24/11/2017 House of Lords

The second reading of the Equality

Act 2010, disabled bail.

I beg to

move that will be now read a second

time. I have pleasure in moving this

to amend the Equality Act of 2010 to

grab it hundred thousand wheelchair

users access to 7000 jobs and public

buildings to which they are denied

access at the moment. The bill makes

the tiny addition to the 2010 act

costs business very little to

implement but would make a huge

difference to wheelchair users. Let

me assure you my bill does not touch

in any way be protected

characteristics of the Equality Act

2010 of age, gender, marriage and

civil partnership, pregnancy and

maternity, six and sexual

orientation. It is concerned only

with one aspect of disability,

namely for public buildings to make

reasonable adjustments so wheelchair

users can access them. My bill is

identical to one which received its

second reading in November 20 14th

but was rejected by the Government.

At that time, the Government could

say that I and the noble lord 's who

supported the bill were on our own

and had no evidence backing up our

case. Within one month of rejecting

my bill, the then Minister for

disabled people published a joint

Department for Work and Pensions

which had the headline, disabled

study shocked the Government with

evidence of inaccessible British

high street. The Minister of State

for disabled people is urging shops

and restaurants to improve the

accessibility. What a pity the

Government did not exactly a month

earlier when it dismissed my bill.

Since then, my lords, we have had

the authoritative Lords select

committee on the impact on the

disabled people of the Equality Act

2010. That was cheered by the noble

lady and my noble friend. I am

delighted to see her speaking today

along with other noble peers who

served in the committee. The

committee found there were severe

difficulties with the reasonable

adjustment provisions of the act. No

one was enforcing it. Disabled

people had to take cases to court

themselves in order to get access

improvements. The noble lady, the

Baroness Campbell, has asked me to

same it is easy to... It is

impossible in an electric chair. My

church weighs 90 kilograms alone. --

my child. We have the evidence of

the Department for Work and Pensions

own survey and we have the

overwhelming weight of evidence

given to the Lords select committee

and the committee's own conclusions.

What are the facts and figures? The

NHS estimates there are about

800,000 regular wheelchair users, by

regular the mean people who work

permanently in a wheelchair, and

those like me who can stagger around

a little bit, that figure is

supported by other organisations.

The number of public buildings in

the UK comprising shops, fast-food

outlets, restaurants and pubs is

about 350 5000. In addition, there

are post offices, banks, churches

and other buildings to which the

public have access. That the

Department of work and disabled go

study visited and assessed a massive

sample of 30,000 shops and

restaurants. Their findings were

that 20% did not have wheelchair

access. If wheelchair users did get

income of 30% of the places didn't

have disabled changing rooms are

toilets. If you extrapolate that 20%

of the 30,000 shops to be total of

355,000 public retail premises, you

get a figure of 71,000, that

wheelchair users cannot access. That

is a scandalous number in this day

and age. The Equality Act 2010 lists

nine characteristics all protected

against dissemination, including

disability. The act has replaced all

separate disability discrimination

legislation. It is an offence under

the act to feel to make reasonable

adjustments to premises so that

disabled persons are not

discriminated against. What is a

reasonable adjustment naturally

varies between the needs of

different disabilities, different

persons, buildings and

circumstances. It can only be

enforced by a person taking a

service provider to court to compel

that provider to make the

adjustments. The Lords select

committee found that most disabled

persons and disabled organisations

felt very strongly that disability

issues had suffered a retrograde

step in the 2010 Equality Act. All

potentially discriminating

characteristics were now being

treated equally. What is the problem

with equal treatment you may ask?

The committee pointed out that for

people with other characteristics

such as six, colour, sexuality,

ethnicity, the need to be treated

equally to avoid being discriminated

against. But for disabled people to

achieve equality, they needed

different treatment. That is an

absolutely crucial distinction which

was never considered when the 2010

act was passed. That is the

motivation behind the bill, to try

to get equality for wheelchair

users. Section 20 of the Equality

Act defines reasonable adjustments

as removing the physical feature in

question, altering it, providing a

reasonable means of avoiding it. If

a public building is the step of six

inches or less then a rather

suitable for wheelchairs has to be

provided. Every building has a step

of less than 12 inches a ramp has to

be provided. If rebuilding has more

than one step my bill does not

apply. The difference between the

six inch step and the 12 inch step

is revealed by my commencement

clause which states the requirement

to remove the step of six inches

comes into the effect and the

requirement to remove the step of 12

inches comments to effect a year

later. That is an acknowledgement

that removing or replacing a 12 inch

step is a slightly bigger

undertaking getting rid of rivers

and six inch step. My bill would

apply to England, Scotland and

Wales. In a nutshell, that is what

my bill does. If you will permit me,

I need to set out now by the

Government's quality office is

adamantly opposed to make it

specific adjustments and is opposed

to my bill, I will try and persuade

you whether they are wrong. I and

the select committee agree that

keeping the general principle of

reasonable adjustments are sensible

and I do not seek to a meant that

principle at all in the spell.

However, where we have clear

evidence that something is not

working in a select specific area of

the act, and after seven years

experience of the act, it is not

good enough for the GE goal line

that the principle of the act is

sacrosanct. On launching the report,

the chair, the Baroness said, we

have been struck by how disabled

people are a let down across the

whole spectrum of life. Access to

public buildings remains an

unnecessary challenge to disabled

people. When it comes to law

requiring reasonable adjustments to

prevent discrimination, we found

there are problems in almost every

part of society, from disabled

toilets and restaurants being used

for storage to reasonable adjustment

is simply not being made. They were

the only people giving evidence to

the select committee who thought

there was no problem. The

Government's equality head lawyer

said the concept of reasonable

adjustment is well understood

because of case law. She said we

found that as case law has developed

it becomes clearer and clearer for

people to understand what a

reasonable adjustment might be in a

certain cases. We think that has

been a successful development of

case law. But the vast amount of

evidence to the select committee was

that was not the case. A Government

lawyer specialising in this work

would lead herself to believe that

everyone follows the case law. The

report from the select committee, it

is worrying that evidence of

problems in maintaining this might

have emanated in almost every part

of society. We heard problems of

dealing reasonable climate, on

buses, trains, taxes, hospitals. We

were told of sports grounds and

other entertainment venues that

failed to make reasonable

adjustments. Witness after witness

told us that contrary to the

Government's view, the provisions

were neither well-known nor well

understood. Evidence to the

committee, there is a crucial

difference between, on the one hand,

I of the phrase reasonable

adjustments or the understanding

that a duty exists, and on the other

an understanding of what tragedy

The evidence suggested that even

when there was awareness, the

understanding. The evidence to the

Lords select committee and their

findings indicate that the duty to

make reasonable adjustments is

simply not happening. My bill one

change that duty but will provide

additional clarity. What about the

cost you may ask. Well, I did my own

survey of shops and cafes within

half a mile of this Parliament. I

looked at public retail buildings on

Victoria Street, the lovely little

stopping street, the vast majority

of the big chain stores and shops in

Victoria Street have level access

from the pavement or lip of a button

inch at most. New build shops,

nearly all have level access.

