With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on council tax in 2005–06 and the action that the Government propose to take in response to those local authorities that have set excessive budgets.

Figures released today confirm that the average council tax increase in England in 2005–06 will be 4.1 per cent. That is the lowest council tax increase in more than a decade, and the second lowest ever. The reason why council tax increases have come down markedly compared with previous years is twofold. First, the Government have provided another good settlement for local authorities, which was approved by the House on 2 February. For the third year in succession, all authorities will receive a grant increase in line with or above inflation in 2005–06, and many will receive substantially more. The average formula grant increase from Government is 5.6 per cent. Adding in specific grants to authorities takes the increase up to 6.3 per cent. We have increased funding for local government by 33 per cent. in real terms since 1997, which is in stark contrast to a 7 per cent. reduction in the four years up to 1997.

Secondly, the Government's judicious use of their capping powers has shown how seriously we view the need to protect council tax payers against excessive increases. In 2004–05, when we made it clear that we were prepared to use our reserve capping powers for the first time, the average increase in council tax dropped from 12.9 per cent. to 5.9 per cent. The 2005–06 increase has come down even further, to 4.1 per cent.

Given our substantial investment in local government and the scope for efficiency gains, we gave a clear message to all authorities about council tax in 2005–06. We said that we expected to see an average increase of less than 5 per cent. I set that out in a letter to all local authority leaders on 9 December. At the same time, I informed them that we were once again prepared to use our capping powers to deal with excessive increases. I later wrote to the individual authorities which, despite our warnings, were reported as proposing high increases. We informed them that the 2004–05 capping principles should not be considered a benchmark for 2005–06, thus making it quite clear that we were prepared to take even tougher capping action than we did in 2004–05.

I am pleased to say that the vast majority of authorities have responded positively to the Government's strong message on council tax. That is borne out by the fact that we now have the lowest increase in more than a decade. I congratulate all those authorities. I know that most authorities are taking seriously the need to minimise demands on their council tax payers. However, there remain a small number of authorities that have set excessive budget and council tax increases, which is why I am again this year making a statement to the House about the action that we propose to take against authorities whose budget requirements are excessive.

I should like to remind hon. Members of the provisions of the capping legislation. In order to determine whether budgets are excessive, we must consider a comparison of the authority's budget requirement for 2005–06 with that of the previous year. The legislation also allows us to determine other principles such as increases in council tax. In 2004–05, we determined a range of budget and council tax principles for different categories of authority. This was in recognition of specific factors affecting those types of authority that year. I detailed the principles when I reported to the House on 29 April last year.

For 2005–06, we made it clear that we were prepared to take tougher capping action than last time, and that the principles used in 2004–05 should not be taken as a benchmark. Our view is that authorities' 2005–06 budget requirements are excessive if they show an increase of more than 6 per cent. over their 2004–05 budget, and if their council tax has increased by more than 5.5 per cent. over the same period. These principles have been applied to all authorities.

According to the principles that I have described, nine authorities have set excessive budgets for 2005–06. They are Aylesbury Vale, Daventry, Hambleton, Huntingdonshire, Mid Bedfordshire, North Dorset, Runnymede, Sedgemoor and South Cambridgeshire. We are writing to these authorities today informing them of our decision to designate them with a view to capping them in year and notifying them of the maximum budget that we propose to set for each of them.

The authorities now have 21 days in which to respond. We will carefully consider the information that we have required them to send us, along with any other representations they make, before we take final decisions. We can then either make an order to be approved by Parliament designating them at the level of the proposed maximum budget or another level, or we can withdraw the designation and nominate them instead.

Hon. Members will recall that in 2004–05, we took capping action against 14 authorities. Six were designating for capping in year, and a further eight were nominated and set notional budgets for the purpose of future capping comparisons. I am pleased to say that none of the authorities against which we took capping action in 2004–05 has set an excessive budget in 2005–06. This, and the fact that the average council tax increase in 2005–06 is the lowest in a decade, shows that although we have used it only reluctantly, capping has been effective in restraining council tax increases.

We would, of course, have preferred not to use our capping powers. We would not have had to take action if all local authorities had heeded our clear message about increases in 2005–06. However, we also have a duty to protect council tax payers from excessive increases, and we will continue to do so. The actions that we are taking represent a measured response.

If anyone thought that the Government's capping action in 2004–05 was a one-off, they will surely now think again. The message that we are giving is loud and clear. High council tax increases are a thing of the past. The public will not tolerate excessive council tax increases either now or in years to come—and neither will the Government.

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me early sight of the statement. He has always been prompt in providing these things, and he has been customarily courteous.

The statement comes exactly one month earlier than normal—a period that occupiers of the right hon. Gentleman's office usually have for quiet reflection on which authorities to use their powers on. This is perhaps the clearest indication that the House might be too preoccupied in late April to attend to a capping statement.

I am sure that the statement would have benefited from more reflection by the right hon. Gentleman, but it speaks volumes about the Government's treatment of council tax. For eight years, they have wrung their hands and done nothing. They have watched council tax go through the roof and increase by more than 70 per cent., and they have seen a typical household bill exceed £100 a month. But now, 43 days before a general election, he has decided to do something and line up a few councils to face the guillotine, to demonstrate the firm hand of Government.

This is not the firm hand of Government—it is the slaughter of the innocents. This is a gesture to the country that the Government have noticed its pain—pain caused by this Government. We do not need to take Opposition Members' word for it: let us listen to the Audit Commission, which says that the increase in council tax is due to national pay awards, unfunded obligations and changes in grant funding. Above all, it is because the Government's favourite stealth tax is the council tax. Those authorities have one thing in common: all charge a council tax that is well below that paid by the Prime Minister's, the Deputy Prime Minister's or the Minister's own constituents.

