said, has displayed great energy and commitment in doing so. In one of her first engagements in her position, she visited my constituency to meet the Blackpool Bears, a disabled sports group that has done admirable work in the Blackpool area. As an example of joined-up government, I also pay tribute to the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), for the thought-provoking way in which he has dealt sensitively with the issues surrounding disability that hon. Members have brought to his attention. The Disability Rights Commission embodies four essential ingredients. It is a spur to cultural change; it is a source of central advice and information; it is a practical source of redress; and it is an empowering device. I believe that it will have a key role to play in a range of areas. I believe that the extension of the 1995 Act in October of this year for service providers will give a major new impetus and an added edge to the type of work that the commission takes on board. I believe and hope that it will provide a major boost and support system to the many voluntary sector organisations that, together with the pressure groups, have been a lifeline to disabled people. Despite the new and welcome emphasis by the Government on working with them, we tend too often to take for granted the contribution of the voluntary sector in this respect. However, the voluntary sector, its volunteers and its organisations are often the backbone of civil society. I have just returned from a visit to Russia, where the health of that nascent democracy is much debated locally. One of the most impellent gaps in Russian society today is the lack of that voluntarist tradition and that voluntary principle. We should never take them for granted. We should always be extremely pleased and proud of the voluntary work that is done in our country. In my constituency, the Disability Services Organisation for Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde, of which I have the honour to be president, will welcome the umbrella opportunity that the Disability Rights Commission offers. It has several different initiatives, offering free independent advice and a volunteer service for disabled people with sensory and physical disabilities, jointly financed by Blackpool council, Blackpool social services and North West Lancashire health authority. It has achieved a great deal in buying and leasing scooters and wheelchairs, shop mobility, a dial-a-ride scheme and a disability information service. It has now obtained a £30,000 grant from the Millennium Commission to make and produce a disability awareness video for people in the north-west. All such organisations will benefit from the support and encouragement and the umbrella function of the Disability Rights Commission. All those aspects tie in with the need to strengthen disabled people's rights, not by condescension or toleration, but by giving them their proper rights in society. If I may be forgiven a historical reference, that has so often been the route that minorities have had to tread in our society—beginning with condescension, moving on to toleration and finally achieving full civil rights. The new commission will need to be aware of, and especially sensitive to, the increasing involvement of disabled people in voluntary and statutory bodies—in school boards of governors, in health trust boards and in tribunals. However, along with that goes a responsibility on those bodies that welcome disabled people to give them the proper support and encouragement, and to anticipate the need for time off and the need for appliances with which to do their job properly. Disabled people should not have to go to them cap in hand. I hope that the new Disability Rights Commission will strengthen their voice in that respect. I believe that, with increased participation by disabled people in public bodies, in ministerial Departments and in local councils, the DRC will have a very important role to play in using its powers to be proactive. I add my voice to those who have spoken about the excellent new publicity campaign—the "See the Person" campaign—because that is all about inclusion. I too, welcome the fact that businesses—especially small businesses, of which there are many in my constituency—will be involved in that process. It is important that businesses recognise that disabled people are about "what I can do, not what I can't do". Often, unwitting and unthinking discrimination is a major element in the barriers to disabled people. It is the so-called "Does he"—or, for that matter, does she—"take sugar?" syndrome, of which I have some personal experience in my family through my mother, who is disabled. The Disability Rights Commission has a very important role to play in encouraging and developing codes of practice. It has a particular opportunity at this time to encourage new administrative organisations—the regional development agencies, the new unitary authorities, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, all of which start with a clean slate. The DRC has a very important encouraging role. Tonight, I especially want to highlight the issue of tourism. I am very pleased that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport document "Tomorrow's Tourism", published earlier in the year, acknowledged the needs and concerns of disabled people. It recognised that an estimated 4 million disabled people in the United Kingdom want to take a holiday break but do not do so. Holidays and leisure breaks, to an extent which people who have no experience of disabled people and their carers often underestimate, can be a lifeline to those people, but often it is very difficult for them to take holidays. I believe that the Disability Rights Commission will provide a welcoming context for initiatives that are already under way, such as the Holiday Care Service and Tourism for All. I hope that the commission will be able to encourage the industry and the providers to take on more disabled people in the tourism business and to welcome more holidaymakers into their establishments. I am delighted to say that many hoteliers in Blackpool—incidentally, in some of the smallest establishments—have already made good progress in that respect. In the final analysis, the commission's power to help individuals with complaints under the 1995 Act is terribly important. There is an old Quaker adage that he who would do good must begin with doing it in minute particulars. In that respect, we must always remember that, although disabled people are individuals, whose struggle and sense of self-worth is very important to them as individuals, they also act as beacons—as champions—for others in that area. I see the Disability Rights Commission as a milestone on that path, which was so nobly inaugurated by Alf Morris and Jack Ashley, who have rightly been paid tribute to today. There was once the saying, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job." Today, with the DRC, effective tools have been provided. I commend the priority that the Government have given to it. I commend also the enthusiasm with which it has been received by those on both sides of the House. I am delighted to support Third Reading.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

