24/11/2017

0:00:23 > 0:00:30The second reading of the Equality Act 2010, disabled bail.I beg to

0:00:30 > 0:00:35move that will be now read a second time. I have pleasure in moving this

0:00:35 > 0:00:40to amend the Equality Act of 2010 to grab it hundred thousand wheelchair

0:00:40 > 0:00:44users access to 7000 jobs and public buildings to which they are denied

0:00:44 > 0:00:50access at the moment. The bill makes the tiny addition to the 2010 act

0:00:50 > 0:00:53costs business very little to implement but would make a huge

0:00:53 > 0:00:59difference to wheelchair users. Let me assure you my bill does not touch

0:00:59 > 0:01:02in any way be protected characteristics of the Equality Act

0:01:02 > 0:01:092010 of age, gender, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and

0:01:09 > 0:01:11maternity, six and sexual orientation. It is concerned only

0:01:11 > 0:01:18with one aspect of disability, namely for public buildings to make

0:01:18 > 0:01:22reasonable adjustments so wheelchair users can access them. My bill is

0:01:22 > 0:01:26identical to one which received its second reading in November 20 14th

0:01:26 > 0:01:29but was rejected by the Government. At that time, the Government could

0:01:29 > 0:01:33say that I and the noble lord 's who supported the bill were on our own

0:01:33 > 0:01:38and had no evidence backing up our case. Within one month of rejecting

0:01:38 > 0:01:42my bill, the then Minister for disabled people published a joint

0:01:42 > 0:01:47Department for Work and Pensions which had the headline, disabled

0:01:47 > 0:01:51study shocked the Government with evidence of inaccessible British

0:01:51 > 0:01:55high street. The Minister of State for disabled people is urging shops

0:01:55 > 0:01:59and restaurants to improve the accessibility. What a pity the

0:01:59 > 0:02:04Government did not exactly a month earlier when it dismissed my bill.

0:02:04 > 0:02:07Since then, my lords, we have had the authoritative Lords select

0:02:07 > 0:02:12committee on the impact on the disabled people of the Equality Act

0:02:12 > 0:02:172010. That was cheered by the noble lady and my noble friend. I am

0:02:17 > 0:02:21delighted to see her speaking today along with other noble peers who

0:02:21 > 0:02:25served in the committee. The committee found there were severe

0:02:25 > 0:02:30difficulties with the reasonable adjustment provisions of the act. No

0:02:30 > 0:02:35one was enforcing it. Disabled people had to take cases to court

0:02:35 > 0:02:39themselves in order to get access improvements. The noble lady, the

0:02:39 > 0:02:49Baroness Campbell, has asked me to same it is easy to... It is

0:02:49 > 0:02:56impossible in an electric chair. My church weighs 90 kilograms alone. --

0:02:56 > 0:03:04my child. We have the evidence of the Department for Work and Pensions

0:03:04 > 0:03:06own survey and we have the overwhelming weight of evidence

0:03:06 > 0:03:11given to the Lords select committee and the committee's own conclusions.

0:03:11 > 0:03:17What are the facts and figures? The NHS estimates there are about

0:03:17 > 0:03:21800,000 regular wheelchair users, by regular the mean people who work

0:03:21 > 0:03:28permanently in a wheelchair, and those like me who can stagger around

0:03:28 > 0:03:32a little bit, that figure is supported by other organisations.

0:03:32 > 0:03:36The number of public buildings in the UK comprising shops, fast-food

0:03:36 > 0:03:43outlets, restaurants and pubs is about 350 5000. In addition, there

0:03:43 > 0:03:45are post offices, banks, churches and other buildings to which the

0:03:45 > 0:03:52public have access. That the Department of work and disabled go

0:03:52 > 0:03:57study visited and assessed a massive sample of 30,000 shops and

0:03:57 > 0:04:02restaurants. Their findings were that 20% did not have wheelchair

0:04:02 > 0:04:07access. If wheelchair users did get income of 30% of the places didn't

0:04:07 > 0:04:13have disabled changing rooms are toilets. If you extrapolate that 20%

0:04:13 > 0:04:19of the 30,000 shops to be total of 355,000 public retail premises, you

0:04:19 > 0:04:28get a figure of 71,000, that wheelchair users cannot access. That

0:04:28 > 0:04:35is a scandalous number in this day and age. The Equality Act 2010 lists

0:04:35 > 0:04:39nine characteristics all protected against dissemination, including

0:04:39 > 0:04:42disability. The act has replaced all separate disability discrimination

0:04:42 > 0:04:48legislation. It is an offence under the act to feel to make reasonable

0:04:48 > 0:04:51adjustments to premises so that disabled persons are not

0:04:51 > 0:04:56discriminated against. What is a reasonable adjustment naturally

0:04:56 > 0:04:59varies between the needs of different disabilities, different

0:04:59 > 0:05:03persons, buildings and circumstances. It can only be

0:05:03 > 0:05:07enforced by a person taking a service provider to court to compel

0:05:07 > 0:05:12that provider to make the adjustments. The Lords select

0:05:12 > 0:05:16committee found that most disabled persons and disabled organisations

0:05:16 > 0:05:20felt very strongly that disability issues had suffered a retrograde

0:05:20 > 0:05:26step in the 2010 Equality Act. All potentially discriminating

0:05:26 > 0:05:30characteristics were now being treated equally. What is the problem

0:05:30 > 0:05:36with equal treatment you may ask? The committee pointed out that for

0:05:36 > 0:05:40people with other characteristics such as six, colour, sexuality,

0:05:40 > 0:05:43ethnicity, the need to be treated equally to avoid being discriminated

0:05:43 > 0:05:48against. But for disabled people to achieve equality, they needed

0:05:48 > 0:05:54different treatment. That is an absolutely crucial distinction which

0:05:54 > 0:05:58was never considered when the 2010 act was passed. That is the

0:05:58 > 0:06:02motivation behind the bill, to try to get equality for wheelchair

0:06:02 > 0:06:11users. Section 20 of the Equality Act defines reasonable adjustments

0:06:11 > 0:06:16as removing the physical feature in question, altering it, providing a

0:06:16 > 0:06:24reasonable means of avoiding it. If a public building is the step of six

0:06:24 > 0:06:27inches or less then a rather suitable for wheelchairs has to be

0:06:27 > 0:06:31provided. Every building has a step of less than 12 inches a ramp has to

0:06:31 > 0:06:36be provided. If rebuilding has more than one step my bill does not

0:06:36 > 0:06:42apply. The difference between the six inch step and the 12 inch step

0:06:42 > 0:06:44is revealed by my commencement clause which states the requirement

0:06:44 > 0:06:49to remove the step of six inches comes into the effect and the

0:06:49 > 0:06:53requirement to remove the step of 12 inches comments to effect a year

0:06:53 > 0:06:58later. That is an acknowledgement that removing or replacing a 12 inch

0:06:58 > 0:07:01step is a slightly bigger undertaking getting rid of rivers

0:07:01 > 0:07:06and six inch step. My bill would apply to England, Scotland and

0:07:06 > 0:07:11Wales. In a nutshell, that is what my bill does. If you will permit me,

0:07:11 > 0:07:17I need to set out now by the Government's quality office is

0:07:17 > 0:07:20adamantly opposed to make it specific adjustments and is opposed

0:07:20 > 0:07:27to my bill, I will try and persuade you whether they are wrong. I and

0:07:27 > 0:07:30the select committee agree that keeping the general principle of

0:07:30 > 0:07:33reasonable adjustments are sensible and I do not seek to a meant that

0:07:33 > 0:07:38principle at all in the spell. However, where we have clear

0:07:38 > 0:07:43evidence that something is not working in a select specific area of

0:07:43 > 0:07:47the act, and after seven years experience of the act, it is not

0:07:47 > 0:07:53good enough for the GE goal line that the principle of the act is

0:07:53 > 0:08:09sacrosanct. On launching the report, the chair, the Baroness said, we

0:08:09 > 0:08:12have been struck by how disabled people are a let down across the

0:08:12 > 0:08:17whole spectrum of life. Access to public buildings remains an

0:08:17 > 0:08:21unnecessary challenge to disabled people. When it comes to law

0:08:21 > 0:08:25requiring reasonable adjustments to prevent discrimination, we found

0:08:25 > 0:08:29there are problems in almost every part of society, from disabled

0:08:29 > 0:08:32toilets and restaurants being used for storage to reasonable adjustment

0:08:32 > 0:08:39is simply not being made. They were the only people giving evidence to

0:08:39 > 0:08:45the select committee who thought there was no problem. The

0:08:45 > 0:08:47Government's equality head lawyer said the concept of reasonable

0:08:47 > 0:08:52adjustment is well understood because of case law. She said we

0:08:52 > 0:08:56found that as case law has developed it becomes clearer and clearer for

0:08:56 > 0:08:59people to understand what a reasonable adjustment might be in a

0:08:59 > 0:09:02certain cases. We think that has been a successful development of

0:09:02 > 0:09:06case law. But the vast amount of evidence to the select committee was

0:09:06 > 0:09:17that was not the case. A Government lawyer specialising in this work

0:09:17 > 0:09:22would lead herself to believe that everyone follows the case law. The

0:09:22 > 0:09:26report from the select committee, it is worrying that evidence of

0:09:26 > 0:09:30problems in maintaining this might have emanated in almost every part

0:09:30 > 0:09:37of society. We heard problems of dealing reasonable climate, on

0:09:37 > 0:09:41buses, trains, taxes, hospitals. We were told of sports grounds and

0:09:41 > 0:09:44other entertainment venues that failed to make reasonable

0:09:44 > 0:09:49adjustments. Witness after witness told us that contrary to the

0:09:49 > 0:09:51Government's view, the provisions were neither well-known nor well

0:09:51 > 0:09:58understood. Evidence to the committee, there is a crucial

0:09:58 > 0:10:02difference between, on the one hand, I of the phrase reasonable

0:10:02 > 0:10:07adjustments or the understanding that a duty exists, and on the other

0:10:07 > 0:10:15an understanding of what tragedy

0:10:15 > 0:10:18The evidence suggested that even when there was awareness, the

0:10:18 > 0:10:24understanding. The evidence to the Lords select committee and their

0:10:24 > 0:10:27findings indicate that the duty to make reasonable adjustments is

0:10:27 > 0:10:33simply not happening. My bill one change that duty but will provide

0:10:33 > 0:10:38additional clarity. What about the cost you may ask. Well, I did my own

0:10:38 > 0:10:43survey of shops and cafes within half a mile of this Parliament. I

0:10:43 > 0:10:47looked at public retail buildings on Victoria Street, the lovely little

0:10:47 > 0:10:53stopping street, the vast majority of the big chain stores and shops in

0:10:53 > 0:10:57Victoria Street have level access from the pavement or lip of a button

0:10:57 > 0:11:02inch at most. New build shops, nearly all have level access.

0:11:02 > 0:11:06However in these three streets within a few hundred yards of this

0:11:06 > 0:11:09building, there were three premises with multiple steps, there were two

0:11:09 > 0:11:13with steps of less than 12 inches, there were three with debts of less

0:11:13 > 0:11:18than nine inches, there were 26 with steps of less than six inches, and

0:11:18 > 0:11:2528 with steps of less than three inches. Implementing these six inch

0:11:25 > 0:11:30rule, provision and my bill with immediately, my Lords, make 54 of

0:11:30 > 0:11:36the 62 shops accessible to wheelchair users. That as an 87%

0:11:36 > 0:11:40improvement. Now, I reference the shops in the location because they

0:11:40 > 0:11:43are right on the doorstep of parliament but they are

0:11:43 > 0:11:47representative of the 71,000 others with the same lack of access in

0:11:47 > 0:11:54every street in every town and city of this country. Now the cost of

0:11:54 > 0:11:59ramps, aluminium or fibreglass, to access premises with the step of up

0:11:59 > 0:12:03to six inches are generally less than £100. A third of the

0:12:03 > 0:12:07inexhaustible shops had a little step of less than three inches,

0:12:07 > 0:12:12which do not need a special wrap it all, temp as of concrete to make a

0:12:12 > 0:12:22little sleep. -- Rathfriland. We are so steamed up against this, we could

0:12:22 > 0:12:25see tens of thousands of buildings where we could get into them with

0:12:25 > 0:12:28less than £100 of investment and you cannot get more reasonable

0:12:28 > 0:12:33adjustments than that. Some of my noble friend who may follow the

0:12:33 > 0:12:37moment that you should be removing steps of whatever height and I agree

0:12:37 > 0:12:42that sooner rather than later we should do that. But I do not what

0:12:42 > 0:12:47cost to be used as another excuse not to get as access to 87% of the

0:12:47 > 0:12:52premises we cannot go into now when the adjustment cost less than £100.

0:12:52 > 0:12:57I accept that in a minority of cases where the step is 12 inches and the

0:12:57 > 0:13:02shop door is right on the pavement, then a raptor not produce out onto

0:13:02 > 0:13:06the pavement and not shop at half two reason is the way back to bed

0:13:06 > 0:13:13and that could cost possibly 2000, £3000. Many retail premises have

0:13:13 > 0:13:20recessed doorway, the step could be replaced with a ramp. My Lords, if

0:13:20 > 0:13:24we cannot get in, what do we do? A Government response from the

0:13:24 > 0:13:28dispatch box to my last bill was they should first approached the

0:13:28 > 0:13:32service provided to discuss why they cannot get access to the service or

0:13:32 > 0:13:37functioning questions and discuss what adjustments they require. If

0:13:37 > 0:13:40following discussion the service provider fails or refuses to make a

0:13:40 > 0:13:46reasonable adjustment, a disabled person to take the custom elsewhere.

0:13:46 > 0:13:50They may decide to bring a case of alleged disability discrimination

0:13:50 > 0:13:55before the courts. My Lords, but as the Government equality offers

0:13:55 > 0:14:00official response. Imagine you are out shopping and you cannot get it.

0:14:00 > 0:14:05How do we discuss the? Do we sit in wheelchairs out of the pavement at

0:14:05 > 0:14:11the shopkeeper to come out and discuss it? If he decides to buy a

0:14:11 > 0:14:15ramp next week, that does not help very much when we are shopping

0:14:15 > 0:14:20today. My Lords, disabled people are told by the Government but if you

0:14:20 > 0:14:23cannot be served, then just take your business elsewhere. My Lords,

0:14:23 > 0:14:28would they say that to a black person or a gay person or anyone

0:14:28 > 0:14:32else in a protected categories? I hope to god they would not. The

0:14:32 > 0:14:35select committee concluded that the evidence of everyone, except the

0:14:35 > 0:14:43geode witnesses, the select committee concluded based on the

0:14:43 > 0:14:46evidence, enforcement had failed. They were highly critical that

0:14:46 > 0:14:49disabled people had to go to court to get access. The following

0:14:49 > 0:14:54exchange took place during the select committee enquiry. The head

0:14:54 > 0:14:57of legal services and CEO said we think it is most appropriate and it

0:14:57 > 0:15:01is quite unusual and it gives them is quite a lot of power in relation

0:15:01 > 0:15:05to going to be caught and explaining to the court what is reasonable for

0:15:05 > 0:15:11because the decide. But the chair, the noble lady, interrupted how are

0:15:11 > 0:15:15going to take some want to go to court? Surely you cannot expect a

0:15:15 > 0:15:18disabled person to go through the whole procedure to get that

0:15:18 > 0:15:22determination, it is too late. The lawyer replied, one would hope that

0:15:22 > 0:15:25the employer or service would provide it, would be aware of the

0:15:25 > 0:15:29need to make sure they were taking into account the issues for the

0:15:29 > 0:15:32person before them and they should be building it into the thinking of

0:15:32 > 0:15:37how they are going to provide this service. What a ridiculous answer,

0:15:37 > 0:15:41my Lords. The reason be disabled person has to take the service

0:15:41 > 0:15:44provider to court in the first place is because we've provider has failed

0:15:44 > 0:15:48to do all the things that the Government lawyer which totally but

0:15:48 > 0:15:54they would be doing. It is quite an incredible answer. My Lords,

0:15:54 > 0:15:59although I cannot understand the complacency of that answer, it was

0:15:59 > 0:16:04exceeded by the deputy director of equality framework of the Government

0:16:04 > 0:16:10equalities office and giving evidence during the same session.