Let us look briefly at one or two of those councils. Daventry had a council tax increase of £13.12. That figure remains £40 less than the neighbouring borough of Corby, which is run by Labour, and 10 per cent. of the increase came as a result of the withdrawal of the Government's housing subsidy. Let us look at Runnymede, which has the lowest council tax in Surrey; it is well below the Government's assumed, notional council tax figure, so the council is charging less than the Government think it should charge. The same applies to Aylesbury.

Let us look at Huntingdonshire; its large council tax increase still results in a small council tax by comparison with neighbouring authorities. Huntingdonshire has the cheapest council tax of all district boroughs in Cambridgeshire. Let us look at South Cambridgeshire, which has a council tax of £140. Last year, it set a zero increase and its council tax lagged significantly behind others. The new level of £140 makes South Cambridgeshire one of the cheapest districts in the county. The same applies to Hambleton, which has the lowest council tax in North Yorkshire. North Dorset's council tax is the cheapest in Dorset. What about the curious case of Sedgemoor? According to figures produced by that council, it is charging £107, not £119. If that is the case, those figures are well outside the capping criteria. I hope the Minister will look again at Sedgemoor, given his Department's tendency to get things wrong.

Will the cost of billing be greater than the saving in each of those authorities? Why is it acceptable for high-costing Labour authorities to continue to squeeze pensioners and hard-working families when these councils are being capped? How many of these councils are spending below the Government's notional council tax? How many are spending below the average notional council tax? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to advise local government to follow the herd instinct and avoid low increases because otherwise it will be penalised in future years? He is penalising an authority that had a zero increase last year. If capping is to be based on only 6 per cent. of budget and 5.5 per cent. of tax, will he tell me how this is different from crude and universal capping, because it looks like crude and universal capping to me? How many of these authorities received grants above the average grant that he cited?

Frankly, this show trial of a statement fools nobody. It is petty, vindictive and pointless. It does not penalise those who have caused these massive increases in council tax—the Government—but in 43 days' time, the electorate will get an opportunity to judge and to penalise. In 43 days' time, bring it on.

As the hon. Gentleman appears to know that there is to be an election in 43 days' time—[Interruption.] He will know that none of the counties are subject to my statement. I put it to him that there is a straightforward contradiction between what he said at the beginning of his speech and what he said throughout most of the rest of it. He attacked high council tax early in his speech, yet he spent the rest of it trying to excuse authorities that made high council tax increases. That is to display complete inconsistency.

To turn to the hon. Gentleman's specific questions, there is no fixed or prescribed timetable, but most people in local government think it right that there should be certainty rather than a prolonged period of uncertainty. If he is right in his presumption about what might be happening in 43 days' time, I think most people in local government would like to know in advance, rather than having uncertainty hanging over them for a long period. Although I can understand that the authorities that will be subject to the capping regime that we have announced today may not welcome it, the general view in local government will be to welcome clarity on the issue.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the process as the slaughter of the innocents. That is a misuse of language. The overwhelming majority of local authorities kept their council tax down. They knew the Government's expectation. Only a small handful of authorities have not kept the tax down. All the authorities in today's announcement proposed council tax increases of more than 9 per cent., and one of them proposed an increase of 100 per cent. He cannot on the one hand attack high council tax increases, as he did, and then, on the other, try to exonerate or excuse authorities that increase their council tax by such amounts.

On the hon. Gentleman's questions about specific authorities, he will know, as I made clear in my statement, that there is a 21-day period when we will listen carefully to any representations that any of those authorities want to make. We shall welcome representations as well as information from the authorities and we shall take that into account when we make our final decision.

Finally, I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that all the authorities subject to the capping regime I have announced today received an increase in grant at least equal to and in many cases substantially above the rate of inflation. That did not happen when his party was in government. The Conservatives were only too pleased to cap authorities that had often received cuts in their grant from the Government. That is not the case with the Labour Government.

I thank the Minister for his statement. He will know that the Liberal Democrats want to scrap council tax, not cap it. Will he explain what has changed his mind since his days in opposition, when he was so vehemently against capping? Will he also explain how capping relates to his 10-year vision of local government announced again today? How does it relate to his proposals on new localism, the so-called freedoms and flexibilities?

Capping is a sign of the Government's failure on council tax, not their success. If the Chancellor's one-year-only council tax rebate was really so good, the Government would not be capping councils today. Will the Minister tell us whether capping will be retained if Labour is re-elected and introduces its policy on council tax revaluation? Does he agree with the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)? In the House this month she said that a property tax must take into account changes in property values, thereby reconfirming that the Conservatives share Labour's position on council tax revaluation?

On council tax rises this year, can the Minister confirm his Department's figures, which show that the lowest council tax rises this year were in Liberal Democrat-run councils? Can he also confirm that if we take a five-year average of council tax rises, by council and by political control, Liberal Democrat-run councils have constantly delivered the lowest rises? So I agree with him that it is a bit rich for Conservative-run councils to be bleating, when it is increasingly clear that Tory-run authorities cost people more. Does he think that is why the Conservatives are having to offer their rebate?

Does the Minister agree that some of the councils being capped today, such as Tory-led North Dorset, and Hambleton, and Sedgmoor, have a poor reputation in their areas for inefficiency and the waste of council tax payers' money? Does he know that North Dorset council even budgeted for re-billing this year because it knew that its council tax rise was so high it was likely to be capped? Is not that the height of irresponsibility?

The truth about council tax is that it is the most unfair tax in Britain. As the independent Audit Commission said, the council tax system is fundamentally flawed. The Minister knows that our policy will save the average household £450 a year. He knows that scrapping council tax would avoid the threat of revaluation. Surely, rather than one-off bribes and annual capping statements, it is time the Government dealt with the underlying problem and scrapped council tax altogether.

The hon. Gentleman says that he believes it right to replace council tax with a local income tax. People who have looked carefully at the Liberal Democrat proposals for a local income tax have concluded that they contain fundamental flaws. The Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which looked at this matter very carefully, said in its clear and unanimous report that the case for a local income tax was "not remotely persuasive".