In his introduction to the White Paper concerning the Bill—"Promoting disabled people's rights—Creating A Disability Rights Commission fit for the 21st Century"—the then responsible Minister, who is now the Minister for the Arts said: We do not believe there should be any tension between the interests of disabled people and the interests of employers or of providers of goods and services; rather the contrary. He added: A Disability Rights Commission … will be an agency of benign change. Let us hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. I sincerely hope that the Bill will be an instrument of benign change. In the right hands, it can be. In the wrong ones, it could be an instrument of intrusive over-regulation that could work against the interests of disabled people. I was thinking about the Minister for the Arts only yesterday when I was clearing out an old wardrobe that I had inherited. In it was a newspaper of 28 May 1979, from the early, heady days of the previous Conservative Government. There was a long article in it about the new head of the Conservative research department, one Mr. Alan Howarth. Let us hope that what is created today does not end up in the same way as a fading newspaper article in a dusty old wardrobe. I do not think that it will. What we are about to pass into law is important. I do not want to be churlish. I accept that the Bill is a great victory for those who campaigned for it over many years. I took part in those debates in the middle part of the previous Parliament when the disability legislation of the Conservative Government was before us. I have no worries with what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said on 24 November 1994, when he was the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. He said that the then Conservative Government believed that it should be possible to enforce legislation without setting up an expensive bureaucracy to police it. That is my view. We should be able to live in a society where disabled people feel that they have rights and that those rights can be enforced. Equally, I hope that we understand that creating an expensive bureaucracy and, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, enforcing it can be extremely dangerous. I thought that MENCAP put the matter very well in its contribution to the all-party disablement group's Second Reading briefing, when it said: There are men, women and children who have hitherto been awarded protection from discrimination in theory but who have been left without a supporting mechanism for redress of grievances in practice.y I agree with that statement. It is perhaps wrong for society to try to make itself feel comfortable by introducing legislation that it is impossible to enforce in practice. However, following the long debates that we have had over many years, I think that there is always a right time for doing things. Perhaps this is the right time for the Bill. However, as we pass it into law, I believe that we should consider carefully the representations that have been made to us by employer organisations, particularly by the CBI and particularly in relation to what it has to say about non-discrimination notices, as referred to in clause 4. We have only to read clause 4 to realise that we are talking about a commission that potentially will be very powerful. The clause reads: If in the course of a formal investigation the Commission is satisfied that a person has committed or is committing an unlawful act, it may serve on him a notice (referred to in this Act as a non-discrimination notice) which … gives details of the unlawful act … and … requires him not to commit any further unlawful acts". That is a great power. I realise that those who speak in the debate have fought for many years for rights for the disabled. Why should they be primarily concerned about burdens on business? My only plea is that we ensure that we have a balanced debate, and that what the CBI has said about the potentially huge powers contained in the Bill is taken to heart by the Government. I hope that they are prepared, willing and undertaking to act in the benign way that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth) was talking about when he introduced the White Paper. I agree that we must move from an era where disabled people had no rights. Indeed, they were heavily discriminated against. We must move from an era in which there is perhaps an element of condescension. We must then move on to an era where we do not talk constantly, as we often do in the social security world, of benefits for disabled people. Instead, we must move them into the world of work. y The Bill, if it is used in the right way, can be a benign measure for moving disabled people out of a ghetto, or the ghetto, into the world of work. However, if the commission is placed in the wrong hands, it could do a great deal of harm. I note that the majority of the commissioners will be disabled people. They will have to take a broad-minded attitude. They will have powers that they have not been enjoyed before. They are no longer a lobby outside knocking on the door. They are now inside the establishment, and they will be wielding great powers. I very much hope that, as we pass the Bill into law, they will feel that it is their duty to act in a balanced way in the interests of society as a whole, including the interests of disabled people and those who wish to provide jobs for them.