0:16:10 > 0:16:15The failure of enforcement said, you need to listen to the parliament on

0:16:15 > 0:16:20this to get the full flavour of it, he said, clearly when the difficulty

0:16:20 > 0:16:26comes, the nub of the issue is an extremely difficult one is trying to

0:16:26 > 0:16:30get some kind of handle an enforcement at the very earliest

0:16:30 > 0:16:34stage before in effect that has been any kind of dispute and that is the

0:16:34 > 0:16:4064 thousand dollar question and the element that is invariably the most

0:16:40 > 0:16:45difficult to solve. My Lords, I'm not making this up. I do not have

0:16:45 > 0:16:49the imagination four such an extraordinary answer. When asked

0:16:49 > 0:16:54what would be Government do about the 800,000 wheelchair users who

0:16:54 > 0:16:58cannot get into a public building because the Equality Act is failing,

0:16:58 > 0:17:03the official Government equalities office and says, that is the 64

0:17:03 > 0:17:08thousand dollar question. Well, my Lords, my bill is the £100 answer to

0:17:08 > 0:17:14that question. I am willing to do a deal with the Government. I

0:17:14 > 0:17:18acknowledge that the six inches and 12 inches are the true figures, we

0:17:18 > 0:17:22would have different heights and they would have to be in

0:17:22 > 0:17:26centimetres. My knowledge that businesses may need more time to

0:17:26 > 0:17:33implement the change. If we get to committee stage, I am willing to

0:17:33 > 0:17:37fill it with specific details in my bill, replace it with an order

0:17:37 > 0:17:39making power for the Minister to specify in legislation the access

0:17:39 > 0:17:44requirement as outlined today. That is the Government the chance to

0:17:44 > 0:17:52correct any errors they may perceive in my bill, in it also removes the

0:17:52 > 0:17:57excuse to do nothing about this problem. We are not just don't go

0:17:57 > 0:17:59away and shop elsewhere. Passing my bill or something like it will not

0:17:59 > 0:18:04undermine the principle of reasonable adjustments in the 2010

0:18:04 > 0:18:09act. That would grant 800,000 wheelchair users access to about

0:18:09 > 0:18:1460,000 of those 71,000 shops currently inaccessible. Is it little

0:18:14 > 0:18:19wonder the select committee concluded that, great, Government

0:18:19 > 0:18:31inaction is failing disabled people. -- quote. The predecessor, like, she

0:18:31 > 0:18:35is turning and attempt to do or she can to help dizzy good people. She

0:18:35 > 0:18:46has no power to change one,. I commend what she's doing with

0:18:46 > 0:18:52disabled champions, I commend the city who she told me about which is

0:18:52 > 0:18:56excellent disabled access, these are all jolly good things. But we must

0:18:56 > 0:19:00have an amendment to the law if we are to get fair treatment for

0:19:00 > 0:19:04disabled people now rather than in the distant future. I anticipated

0:19:04 > 0:19:09the Government will dismiss this bill. That is why noble lord

0:19:09 > 0:19:12tomorrow have tried, that is why I have tried your patience is a bit

0:19:12 > 0:19:17this morning, noble lord, by setting out in detail why think the geode is

0:19:17 > 0:19:21utterly wrong. Wheelchair users is getting a run around and being

0:19:21 > 0:19:25discriminated against multiple times. We cannot get into buildings

0:19:25 > 0:19:31in the first place, the Government will not change the law to assist

0:19:31 > 0:19:34us, disabled charities who would like to help are not allowed by law

0:19:34 > 0:19:39to help. My bill does not tackle the problem of taxis and buses or the

0:19:39 > 0:19:43failure of train platforms and chains to give level access. It does

0:19:43 > 0:19:47not demand Government expenditure, no great private sector investment.

0:19:47 > 0:19:52It is confined tackling one cross a quality that could be fixed cheaply,

0:19:52 > 0:19:57it can be fixed easily and it can be fixed quickly and I beg to move the

0:19:57 > 0:20:03bill and commended to the House.The question is that this bill now be

0:20:03 > 0:20:11read a second time.I rise to support the noble lord. And his

0:20:11 > 0:20:15splendid bill. I am embarrassed to stand up at this point and said I

0:20:15 > 0:20:19had in mind to add a few comments right at the end of this debate,

0:20:19 > 0:20:25just to show another voice of support but I do want to applaud the

0:20:25 > 0:20:29noble lord for his superb presentation of the case. Really

0:20:29 > 0:20:35truly outstanding with his usual clarity, intellectual rigour and his

0:20:35 > 0:20:39delightful sense of humour. I think we all want to thank him for the

0:20:39 > 0:20:45pleasure of listening to him. It does seem very obvious to me that

0:20:45 > 0:20:49those of us who are lucky enough to be able to run up a step into a pub

0:20:49 > 0:20:55or a shop, that includes the noble lady the minister who I'm sure would

0:20:55 > 0:21:00have no difficulty running up a step into a shop or a pub, we do have a

0:21:00 > 0:21:06duty,, it seems to me, every single one of us, to ensure that those

0:21:06 > 0:21:10people who are unlucky enough to be locked out of so many of these

0:21:10 > 0:21:16buildings do have the right of access. I have to confess that I was

0:21:16 > 0:21:19assuming that when the bill went through Parliament, the

0:21:19 > 0:21:24discrimination against disabled people due to lack of access had

0:21:24 > 0:21:28basically been dealt with and I was shocked, I have to say, very

0:21:28 > 0:21:35surprised that for 800,000 people, wheelchair users, it is still a

0:21:35 > 0:21:40very, very major problem to be locked out of 71,000 shops, pubs and

0:21:40 > 0:21:44restaurants because simply as a little step. They really did come as

0:21:44 > 0:21:49something I had not expected. Quite clearly the requirement under the

0:21:49 > 0:21:532010 at four businesses to make reasonable adjustments to enable

0:21:53 > 0:21:59access disabled people is too vague, it is simply not working. I think we

0:21:59 > 0:22:05just need to applaud the Lord for this very simple proposal to deal

0:22:05 > 0:22:13with such a massive inhibition relief are so many people. Clearly

0:22:13 > 0:22:18the noble lord includes, sorry, cleverly he and leads to clauses.

0:22:18 > 0:22:23The second of which, it appears to cover the first. When I read it I

0:22:23 > 0:22:30had to reread it. I thought why these two clauses? He distinguishes

0:22:30 > 0:22:34between up to six inch steps, and steps up to 12 inches. And he makes

0:22:34 > 0:22:42very clear the significant difference in cost between these two

0:22:42 > 0:22:45levels, as he says, there could be different levels of step that one is

0:22:45 > 0:22:49talking about and I think these two are quite interesting. The six inch

0:22:49 > 0:22:56step of course can be sorted out in a spend of £100. Thinking of smaller

0:22:56 > 0:22:59businesses, it seems to me they really would not have a problem with

0:22:59 > 0:23:04that. So, why not is the big question. If you're talking about 12

0:23:04 > 0:23:08inch steps, you are really talking about something much more

0:23:08 > 0:23:11significant which certainly I for one would not have thought about.

0:23:11 > 0:23:17The cost of something like £3000 or £5,000, I can certainly think of

0:23:17 > 0:23:21small businesses who would really struggle to cover the cost,

0:23:21 > 0:23:31certainly in one year. So I think there is an interesting point that.

0:23:31 > 0:23:35There is absolutely no question that we need greater access the

0:23:35 > 0:23:39wheelchair users but I wonder whether the noble lord with consider

0:23:39 > 0:23:45it an appalling diminution of his bill, in fact to limit it to the six

0:23:45 > 0:23:51inch step if you like the smaller demand. I was particularly struck by

0:23:51 > 0:23:56the noble lord's personal research, rather delightful, I thought,

0:23:56 > 0:24:02looking at the three roads, and his finding as he is mentioned that in

0:24:02 > 0:24:06these streets, 87% of the steps actually would be covered by the six

0:24:06 > 0:24:14inch rule. He goes on to say that all the evidence suggests that

0:24:14 > 0:24:19actually throughout the country, that 87% figure probably applies, I

0:24:19 > 0:24:23find that reassuring because it you can eliminate 87% of the problem,

0:24:23 > 0:24:27maybe that would be worth doing and there seems to be no Government

0:24:27 > 0:24:34could surely refuse to do that. Why would you? £100 for a business. Why

0:24:34 > 0:24:39not? I think when you are talking about the biggest band, that is an

0:24:39 > 0:24:46issue. -- biggest band. There are two possible approaches to this. One

0:24:46 > 0:24:53would be to relieve small businesses below a certain level of turnover

0:24:53 > 0:24:59from the bill. Another, as I say, but simply to be eliminate the 12

0:24:59 > 0:25:06inch claws and have this bill to the six inch provision. I hope the

0:25:06 > 0:25:13Minister will be in a position to support this bill at least the 87%

0:25:13 > 0:25:17of it, if you like. I would hope, and I'm sure everyone in this

0:25:17 > 0:25:21chamber would hope that the whole bill would be passed but I would

0:25:21 > 0:25:27really implore the Minister to do all she can with her colleagues to

0:25:27 > 0:25:33support the bill.

0:25:33 > 0:25:37I was lucky enough to serve in the select committee for the Equality

0:25:37 > 0:25:43Act and disabled people and I am very grateful to the quotations that

0:25:43 > 0:25:47you have provided. I look forward to the contribution from the Baroness

0:25:47 > 0:25:50and I am sure she will focus on the detail of the work of that

0:25:50 > 0:25:55committee. I have been a wheelchair user for the last six years, I have

0:25:55 > 0:26:01an electric wheelchair which is over 100 kilograms in weight. Many people

0:26:01 > 0:26:06just say we will just left you in, when I explain that they pale. It is

0:26:06 > 0:26:10also why I say lifting the end is not an option because under health

0:26:10 > 0:26:13and safety you will damage yourself and I don't want to be responsible

0:26:13 > 0:26:20for that. I am grateful for the suggestion to consider our real-life

0:26:20 > 0:26:25experience over the last two to three weeks. I was then binds

0:26:25 > 0:26:33visiting family and I needed to get into a pharmacy. And the first three

0:26:33 > 0:26:39local pharmacies all had steps. None of them had a bell, and one of them

0:26:39 > 0:26:45had an enormous sign in the front window saying, disabled, we are here

0:26:45 > 0:26:53to help. How could I tell them? I was asked to speak at two events in

0:26:53 > 0:27:00a global market town -- ruble, one had a step of under six inches and

0:27:00 > 0:27:04the next one had a step of just under 12 inches. The organisers had

0:27:04 > 0:27:09phoned me and said they had just discovered the steps, they went out

0:27:09 > 0:27:13and bought one of the lightweight Rance, and I got into the first

0:27:13 > 0:27:17venue with absolutely no problem, but the second venue was just too

0:27:17 > 0:27:23high for the length of ramp they had. Unfortunately, with a heavy

0:27:23 > 0:27:26wheelchair, you just groaned at the bottom and you can't get in. I have

0:27:26 > 0:27:31immense sympathy for the principles you outlined in your bill, but

0:27:31 > 0:27:36they're definitely has to be guidance about the angle and the

0:27:36 > 0:27:40length of ramps because otherwise people will buy rams, believe the

0:27:40 > 0:27:43earth are filling their obligations, but those of us in electrical

0:27:43 > 0:27:47wheelchairs will find we still cannot get into the building. I was

0:27:47 > 0:27:52asked to speak at a university last week and to had booked me in March

0:27:52 > 0:27:56to launch a conference. On the Monday before Facebook on the

0:27:56 > 0:28:01Wednesday they rang to say we have just discovered that there is a

0:28:01 > 0:28:04stage and you are going to be on the state except we don't have the

0:28:04 > 0:28:08facility to get you onto the stage. I didn't want to be the only speaker

0:28:08 > 0:28:16not on the stage. So I said, go away, find another solution. The

0:28:16 > 0:28:20response came back that maintenance have broken the lab and the not

0:28:20 > 0:28:24prepared to appeared because the building is going to vacated. They

0:28:24 > 0:28:28found another lecture hall where all the panel were on a level which was

0:28:28 > 0:28:31fantastic. My other story which I apologise for not being about a

0:28:31 > 0:28:37building but illustrates a wider point. I was picking up a cap around

0:28:37 > 0:28:44the corner from zero, one of those larger, not black cabs, but one that

0:28:44 > 0:28:48has automatic opening doors, no built in ramp. The driver went his

0:28:48 > 0:28:53window down and said, I think my rant is a bit small for you. I am

0:28:53 > 0:28:59just pushing it out now. What he was referring to was the automatic step,

0:28:59 > 0:29:02not the ramp. I said, I think you will find if you open the boot,

0:29:02 > 0:29:07there is a ramp in the boot. He got out, founded, it took him five

0:29:07 > 0:29:12minutes to get it up because he had never had to do it. For the last two

0:29:12 > 0:29:18examples, one of my other concerns, one that I do speak about a great

0:29:18 > 0:29:23deal is training. It is about the attitude of the organisation and the

0:29:23 > 0:29:27training of people needing to use the equipment. In those two last

0:29:27 > 0:29:31cases it would have been resolved simply by the driver who had clearly

0:29:31 > 0:29:37rented the cap actually knowing his way around the vehicle. That brings

0:29:37 > 0:29:43me to a further point. I am going to name and shame some organisations, W

0:29:43 > 0:29:48H Smith is in my both name and shame but also credit. You can get into

0:29:48 > 0:29:53most WH Smith's workshops if you are in a wheelchair, but unfortunately

0:29:53 > 0:29:58they have a new policy of cramming extra bits in the aisles, the

0:29:58 > 0:30:02hanging baskets that you can pick your crisps from, and that no means

0:30:02 > 0:30:07in many W H Smith, especially in tight places like stations, you

0:30:07 > 0:30:12cannot get around the stall if you are in a wheelchair. It may be

0:30:12 > 0:30:14accessible to get in, but it actually doesn't make me want to

0:30:14 > 0:30:21visit it any more at all. The response by the Government to the

0:30:21 > 0:30:26select committee, I think many of us when we read it were as open-mouthed

0:30:26 > 0:30:30at some of the evidence we received during the hearings of the

0:30:30 > 0:30:36committee. I believe this is the Government's stands still. It starts

0:30:36 > 0:30:40by saying disability rights cannot be delivered by regulation alone.

0:30:40 > 0:30:43Forcing people to change their behaviours will not change their

0:30:43 > 0:30:46hearts and minds. Changing hearts and minds will lead to better

0:30:46 > 0:30:50attitudes, better access and better outcomes for disabled people. Cannot

0:30:50 > 0:30:56disagree with that. The Government then goes on to say it is achieved

0:30:56 > 0:30:59more by initiating conversations between disabled people and the

0:30:59 > 0:31:01public, private and voluntary sector than by the instrument of

0:31:01 > 0:31:08regulation. In paragraphs 15 and 16 they talk about the minister holding

0:31:08 > 0:31:13a round table the leaders of the hospitality industry, trade bodies

0:31:13 > 0:31:21and disabled people, and then seeing they would have provided an

0:31:21 > 0:31:25accessibility top ten tips about being associated with the British

0:31:25 > 0:31:29hospitality. I have searched high and low through the web and can find

0:31:29 > 0:31:34no such launch to have happened. That is quite odd conversations with

0:31:34 > 0:31:39people with the best intent do not change the culture. There are times

0:31:39 > 0:31:45when regulation is needed, this is now one of those. My Lords, I am

0:31:45 > 0:31:53very aware that you have referred past the bags of concrete resolving

0:31:53 > 0:31:57the problem. There are some people with disabilities, particularly

0:31:57 > 0:32:02those with prosthetics, where a very short ramp might make the building

0:32:02 > 0:32:05inaccessible for someone with a prosthetic limb. I am more than

0:32:05 > 0:32:10happy to push the idea of ramps, but we need to be careful we don't make

0:32:10 > 0:32:14a building inaccessible for a different group of people. I wanted

0:32:14 > 0:32:20to name and shame, but I have said in your lordship's house before, the

0:32:20 > 0:32:24Institute of civil engineers around the corner have a wonderful example

0:32:24 > 0:32:30of how you can deal with a listed building and access ability. They

0:32:30 > 0:32:35have two sets of front steps, one will be tracked and a lift, that you

0:32:35 > 0:32:39picture wheelchair on and you move easily into the building. Only the

0:32:39 > 0:32:43civil engineers could develop something like that! To doors down,

0:32:43 > 0:32:47the mechanical engineers have done the same thing. The last time I went

0:32:47 > 0:32:52and I had to enter via an outside still it to somebody else else's

0:32:52 > 0:32:59conference room. I want to end on two other examples very close to

0:32:59 > 0:33:04your lordship's house. The county Marriot over the road, it says it is

0:33:04 > 0:33:09a listed building and it cannot make any adjustments. An organisation I

0:33:09 > 0:33:14am filled with stopped using them for special events. They said they

0:33:14 > 0:33:18had now changed. I was pleased to hear that. I asked them to explain

0:33:18 > 0:33:23what had changed. They said that you still have to go round the corner to

0:33:23 > 0:33:27the back, at any says electronic doors had to be unblocked, you no

0:33:27 > 0:33:31longer have to go through the sea life centre, you can now go straight

0:33:31 > 0:33:34through into the back of the hotel. That is not good enough for 5-star

0:33:34 > 0:33:38hotel. I want to end on a really good example and an organisation

0:33:38 > 0:33:50that trains start. The lingerie shop Bravisimo I would like to nominate

0:33:50 > 0:33:58them for the accessibility award for high-street good access.It gives me

0:33:58 > 0:34:02great pleasure to support my noble friend and his important private

0:34:02 > 0:34:07members bills. I applaud his tenacity and those other lords who

0:34:07 > 0:34:11is beaten today in seeking to improve access to public buildings

0:34:11 > 0:34:17for wheelchair users. This duty to take such steps is as reasonable to

0:34:17 > 0:34:20remove physical features which disadvantaged disabled people is

0:34:20 > 0:34:25already enshrined in law but is not being fully implemented should make

0:34:25 > 0:34:31all of us pause for thought and ask how we can ensure that this duty is

0:34:31 > 0:34:37taken seriously. My Lords, when I was 17 I broke my back in a riding

0:34:37 > 0:34:42accident. I was lucky, after many months I was able to walk again. But

0:34:42 > 0:34:45not before being bedridden and spending considerable time in a

0:34:45 > 0:34:51wheelchair. My wheelchair wasn't like the modern wheelchairs today.