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that when he gives rather more attention to the detail and the impact of his proposals, he will realise the gross unfairness of what his party is proposing. He will also realise that hasty changes in local government finance—such as the poll tax—usually lead to disaster, and I would advise him to think further before pushing ahead with a proposal that is, as the Select Committee said, "not remotely persuasive".

The hon. Gentleman asked why we had changed our view on capping. We were reluctant to cap, for reasons that he will well understand and that were spelled out in our discussions on the future of local government. However, we could not ignore a situation in which many local authorities were imposing wholly unreasonable council tax increases. Those increases averaged 12.9 per cent. two years ago. It is because this Government have shown that they are determined to cap only those authorities that have acted unreasonably—we have acted in a sensitive way, not in the blanket way that Conservatives did—that we have seen a dramatic reduction in the levels of council tax. I would have thought that all Members would welcome the average 4.1 per cent. increase this year, compared with the 12.9 per cent. of two years ago.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Liberal Democrat council tax levels, and I am pleased that there has been a significant reduction in them this year. Last year, the Liberal Democrats held the unenviable record of imposing the largest council tax increases, and I am glad that they have heeded the warnings and acted responsibly. I hope that, in future years, Conservative councils will do the same.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting such low settlements for council tax right across the country—that is really good news—but will he accept that the capping mechanism is generally pretty crude and inefficient? Does he agree that, when we know the outcome of the Lyons review on council tax this time next year, we should reform council tax to create a far fairer system? We should not then need, year in and year out, to use crude mechanisms such as capping or incur the problems associated with gearing, which discredit the system so much.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words about the success in getting the level of council tax down. I do not think that that would have been possible without judicious use of our reserve capping power, but I accept that our objective is to look further at the whole field of local government finance, and when we receive the report from Sir Michael Lyons, we will do that. We will certainly want to introduce proposals, following receipt of the Lyons inquiry recommendations on the future of local government finance, to ensure that high council tax increases become a thing of the past. No one wants to see high increases; we want to see value for money, and I am only sorry that we have had to take capping action because a handful of authorities this year have not heeded the warnings and have set unreasonably high budgets.

This afternoon, I am seeing a delegation from multiple sclerosis centres. They are lobbying against a 45 per cent. Government-imposed increase in the charges for inspection. However, the Government are stepping in to cap Mid Bedfordshire district council for a rise of 13.3 per cent., which equates to £1 a month from the 10th lowest-charging district authority in the country. Does the Minister not see how ridiculous and pathetic his use of power is, particularly when it is set against the £100 million bill that it still outstanding against the people of Bedfordshire as a result of the Government's incompetence in settling the Yarl's Wood dispute, which they caused? This is an authoritarian measure introduced by a bullying Government who have completely lost their sense of proportion. How do you sleep at night?

The hon. Gentleman sometimes goes a little bit over the top. If he looks at the background, he will understand that Mid Bedfordshire district council has, in previous years, maintained relatively low levels of council tax increase. I am sorry that this year—exceptionally, and despite all the warnings, which were absolutely clear cut—it chose not to do so. That was not, however, because it did not receive a decent grant increase from the Government: it got an increase of 5.2 per cent. Many authorities that got lower grant increases have managed to keep their council tax levels down. He would serve his constituents better by reflecting on the unfair impact of large council tax increases from his council, and by urging the council to be more careful in its budgeting in future.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the service that he has done to local democracy with this statement. What these authorities have in common is that they are district authorities that propose low increases in the years in which they are up for re-election, and then ram it all on when there is a county council election and they are not faced with any accountability to the electorate. Is it not about time that this ruse was rumbled, and that proper levels of council tax were set year on year, so as to avoid these steep increases in certain years?

I am afraid that there is a tendency for some local authorities to impose very varied increases in council tax, depending on whether they are facing the electorate. I believe, however, that the electorate are increasingly conscious of these devices, and that they will punish authorities that act in that way. However, we cannot stand aside, in a year in which there are no elections for those authorities, and allow them to impose unreasonable council tax increases. That is one of the factors that is relevant to capping. Our criteria were set out very clearly, they apply to all authorities, and all authorities were aware of them. It is only those authorities that failed to heed the criteria that have put themselves into a position of being subject to capping today.

North Dorset district council has a council tax level of £79.50 for a band D taxpayer. The average for all districts across the country is £140. North Dorset's neighbouring local authority of Weymouth and Portland, in the Labour-held South Dorset constituency, has a council tax of £210. North Dorset is a well run authority, but it has to cope with the new burdens that have been imposed on it by central Government. However, it will still have the lowest council tax of any local authority in Dorset, even after the increase. We heard the sideswipe from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) earlier, but the Liberal Democrats on the council actually wanted a council tax increase of 19 per cent.

The increase that North Dorset has proposed is, at 23 per cent., one of the highest this year. It is also out of line with what the council has proposed in previous years. Again, this increase is not being proposed because the council did not receive a good grant settlement: North Dorset received a 4 per cent. increase in grant from the Government, which was better than the average for district councils. If most district councils are able to budget prudently and avoid large council tax increases, I do not see why that should be impossible for North Dorset. As I have said, however, local authorities are free to make any case that they wish to make over the next 21 days, and I shall listen carefully to their representations before we reach our final decision.

May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his efforts to ensure that the vast majority of local authorities introduced moderate and reasonable council tax rises this year? Does he agree that part of his success is due to the availability of formula funding from his Department, which is enabling good settlements to be produced this year and, potentially, in the future? Has he reflected on the consequences for council tax rises, had that formula funding availability been frozen, perhaps for this year and next? Does he agree that it would have been very difficult, even for well run local authorities, to introduce moderate council tax settlements if that had happened?

My hon. Friend is an expert in these matters, and he has done his homework. He has rightly identified the appalling consequences that would flow from the freeze in local government grants that would follow from the policies of the Conservative party. It is of course blatant hypocrisy for the Conservatives to criticise the Government—who have increased grants to local authorities by 33 per cent. in real terms over the past eight years—when their own policies would lead to putting very serious pressure on local authorities, which would force them to impose large council tax increases. That is a measure of just how confused the Conservatives are.

