What money is being made available to improve flood defences. [80342]

Following the comprehensive spending review, the Ministry is making £230 million of funding available over the next three years for flood defence and coast protection capital works. This represents an increase of £23 million over previous plans.

I welcome the Government's initiative in providing increased funding in this important area. Perhaps the Minister recalls his visit to my constituency and to Scratby and the California Cliffs area, where he witnessed the benefits provided by the extra money spent on coastal defence in that region. We will endeavour to extend that work further south this summer to Caister-on-Sea. Will the Minister outline the progress that is being made with the Bye report, which was commissioned after the Northampton floods last year?

I enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend's constituency. It was useful to see the coastal problems at first hand and to consider how the Ministry can work with local authorities to address them. I am pleased to report to the House that substantial progress has been made with the Bye report. We are on target in terms of the objectives agreed with the Environment Agency in relation to reviewing flood warning dissemination and flood risk planning.

Yesterday I had a constructive meeting with the Local Government Association, the Association of Drainage Authorities and the Environment Agency to agree high-level targets for achieving progress in reviewing flood defence procedures. Those targets were agreed, and we are on course to review flood defence and coastal protection provisions in this country.

I thank the Minister for the interest that he has shown in the recent flooding in the Derwent valley, particularly in Malton and Norton in my constituency. I thank the Minister for his visit to my area, which was much appreciated. He may be surprised to learn that another flood warning was issued last night—if this keeps up, we will be applying for fishing quotas.

On a serious note, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that many people were disappointed by his decision yesterday not to allow a public inquiry,even though I understand the reasons for that decision. Will the Minister confirm today that the integrated review that he has mentioned will take place and will provide a mechanism to deal independently, within the review process, with genuine concerns about drainage in the Derwent basin and allegations that flood defences were not maintained? Will some of the money that the Minister has announced to the House today be made available for strengthening flood defences in the Derwent valley region?

It was a useful meeting. I appreciated the assistance of the hon. Gentleman when I visited his constituency and talked to those who had been affected. I pay tribute to the emergency services, the local council and the Environment Agency, which worked around the clock dealing with the emergency at Malton and in other parts of the region.

I considered carefully the request for a public inquiry into the Malton floods, and I understand the reasonable points that the hon. Gentleman makes. The difficulty with public inquiries is that they deflect time and resources that could be used to rectify the problems. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are reviewing the national flood warning system. As to problems in Malton, if the hon. Gentleman considers it appropriate, I shall ensure that his constituents are able to feed through issues to the national review. If there are lessons to be learned from Malton and improvements to be made, they will be identified in the overall review.

I welcome the interest that the Minister has taken in flooding, particularly the Easter floods last year. He will be aware that the floods on Christmas day and on the day after Boxing day also affected many homes in Sileby in my constituency—after we were told that floods like those at Easter occurred only once every hundred years. I welcome the extra money, but the schemes proposed to alleviate future flooding problems will cost £4 million or £5 million.

Is the Minister aware of the problems faced by smaller local authorities such as Charnwood and Melton, which have yearly budgets of only £5 million? Will the Minister consider providing assistance to those authorities in Leicestershire in order to alleviate those recurring problems? Every time it rains, many residents fear that their houses will be flooded again.

My hon. Friend has been very active in this area on behalf of his constituents. Smaller local authorities face particular problems, especially where there are non-mains water courses and when different agencies have different responsibilities. I am prepared to look sympathetically at my hon. Friend's request regarding the overall strategy and the way in which we prioritise schemes.

If he will make a statement on the factors relating to the common fisheries policy which currently affect fishing opportunities in the Irish sea. [80343]

The Government will continue to press for improvements to the common fisheries policy to make it a more effective instrument for conserving fish stocks in the Irish sea and elsewhere.

Does the Minister agree that the Irish sea presents an opportunity for the creation of a new mechanism to help fishermen have more input into and control over their future opportunities? Will he consider setting up a fisheries forum for the Irish sea area, comprising Government and industry representatives from Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, to formulate a report on fishing possibilities and management in that area which could go to the Fisheries Council in December further to inform its decision making?

That is a very constructive suggestion. A number of regional committees have already been set up, and the Government are keen to develop them. There is merit in the concept of a forum to consider Irish sea management. Other member states traditionally have fishing interests in the Irish sea, and we must bear those in mind. Nevertheless, those are measures in which we can involve the fishing industry and develop a more regional dimension of fisheries management, which will be welcomed not only by the industry and by this country but by other European Union countries. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is certainly more rational than some of those made by Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome, as I do, the late conversion of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) to a more positive involvement in fisheries policy.

In developing a regional method of organising fisheries, will my hon. Friend consider using designated ports such as Fleetwood as regional centres for co-ordinating such a strategy, so that fishermen will have a genuine say in the development of fisheries policy?

I shall consider that. I know that my hon. Friend, her local authority, Associated British Ports and the local fishermen have been campaigning hard to make Fleetwood a centre of excellence for fishing port facilities in the Irish sea, and there are good arguments for doing so. On designated ports, fishing vessels have been landing at Liverpool, but it would surely be more logical for them to land at a dedicated fishing port where there are market and support facilities.

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Fleetwood has a great deal to offer the fishing industry and has certainly been progressive in the way that it has marketed and projected itself.

Welcome though the Minister's response might be in some respects, his position on fisheries policy would carry a little more credibility if he had not already made it clear that he is not even discussing a zonal plan with his opposite numbers in Europe. He believes that the industry should develop that plan.

Is not national control the key issue? The Conservative party has pledged to secure the return of national control, whereas the hon. Gentleman has pledged to ensure that control remains in Brussels. Does not he ever feel slightly ill at ease in having nailed his colours so firmly to the mast of common fisheries policy, with minor tinkering here and there, when that policy has failed on conservation and has failed this country?

The problem with the hon. Gentleman's comments is that we do not know exactly what the Conservative party means by a return of national control. We have no idea how the Conservatives intend to achieve it. To make any progress, they would need the support of the European Union, and their past record reveals that they made no progress whatever in getting the beef ban lifted or dealing with quota hoppers.

It is clear to us that some of our current problems, including charges in slaughterhouses, which were agreed under the previous Administration, and the ending of duty free, are due to the fact that the European Union took no notice of the Conservative party because of its negative, destructive and divided attitude to Europe. There is no possibility of the Conservatives achieving their policy unless they are prepared to say that they would leave the EU altogether, because that would be the consequence of their position. They ought to be honest and say where they stand on that point.

I remind my hon. Friend that a Conservative Government betrayed our fisheries and fishing communities in their eagerness to join the then European Economic Community. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has come up with a good idea for the management of Irish sea fisheries. I hope that the issue is dealt with at the Council of the Isles when it gets under way. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to manage those fishing stocks on a regional basis, with preferences for our local fishermen. Nomadic fishermen from France, Spain and elsewhere should be given the bum's rush.

My hon. Friend is quite right. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is a former fisheries Minister, which is why he has had no truck with the nonsense that we have just heard expressed from the Opposition Front Bench. What is being urged by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is just not achievable. However, there is certainly a strong case for reform of the common fisheries policy, and the right hon. Gentleman has made some sensible suggestions for doing that, as has my hon. Friend. Those are the sort of issues on which I think we can make progress. We certainly cannot make progress with a xenophobic position that would result in complete withdrawal from the European Union.

What steps he is taking to ensure that British farmers compete on even terms with countries that operate to lower food hygiene and animal welfare standards. [80344]

Food imports from third counties must meet the same or equivalent hygiene standards as food produced within the European Union. Common minimum EU welfare standards for farm animals come into effect at the end of this year. There is no animal welfare component to the World Trade Organisation agreements. WTO rules do not therefore allow discrimination against third country imports on animal welfare grounds.

So much for common minimum standards. After all the talk about animal welfare standards before the election, when will the Minister put his money where his mouth is and at least test the water by imposing a ban on the import of animal products that do not match up to the rigorous food hygiene and animal welfare standards that we demand and expect of farmers in this country?

There are already effective laws in place to protect British consumers on food hygiene and food safety issues. I cannot unilaterally introduce rules on animal welfare restrictions—

Why not?

Because it would be illegal to do so. We debated this matter at some length last night, when the point made by the hon. Gentleman was advanced from the Opposition Front Bench. The simple response is this: it is illegal to do as he asks.

While I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said, we have always had problems with imports from some third countries outside the European Union. Do we not have to find some way within the World Trade Organisation of taking steps to ensure that there are better welfare and hygiene standards in other countries from which we import via some EU member states?

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I have already said at the Council of Ministers, and repeated in last night's debate, that I am seeking an animal welfare component to the WTO rules as they apply to agriculture.

Can the Minister be more specific when he says that he is seeking an animal welfare component? Who is seeking that on behalf of the Government? Is it the right hon. Gentleman? Is the Chancellor backing the proposal? What active steps are the Government taking?

Will the Minister acknowledge that this is not only an outside-the-European-Union issue? We know for certain that there are standards in other member states that do not meet those that we apply to ourselves. We must be robust about this. I return, therefore, to the issue that I raised with the Minister last night. Rather than waiting for ever and a day for Europe to get its act together on labelling, could the Government not take pre-emptive action in a domestic context and be far more forward thinking on accurate labelling where animal welfare standards are concerned?

The farm assured scheme, which is in place, is a labelling scheme. There is a pigmeat welfare component to the scheme. I urge the House to get behind that scheme and to support it in the marketplace. That is where we shall get a premium for the United Kingdom pig industry.

The question of how to negotiate the welfare component to the WTO agreements is being discussed among Ministers at European Union level. Agriculture Ministers have already had one session on the issue. The Government are preparing their own stance. I shall have some input, as will other Ministers, particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that at the very time our major competitors are beginning to become increasingly interested in welfare and environmental standards—especially the Danes, the Dutch and the French—we would send just the wrong signal if we started lowering ours?