0:34:51 > 0:34:57It wasn't very grand, it was rented from a charity, hospital Saturday,

0:34:57 > 0:35:00although it made a huge difference and I was grateful, it must have

0:35:00 > 0:35:04been related to a supermarket trolley because it certainly had a

0:35:04 > 0:35:09mind of its own. On my first outing my mother started to push me down a

0:35:09 > 0:35:14hill and then panicked as she lost control. I am just going to have to

0:35:14 > 0:35:20let you go! She shouted. Luckily, plan B in the shape of a hedge came

0:35:20 > 0:35:25along and she simply rammed me into that instead. But I remember vividly

0:35:25 > 0:35:31even to this day the way she and I struggled with the little things,

0:35:31 > 0:35:36the Kurds, the steps. The things that able-bodied people don't give a

0:35:36 > 0:35:48second thought to. -- the kerbs. My wheelchair didn't even have the

0:35:48 > 0:35:53added problem of the weight of an electric chair. Wheelchairs are a

0:35:53 > 0:35:57marvellous things, they gives a great freedom and independence. That

0:35:57 > 0:36:01makes it all the more frustratingly when you simply cannot get to where

0:36:01 > 0:36:07you want to go. A couple of weeks ago, I was flipping between channels

0:36:07 > 0:36:13on the television when I came across a repeat of the documentary of your

0:36:13 > 0:36:16lordship's house, meet the Lords. My immediate instinct was to change

0:36:16 > 0:36:22channels. Except I saw it was the rather moving part of the programme

0:36:22 > 0:36:27where the film crew followed my noble friend as he tried to find

0:36:27 > 0:36:32different ways to steer his wheelchair through this beautiful

0:36:32 > 0:36:38palace to reach its destination. In his bail, my noble friend isn't

0:36:38 > 0:36:43asking for a monumental changes to the access of public buildings, he

0:36:43 > 0:36:48is simply seeking to find a way to ensure the duty to make reasonable

0:36:48 > 0:36:51adjustments to buildings to allow access for those with a disability

0:36:51 > 0:36:57is taken seriously. He has found a sensible and practical way to

0:36:57 > 0:37:02accomplish this. My Lords, I have no one at my noble friend for many

0:37:02 > 0:37:09years. I know that it goes against the grain of his political DNA to

0:37:09 > 0:37:13impose unnecessary costs and regulations. Which is why my noble

0:37:13 > 0:37:18friend's proposal in this bill are modest and proportionate, and why

0:37:18 > 0:37:30they deserve to be supported.I thank the noble lord for his opening

0:37:30 > 0:37:38speech, which was a tour de force. I now wish to repeat the catalogue of

0:37:38 > 0:37:44facts and figures. I think the case is compelling and I think that was

0:37:44 > 0:37:50the view of your lordship's house in response to the noble lord's opening

0:37:50 > 0:37:58speech. When I was preparing for this debate, I read the relevant

0:37:58 > 0:38:03sections of the select committee report on equality, the Equality Act

0:38:03 > 0:38:152010 and disability, I will not seek to repeat many of the points in that

0:38:15 > 0:38:21report, mainly to say it is a very impressive piece of work. My

0:38:21 > 0:38:24confession is at the time of its publication last year it entirely

0:38:24 > 0:38:31passed me by. That is my fault, I am probably not alone in having failed

0:38:31 > 0:38:37to appreciate the significance of the Lord's report. It makes it

0:38:37 > 0:38:42abundantly clear that the overwhelming evidence received was

0:38:42 > 0:38:48that the Equality Act had been a retrograde stamp for disabled

0:38:48 > 0:38:53people, who had been better served by the disability discrimination act

0:38:53 > 0:38:59and the previous separate disability rights commission. This is actually

0:38:59 > 0:39:04quite a shocking finding. One has to suppose that it is one of those

0:39:04 > 0:39:08examples of well intentioned legislation having unforeseen

0:39:08 > 0:39:20perverse consequences. It has become plain. In the noble lord's briefing

0:39:20 > 0:39:25notes for this debate and his speech, it clearly highlights the

0:39:25 > 0:39:30shortcomings of the act in relation to disabled people and in particular

0:39:30 > 0:39:35the failings of subsection nine in the concept of reasonable

0:39:35 > 0:39:42adjustments. Some people are born with their disabilities, many others

0:39:42 > 0:39:45become disabled due to accidents, or through developing medical

0:39:45 > 0:39:56conditions. In our extended family, my wife's late brother-in-law, has a

0:39:56 > 0:40:03progressively wasting illness which has lasted over 25 years. His

0:40:03 > 0:40:08mobility became reduced and he could only get about in a wheelchair.

0:40:08 > 0:40:13Others perhaps coming to a fourth category, those of us who have come

0:40:13 > 0:40:20close to being disabled but have got away with it.

0:40:20 > 0:40:26There but for the grace of God category. I am one of those. I have

0:40:26 > 0:40:30lived an active life as a mountaineer and a climber and often

0:40:30 > 0:40:34accepted that there were risks involved in those sorts of sports

0:40:34 > 0:40:42but a few years ago, not doing a very high-risk activity, I broke my

0:40:42 > 0:40:48back in an accident off the coast of the Faroe Islands in rather choppy

0:40:48 > 0:40:56and troubled seas. The Zodiac went down hole in the sea and had a

0:40:56 > 0:41:01standing wave and there was a tremendous thump which broken

0:41:01 > 0:41:06vertebrae in my back. At the time, I was paralysed for a short period and

0:41:06 > 0:41:15then there were weeks of recovery in my back got progressively better.

0:41:15 > 0:41:21But I had not realised how close I had come until I was being

0:41:21 > 0:41:24investigated for a completely different condition with a series of

0:41:24 > 0:41:30MRI and CT scans, relatively recently, and the diagnosis was, we

0:41:30 > 0:41:33haven't found what we were looking for, you will be pleased to know,

0:41:33 > 0:41:40but when did you break your back? At that point, I realised that the

0:41:40 > 0:41:43injury I had received had probably been a lot more serious than I ever

0:41:43 > 0:41:50have thought of it being at the time. Perhaps now, because having a

0:41:50 > 0:41:54strong sense of having had a close brush with a disability and having

0:41:54 > 0:41:59seen the obstacles to wheelchair users through my late

0:41:59 > 0:42:03brother-in-law's eyes, I am all the more aware that it is not the big

0:42:03 > 0:42:09obstacles to mobility which are the cause of small daily miseries to

0:42:09 > 0:42:15disabled people but the smaller obstacles, the little steps, the

0:42:15 > 0:42:21ability not to be able to get into the dog and duck or the cafe or the

0:42:21 > 0:42:26restaurant. Most disabled people probably do not wish to climb Ben

0:42:26 > 0:42:32Nevis. It is those other small obstacles that this bill will

0:42:32 > 0:42:36address. It is a modest measure and will bring about greater

0:42:36 > 0:42:40improvements in access to public buildings and for a small amount of

0:42:40 > 0:42:48expenditure. It accepts the equalities act for all its

0:42:48 > 0:42:51shortcomings is here to stay and does not seek to amend that in any

0:42:51 > 0:42:55way. Instead it strengthens section nine in practical ways for the

0:42:55 > 0:43:01benefit of disabled people and I strongly support it.I am delighted

0:43:01 > 0:43:06to support my noble friend in the second reading of this excellent,

0:43:06 > 0:43:11well crafted and beautifully straightforward bill. Often,

0:43:11 > 0:43:17legislation is asking the Government to take steps. In this case, that is

0:43:17 > 0:43:21exactly the case. I ask my noble friend of the Minister, if not this

0:43:21 > 0:43:27step, what step to address this most simple and straightforward of access

0:43:27 > 0:43:37issues? On Black Friday, no matter how bad the bustle and the crush is,

0:43:37 > 0:43:42how much more black today is for those of us, wheelchair users and

0:43:42 > 0:43:49other access impaired, who can't even access the stores to get to

0:43:49 > 0:43:56those bargains. I was fortunate to be on the board of the disability

0:43:56 > 0:44:03rights commission in the early 2000s when many of the best features of

0:44:03 > 0:44:06the disability discrimination act came into force, not least those

0:44:06 > 0:44:11related to access to Goods and Services Tax. We knew at the time

0:44:11 > 0:44:22that this cuts across all of civic society - retail, leisure, religion.

0:44:22 > 0:44:30Tiny steps, effectively denying people access to pay, to play or,

0:44:30 > 0:44:35indeed, to pray. Many of the arguments at the time of the passage

0:44:35 > 0:44:45of the DDA bill and indeed when part three came in in the early 2000s,

0:44:45 > 0:44:49there were arguments - it will be too expensive, we can't possibly do

0:44:49 > 0:44:55this, businesses will fold. Well, as we see almost a decade and a half

0:44:55 > 0:45:01later, no businesses actually folded as a result of the regulations and

0:45:01 > 0:45:06legislation. And rather than seeing it in those terms, why not just let

0:45:06 > 0:45:11it the other way and see the positive economic boost that

0:45:11 > 0:45:15business can have by being accessible to all members of

0:45:15 > 0:45:23society? And I know this personally, not as a wheelchair user but I've

0:45:23 > 0:45:30experienced what it's like to be denied access to supermarkets,

0:45:30 > 0:45:38restaurants, minicabs. I went to a restaurant a few years ago. The

0:45:38 > 0:45:41proprietor actually stood at the door to balmy entrance to the

0:45:41 > 0:45:50restaurant. -- to bar me entrance. He said in very straightforward

0:45:50 > 0:46:04terms, "We don't serve dogs". I said, "That's OK, I don't eat them".

0:46:04 > 0:46:08LAUGHTER But there is a fundamental point

0:46:08 > 0:46:13behind this because when you experience denial of access,

0:46:13 > 0:46:21discrimination, you don't experience it in a surreal brought way. You

0:46:21 > 0:46:28feel it. -- in a cerebral way. You feel it in your heart, in your guts.

0:46:28 > 0:46:36To be denied fairness, no dignity, no respect, no equality, just

0:46:36 > 0:46:44exclusion. And this is the beauty of my noble friend's bill. It is not

0:46:44 > 0:46:52actually anything to do with steps, it is actually just simply to do

0:46:52 > 0:46:56with inclusion. Why wouldn't a business, why wouldn't any building

0:46:56 > 0:47:02wants to be inclusive for all members of society? Imagine what

0:47:02 > 0:47:05could be more simple than taking this bill right through the Lords

0:47:05 > 0:47:08and Commons and passing it and enabling that conclusion right

0:47:08 > 0:47:19across the United Kingdom - tens of thousands of small steps removed,

0:47:19 > 0:47:26enabling access, enabling economic activity. My Lords, we're only

0:47:26 > 0:47:37talking about the removal of small steps. Actually, there is no only.

0:47:37 > 0:47:49The removal of small steps, one small step perk premises, one great

0:47:49 > 0:47:58leap for inclusion.My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for bringing

0:47:58 > 0:48:05this bill before your Lordships. The noble Lord claim Catherine

0:48:05 > 0:48:12epitomises someone who wants to be as independent as possible. The

0:48:12 > 0:48:17noble Lord has explained his bill so clearly I cannot believe it will not

0:48:17 > 0:48:25be accepted. Many people who have to use wheelchairs also wish to be as

0:48:25 > 0:48:30independent as possible. I am sure they will be pleased if on their

0:48:30 > 0:48:36behalf I wholeheartedly thank the noble Lord for his continued efforts

0:48:36 > 0:48:42on this important matter, which not only would help thousands of

0:48:42 > 0:48:50wheelchair users, it would help their helpers and people using baby

0:48:50 > 0:48:55pushchairs. Our society has changed in the last few years. We have a

0:48:55 > 0:49:05growing elderly population, many of whom are using electric wheelchairs

0:49:05 > 0:49:11due to strokes, Parkinson's, spinal injury, arthritis, many neurological

0:49:11 > 0:49:16conditions, as well as heart and cancer problems. Also, many young

0:49:16 > 0:49:23people suffer long-term conditions such as cerebral palsy, muscular

0:49:23 > 0:49:26dystrophy and other types of disabilities, including spinal

0:49:26 > 0:49:33injuries and brain injuries, from accidents and tumours. My Lords, I

0:49:33 > 0:49:40have to declare an interest. I have always been a very active person. As

0:49:40 > 0:49:47a child, I milked cows by hand and rode ponies from an early age. At

0:49:47 > 0:49:52school, I was keen on sport it up when I broke my back and became

0:49:52 > 0:49:57paralysed, I took part in paraplegics bought and played table

0:49:57 > 0:50:07tennis in many countries with the Paralympics. -- paraplegic sport.

0:50:07 > 0:50:11With sports and using my wheelchair over many years has caused by body,

0:50:11 > 0:50:16hand and shoulders, to get overworked and it has taken its toll

0:50:16 > 0:50:21and now I have to graduate to an electric wheelchair. My Lords, I

0:50:21 > 0:50:25know only too well that electric wheelchairs cannot negotiate steps

0:50:25 > 0:50:33and are too heavy to lift manually, therefore ramps are essential. My

0:50:33 > 0:50:39Lords, two weeks ago I was shopping in Harrogate, using my electric

0:50:39 > 0:50:51wheelchair. I wanted to go to L'Occitane, a shop in James Street,

0:50:51 > 0:50:56but found there was a two into step which the electric wheelchair could

0:50:56 > 0:51:00not negotiate. The person with me went into the shop to see if they

0:51:00 > 0:51:06had a ramp. Sorry, they said, no ramp, but offered to help with by

0:51:06 > 0:51:12helper, but no go. The electric wheelchair was too heavy. My helper

0:51:12 > 0:51:18then went to the next-door shop, which had a similar step, but they

0:51:18 > 0:51:24had a portable ramp so we asked if we could borrow it to go into the

0:51:24 > 0:51:32shop next door. Yes, we could, so with the borrowed ramp, we entered

0:51:32 > 0:51:38L'Occitane. The shop assistant was most apologetic. I assured her it

0:51:38 > 0:51:44was not her fault but the responsibility of management. When I

0:51:44 > 0:51:49told her about the noble Lord's bill, she thought that was an

0:51:49 > 0:51:55excellent idea. We returned the borrowed portable ramp to Molton

0:51:55 > 0:52:02Brown and I made a second purchase, having to use the ramp. My Lords, it

0:52:02 > 0:52:07is interesting to find two similar shops next to each other, one

0:52:07 > 0:52:14without a portable ramp and the other with one. Is it that one

0:52:14 > 0:52:19wishes to help disabled people and the other one cannot be bothered? I

0:52:19 > 0:52:26hope it is not that they do not want people using wheelchairs in their

0:52:26 > 0:52:30shop. I hope it is because of lack of knowledge of how easy it is to

0:52:30 > 0:52:41get portable ramps. My Lords, in my small hometown of mass and in North

0:52:41 > 0:52:50Yorkshire, there is only one pharmacist. -- Masham. Nobody using

0:52:50 > 0:52:54an electric wheelchair can enter and people using manual wheelchairs or

0:52:54 > 0:52:59walking frames could find it difficult unaided. This pharmacist

0:52:59 > 0:53:05just cannot be bothered, or thinks there is no legal requirement. Ramps

0:53:05 > 0:53:12are not only useful for people. They are useful for wheeling heavy goods

0:53:12 > 0:53:21in. Some people using wheelchairs might want some private advice or to

0:53:21 > 0:53:28purchase something private. They wish to be self-sufficient. My

0:53:28 > 0:53:34Lords, all pharmacies should have access to everybody. My Lords, how

0:53:34 > 0:53:38much more does the noble Lord have to do to convince the Government

0:53:38 > 0:53:44that his bill is necessary? This is something that will not cost the

0:53:44 > 0:53:50Government money. Many disabled people have elderly carers,

0:53:50 > 0:53:57struggling with steps and wheelchairs may be the last straw.