Southend council, which has one of the lowest rates in the country, has avoided capping only by imposing pretty savage spending cuts, so is the Minister willing to have another look at the scandalous situation that has been created by the Government alleging that the population in Southend has fallen by 18,000, or 18 per cent., on the basis of the census returns, although every other piece of evidence shows an increase, including, for example, the number of people on GP lists? Will he have a look at something that is unfair and obviously incorrect?

We have had representations from a number of authorities on census matters. These, of course, are ultimately decisions for the Office for National Statistics, rather than the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but I am more than happy to pass on to the ONS concerns expressed about the validity of the census data. I give an undertaking to do that in respect of Southend. I hope the hon. Gentleman is pleased that Southend council, which was threatening large council tax increases, has moderated those increases. I am very pleased that it has. Consequently, it is not subject to today's capping announcement.

Can the Minister confirm that council tax in Aylesbury Vale is below the level assumed by the Government when they calculate their grant support to local authorities? Can he therefore explain the logic of seeking to cap a local authority at a level below that which the Government think is right for it to provide decent public services?

It is three years since we made it absolutely clear that the formula that we use to distribute grant to local authorities makes no assumptions whatever about appropriate spending. That has been made crystal clear to authorities all over the country, and most of them understand it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relay that to his authority, if it is still labouring under the illusion that there is some notional level of spending that the Government expect. There is not.

We give good grant settlements to all authorities, including Aylesbury Vale, and we expect all authorities to budget prudently and keep their council tax demand as low as possible. The criteria for capping relate not to the level of council tax but to the increase in budget and the increase in council tax this year. That is a statutory obligation. However, as with the other authorities, I make it quite clear that if Aylesbury Vale wants to make representations on my announcement today, I will of course consider them very carefully indeed during the next 21 days.

Does the Minister accept that Hambleton has one of the lowest council taxes and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said, the lowest in North Yorkshire, which represents prudent spending and value for money? It is also why my husband and I choose to live there. Will the Minister admit that Hambleton finds itself in this position because of fiddled funding from the Government's grants? Why has his Department seen fit to transfer to urban or non-rural councils resources that would otherwise have been budgeted for Hambleton district council?

I am afraid that the hon. Lady has not done her figures very carefully. If she had, she would see that Hambleton district council has received good grant settlements over all recent years: a 4.4 per cent. increase in 2002–3; 3.3 per cent. in 2003–04; 4 per cent. in 2004–05; and 3.4 per cent. in 2005–06. Those are all increases above inflation, but this council has consistently increased council tax by large amounts—12 per cent. in 2002–03; 10.7 per cent. in 2003–04; 9.7 per cent. in 2004–05; and 17.6 per cent. this year, against a shire district average of 4.5 per cent. She should be explaining to her constituents why her council sees the need to increase its council tax by several times the shire district average. I am afraid that her case is not convincing.

In light of the indefensible non-answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), why does not the Minister simply now acknowledge to the House what in his more reasonable moments he knows to be true—namely, that Aylesbury Vale district council is a moderate, prudent and responsible authority that simply seeks to sustain a decent network of services to local people in the face of a hostile Government, and that his decision to cap it while sparing all sorts of high-taxing Labour authorities that provide rotten services at rip-off prices will convince no one and represents merely a grotesque abuse of power on his part?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening very carefully, because I gave a detailed response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) about the basis on which capping decisions are made. The principles are established.

Looking again at the figures, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that we see once again an authority that has had good grant increases from this Government over recent years: 6.4 per cent. in 2001–02; 4.5 per cent. in 2002–03; 12.5 per cent. in 2003–04; 3.8 per cent. in 2004–05; and 3.1 per cent. in 2005–06. All those increases are above inflation, yet the authority has felt a need to increase its council tax by double the shire district average. He should be talking to his authority about why it is so out of line with other shire districts. However, as I have said, we will listen to any representations that his council wishes to make.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement, the content of which has been agreed with you.

On 8 February, the third report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges was debated. I apologised to the House for the mistakes I made, but suggested that there were a few errors in the Committee's conclusions. At the request of the Clerk to the Committee, I amplified and evidenced my remarks.

The Committee has rejected that evidence and has invited me to make a fuller apology by way of a personal statement. I therefore offer my unreserved apology in respect of my conduct and accept the findings of the Committee in respect of this and my improper use of Commons stationery.

I also accept and unreservedly apologise for inadvertent but incorrect additional costs allowance claims. However it occurred, the responsibility is mine, and it has become apparent that I claimed for some items that I should not have, and did not claim for some items that were permissible. I will repay any discrepancy.

For all these mistakes, I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Amendment)

Keith Vaz presented a Bill to amend the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to establish a right of appeal in relation to the amount of compensation payable under section 133 of that Act and to make provision about the procedure for the assessment of such amounts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 April, and to be printed. [Bill 96].

Immigration Control (Balanced Migration)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable annual limits to be set on immigration; and for connected purposes.

Since this Government came to power, net immigration has trebled. Over the last six years, it has averaged 157,000 a year—equivalent to two constituencies needing to be housed every year, mostly in southern England. The Government's own projections show that net immigration to this country will add more than 5 million people to the population by 2031.

A year ago, I started looking into the Government's housing targets, which are a major issue in my constituency. I had no intention of getting involved in the immigration issue, until I discovered that the Deputy Prime Minister's housing targets are driven by the Home Secretary's immigration policy.

The Government have tried to give the impression that the main reason, apart from smaller households, for building millions of extra houses is movement from the rest of the UK to the south of England. In fact, this accounts for less than a tenth of the population growth in southern England. The most important factor is net immigration from abroad, largely to London, which results in a roughly equivalent number of Londoners of all races moving out to the home counties.