No one is advocating lowering the standards. Indeed, consumers are looking for proper information—not only about food standards, but about ethical methods of production—so that they can consume in a discerning way. People look for the animal welfare component in the marketplace. I think that they are right to do so, and the Government should stand their corner.

Government policy seems to be based on the proposition that if goods are of better quality and produced to higher welfare standards, British consumers will buy them. What assessment has been made to prove that proposition correct? Is it not a fact that people may buy on the basis of price rather than of quality?

At least in part because of the work that I have undertaken with the Meat and Livestock Commission, we have secured a premium for United Kingdom pigmeat, for example, in the marketplace. The prices are about 20 or 25 per cent. higher than the European Union average in the UK market at the moment, and it is up to all of us to work hard to ensure that we are able to maintain that price differential, which advantages producers. My effort is directed to getting the industry back to profitability so that producers can face the future with some certainty. I will be in Northern Ireland tomorrow and hope to have an opportunity to discuss those matters with Northern Ireland farm leaders.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a bit cheeky of the Tories to come into the Chamber and apparently show concern for food safety when their policies created, one after the other, the food scandals that lowered confidence in British food to such an extent that we cannot compete in our own country, never mind outside it? I congratulate him on the work that he is putting in to rebuild confidence in British food so that we in the United Kingdom can believe in it and, more important, so that we can again export it abroad.

The only way through those issues is to work in co-operation and partnership with our partners in the European Union. We have made substantial progress so far. There is much more to be done. I commend to the House the United Kingdom's policy of constructive engagement with our European partners, and absolutely reject the policies that were pursued by the previous Conservative Government.

Will the Minister give wholehearted support to any efforts made by the European Commission to block the payment by the French Government of illegal subsidies to French pig farmers who do not meet the same high animal welfare standards as British pig farmers observe?

The hon. Gentleman must give me his evidence of illegal payments by any other national Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, come on."] He is making the allegation, and it is incumbent on him to substantiate it. I invite him to give me his evidence; if it is hard evidence of illegal activities within the EU, I will take it up at once with the Commission. I cannot assert higher UK animal welfare standards where the EU has already legislated for its own common standards. The Commission will defend EU common standards, not higher standards asserted by the UK Parliament—under the Conservative Government.

If he will make a statement on his proposals for the reform of the food hygiene regulations. [80345]

We have made no proposals for reform of food hygiene regulations. The European Commission—this is a harmonised subject—is expected to make a comprehensive proposal later this year, consolidating existing European Union hygiene legislation. We are fully behind that initiative.

I welcome the Minister's commitment to toughening up food hygiene regulations. What contribution will the new Food Standards Agency make to improving the food hygiene regulations? Will my hon. Friend undertake to meet my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to explore the role that local authorities have in prosecuting those who breach the regulations?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about the proposed Food Standards Agency. Setting up the agency presents an opportunity for a full review of our own regulations to make sure that they are fair, practical, proportionate and not onerous, and that they underpin our prime public health objective of making sure that our food is safe. Nevertheless, we have the opportunity to consolidate 14 European Union directives in one to achieve better clarity in the regulations, which will be a great advantage. Prosecution policy is a matter for local authorities. We do not order them to prosecute; they have a duty, in policing the food system, to prosecute when they consider that to be the right course.

When considering the application to food hygiene of fair and proportionate regulations, will the Minister also consider the proposed cost of the Meat Hygiene Service? Will he take into account the position of a constituent of mine, Mr. Joseph Morris of South Kilworth, whose charges will rise fivefold and who will have to employ three inspectors to look after a work force of five? Will he also consider the position of Mr. Marcus Stevens of Ullesthorpe, whose charges will rise by 1,000 per cent.? What does the Minister intend to tell those people, who will be driven out of business? Will he please not blame the last Government? It may have escaped his notice that the present Government have been in power for two years.

I can only suggest that the hon. Gentleman give the advice that we suggested about a month ago, and tell his constituents to check the invoices. So far we have proposed no charges and consulted on no charges; no one has had an invoice involving a 1 per cent. increase, a 1,000 per cent. increase or any increase. At present the figures are pure guesstimates, and until the invoices arrive no one can be certain about the truth of the wild allegations made by the hon. Gentleman.

What assessment he has made of the level of enforcement and charging for meat inspection in other European Union countries. [80346]

Information on the level of veterinary inspections in meat plants in other member states was placed in the Library of the House in November last year. Similar information about meat inspection charges will be deposited shortly—and I can reveal that "shortly" means later today.

I welcome last night's announcement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about matters affecting inspection charges, and his announcement of an investigation of the dynamics of the abattoir industry; but is it not imperative for the Government to find hard evidence proving that other European Union countries are complying with the directives involved?

May I follow up a point that the Minister made to the Conservative spokesman about the provision of hard evidence? Does he accept the hard evidence—photographic evidence—that I showed Ministers last night, which proves that meat inspection standards simply are not being followed in other countries? Unless and until they are followed, it is grossly unfair for the British industry to go on being pilloried as it feels it is being pilloried now.

I saw the photographs, but I cannot comment on the details. What I can say is that the information that will be placed in the Library later today—which we have obtained from our own sources abroad, through the embassies—tends to show, in regard to Meat Hygiene Service inspections as with veterinary inspections, that the arrangements for most member states are in line with the relevant directive; but it is not possible to conclude from the information provided that all the rules are being followed. The information that we have obtained will, of course, be given to the European Commission.

Last night's announcement is particularly welcome to the farming community in Monmouthshire—especially to those in the small family abattoir in Raglan, run by Bill James, which I was invited to visit last year, where I was heavily lobbied and from which I felt mightily relieved to come away alive.

I think that, by and large, that was a thank you for my right hon. Friend's announcement. Obviously more decisions must be announced about veterinary and meat inspection charges. Last night's decision related exclusively to the proposal for special risk material charges, which we have said will not be levied or collected during the current financial year.

What the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said last night constituted a positive response to the representations of an industry that is under great pressure. Given the pressure that is being imposed on small and medium-sized abattoirs, will the Minister look again at the level of charges? It is spinning out of control, making small and medium-sized abattoirs uncompetitive. There is only one abattoir in my constituency—a large agricultural constituency—whose viability is now in question as a direct result of meat inspection charges. I urge the Minister to look again at the whole system.

Yes, we look at the system continually, so that Ministers can make considered decisions and announcements. We are duty bound to collect the charges incurred by the Meat Hygiene Service. I completely reject the contention that matters are out of control.

However, I take the point. There are not that many abattoirs in Wales, although what will be the largest abattoir in Europe is under construction there, so the situation is bound to change. We have not yet announced the proposed charges, on which we are duty bound to consult. We will do that as quickly as possible.

What steps his Department has taken to assist farmers to diversify their businesses. [80348]

Funding to encourage a wide range of agricultural activities, including farm diversification, is available in the six areas designated under the English objective 5b structural fund programmes. The Ministry has also produced a series of advisory booklets on diversification.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The work done under objective 5b is very welcome, especially in my area. However, changes in structural funding are on the way. I urge my hon. Friend to do everything in his power, when he talks to colleagues in both Whitehall and Europe, to make sure that the rural communities that rely so much on that help to diversify their business continue to get the assistance in the future. When objective 2 and the rural strand are under consideration, will he ensure that agricultural communities get their fair share of the money that is available?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Objective 5b has been a great success in supporting the rural economy, and in fostering partnership between the public and the private sector and between various rural organisations. I assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the need to take account of the needs of rural areas in the forthcoming changes to objective 2 funding.

In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister obtained a very good settlement in relation to the Rome agreement. It included objective 1 status for parts of this country, and safety nets for areas which, because of the changes, may lose their assisted area status. Regardless of the type of structural fund regime that is introduced, we want to ensure that it benefits as wide a rural area as possible.

Many sheep farmers in this country have diversified by developing their own export business. Last night, the Parliamentary Secretary repeated his view that live exports do not help sheep prices, yet in an answer on 5 March, the Minister of State said that

"it is likely that market prices would have been further depressed in the absence of competition from the live export trade."—[Official Report, 5 March 1999; Vol. 326,c.947.]

Who is right?

When my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I met the directors of Farmers Ferry, they accepted that live exports, by themselves, had not increased the price of lamb. That is a fact of life. Their argument was that such exports put a floor to the price of lamb, and that that had stopped the price falling further. That is somewhat different.

The Government would prefer meat exports to be exports of meat rather than of live animals. We want value to be added in this country. The export of live animals means that jobs in our meat industry are exported too. That does not benefit the rural economy. We want there to be a strong export trade, because we have a good product to export. However, we want the benefits to go back to the rural economy through added value. That is good for welfare and for rural jobs.

At a consultation meeting that I held recently in my constituency on the forthcoming rural White Paper, the overwhelming consensus was that more employment must be created in rural areas and that an important and desirable way to achieve that was to enable farmers to diversify into other businesses.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that would bring about a far more prosperous and sustainable countryside than the policies of the Conservative party, which are seemingly designed to freeze it in time?

I agree. There has been much diversification in rural areas, and it is the Government's policy to encourage and support it.

When the Government intend to respond to the report of the Food Standards Committee. [80349]

We are considering the Committee's report on the Food Standards Agency Bill and we will respond to it, in line with its request, before Second Reading—of course, I am not in a position to say on what date that will be.

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Will he join me in congratulating the Committee on having uncovered the fact that the levy will rise from £90 to £600 after three years? Does he accept the unanimous verdict of the Committee that the flat-rate levy is contrary to natural justice?

What will the Minister do to counter the lack of proportionality? The four major supermarkets, which have a joint turnover of £40 billion a year, will pay £1 million in levy while all the other retailers, bed-and-breakfasts, corner shops, voluntary organisations, schools and charities will pay £300 million. Is not that unfair?

On behalf of the Government, I am prepared to congratulate the Committee on producing a first-class report in a very short time. We find it of great assistance as part of the third stage of consultation on the Food Standards Agency.

