:00:00. > :00:00.That they enter the date and he has a Commons. We will now be going over
:00:00. > :00:00.to the House of Lords. You can watch all the coverage in the Lords after
:00:07. > :00:19.the Daily Politics tonight. Our NAV was disappointed that the
:00:20. > :00:25.Government response failed to acknowledge the problem which was
:00:26. > :00:32.raised with the Committee that many enunciated system fitted on trains
:00:33. > :00:37.are not switched on. They would like to see on trains such as are already
:00:38. > :00:45.carried out buses. The Government response acknowledges the benefits
:00:46. > :00:51.of AV information on buses but this is urgent that such systems are
:00:52. > :00:58.expensive to fit. Evidence submitted to the Committee 's Stepford it adds
:00:59. > :01:02.only 1% of the cost of a new boss. RNIB is very concerned that the bus
:01:03. > :01:08.operators continue to recruit new buses that were not fitted AV
:01:09. > :01:15.enhancement technology, for example in 2016, Leeds first was announced
:01:16. > :01:19.at 37 new buses which are expected to be used for at least ten years
:01:20. > :01:25.would enter service, none of them having annunciator system is that it
:01:26. > :01:31.is. The Government stated in its response to a recommendation that it
:01:32. > :01:36.has recently trialled vibrating wristbands to improve the
:01:37. > :01:41.accessibility of bus travel. However there is reason to be sceptical
:01:42. > :01:46.about this solution as it is still only at provision of concept stage.
:01:47. > :01:52.RNIB believes that audiovisual technology is the most effective
:01:53. > :01:57.solution, the technology is tried and tested and it has been proven to
:01:58. > :02:01.make bus travel accessible for disabled passengers. It is already
:02:02. > :02:06.in operation on all buses in London as well as in many other regions and
:02:07. > :02:13.can be introduced to new buses inexpensively. The bus services Bill
:02:14. > :02:19.currently awaiting Report Stage in your Lordships' house is the ideal
:02:20. > :02:22.vehicle for the Government to legislate to ensure all new buses
:02:23. > :02:29.are fitted with audiovisual technology. An amendment has been
:02:30. > :02:33.tabled to the Bill to require all bus operators to provide information
:02:34. > :02:37.to bus passengers in an accessible format. The Government is
:02:38. > :02:41.considering the matter sympathetically and I very much hope
:02:42. > :02:49.that they will accept the amendment to require operators to install AV
:02:50. > :02:57.on all new buses. It is gratifying that this recommendation has been
:02:58. > :03:01.highlighted by Lady Deitch, and I think most recently by Lady Brenton
:03:02. > :03:11.and I hope that the Government has been listening and taking note. My
:03:12. > :03:17.Lords, I do think the Noble Baroness, Baroness Deitch and her
:03:18. > :03:22.Committee for the service they have done, not just the disabled
:03:23. > :03:29.community, but also government and indeed society as a whole, in
:03:30. > :03:45.producing such a comprehensive valuable and timely report. As two
:03:46. > :03:49.bonuses have already pointed out, taking as it does, 21 years after
:03:50. > :03:58.the then Conservative government's disability discrimination act. This
:03:59. > :04:07.begs the question, which I feel in truth has probably been hanging over
:04:08. > :04:18.this entire debate. Has that act at 21 years of age truly, of age?