The Government have finally admitted that net immigration will account for one third of all the additional households in the decades to come. One third is a significant figure, because, as the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier today, two thirds of his housing targets can be met on brownfield land, but one third—the same as the proportion of extra households resulting from net immigration—will have to be built on greenfield sites.

Such matters are of legitimate public concern, but I hope that we can all agree that most immigrants are decent, hard-working, law-abiding people who want to make a positive contribution to this country, just as British ethnic minorities already do. Indeed, as Conservatives, the Opposition particularly admire the enterprise and family values that they often exemplify. Therefore, why do we want to set a limit on the numbers of people coming into this country?

I believe that some immigration enriches a country economically and culturally. Beyond a certain point, however, the benefits do not increase with numbers, whereas the costs do—notably, the pressures on housing and land. That is why it is essential to set a limit on the number of people coming to live and work here, as my Bill will make possible.

Immigration is to the economy what oil is to one's car. It is a lubricant, not a fuel. Lack of oil damages one's car. Stopping all immigration would damage the economy, but beyond a certain point, adding more does not make it go better. Unfortunately, the Government have been under the illusion that immigration is the fuel of economic growth and have put their foot on the accelerator.

The policy of the previous Conservative Government, spelled out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he was Home Secretary, was

"To restrict severely the numbers coming to live permanently or to work in the United Kingdom".

Like most people, I assumed that that remained the objective of this Government, too. I therefore thought that the large rise in immigration was simply because they had tried to control immigration but failed. In fact, my researches revealed that the Government have been trying to encourage immigration and have succeeded.

I spell out the evidence for that in my pamphlet, which I published yesterday, and it is threefold. First, an official Home Office document admits that

"the government wants to encourage lawful migration into the country . . . sustaining and perhaps increasing current levels"—

current levels that are already an all-time record. Secondly, the Government have written a letter to businesses—I have a copy with me—urging employers to bring in even low-skilled workers from outside Europe. Thirdly, they have relaxed the immigration rules in more than a dozen ways. As a result, the number entering on work permits, for example, has trebled and now dwarfs the number of asylum seekers granted refuge each year.

The Government claim that mass immigration on that scale is economically essential. In fact, most economic experts disagree. The Government's favourite think-tank, the left-of-centre Institute for Public Policy Research, published a whole book on the subject, which concluded:

"There is not a compelling long-term case for increased immigration purely in terms of economic benefits".

In the pamphlet that I published yesterday, I examine the arguments that the Government use to justify unlimited immigration. All of them have two things in common. If they were valid, they would indeed mean that we should encourage immigration without limit. They are not valid. They are based largely on economic sleight of hand.

First, the Prime Minister confuses growth in the size of the economy with growth in our standard of living. More workers make the economy bigger, but that does not make the average worker any better off. It might make the rich richer by giving them cheap nannies and builders, but it makes the less well-off poorer by holding down the pay of resident nurses, teachers, catering workers and so on. That might be the reason that the Government's policy of unlimited immigration goes down well among the glitterati but is less popular with former Labour voters.

Secondly, the Prime Minister says that we have half a million vacancies, so we need immigration to fill them. Since he started saying that, we have imported half a million workers, yet we still have half a million vacancies. The reason for that is that immigration does not reduce job vacancies, because migrants not only produce goods and services but consume them, which requires yet more workers to produce good and services, so we end up chasing our tail.

Thirdly, the Prime Minister claims that we need foreign workers to pay for our pensions in the decades ahead. But immigrants grow old, too. They will become pensioners precisely when the demographic problem is most acute. A United Nations study showed that to maintain the current ratio between working age and retired people in Britain would require more than a million immigrants a year. The Government's pensions tsar, Adair Turner, remarked,

"You only have to look at these figures to realise that this scale of immigration is undesirable and impossible. Fortunately it is also unnecessary".

There are types of immigration that are genuinely economically beneficial. In particular, international companies setting up new operations here often need to transfer staff with company-specific skills that they simply could not hire locally at any price. Those people might work here for a few years before typically returning home. Therefore, that does not result in a permanent increase in our population. Even if an annual limit were set such that there was a rough balance between those coming to work here and those returning or moving abroad, the flows in both directions would be measured in hundreds of thousands of people.

We need to set an annual limit that allows that and other beneficial flows as well as accommodating our humanitarian obligations, and which brings a much better balance to our immigration policy. We can do so. We should do so. Above all, a clear limit would bring the transparency and openness that are essential if we are to rebuild public confidence in all communities about our immigration policy, after years of doing one thing while saying another. I urge the House to support my Bill.

It had not been my intention to oppose the Bill, but having heard what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, there are too many questions that he has not answered, whether in relation to his pamphlet or the various sources on which he has called to support his arguments.

First, in relation to setting an annual limit, the right hon. Gentleman has not defined in any way what the criteria should be in deciding on that limit. Nor has he said how, within that limit, we will judge between those who might be here temporarily or for whom we are satisfying requirements under the refugee conventions and in relation to other humanitarian matters. He has also suggested that, if we bring in more migrants, that will be self-defeating. It is a strange sort of policy whereby we can only bring in people who have enormous skills, without considering the other broader skills that are seen as necessary in our society.

We need a proper migration policy. The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting one that is not capable of sensible implementation, and that does not have strict criteria set down by which we can judge the proper course of action. On that basis, I oppose the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Lilley, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. John Horam, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Edward Leigh, Dame Marion Roe, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Sir Michael Spicer and Mr. Andrew Turner.

Immigration Control (Balanced Migration)

Mr. Peter Lilley accordingly presented a Bill to enable annual limits to be set on immigration; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 May, and to be printed [Bill 98].

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.. Members who examine today's Order Paper will see the following sentence under the programme motion:

"Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 14th April 2005."