0:53:57 > 0:54:01When the obstacle could be removed so easily with a ramp, it is really

0:54:01 > 0:54:07frustrating. I hope this time the bill will have a speedy journey

0:54:07 > 0:54:12through both houses. I hope the Minister can give your Lordships was

0:54:12 > 0:54:18some good news today and I hope the Government will listen to people who

0:54:18 > 0:54:25have first-hand experience of steps and ramps. But, my Lords, at a

0:54:25 > 0:54:30recent reception at ten Downing St, I noticed there were portable ramps

0:54:30 > 0:54:38at the entrance and upstairs a splendid lift with the steps that

0:54:38 > 0:54:44disappeared and the list came out. Very modern. My Lords, the

0:54:44 > 0:54:50Government does know what is necessary. Now is the time to help

0:54:50 > 0:54:59the whole population be able enter shops and places.

0:54:59 > 0:55:03This modest abilities should be supported throughout the House. My

0:55:03 > 0:55:09only criticism is that it is too modest. My only declare a bowl

0:55:09 > 0:55:15interests developer. All houses should be built without a front

0:55:15 > 0:55:20steps to make them wheelchair accessible. I have a great deal of

0:55:20 > 0:55:23interest in a wheelchair accessibility. I was the first

0:55:23 > 0:55:27person to beat any planning application for a large development

0:55:27 > 0:55:30of 100% wheelchair accessible houses with the private sector, rather than

0:55:30 > 0:55:38social housing. This was the suggestion of my late great friend.

0:55:38 > 0:55:43He explained that using a wheelchair cost him a fortune in the whiskey.

0:55:43 > 0:55:46His friends could get into his house, but he could get into

0:55:46 > 0:55:54various. He was always the host. This is for a gregarious chap like

0:55:54 > 0:56:00bird was one of the many extra costs of disability. As chief executive,

0:56:00 > 0:56:07the maker of the London taxi, I need all London black cabs wheelchair

0:56:07 > 0:56:12accessible. We were designing a ramp for a step greater than six inches

0:56:12 > 0:56:18to access the cab. 16 inches high rather than the six or 12 in this

0:56:18 > 0:56:26bill. It was difficult but it was done. Various people in my company

0:56:26 > 0:56:30said we should sell the taxi with this ramp as an optional extra. I

0:56:30 > 0:56:33demanded this was standard equipment and we should never disclosed the

0:56:33 > 0:56:39extra cost of producing it. As the noble Baroness has pointed out,

0:56:39 > 0:56:44sometimes the level of training of taxi drivers could be better.

0:56:44 > 0:56:47Accessibility is now just a feature of the taxi, nothing special,

0:56:47 > 0:56:52standard equipment. The same ought to be true of all shops and

0:56:52 > 0:56:59buildings. My Lords, the thing we learned however is that while access

0:56:59 > 0:57:04for disabled people is very important, we all spent time in a

0:57:04 > 0:57:09wheelchair. It is normally called a pushchair, or a baby buggy. We are

0:57:09 > 0:57:13very lucky if it is only at the beginning of our lives that we need

0:57:13 > 0:57:19wheels. There are far more baby buggies and wheelchairs in use. A

0:57:19 > 0:57:22pushchair has a similar training cycle to a wheelchair, and many of

0:57:22 > 0:57:28the same access problems. Any ramp which can be used by a disabled

0:57:28 > 0:57:32person's wheelchair is excellent for a pushchair. There must be vast

0:57:32 > 0:57:35numbers of parents with parishioners who are discouraged from going into

0:57:35 > 0:57:39shops because of the task of having to remove the child from their

0:57:39 > 0:57:43pushchair, collapsing the pressure, carrying it and the child up the

0:57:43 > 0:57:48stairs and putting the child back in the chair. And a very wise is the

0:57:48 > 0:57:54symbol advice that sleeping baby 's life. When we look at the positive

0:57:54 > 0:57:57effects of my noble friend's proposed bill, it is not only

0:57:57 > 0:58:03disabled customers who will benefit, but parents and children everywhere.

0:58:03 > 0:58:06My Lords, the question should not just be about the number of

0:58:06 > 0:58:12wheelchair users who will benefit and whether there are 1.2 million

0:58:12 > 0:58:18part-time or 750,000 or 800,000 full-time users, we should also

0:58:18 > 0:58:21consider the 3.9 million children under the age of four who will

0:58:21 > 0:58:28benefit. And very exhausted parents. My Lords, I would therefore suggest

0:58:28 > 0:58:34the Government supports this bill with enthusiasm.I stand to support

0:58:34 > 0:58:44this bill and I support the Lord in his efforts in this particular

0:58:44 > 0:58:51subject. One or two things that I would like to draw the attention of

0:58:51 > 0:58:59the House too, to include places of worship in the public places. I have

0:58:59 > 0:59:07been to nearly all kind of places of worship, churches, and masks, but in

0:59:07 > 0:59:12particular I am referring to the mosques, there are thousands of

0:59:12 > 0:59:20mosques, big and small, in the country. . Many of them are

0:59:20 > 0:59:26converted from ordinary houses to warehouses to listed buildings and

0:59:26 > 0:59:33so forth. Some of them are of course very modern and newly built

0:59:33 > 0:59:37buildings who may comply with most of the requirements. However, in

0:59:37 > 0:59:46many of them, I may suggest, many outside external access is not an

0:59:46 > 1:00:00issue as much. However, as members and noble lord would know, in most

1:00:00 > 1:00:06of the mosques that I have noticed, particularly the older buildings,

1:00:06 > 1:00:13there is hardly any consideration for them when it comes to using the

1:00:13 > 1:00:23washing facilities. Wheelchair access, visually impaired people, I

1:00:23 > 1:00:33think I would suggest that before the committee stage, to see how we

1:00:33 > 1:00:42could include the mosques in the public buildings, as I understand

1:00:42 > 1:00:46that in nearly all of the mosques are run on voluntary contributions

1:00:46 > 1:00:50and we don't want to put too much of a burden on them if the buildings

1:00:50 > 1:00:57are so difficult to comply. However, there is a dire need that we need to

1:00:57 > 1:01:00include. It would be a good idea if we had a meeting before the

1:01:00 > 1:01:10committee stage and have an amendment to cover this area. In

1:01:10 > 1:01:14July 2016, shortly after having been asked by Her Majesty the Queen to

1:01:14 > 1:01:17form a new Government, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister

1:01:17 > 1:01:21said that it was her mission as Prime Minister to make Britain a

1:01:21 > 1:01:26country that works for everyone.She also said, and I quote, the

1:01:26 > 1:01:30Government I lead will do everything we can to give you more control over

1:01:30 > 1:01:43your lives. My Lords, if I were to ask, asked to propose one short bill

1:01:43 > 1:01:47of building a country that works for everyone and giving ordinary people

1:01:47 > 1:01:52more control over their own lives, I couldn't think of anything better

1:01:52 > 1:01:55than the short bill which is presently before your lordship's

1:01:55 > 1:02:01House. This bill would at a stroke give control over a large part of

1:02:01 > 1:02:09their own lives to some 800,000 of our fellow citizens, who through no

1:02:09 > 1:02:12fault of their own but simply because they are confined to

1:02:12 > 1:02:17wheelchairs, are unable to enjoy the full benefits of what this great

1:02:17 > 1:02:23country of ours has two offer. But, my Lords, this bill it goes very

1:02:23 > 1:02:29much further than giving a better life to do is confined to

1:02:29 > 1:02:35wheelchairs, a point which my noble friend and the noble Baroness has

1:02:35 > 1:02:45already made. This bill, if it were to become law, would also make life

1:02:45 > 1:02:49is infinitely easier and better for many others, for those who are

1:02:49 > 1:02:53elderly and find it difficult and dangerous to negotiate steps,

1:02:53 > 1:02:59particularly in the dark, or in the brain. For those with prams, pushed

1:02:59 > 1:03:06shares, and baby buggies. And for those like me who do the weekly

1:03:06 > 1:03:09shopping with their shopping trolley which by the end of the expedition

1:03:09 > 1:03:14is usually overflowing with a heavy mixture of boxes, bags, not to

1:03:14 > 1:03:20mention loose vegetables and fruit. These are some of the social

1:03:20 > 1:03:26benefits of the bill. But this bill also has a significant economic

1:03:26 > 1:03:31benefit. I believe it could be seen as primarily an economic bill as it

1:03:31 > 1:03:35would make an important contribution to achieving the Government's newest

1:03:35 > 1:03:42economic objective, namely that of improving our nation's productivity.

1:03:42 > 1:03:47It would do this in two ways. Let me explain. Although the digital

1:03:47 > 1:03:51economy has made it possible for us to shop for everything from food and

1:03:51 > 1:03:56drinks to furniture and a major electrical appliances, with no worse

1:03:56 > 1:04:02physical effort than the click of a mouse, it is still a physical effort

1:04:02 > 1:04:06on the part of someone for our purchases to be delivered to us.

1:04:06 > 1:04:10Many of these purchases arrive in packages which our ability, heavy or

1:04:10 > 1:04:15both. The easiest and quickest way of handing these packages is by

1:04:15 > 1:04:19using a porter's trolley, or what I understand this correctly knowing as

1:04:19 > 1:04:25a hand truck. But manoeuvring hand trucks upstairs, even a single six

1:04:25 > 1:04:31inch step can be tricky and dangerous. And with a heavy load it

1:04:31 > 1:04:36requires a good deal of brute strength. For this reason, delivery

1:04:36 > 1:04:39companies are less inclined to use hand trucks than they might

1:04:39 > 1:04:44otherwise be. As a result, two people are often employed to deliver

1:04:44 > 1:04:50a van load of packages when the same load could easily be delivered by

1:04:50 > 1:04:55one person with a hand truck. Although this bill refers only to

1:04:55 > 1:04:58public buildings, it would clearly make ramps and the use of hand

1:04:58 > 1:05:02trucks much in common. Thus, it would make the average cost of

1:05:02 > 1:05:08delivering packages of all kinds, including our online purchases, much

1:05:08 > 1:05:13quicker and cheaper. And that is why I say this bill when it becomes law

1:05:13 > 1:05:16would make a significant contribution to achieving the

1:05:16 > 1:05:19Chancellor of the Exchequer's objective of improving our national

1:05:19 > 1:05:26productivity. There is at least one other way which ramps would

1:05:26 > 1:05:30contribute to improving our national positivity. That is by reducing the

1:05:30 > 1:05:36number of work days lost through injury, particularly back injury.

1:05:36 > 1:05:41According to the latest figures from the Health and Safety Executive, 22%

1:05:41 > 1:05:46of non-fatal injuries to employees are incurred when lifting or

1:05:46 > 1:05:52handling goods. I think that we can be pretty confident this figure will

1:05:52 > 1:05:55keep rising as the use of the Digital economy becomes increasingly

1:05:55 > 1:06:01widespread. And I don't think there is any doubt that ramps and hand

1:06:01 > 1:06:04trucks would significantly reduce the number of workplace injuries due

1:06:04 > 1:06:09to lifting and handling, and hence the number of working days lost each

1:06:09 > 1:06:15year. And that is not the whole story in relation to workplace

1:06:15 > 1:06:19injuries. I have no doubt there is a further large number of workplace

1:06:19 > 1:06:23injuries are attributable to employees carrying packages and

1:06:23 > 1:06:28failing to notice the existence of a single shallow step between the

1:06:28 > 1:06:33pavement and the entrance to the building. Sadly, the Health and

1:06:33 > 1:06:37Safety Executive figures I have seen do not identify such accidents

1:06:37 > 1:06:42separately, but I note from my own experience that they are common and

1:06:42 > 1:06:49sometimes those painful and very embarrassing. It just occurred to me

1:06:49 > 1:06:54that when one comes to think about the economic benefits of this bill

1:06:54 > 1:06:56it should have been introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer

1:06:56 > 1:07:01himself as a contribution to achieving a faster growing economy,

1:07:01 > 1:07:07rather than my noble friend as a contribution to a fairer and more

1:07:07 > 1:07:14compassionate society. Finally, I support this bill because besides

1:07:14 > 1:07:18all the practical advantages I have mentioned, it has a strong moral

1:07:18 > 1:07:24dimension. For me, it gives practical form to a moral teaching

1:07:24 > 1:07:29that goes back thousands of years to be biblical injunction that one

1:07:29 > 1:07:36should not place a stumbling block before the blind. If a six inch

1:07:36 > 1:07:40stone or concrete step in front of a public building is not a stumbling

1:07:40 > 1:07:46block for someone in a wheelchair, I don't know what is. For these

1:07:46 > 1:07:50reasons, both temporal and spiritual, I urge the house to give

1:07:50 > 1:07:54this bill is second reading and urged the Government to support it

1:07:54 > 1:08:01enthusiastically.My Lords, I have the privilege of cheering the 2016

1:08:01 > 1:08:09select committee on the Equality Act 2010 and disability. We produced a

1:08:09 > 1:08:12report a year and half ago. When I say privilege I am not following the

1:08:12 > 1:08:20normal courtesy of reference. I mean it very literally. We heard and saw

1:08:20 > 1:08:25and received written evidence of the heartbreaking and often unnecessary

1:08:25 > 1:08:29and I'm thinking obstacles faced by disabled people in their everyday

1:08:29 > 1:08:35lives. In doing things that the majority take in their stride. We

1:08:35 > 1:08:38admire the courage of our witnesses and their ability to function in the

1:08:38 > 1:08:43way they do. And to find the extra energy to campaign on behalf of all

1:08:43 > 1:08:53disabled people. And I salute the noble lord and other noble lord who

1:08:53 > 1:08:58are disabled, and I must single out the noble lady Lady Campbell who

1:08:58 > 1:09:04never stops campaigning. They do the same. My Lords, this bill and the

1:09:04 > 1:09:09report I referred to should not be seen as a project for the 11 million

1:09:09 > 1:09:12or so disabled people, most of whom acquired disabilities after birds.

1:09:12 > 1:09:20It is for all of us. For these statistics show, as we live longer

1:09:20 > 1:09:27in general we experienced a disability in our last few years,

1:09:27 > 1:09:31whether of sight, hearing or mobility. As many noble lord will be

1:09:31 > 1:09:35only too aware. This bill is not about special pleading, it is about

1:09:35 > 1:09:41making premises accessible, as the entire population in the fullness of

1:09:41 > 1:09:49time. I say to our sprightly young ministers, your time will come, too.

1:09:49 > 1:09:53Yet, the Government response so far to the select committee report has

1:09:53 > 1:09:57been ungenerous and disappointing. The committee was careful to make

1:09:57 > 1:10:04sure its recommendations did not cost much. We established there is a

1:10:04 > 1:10:08relevant law, but that implementation and detailed guidance

1:10:08 > 1:10:12is lacking, especially in transport and access. This bill has my full

1:10:12 > 1:10:17support, as it should have from every right-thinking person. Not

1:10:17 > 1:10:21only has the Government response been unhelpful, the equality and

1:10:21 > 1:10:26human rights commission seems to be going backwards on this. The

1:10:26 > 1:10:30statutory disability committee has been replaced by the advisory

1:10:30 > 1:10:36committee on disability, with no similar powers. The noble lord has

1:10:36 > 1:10:42been disappointed to discover that when appointed as a commissioner, he

1:10:42 > 1:10:46would not have a special responsibility that seems so obvious

1:10:46 > 1:10:52for him for disabled people and for which he had hoped.