:04:19. > :04:24.Reading this report --, of age. Reading throughput and the various
:04:25. > :04:32.responses to it, I think it is her it hasn't come of age. But
:04:33. > :04:41.nonetheless, -- fair to say. I do welcome with real hope, based on my
:04:42. > :04:47.work with her previously, the promotion of penny fault as Minister
:04:48. > :04:54.for disabled people to Minister of State. There is in line with
:04:55. > :05:03.recommendations seven, paragraph 115 of the report. I also welcome the
:05:04. > :05:10.Government's acceptance that it is clearly reasonable to expect that
:05:11. > :05:17.some effort be made to establish the cost of making an adjustment prior
:05:18. > :05:24.to rejecting a request on such grounds rather than relying on
:05:25. > :05:32.arbitrary and potentially inaccurate assumptions about cost. This being
:05:33. > :05:39.in line with recommendations 17, paragraph 200 25. My Lords, I would
:05:40. > :05:43.have liked to be able to welcome the equality and Human Rights
:05:44. > :05:53.Commission's response to the crucial, in my view, recommendation
:05:54. > :05:59.eight paragraph 137 of the report, that it engages with disabled people
:06:00. > :06:03.and their organisations to co-produce a disability specific
:06:04. > :06:11.action plan which other Noble Lords have already mentioned. I regret
:06:12. > :06:15.that I can't do so, because commission mistakenly in my view has
:06:16. > :06:22.said as we have already heard that it does not consider that a separate
:06:23. > :06:29.co-produced action plan would be the most effective way forward. As a
:06:30. > :06:35.former member of a national disability Council set up by my
:06:36. > :06:42.noble friend from Richmond, when he was Mr, several people had taken the
:06:43. > :06:48.then disability discrimination Bill through the House of Commons.
:06:49. > :06:56.Despite the Council only being advisory, none the less it had a
:06:57. > :07:05.disability specific focus. I also beg to differ, like the Noble
:07:06. > :07:12.Baroness, Baroness Campbell and my noble friend Lord North but have
:07:13. > :07:17.already done. I also do not understand the position taken by the
:07:18. > :07:26.commission on recommendation that name, paragraph 144 rejecting the
:07:27. > :07:35.need to re-establish the disability Committee as a decision-making body.
:07:36. > :07:39.And to ring fence specific resources for the Committee. Surely both are
:07:40. > :07:46.essential if the commission is to enjoy the confidence of the
:07:47. > :07:49.disability community and an important consideration which I
:07:50. > :07:59.don't feel the commission has really taken into account, I therefore urge
:08:00. > :08:05.the commission to reconsider their response to both recommendations
:08:06. > :08:12.eight and nine. And indeed I would respectfully urge the Government to
:08:13. > :08:20.encourage them to do so. The Conservative government that brought
:08:21. > :08:26.ten the GGA in 1995 was right to ensure sharp disability focused
:08:27. > :08:33.then, and notwithstanding the amalgamation since that time of
:08:34. > :08:37.different commissions, including as we have already heard the disability
:08:38. > :08:42.rights commission under the umbrella of the equality and Human Rights
:08:43. > :08:47.Commission, this Conservative government would be right to ask now
:08:48. > :08:57.that that sharp disability focus be maintained. I feel this is
:08:58. > :08:59.particularly important given the Government's manifesto aim of
:09:00. > :09:07.halving the disability employment gap. I Lords, I am not sure I
:09:08. > :09:10.entirely shared the Government's optimism when it states in its
:09:11. > :09:18.response that the concept of reasonable adjustment is now
:09:19. > :09:24.familiar to employers and service providers. The concept they will be
:09:25. > :09:30.familiar, but that is the case, then the old adage, that familiarity
:09:31. > :09:36.breeds contempt remains all too often sadly true in my experience.
:09:37. > :09:46.Awareness of a concept is not the same as awareness of a legal
:09:47. > :09:50.obligation. I am all for maximising incentives by using carrots rather
:09:51. > :09:57.than sticks where possible, but I do wonder whether carrots in the form
:09:58. > :10:07.of it more guidance on how to make your business accessible have been
:10:08. > :10:15.on Jews cropped very long time. To paraphrase -- on used. It isn't
:10:16. > :10:25.going to get us very far. If they don't understand there has to be a
:10:26. > :10:33.damn big stick behind that smile. Might I suggest that the Government
:10:34. > :10:38.pursue a slightly more robust approach by introducing a steam of
:10:39. > :10:46.tapered incentives for reasonable adjustment to be made, so for
:10:47. > :10:52.example, business is to be told they have a certain number of years, I
:10:53. > :10:58.only take the figure five as Brandon, it could be more or less,
:10:59. > :11:03.to make the necessary adjustments with a declining tax break for the
:11:04. > :11:11.first three years, no tax break in the fourth, and a tax penalty led by
:11:12. > :11:20.government, any noncompliance in the 50th. Obviously the -- fifth year.