The whole House will have heard the Deputy Prime Minister confirm today, at Prime Minister's Question Time, that the general election would take place on 5 May. As the Prime Minister has confirmed that, it would surely be impossible for the Standing Committee proceedings to finish on that date, because the House would have dissolved by then. Given your experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can you offer us guidance on what to do next?

As far as I am aware, the date of the general election has not yet been officially announced. The motion is in order, and must be dealt with in the normal way.

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

The Bill completes the most far-reaching programme of disability rights legislation that any European country has ever seen. It fulfils our manifesto commitment to deliver enforceable and comprehensive civil rights for disabled people and represents a major landmark on the road to a world in which disabled people can be empowered to live independently, fully recognised and, indeed, respected as equal members of society.

The Bill extends the definition of disability to provide protection against discrimination for at least another 175,000 people. It covers more people diagnosed with the progressive conditions HIV, multiple sclerosis and cancer and removes the requirement that mental illnesses be "clinically well recognised." It closes gaps in the pre-existing legislation relating to, for example, the inclusion of local councillors, private clubs and transport services, and it extends the coverage of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to almost all activities of the public sector, placing a duty on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people, mainstreaming disability equality into the core business of the public sector as a whole and helping to eliminate the institutional disadvantage that many disabled people still face. Well over 40,000 public bodies will be covered by those duties in some way.

For the first time, disabled people can be confident that their needs will be to the fore rather than being considered as an afterthought. For example, if a health trust is reorganising its services or a local authority is thinking of pedestrianising a town centre, it will need to think first about the way in which disabled people are likely to be affected.

I want to do two things. First, I want to set this Bill and some of its specific measures in the wider context of our previous legislation and the delivery of our longer-term goal of equality and independence for disabled people, as set out in the Prime Minister's recent strategy unit report.

In the light of the speculation about the general election date, can the Secretary of State guarantee that the Bill will receive full Committee and Report stages?

I cannot guarantee anything that goes through the usual channels, but I am confident that it will. Given good will in all parts of the House, I see no reason for it not to be on the statute book by the time a general election is called, even if that happens earlier than some people expected.

The second thing that I want to do is explain the Government's position on a number of specific issues in the Bill, which I hope will inform the debate and ensure the Bill's quick passage through the House.

We have come a long way since the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That is when Alf Morris, the first ever Minister for Disabled People, laid the foundations for disability rights legislation in the UK. When we came to office in 1997, despite 14 previous attempts to produce legislation, only the most blatant forms of direct discrimination against disabled people had been outlawed and there was no protection at all for disabled employees of small firms or for disabled pupils and students. The 1995 Act lounged on the statute book, falling far short of its potential and with no champion to help people enforce their rights or give employers advice and guidance on how to meet their obligations.

The Secretary of State is normally a most reasonable person. To set the record straight, will he acknowledge that the 1995 Act was described by the Equal Opportunities Review as

"the most important . . . legislation in a generation"?

I will acknowledge that. It was. The trouble was that there was no effective system to ensure its enforcement. Moreover—I think the hon. Gentleman will accept this, because he too is a fair and reasonable person—it did not go as far as the disability lobby wanted it to, or as far as Members throughout the House pursuing private Members' Bills wanted to take disability discrimination legislation. We have now created the champion that the 1995 Act needed, first through the work of the Disability Rights Task Force and then with the hugely successful Disability Rights Commission.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, and wish it to be sped on its way whenever the general election may occur. Did my right hon. Friend notice an under-reported part of the Budget, which gives 2 million disabled people free travel? Can he say how that welcome development might work in practice?

I agree that it was under-reported. Most of the focus was on free off-peak bus travel for people over 60 from April 2006. The statement, of course, included all disabled people. It is indeed a welcome development and another development that improves the whole position by empowering disabled people.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the 1995 Act. One of the disappointing features of that Act was the length of the lead-in times. Had it not been for this Government's actions, part III—passed 10 years ago—would still not be operation. We introduced "Access to Goods and Services" last year.

I think that it was on 1 October 2004 that that final part of the Act was passed. It was a red-letter day for all those interested in disability issues.

We are working to ensure that the DRC's championing of disability remains at the core of the new commission for equality and human rights. We have also set about implementing the most profound extension of disability civil rights that the country has ever seen. In transport, buildings, education and access to goods and services, our legislative programme has strengthened, widened and deepened the original Disability Discrimination Act.

In 1997, there were no rights of access for disabled people to public transport. We introduced accessibility regulations for rail vehicles in 1998, and for buses and coaches in 2000. From 1 March 2001, licensed taxi drivers have had a duty to carry guide dogs free of charge, and that duty was extended to all licensed private hire vehicle operators and drivers from 1 March last year. Accessibility regulations for taxis are also on the way.

The Bill protects disabled passengers against discrimination for the first time, ending the anomaly of transport not counting as a service under the DDA. It also allows us to set an end date of 2020 for all rail vehicles to be subject to the accessibility regulations providing access for all disabled people. Replacing the vehicle stock to meet the legislation places a cost burden on the rail industry and it is important to strike the right balance between those costs and the need for accessibility.

Quite long lead-in times are given to rail companies. Are not most rail franchises let on a 10 or 15-year basis? The Secretary of State is allowing more than enough time for a replacement company to bid for a franchise, which should put it in a much better position to ensure that all its rolling stock is disability-compliant from day one.

The hon. Gentleman's point has been raised in debate and by the Scrutiny Committee, but I was just coming to the way in which we see the balance working. It is not so much an issue of the franchises, but of the costs of replacing trains that have not yet reached the end of their proper working lives.

We moved from our original proposal to introduce the deadline of 2025 to place 2020 in the Bill, and combined with moves to strengthen the monitoring and scrutiny of exemptions, we believe that we have got the balance right; and we welcome the recent endorsement of the approach by the DRC. This does not mean that everything stands still until 2020; indeed, by the end of 2017 and the beginning of 2018, around 1,500 trains will have been made fully accessible.