1:10:52 > 1:10:56But the message to and from the select committee was that disabled

1:10:56 > 1:11:00people suffer from the rowing in of disability as a protected

1:11:00 > 1:11:05characteristic into all the other such characteristics under the

1:11:05 > 1:11:08quality at. Disabled people must have equal treatment but to get to

1:11:08 > 1:11:13the level playing field, they may need an adjustment that is not

1:11:13 > 1:11:19needed by others and access by ramp is just one example. The cost of

1:11:19 > 1:11:25putting the ramps will be more than met by the increased custom in time.

1:11:25 > 1:11:28Disabled people are let down, as I've said before, across the whole

1:11:28 > 1:11:34spectrum of life. Access to public buildings is a fundamental right.

1:11:34 > 1:11:40The removal of legal aid has made it even harder and more costly for

1:11:40 > 1:11:43individuals to challenge the blockages to their rights and the

1:11:43 > 1:11:49burden is on them alone for class and proxy actions not allowed. It

1:11:49 > 1:11:52has been proposed that local authorities should have the power to

1:11:52 > 1:11:57refuse to grant or renew the licenses of premises such as

1:11:57 > 1:12:05restaurants, pubs and clubs unless access above. The House of Commons

1:12:05 > 1:12:12women and equality is committee supported a similar approach and

1:12:12 > 1:12:22recommended changes to the licensing act two... I and other experienced

1:12:22 > 1:12:32noble lords put forward an amendment to that effect last December. The

1:12:32 > 1:12:36government opposed the amendment is on the grounds that are duplicated

1:12:36 > 1:12:41already existing law, which was not in fact the case, and the opposition

1:12:41 > 1:12:44decided not to vote on this amendment for what they called

1:12:44 > 1:12:50strategic reasons. One of the most disillusioning events for me since I

1:12:50 > 1:12:56entered this House. There is now a chance to remove that blot on the

1:12:56 > 1:13:01record of both parties and to show the United Nations committee on the

1:13:01 > 1:13:04rights of Persons with disabilities that their critical report on the

1:13:04 > 1:13:11UK's compliance with the treaties has been listened to. We recall the

1:13:11 > 1:13:15special pride and joy taken in our Paralympic champions. That sentiment

1:13:15 > 1:13:19should not be forgotten when slightly less athletic disabled

1:13:19 > 1:13:25people seek the nation's help. This bill is the tiniest step in the

1:13:25 > 1:13:31right direction. It has been said that legislation should be slow to

1:13:31 > 1:13:34place additional regulatory burdens on business but, my Lords, this is a

1:13:34 > 1:13:39zero sum game. The reduction of regulatory burden on business means

1:13:39 > 1:13:44an increase of the burden on a group far less able to bear it, namely

1:13:44 > 1:13:50disabled people. The Government may well point to its accessibility

1:13:50 > 1:13:54projects, for example the bill environment professional education

1:13:54 > 1:13:58project, but that has been handed over to the construction industry

1:13:58 > 1:14:02council and at best will only influence future design, not make

1:14:02 > 1:14:10adjustments to existing premises. Likewise, the accessible Britain

1:14:10 > 1:14:18challenge morphed into the disability scheme. These words

1:14:18 > 1:14:26disguise action not commensurate with their town. It morphed into

1:14:26 > 1:14:31another scheme, leaving a gap that can only be filled with this bill.

1:14:31 > 1:14:33The select committee referred to the need of codes of practice and

1:14:33 > 1:14:41specific guidance on the concept of reasonable adjustments to disabled

1:14:41 > 1:14:44people. Even if they are produced, they will be owners of premises who

1:14:44 > 1:14:51are unaware of them, or ignore them, knowing they can get away with it.

1:14:51 > 1:15:00My Lords, support for this bill is essential to stop the callous denial

1:15:00 > 1:15:04of accessibility for all of us and any government that cares for

1:15:04 > 1:15:12minorities or those who are not just about managing must bring into it.

1:15:12 > 1:15:20My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness. I commend her

1:15:20 > 1:15:29and her committee for their excellent reports on the equality

1:15:29 > 1:15:34act 2010 on disability. I should begin by declaring an interest, as a

1:15:34 > 1:15:40member of the equality and human rights committee. And as we are

1:15:40 > 1:15:43discussing the duty to make reasonable adjustments, I should

1:15:43 > 1:15:54also tell the House that 20 or so years ago I had life-saving

1:15:54 > 1:15:59neurosurgery and I took three years to learn. Again and I am still

1:15:59 > 1:16:06trying to teach my body. And speak more quickly but I would beg the

1:16:06 > 1:16:12indulgence of the House today during this debate if I don't speak as

1:16:12 > 1:16:20quickly as I would like. I would like to thank my noble friend Lord

1:16:20 > 1:16:25Blencathra for the service he has done for this House and disabled

1:16:25 > 1:16:33people and society at large, as two other noble Lords have made clear in

1:16:33 > 1:16:41their contributions. In introducing this bill and thereby giving the

1:16:41 > 1:16:47government the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to

1:16:47 > 1:16:55equality and to keeping the flame of our landmark disability lights

1:16:55 > 1:16:59registration alive. -- disability rights legislation. This bill is

1:16:59 > 1:17:06pragmatic, principled and practical and I agree with everything that has

1:17:06 > 1:17:13been said to. I'm just more sorry than I can say that having myself

1:17:13 > 1:17:18served on the national disability council set up to apprise the

1:17:18 > 1:17:25government on the implementation of the DDA more than 20 years ago, your

1:17:25 > 1:17:31Lordships' house is still debating such a modest bill. My Lords, I want

1:17:31 > 1:17:46to address my remarks to a matter which is the human rights

1:17:46 > 1:17:49commission. It was the profound sense of frustration with the lack

1:17:49 > 1:18:00of access by my noble friend's bill that drove me to respond to an

1:18:00 > 1:18:03advert for the specific postal disability Commissioner on the

1:18:03 > 1:18:09commission. I applied and was interviewed for that specific post

1:18:09 > 1:18:14because I wanted to lead in the process such as the measures

1:18:14 > 1:18:23highlighted in this bill and to contribute to securing positive

1:18:23 > 1:18:26change on the policy generally. On April 21 this year I received a

1:18:26 > 1:18:32letter from Justine Greening in her capacity as equalities minister,

1:18:32 > 1:18:37inviting me to join the commission. Within 24 hours the chair of the

1:18:37 > 1:18:43commission had rung to congratulate me. At no point did either of them

1:18:43 > 1:18:48mention the intention to abolish the position for which I had applied and

1:18:48 > 1:18:56been interviewed, at the position of disability Commissioner. This, my

1:18:56 > 1:19:01Lords, leads me to feel that I need to clarify what I told the House in

1:19:01 > 1:19:12good faith on June 29, Hansard 64, 65. Firstly, written answers to a

1:19:12 > 1:19:16number of Parliament's questions asked in the other place have since

1:19:16 > 1:19:20established that contrary to what I have been led to believe by the

1:19:20 > 1:19:23chair and deputy chair of the commission when they met with me on

1:19:23 > 1:19:28the 9th of May, the board of the commission had not already decided

1:19:28 > 1:19:33to abolish the position of disability Commissioner. The board

1:19:33 > 1:19:39only decided to do so on the 11th of May, two days after I had been told

1:19:39 > 1:19:45that the board's decision had already been taken, and two days

1:19:45 > 1:19:50after I had pleaded with the chair and deputy chair of the commission

1:19:50 > 1:19:56urge the board to reconsider. I now have evidence, and I thank a member

1:19:56 > 1:20:01of your Lordship's house for procuring misinformation, of

1:20:01 > 1:20:08deliberate concealment, that the was even discussed in the board's on men

1:20:08 > 1:20:14-- and minuted meeting on May 11. When I asked for the draft of the

1:20:14 > 1:20:17minutes there was reference to the fact that the unlimited meeting

1:20:17 > 1:20:26discussed the role of participants... The eventual

1:20:26 > 1:20:31sanitised version of the draft minutes instead states, in the

1:20:31 > 1:20:39premeeting session, the board had discussed advisory committee and the

1:20:39 > 1:20:44role of the chair. My Lords, I mention this one example because it

1:20:44 > 1:20:50is symptomatic of the commission's tendency to conceal and to

1:20:50 > 1:20:54misrepresent. Consistent with this approach, on October 25, the chair

1:20:54 > 1:20:59of the commission told the equalities select committee in the

1:20:59 > 1:21:07other place that he was sorry that I had decided not to engage with the

1:21:07 > 1:21:12commission. As I have since made clear to him in a 6-page letter,

1:21:12 > 1:21:16which I would be very happy to place in the library of the House should

1:21:16 > 1:21:22any member asked me to do so, nothing could be further from the

1:21:22 > 1:21:30truth. My Lords, I've touched on the commission's behaviour, which is

1:21:30 > 1:21:33shocking, however what has shocked me and indeed saddened me perhaps

1:21:33 > 1:21:38even more is the evidence which has come into my possession about the

1:21:38 > 1:21:46Government's involvement in this sorry situation. On June 29, on the

1:21:46 > 1:21:53floor of the House, I asked the Government not to get involved. I

1:21:53 > 1:22:00gave it the benefit of the doubt that it was not already involved.

1:22:00 > 1:22:06Today, I have to clarify my remarks of June 29, because the evidence

1:22:06 > 1:22:12that I have been given, and which I have shared with the Prime Minister,

1:22:12 > 1:22:22shows that the equalities minister was involved in the process that led

1:22:22 > 1:22:26to the Commissioner of the disability commission. I am

1:22:26 > 1:22:31referring to an e-mail of March 25 from the director of the body that

1:22:31 > 1:22:38my noble friend Lord Blencathra mentioned, the Government's

1:22:38 > 1:22:41equalities office, updating colleagues on the meeting between

1:22:41 > 1:22:47Justine Greening in her capacity as equalities minister, and the chair

1:22:47 > 1:22:51of the commission. The e-mail states that the chair of the commission

1:22:51 > 1:22:55told her that he had attended a meeting of the disability committee

1:22:55 > 1:23:03the previous day, and I quote, "They were anxious about there being no

1:23:03 > 1:23:13one in the disability commission involved currently the e-mail does

1:23:13 > 1:23:16not record the chair of the commission as saying that the

1:23:16 > 1:23:21commissions disability committee was urging him to press the abolition of

1:23:21 > 1:23:29the Commissioner role. Quite the opposite. The e-mail does retort

1:23:29 > 1:23:33that the equalities minister confirmed and again I put it the

1:23:33 > 1:23:41decision to appoint Lord Shinkwin. My Lords, barely a fortnight later

1:23:41 > 1:23:45after the chair of the commission had pressed the equalities minister

1:23:45 > 1:23:50for an announcement on the new disabilities Commissioner and

1:23:50 > 1:23:54learned that I was to be appointed, a decision I should stress that I

1:23:54 > 1:24:04was not aware of, a memo sent to Justine Greening, dated the 30th of

1:24:04 > 1:24:12April 2017 states it is now intended that Lord Shinkwin should be

1:24:12 > 1:24:18appointed as a general Commissioner. In other words, my Lords, the

1:24:18 > 1:24:25countdown to the abolition of of disability Commissioner had begun,

1:24:25 > 1:24:31and the equalities minister had effectively helped start the

1:24:31 > 1:24:37stopwatch towards its abolition. Sadly, the cynicism of the whole

1:24:37 > 1:24:45situation is underlined by the fact that another written answer, number

1:24:45 > 1:24:50478 in another place, has since revealed that the disability

1:24:50 > 1:24:55committee whose desire for and announcement of a new disability

1:24:55 > 1:25:01Commissioner, the chair of the commission had cited in his meeting

1:25:01 > 1:25:09with Justine Greening on the 28th of March that same disability committee

1:25:09 > 1:25:15was not even consulted about the abolition of the role of disability

1:25:15 > 1:25:19Commissioner. Y? The reason given was that the interim disability

1:25:19 > 1:25:23advisory committee was not constituted at the time the chair

1:25:23 > 1:25:30and commissioners but... So much for the commission at taking heed of

1:25:30 > 1:25:36what disabled people, indeed what its own disability committee,

1:25:36 > 1:25:47thought. Why not wait until the committee had been reconstituted?

1:25:47 > 1:25:50How else could the commission presented me and everyone else with

1:25:50 > 1:25:58a fatal complete as quickly as possible? My Lords, I should make

1:25:58 > 1:26:15clear at this point that none of this... Moreover I completely

1:26:15 > 1:26:19understand why the Prime Minister said in her message to me, I do hope

1:26:19 > 1:26:25that you are clear that the Government had no involvement in the

1:26:25 > 1:26:31EH RC's, the commission's decision to abolish the disability

1:26:31 > 1:26:38commissioner role. Of course the Prime Minister hopes that. I have

1:26:38 > 1:26:41told her in my reply that the evidence points in the other

1:26:41 > 1:26:47direction. I will not dance on the head of a pin here. The equalities

1:26:47 > 1:26:50minister did not take the actual decision to abolish the role because

1:26:50 > 1:26:55it was not in her power to do so, but all the evidence I have seen

1:26:55 > 1:26:59points to the fact that the equalities Minister Justine Greening

1:26:59 > 1:27:06was involved. Involved in the process that led to the abolition of

1:27:06 > 1:27:10the position of disabilities commissioner. I do not intend to

1:27:10 > 1:27:15detain the House for much longer but I think Noble Lords will want to

1:27:15 > 1:27:19know that in my reply to the Prime Minister on the 21st of November I

1:27:19 > 1:27:23also told her that I would like to be able to say in this debate today

1:27:23 > 1:27:30that I have received a written assurance from her that she was not

1:27:30 > 1:27:38made aware of the last-minute decision to seek the abolition of

1:27:38 > 1:27:44the role of disabilities commissioner made after my

1:27:44 > 1:27:50appointment, that she'd associate herself and the Government from the

1:27:50 > 1:27:57position of abolition and that she writes to the commission to urge

1:27:57 > 1:28:00them to reinstate the position of disabilities commissioner and to

1:28:00 > 1:28:05appoint me in that capacity, chair of the discipline a tree advisory

1:28:05 > 1:28:09committee, and allow me to lead it in the recruitment of new members to

1:28:09 > 1:28:17that committee. I'll so told her that if I had not received before

1:28:17 > 1:28:24today's debate such assurances and a copy of her letter to the

1:28:24 > 1:28:30commission, which I have not received, I would have to fight for

1:28:30 > 1:28:37the reinstatement of the position of disability commissioner from the

1:28:37 > 1:28:44crossbenchers. Today I am deferring my decision to give the Prime

1:28:44 > 1:28:54Minister, home I want to believe was not personally involved or even in

1:28:54 > 1:28:58fault by her equalities minister in the process, I am giving the Prime

1:28:58 > 1:29:08Minister the opportunity to stop this cover-up. My message to the

1:29:08 > 1:29:16Prime Minister today, with all due and sincere respect, as one

1:29:16 > 1:29:22conservative parliamentarian to another, is this. Please give me and

1:29:22 > 1:29:28please give parliament the assurances I seek and show us the

1:29:28 > 1:29:32evidence that the equalities Minister did not go behind my back,

1:29:32 > 1:29:38the backs of the UK's 11 million disabled people, the 800,000

1:29:38 > 1:29:43wheelchair users that my noble friend has mentioned, and, Prime

1:29:43 > 1:29:51Minister, behind your back. Please release all communications between

1:29:51 > 1:29:57the equalities office and the equalities Minister and the

1:29:57 > 1:30:04commission. And prove to me and Parliament that the equalities

1:30:04 > 1:30:16Minister did not commit to making the measures my noble light set out

1:30:16 > 1:30:21in his bills are much harder to achieve by helping to set in place

1:30:21 > 1:30:26the process to remove the position of disability commissioner. In

1:30:26 > 1:30:32conclusion, I say to the Prime Minister, I have shown you the

1:30:32 > 1:30:37evidence of the equality Minister's involvement. Please show me and

1:30:37 > 1:30:40Parliament evidence that the equalities Minister, as her role

1:30:40 > 1:30:47obliges her to do, did absolutely everything in her power to stand up

1:30:47 > 1:30:53for disabled people and to dissuade the chair of the commission from