:11:21. > :11:27.Obviously the Government would need to work in partnership with trade
:11:28. > :11:32.bodies, disability organisations and other disability aims to make
:11:33. > :11:38.service providers and particularly SMEs are aware that reasonable
:11:39. > :11:46.adjustments need not cost the earth. Might I also suggest that any
:11:47. > :11:54.guidance produced to publicise the scheme has, as its title, the simple
:11:55. > :12:06.message, the law is the law, it pays not to break. My Lords, this report
:12:07. > :12:10.shows that after 21 years after the disability discrimination act was
:12:11. > :12:20.passed, we still need to join the dots. I wonder if I could welcome
:12:21. > :12:25.the Government's stated commitment in paragraph four of the preamble to
:12:26. > :12:34.its response to improving attitudes. I also welcome its restated
:12:35. > :12:40.commitment to taking steps to implement the UN Convention on the
:12:41. > :12:45.rights of Persons with disabilities. And they clear acknowledgement that
:12:46. > :12:51.such a commitment means that all government departments need to
:12:52. > :12:56.consider what the Convention says when developing a policy that
:12:57. > :13:05.affects disabled people, including in the case of the UN Convention
:13:06. > :13:09.disability before birth. This is particularly important, because I am
:13:10. > :13:14.concerned that one department, the Department of Health, may be in
:13:15. > :13:23.breach of at least the spirit if not the letter of that convention, as it
:13:24. > :13:29.relates to disability before birth. If this excellent report is to have
:13:30. > :13:37.a lasting impact, if we are too submitted to policy, we must allow
:13:38. > :13:43.disabled babies to have a future to enjoy equality. At the moment many
:13:44. > :13:48.of them do not. They said, shocking fact is that a diagnosis of
:13:49. > :13:54.disability in the womb means they are all too often lucky to make it
:13:55. > :14:04.out alive. Disability discrimination may have been outlawed after birth
:14:05. > :14:09.21 years ago, but for disability diagnosed before birth,
:14:10. > :14:21.discrimination remains enshrined in 2016 in the law of our land. Take
:14:22. > :14:27.down syndrome, for example. 90%, 90% of Down's syndrome diagnoses result
:14:28. > :14:35.in termination. That figure is likely to increase if the Department
:14:36. > :14:39.of Health improves the national screening Committee's recommendation
:14:40. > :14:45.that a test being produced to make it even easier to identify.
:14:46. > :14:54.It is one thing to eradicate disability discrimination as this
:14:55. > :14:58.excellent report powerfully shows the way forward for. It is an
:14:59. > :15:06.entirely different thing to eradicate disability itself through
:15:07. > :15:12.termination. But that is what is happening and not just on grounds of
:15:13. > :15:19.severe handicap, to use the terminology of legislation. Not that
:15:20. > :15:34.severity justifies discrimination. The Department of Health in 2015
:15:35. > :15:38.records 11 terminations having been carried out for cleft palate, and
:15:39. > :15:46.cleft chin, easily rectified able conditions. I asked my noble friend
:15:47. > :15:52.the Minister if the Government wants to prove its commitment to tackling
:15:53. > :16:01.the discriminatory attitudes, let it back by Private members Bill. Let it
:16:02. > :16:06.make the time available so that my bill can reach its passage through
:16:07. > :16:13.your Lordships' house and MPs, as people's elected representatives
:16:14. > :16:17.have a chance to debate and vote on removing disability as grounds for
:16:18. > :16:25.termination. My thoughts, in closing. We all know that some
:16:26. > :16:28.reports not from your Lordships' house I hasten to add, absolutely
:16:29. > :16:37.deserve to gather dust. This is not one of them. This report deserves to
:16:38. > :16:44.be a living document to which we return on a regular basis and
:16:45. > :16:53.against which we measure progress. I look forward to doing everything I
:16:54. > :17:02.can to ensure that by eradicating disability discrimination in all
:17:03. > :17:07.areas of life, after and before birth, with this report, we do
:17:08. > :17:12.parliament and Society Justice in the years to come and help this
:17:13. > :17:20.Government embark on real, lasting and inclusive social reform.