However in these three streets

within a few hundred yards of this

building, there were three premises

with multiple steps, there were two

with steps of less than 12 inches,

there were three with debts of less

than nine inches, there were 26 with

steps of less than six inches, and

28 with steps of less than three

inches. Implementing these six inch

rule, provision and my bill with

immediately, my Lords, make 54 of

the 62 shops accessible to

wheelchair users. That as an 87%

improvement. Now, I reference the

shops in the location because they

are right on the doorstep of

parliament but they are

representative of the 71,000 others

with the same lack of access in

every street in every town and city

of this country. Now the cost of

ramps, aluminium or fibreglass, to

access premises with the step of up

to six inches are generally less

than £100. A third of the

inexhaustible shops had a little

step of less than three inches,

which do not need a special wrap it

all, temp as of concrete to make a

little sleep. -- Rathfriland. We are

so steamed up against this, we could

see tens of thousands of buildings

where we could get into them with

less than £100 of investment and you

cannot get more reasonable

adjustments than that. Some of my

noble friend who may follow the

moment that you should be removing

steps of whatever height and I agree

that sooner rather than later we

should do that. But I do not what

cost to be used as another excuse

not to get as access to 87% of the

premises we cannot go into now when

the adjustment cost less than £100.

I accept that in a minority of cases

where the step is 12 inches and the

shop door is right on the pavement,

then a raptor not produce out onto

the pavement and not shop at half

two reason is the way back to bed

and that could cost possibly 2000,

£3000. Many retail premises have

recessed doorway, the step could be

replaced with a ramp. My Lords, if

we cannot get in, what do we do? A

Government response from the

dispatch box to my last bill was

they should first approached the

service provided to discuss why they

cannot get access to the service or

functioning questions and discuss

what adjustments they require. If

following discussion the service

provider fails or refuses to make a

reasonable adjustment, a disabled

person to take the custom elsewhere.

They may decide to bring a case of

alleged disability discrimination

before the courts. My Lords, but as

the Government equality offers

official response. Imagine you are

out shopping and you cannot get it.

How do we discuss the? Do we sit in

wheelchairs out of the pavement at

the shopkeeper to come out and

discuss it? If he decides to buy a

ramp next week, that does not help

very much when we are shopping

today. My Lords, disabled people are

told by the Government but if you

cannot be served, then just take

your business elsewhere. My Lords,

would they say that to a black

person or a gay person or anyone

else in a protected categories? I

hope to god they would not. The

select committee concluded that the

evidence of everyone, except the

geode witnesses, the select

committee concluded based on the

evidence, enforcement had failed.

They were highly critical that

disabled people had to go to court

to get access. The following

exchange took place during the

select committee enquiry. The head

of legal services and CEO said we

think it is most appropriate and it

is quite unusual and it gives them

is quite a lot of power in relation

to going to be caught and explaining

to the court what is reasonable for

because the decide. But the chair,

the noble lady, interrupted how are

going to take some want to go to

court? Surely you cannot expect a

disabled person to go through the

whole procedure to get that

determination, it is too late. The

lawyer replied, one would hope that

the employer or service would

provide it, would be aware of the

need to make sure they were taking

into account the issues for the

person before them and they should

be building it into the thinking of

how they are going to provide this

service. What a ridiculous answer,

my Lords. The reason be disabled

person has to take the service

provider to court in the first place

is because we've provider has failed

to do all the things that the

Government lawyer which totally but

they would be doing. It is quite an

incredible answer. My Lords,

although I cannot understand the

complacency of that answer, it was

exceeded by the deputy director of

equality framework of the Government

equalities office and giving

evidence during the same session.

The failure of enforcement said, you

need to listen to the parliament on

this to get the full flavour of it,

he said, clearly when the difficulty

comes, the nub of the issue is an

extremely difficult one is trying to

get some kind of handle an

enforcement at the very earliest

stage before in effect that has been

any kind of dispute and that is the

64 thousand dollar question and the

element that is invariably the most

difficult to solve. My Lords, I'm

not making this up. I do not have

the imagination four such an

extraordinary answer. When asked

what would be Government do about

the 800,000 wheelchair users who

cannot get into a public building

because the Equality Act is failing,

the official Government equalities

office and says, that is the 64

thousand dollar question. Well, my

Lords, my bill is the £100 answer to

that question. I am willing to do a

deal with the Government. I

acknowledge that the six inches and

12 inches are the true figures, we

would have different heights and

they would have to be in

centimetres. My knowledge that

businesses may need more time to

implement the change. If we get to

committee stage, I am willing to

fill it with specific details in my

bill, replace it with an order

making power for the Minister to

specify in legislation the access

requirement as outlined today. That

is the Government the chance to

correct any errors they may perceive

in my bill, in it also removes the

excuse to do nothing about this

problem. We are not just don't go

away and shop elsewhere. Passing my

bill or something like it will not

undermine the principle of

reasonable adjustments in the 2010

act. That would grant 800,000

wheelchair users access to about

60,000 of those 71,000 shops

currently inaccessible. Is it little

wonder the select committee

concluded that, great, Government

inaction is failing disabled people.

-- quote. The predecessor, like, she

is turning and attempt to do or she

can to help dizzy good people. She

has no power to change one,. I

commend what she's doing with

disabled champions, I commend the

city who she told me about which is

excellent disabled access, these are

all jolly good things. But we must

have an amendment to the law if we

are to get fair treatment for

disabled people now rather than in

the distant future. I anticipated

the Government will dismiss this

bill. That is why noble lord

tomorrow have tried, that is why I

have tried your patience is a bit

this morning, noble lord, by setting

out in detail why think the geode is

utterly wrong. Wheelchair users is

getting a run around and being

discriminated against multiple

times. We cannot get into buildings

in the first place, the Government

will not change the law to assist

us, disabled charities who would

like to help are not allowed by law

to help. My bill does not tackle the

problem of taxis and buses or the

failure of train platforms and

chains to give level access. It does

not demand Government expenditure,

no great private sector investment.

It is confined tackling one cross a

quality that could be fixed cheaply,

it can be fixed easily and it can be

fixed quickly and I beg to move the

bill and commended to the House.

The

question is that this bill now be

read a second time.