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

I think that I am the only Back-Bench Member who has sat through, and spoken on, every stage of the Bill's passage through the House. I am delighted that we have reached where we are today. On various occasions, I have said to Conservative Members, "Remind me, why was it that you voted against similar measures time after time years ago?" Until the past few minutes, they could not remember. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) obviously has stronger memories than other Conservative Members. I do not mean this unkindly, but the warmth that has emanated from repenting sinners has given great joy to Labour Members. I thank them for the contributions that they have made to our debates during the various stages of the Bill. I say in response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Gainsborough that the Bill is a milestone and not a millstone. It is a step forwards, not a step backwards. I shall make only two points, and the first concerns the awareness—for example, of employers and service providers—of the needs of disabled people. The present campaign is a stimulating one. It produces smiles and, perhaps, controversy but it gets people thinking, which is important. That is a role that the Disability Rights Commission will have to take on in future. In terms of awareness raising, it will be looking to good practice and disseminating it. At the launch of the campaign—it is a good example to put on record—there was a contribution from B and Q. It spoke of its employment practices, which encourage disabled people to apply for and to be accepted as employees. It told of the disability awareness training that it gives to its non-disabled and disabled staff within its stores. It told of the expectation that its suppliers would have an equally positive attitude to disabled people. Tellingly, it told of the Norwich store which has specialised in making kitchen fittings for people in wheelchairs. It has discovered a gold mine, because disabled people have commercial needs. They go out and buy things, and a service provider who meets their needs will reap the benefits from that. There is a commercial argument for organisations including those 8 million people in their marketing plans, which will be a relief to the hon. Member for Gainsborough, who expressed doubts. I shall tell the story of a receptionist in a local authority office close to where I live. He is blind, but he welcomes people to that office, functions very well as a receptionist and telephonist and is not disabled because the facilities are present to give him all the abilities that he needs to carry out that vital job and exceed the reasonable expectations that could be demanded of him. I have told that story to make the point that the barriers that prevent disabled people from playing a full, positive and constructive role in society have been erected by us—not only the politicians, but able-bodied people, service providers, employers and anyone else who does not think about the consequences of their words, deeds and actions for disabled people. We can take those barriers down. We can give disabled people the emancipation that they deserve and that it is their right to have. The Disability Rights Commission and the awareness-raising activities associated with it are steps along the way but, however good today is—it is a wonderful occasion—it is only another step along a long road, the end of which we still have to reach.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

The eerie light of consensus has illuminated the debate, although that did not characterise the debates in the previous Parliament, during which I frequently expressed exactly the same objectives as the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), but sought rather different mechanisms to secure them. We could never have foreseen that those loud and noisy discussions would end in such a way as they did today—not with a bang, but with a whimper, which is good. Disability issues should not be the subject of the fierce partisan battles that took place in the previous Parliament. I congratulate the Minister on his opening remarks; he struck the right note, although there were hints of a return to partisan comments from other hon. Members. It is no doubt true that the Bill would probably not have been introduced by the previous Conservative Government—we can say that with a reasonable degree of certainty—but I am not so sure that that could be said of a Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition. He is committed to the measure. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Kingswood ever has the good fortune to serve in a Government, he will sometimes find himself at the Dispatch Box saying things with which he does not entirely agree. Such is the nature of collective responsibility. It is worth putting on record the fact that the previous Government did a considerable amount on disability issues. When Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister, she attached great importance to the welfare spending issues related to disability. Contrary to the myth the she constantly slashed expenditure, she trebled spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled; and her successor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), continued the process. We also introduced the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which the chairman of the National Disability Council has described as a good Act, although I agree that David Grayson, who is a good friend of mine, wants that Act to be toughened. Indeed, the Bill does just that, but those were real and substantial achievements for disabled people which I hope the whole House would welcome. I rather resent the note that has been struck by some Labour Members, who have said that nothing happened for disabled people in the previous Parliament. A considerable amount happened.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Disability living allowance.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