:17:21. > :17:24.My Lords, it has been a great privilege to listen to this debate,
:17:25. > :17:27.as much as it was to serve on the select committee. What the debate
:17:28. > :17:34.has demonstrated is the extraordinary range of experiences
:17:35. > :17:38.that members of our Lordships' house bring to the subject of disability
:17:39. > :17:45.and I would like to thank every of them has spoken, particularly from
:17:46. > :17:56.their own experiences in life, to be able to bring such light on the
:17:57. > :18:00.subject. Almost every Speaker has revoked to our noble Baroness for
:18:01. > :18:04.the way in which she chaired the committee. -- they have referred to
:18:05. > :18:08.her. And the way that she introduced this debate today and I would like
:18:09. > :18:12.to join them both in that respect. It was a remarkable committee,
:18:13. > :18:17.chaired brilliantly by her. She should also be congratulated for
:18:18. > :18:23.persuading the usual channels to hold this debate in prime time, so
:18:24. > :18:30.soon in the autumn session. Not something I expected to see happen,
:18:31. > :18:34.so that is a great achievement. As we come lovable baroness Lady Thomas
:18:35. > :18:42.of Winchester say, we produced a really good read, and that is a good
:18:43. > :18:47.epitaph on the committee report. -- noble Baroness. It was unanimous,
:18:48. > :18:50.hard-hitting and full of recommendations that if they were
:18:51. > :18:54.all entered upon would make a huge difference to the well-being and
:18:55. > :19:00.life experiences of disabled people across a very wide range of
:19:01. > :19:05.activities. And it was, therefore, a pity that the Government's response
:19:06. > :19:11.was really so feeble and unambitious. When it came out on the
:19:12. > :19:20.7th of July, which was one month and 13 days later than the Cabinet
:19:21. > :19:25.Office's guidance for responses to select committee report, the lady
:19:26. > :19:32.was quoted as saying she was dismayed to put it mildly. It was a
:19:33. > :19:37.really unfeeling response, not helpful to make life more productive
:19:38. > :19:45.for disabled people. I think are totally with that, my Lords, and I
:19:46. > :19:49.support the cause made in that debate for the response from the
:19:50. > :19:53.Government to be withdrawn and rewritten. I am much it is a new
:19:54. > :19:57.Government but a new sort of administration. -- I'm not sure it
:19:58. > :20:01.is a new Government but a new sort of administration. Other members
:20:02. > :20:04.have spoke of new areas of this report and Government response where
:20:05. > :20:11.they have their own areas of expertise. I shall concentrate
:20:12. > :20:19.briefly and recommendations 21 and 22, relating to disabled access to
:20:20. > :20:24.sports grounds, which are covered in paragraphs 245 - 249 of the report.