I rise to

support the noble lord. And his

splendid bill. I am embarrassed to

stand up at this point and said I

had in mind to add a few comments

right at the end of this debate,

just to show another voice of

support but I do want to applaud the

noble lord for his superb

presentation of the case. Really

truly outstanding with his usual

clarity, intellectual rigour and his

delightful sense of humour. I think

we all want to thank him for the

pleasure of listening to him. It

does seem very obvious to me that

those of us who are lucky enough to

be able to run up a step into a pub

or a shop, that includes the noble

lady the minister who I'm sure would

have no difficulty running up a step

into a shop or a pub, we do have a

duty,, it seems to me, every single

one of us, to ensure that those

people who are unlucky enough to be

locked out of so many of these

buildings do have the right of

access. I have to confess that I was

assuming that when the bill went

through Parliament, the

discrimination against disabled

people due to lack of access had

basically been dealt with and I was

shocked, I have to say, very

surprised that for 800,000 people,

wheelchair users, it is still a

very, very major problem to be

locked out of 71,000 shops, pubs and

restaurants because simply as a

little step. They really did come as

something I had not expected. Quite

clearly the requirement under the

2010 at four businesses to make

reasonable adjustments to enable

access disabled people is too vague,

it is simply not working. I think we

just need to applaud the Lord for

this very simple proposal to deal

with such a massive inhibition

relief are so many people. Clearly

the noble lord includes, sorry,

cleverly he and leads to clauses.

The second of which, it appears to

cover the first. When I read it I

had to reread it. I thought why

these two clauses? He distinguishes

between up to six inch steps, and

steps up to 12 inches. And he makes

very clear the significant

difference in cost between these two

levels, as he says, there could be

different levels of step that one is

talking about and I think these two

are quite interesting. The six inch

step of course can be sorted out in

a spend of £100. Thinking of smaller

businesses, it seems to me they

really would not have a problem with

that. So, why not is the big

question. If you're talking about 12

inch steps, you are really talking

about something much more

significant which certainly I for

one would not have thought about.

The cost of something like £3000 or

£5,000, I can certainly think of

small businesses who would really

struggle to cover the cost,

certainly in one year. So I think

there is an interesting point that.

There is absolutely no question that

we need greater access the

wheelchair users but I wonder

whether the noble lord with consider

it an appalling diminution of his

bill, in fact to limit it to the six

inch step if you like the smaller

demand. I was particularly struck by

the noble lord's personal research,

rather delightful, I thought,

looking at the three roads, and his

finding as he is mentioned that in

these streets, 87% of the steps

actually would be covered by the six

inch rule. He goes on to say that

all the evidence suggests that

actually throughout the country,

that 87% figure probably applies, I

find that reassuring because it you

can eliminate 87% of the problem,

maybe that would be worth doing and

there seems to be no Government

could surely refuse to do that. Why

would you? £100 for a business. Why

not? I think when you are talking

about the biggest band, that is an

issue. -- biggest band. There are

two possible approaches to this. One

would be to relieve small businesses

below a certain level of turnover

from the bill. Another, as I say,

but simply to be eliminate the 12

inch claws and have this bill to the

six inch provision. I hope the

Minister will be in a position to

support this bill at least the 87%

of it, if you like. I would hope,

and I'm sure everyone in this

chamber would hope that the whole

bill would be passed but I would

really implore the Minister to do

all she can with her colleagues to

support the bill.

I was lucky enough to serve in the

select committee for the Equality

Act and disabled people and I am

very grateful to the quotations that

you have provided. I look forward to

the contribution from the Baroness

and I am sure she will focus on the

detail of the work of that

committee. I have been a wheelchair

user for the last six years, I have

an electric wheelchair which is over

100 kilograms in weight. Many people

just say we will just left you in,

when I explain that they pale. It is

also why I say lifting the end is

not an option because under health

and safety you will damage yourself

and I don't want to be responsible

for that. I am grateful for the

suggestion to consider our real-life

experience over the last two to

three weeks. I was then binds

visiting family and I needed to get

into a pharmacy. And the first three

local pharmacies all had steps. None

of them had a bell, and one of them

had an enormous sign in the front

window saying, disabled, we are here

to help. How could I tell them? I

was asked to speak at two events in

a global market town -- ruble, one

had a step of under six inches and

the next one had a step of just

under 12 inches. The organisers had

phoned me and said they had just

discovered the steps, they went out

and bought one of the lightweight

Rance, and I got into the first

venue with absolutely no problem,

but the second venue was just too

high for the length of ramp they

had. Unfortunately, with a heavy

wheelchair, you just groaned at the

bottom and you can't get in. I have

immense sympathy for the principles

you outlined in your bill, but

they're definitely has to be

guidance about the angle and the

length of ramps because otherwise

people will buy rams, believe the

earth are filling their obligations,

but those of us in electrical

wheelchairs will find we still

cannot get into the building. I was

asked to speak at a university last

week and to had booked me in March

to launch a conference. On the

Monday before Facebook on the

Wednesday they rang to say we have

just discovered that there is a

stage and you are going to be on the

state except we don't have the

facility to get you onto the stage.

I didn't want to be the only speaker

not on the stage. So I said, go

away, find another solution. The

response came back that maintenance

have broken the lab and the not

prepared to appeared because the

building is going to vacated. They

found another lecture hall where all

the panel were on a level which was

fantastic. My other story which I

apologise for not being about a

building but illustrates a wider

point. I was picking up a cap around

the corner from zero, one of those

larger, not black cabs, but one that

has automatic opening doors, no

built in ramp. The driver went his

window down and said, I think my

rant is a bit small for you. I am

just pushing it out now. What he was

referring to was the automatic step,

not the ramp. I said, I think you

will find if you open the boot,

there is a ramp in the boot. He got

out, founded, it took him five

minutes to get it up because he had

never had to do it. For the last two

examples, one of my other concerns,

one that I do speak about a great

deal is training. It is about the

attitude of the organisation and the

training of people needing to use

the equipment. In those two last

cases it would have been resolved

simply by the driver who had clearly

rented the cap actually knowing his

way around the vehicle. That brings

me to a further point. I am going to

name and shame some organisations, W

H Smith is in my both name and shame

but also credit. You can get into

most WH Smith's workshops if you are

in a wheelchair, but unfortunately

they have a new policy of cramming

extra bits in the aisles, the

hanging baskets that you can pick

your crisps from, and that no means

in many W H Smith, especially in

tight places like stations, you

cannot get around the stall if you

are in a wheelchair. It may be

accessible to get in, but it

actually doesn't make me want to

visit it any more at all. The

response by the Government to the

select committee, I think many of us

when we read it were as open-mouthed

at some of the evidence we received

during the hearings of the

committee. I believe this is the

Government's stands still. It starts

by saying disability rights cannot

be delivered by regulation alone.