The idea that the Committee uncovered anything is nonsense. The Committee asked me whether, if the Government collected all the costs of safeguarding food safety and food standards from the industry—and we have no intention of doing so—the levy would be not £90, but £600. The honest answer is yes, but as we propose to collect only £90, the taxpayer will pay the other £510 towards food safety surveillance and work. The idea that the industry is being asked to pay the majority of the cost is absolute nonsense.

We are consulting on the charge separately to the consultations on the draft Bill. We are actively looking at the alternatives that were put to us both before the consultation started and during the consultation. We have taken on board the views of the Select Committee on Agriculture. I cannot be more sincere than that. We seek an accommodation and a method of charging that is seen to be fair and acceptable to the industry and to the wider public.

Obviously the final part of the Minister's answer is welcome. I hope that all hon. Members will recognise that the Government are moving in response to what the Food Standards Committee has said, but may I ask the Minister to go a step further? Does he accept the major argument of the Committee that a flat-rate levy—a food poll tax just like the poll tax introduced by the Conservative party—is inappropriate, unfair and against natural justice?

Is the Minister prepared to say that that applies also to the proposed Meat Hygiene Service charges, which were also initially introduced by the previous Government? Again, it seems that a flat-rate levy is to be imposed, rather than one that relates to headage.

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Meat Hygiene Service. There is no comparison between the charging system for the Meat Hygiene Service and the proposed levy for the Food Standards Agency.

As I said to the Select Committee when I appeared before it over five hours, some new money must be raised, otherwise there will be no Food Standards Agency. The question is how we collect that extra money—it is currently estimated that the total required will be less than £50 million at £41 million—as cheaply and as practically as possible without creating an army of bureaucrats. The intention, as expressed in a separate consultation paper, is to use that money fairly for food safety.

I have made it clear to the Select Committee and to anyone who has asked outside that we are considering the alternatives and, as I have said, the Government considered such alternatives before we published our paper. I even offered my own alternatives. There is no magic solution to the issue. We have to find one that is fair and perceived to be fair and acceptable to the industry and to the wider public. We do not want to spoil what will be one of the Government's most popular policies for a ha'p'orth of tar on the Food Standards Agency's charging system.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the universal praise for the Government's decision to use the pre-legislative inquiry process on the FSA? As someone who is heavily involved in the other pre-legislative inquiry into the other FSA—the Financial Services Authority—may I say that such an approach to legislation, with high-level consultation and scrutiny of a Bill before it is considered in Standing Committee, is universally admired. It is the way in which legislation should be introduced. Such an approach will also ensure that the respective legislation receives much broader support across the food and financial services industries. Is it not the fact that, for years, the previous Government imposed bad legislation on us and that, now that we have introduced this new procedure, the Conservatives do not like it?

In my 25 years' experience in the House, any fair assessment of the quality of our past legislative output—using industry's techniques to measure quality of output and performance—would classify it as abysmal. We are trying to modernise the processes of creating laws, to ensure quality for the British people. A draft Bill, with draft notes on clauses, was considered not only by a special Select Committee but subject to regional consultation. That was the third stage of consultation on that Bill—publication of the James report was the first stage, and the White Paper was the second. We have also received more than 1,000 submissions on the Bill.

It would be preposterous to say that, having gone through that process, the Food Standards Agency will be a surprise to anyone in the United Kingdom. We intend to produce a quality organisation, to provide a quality service to the British people.

Does the Minister understand that if he is not able to announce before the Bill's Second Reading the scrapping of that monstrous flat-rate charge and explain what will replace it, the Government's consultation exercise will be exposed as a farce? That charge will inflict a massive blow on thousands of small businesses, and irreparable damage will be done to many rural communities, where the village shop is an absolute cornerstone of life.

I realise that the idea of charging registered food premises the sum of £ 1.73 a week is very onerous to many such businesses—[Interruption.] I am making a statement; perhaps, when I spell out the charge—£1.73 a week—it does not have the right ring about it. Nevertheless, as I have said more than once, we intend to make our proposals and to reply to the Food Standards Committee before the Bill's Second Reading.

If he will make a statement on progress with the establishment of a Food Standards Agency. [80351]

I obviously cannot be precise on the matter. However, we have received a large response to the public consultation, and shall introduce the Bill in this Session if time is available. Everyone understands the position that the Government are in, as we have made it absolutely clear. One of the reasons why we had a short consultation period, and why the special Select Committee had a short time to consider the Food Standards Agency Bill, is that—depending on progress in reform of the other place—we shall seek an early legislative slot, before the end of this Session, for the Bill's Second Reading and Royal Assent.

I welcome that answer, and tell my hon. Friend that many hon. Members are delighted at the way in which, in less than two years, the Government—the Ministry and the Department of Health—have worked to restore public confidence in food in the United Kingdom. However, may I ask him please to talk to his colleagues in Government, to ensure that the Bill is introduced as soon as possible so that that process may continue?

Yes. We have talked to colleagues in Government throughout the process, but, as I said in my initial answer, colleagues in the other place who are not part of the Government have the matter in their hands. We are dependent largely on the time that the other place takes to decide on its own reform. Nevertheless, as we have made it abundantly clear, progress on the matter is not being hindered because we lack a Bill. Since September 1997, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food no longer has total control over United Kingdom food standards and safety. The setting up of the Joint Food Standards and Safety Group was important, as it provided a unified management structure across two Departments—the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As time goes on, we will build on that development. The premises that the group will move into—as we announced in March— are being converted, so the practicalities of the work will progress.

Does the Minister understand that he would make rapid and consensual progress with the establishment of the Food Standards Agency if he abandoned his plans for the poll tax on food, to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has referred? I can take the Minister to village shops in my constituency which have already taken the decision to stop selling food. They make little money on it, and they fear a hike in charges. Does he understand the fear of farmers in my constituency who, perhaps, run bed-and-breakfasts, and farm food shops and attend farmers' markets, and who thus may be eligible not once, but three times for that charge? Does he understand that the progress of the Bill and the agency would be smoother if he abandoned the charging proposal?

I understand the hon. Gentlemen's points, and it would be quite ludicrous if market traders were charged more than one sum for visiting different markets. I openly accept that such issues have been raised during the consultation. Without the required extra money, there will be no Food Standards Agency. We still have to find a way of raising the sufficient sum, which will, as I have said, at maximum, be £50 million—our current estimate is about £41 million. I understand that progress on reaching a decision could be considerably improved, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), we will make our decisions known—particularly our views on the recommendations of the special Select Committee—before Second Reading so that the House is fully aware of the proposals.

What recent representations he has received about the efficiency of the CPS. [80373]

There is a continuing interest in the restructuring of the Crown Prosecution Service. The Attorney-General and I regularly receive inquiries from people—including hon. Members—about the service. The Glidewell report on the CPS made a number of recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency of the service. Additionally, the Government decided to restructure the CPS into 42 geographical areas to improve efficiency and accountability. The CPS is making good progress in considering and implementing the recommendations. Additionally, recently, the new 42 chief Crown prosecutors were appointed to take forward the changes.

Although I readily accept that there is much praise for the work of the Crown Prosecution Service from certain quarters, is the Solicitor-General aware that an increasing number of my constituents are complaining about the time that the CPS is taking to examine cases? In addition, there is no information as to how investigations are proceeding. Is the Solicitor-General prepared to say that when many of the cases are ultimately dropped, justice is being sacrificed because Her Majesty's Government simply are not putting enough money into the staffing of the bureaucracy that is necessary to deliver the services offered by the CPS?

On the whole, cases moves quickly through the CPS. However, the hon. Gentleman has a valid point in relation to the handling of victims and the relations of victims. Sir lain Glidewell made a specific recommendation about that—one of a handful of recommendations on which we have not yet reached a final decision. We have accepted the principle that the matter must be dealt with much more thoroughly.

The Government's paper "Speaking up for Justice" contains a number of recommendations about how victims, relatives of victims and witnesses should be better informed. The legislative aspects of that are being taken forward in the Access to Justice Bill.

The new chief Crown prosecutor for the Staffordshire office has introduced himself to me, and I look forward to meeting him to discuss the work of his office. Now that we have the aligned boundaries between the CPS and the police, can the Solicitor-General tell me what improvements in performance my constituents and I can expect?

All hon. Members should have received letters from chief Crown prosecutors in their area, and I would encourage them to make contact with them. CCPs now have greater autonomy in their areas. In addition, the areas are coterminous with the police authorities, so there should be more efficient operation of both the CPS and the police.

We, too, welcome the 42 new chief Crown prosecutors. Does the Solicitor-General recognise that the business of putting them in post has taken almost twice as long as was first announced in May 1997, when the Attorney-General came to office?

Is there not a further example of the sluggishness that affects so many Departments in what is happening with electronic mail? I saw successful e-mail pilots in Ipswich three years ago. The new strategic plan for the criminal justice system proudly mentions that Stockport is the first police force to have such a pilot and that it is hoped in due course to have pilots working between courts, the CPS and the police. As we had successful pilots so long ago, is not that yet another example of sluggishness, as opposed to the Government's hype? When will all CPS areas be in e-mail contact with their courts and police stations, which is not a very complicated matter?

We have been in power for less than two years. We have acted quickly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was in office for a long time. As soon as we took office we appointed Sir lain Glidewell to review the CPS. It was only proper that he should consider it carefully, and his report has been widely commended. We are now acting on it. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) a moment ago, a decision has been reached on all but a handful of the recommendations.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the use of electronic sources to further efficiency. That is being implemented. He has seen the operation of e-mail pilots in Stockport; I have seen it in Durham, and I know that it exists in other places as well.

What steps he is taking regarding the appointment of counsel to undertake civil law work for the Government. [80374]

Following the implementation of his new appointment procedures, in accordance with which the vacancies are widely advertised, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has recently appointed 48 junior counsel to the Crown C panel. An advertisement inviting applications for the London A and B panels was placed last month, and he will make new appointments to those panels in the summer. Appointments to the provincial panel are expected before the end of the year.