As with transport, we cannot tackle the legacy of buildings overnight, but we are making good progress. Improved building regulations have already made provision for more buildings to be accessible and usable by disabled people. The Bill goes further, in imposing a duty on landlords to make reasonable adjustments for disabled tenants and prospective tenants, short of physical changes to premises. Where the lease gives tenants a right to carry out alterations to residential premises with a landlord's consent, the landlord will not be able to withhold such consent unreasonably for alterations needed by a disabled person living in the premises.We have also agreed to review the position on changes to common parts of residential premises. Work on the review is already under way and we expect recommendations by the end of the year.

In education, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 is leading to innovative solutions. For example, at a school in Birmingham, a pupil who is registered blind accesses the whole curriculum with the help of a specially adapted keyboard. The world of learning has been opened for him. What is more, there is no extra work involved for the teacher apart from keeping the service provider abreast of teaching plans.

With access to goods and services covered since October last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) mentioned, service providers such as shops, restaurants and leisure centres have had to take reasonable steps to tackle physical features that make access impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people.

Last October also saw protection against discrimination extended to an additional 600,000 disabled workers, and 7 million jobs and 1 million employers were brought within the scope of the employment provisions of the DDA for the first time.

Creating employment opportunity is a crucial part of supporting disabled people to fulfil their potential in society as a whole. But in addition to opening up job opportunities for disabled people, we believe that they need to have the skills and personal tailored support to fulfil their employment aspirations. Since 1997, through our investment in Jobcentre Plus and the new deal, we have begun to transform the welfare state from the passive one-size-fits-all inheritance to an active service that tailors help to the individual and enables people to acquire the skills and confidence to move from welfare to work.

The new deal for disabled people has seen nearly 55,000 job entries since its launch in 2001, but our other new deal initiatives—for lone parents and young people for instance—have also been effective. Altogether, nearly 200,000 disabled people have been helped into work through our total package of new deal programmes, while the numbers claiming incapacity benefit fell by 22,000 in the year to November 2004.

We are seeing remarkably encouraging early results from our pathways to work pilots, with the latest statistics showing that the number of recorded job entries for people with a health condition or disability has almost doubled compared with the same period last year.

Our proposed reform of incapacity benefit builds on our investment in pathways to work, the new deal and Jobcentre Plus, seeking to enable the 1 million disabled people on benefits who want to work to fulfil their aspirations.

I agree with what my right hon. Friend says, and he is very positive. But does he agree that there are particular problems for those who have mental health difficulties, inasmuch as we need to provide additional support? There is always a fear that things will go wrong for them and that they will be thrown back on to incapacity benefit. If we are to get people with mental health problems back into work, we will need to provide additional support.

I agree completely. I said last week that we will be publishing a Green Paper in the summer and I set out the four basic issues we would be looking at in terms of the input from everyone involved; the fourth was how we dealt with mental health problems. We have great experience already, from the 10 per cent. of the country that is covered by pathways to work, as to how we can deal with such fluctuating conditions, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is one of the crucial issues that we need to solve in talking the project forward.

My right hon. Friend is aware that I represent one of the pathways to work pilot areas where the Jobcentre Plus team has been very successful in getting people off incapacity benefit and back into work. I was at one of my local hospitals last week to talk to members of staff involved in the partnership work with Jobcentre Plus. It is clear that, across the board, there is a high level of job satisfaction and fulfilment for members of staff working with people on incapacity benefit through pathways to work. That is what they came into the job for, and I pass their thanks to him for the opportunity to do what they are there to do.

I thank my hon. Friend, whose constituency I visited to see for myself the success of pathways to work. He referred earlier to a hidden part of the Budget. Another part of the Budget was the extension of the linking rules to 104 weeks, which will be crucial in helping people—particularly those with fluctuating mental health conditions—to take that all-important first step into work.

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on mental ill health, will the Secretary of State confirm the Government's attitude to Lord Skelmersdale's amendment, which I believe is now clause 18? An earlier amendment tabled by Lord Carter was resisted and failed, whereas Lord Skelmersdale's amendment was pressed to a Division and incorporated in the Bill, apparently against the Government's wishes. Is there any intent to amend that at any stage?

There will indeed be an attempt to amend it, and I will explain exactly why later.

Improving the support for obtaining and retaining employment was a cornerstone of the Prime Minister's strategy unit report earlier this year. This set out an ambitious 20-year strategy to improve the life chances of disabled people by promoting independent living supported by individualised service delivery. But such a strategy can be successful only if it is built on the foundation of the enforceable and comprehensive civil rights that this Bill makes possible.

I should like to set out the Government's position on three important elements of the Bill which I think will help to inform this afternoon's debate—namely, the definition of depression, the exclusion of some cancers and the effect on schools. A basic principle of the DDA is that it protects people who have, or are likely to have, long-term effects connected with their impairment.

Businesses, especially 1 million small firms, are still getting to grips with last October's duties, so it would be inappropriate to make fundamental changes to this long-term definition of disability. In any event, a special provision for only some people with short-term conditions would be confusing and potentially unfair to people with other impairments. The DDA already enables people with recurring or fluctuating conditions—including depression—to meet the long-term definition of disability if there is a continuing underlying impairment. So we will seek to overturn the amendment made in the other place, but this is not the end of the road. The pre-legislative scrutiny Committee asked the DRC to look at ways of progressing the "social model" of disability discrimination. We believe that this review is the right place to consider whether and how to cover short-term conditions, and we look forward to working with the DRC on this.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. Will he acknowledge that the Joint Committee also wanted the cover for depression to be extended—albeit, it is true, not exactly along the lines of Lord Skelmersdale's amendment?

I accept that. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows—he was a member of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee—we have provided such an extension, but we have not gone to the lengths that some in the other place wanted. However, it is reasonable to use this review and the work being undertaken by the DRC to resolve some of the underlying problems raised in the other place.