Forcing people to change their

behaviours will not change their

hearts and minds. Changing hearts

and minds will lead to better

attitudes, better access and better

outcomes for disabled people. Cannot

disagree with that. The Government

then goes on to say it is achieved

more by initiating conversations

between disabled people and the

public, private and voluntary sector

than by the instrument of

regulation. In paragraphs 15 and 16

they talk about the minister holding

a round table the leaders of the

hospitality industry, trade bodies

and disabled people, and then seeing

they would have provided an

accessibility top ten tips about

being associated with the British

hospitality. I have searched high

and low through the web and can find

no such launch to have happened.

That is quite odd conversations with

people with the best intent do not

change the culture. There are times

when regulation is needed, this is

now one of those. My Lords, I am

very aware that you have referred

past the bags of concrete resolving

the problem. There are some people

with disabilities, particularly

those with prosthetics, where a very

short ramp might make the building

inaccessible for someone with a

prosthetic limb. I am more than

happy to push the idea of ramps, but

we need to be careful we don't make

a building inaccessible for a

different group of people. I wanted

to name and shame, but I have said

in your lordship's house before, the

Institute of civil engineers around

the corner have a wonderful example

of how you can deal with a listed

building and access ability. They

have two sets of front steps, one

will be tracked and a lift, that you

picture wheelchair on and you move

easily into the building. Only the

civil engineers could develop

something like that! To doors down,

the mechanical engineers have done

the same thing. The last time I went

and I had to enter via an outside

still it to somebody else else's

conference room. I want to end on

two other examples very close to

your lordship's house. The county

Marriot over the road, it says it is

a listed building and it cannot make

any adjustments. An organisation I

am filled with stopped using them

for special events. They said they

had now changed. I was pleased to

hear that. I asked them to explain

what had changed. They said that you

still have to go round the corner to

the back, at any says electronic

doors had to be unblocked, you no

longer have to go through the sea

life centre, you can now go straight

through into the back of the hotel.

That is not good enough for 5-star

hotel. I want to end on a really

good example and an organisation

that trains start. The lingerie shop

Bravisimo I would like to nominate

them for the accessibility award for

high-street good access.

It gives me

great pleasure to support my noble

friend and his important private

members bills. I applaud his

tenacity and those other lords who

is beaten today in seeking to

improve access to public buildings

for wheelchair users. This duty to

take such steps is as reasonable to

remove physical features which

disadvantaged disabled people is

already enshrined in law but is not

being fully implemented should make

all of us pause for thought and ask

how we can ensure that this duty is

taken seriously. My Lords, when I

was 17 I broke my back in a riding

accident. I was lucky, after many

months I was able to walk again. But

not before being bedridden and

spending considerable time in a

wheelchair. My wheelchair wasn't

like the modern wheelchairs today.

It wasn't very grand, it was rented

from a charity, hospital Saturday,

although it made a huge difference

and I was grateful, it must have

been related to a supermarket

trolley because it certainly had a

mind of its own. On my first outing

my mother started to push me down a

hill and then panicked as she lost

control. I am just going to have to

let you go! She shouted. Luckily,

plan B in the shape of a hedge came

along and she simply rammed me into

that instead. But I remember vividly

even to this day the way she and I

struggled with the little things,

the Kurds, the steps. The things

that able-bodied people don't give a

second thought to. -- the kerbs. My

wheelchair didn't even have the

added problem of the weight of an

electric chair. Wheelchairs are a

marvellous things, they gives a

great freedom and independence. That

makes it all the more frustratingly

when you simply cannot get to where

you want to go. A couple of weeks

ago, I was flipping between channels

on the television when I came across

a repeat of the documentary of your

lordship's house, meet the Lords. My

immediate instinct was to change

channels. Except I saw it was the

rather moving part of the programme

where the film crew followed my

noble friend as he tried to find

different ways to steer his

wheelchair through this beautiful

palace to reach its destination. In

his bail, my noble friend isn't

asking for a monumental changes to

the access of public buildings, he

is simply seeking to find a way to

ensure the duty to make reasonable

adjustments to buildings to allow

access for those with a disability

is taken seriously. He has found a

sensible and practical way to

accomplish this. My Lords, I have no

one at my noble friend for many

years. I know that it goes against

the grain of his political DNA to

impose unnecessary costs and

regulations. Which is why my noble

friend's proposal in this bill are

modest and proportionate, and why

they deserve to be supported.

I

thank the noble lord for his opening

speech, which was a tour de force. I

now wish to repeat the catalogue of

facts and figures. I think the case

is compelling and I think that was

the view of your lordship's house in

response to the noble lord's opening

speech. When I was preparing for

this debate, I read the relevant

sections of the select committee

report on equality, the Equality Act

2010 and disability, I will not seek

to repeat many of the points in that

report, mainly to say it is a very

impressive piece of work. My

confession is at the time of its

publication last year it entirely

passed me by. That is my fault, I am

probably not alone in having failed

to appreciate the significance of

the Lord's report. It makes it

abundantly clear that the

overwhelming evidence received was

that the Equality Act had been a

retrograde stamp for disabled

people, who had been better served

by the disability discrimination act

and the previous separate disability

rights commission. This is actually

quite a shocking finding. One has to

suppose that it is one of those

examples of well intentioned

legislation having unforeseen

perverse consequences. It has become

plain. In the noble lord's briefing

notes for this debate and his

speech, it clearly highlights the

shortcomings of the act in relation

to disabled people and in particular

the failings of subsection nine in

the concept of reasonable

adjustments. Some people are born

with their disabilities, many others

become disabled due to accidents, or

through developing medical

conditions. In our extended family,

my wife's late brother-in-law, has a

progressively wasting illness which

has lasted over 25 years. His

mobility became reduced and he could

only get about in a wheelchair.

Others perhaps coming to a fourth

category, those of us who have come

close to being disabled but have got

away with it.

There but for the grace of God

category. I am one of those. I have

lived an active life as a

mountaineer and a climber and often

accepted that there were risks

involved in those sorts of sports

but a few years ago, not doing a

very high-risk activity, I broke my

back in an accident off the coast of

the Faroe Islands in rather choppy

and troubled seas. The Zodiac went

down hole in the sea and had a

standing wave and there was a

tremendous thump which broken

vertebrae in my back. At the time, I

was paralysed for a short period and

then there were weeks of recovery in

my back got progressively better.