1:30:53 > 1:30:57pushing for the abolition of disability commissioner role after

1:30:57 > 1:31:06he had been told that I was to be appointed. The burden of proof is

1:31:06 > 1:31:12now on the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister cannot count and

1:31:12 > 1:31:21evidence I have shared with both her and the House and provide the

1:31:21 > 1:31:26assurances I seek then I am afraid I can reach only one conclusion. The

1:31:26 > 1:31:32very fact that equalities minister allowed the position of disability

1:31:32 > 1:31:37commissioner to be abolished on this government's watch means that the

1:31:37 > 1:31:45equalities Minister has acted in flagrant dereliction of duty. To me

1:31:45 > 1:31:50as a disabled person, to all disabled people. The equalities

1:31:50 > 1:31:55Minister's position will therefore be untenable and she will have to

1:31:55 > 1:32:03resign. I finish with this question. What message does it send to the

1:32:03 > 1:32:14UK's 11 million disabled people, to the 800,000 wheelchair users that

1:32:14 > 1:32:19will benefit, and the parents of young children who will benefit, if

1:32:19 > 1:32:26a conservative equalities minister colludes in the abolition of the

1:32:26 > 1:32:33UK's disability Commissioner? I await the Prime Minister's

1:32:33 > 1:32:38considered response to my remarks in this debate. I will then decide

1:32:38 > 1:32:48whether I can continue to serve with integrity the party I love.My

1:32:48 > 1:32:54Lawrence, it is a privilege and humbling to follow the noble Lord. I

1:32:54 > 1:33:01am not in a position to comment on his disturbing speech. Others I'm

1:33:01 > 1:33:07sure we'll do that. It is humbling because it is a fact that until

1:33:07 > 1:33:12disability directly affects others or a close member of our family, we

1:33:12 > 1:33:18simply cannot understand the frustrations of everyday life for

1:33:18 > 1:33:25the disabled. I sometimes think that of all of us able-bodied people were

1:33:25 > 1:33:30confined to a wheelchair for just 12 hours, we would find it a revelation

1:33:30 > 1:33:37and not a pleasant one. That is why those of us who do not need a

1:33:37 > 1:33:42wheelchair have a responsibility to pursue this fight on behalf of those

1:33:42 > 1:33:52that do. My personal experience of the trials and tribulations that the

1:33:52 > 1:33:58noble Lord brilliantly outlined have been brought home to me by my

1:33:58 > 1:34:07daughter who in her early 30s has crippling arthritis, but also two

1:34:07 > 1:34:12lively young children. A challenging combination. Thanks to her mobility

1:34:12 > 1:34:18scooter, she is able to go to the park with her children, but

1:34:18 > 1:34:24invariably she cannot call shopping with them and even if she can, the

1:34:24 > 1:34:32Isles are often too narrow to take wheelchairs. Unless her husband is

1:34:32 > 1:34:39there to unload her chair or scooter, she is limited to places

1:34:39 > 1:34:52she can wheel herself to. If more shopping centres had chairs or

1:34:52 > 1:34:57scooters you could hire, disabled people would be less reliant and

1:34:57 > 1:35:02more self-sufficient and I think self-sufficiency is greater dignity,

1:35:02 > 1:35:10and greater dignity, may I suggest, is what the bill is all about. Every

1:35:10 > 1:35:15human being deserves as much human dignity as we can bestow upon them.

1:35:15 > 1:35:24May I digress just one moment from the intricacies of the steps? Once

1:35:24 > 1:35:30you are over the hurdle, the disabled, the heart appearing,

1:35:30 > 1:35:35visually impaired face other obstacles. In this chamber just

1:35:35 > 1:35:40recently, noble Lords have been abating not just equality but

1:35:40 > 1:35:46control. It might be useful for the Minister to pass on a comment I have

1:35:46 > 1:35:53received from a disabled group. There is a worry that because of the

1:35:53 > 1:35:57confidentiality of medical records, which is essential, but nevertheless

1:35:57 > 1:36:03there is a worry that common sense could be submerged, in a nutshell

1:36:03 > 1:36:08receptionists and doorkeepers might not be able to be properly informed

1:36:08 > 1:36:19of the needs of the disabled, the heart appearing and visually

1:36:19 > 1:36:23impaired, and the fact that someone who may sound inebriated has in fact

1:36:23 > 1:36:31had a stroke. These are extensions to the problems we are dealing with

1:36:31 > 1:36:39today. I entirely support the noble Lord and I think the Minister may

1:36:39 > 1:36:55need more than a ramp to overcome the determination of

1:37:00 > 1:37:05Lord Blencathra, the Select Committee and others.It gives me

1:37:05 > 1:37:20the opportunity to see unintended consequences. My noble friend's

1:37:20 > 1:37:23briefing before today and his introduction today I believe has

1:37:23 > 1:37:27demolished many if not all of the arguments deployed along the way to

1:37:27 > 1:37:39say that nothing more needs to order should be done -- or should be done.

1:37:39 > 1:37:47I pay tribute to the noble Baroness who spoke today and to her committee

1:37:47 > 1:37:53for its report. It makes clear the crucial point that for disabled

1:37:53 > 1:37:56people equality of opportunity to the extent that it is achievable

1:37:56 > 1:38:04often requires different treatment. Not the same treatment. Clearly,

1:38:04 > 1:38:09further work is needed in legislation to make accessibility a

1:38:09 > 1:38:14reality for wheelchair users. This bill shows us one way forward. As

1:38:14 > 1:38:24with so many private members' bills, it is not a perfect vehicle and some

1:38:24 > 1:38:37of its shortcomings have been recognised. He accepted if the bill

1:38:37 > 1:38:43proceeds, which I hope it may, there would need to be amendments. He has

1:38:43 > 1:38:50made generous offers about how those amendments might be secured,

1:38:50 > 1:38:55including inserting an order making power. It is not something we

1:38:55 > 1:39:00normally expect to hear from my noble friend to have further

1:39:00 > 1:39:06regulation. The fact that the drastic needs to be improved is not

1:39:06 > 1:39:10undermine the value of our debates today. It goes to the very heart of

1:39:10 > 1:39:14the question of attitudes, and what kind of society do we want in this

1:39:14 > 1:39:24country? The purpose of my noble friend's bill is indeed modest. He

1:39:24 > 1:39:28made it clear that he recognises the objective is to achieve access for

1:39:28 > 1:39:34wheelchair users at reasonable cost. Other noble Lords gave practical

1:39:34 > 1:39:40examples. It is not just the responsibility of central and local

1:39:40 > 1:39:43governments to make sure there is accessibility. We all have a role to

1:39:43 > 1:39:48play. I would like to give examples of that but make it clear that I did

1:39:48 > 1:39:55not say it is a private action that will take these matters forward.

1:39:55 > 1:40:06Sometimes legislation and further regulation is required.

1:40:06 > 1:40:09Those in business should be aware that it is not only the right thing

1:40:09 > 1:40:15to do to provide access but is also good business, too. Every year my

1:40:15 > 1:40:20husband and I go away with 11 of our friends who we have known for about

1:40:20 > 1:40:2550 years for a long weekend. So if a hotel isn't accessible for one of

1:40:25 > 1:40:31our friends, who uses his wheelchair, we don't stay there. If

1:40:31 > 1:40:36a pub is inaccessible, we don't eat there or drink there. So there are

1:40:36 > 1:40:44two customers, they lose their team permanently. But of course there are

1:40:44 > 1:40:49others. And as a matter of attitude is. There is so much business could

1:40:49 > 1:40:53do the costs hardly a thing and yet they don't. For example, why don't

1:40:53 > 1:40:58businesses make restaurant facilities at accessible in a simple

1:40:58 > 1:41:02way by providing grab rails? I am advised that if they do that than

1:41:02 > 1:41:07the great proportion of the 800,000 people who use wheelchairs could,

1:41:07 > 1:41:12with some difficulty, it's true, actually get access but basically

1:41:12 > 1:41:17don't make the effort. And why don't more businesses not only add access

1:41:17 > 1:41:21statements to their websites but at least make sure they are accurate so

1:41:21 > 1:41:25you don't have to spend half the time making Frankel after phone call

1:41:25 > 1:41:29and then arriving on finding it is not accessible after all. But my

1:41:29 > 1:41:34noble friend's bill, for me, raises another crucial issue and that is a

1:41:34 > 1:41:38duty to ensure wheelchair access for staff members, too, not just

1:41:38 > 1:41:44customers. Wheelchair users surely should have access as employees and

1:41:44 > 1:41:47public members. Why should their careers be curtailed because

1:41:47 > 1:41:50adaptations which are reasonable haven't been made? The businesses

1:41:50 > 1:41:55could be barring the best employees they never get to have. So

1:41:55 > 1:41:58individual pressure, of course, can have some effect but not always

1:41:58 > 1:42:03enough and my noble friend has pointed out, it has not been enough

1:42:03 > 1:42:07so far. So I would say that as we planned our path to leave the

1:42:07 > 1:42:10European Union, I think this is absolutely the right time to bring

1:42:10 > 1:42:19this bill forward. The EU withdrawal bill currently being considered

1:42:19 > 1:42:24another place will convert EU law into UK law, giving us all the

1:42:24 > 1:42:28certainty of rights and obligations won't be subject overnight change.

1:42:28 > 1:42:33In leaving the EU the UK will retain our current standards but surely

1:42:33 > 1:42:37that should only be the first move in the right direction. Surely we

1:42:37 > 1:42:43should then build upon and show that the UK tends to lead the world in

1:42:43 > 1:42:49making accessibility a reality. Brexit is not a time to make a dive

1:42:49 > 1:42:54to the bottom, it's a time to lead a race to the top. Whether we use

1:42:54 > 1:42:58wheelchairs or not, we do have the right to reach the same destination.

1:42:58 > 1:43:05I welcome my noble friend's bill.I rise to speak in support of the

1:43:05 > 1:43:11noble Lord Lord Blencathra's innocuous little bill and it is

1:43:11 > 1:43:14remarkable that every single person who has spoken in the debate so far

1:43:14 > 1:43:18is in favour of the bill and it does in fact raise the question of why

1:43:18 > 1:43:23the Government is so obstinate on this issue, when so many of us

1:43:23 > 1:43:28agree, particularly on the Government benches. I did speak to

1:43:28 > 1:43:31Lord Blencathra before this debate to explain that I had to catch a

1:43:31 > 1:43:35train at lunchtime and so I may have to leave before the summing up but

1:43:35 > 1:43:41everybody has been so concise but I think I can stay up till the end. He

1:43:41 > 1:43:44gave been his full pardon and forgiveness and I checked with the

1:43:44 > 1:43:47noble lady who was slightly less willing to give me have forgiveness

1:43:47 > 1:43:54but I think she was joking. I hope she was joking. I wanted to speak

1:43:54 > 1:43:59today, particularly not because I am disabled or anybody in my family is

1:43:59 > 1:44:02disabled. It is partly because I wanted to join in such a wonderful

1:44:02 > 1:44:08cross-party bill but also because, for me, it touches my sense of

1:44:08 > 1:44:14justice about what the world should look like and how we should include

1:44:14 > 1:44:18people, include absolutely everybody possible. It is not just wheelchair

1:44:18 > 1:44:23users, as many have said, who will benefit from this. Even I, and I

1:44:23 > 1:44:26consider myself still relatively healthy, will benefit when I have a

1:44:26 > 1:44:33heavy shopping trolley. I think that this will enable so many people, as

1:44:33 > 1:44:37our population ages, it is essential that we think ahead on issues like

1:44:37 > 1:44:42this to make it easy and possible for people to access every single

1:44:42 > 1:44:49building, every single home, and I also salute the noble Lord's

1:44:49 > 1:44:53intention of making things fully accessible. I think that is where we

1:44:53 > 1:45:00should be. I subscribe to the social model of disability, which is based

1:45:00 > 1:45:05on the view that society disables us, it is not us who are disabled

1:45:05 > 1:45:10but it is society who forces it on us if they don't make things easy.

1:45:10 > 1:45:18If we have to adapt society to achieve equality. Those of us in

1:45:18 > 1:45:25this House who see a six inch step as a small or negligible obstacle,

1:45:25 > 1:45:34we must not allow our good fortune to inhibit the possibility of those

1:45:34 > 1:45:41for whom it is a huge obstacle the possibility of making adjustments is

1:45:41 > 1:45:43inadequate. The Mercer said the current duty is quite a powerful one

1:45:43 > 1:45:48and should be used more effectively, rather than bring in new

1:45:48 > 1:45:50legislation, so fine but what does the Government propose to do about

1:45:50 > 1:45:57it? What is the Government bring into actually make it possible? I

1:45:57 > 1:46:03would like to commend Lord Blank Astra for his assistance in

1:46:03 > 1:46:08promoting this bill. -- Lord Blencathra. I think that Government

1:46:08 > 1:46:18hast to go away and consider this very deeply. I'm hoping for a change

1:46:18 > 1:46:22of heart and I'm hoping the government will do the deal in an

1:46:22 > 1:46:29open and transparent way that has been offered and make a statement

1:46:29 > 1:46:37about improving society.

1:46:41 > 1:46:46My lord, I must apologise to the House for not getting my name down

1:46:46 > 1:46:52and further taking up the time of your Lordships this morning but I

1:46:52 > 1:46:57did just want to speak in the gap to indicate my strong support to the

1:46:57 > 1:47:05noble Lord in bringing forward this bill. I meant to sign up but I was

1:47:05 > 1:47:07working hard on something else and I'm afraid I took my eye off the

1:47:07 > 1:47:15ball so I'm sorry about that but I would like to commend the noble Lord

1:47:15 > 1:47:20about his research on the excellent briefing he has provided for us. I

1:47:20 > 1:47:23hope the noble Lord would perhaps forgive me if I say that there is

1:47:23 > 1:47:30one thing I don't quite agree within his excellent briefing. Unless I've

1:47:30 > 1:47:34got it wrong, he says there is no legal requirement... At one point he

1:47:34 > 1:47:38says there is no legal requirement to remove steps and replace them

1:47:38 > 1:47:44with ramps and nobody is compelling businesses to carry out their duty

1:47:44 > 1:47:46to make reasonable adjustments. I agree with the second part of that

1:47:46 > 1:47:53more than the first. With respect to the noble Lord, there is a duty.

1:47:53 > 1:48:00Doesn't refer to steps as such but most of what my noble Lord wants to

1:48:00 > 1:48:05achieve is covered by a very reasonable adjustment duty as far as

1:48:05 > 1:48:11service providers are concerned. It is anticipatory, that is owed to

1:48:11 > 1:48:13disabled people generally. The service provider needs to make

1:48:13 > 1:48:19adjustments in anticipation of disabled people coming along, and

1:48:19 > 1:48:25cannot fulfil their duty by simply waited until a disabled person turns

1:48:25 > 1:48:30up. This is not the case for employers but that's not a problem

1:48:30 > 1:48:36because the noble Lord's bill is about service providers. There is a

1:48:36 > 1:48:43duty but with noble Baroness Lady Morrison Bolton who spoke earlier, I

1:48:43 > 1:48:49believe the real issue is with enforcement. This bill shouldn't be

1:48:49 > 1:48:53necessary. That should have been complied with already, widely, if

1:48:53 > 1:49:00not generally. I served on the national disability counsel, which

1:49:00 > 1:49:06advised the Government Ambi and lamentation of the disability

1:49:06 > 1:49:12discrimination act 1995, as soon as it came into force, and later on the

1:49:12 > 1:49:17disability rights commission, which had rather stronger powers. But one

1:49:17 > 1:49:20thing I do remember from those days is that when the DDA came in, there

1:49:20 > 1:49:30was guidance which said that it came in in three stages - the duty to

1:49:30 > 1:49:33remove policies, procedures and practices which discriminated

1:49:33 > 1:49:38against disabled people came in straightaway, the duty to provide

1:49:38 > 1:49:42auxiliary aids and services like hearing loops came in after former

1:49:42 > 1:49:50careers and the duty to remove physical features, remove or alter

1:49:50 > 1:49:54physical features, that is against disabled people was to come in in

1:49:54 > 1:50:01eight years. So the bill, so far as the removal of steps and provision

1:50:01 > 1:50:08of ramps, should have been fully implemented and complied with as

1:50:08 > 1:50:15long ago as 2003. So, as I say, there is a duty. The real issue is

1:50:15 > 1:50:22with enforcement. The noble Lord, in a very conciliatory part of his

1:50:22 > 1:50:28speech, indeed it was all conciliatory, said at committee he

1:50:28 > 1:50:33would be willing to do a deal with the Government over his bill if they

1:50:33 > 1:50:37would agree to bring in regulations that would give effect to the

1:50:37 > 1:50:42provisions of this bill. Well, I would like to suggest that the power

1:50:42 > 1:50:48to make these regulations is already there in the Equality Act. In

1:50:48 > 1:50:55section 22, it lists a number of matters on which regulations may be

1:50:55 > 1:51:01made and is mentioning three of them, regulations may be made on

1:51:01 > 1:51:08matters to be taken into account in deciding whether steps are

1:51:08 > 1:51:11reasonable - that is steps in the sense of actions that service riders

1:51:11 > 1:51:19have to take, not physical steps. So regulations make provision for

1:51:19 > 1:51:24matters to be taken into account in deciding what steps are reasonable.