From a sedentary position on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend reminds me about DLA. He is absolutely right to do so. How do I approach this Third Reading debate? With mixed feelings—all my doubts remain about establishing a body with the powers that the commission could have, but the disability rights lobby still wants a commission to be established. The mood in the House is clearly in favour of a commission, so this is the time to lie back and accept the inevitable. I can do so with a clear conscience because I am encouraged by what Ministers have said about how they expect the commission to use the powers being given to it. It is right to emphasise our hope that the commission will use those powers in the way that Ministers hope it will use them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, clause 4—and, indeed, clause 5—contains considerable powers and they could harm the cause that the commission has been set up to help if they are used insensitively. The Liberal spokesman talked about the omissions from the Bill, and I hope that the commission will consider not only employment matters, but issues of democracy. The House is still inaccessible to disabled people and that is one of the things that we should put right as a matter of the utmost urgency. In my previous incarnation in the House, my constituency contained New college, which is run by the Royal National Institute for the Blind in Worcester. Issues relating to blind and visually impaired people are at the forefront of my thinking and I hope that the commission will do what it can to improve voting forms. I will put pressure on the Government to make it easier for disabled people to exercise their most fundamental right of all—the right to vote—and for people who are disabled but do not have visual disabilities to gain access to polling stations, which is often scandalously difficult to achieve. There are many issues for the commission to address that relate, directly or indirectly, to the way we carry out our business. I hope that it will do so with enthusiasm. On a slightly partisan note, I hope that the commission will not be frightened of taking on the Government over their allowance for county social service departments. Despite all the good words that we have heard today about the great achievements of the Government, disabled people and their carers—in Worcestershire in particular—face serious problems because of the scandalously low funding increase offered by the Government. I hope that the commission will speak out on that, too. Although I can give the establishment of the commission a rather less guarded welcome that might otherwise have been the case, I want to strike a note of dissent from everything that has been said about the Government's hearts and minds campaign. Ultimately, the fundamental point is that no Act of Parliament can ever change the way people behave. The real discrimination lies in people's hearts, and that is what must be tackled. I have no objection to a hearts and minds campaign, but this is a bad one. When I first saw the poster about Kathy, outside Worcester Shrub Hill station, I thought that it was either advertising a sequel to a programme on homelessness or trying to attract people to a teacher training campaign. I could not work out what the poster was about and realised what it was advertising only today, when hon. Members referred to its subtext. I hope that the commission will do a much better job of winning the hearts and minds of the British people than the Department for Education and Employment is managing at present. None the less, this is a momentous occasion. We have put to rest one of the great, contentious issues that has divided the House over the years, and done so in a constructive way. The Minister rightly paid tribute to a number of individuals and, although I have crossed swords with him on a number of occasions, I emphasise my personal congratulations to the hon. Member for Kingswood, who has played an extraordinary part and driven this issue through the House. He, together with all the other people to whom we have paid tribute today, deserves a share of credit for what he has done. I hope that his best hopes are achieved and my worst fears are never realised.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