But I had not realised how close I

had come until I was being

investigated for a completely

different condition with a series of

MRI and CT scans, relatively

recently, and the diagnosis was, we

haven't found what we were looking

for, you will be pleased to know,

but when did you break your back? At

that point, I realised that the

injury I had received had probably

been a lot more serious than I ever

have thought of it being at the

time. Perhaps now, because having a

strong sense of having had a close

brush with a disability and having

seen the obstacles to wheelchair

users through my late

brother-in-law's eyes, I am all the

more aware that it is not the big

obstacles to mobility which are the

cause of small daily miseries to

disabled people but the smaller

obstacles, the little steps, the

ability not to be able to get into

the dog and duck or the cafe or the

restaurant. Most disabled people

probably do not wish to climb Ben

Nevis. It is those other small

obstacles that this bill will

address. It is a modest measure and

will bring about greater

improvements in access to public

buildings and for a small amount of

expenditure. It accepts the

equalities act for all its

shortcomings is here to stay and

does not seek to amend that in any

way. Instead it strengthens section

nine in practical ways for the

benefit of disabled people and I

strongly support it.

I am delighted

to support my noble friend in the

second reading of this excellent,

well crafted and beautifully

straightforward bill. Often,

legislation is asking the Government

to take steps. In this case, that is

exactly the case. I ask my noble

friend of the Minister, if not this

step, what step to address this most

simple and straightforward of access

issues? On Black Friday, no matter

how bad the bustle and the crush is,

how much more black today is for

those of us, wheelchair users and

other access impaired, who can't

even access the stores to get to

those bargains. I was fortunate to

be on the board of the disability

rights commission in the early 2000s

when many of the best features of

the disability discrimination act

came into force, not least those

related to access to Goods and

Services Tax. We knew at the time

that this cuts across all of civic

society - retail, leisure, religion.

Tiny steps, effectively denying

people access to pay, to play or,

indeed, to pray. Many of the

arguments at the time of the passage

of the DDA bill and indeed when part

three came in in the early 2000s,

there were arguments - it will be

too expensive, we can't possibly do

this, businesses will fold. Well, as

we see almost a decade and a half

later, no businesses actually folded

as a result of the regulations and

legislation. And rather than seeing

it in those terms, why not just let

it the other way and see the

positive economic boost that

business can have by being

accessible to all members of

society? And I know this personally,

not as a wheelchair user but I've

experienced what it's like to be

denied access to supermarkets,

restaurants, minicabs. I went to a

restaurant a few years ago. The

proprietor actually stood at the

door to balmy entrance to the

restaurant. -- to bar me entrance.

He said in very straightforward

terms, "We don't serve dogs". I

said, "That's OK, I don't eat them".

LAUGHTER

But there is a fundamental point

behind this because when you

experience denial of access,

discrimination, you don't experience

it in a surreal brought way. You

feel it. -- in a cerebral way. You

feel it in your heart, in your guts.

To be denied fairness, no dignity,

no respect, no equality, just

exclusion. And this is the beauty of

my noble friend's bill. It is not

actually anything to do with steps,

it is actually just simply to do

with inclusion. Why wouldn't a

business, why wouldn't any building

wants to be inclusive for all

members of society? Imagine what

could be more simple than taking

this bill right through the Lords

and Commons and passing it and

enabling that conclusion right

across the United Kingdom - tens of

thousands of small steps removed,

enabling access, enabling economic

activity. My Lords, we're only

talking about the removal of small

steps. Actually, there is no only.

The removal of small steps, one

small step perk premises, one great

leap for inclusion.

My Lords, I

thank the noble Lord for bringing

this bill before your Lordships. The

noble Lord claim Catherine

epitomises someone who wants to be

as independent as possible. The

noble Lord has explained his bill so

clearly I cannot believe it will not

be accepted. Many people who have to

use wheelchairs also wish to be as

independent as possible. I am sure

they will be pleased if on their

behalf I wholeheartedly thank the

noble Lord for his continued efforts

on this important matter, which not

only would help thousands of

wheelchair users, it would help

their helpers and people using baby

pushchairs. Our society has changed

in the last few years. We have a

growing elderly population, many of

whom are using electric wheelchairs

due to strokes, Parkinson's, spinal

injury, arthritis, many neurological

conditions, as well as heart and

cancer problems. Also, many young

people suffer long-term conditions

such as cerebral palsy, muscular

dystrophy and other types of

disabilities, including spinal

injuries and brain injuries, from

accidents and tumours. My Lords, I

have to declare an interest. I have

always been a very active person. As

a child, I milked cows by hand and

rode ponies from an early age. At

school, I was keen on sport it up

when I broke my back and became

paralysed, I took part in

paraplegics bought and played table

tennis in many countries with the

Paralympics. -- paraplegic sport.

With sports and using my wheelchair

over many years has caused by body,

hand and shoulders, to get

overworked and it has taken its toll

and now I have to graduate to an

electric wheelchair. My Lords, I

know only too well that electric

wheelchairs cannot negotiate steps

and are too heavy to lift manually,

therefore ramps are essential. My

Lords, two weeks ago I was shopping

in Harrogate, using my electric

wheelchair. I wanted to go to

L'Occitane, a shop in James Street,

but found there was a two into step

which the electric wheelchair could

not negotiate. The person with me

went into the shop to see if they

had a ramp. Sorry, they said, no

ramp, but offered to help with by

helper, but no go. The electric

wheelchair was too heavy. My helper

then went to the next-door shop,

which had a similar step, but they

had a portable ramp so we asked if

we could borrow it to go into the

shop next door. Yes, we could, so

with the borrowed ramp, we entered

L'Occitane. The shop assistant was

most apologetic. I assured her it

was not her fault but the

responsibility of management. When I

told her about the noble Lord's

bill, she thought that was an

excellent idea. We returned the

borrowed portable ramp to Molton

Brown and I made a second purchase,

having to use the ramp. My Lords, it

is interesting to find two similar

shops next to each other, one

without a portable ramp and the

other with one. Is it that one

wishes to help disabled people and

the other one cannot be bothered? I

hope it is not that they do not want

people using wheelchairs in their

shop. I hope it is because of lack

of knowledge of how easy it is to

get portable ramps. My Lords, in my

small hometown of mass and in North

Yorkshire, there is only one

pharmacist. -- Masham. Nobody using

an electric wheelchair can enter and

people using manual wheelchairs or

walking frames could find it

difficult unaided. This pharmacist

just cannot be bothered, or thinks

there is no legal requirement. Ramps

are not only useful for people. They

are useful for wheeling heavy goods

in. Some people using wheelchairs

might want some private advice or to

purchase something private. They

wish to be self-sufficient. My

Lords, all pharmacies should have

access to everybody. My Lords, how

much more does the noble Lord have

to do to convince the Government

that his bill is necessary? This is

something that will not cost the

Government money. Many disabled

people have elderly carers,

struggling with steps and

wheelchairs may be the last straw.

When the obstacle could be removed

so easily with a ramp, it is really

frustrating. I hope this time the

bill will have a speedy journey

through both houses. I hope the

Minister can give your Lordships was

some good news today and I hope the

Government will listen to people who

have first-hand experience of steps

and ramps. But, my Lords, at a

recent reception at ten Downing St,

I noticed there were portable ramps

at the entrance and upstairs a

splendid lift with the steps that

disappeared and the list came out.