1:51:24 > 1:51:29Things which are not to be treated as physical features and things

1:51:29 > 1:51:36which are or are not to be treated as alterations of physical features.

1:51:36 > 1:51:40If the Government word to use this regulation making power, I don't

1:51:40 > 1:51:45pretend that it would necessarily be a magic bullet but I would suggest,

1:51:45 > 1:51:50my lords, and I would suggest to the Minister, and I would like to have

1:51:50 > 1:51:54her view on this, that if the government would give serious

1:51:54 > 1:51:58consideration to making such regulations, it would take is a

1:51:58 > 1:52:04significant step closer to getting service provider compliance with

1:52:04 > 1:52:10their duties under the act and with the duty that this bill is seeking

1:52:10 > 1:52:20to lay on them.Once again, I'm very happy to support this bill. It makes

1:52:20 > 1:52:25me smile that the noble Lord is introducing a Private Members' Bill

1:52:25 > 1:52:31when his job at one time was to shout "Object" to every such bill in

1:52:31 > 1:52:40the other place. It is also very welcome that so many more

1:52:40 > 1:52:48non-disabled peers are here to support the bill. Perhaps one way or

1:52:48 > 1:52:54another this means that the time is now right that we can really make

1:52:54 > 1:53:01some progress. As has been said by nearly every speaker, what is simply

1:53:01 > 1:53:12not recognised in general is that there is no one body or no one

1:53:12 > 1:53:21person actively in charge of policing access to public buildings.

1:53:21 > 1:53:27I wonder whether it is only when shopkeepers believe that they have

1:53:27 > 1:53:35to do something is when they are told by someone in authority that

1:53:35 > 1:53:40they have to do it. If not, they don't. Firmly enough, a lot of

1:53:40 > 1:53:44people have heard of the DDA but because it is never talked about,

1:53:44 > 1:53:49because it has been subsumed into the Equality Act, they don't think

1:53:49 > 1:53:57it matters any more. Since the summer, I've had the pleasure of

1:53:57 > 1:54:02living in a hotel room on Westminster bridge road in the

1:54:02 > 1:54:08Waterloo area. I have since rather fallen in love with this part of

1:54:08 > 1:54:13London, with its wonderfully old-fashioned feel and it's a

1:54:13 > 1:54:21surprisingly vibrant community. One of the streets is called Yellow

1:54:21 > 1:54:30Marsh, which has much in common with another place but is not quite so

1:54:30 > 1:54:38well healed, in the way of a street market and little shops. But sadly,

1:54:38 > 1:54:48most of the shops are up a little step or two so it is an accessible

1:54:48 > 1:55:01for those of us on wheels and there are exceptions.

1:55:01 > 1:55:04As far as I can see, nothing has changed for the better since the

1:55:04 > 1:55:12last debate on this bill. I wonder if the Government appointed shopping

1:55:12 > 1:55:15champions. Unless they actually make a difference, there is not much

1:55:15 > 1:55:19point. Nor do I think that the Chambers of Commerce are much help

1:55:19 > 1:55:26in this. Why not? We need a concerted campaign. Shopkeepers need

1:55:26 > 1:55:35all the help they can get, whether from buying everything online. Why

1:55:35 > 1:55:38aren't the authorities helping them by trying to come up with solutions?

1:55:38 > 1:55:44I wonder whether there is explicit guidance anywhere about how a

1:55:44 > 1:55:51reasonable adjustment could be made to solve the problem of small steps

1:55:51 > 1:56:05up to small shops in the street with narrow pavements. We heard in our

1:56:05 > 1:56:12committee that no more guidance was needed on reasonable adjustments but

1:56:12 > 1:56:17we all thought it was wrong. I have been doing a little research into

1:56:17 > 1:56:22portable ramps which are better than nothing and can be put down to allow

1:56:22 > 1:56:30a wheeled vehicle in and out and then taken away. In some settings a

1:56:30 > 1:56:37permanent ramp is just not possible. Obviously a permanent ramp would be

1:56:37 > 1:56:44the best solution but might intrude too far onto the pavement. Local

1:56:44 > 1:56:49councillors should be able to get their council officials to help with

1:56:49 > 1:56:59this. I am informed there is much they can suggest and I will have

1:56:59 > 1:57:05another plant for the access organisation who can also help. As a

1:57:05 > 1:57:12temporary measure I say get the Chambers of Commerce or Mayers

1:57:12 > 1:57:17officers to put some money into buying a stock of portable ramps if

1:57:17 > 1:57:20shopkeepers won't take action themselves. They could run an

1:57:20 > 1:57:27experiment of six months to see what the take-up was. A notice would be

1:57:27 > 1:57:31put on the shop window or door saying that a ramp was available,

1:57:31 > 1:57:40with a bell to push. As for listed buildings, Westminster Abbey has

1:57:40 > 1:57:48portable ramps for a vehicle users which works very well but our church

1:57:48 > 1:57:53Saint Margaret has a built-in ramp. We do not want aspirations from the

1:57:53 > 1:58:01Minister, we want action. I hope she will come up with a concrete plan. I

1:58:01 > 1:58:13choose my words deliberately.I would like to thank the noble Lord

1:58:13 > 1:58:18for bringing this bill before us today and to congratulate him on his

1:58:18 > 1:58:22persistence and determination to bring about step free access to all

1:58:22 > 1:58:28those people who use wheelchairs and also for the extensive and well

1:58:28 > 1:58:34informed briefings he has provided and I do thank the noble Lord for

1:58:34 > 1:58:39agreeing to meet with me this week which was most helpful. He makes a

1:58:39 > 1:58:45compelling case for action and he has much evidence on his side and I

1:58:45 > 1:58:52think examples are around the House today there was support for this

1:58:52 > 1:59:01bill, including our front bench of our free from edible Baroness is. --

1:59:01 > 1:59:14three formidable Baroness is.

1:59:15 > 1:59:24In February this year, the committee found that too often disabled people

1:59:24 > 1:59:28find their lives needlessly restricted by features of the built

1:59:28 > 1:59:35environment and many work voices and service premises are inaccessible.

1:59:35 > 1:59:40The committee believes that the Equality Act 2010 should in theory

1:59:40 > 1:59:44prevent inaccessible buildings and public spaces being created and

1:59:44 > 1:59:49endured, and they went on to say the burden of ensuring that are

1:59:49 > 1:59:52accessible environments are achieved falls to heavily at present on

1:59:52 > 2:00:00individual disabled people, and approach are we consider neither

2:00:00 > 2:00:06morally or practically sustainable. I think that says it all. Why should

2:00:06 > 2:00:12disabled people have to take this action by themselves? This is wrong.

2:00:12 > 2:00:20As Lord Blencathra said in 2014, and not enough is being done regarding

2:00:20 > 2:00:26enforcement of section 20 of the equalities act 2010. The women and

2:00:26 > 2:00:33equalities committee recommended that part of the building regulation

2:00:33 > 2:00:38based on a 60-year-old standard should be updated to ensure it is

2:00:38 > 2:00:42still relevant and adequately addresses access for disabled people

2:00:42 > 2:00:50today, adopting inclusive design approaches. It also recommended that

2:00:50 > 2:00:54changes to the licensing act 2003 to mandate local authority licensing

2:00:54 > 2:01:03officers to act on failure to make licensed premises accessible. The

2:01:03 > 2:01:08House of Lords Equality Act 2010 and the disabled committee which of the

2:01:08 > 2:01:26noble Baroness cheered found that evidence of programmes present in...

2:01:26 > 2:01:33Shops, restaurants hospitals sports ground and other entertainment

2:01:33 > 2:01:40venues are failing to make reasonable adjustment and a lack of

2:01:40 > 2:01:47awareness about obligations. Over the course of the inquiry we have

2:01:47 > 2:01:53been struck by how disabled people are let down across a whole spectrum

2:01:53 > 2:01:58of life and access to public buildings remains an unnecessary

2:01:58 > 2:02:04challenge to disabled people. Public authorities can easily sidestep

2:02:04 > 2:02:14their legal obligations to disabled people. In Westminster Hall debate

2:02:14 > 2:02:18in February, when asked what the Government was doing to ensure

2:02:18 > 2:02:24compliance with the enforcement of the equalities act 2010, Marcus

2:02:24 > 2:02:27Jones, the Parliamentary undersecretary to the Department for

2:02:27 > 2:02:33Communities and Local Government, said the compliance with act was a

2:02:33 > 2:02:37legal duty and suggested that perhaps we must remind service

2:02:37 > 2:02:42providers it is duty not an option. If the Government acknowledges this

2:02:42 > 2:02:47then perhaps the Minister in her reply can say what action has been

2:02:47 > 2:02:54taken to remind service providers of their duty, and maybe that could go

2:02:54 > 2:03:01some way to ensuring enforcement. We had two committees in recent years

2:03:01 > 2:03:05holding enquiries into access for people with disabilities, and a

2:03:05 > 2:03:10debate in Westminster Hall in February and it is interesting to

2:03:10 > 2:03:14know that each said much needs to be done to improve the lives of people

2:03:14 > 2:03:23with disabilities. It seems in this country today it is OK to

2:03:23 > 2:03:27effectively bar around 800,000 people in wheelchairs from being

2:03:27 > 2:03:33able to enter many places we take for granted, such as shops, pubs and

2:03:33 > 2:03:42restaurants. How much does this curtail people from what should be a

2:03:42 > 2:03:46normal day out with friends and families because they are unable to

2:03:46 > 2:04:01enter a premises because of steps? Lord Shinkwin was talking about

2:04:01 > 2:04:05placing things in the library for members of the House of Lords to

2:04:05 > 2:04:18read and I would be pleased, and any other amendment he can offer. We

2:04:18 > 2:04:23would support this bill and I am happy to have further discussions

2:04:23 > 2:04:32with the Minister and Lord Blencathra and I hope we can work

2:04:32 > 2:04:35together and hopefully the Government will get some positive

2:04:35 > 2:04:45responses to this today.May I take the opportunity first to

2:04:45 > 2:04:53congratulate my noble friend Lord Blencathra for succeeding in getting

2:04:53 > 2:04:57his bill before the House for a second time. He is obviously well

2:04:57 > 2:05:02loved and very much agreed with. I would thank him for the opportunity

2:05:02 > 2:05:06it gives me to restate this government's commitment to

2:05:06 > 2:05:11protecting disabled people and improving their life choices and

2:05:11 > 2:05:16opportunities through the Equality Act 2010. It is now more than 20

2:05:16 > 2:05:21years since Parliament first enacted the duty on specified people to make

2:05:21 > 2:05:30a reasonable adjustment, a duty now enshrined in the equality act and

2:05:30 > 2:05:33remains a cornerstone of the protection offered to disabled

2:05:33 > 2:05:40people. It achieves the delicate balance of taking account of the

2:05:40 > 2:05:56rights of disabled people and what is reasonable to make an adjustment.

2:05:58 > 2:06:03There is also expectation that service providers should take a

2:06:03 > 2:06:06pro-active approach in considering what reasonable adjustments are

2:06:06 > 2:06:13needed, and not simply wait to be asked. However the legislation

2:06:13 > 2:06:19recognises the need to strike a fair balance and only requires a service

2:06:19 > 2:06:22provider to make adjustments that are reasonable in all circumstances

2:06:22 > 2:06:29of a particular case, as my noble friend pointed out. For example, the

2:06:29 > 2:06:33cost of making the adjustment would put the service provider out of

2:06:33 > 2:06:36business or would require them to break another part of the law such

2:06:36 > 2:06:42as rules on listed buildings, that clearly would not be reasonable. I

2:06:42 > 2:06:47should add that where a service pack is able to decline unreasonable

2:06:47 > 2:06:53requests, if an adjustment is reasonable then it must be made. An

2:06:53 > 2:07:03adjustment is either reasonable or it is not. Pat M of the building

2:07:03 > 2:07:12regulations pertaining to access and use of buildings provides access to

2:07:12 > 2:07:21wheelchair users. I hope this explanation of the existing duty

2:07:21 > 2:07:27will help the House appreciate that the Government believes the existing

2:07:27 > 2:07:31legislation is already comprehensive in this regard. We have every

2:07:31 > 2:07:36sympathy for the aims of the bill but there are a couple of areas I am

2:07:36 > 2:07:45concerned about and I will go through those. The bill would

2:07:45 > 2:07:48essentially remove the reasonableness filter and require

2:07:48 > 2:07:52service providers, without exception, to provide ramps for

2:07:52 > 2:07:58wheelchair users wherever there is a single step Western six inches in

2:07:58 > 2:08:12height in any public area. -- less than six. Secondly, the existing

2:08:12 > 2:08:17provisions in the act ad deliberately and carefully worded to

2:08:17 > 2:08:22allow for greater scope in considering how best to solve the

2:08:22 > 2:08:27particular problem experienced by the disabled person. My noble friend

2:08:27 > 2:08:32talked about at committee stage doing a deal with the Government

2:08:32 > 2:08:40with some sort of order making power and of course we will consider the

2:08:40 > 2:08:47bill carefully if he wishes to change it into a different forum but

2:08:47 > 2:08:58he will be aware of the Government's reservations which will result in

2:08:58 > 2:09:06numerous further calls to have remedies spelt out or further

2:09:06 > 2:09:12technical guidance. A one size fits all approach cannot address the many

2:09:12 > 2:09:19and varied needs of our citizens. The noble Lord of Dalton talked

2:09:19 > 2:09:28about regulating power in the act to increase compliance. I agree with

2:09:28 > 2:09:39the noble Lord's thoughtful speech and I have made clear we have been

2:09:39 > 2:09:42looking closely at enforcement and we will consider his advice

2:09:42 > 2:09:51carefully. The site committee on the Equality Act 2010, their impact on

2:09:51 > 2:09:57disabled people, found that despite the problems described with the

2:09:57 > 2:10:02statutory provisions and reasonable adjustment, the flexibility they

2:10:02 > 2:10:04provide is necessary for their effectiveness and the Government

2:10:04 > 2:10:09agrees on this point.

2:10:10 > 2:10:13When my noble friend's bill was last and this has much concern was

2:10:13 > 2:10:17expressed that it was all very well to reverse at mothers in the courts

2:10:17 > 2:10:23but their fundamental flaws to how the Equality Act is enforced,

2:10:23 > 2:10:27especially by disabled people. My lords, it is a fundamental principle

2:10:27 > 2:10:32of anti-discrimination law accepted by successive Governments since the

2:10:32 > 2:10:371960s that such law is enforced by the individual who thinks that they

2:10:37 > 2:10:41have suffered discrimination. There are good examples of disabled people

2:10:41 > 2:10:45enforcing the duty to make reasonable adjustment and noble

2:10:45 > 2:10:50Lords will have no doubt heard of the case of a man who successfully

2:10:50 > 2:10:55enforce the act on many occasions, whilst individual rights enforcement

2:10:55 > 2:10:59must remain, the Government has been looking carefully at whether

2:10:59 > 2:11:05enforcement of the Equality Act can be improved. The equality and human

2:11:05 > 2:11:10rights commission recently conducted a pilot scheme to increase access to

2:11:10 > 2:11:14justice for people experiencing disability discrimination. It

2:11:14 > 2:11:19offered disability groups more than £25,000 of legal assistance in over

2:11:19 > 2:11:25100 cases to direct routes for disabled people facing a range of

2:11:25 > 2:11:30problems. The commission is also increasing its legal capacity to

2:11:30 > 2:11:36advise on discrimination cases. The equality and advisory support

2:11:36 > 2:11:40service, the equality and human rights helpline, refers specific

2:11:40 > 2:11:46cases which have been raised to the EH RC for possible enforcement

2:11:46 > 2:11:51action and we can ensure that cases of the sort in which my noble

2:11:51 > 2:11:54friend's bill is concerned are included in those earmarked for the

2:11:54 > 2:12:01HRC referral. In addition, an manifesto earlier this year, we

2:12:01 > 2:12:06committed to strengthening equalities law so that private

2:12:06 > 2:12:10landlords and businesses who deny people a service are properly

2:12:10 > 2:12:14investigated and prosecuted and we are considering how best to take

2:12:14 > 2:12:20that forward. If I could now hone in on specific issues that noble Lords

2:12:20 > 2:12:28have raised, starting with my noble friend Lord Blencathra, he made the

2:12:28 > 2:12:32point that the equality Act does not provide adequately for disabled

2:12:32 > 2:12:41people who need differential treatment. My lords, the 2010 at his

2:12:41 > 2:12:45success -- 2010 act is specifically designed to help people achieve

2:12:45 > 2:12:51equality in three areas so it is not discrimination to treat disabled

2:12:51 > 2:13:11people more favourably... He made also the point that disabled

2:13:11 > 2:13:16charities are not allowed by law to help with enforcement proceedings.