I declare an interest as a former practising barrister who is still a door tenant in chambers, although my duties in the House and to my constituents prevent my practising. Does my hon. and learned Friend recognise the advances that have been made in the legal world, and especially in the Bar outside London, in the past 15 years? Will he ensure that the new openness, which is extremely welcome, will be reflected in the appointment of more barristers to do Government legal work outside the Inns of Court and the hallowed Temple, who live perhaps more in the real world, in Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds?

It is a pity that my hon. Friend was not able to apply for a position on the panel. The new procedure attracted a large number of exceptionally good applicants, and we have made some very good appointment. It was important to open up the procedure and make it transparent.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the appointments of counsel in the provinces. As I said, we are in the process of advertising for that panel as well.

Can the Solicitor-General confirm that all appointments of counsel to undertake civil law work for the Government are determined strictly by market testing, overseen by officials, and that, beyond giving the formal seal of approval or imprimatur to the winners, there is no other ministerial involvement?

I can certainly give that assurance. The decisions were made by a panel appointed by the Attorney-General, but neither he nor I had any involvement in the process.

If he will ensure that debriefing sessions take place between the CPS and the barristers it instructs following acquittals where the pre-trial assessment by the CPS pointed to a high likelihood of conviction. [80376]

Such cases should always be considered carefully so that the reasons for the acquittal can be established. In some cases the reasons are clear. Where they are not, the Crown Prosecution Service is sympathetic to holding such meetings. The CPS routinely conducts an analysis of all acquittals in the Crown court. A report is prepared by the caseworker who has attended court with counsel, and the report is subsequently discussed with the police. In such circumstances, debriefing sessions with counsel are arranged in order to discuss the issues that have arisen.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer, but debriefing sessions should happen as a matter of course when a case comes to court and the police, the CPS and everyone else have a clear expectation that the jury will bring in a verdict of guilty. The Solicitor-General knows of the case of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, whose son Lee was killed in a road accident in Staffordshire in 1997. Seven young men were packed into a car that went whizzing down the motorway at 120 mph. The driver was inexplicably found not guilty by the jury. My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, cannot fathom why the CPS in Stafford did not hold a debriefing session with the prosecuting counsel. If that were done as a matter of course, it would inform research into why juries bring in the verdicts that they do.

I am aware of the very sad case to which my hon. Friend referred. Juries sometimes come to inexplicable conclusions, as anyone who has been involved with jury trials knows. That does not mean that the jury was wrong, or that it was wrong for the CPS to bring the case. It is simply the nature of the process. Juries can come to unexpected conclusions.

There is a good case for debriefing on a regular basis. The CPS has entered into discussions with the Bar Council about how that can be done routinely so as to provide key information to the people involved.

I support the comments of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), especially with regard to the quality of the prosecution barristers. A constituent of mine who was a witness in a case feels that she was ripped apart with irrelevant questions about her personal life when she was giving evidence against someone. She was not defended by the prosecution lawyer, and the case was subsequently lost. The quality of the people employed seems to be appalling. What does the Solicitor-General intend to do about it?

I am not aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If he writes to me, I shall look into it. The CPS receives reports of adverse performance by particular counsel, as a result of which such counsel might not be briefed in the future. Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) have raised a serious matter, and I shall look into it.

If he will make a statement on the cost of the intervention in the Hamilton v. Al Fayed case in the Court of Appeal on behalf of the House of Commons. [80377]

Treasury Counsel's fees and the costs of the Treasury Solicitors Department in that case came to a combined total of £13,451.

£13,000?

That did not involve any fee on my part.

We are grateful to the Solicitor-General for not having charged an additional fee for his appearance. Does he accept the verdict in the Court of Appeal? What steps are being taken to recover the wasted costs from Mr. Al Fayed, at whose suggestion that intervention was made?

We entered as a neutral party. That was accepted in the Court of Appeal decision. We were not taking sides on behalf of Mr. Hamilton or on behalf of the defendant. We were putting the important arguments raised with us by the House authorities on the parliamentary privilege point. The Court of Appeal accepted the important point that we made about the courts respecting the procedures of the House. You, Madam Speaker, were intimately concerned in this matter. At the end of the day we did not appeal because we thought that the Court of Appeal had got it right. It did not accept all our arguments—in particular our argument about the exclusive jurisdiction of the House over the conduct of Members. On the whole we were satisfied with the way in which the Court of Appeal said that the trial judge had been wrong about querying the procedures of the House.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

We can be proud that a Labour Government are introducing this historic and long-overdue measure, which will make a real difference both to disabled people and to the overall welfare of our society. The establishment of the Disability Rights Commission is a tribute to the tireless campaigning of countless members of voluntary organisations, as well as the campaigning of a number of distinguished Members of both Houses. We thank them for their efforts, which have now borne fruit.

Let me stress two important points. First, this is not a partisan measure, as I hope that it will command support in all quarters of the House. It is important to disabled people that it should do so, because if they are to benefit fully from its provisions they will need the widest possible consensus that their rights should be advanced, recognised and enforced.

Secondly, although the Bill and the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission represent an important step forward, they do not represent the whole journey. Not long after we took office, I announced a three-part strategy for disability rights: the implementation of the remaining parts of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the establishment of a disability rights task force and the creation of a Disability Rights Commission. We have made good progress on all three proposals. In addition, we have introduced £195 million of help for disabled people under the new deal, reduced the threshold on employment covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, improved the access-to-work scheme and published a Green Paper on special educational needs, for whose action plan £60 million is earmarked. We are extending part M of the building regulations, and introducing a new disability income guarantee and disabled person's tax credit. All those are practical measures that extend disabled people's rights.

We know that there is still much to do to change attitudes and behaviour so that we can really eliminate discrimination and fully harness the technology that has such wonderful power to transform many disabled people's lives for the better. However, I believe that progress is being made and, moreover, that public opinion has shifted decisively in wanting full and fair opportunities for disabled people as members of our community.

I share the sense of unanimity that is evident in the House, but will the Minister say why the commission proposed in the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, even though the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 do?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the Bill, and I acknowledge his long-standing interest

in and commitment to these matters, which is recognised in the House. I can tell him that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides that equalities in Northern Ireland are safeguarded by other means, as I shall explain later in my speech.

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), now Minister for the Arts, on their introduction of the Bill. My right hon. Friend is right to say that this is not a matter for party contention, but is he aware that only one Conservative Back-Bench Member is present—the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins)? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to explain why the Conservative party spent the 1995–96 Session opposing the establishment of the commission.

My hon. Friend makes a telling point. I trust that Conservative Members have learned from that experience and from the public reaction to it. The Conservative party's resistance to the commission was held in particular contempt by disabled people. I believe that the Conservative party intends to support the Bill, and I welcome that. The broader the consensus that can be achieved for the work of the commission, the more inclusive will be the support for it and the better off disabled people will be.

I am happy to tell the Minister that Conservative Members support the creation of the Disability Rights Commission, although that does not mean that we do not think that the Bill cannot be improved in many ways. We support the concept of creating the commission.

Fair enough, and I greatly welcome the support from all parties on the Opposition Benches for the measure. After all, the inclusive and better society that we want to achieve cannot include some people and not others—it has to include everybody. There are more than 8.5 million disabled people in this country. It is only right that their rights, and the tackling of discrimination, should be regarded as high priorities.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I share the House's warmth towards the Bill. He has explained the arrangements covering Northern Ireland, but will he say how he expects the provisions to be applied in Scotland and Wales after 1 July?

I am pleased to be able to tell my right hon. Friend that I shall say more about the position in Scotland later in my remarks. However, I take this opportunity to place on record our appreciation of my right hon. Friend's long-standing involvement in and commitment to the cause of civil rights for disabled people, which played no small part in the introduction of the Bill.

I said that there are 8.5 million disabled people in the country, and that their rights should be a high priority. The moral and ethical justification is enough in itself, but there are broad and sound economic and social reasons as well. The important thing is that policies and practices that advance disabled people's rights build a better Britain, for them and for us all.

The Disability Rights Commission will have a central role. It will be a source of advice and support for disabled people. It will work with organisations that represent their interests. It will need to work with everyone else who has a stake in its purpose. The links that it forges with employers and service providers will need to be strong and productive. It needs to work with them and to build their confidence, so that it can be constructive in helping them to act in accordance with the spirit, as well as the letter, of the law.

Employers and service providers will need to understand and to embrace change if that change is to be real and effective. Getting that relationship right is key to the fulfilment of the commission's purpose in helping to foster the attitudes and behaviour that will make disabled people's rights a reality.

The needs of a necessarily wide constituency will place a variety of demands on the commission, but we must guard against being too prescriptive in the Bill about how to achieve its aims. If it is to be allowed to do its job properly, it needs to be able to operate flexibly as well with a proper measure of independence from Government. We must empower it to take a wide range of action and trust it to use its resources wisely to achieve its objectives. The Bill strikes a good balance between direction and discretion, and ensures that the commission has the powers that it needs to do the job.

The commission will have the resources. It has been provisionally allocated set-up costs of £3 million and an annual budget of £11 million. That is a fair settlement, taking account of the experience of the other equality commissions. However, I assure the House that the budget is not set in stone. As the Government made clear in another place, we are prepared to review the budget in the light of operational experience. That is a reasonable way in which to proceed.

By way of background to the Bill, let me say that much thought, work and consultation went in to preparing its provisions. As its first job, we asked the disability rights task force to make recommendations on the commission's role and functions. I place on record the thanks of the Government—and, I feel sure, of the whole House—for the work of the task force. Its recommendations formed the basis of a White Paper that we published last July, which received strong support not just from disabled people but from employers and service providers.

The Bill reflects very closely the proposals that we set out in the White Paper. In making its recommendations, the task force sensibly examined existing equality commissions in the areas of sex and race in Britain, as well as bodies with similar roles abroad. A number of the Bill's provisions mirror those on the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. Where consistency makes sense, we have striven to achieve it. Equally, where it is desirable to update the provisions, we have done so.