Very modern. My Lords, the

Government does know what is

necessary. Now is the time to help

the whole population be able enter

shops and places.

This modest abilities should be

supported throughout the House. My

only criticism is that it is too

modest. My only declare a bowl

interests developer. All houses

should be built without a front

steps to make them wheelchair

accessible. I have a great deal of

interest in a wheelchair

accessibility. I was the first

person to beat any planning

application for a large development

of 100% wheelchair accessible houses

with the private sector, rather than

social housing. This was the

suggestion of my late great friend.

He explained that using a wheelchair

cost him a fortune in the whiskey.

His friends could get into his

house, but he could get into

various. He was always the host.

This is for a gregarious chap like

bird was one of the many extra costs

of disability. As chief executive,

the maker of the London taxi, I need

all London black cabs wheelchair

accessible. We were designing a ramp

for a step greater than six inches

to access the cab. 16 inches high

rather than the six or 12 in this

bill. It was difficult but it was

done. Various people in my company

said we should sell the taxi with

this ramp as an optional extra. I

demanded this was standard equipment

and we should never disclosed the

extra cost of producing it. As the

noble Baroness has pointed out,

sometimes the level of training of

taxi drivers could be better.

Accessibility is now just a feature

of the taxi, nothing special,

standard equipment. The same ought

to be true of all shops and

buildings. My Lords, the thing we

learned however is that while access

for disabled people is very

important, we all spent time in a

wheelchair. It is normally called a

pushchair, or a baby buggy. We are

very lucky if it is only at the

beginning of our lives that we need

wheels. There are far more baby

buggies and wheelchairs in use. A

pushchair has a similar training

cycle to a wheelchair, and many of

the same access problems. Any ramp

which can be used by a disabled

person's wheelchair is excellent for

a pushchair. There must be vast

numbers of parents with parishioners

who are discouraged from going into

shops because of the task of having

to remove the child from their

pushchair, collapsing the pressure,

carrying it and the child up the

stairs and putting the child back in

the chair. And a very wise is the

symbol advice that sleeping baby 's

life. When we look at the positive

effects of my noble friend's

proposed bill, it is not only

disabled customers who will benefit,

but parents and children everywhere.

My Lords, the question should not

just be about the number of

wheelchair users who will benefit

and whether there are 1.2 million

part-time or 750,000 or 800,000

full-time users, we should also

consider the 3.9 million children

under the age of four who will

benefit. And very exhausted parents.

My Lords, I would therefore suggest

the Government supports this bill

with enthusiasm.

I stand to support

this bill and I support the Lord in

his efforts in this particular

subject. One or two things that I

would like to draw the attention of

the House too, to include places of

worship in the public places. I have

been to nearly all kind of places of

worship, churches, and masks, but in

particular I am referring to the

mosques, there are thousands of

mosques, big and small, in the

country. . Many of them are

converted from ordinary houses to

warehouses to listed buildings and

so forth. Some of them are of course

very modern and newly built

buildings who may comply with most

of the requirements. However, in

many of them, I may suggest, many

outside external access is not an

issue as much. However, as members

and noble lord would know, in most

of the mosques that I have noticed,

particularly the older buildings,

there is hardly any consideration

for them when it comes to using the

washing facilities. Wheelchair

access, visually impaired people, I

think I would suggest that before

the committee stage, to see how we

could include the mosques in the

public buildings, as I understand

that in nearly all of the mosques

are run on voluntary contributions

and we don't want to put too much of

a burden on them if the buildings

are so difficult to comply. However,

there is a dire need that we need to

include. It would be a good idea if

we had a meeting before the

committee stage and have an

amendment to cover this area. In

July 2016, shortly after having been

asked by Her Majesty the Queen to

form a new Government, my right

honourable friend the Prime Minister

said that it was her mission as

Prime Minister to make Britain a

country that works for everyone.

She

also said, and I quote, the

Government I lead will do everything

we can to give you more control over

your lives. My Lords, if I were to

ask, asked to propose one short bill

of building a country that works for

everyone and giving ordinary people

more control over their own lives, I

couldn't think of anything better

than the short bill which is

presently before your lordship's

House. This bill would at a stroke

give control over a large part of

their own lives to some 800,000 of

our fellow citizens, who through no

fault of their own but simply

because they are confined to

wheelchairs, are unable to enjoy the

full benefits of what this great

country of ours has two offer. But,

my Lords, this bill it goes very

much further than giving a better

life to do is confined to

wheelchairs, a point which my noble

friend and the noble Baroness has

already made. This bill, if it were

to become law, would also make life

is infinitely easier and better for

many others, for those who are

elderly and find it difficult and

dangerous to negotiate steps,

particularly in the dark, or in the

brain. For those with prams, pushed

shares, and baby buggies. And for

those like me who do the weekly

shopping with their shopping trolley

which by the end of the expedition

is usually overflowing with a heavy

mixture of boxes, bags, not to

mention loose vegetables and fruit.

These are some of the social

benefits of the bill. But this bill

also has a significant economic

benefit. I believe it could be seen

as primarily an economic bill as it

would make an important contribution

to achieving the Government's newest

economic objective, namely that of

improving our nation's productivity.

It would do this in two ways. Let me

explain. Although the digital

economy has made it possible for us

to shop for everything from food and

drinks to furniture and a major

electrical appliances, with no worse

physical effort than the click of a

mouse, it is still a physical effort

on the part of someone for our

purchases to be delivered to us.

Many of these purchases arrive in

packages which our ability, heavy or

both. The easiest and quickest way

of handing these packages is by

using a porter's trolley, or what I

understand this correctly knowing as

a hand truck. But manoeuvring hand

trucks upstairs, even a single six

inch step can be tricky and

dangerous. And with a heavy load it

requires a good deal of brute

strength. For this reason, delivery

companies are less inclined to use

hand trucks than they might

otherwise be. As a result, two

people are often employed to deliver

a van load of packages when the same

load could easily be delivered by

one person with a hand truck.

Although this bill refers only to

public buildings, it would clearly

make ramps and the use of hand

trucks much in common. Thus, it

would make the average cost of

delivering packages of all kinds,

including our online purchases, much

quicker and cheaper. And that is why

I say this bill when it becomes law

would make a significant

contribution to achieving the

Chancellor of the Exchequer's

objective of improving our national

productivity. There is at least one

other way which ramps would

contribute to improving our national

positivity. That is by reducing the

number of work days lost through

injury, particularly back injury.