2:13:16 > 2:13:20My lords, it says nothing in law to prevent disabled charities from

2:13:20 > 2:13:25assisting disabled people to enforce the equalities act, either

2:13:25 > 2:13:27financially or with practical support. It is true that charities

2:13:27 > 2:13:33cannot bring cases on a disabled person's be half but they can help

2:13:33 > 2:13:45the disabled person to bring them. The -- EH RC is helping charities to

2:13:45 > 2:13:51assist with cases as I mentioned earlier on. The noble lady lady

2:13:51 > 2:13:54Brinton brought a new case of accessibility to taxes before us and

2:13:54 > 2:14:00her story of the taxi driver who didn't realise he had a ramp in his

2:14:00 > 2:14:04boot... He has obviously never looked in his boot it up the

2:14:04 > 2:14:10outstanding provisions of sections 165 and 167 of the equality Act of

2:14:10 > 2:14:162010 were commenced in April 2017, ensuring that wheelchair users

2:14:16 > 2:14:18receive the assistance that they need when travelling in taxis and

2:14:18 > 2:14:25private hire vehicles designed as being wheelchair accessible, and she

2:14:25 > 2:14:30might remind the next taxi driver who needs to be reminded of that

2:14:30 > 2:14:34fact. The Equality Act powers mean that local licensing authorities may

2:14:34 > 2:14:41choose whether or not to publish a list of designated vehicles, and so

2:14:41 > 2:14:53the section 165 requirements... We have encouraged them to do this and

2:14:53 > 2:15:00will continue to do so. The noble lady also pointed out that the ramp

2:15:00 > 2:15:04will not necessarily help you to get into a shop. You may still not be

2:15:04 > 2:15:12able to use it, depending on the steepness of the slope, and I agree

2:15:12 > 2:15:16that there are many technical issues underlying the concerns that this

2:15:16 > 2:15:21bill is intended to address. For example, for 12 inch steps a ramp

2:15:21 > 2:15:28would need to be six metres long. We need to be very careful that we

2:15:28 > 2:15:33don't agree a new legislation which extends across whole sectors, only

2:15:33 > 2:15:40to find that this legislation into is not satisfactory due to the

2:15:40 > 2:15:45circumstances that it provides. The noble lord Lord Howell worth talked

2:15:45 > 2:15:52about disability should not have been included in the Equality Act of

2:15:52 > 2:15:592010 with other characteristics. I can only note that the committee

2:15:59 > 2:16:05chaired by global lady lady Deitch that both Houses of Parliament voted

2:16:05 > 2:16:09for full harmonisation of all protected characteristics at the

2:16:09 > 2:16:15time. The actor did, in fact, preserve and adds to the protection

2:16:15 > 2:16:20for disabled people which were already in the disability

2:16:20 > 2:16:24discrimination act. My noble friend Lord Holm is asked what steps the

2:16:24 > 2:16:31Government has been taking to address at accessibility issues. My

2:16:31 > 2:16:35lords, building regulations now require all building works to

2:16:35 > 2:16:40consider and allow access for everyone, including wheelchair

2:16:40 > 2:16:45users. All new build public buildings must make reasonable

2:16:45 > 2:16:54provision to be step three. Noble Lord Lord Shinkwin mentioned an

2:16:54 > 2:17:02issue that he is pursuing in regard to the EHRC and my right honourable

2:17:02 > 2:17:08friend in the other place. My lords, I can only restate without talking

2:17:08 > 2:17:11about individual cases that the roles and responsibilities given to

2:17:11 > 2:17:15board members of the equality and human rights commission are matters

2:17:15 > 2:17:20for the human rights commission itself and the Government has no

2:17:20 > 2:17:24power to reinstate the EHRC's disability commissioner role. The

2:17:24 > 2:17:31noble Lord Lord Hussain considers that, are we considering access to

2:17:31 > 2:17:36religious buildings? The building regulations do, of course, come with

2:17:36 > 2:17:42statutory guidance and this does include religious buildings, for

2:17:42 > 2:17:51example mosques and churches. New buildings of this kind must comply

2:17:51 > 2:17:57with guidance, independent standards such as the S3 800 on spaces between

2:17:57 > 2:18:02buildings for external spaces and the approach to the use of

2:18:02 > 2:18:07facilities in buildings. Noble lady lady Deitch talked about access to

2:18:07 > 2:18:12licensed premises. Licensed premises are places where many of us choose

2:18:12 > 2:18:17to socialise and our therefore an important part of our daily lives

2:18:17 > 2:18:21and to many of these venues are difficult for disabled people to

2:18:21 > 2:18:28access. I talked about the Conservative manifesto of 2017

2:18:28 > 2:18:33making a commitment to review disabled people's access and to

2:18:33 > 2:18:38amend regulations if necessary to improve disabled access to licensed

2:18:38 > 2:18:44premises, to parking and to housing. We will consult disabled people's

2:18:44 > 2:18:48organisations to understand better the extent of the problem from the

2:18:48 > 2:18:51perspective of those with a broad range of disabilities, their carers

2:18:51 > 2:18:56and their families, and will work with the national association of

2:18:56 > 2:19:01licensing enforcement officers who gave evidence to the Equality Act of

2:19:01 > 2:19:062010 at the disability committee on this matter. The representatives of

2:19:06 > 2:19:12the licensed trade to explore what practical measures can be taken. We

2:19:12 > 2:19:18hope that this will result in significant improvements for

2:19:18 > 2:19:22disabled people, without the need for additional regulations. However,

2:19:22 > 2:19:27we agree with the recent House of Lords committee report on the

2:19:27 > 2:19:31licensing act 2003 that adding to the licensing objective is not the

2:19:31 > 2:19:37answer. The 2003 act and the licensing objectives must be able to

2:19:37 > 2:19:45address issues that applied to the licensable activities and dog are

2:19:45 > 2:19:48unique to licensed premises. The 2003 at should not be used to

2:19:48 > 2:19:51control other aspects of licensed premises. This would be outside the

2:19:51 > 2:19:56scope of the Regina and the country to the principles of better

2:19:56 > 2:20:07regulation. The noble lady notes that the EHRC has gone backwards on

2:20:07 > 2:20:14disability and, my lords, as I have said before, the EHRC's disability

2:20:14 > 2:20:20committee came to an end by statutory order provided for under

2:20:20 > 2:20:30the equality act of 2006. The EH RC now has a disability advisory

2:20:30 > 2:20:33committee and is working extensively with the disability groups. I am

2:20:33 > 2:20:37sure that the chair of the EHRC would be happy to write to the noble

2:20:37 > 2:20:45lady about this. My noble friend Lady Henley of St John's and

2:20:45 > 2:20:51Baroness Jones... I would not have been cross had she left and I would

2:20:51 > 2:20:58have responded to her. But they made the point that the equality act of

2:20:58 > 2:21:012010 shows how legislation can be undermined by unintended

2:21:01 > 2:21:07consequences. I take note of my noble friend and noble lady and what

2:21:07 > 2:21:10they have said and I have talked about unintended consequences

2:21:10 > 2:21:18earlier on in my response, and we do need to be careful when we try and

2:21:18 > 2:21:25mend the unintended consequences of legislation by passing more

2:21:25 > 2:21:29legislation. My noble friend's speech also underlines the

2:21:29 > 2:21:33importance of effective enforcement of existing laws and it is this that

2:21:33 > 2:21:39the Government and the EHRC is now looking to improve. My noble friend

2:21:39 > 2:21:48also talked about wheelchair access for employees. As well as service

2:21:48 > 2:21:54users. The Equality Act already imposes a duty on employers to take

2:21:54 > 2:21:58reasonable adjustments for disabled employees and prospective employees

2:21:58 > 2:22:04and that would include making places of work wheelchair accessible

2:22:04 > 2:22:10whenever it is reasonable to do so. This duty is frequently enforced in

2:22:10 > 2:22:14the employment tribunal, not only in relation to wheelchairs but for

2:22:14 > 2:22:19other adjustments as well. Finally, my noble friend makes the point that

2:22:19 > 2:22:24Brexit is not an opportunity to race to the bottom. The Government has

2:22:24 > 2:22:28already made a commitment to retain all the protections in the Equality

2:22:28 > 2:22:35Act as we leave the EU, and we will have committed to table a government

2:22:35 > 2:22:40amendment before report stage of the EU withdrawal bill, whereby

2:22:40 > 2:22:45ministers bringing in Brexit related legislation will make statements on

2:22:45 > 2:22:50its consistency with the equality act and, my lords, I hope not

2:22:50 > 2:22:57positive note and ends, that I can ensure noble Lords of this

2:22:57 > 2:23:01government's continued commitment to protecting the rights of disabled

2:23:01 > 2:23:04people. Are concerns that this bill does not affect that and our belief

2:23:04 > 2:23:08that every disabled person has the right to have an adjustment made for

2:23:08 > 2:23:17them that is reasonable.I thank the 17 peers from all sides of this

2:23:17 > 2:23:21House who have participated in this important debate and I'm

2:23:21 > 2:23:24particularly grateful to those who are not wheelchair users and

2:23:24 > 2:23:29supporting the simply because they agree that there is a fundamental

2:23:29 > 2:23:32injustice which can be easily corrected. Noble Lords have many

2:23:32 > 2:23:35different points to make and I shall try to address them as quickly as I

2:23:35 > 2:23:41can but every single peer has spoken, apart from the government,

2:23:41 > 2:23:45making the point that wheelchair users have been disseminated against

2:23:45 > 2:23:49unfairly and it has to stop and my bill or something like it is a

2:23:49 > 2:23:53simple and cheap solution. It does not solve all the access problems

2:23:53 > 2:23:58but it tackles many of them. My noble friend the barrel is Amelie of

2:23:58 > 2:24:01St John's was right to emphasise the importance of post-legislative

2:24:01 > 2:24:07scrutiny as carried out by Baron speech and her committee. She did

2:24:07 > 2:24:10make the point that to be treated equally, disabled people need to be

2:24:10 > 2:24:18treated differently. I am very willing to amend the bill anyway so

2:24:18 > 2:24:22long as we can get access overs or doorsteps, whether it is six inches,

2:24:22 > 2:24:293.5 centimetres, I don't care. She mentioned employed people and their

2:24:29 > 2:24:32rights and that was covered quite extensively in the select

2:24:32 > 2:24:35committee's reported top I haven't covered it in my bill. She is right,

2:24:35 > 2:24:41I try and avoid cafes, restaurants, bars. If they can't let me in to be

2:24:41 > 2:24:44served there, I am not going to be served on the street. They can clear

2:24:44 > 2:24:50off. The noble Lord said if anybody was in a wheelchair for 12 hours

2:24:50 > 2:24:54they would have their eyes open. I remember when the noble lady

2:24:54 > 2:25:00Bakewell was introduced. A few weeks later, she broke her leg, stuck at a

2:25:00 > 2:25:02blast of a few weeks. She was appalled, she couldn't get around

2:25:02 > 2:25:05most of this House or parliament let alone all the other places in the

2:25:05 > 2:25:11high street. It is ironic that we can get into every part around

2:25:11 > 2:25:15London but we can't get into 20% of the shops and pubs around those

2:25:15 > 2:25:19parts.

2:25:19 > 2:25:26I pay tribute to my noble friend in the wonderful work is done to make

2:25:26 > 2:25:40sure that London black cabs are accessible. I would regret if Uber

2:25:40 > 2:25:44put black cabs out of business because they have no responsibility

2:25:44 > 2:25:54for providing accessible taxis. I carry a screwdriver because half of

2:25:54 > 2:26:03the drivers can't find the screwdriver to open the ramp. The

2:26:03 > 2:26:06bill would benefit up to 4 million people using pushchairs and problems

2:26:06 > 2:26:15as well. The noble lady did excellent work on the committee. I

2:26:15 > 2:26:21agree on guidance on the steepness of ramps. A few years ago I was in a

2:26:21 > 2:26:30hurry and I came out of the ramp and my chair went over backwards and

2:26:30 > 2:26:38cracked my head, which may explain some of my speeches afterwards. We

2:26:38 > 2:26:44need some guidance on the steepness of ramps. Some of us take risks that

2:26:44 > 2:26:50we are not supposed to. I commend the Institute of civil engineers. I

2:26:50 > 2:26:58sometimes use that ramp. I don't have to go in but I use it for fun.

2:26:58 > 2:27:05My noble friend of the baroness, I pay tribute again for chairing the

2:27:05 > 2:27:08Select Committee. The whole house and the Government should heed her

2:27:08 > 2:27:15wise words. The Government response to her committee's report was

2:27:15 > 2:27:26feeble. Disabled people are being let down across the piece. If the

2:27:26 > 2:27:30Government doesn't want to listen to me because I'm was highly biased,

2:27:30 > 2:27:36but a distinguished crossbencher she is not biased and the committee

2:27:36 > 2:27:45report was authoritative. She said there was a callous or ignorant

2:27:45 > 2:27:50denial of the rights of wheelchair users. I'm grateful for the support

2:27:50 > 2:28:00of baroness gal. It might be gay for middle-class wheelchair users like

2:28:00 > 2:28:12myself, we are articulate agitators but there are tens of thousands who

2:28:12 > 2:28:15are not like us and do not have the privilege of being able to make

2:28:15 > 2:28:22speeches like this and fight for it. I congratulate the noble Lord on his

2:28:22 > 2:28:28speech where he emphasised to the Select Committee point that the 2010

2:28:28 > 2:28:34act was a retrograde step for disabled people. It was well-meaning

2:28:34 > 2:28:39but had unintended consequences. He emphasised it is the little things

2:28:39 > 2:28:44that make life a misery. I understand I cannot get up the six

2:28:44 > 2:28:54steps to a place but I am annoyed I cannot get into a place next door

2:28:54 > 2:28:58that has a three inch step which could be easily removed. I thank the

2:28:58 > 2:29:04noble lady for her contribution and I appreciate a she has to leave any

2:29:04 > 2:29:08second. I told her I would prefer her to speak and go rather than not

2:29:08 > 2:29:16at all. She has no experience of a wheelchair but says it is a sense of

2:29:16 > 2:29:21justice that annoys her and that act is just not fair. What better

2:29:21 > 2:29:24justification for changing the law than to do it out of a sense of

2:29:24 > 2:29:29justice. And my noble friend Lord homes of Richmond. What a

2:29:29 > 2:29:35magnificent speech. He is the only person to win a record six gold

2:29:35 > 2:29:42medals in the Olympic games in one session. He has championed many

2:29:42 > 2:29:47worthy causes in this House and I am pleased he has championed my bill

2:29:47 > 2:29:51because it gives a more justification in thinking I must be

2:29:51 > 2:29:55on the right track because I consider his support significant. He

2:29:55 > 2:30:04is right that business would be busted if -- boosted if disabled

2:30:04 > 2:30:08people could get into shops. It makes you angry at times if you

2:30:08 > 2:30:14cannot get into a place you should easily be able to. The noble lady

2:30:14 > 2:30:18has tremendous experience and I hope the House will listen to the most

2:30:18 > 2:30:24female peer in this building because I think opinion counts. Solving a

2:30:24 > 2:30:30problem of a four inch step is easy. One shop can do it, the one mixed or

2:30:30 > 2:30:37hasn't thought about it. She stressed there is no cost to the

2:30:37 > 2:30:44Government of my bill. I thank baroness Meachen. I take point. I am