The Bill was well received in another place, attracting support from all parties. A handful of amendments were adopted, largely to clarify some of the technical or operational details. We are keen to press on with establishing the commission and with getting it up and running. We expect that to happen by spring next year.

The commission's duties, which are set out in clause 2, will be to work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people; to promote the equalisation of opportunities for disabled people; to take appropriate steps to encourage good practice and to keep under review the workings of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and of the Bill when it becomes an Act.

I have already mentioned the important role that the commission will have in working with disabled people and the business and voluntary sectors, and the need for it to balance its activities in a way that best meets the aims that have been set. We believe that much can be achieved by promoting good practice and that it is therefore important that the commission should have such a function in the Bill.

Within those duties, the commission will be able to offer advice to Ministers on existing and proposed legislation—whether emanating from this country or from Europe—wh—rever issues arise connected with the elimination of discrimination, or equalisation of opportunities for disabled people. I am pleased to assure the House that this will include the Human Rights Act 1998. The commission will be able to give its views formally to Government on that Act and on the full range of relevant legislation. However, how and when to do that should, rightly, be a matter for the commission itself, and the Bill allows the commission that flexibility.

Clauses 3 to 5 are concerned with the commission's ability to undertake formal investigations to determine whether discrimination has taken or is taking place. They also deal with the action required by those who are the subject of investigations. Of course the Commission will work with employers, service providers and others to try to avoid discrimination initially, and, when it occurs, to tackle it through dialogue. However, when constructive dialogue does not achieve the desired effect, the commission must have the teeth needed to deal with those who persist in discriminating unlawfully.

The arrangements proposed in the Bill are based on those that currently apply to the other equality commissions; but there are also differences. We have sought to modernise and strengthen the provisions, taking account of evolving practice in those other commissions. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations supplementing provisions affecting formal investigations, thereby allowing flexibility in responding to change and future needs.

Clause 4 currently allows for regulations to be made to define further the scope of non-discrimination notices, which are served on those who have been subject to a formal investigation when they are found to be discriminating unlawfully. The regulation-making power was intended to allow us to refine the process at a later date, taking account of changes arising from the CRE and EOC reviews. However, we have now made some further progress on that complex matter, and I therefore hope that it will prove possible to table amendments in Committee to include more detail on the matter in the Bill.

The Bill also proposes that the commission may enter into legally binding written agreements with a body that is being formally investigated. The intention is that such an agreement will bring to a halt any formal investigation and avoid the need for a non-discrimination notice. Placing such an arrangement in statute is a good innovation, which will be entirely new to equality commissions in Great Britain.

We should like the commission to work constructively with bodies that are keen to deal with shortcomings that they have identified in their organisation, and realise that that may be achieved best through written agreements. Such agreements could be reached more quickly than going through the formal investigation process, and, in many cases, are more likely to work with good will on both sides. However, if the agreements break down, we have made provision for aspects which might otherwise have been dealt with by the issue of a non-discrimination notice to be enforceable through the courts.

We believe that it is right to make such provision. Written agreements should be seen as a better option for employers or service providers who are acting unlawfully and want to do something about it, but not as a soft option. The commission will also be able to resume an investigation that was previously halted.

Our proposals on written agreements demonstrate very clearly one of the relationships that we want the commission to foster, so that agreed action by organisations is achieved by co-operation rather than grudging compliance.

I simply seek some clarification. Although non-discrimination notices will be public, and there will be a public database of them, will written agreements be public or private?

I expect that they will be public.

Clause 6 allows the commission to assist individuals with a range of support when they seek redress for being discriminated against. It also states the criteria that the commission will use in determining which cases to support.

We want the commission to be able to support test cases, which will help to clarify the law and help disabled people who could not secure their rights without assistance. Within the criteria, the commission will be able to take account of the impact that a person's disability has on his or her ability to pursue the case unaided. The criteria will allow ample scope to those who are likely to need help most; for example, those with mental health problems, those with learning disabilities or those with severe sensory impairments.

I recognise, too, the force of the argument that the commission itself should be able to take cases on behalf of individuals, or a group of individuals with a common complaint. It is a concern that I understand, and one that the Government are addressing. Through the representative actions working group, the Lord Chancellor is looking at the issue of representative actions. It is a complex area that raises some fundamental issues of law, such as defining who can bring representative actions, the scope of relief and the definition of groups.

For those reasons, it is neither necessary nor sensible for us to act unilaterally by changing the Bill. However, let me assure the House that we will seek to ensure—if necessary, through legislation—that any new powers which may be conferred on bodies as a result of these considerations, will apply to the Disability Rights Commission.

Clause 7 allows the commission to recover costs of providing assistance to individuals when a court—or, more rarely, a tribunal—makes an award for costs. That replicates the arrangements which already apply to the EOC and the CRE.

Clause 8 deals with codes of practice relating to employment and access to goods and services. We believe that the commission should be charged with the role of producing codes that will give practical guidance to the public, business, service providers and others on how to avoid discrimination, promote the equalisation of opportunities and encourage good practice.

Courts and tribunals will have to have regard to the codes when considering cases of discrimination. The commission will be required to produce a draft code for consultation before it goes to the Secretary of State for approval. The codes must be laid in draft before this House and another place before they can be brought into force.

Clause 9 allows for the commission to make arrangements for the provision of a conciliation service dealing with disputes under part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—access to goods, services, facilities and premises. Conciliation arrangements are already available in the area of employment—covered by part II of the 1995 Act—where that function is undertaken by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

We want the Disability Rights Commission to arrange for and monitor a conciliation service in the area of part III of the 1995 Act. We want it to be available to disabled people and service providers directly, rather than by first going to a business or voluntary organisation for advice, which is the somewhat cumbersome procedure currently under the Disability Access Rights Advice Service.

Clause 10 replaces the bureaucratic mechanism for reviewing the small employer's threshold below which the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 do not apply. It requires the Secretary of State to consult the Disability Rights Commission—in addition to those whom he is already required to consult—about adjustments to the small employer threshold. The commission will be in a key position to advise the Secretary of State on this important matter.

There are a few other points that I would like to mention. I would like to thank the disability rights task force, all the groups and individuals who contributed ideas and the officials who have worked on the White Paper and the Bill. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East, who have accomplished something of real value in their periods of responsibility for bringing forward the Bill.

I pay tribute also to the good work the members of the National Disability Council have done, and continue to do. That body, which is—to a limited extent—a predecessor of the Disability Rights Commission will be abolished when the commission is established.

On the composition of the commission itself, I would like to underline that the Bill provides for the majority of commissioners and either the chair or deputy chair to be disabled people or people who have had a disability.

I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the composition of the commission. As he will know, we have recently reformed the all-party group on epilepsy. Millions of people have hidden disabilities, and the all-party group is concerned that the needs of such people should be reflected in the general work and in the membership of the commission. I would be grateful if the Government could consider that as the Bill proceeds.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the reformation of the all-party group on epilepsy. Epilepsy is a serious condition that affects very many people. I am pleased to give him the assurance that epilepsy will be one of the disabilities covered by the legislation, so assistance and advice will be available.

The provision that the chair or deputy chair will be disabled or have had a disability will ensure that disabled people will be directly represented in a senior capacity on the commission and that there will be an appropriate balance of interests among the commissioners, allowing the commission to be credible with all stakeholders.

The Minister made a strong case for the provision that the chair or deputy chair should either be disabled or have a history of disability. May I press him on that point? Does he agree that, especially in the first year of the commission's existence, it would give a very strong signal indeed to the communities outside who are following this debate with great interest, if he could say that his preference would be that the chair should be someone who is disabled or with a history of disability?

There is an enormously strong case for the first chair, in particular, to be someone who is disabled or who has had a disability, but I do not think, to be frank, that it would be right to write such a requirement into the Bill. Apart from anything else, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I—and, I believe, the public at large—want the person who chairs the commission to know that he or she was appointed as the best person for the job and not only because of having a disability. That is mainstreaming in practice; to do otherwise smacks of gesturism.

The Commission's remit will extend to England, Scotland and Wales. In Northern Ireland, the arrangements set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 will apply. The experience of existing equality commissions has shown that offices in each of England, Scotland and Wales have been necessary and invaluable. We will expect the Disability Rights Commission to operate in a similar way, but I think that it should determine what other arrangements are necessary in the light of experience. For example, the commissioners might want to consider whether the commission should establish regional offices.

As I said at the outset, the Bill is part of a wider programme to advance rights and opportunities for disabled people, and we are considering more generally how to advance disabled people's rights and counter discrimination. That is an important part of our strategy, but it would have been quite wrong for it to hold up this legislation, which has been so long and so eagerly awaited by disabled people.

The disability rights task force is considering those wider issues, especially in relation to the acknowledged inadequacies of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Recommendations from the task force are expected later this year. We all look forward to them. I can assure the House that we will hold consultations on any administrative or legislative steps that are considered necessary, and that we regard that work, too, as very important as part of our overall strategy for comprehensive civil rights. It is an important task to win public support not just for the principle of fairness for disabled people, but for the practical action that makes it a reality.

That is why we are launching this spring a two or three-year disability hearts and minds campaign. It will counter disability discrimination by raising public awareness of the barriers that disabled people face and how they can be overcome. It will also help businesses and service providers to understand exactly what is required of them in law. The campaign is being drawn up in partnership with disability and business organisations. I am confident that, together with the Bill and all the other steps that we are taking, it will help enable disabled people to take a full part in society.

I am convinced that integration generates its own momentum, for at the bottom of much discrimination lies fear. At the root of that fear is ignorance, so the more chance everyone has to meet disabled people—in the classroom, in the workplace, in the supermarket—the more the corrosive base of prejudice will be eroded.

What matters most is not simply Acts of Parliament, or commissions, codes or regulations. They are not the ends, but simply the means. What matters is the change in attitudes and behaviour, respect for decent human values, opening up opportunity and ending unfair discrimination, so that there is real change in the lives of disabled people, recognising that their opportunity enriches the whole community.