According to the latest figures from

the Health and Safety Executive, 22%

of non-fatal injuries to employees

are incurred when lifting or

handling goods. I think that we can

be pretty confident this figure will

keep rising as the use of the

Digital economy becomes increasingly

widespread. And I don't think there

is any doubt that ramps and hand

trucks would significantly reduce

the number of workplace injuries due

to lifting and handling, and hence

the number of working days lost each

year. And that is not the whole

story in relation to workplace

injuries. I have no doubt there is a

further large number of workplace

injuries are attributable to

employees carrying packages and

failing to notice the existence of a

single shallow step between the

pavement and the entrance to the

building. Sadly, the Health and

Safety Executive figures I have seen

do not identify such accidents

separately, but I note from my own

experience that they are common and

sometimes those painful and very

embarrassing. It just occurred to me

that when one comes to think about

the economic benefits of this bill

it should have been introduced by

the Chancellor of the Exchequer

himself as a contribution to

achieving a faster growing economy,

rather than my noble friend as a

contribution to a fairer and more

compassionate society. Finally, I

support this bill because besides

all the practical advantages I have

mentioned, it has a strong moral

dimension. For me, it gives

practical form to a moral teaching

that goes back thousands of years to

be biblical injunction that one

should not place a stumbling block

before the blind. If a six inch

stone or concrete step in front of a

public building is not a stumbling

block for someone in a wheelchair, I

don't know what is. For these

reasons, both temporal and

spiritual, I urge the house to give

this bill is second reading and

urged the Government to support it

enthusiastically.

My Lords, I have

the privilege of cheering the 2016

select committee on the Equality Act

2010 and disability. We produced a

report a year and half ago. When I

say privilege I am not following the

normal courtesy of reference. I mean

it very literally. We heard and saw

and received written evidence of the

heartbreaking and often unnecessary

and I'm thinking obstacles faced by

disabled people in their everyday

lives. In doing things that the

majority take in their stride. We

admire the courage of our witnesses

and their ability to function in the

way they do. And to find the extra

energy to campaign on behalf of all

disabled people. And I salute the

noble lord and other noble lord who

are disabled, and I must single out

the noble lady Lady Campbell who

never stops campaigning. They do the

same. My Lords, this bill and the

report I referred to should not be

seen as a project for the 11 million

or so disabled people, most of whom

acquired disabilities after birds.

It is for all of us. For these

statistics show, as we live longer

in general we experienced a

disability in our last few years,

whether of sight, hearing or

mobility. As many noble lord will be

only too aware. This bill is not

about special pleading, it is about

making premises accessible, as the

entire population in the fullness of

time. I say to our sprightly young

ministers, your time will come, too.

Yet, the Government response so far

to the select committee report has

been ungenerous and disappointing.

The committee was careful to make

sure its recommendations did not

cost much. We established there is a

relevant law, but that

implementation and detailed guidance

is lacking, especially in transport

and access. This bill has my full

support, as it should have from

every right-thinking person. Not

only has the Government response

been unhelpful, the equality and

human rights commission seems to be

going backwards on this. The

statutory disability committee has

been replaced by the advisory

committee on disability, with no

similar powers. The noble lord has

been disappointed to discover that

when appointed as a commissioner, he

would not have a special

responsibility that seems so obvious

for him for disabled people and for

which he had hoped.

But the message to and from the

select committee was that disabled

people suffer from the rowing in of

disability as a protected

characteristic into all the other

such characteristics under the

quality at. Disabled people must

have equal treatment but to get to

the level playing field, they may

need an adjustment that is not

needed by others and access by ramp

is just one example. The cost of

putting the ramps will be more than

met by the increased custom in time.

Disabled people are let down, as

I've said before, across the whole

spectrum of life. Access to public

buildings is a fundamental right.

The removal of legal aid has made it

even harder and more costly for

individuals to challenge the

blockages to their rights and the

burden is on them alone for class

and proxy actions not allowed. It

has been proposed that local

authorities should have the power to

refuse to grant or renew the

licenses of premises such as

restaurants, pubs and clubs unless

access above. The House of Commons

women and equality is committee

supported a similar approach and

recommended changes to the licensing

act two... I and other experienced

noble lords put forward an amendment

to that effect last December. The

government opposed the amendment is

on the grounds that are duplicated

already existing law, which was not

in fact the case, and the opposition

decided not to vote on this

amendment for what they called

strategic reasons. One of the most

disillusioning events for me since I

entered this House. There is now a

chance to remove that blot on the

record of both parties and to show

the United Nations committee on the

rights of Persons with disabilities

that their critical report on the

UK's compliance with the treaties

has been listened to. We recall the

special pride and joy taken in our

Paralympic champions. That sentiment

should not be forgotten when

slightly less athletic disabled

people seek the nation's help. This

bill is the tiniest step in the

right direction. It has been said

that legislation should be slow to

place additional regulatory burdens

on business but, my Lords, this is a

zero sum game. The reduction of

regulatory burden on business means

an increase of the burden on a group

far less able to bear it, namely

disabled people. The Government may

well point to its accessibility

projects, for example the bill

environment professional education

project, but that has been handed

over to the construction industry

council and at best will only

influence future design, not make

adjustments to existing premises.

Likewise, the accessible Britain

challenge morphed into the

disability scheme. These words

disguise action not commensurate

with their town. It morphed into

another scheme, leaving a gap that

can only be filled with this bill.

The select committee referred to the

need of codes of practice and

specific guidance on the concept of

reasonable adjustments to disabled

people. Even if they are produced,

they will be owners of premises who

are unaware of them, or ignore them,

knowing they can get away with it.

My Lords, support for this bill is

essential to stop the callous denial

of accessibility for all of us and

any government that cares for

minorities or those who are not just

about managing must bring into it.

My Lords, it is an honour to follow

the noble Baroness. I commend her

and her committee for their

excellent reports on the equality

act 2010 on disability. I should

begin by declaring an interest, as a

member of the equality and human

rights committee. And as we are

discussing the duty to make

reasonable adjustments, I should

also tell the House that 20 or so

years ago I had life-saving

neurosurgery and I took three years

to learn. Again and I am still

trying to teach my body. And speak

more quickly but I would beg the

indulgence of the House today during

this debate if I don't speak as

quickly as I would like. I would

like to thank my noble friend Lord

Blencathra for the service he has

done for this House and disabled

people and society at large, as two

other noble Lords have made clear in

their contributions. In introducing

this bill and thereby giving the

government the opportunity to

demonstrate its commitment to

equality and to keeping the flame of

our landmark disability lights

registration alive. -- disability

rights legislation. This bill is

pragmatic, principled and practical

and I agree with everything that has

been said to. I'm just more sorry

than I can say that having myself

served on the national disability

council set up to apprise the

government on the implementation of

the DDA more than 20 years ago, your

Lordships' house is still debating

such a modest bill. My Lords, I want

to address my remarks to a matter

which is the human rights

commission. It was the profound

sense of frustration with the lack

of access by my noble friend's bill

that drove me to respond to an

advert for the specific postal

disability Commissioner on the

commission. I applied and was

interviewed for that specific post

because I wanted to lead in the

process such as the measures

highlighted in this bill and to

contribute to securing positive

change on the policy generally. On

April 21 this year I received a

letter from Justine Greening in her

capacity as equalities minister,

inviting me to join the commission.