:20:25. > :20:30.I remind the House of my interest as a vice president of the charity
:20:31. > :20:35.Level Playing Field. Lord Northbrook, Lord Harrison and
:20:36. > :20:41.Baroness Brinton all referred to the Accessible Sports Grounds Bill which
:20:42. > :20:46.I took through this house in 2015. With the exception of the then
:20:47. > :20:52.minister, not the minister replying tonight, who was approaching that
:20:53. > :20:56.debate and can best be described as lukewarm, every member who spoke in
:20:57. > :20:59.the second reading debate on the 17th of July, were strongly
:21:00. > :21:04.supportive. Particularly in respect of the principle that each stadium
:21:05. > :21:07.should follow accessible stadium guidelines, and improve the
:21:08. > :21:12.experience for disabled people attending their matches. Now, whilst
:21:13. > :21:18.it was evident the bill would not make progress in the other place
:21:19. > :21:24.with our Government's support, it did produce one positive consequence
:21:25. > :21:30.and that was the response from the English Premier League on the 10th
:21:31. > :21:33.of September 2000 and 15. This stated, and I quote, all Premier
:21:34. > :21:38.League clubs have agreed to make their stadiums compliant with the
:21:39. > :21:45.accessible stadium guide by August 20 17. Clubs also agreed to ensure
:21:46. > :21:52.the appropriate number of wheelchair bays are located in the correct
:21:53. > :21:59.sections. If this commitment were fulfilled to the letter, it would
:22:00. > :22:03.represent a huge step forward by the best supported and most affluent
:22:04. > :22:06.clubs in British football. Particularly if the lead given by
:22:07. > :22:11.the Premier League will follow by the other football leagues in
:22:12. > :22:13.England, Wales and Scotland, and those sports with significant
:22:14. > :22:21.numbers of fans attending their matches. In its report, our select
:22:22. > :22:25.committee quoted approvingly the comment of Justin Tomlinson MP, who
:22:26. > :22:33.was then Minister for disabled people. He is sadly no longer in
:22:34. > :22:36.that post. He told me that most football clubs in this country are
:22:37. > :22:42.behind when it comes to disability access to their grounds the Mac. It
:22:43. > :22:45.is my belief that football should be enjoyed by everyone and someone with
:22:46. > :22:50.a disability should have as much opportunity to watch the game as
:22:51. > :22:57.someone without a disability. The following paragraph of our report
:22:58. > :23:00.says this, and provision of disabled people, Justin Tomlinson similarly
:23:01. > :23:04.confirmed that frankly some of it is disgraceful. There is no provision
:23:05. > :23:07.in some grounds. Supporters are split up or put in with the away
:23:08. > :23:12.fans. I find that totally unacceptable. We are in the last
:23:13. > :23:18.chance saloon with those of football bodies saying, you need to get your
:23:19. > :23:22.house in order. Had my members bill become law, clubs which failed to
:23:23. > :23:28.comply with the accessible stadium guidelines could have lost their
:23:29. > :23:35.safety certificates and their stadiums prevented from operating.
:23:36. > :23:40.Without that sanction, disabled people would have two rely on the
:23:41. > :23:44.goodwill of the clubs themselves to deliver what they promised by summer
:23:45. > :23:46.next year. I am afraid, my Lords, I am not holding my breath. I advise
:23:47. > :23:52.that the long-awaited report from the Premier League regarding the
:23:53. > :24:02.progress of its clubs with one year to go, it was sent to the Secretary
:24:03. > :24:06.of State. I am told that it seems to say very little and contains no
:24:07. > :24:12.detail about the real progress at each club. It appears that there
:24:13. > :24:17.will be at least some Premier League clubs that will not meet the pledge
:24:18. > :24:19.by August 2017 as agreed and previously promised. The range of
:24:20. > :24:24.excuses put forward by clubs as to why they will not or frankly
:24:25. > :24:29.unacceptable. Liverpool football club, for example, seems far more
:24:30. > :24:33.interested in providing general hospitality places than installing
:24:34. > :24:40.sufficient disabled fans seats in order to comply with football's own
:24:41. > :24:45.minimum standards. No cc for disabled people would ensure that
:24:46. > :24:51.the club meets its pledges, but instead it's disabled fans are
:24:52. > :24:56.expected to wait for phase two of its stadium expansion whenever that
:24:57. > :24:59.may be. Watford seems to be removing disabled fans seats at a time when
:25:00. > :25:02.they should be seeing an increase. Crystal Palace believes it only
:25:03. > :25:09.needs to come up with a plan by 2017 rather than comply with the
:25:10. > :25:13.amendment. It further transpires that the newly promoted clubs will