I believe that the Bill and the Disability Rights Commission that it creates will do an enormous amount to advance those opportunities. Today we bring closer full civil rights for disabled people. It therefore gives me particular pleasure to commend the Bill to the House.

This is indeed an important debate for disabled people. It involves the establishment, as the Minister said, of an organisation for which disabled people, disability organisations and those involved in disability issues have argued for some time.

I recognise the disappointment and frustration that were felt when the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was introduced without an enforcement mechanism such as the proposed commission. That was widely felt to have been a significant omission. Despite that, we should not play down the importance of the 1995 Act as the first major piece of anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people in Britain.

I was not in the House during the passage of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I recognise that there was much debate, and many heated arguments about the scope of the Act, the lack of an enforcement mechanism and many other issues. I acknowledge that many Members, and former Members now in another place, have campaigned long and hard for anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people. In particular, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who is in the Chamber today, tabled a private Member's Bill on the subject. I shall not dwell on that; indeed, standing where I do, perhaps it is better not to.

Whatever the omissions from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, it marked an important milestone for disabled people. I pay tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in introducing that legislation during his time as Minister for Social Security and Disabled People.

The view that we should not play down the significance of the 1995 Act is supported by a comment that I read in an article published a few months ago by David Grayson, the chairman of the National Disability Council, who stated:

"The DDA certainly has weaknesses, but we must not under-estimate it. Indeed, we must not fall into the trap of talking the DDA down so much that businesses and others think it is so fundamentally flawed that no one will enforce it hard, so they don't need to worry for a few more years yet. That would be the worst of all possible worlds."

The Bill establishes an enforcement mechanism. I reiterate what I said in an intervention in the Minister's speech: the Opposition will support the creation of the Disability Rights Commission. It was indeed one of the first questions that I was asked when I took over my present portfolio. My right hon. Friend the Shadow Leader of the House made our position clear when he responded to the Gracious Speech at the start of this Session. He said:

"We will support the creation of a disability rights commission, although we shall look closely at the detail. I hope that the commission will ensure that the landmark disability rights legislation, which I took through the House, is properly enforced and leads to a lasting change for disabled people."—[Official Report, 24 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 16-17.]

As my right hon. Friend made clear, support for the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission does not mean that we do not think that the Bill can be improved. We have already demonstrated during the passage of the Bill through the other place that there are improvements that can be made. Indeed, the Government have already accepted a small number of our proposals. I shall refer to some of them later.

For the historical record, will the hon. Lady remind us why the Disability Rights Commission was not included in the 1995 legislation? What does she think has changed since then?

As I said earlier, I was not in the House when the legislation went through, so I cannot instantly recall the debates. My understanding is that the then Government made it clear that they would look to see whether an enforcement mechanism would be necessary, having established as part of that Act the National Disability Council to advise them on issues relating to disability discrimination.

For the record, the Government at the time did not say that they were considering introducing a commission. They fought tooth and nail to stop one being introduced. I welcome today's unity, but the hon. Lady should be aware that there was no doubt about why the Government did what they did. They did not want a commission at all.

rose—

I will take two interventions at once.

In the magnanimous spirit in which my hon. Friends have all spoken, I too do not wish to make

the hon. Lady feel uncomfortable. Whereas she was not in the House when Bills were being proposed and talked out, happily those who talked them out are not in the House now.

I note that second intervention and return to the first. I apologise if I gave a misleading impression in my response to the earlier intervention from the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt). The Government did not include in the Bill a reference to an enforcement mechanism such as the commission. Neither did they guarantee that they would introduce such a commission. My understanding is that they said at the time that they believed that the National Disability Council was a preferable route. That was why the Government chose that route at the time. But they said that they would look at the situation as it developed.

We greatly welcome the conversion of the hon. Lady and her colleagues, but they should acknowledge that it is a conversion. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said:

"The assumption that there has to be a commission to tackle the problems we know exist is flawed."—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee E, 23 February 1995; c. 389.]

I welcome the recognition of Opposition Members that they no longer regard that assumption as flawed.

The right hon. Gentleman will find that not all Conservative Members opposed the concept of a commission when the legislation was going through the House.

I do not want to detain the House for too long on a history lesson. Did my hon. Friend note that our right hon. and noble Friend Lord Campbell of Croy pointed out in the other place that, when he introduced his private Member's Bill, the Disablement Commission Bill, it was defeated with a three-line whipped vote by a Labour Government? Would we not now all do better to concentrate on the future rather than on the mistakes of the past?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding Labour Members that they should look further back in history. There has been some hilarity among them on this, but we have made it clear that we support the Disability Rights Commission as the Government are establishing it, although there are aspects of the Bill that could be changed. I recognise that there was much feeling, both inside and outside the House, about the fact that such a commission was not introduced by the Disability Discrimination Act. That has now been addressed by the Government, and we have said that we support the concept. However, we will examine in detail the issues raised by the way in which the Government propose to establish the commission and its functions.

At the heart of the debate are the main functions of the Disability Rights Commission and the question of what will be the main improvements in the lives of disabled people as a result of its establishment. A key task set out by the Minister is enforcement of the Disability Discrimination Act and providing advice and support for disabled people who want to take action under it. The commission is also charged with the ability to conduct formal investigations initiated by the Secretary of State or by itself. Such investigations may result in the issue of non-discrimination notices against firms or service providers requiring certain action to be taken to address the discriminatory behaviour or problems found to be contrary to regulations under Disability Discrimination Act.

I was interested in the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). He said that the agreements that the Bill proposes the commission should be able to enter into with employers and others would be made public. We fear that the public register of bodies against whom non-discrimination notices have been issued will not be changed when bodies act to put in place whatever is required by the commission. I understand that their names will remain on the register regardless of whether they cease to contravene the Disability Discrimination Act. We may wish to explore that in Committee in relation to the register of agreements that the Minister said will be kept.

The functions that I have outlined are important and must be exercised judiciously by the commission. They raise an interesting question of timing in respect of how it will operate in its early stages. The Government said again today that assuming a reasonable passage for the Bill and Royal Assent this Session, they expect the commission to be in place in spring 2000. However, the final provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act are not yet in force. Part III starts to come into force in October, but its final provisions will not be in force until 2004. What approach do the Government intend the commission to take to issues arising from the part of the Act that does not kick in for another five years? I assume and hope that the commission will have regard to it and will incorporate it into its thinking on encouraging good practice, education and advice well before it comes into force. It is far better to ensure that goods and service providers know the requirements of the Act and do something about them than to wait for part III to come into force before taking enforcement action.

Awareness is one of the commission's most important aspects. That is why Baroness Blatch moved an amendment to make it a duty of the commission to encourage good practice. The original Bill was rather vague in saying that the commission "may" encourage good practice. I welcome the fact that the Government listened and tabled an amendment to make it a duty. We may argue about the exact words that have been used when we come to the detail in Committee, but the spirit and principle are there, and we certainly welcome that. Not only is that right, but it reflects the recommendation of the disability task force on the issue in its July 1998 report, in which it said:

"We propose that the main duties of the DRC should be to: work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people"—

a duty that was in the original draft legislation and remains in the Bill—

"promote the equalisation of opportunities for disabled people with those of non-disabled people;"—

that is also in the Bill—and

"promote good practice".

It is important that that has now been recognised and incorporated into the Bill because it links with the other key task of the commission to work towards the elimination of discrimination and the equalisation of opportunities.

Underlying those duties is what I believe is the fundamental matter at the heart of the Bill. I am sure that we all agree across the House that the biggest battle that we have to fight is the battle of attitudes. Sadly, discrimination is likely to continue until everyone recognises that disabled people should not be treated differently and that they want equal access to employment, goods and services and many other things that we all take for granted, but which are all too often denied to them through unthinking and ignorant attitudes. Disabled people need to be secure in the knowledge that they will not be turned away from the pub or restaurant because some unthinking manager thinks that their presence will put off his other customers. They want to know that they will be given a job because of their ability to do it, not refused because someone thinks that it will be too difficult to accommodate them in the office.

Legislation sets out the requirements for practices, procedures, policies and physical access and the commission provides an enforcement mechanism, but neither of those functions will change hearts and minds. That is why we believe that there needs to be a strong element in the remit of the commission of working with employers and providers of goods and service to raise awareness and educate people. The commission should not be a litigious body or a legalistic body that sees litigation as its first port of call. It should work to ensure that disabled people do not suffer the discrimination that would lead to legal action in the first place. To do that, it needs to work with people, not adopt a confrontational attitude.

I welcome the Minister's comments about the need for the commission to work constructively with employers and others. That approach was certainly suggested when the Government first announced their intention to introduce a commission in a written answer given by the former Minister for disabled people, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), who is on the Government Front Bench today, to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) on 21 July last year:

"We emphasise that we expect that the commission should not work in an adversarial or oppressive way. There need be no tension between the interests of disabled people and the interests of employers and service providers. The commission should be seen as supportive of both disabled people and businesses alike."—[Official Report, 21 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 519.]

The hon. Member for Newport, East brought to his former post a particular interest in and experience of disability issues. I trust from the comments that have been made this afternoon that his view of the commission is shared by the current Minister with responsibility for disabled people.

It is worth noting that the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman is shared by the Confederation of British Industry, which has welcomed the Disability Rights Commission. It has said:

"The CBI believes that the Commission will have a very important role to play to support and progress implementation of the complex social reforms and the positive actions contained in the Disability Discrimination Act. We believe there is a crucial role for the Commission to provide a comprehensive educational and advisory service to all of the business community. We therefore urge the Commission during its first year to build on goodwill, and work in partnership with business to change attitudes and help to recognise inadvertent barriers before using enforcement powers as a means of eliminating discrimination against disabled people. In particular, it is key that businesses are able to: better understand the scope of the DDA and the definition of disability, know how and when to implement reasonable adjustments under the DDA, incorporate disability as integral to equal opportunities goals and good management practice."