Within 24 hours the chair of the

commission had rung to congratulate

me. At no point did either of them

mention the intention to abolish the

position for which I had applied and

been interviewed, at the position of

disability Commissioner. This, my

Lords, leads me to feel that I need

to clarify what I told the House in

good faith on June 29, Hansard 64,

65. Firstly, written answers to a

number of Parliament's questions

asked in the other place have since

established that contrary to what I

have been led to believe by the

chair and deputy chair of the

commission when they met with me on

the 9th of May, the board of the

commission had not already decided

to abolish the position of

disability Commissioner. The board

only decided to do so on the 11th of

May, two days after I had been told

that the board's decision had

already been taken, and two days

after I had pleaded with the chair

and deputy chair of the commission

urge the board to reconsider. I now

have evidence, and I thank a member

of your Lordship's house for

procuring misinformation, of

deliberate concealment, that the was

even discussed in the board's on men

-- and minuted meeting on May 11.

When I asked for the draft of the

minutes there was reference to the

fact that the unlimited meeting

discussed the role of

participants... The eventual

sanitised version of the draft

minutes instead states, in the

premeeting session, the board had

discussed advisory committee and the

role of the chair. My Lords, I

mention this one example because it

is symptomatic of the commission's

tendency to conceal and to

misrepresent. Consistent with this

approach, on October 25, the chair

of the commission told the

equalities select committee in the

other place that he was sorry that I

had decided not to engage with the

commission. As I have since made

clear to him in a 6-page letter,

which I would be very happy to place

in the library of the House should

any member asked me to do so,

nothing could be further from the

truth. My Lords, I've touched on the

commission's behaviour, which is

shocking, however what has shocked

me and indeed saddened me perhaps

even more is the evidence which has

come into my possession about the

Government's involvement in this

sorry situation. On June 29, on the

floor of the House, I asked the

Government not to get involved. I

gave it the benefit of the doubt

that it was not already involved.

Today, I have to clarify my remarks

of June 29, because the evidence

that I have been given, and which I

have shared with the Prime Minister,

shows that the equalities minister

was involved in the process that led

to the Commissioner of the

disability commission. I am

referring to an e-mail of March 25

from the director of the body that

my noble friend Lord Blencathra

mentioned, the Government's

equalities office, updating

colleagues on the meeting between

Justine Greening in her capacity as

equalities minister, and the chair

of the commission. The e-mail states

that the chair of the commission

told her that he had attended a

meeting of the disability committee

the previous day, and I quote, "They

were anxious about there being no

one in the disability commission

involved currently the e-mail does

not record the chair of the

commission as saying that the

commissions disability committee was

urging him to press the abolition of

the Commissioner role. Quite the

opposite. The e-mail does retort

that the equalities minister

confirmed and again I put it the

decision to appoint Lord Shinkwin.

My Lords, barely a fortnight later

after the chair of the commission

had pressed the equalities minister

for an announcement on the new

disabilities Commissioner and

learned that I was to be appointed,

a decision I should stress that I

was not aware of, a memo sent to

Justine Greening, dated the 30th of

April 2017 states it is now intended

that Lord Shinkwin should be

appointed as a general Commissioner.

In other words, my Lords, the

countdown to the abolition of of

disability Commissioner had begun,

and the equalities minister had

effectively helped start the

stopwatch towards its abolition.

Sadly, the cynicism of the whole

situation is underlined by the fact

that another written answer, number

478 in another place, has since

revealed that the disability

committee whose desire for and

announcement of a new disability

Commissioner, the chair of the

commission had cited in his meeting

with Justine Greening on the 28th of

March that same disability committee

was not even consulted about the

abolition of the role of disability

Commissioner. Y? The reason given

was that the interim disability

advisory committee was not

constituted at the time the chair

and commissioners but... So much for

the commission at taking heed of

what disabled people, indeed what

its own disability committee,

thought. Why not wait until the

committee had been reconstituted?

How else could the commission

presented me and everyone else with

a fatal complete as quickly as

possible? My Lords, I should make

clear at this point that none of

this... Moreover I completely

understand why the Prime Minister

said in her message to me, I do hope

that you are clear that the

Government had no involvement in the

EH RC's, the commission's decision

to abolish the disability

commissioner role. Of course the

Prime Minister hopes that. I have

told her in my reply that the

evidence points in the other

direction. I will not dance on the

head of a pin here. The equalities

minister did not take the actual

decision to abolish the role because

it was not in her power to do so,

but all the evidence I have seen

points to the fact that the

equalities Minister Justine Greening

was involved. Involved in the

process that led to the abolition of

the position of disabilities

commissioner. I do not intend to

detain the House for much longer but

I think Noble Lords will want to

know that in my reply to the Prime

Minister on the 21st of November I

also told her that I would like to

be able to say in this debate today

that I have received a written

assurance from her that she was not

made aware of the last-minute

decision to seek the abolition of

the role of disabilities

commissioner made after my

appointment, that she'd associate

herself and the Government from the

position of abolition and that she

writes to the commission to urge

them to reinstate the position of

disabilities commissioner and to

appoint me in that capacity, chair

of the discipline a tree advisory

committee, and allow me to lead it

in the recruitment of new members to

that committee. I'll so told her

that if I had not received before

today's debate such assurances and a

copy of her letter to the

commission, which I have not

received, I would have to fight for

the reinstatement of the position of

disability commissioner from the

crossbenchers. Today I am deferring

my decision to give the Prime

Minister, home I want to believe was

not personally involved or even in

fault by her equalities minister in

the process, I am giving the Prime

Minister the opportunity to stop

this cover-up. My message to the

Prime Minister today, with all due

and sincere respect, as one

conservative parliamentarian to

another, is this. Please give me and

please give parliament the

assurances I seek and show us the

evidence that the equalities

Minister did not go behind my back,

the backs of the UK's 11 million

disabled people, the 800,000

wheelchair users that my noble

friend has mentioned, and, Prime

Minister, behind your back. Please

release all communications between

the equalities office and the

equalities Minister and the

commission. And prove to me and

Parliament that the equalities

Minister did not commit to making

the measures my noble light set out

in his bills are much harder to

achieve by helping to set in place

the process to remove the position