UK Parliament / Open data

Equality Bill [HL]

Proceeding contribution from Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 15 June 2005. It occurred during Debate on bills on Equality Bill [HL].
My Lords, this is one of those occasions on which you discover that all your remarks follow on from what has been already said, but I am afraid that I have to do so, not only because I normally take responsibility on behalf of this party for disability issues—I feel that shop steward’s rights must be asserted here—but because the Government will need a bit of encouragement to be as brave as they can about the Bill and to try not to get sidetracked on to all the little things going on around it. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who is not in his place—in such a long debate, it would be unreasonable to expect him to listen to all of it—performed a very reassuring function. He was the voice of reason but also the big bad wolf for everyone here: he said that the Bill is totally unreasonable and that it is imposing on people’s ground. The fact is that there would be no discrimination if people behaved in a fair, decent, reasonable and thoughtful manner. They do not. They have not. Through ignorance or, shall we say, a lack of effort, they do not move. So action, often positive action, as we say in other fields, must be taken for us to move forward. I have said on numerous occasions that the piecemeal way in which we have dealt with disability legislation needs to be brought together. It happened slowly; we tagged on; we found Bills. Other forms of discrimination have to be dealt with in the same way; we must pull these things together. I do not know about carts before horses; I came to the conclusion that we had an engine put in the back when it should have been put in the front. Perhaps four-wheel drive would be slightly more appropriate. My noble friend Lord Lester, having presented a Bill that would have done that a while ago may feel a little aggrieved, but he can be reassured by the fact that he casts a long shadow over this debate. While sitting comfortably inside that, I say that we must move forward and bring this to a coherent whole where all these strands can be used to support each other. Returning to my original area of experience—I would not say expertise—disability is not confined to one group, it extends to every group in society. The example that I was given in conversation with a few people before this debate was that of a woman from an ethnic minority who happens to be in a wheelchair. Where does she go to deal with any particular problem? She may well be discriminated against on all grounds. Throw religion in there, and one might feel like saluting the Government’s courage more than their wisdom when listening to this debate, but it must be dealt with. There must be somewhere we should all be able to go and figure out where the principal problem lies. Positive action is required in this field. The Government must take it on. Once again, I hope that they will get the Bill into place and get the full Equality Act to back it up as soon as possible. To turn briefly to the Bill in detail, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley—the senior shop steward in this department—said, but to go against my noble friend a bit, at least in spirit, we need the technical guidance provided by that committee. The simple reason is that the diversity of technical information required in disability is so much greater. It is not that it is more important; it is just that we will need that technical advice. For well over a decade, I have been officially dealing with that area, but I am constantly learning about new syndromes and problems that I did not know existed. It is very diverse. Also, technical activity that can be used to ameliorate those problems is changing all the time. I use the example of being a dyslexic. Voice-operated computing will potentially revolutionise the workplace for us. Other innovations are occurring, such as lighter, better wheelchairs. I could go on for ever. Given that degree of diversity and change, we will need that committee. It may have to change; it may become smaller; it may well have to continue as an advisory committee for the simple reason of the amount of information and the rate of change. I hope that the Government will ensure that there is no finite limit and make clear that five years is not the absolute maximum for which they expect the committee to be in place. Change it; make it smaller; or establish new lines of communication; but that flow of information is required. Having said that, I hope that the Bill is passed as soon as possible; improved where necessary; and that we can set up a more logical basis, bringing in the equality Act that will be needed. Let us hope that we can eventually say that we are just monitoring the situation and not campaigning in the areas of discrimination.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

672 c1265-6 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top