A key issue, which must be addressed at an early stage, is implied in that comment from the CBI: the current lack of understanding among all too many companies as to their existing and forthcoming responsibilities under the DDA. The issue is important; I fear that many companies do not understand what is being, and will be, required of them. At a very early stage, it will be necessary for the Disability Rights Commission to work to ensure that companies understand those requirements and responsibilities.

Does the hon. Lady agree that the education of those companies is not helped by the fact that about 80 per cent. of companies have less than 15 employees and are exempt from some of the regulations under the DDA? That cannot help the education process that the commission will have to establish.

I had intended to refer to the employer threshold issue later in my comments. It is important and has already been debated in the Standing Committee. It was raised by several of their lordships when the Bill was debated in another place.

The Minister mentioned the Government's forthcoming hearts and minds campaign, which was intended to work with business to encourage the process of changing hearts and minds. The Government should note that there is some scepticism among disability organisations about that campaign and its likely impact. We all want to ensure that hearts and minds and attitudes are changed in the right way, but, if the campaign is to be effective, the Government will have to be careful about the way in which it is put in place.

That view about the importance of working with organisations is echoed in the article to which I referred earlier, written by the chairman of the National Disability Council, David Grayson. He gave some examples of the way in which the commission could work with people, rather than against them. He referred to certain cases that had been reported in Disability Now, in which disabled people had been refused access to pubs. He continued: "DRC will certainly want to support test cases to establish the law or make formal investigations.

But if it is using its brain as well as its brawn it will be creative too. It could go to major brewers like Bass and Whitbread and national representatives of pub landlords and persuade them to develop an industry-wide awareness and education campaign for pub staff. They could also promote disabled customer-friendly practices … British business must be persuaded to respond more energetically to the needs of disabled people in the marketplace and the workplace … if we mobilise our collective power as disabled consumers—plus the purchasing power of our families and friends—we can be a formidable business force too."

Certainly, helping companies to recognise the importance of disabled people as consumers or potential employees will be an important task for the commission. However, the issue is broader than that; the commission has a general role in raising awareness, in education and in the promotion of good practice. The body will have the scope to work to increase understanding of disability and of the rights, expectations and needs of disabled people generally, not only among employers and service providers. That is an important function and I trust the commission will see it as a key element of its work. I repeat our belief that the commission should not be a confrontational, legalistic or litigious body, but one that works with all parties genuinely to improve the environment for disabled people.

A number of issues remain uncertain in the Bill and in relation to the commission. The first is not specific to the Bill, although the Minister referred to it in his speech; it is the funding of the commission. The Government have stated that they will fund the commission to the tune of £3 million this financial year for set-up costs and £11 million in 2000-01; a provisional budget of £11 million has been set for the following year.

That is less than the amount given to the Commission for Racial Equality. The Government's argument is that the CRE has to pass on about £4 million to local race equality councils—hence the difference in funding. I tried to ascertain from the Government the basis of their decision to award £11 million, given the functions of the commission. I cannot remember whether it took me three or four questions to the Minister. One of the arts that one has to learn when one becomes a Member of Parliament is that of tabling the right question at the Table Office, and I confess that I do not always get it right the first time—or even the second or third.

During a considerable period of trying, I was first told that the basis for the £11 million figure was estimated costs for the different functions of the commission; then, when I asked what the estimated costs of those different functions were, I was told that it would be up to the commission to estimate the costs of the different functions. Finally, having rephrased the question yet again, I was told: "interim estimates indicate 10 per cent. of that annual budget may be devoted to administrative costs; 40 per cent. to advice and information, conciliation, assistance to individuals and formal investigations; 30 per cent. to promotional work, and 20 per cent. to policy work."£[Official Report, 2 February 1999; Vol.324,c.600.]

However, estimates were not available in respect of the specific functions as set out in the Bill.

I note that the Minister said that the issue was one that the Government would monitor in future and I recognise that the functions of the Commission for Racial Equality and the way in which it undertakes them may differ from those of the Disability Rights Commission; however, the DRC will have specific extra costs, such as those of ensuring that all information is available in forms that are accessible to all disabled people. The Government will have to consider that issue carefully and take advice from the commission in the early stages of its operation.

No one disputes that the commission will face certain costs in connection with meeting the particular needs of disabled people. However, in the spirit of and in line with the requirements of the Bill and of the DDA, we expect the other commissions to make their material available in Braille and other forms that are accessible to disabled people, so they too face those costs.

I hesitate to suggest that, having made that statement, the Minister might now receive a call from those involved in the CRE and the Equal Opportunities Commission. Of course it is important that information and advice from those other bodies is available to disabled people in forms that they are able to access.

Another issue requiring clarification is raised on the face of the Bill itself: the relationship between the commission's work and the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998. 1 suspect that other hon. Members will question whether it is appropriate for that relationship to be set down on the face of the Bill, or whether it should be in regulations, as the Minister indicated. The Government need to examine closely the impact of the Human Rights Act in respect of disabled people and on Government responsibilities, such as the health service and social services provision.

Having participated in some of the debates on the Human Rights Act as it passed through its stages in the House, I am not convinced that the Government have fully and properly considered the implications that that legislation might have for some of those matters. The case reported into today's newspapers of young David Glass, whose family resuscitated him when the hospital had decided that he should be allowed to die, brings that issue sharply into focus.

One of the functions that the commission should undertake in relation to education is not specified in the Bill: advice and information are referred to, but not training. It is important that the commission should be able to provide training for those with whom it deals and those who are affected by its work. Obviously, it will work with other bodies in pursuing that function, but the Bill should not ignore the issue of training.

In response to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), I said that I would refer to the employer threshold. Many of us were surprised when the Government, who in opposition had said that they would reduce the threshold from 20 to two, reduced it from 20 to 15 on coming into power. That caused considerable consternation among disability organisations, which wondered why the Government had suddenly changed an opinion to which they had held so fast when in opposition. It has been our experience in respect of many issues that the Labour party in government is going back on many of the pledges that it made when in opposition. It is easy to make promises when in opposition, but now that Labour is in Government, it finds it cannot deliver on those pledges.

Because of amendments moved in respect of that issue, it was debated at some length in the other place. I note that the Bill mentions "the procedure for change" and there is some good argument for making sure that that procedure is rather easier than it was previously. However, the question of why the Government have not decreased the threshold further than they have is one to which many disability organisations will continue to want a proper answer.

Is the hon. Lady aware that, following the reduction in the threshold, well in excess of 90 per cent. of employees now work for employers who are covered by the legislation, and that only a small minority of employees continue to be excluded? The role of the DRC will be to advise the Government, not only on the number of employees at which disability organisations want the threshold to be set, but on the number that industry and business will accept. That number will be a first, not a last, step in reducing the threshold, so the issue is how fast and in what way the threshold will be reduced. The time has not yet come to judge the Government on the absolute level of the threshold

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that about 80 per cent. of companies are not covered by the arrangements—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) says, from a sedentary position, "Peanuts".

I said people.

I do apologise. In that case, I shall not proceed with the rebuke that I was going to issue.

Order. That is a very good example of how sedentary remarks are unhelpful, even when they provoke a response.

They are even less helpful when I cannot hear them properly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Eighty per cent. of companies are not covered and the issue that the Government must answer is why, when Labour Members were so keen for the threshold to be reduced to two when they were in opposition, the Government failed to do that when they had the opportunity to do so.

At what level does the hon. Lady believe the threshold should be set?

We have not set a threshold—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Twenty."] I will say this: during the debate in the other place, we said that, if the threshold was to be reduced to the sort of level that many disability organisations wanted, we would question why it was to be two and not one. I fail to see why, if the level is to be reduced to such a low number, one should disadvantage sole employees of small businesses and not allow them the protection of the Disability Discrimination Act from which other employees benefit. I suspect that we may return to that issue in Committee or the later stages of the Bill.

On the question of the representational nature of the commission, the Government have indicated that half of the members of the commission should be disabled or have had a disability. It is important to consider the issue of representation, and I trust that it is not the Government's intention to say that each member of the commission is representative of a particular disability. Although it is necessary to ensure that the commission covers a wide range of types of disability, it is important that the commissioners are appointed because they are the right people with the right experience, not as individuals wearing some sort of specific representative hat.

It is also important that a cross-section of interests should be represented on the commission. That point was made when the hon. Member for Newport, East, then a Minister at the Department for Education and Employment, initially set out his intention of establishing the commission, and I trust that the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities will confirm that that remains the Government's position. The then Education and Employment Minister said:

"The Commission must be credible with all stakeholders. The body of Commissioners between them will need to have sufficient diversity of experience to be able to take account of the interests of all disabled people and to reflect the interest of all key stakeholders, including those of small businesses."—[Official Report, 21 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 519-20.]

It is important—particularly given what I have said about the way in which the commission should work with rather than confront people—to ensure that the commission represents all interests. External bodies, such as companies and service providers, must be willing and able to work happily with the commission to ensure that disabled people do not suffer the sort of discrimination that they often experienced in the past.

As I said at the outset, we support the creation of a Disability Rights Commission, which we believe builds on the landmark anti-discrimination legislation introduced by the previous Government. It is another significant step down the road to ensuring that disabled people are treated equally in our society and are valued for the contribution that they do and will make.

Although time is short and I know that several of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate, I begin by paying tribute to the many people who have made the Bill possible. I feel both humble and proud and, in that spirit, I congratulate warmly the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and his ministerial team on their remarkable achievement in bringing this measure before the House today.

I shall be gentle with the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). This comment would probably be more appropriate coming from the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), but any sinner who has repented is welcome. However, if the hon. Lady wants to be convincing, the last thing that she should do is refer to the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition—especially when, as Minister, he opposed everything that we have achieved today.

I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Gentleman should imply sinfulness on the part of someone who was not involved in decisions about the legislation. I hope that he does not adopt that approach to other sins, or we might all be implicated in all sorts of things.