I hope that it goes without saying that the House would expect me to support this measure and to believe that this is an important day to celebrate. It is a stage on the road to the objective of full civil rights for disabled people and it is, therefore, strongly to be welcomed. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), attacked the yah-boo approach to this subject that has prevailed in the past. Although I accept that a lot of yah-boo politics and trivial point scoring take place in the Commons, I am in favour of a strong debate taking place, particularly on this subject. Had we not had as much outside campaigning and as many arguments from the previous Government about this issue, as well as a distinction between the principles involved, we would not have reached this point. Had the measure been sorted out by men and women of good will sitting around a table, we would not have achieved this sort of legislation and would not have tested out each others' ideas in quite the same way. The strength of the ideas expressed by Labour Members, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, prevailed after the tussle with those who had other ideas. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) spoke, because I remember some of the tussles with him. The views that he expressed today showed that, fundamentally, he still has the same attitude. It is important to have that honourable dispute in developing different positions. When I introduced my version of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was a private Member's Bill, the hon. Member for Gainsborough spoke against it because he was worried about intrusive regulation. He now hopes that the operation of the changes will be benign, but in the past he expressed great fears that legislation of this type would not be benign. I remember pointing out that his arguments were against the Disability Discrimination Bill, which was going through the House at the same time. To judge by the look that he gave and his response on that occasion, and despite the fact that he was using the Disability Discrimination Bill to argue against the measure that I was proposing, he recognised that that was what motivated him. We all benefit from such argument. John Stuart Mill once said, perhaps in a slightly sexist way, that he who knows only his own side of the argument knows little. Our argument was certainly developed considerably as a result of coming into conflict with the views of people with differing attitudes. One person who had a strongly differing attitude on this matter was the Leader of the Opposition. In the period to which I refer, two Bills were in competition with each other: the Disability Discrimination Bill and the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I am convinced that we would not have secured the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 if, the preceding year, the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) had not been scuppered with a great deal of blood and heated yah-boo on the Floor of the House. I then picked up the baton and ran my hon. Friend's measure. The techniques that were used against my Bill were different from those that had been used against his. It was a rival measure, while the blocking of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill took place essentially in Committee with attempts to stop it getting back to the Floor of the House. The person who carried out those opposition techniques almost single handedly in Committee was the Leader of the Opposition. Having talked to a Conservative Member who is now a Labour Member, the Minister for the Arts, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), I found out which Conservative Members to ask to join us. Most Conservatives and others sat on my side of the Committee and the Leader of the Opposition was often almost alone in battling for his position. He had to engage in all the filibustering on the amendments and would agree to the Bill's coming out of Committee only when nothing could be done with it. We had only 32 minutes on the Floor of the House in which to take about 108 amendments. The Leader of the Opposition gained promotion partly as a result of the role that he played in scuppering civil rights for disabled people. I was pleased to hear the Minister say on Second Reading that civil rights for disabled people are on the agenda in the future and that we are moving in that direction. I welcome the fact that in the debate on the Queen's Speech the Leader of the Opposition immediately expressed support for the measure before us today. That, however, is a significant change and it comes about as a result of the nature of politics in this country. Those politics sometimes take place on the Floor of the House in the form of strong debate and dialectic argument, which help to produce the situation in which we find ourselves today. I am therefore keen that that sort of yah-boo should continue to take place. There was a sign of it in coded language in the speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough. Although we have had an interesting discussion on this Bill, it has been a little too cosy. One often needs arguments to be propounded that challenge one's own ideas, so that those can be improved. The ideas in the Bill have been challenged so much in the past that they are sufficiently well shaped and we did not need the disputes that we have had in the past. I welcome the fact that we have reached this stage and, like all good campaigners, I look forward to the next one.