:25:14. > :25:17.be given a one-year extension to meet the premiership pledge, as they
:25:18. > :25:20.had not been part of the original decision. It is thought that they
:25:21. > :25:24.should be afforded the same two-year cycle. This misses the point
:25:25. > :25:29.completely, my Lords. It is more than 20 years, as other noble lords
:25:30. > :25:35.have said Mr Gray, since the introduction of part three of the
:25:36. > :25:37.DDA, and it is lot that they are required to provide that
:25:38. > :25:42.accommodation and disgrace they have not done so. -- it is the law. It is
:25:43. > :25:45.clearly Premier League has no intention to appeal is essentially
:25:46. > :25:54.clubs which do not meet their own pledge. -- no intention to sanction
:25:55. > :25:57.the clubs. Quite recently, the noble lord Lord Ashton reply to a written
:25:58. > :26:01.question for me in these words. Ministers expect all sports and all
:26:02. > :26:05.clubs to his guns do not make the reasonable adjustments to
:26:06. > :26:11.accommodate disabled spectators are set out in the equality act 2010 to
:26:12. > :26:17.take action to fulfil this legal obligation. Given the vast financial
:26:18. > :26:20.resources at the disposal of premiership clubs, which noble lords
:26:21. > :26:24.have referred to, the time has surely come for this action to be
:26:25. > :26:28.taken now and taking any more drastic way. It is so disappointing
:26:29. > :26:33.that, in response to the select committee's recommendation 21, that
:26:34. > :26:38.the Government should include provisions similar to those of the
:26:39. > :26:42.Accessible Sports Grounds Bill in a Government bill, but they have said
:26:43. > :26:48.they have no plans to introduce one as existing legislation in the form
:26:49. > :26:50.of the Equality Act remains "Untested" on access to sports
:26:51. > :26:57.stadiums for disabled people. That is a truly bizarre excuse my Lords
:26:58. > :27:05.and publicly ignores what the select committee said in paragraph 240
:27:06. > :27:07.seven. The equality act 2010 has not succeeded in getting disabled sports
:27:08. > :27:16.fans the access to stadiums to which they are entitled and new measures
:27:17. > :27:19.are needed. A particular problem is the wall's requirement that only
:27:20. > :27:22.individuals may take actions against institutions which are filling in
:27:23. > :27:28.their duty to comply with the act. The nature of the relationship
:27:29. > :27:34.between a football fan and his or her own club is often deep rooted
:27:35. > :27:37.and passionate and makes it hard but I would say it makes it impossible
:27:38. > :27:43.for the fan to initiate proceedings. This my Lords is why we recommend
:27:44. > :27:46.recommendation 42 that the Government should consider changing
:27:47. > :27:53.the law to allow charities and other bodies which do not have a legal
:27:54. > :27:55.interest to bring proceedings in the interest of classes of disabled
:27:56. > :28:02.people who are not themselves claimants. I hope that when the
:28:03. > :28:05.minister replies, she is able to give a convincing reason for not
:28:06. > :28:09.allowing charities to bring class actions. I would also ask her to
:28:10. > :28:14.give a response to the Premier League's report on progress towards
:28:15. > :28:19.meeting their August 2017 accessibility commitment. Also, an
:28:20. > :28:24.indication of what they plan to do if the clubs let the disabled
:28:25. > :28:29.supporters down. My Lords, as somebody who did not
:28:30. > :28:34.serve on the committee, I think this whole experience with this debate
:28:35. > :28:38.has been incredibly interesting, and the equality of the speeches takes
:28:39. > :28:43.away some of my irritation at not having been able to get onto that
:28:44. > :28:48.committee. However, my Lords, even a committee of this type, doing this
:28:49. > :28:56.much work, could not cover everything to do with the field of
:28:57. > :29:00.disability. I say that as the first declaration of interest that I am
:29:01. > :29:07.dyslexic. And the president of the British dyslexia Association, and
:29:08. > :29:13.there is more than one BDA involved in this. The British deaf
:29:14. > :29:18.Association is as well. My Lords, if we don't do this, a series of themes
:29:19. > :29:24.come out. The big thing is that you have got the law, so implement it.
:29:25. > :29:30.Drive it forward. I, my Lords, and one of the veterans of the DDA. At
:29:31. > :29:36.the time, it was before we celebrate it too much, just remember the pain
:29:37. > :29:41.of the birth. Baroness Campbell was outside the building and I was in it
:29:42. > :29:46.at the time. Shall we say, the birth of that bill was a painful and
:29:47. > :29:50.prolonged labour? It was dragged out of a Government that did not want
:29:51. > :29:56.it, largely by the action of its own backbenchers...