I do not seek to reintroduce the idea of original sin. However, there is a Scottish expression that goes, "If you fly with the crows, you get shot with the crows." The Leader of the Opposition appointed the hon. Lady to perform an almost impossible task: to make the previous Government's policies appear decent.

In the spirit of this debate, I congratulate those who should take pride in today's achievement. Such people include my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), and a wonderful colleague in my disability team, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston—[HON. MEMBERS: "Erdington."] I could not get my hon. Friend's constituency right in Committee, and I cannot change my habits now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) did a wonderful job, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), who has disappeared temporarily from the Chamber, offered marvellous support for my Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 before his election to Parliament. He has continued ever since—now as a Member of Parliament —to fight for the things that he believes in. We look forward to hearing what my hon. Friends have to say if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I recognise also the tremendous work of the all-party disablement group which, led by Lord Ashley, has been the real engine room of disability campaigns. It must also be a proud day for my right hon. Friend Lord Morris of Manchester. Nor should we forget the countless numbers of unnamed disabled people and their organisations who fought the good fight when others thought the mountain was too high to climb.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to contribute to the Second Reading of a Bill that has the potential to transform dreams into reality for many millions of disabled people. The Government must be commended for their relatively early introduction of such a comprehensive and important Bill. A pledge has been honoured and a promise implemented speedily.

This is a Bill about people who constitute a substantial minority and yet continue to suffer discrimination in their daily lives that denies them the everyday rights that others take for granted. Much of that is now about to end. Such discrimination is clear to those who know the realities of life for disabled people who are seeking the equal opportunities that lie at the heart of a modern, inclusive Britain and of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Bill resembles legislation that has long been the norm in many other countries that have benefited from such measures. For example, America offers perhaps the most substantial protection in the world for disabled people. Many aspects of the proposed Disability Rights Commission will resemble measures in the United States, which I have seen for myself in operation. I have witnessed the benefits that such protection brings not only to the lives of disabled people but, importantly, to the United States economy as well. The reasons are obvious. The greater the access for disabled people, the more they, their carers, friends and families spend and contribute to the strength of the United States economy.

We have received many excellent briefings from disability organisations, and Scope deserves congratulations for making that point. It stated:

The average figure (the statistical mean figure) for workplace adjustments for disabled employees in the USA (October 1997) was $935, but the benefits of these to business was an average of $30,682—a 3200%% return on investment."

The hon. Member for Maidenhead referred to the Confederation of British Industry. We welcome its support, and I am sure that it will take that point on board.

For that reason, groups such as the Employers Forum on Disability in the United Kingdom —which speaks for firms such as Marks and Spencer and Barclays—and the CBI have long realised the beneficial effects that a Disability Rights Commission can have for the British economy as well as for our social fabric. Article 3 of the German legislation outlaws discrimination. It says:

"Nobody shall be discriminated against because of a disability".

Unfortunately, despite many Back-Bench attempts, we were still far behind the legislation of many of our friends abroad—until today. Over the years, the House had seen attempts to introduce legislation to protect the rights of disabled people. All such attempts supported a commission and all, sadly, were in vain. It is tempting—especially in view of earlier exchanges—to dwell upon the fate of former Members of Parliament who talked out those Bills. However, on this happy occasion, I shall be positive about the future and about the anti-discrimination measures that the Bill introduces.

In 1995, at long last, legislation was introduced that turned its back on the suggestion that there was no discrimination against the disabled. That legislation, however much it achieved or did not achieve, was entitled the Disability Discrimination Act. Reality had surfaced, even if many problems were not addressed. We did not get a Disability Rights Commission, but I warned then that its time would come. [Interruption.]

Order. I point out to hon. Members, particularly those on the Front Benches, that Madam Speaker takes the strong view that bleepers should not brought into the Chamber while they are switched on.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

If discrimination does not exist, as was argued in the early days of the previous Government, why is the average income of disabled workers only 80 per cent. of the national average income? I am glad that, in the past couple of weeks, hundreds of thousands of disabled people, among others, have started to receive the benefits of the Government's minimum wage legislation. Similarly, it cannot be right that a disabled person is three times more likely to be unemployed and six times more likely to be turned down for a job than anyone else.

The concern of disabled people, disability organisations and, I am sure, the Government is that the long-awaited Disability Rights Commission should be an effective body. We know that disability has trailed behind gender and race in getting anti-discrimination legislation and a commission, but those who benefited from the commissions combating race and gender discrimination have been as strong in their support of a Disability Rights Commission as I believe the House to be today.

The Bill states that the commission will have substantial duties. It will be encouraged to be proactive, not just a talking shop, and it will have teeth. Remarkably, we are now close to realising the aim for which many of us have fought for many years. I am pleased that the Government have accepted disabled people's demands for comprehensive and enforceable civil rights and have honoured their manifesto commitment to the letter.

I want to ask a few questions of the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who will wind up the debate, to clarify issues that have been raised by disability organisations and some of my disabled constituents. Will there be an advocate on the commission, as Mencap has argued there should be, for those whose disabilities are so profound as to preclude them from membership of the commission?

The issue of funding of the commission has been raised, and I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister's clarification on that point. I understand that the Government have allocated £3 million to set up the commission and then £11 million for each of the two following years. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary clarify the Government's position on the crucial role—I heard it dismissed earlier—of the commission's views in that matter? Certainly, my Front-Bench colleagues should be congratulated on reaching an agreement with the Treasury because I know that such agreements are not easily achieved.

The exemption for small firms has been mentioned, and I seek more clarification about that in the winding-up of the debate. I do not want to provoke Opposition Front-Bench Members too much, particularly as they appear to have been left sitting on their own, but the plain fact is that, when the previous Government introduced the Disability Discrimination Bill, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) could not be moved—he wanted to exclude 96 per cent. of firms from that Bill. Pressure in the House, in Committee and from disability organisations means that only 15 per cent. of firms are now exempt, which is 16 per cent. better than the situation that we inherited a couple of years ago.

That said, I do not want to get too cosy with my right hon. and hon. Friends. This is a serious matter, and I want to push the boat out a little further. I shall not be happy, especially when I consider the working relationship that will exist between the commission, employers, employees and disabled people, if, when this Parliament ends, 15 per cent. of firms are still exempt. In its advice, Scope restated the view of many, including myself, when it said:

"The moral and business case for staging a phased reduction of the small employer's exemption is overwhelming."

I know that we have a listening Government, and I am sure that they will take that point on board.

Disabled people are not just the stuff of political lobbying or special interest pleading; their rights constitute the vital, legitimate interests, as the Minister reminded us, of more than 8.5 million of our fellow citizens. They include the blind boy, about to leave school, who was rejected at a job interview the moment that the personnel manager saw his white stick, although he could have done the job as well as anybody else. They include the woman who was refused admission to a cinema because she was in a wheelchair, and the one space for a wheelchair had been set aside for somebody else. She was right to say, "I am not a wheelchair; I am a person."

I am glad that the Bill acknowledges the demands of the One-In-Eight Group, which has campaigned vigorously to ensure that disabled professional actors, entertainers, producers and others have the right to have their talents recognised and not be discriminated against.

Today is the realisation of a dream for many people, some of whom, sadly, are no longer with us. I can never forget heading through the snow north of New York, in the cold winter of 1995, with my then deputy, the late Gordon McMaster. Gordon, who had done so much on disability rights and who was so proud of his "Growing Concern" project, was with me when we had the privilege of being in the home of Christopher Reeve. We could only marvel at Reeve's courage—a quality shared by so many who today feel that their efforts were not in vain.

Improving the rights of disabled people, as the Bill will do, will ensure that we enrich the lives of all. A Disability Rights Commission will help to set a new agenda for disabled people of skills, knowledge and opportunity—a new agenda for a new century and a beacon for the rest of the world. In that spirit, I congratulate the Government most warmly and wish them well.

This is a good day not only, as the Minister rightly said in his opening speech, for people with disabilities, but for the whole country, because our society is stronger if it takes steps towards incorporating disabled people in every practical way. In establishing a Disability Rights Commission explicitly on the model of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, the House is making it clear that we regard discrimination against people with disabilities as every bit as evil and unjustified as discrimination against people on the basis of their sex or the colour of their skin.

This is a good day. Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and many on both sides of the other place have waited a long time for such a Bill. I congratulate the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities on being the Minister who brought the Bill forward. 1 commend him for the tone in which he did so, as I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for the tone in which she responded to the Minister from the Opposition Front Bench. This is a genuinely non-partisan occasion.

We have had debates about the history of these matters and it is clear that both Labour and Conservative Governments voted down proposals of very much the sort that are contained in the Bill. That was a mistake. I am glad that both parties have changed their mind and can come together to support the principle of the Bill. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said, there are bound to be individual points of detail that need to be considered further. It may be necessary to consider amendments in this place as others were in another place, but a loud and clear signal should go out from the House to all those throughout the country who have an interest in these issues that they transcend party politics, and that the commission will be put in place for the future and will long remain an important part of it, whatever the outcome of future general elections. This is a landmark occasion in that respect.

I have one or two points to make in respect of those general comments. I welcome the Minister's hope that the commission will be an engine for conciliation and a forum for the provision of information. It must be clear that it would be far better if the work of the commission went forward wherever possible without confrontation and without necessarily always seeking headlines, sparks, clashes and legal actions, through working together with employers, disability organisations and individuals concerned to reach agreement.

An agreement that is voluntarily entered into will always work better and have a better chance of long-standing success than a court decision, where one party feels rather unhappy or disgruntled, or feels that it

has not received exactly what it wanted and that its interests have not been wholly and fairly presented. The Minister was right to say that he wants the commission to move forward in a co-operative way. I welcome that.

I agree with the points that my hon. Friend is making. Does he agree that it is a good marketing point, for want of a better phrase, for firms to be seen to be friendly and user-friendly towards the disabled, just as, increasingly, it is good for firms to be seen to be environmentally friendly? To promote that does not require regulation and confrontation. I hope that the commission will be able to encourage better employment practices for disabled people in the best interests both of firms and of disabled people.