Andrew Smith (Labour, Oxford East)

By leave of the House, I shall respond as briefly as possible to some of the points made in the debate. First, may I welcome again the positive and generally constructive spirit that has prevailed? The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) asked about resources. We are satisfied that the commission will be adequately resourced. We have looked at the experience of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) said that we needed to monitor the resourcing. It will be monitored and kept under review. It is generally accepted, however, that the £3 million start-up cost and the £11 million annual budget that we have provided for should be adequate. The hon. Member for Daventry also said that we should be careful to ensure that the big stick was used only where necessary, and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) made comments in a similar vein. Although the statutory enforcement powers in the Bill are a last resort, it is necessary to have them to ensure that the law is complied with. The Bill is about ensuring that disabled people have rights not only in theory but in practice. Obviously, we expect this legislation and the proceedings of the commission to work in a business-friendly way. Equally, we expect business to work in a disabled-friendly way. That is part of the general shift in culture to which a number of hon. Members referred. I echo what the hon. Member for Daventry said about the importance, when it comes to litigation, of bearing in mind the circumstances of the parties likely to be involved. In terms of proceedings on investigations by the Disability Rights Commission, there will be a requirement, where appropriate, to have timetabling of those proceedings, which will offer a safeguard against the delays which the hon. Gentleman rightly said would be unacceptable. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) very much for his kind remarks and for those of the all-party disablement group. As others have said, if my hon. Friend had not promoted his Bill in the previous Parliament, followed in similar vein by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), we would not be here today establishing the Disability Rights Commission. They deserve tributes, together with Alf Morris, Jack Ashley and others. The hon. Member for Winchester asked whether written agreements would be made public. As is evident from my answer on Second Reading, I share his instinct for openness, but we have seen how that could be counter-productive. There is no statutory requirement for a public register of agreements or for written agreements to be kept private. It will be for the DRC and the organisation concerned to discuss when reaching the agreement whether it should be made public and under what circumstances. That is only common sense, because we do not want an organisation to refuse to enter into an agreement that would be in the interests of disabled people because it would be made public. The hon. Gentleman also referred to anticipated discrimination. It will be open to the commission to make recommendations for further legislative enhancements of the rights of disabled people or their enforcement. That covers the circumstances that he referred to. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) hoped that we would not think him churlish in expressing caution and an incomplete conversion to the Bill. I hope that I do not sound churlish when I say that he sounded churlish, but as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire pointed out, it does no harm for such matters to be tested in debate. Out of the fire of the debate in the previous Parliament we have tempered a sensible proposal for the commission. The hon. Gentleman may have been unhelpful to his present leader by reminding the House of his previous position on the issue. However, we welcome all converts to the Bill, whatever their attitude before. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) made a good point about awareness, which answered some of the reservations of the hon. Members for Gainsborough and for Mid-Worcestershire. The B and Q example shows that with a thoroughgoing approach to disabled people's rights an employer can not only recruit the best employee for the job, but offer the best service to the whole range of customers. There is a commercial imperative as well as a moral one behind rights for disabled people. By working with employers, the commission will be helping the business case for equality as well as the ethical and moral case. I hope that the Bill will gain a Third Reading with the unanimous support of the House. We should remember that the commission is not the end, but a very important means to the end. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) said, it will be a spur to cultural change and an empowering device as well as a source of advice and a means of redress. The practical benefits in the lives of disabled people and all of us that will result from the establishment of the commission will be its real achievement. We shall all benefit from the cultural change and empowerment of which the commission is an instrument. The unanimity and enthusiasm in the House for the establishment of the commission is great to see. As well as all that it will be able to achieve through consensus and discussion, we should bear in mind the fact that the commission will sometimes have to take tough and perhaps controversial decisions. I hope that it enjoys the same consensus and enthusiasm when it has to do that, because that will be the test of making a reality of disabled people's rights. Given the extent of support in Parliament and among the public as the Bill moves to a Third Reading, the commission will get off to a good start. It is a milestone in advancing disabled people's rights. It is time to move past that milestone towards a better future in the lives of disabled people and us all.