I turn to the second issue, which is cancers. The DDA already covers many people with cancer, and the Bill, by covering cancers from diagnosis, extends protection to an additional 145,000 people. In line with the original disability rights task force recommendation, it protects people with potentially long-term asymptomatic conditions who are likely to face stigma, not those with readily treatable, short-term conditions who are not to our knowledge experiencing any discrimination.

We have however undertaken not to use regulation-making powers to exclude any readily treatable cancers from automatic coverage until we have reviewed the actual evidence of discrimination with the DRC, Macmillan Cancer Relief and others. We have also ensured that the regulations will receive the highest level of parliamentary scrutiny—affirmative procedure—so that Parliament can hold the Government to account. The DRC has stated that

"this provides a sound way forward and there is no further amendment to the Bill required in this area."

We welcome the DRC's support for our approach.

Finally and crucially, I want to mention these measures' effect on schools. The general duty on the public sector to promote equality for disabled people is laid out clearly in the Bill. But the Bill also gives regulation-making powers to the Secretary of State that allow the placing of specific duties on prescribed bodies, in order to help those bodies to understand how the duty applies to their situation, and in order to require them to demonstrate that they have given strategic thought to the needs of disabled people.

These are crucial provisions for addressing the thoughtlessness and institutional discrimination that have held back disabled people for too long. The general duty will apply across the public sector, and I want to ensure that key public bodies are subject to the specific duties, in order to help them to implement the general duty effectively when regulations are set out in the summer.

Schools have an especially significant bearing on the life chances of disabled people, and they play a crucial role in combating prejudice and equipping disabled children with the qualifications and skills that they need to participate fully in society and to realise their true potential. There is still far too large a gap between the academic results of disabled people and those of their non-disabled peers. In 2003, 24 per cent. of disabled people aged 16 to 24 had no qualifications whatsoever, compared with 13 per cent. of non-disabled people of the same age. But it is important to ensure that any extra requirements that we place on schools are proportionate. We have learned lessons from the experience of the duty to promote race equality, and this Bill will give rise to a far less bureaucratic regime.

So we are clear that any regulations must apply sufficiently flexibly to schools. They must avoid requiring schools to produce unnecessary paperwork, instead allowing them to fulfil any duty by using existing mechanisms—such as their annual report—to demonstrate that they are thinking about how they serve disabled people. We will need to tailor regulations to achieve this, and to listen carefully to the schools themselves. But I am also clear that schools cannot simply be exempt from these duties. Failing to find a way to include schools would not just mean that we had failed to deliver full civil rights; it would fundamentally weaken our longer-term ability to achieve the step change in public attitudes that is so crucial to delivering our longer-term vision of a society of equal rights and opportunities for all.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. He and I share a common interest in schools, as former education Ministers. I am pleased that he has confirmed that this duty will apply, and that he is trying to think of lateral ways to discharge it without excessive cost. Have he or his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills assessed the likely unit cost to schools of any such regime, in order to ensure that it is bearable?

We have not taken our discussions that far, but the "single conversation" taking place in education is the natural place to deal with such matters. However, I can inform the House that schools in England and Wales will be listed as bodies with specific duties to promote disability equality.

I believe that, in years to come, the mistreatment of disabled people that was typical of the last century—and which is still too often the case today—will be seen as the affront to humanity that it is.

Before my right hon. Friend sits down, I want to put on the record—on behalf, I hope, of several Members currently in the Chamber—that it was a privilege to serve on the scrutiny Committee not just because we produced some 70 very sensible amendments, but because the Government, in the light of events in another place, accepted more than 80 per cent. of them. That illustrates the great common sense shown by the Government—a common sense reflected only in that of the scrutiny Committee.

I thank my hon. Friend for his involvement in that Committee, which was extremely successful. Just to be absolutely accurate, there were 75 recommendations, 61 of which—81 per cent.—have been accepted.

As my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), said, this is the great emancipation issue of our time. Today in this Chamber, Members have an opportunity to strike a lasting blow against disability discrimination. We are past the point of party politics. We have a Bill that has been heavily scrutinised and amended in the light of helpful and intelligent contributions from all parts of the House. I would like to pay tribute to the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), for all her tremendous work in leading our cause, and to pay tribute to all Members of this House and of the other place who have championed disability rights and helped us to scrutinise the Bill properly.

As I said, we responded positively to 61 recommendations of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, making concessions in the other place on issues such as cancers, rail vehicles and improvements to rented property. Today, we have committed ourselves to regulations that will ensure that schools promote disability equality. Disabled people want this Bill and our society needs this Bill, so we have a duty to put it on the statute book. I commend it to the House.

We welcome this Disability Discrimination Bill, which builds upon the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 that we introduced when in government. The Bill has been widely welcomed by disabled people and disability organisations, and we want to see it on the statute book. The Disability Rights Commission has applauded the work done by Conservatives in the other place in

"getting this key disability rights legislation into such good shape. They have given it thorough scrutiny resulting in many positive gains for disabled people and are joining us in pressing for speedy enactment."

However, although the Bill was quite a good one when it was first considered in another place—and although it is, as the DRC says, a much improved Bill after that consideration—it comes very late in this Parliament. Because it comes so late, the House now looks as though it will have little opportunity, if any, to improve it further, though I note what the Secretary of State said. Many disabled people fear that the Bill may somehow be lost in the wash-up as the coming general election approaches, and not reach the statute book at all.

I want to explain how that regrettable situation has come about. The Bill was first presaged as long ago as March 2001—four years ago—in "Towards Inclusion", the Government's final response to "From Exclusion to Inclusion", a report by the Disability Rights Task Force. In their response, the Government proposed, for example, that

"HIV should count as a disability from diagnosis and that people with cancer should count as disabled from when the cancer is diagnosed as being likely to require substantial treatment."

That proposal is duly encapsulated in clause 18 and it is but one example of the link between the Government's response four years ago and the present Bill. The Government's response then went to consultation.

In its election manifesto some two months later, Labour said:

"We are now committed to extending basic rights and opportunities, as indicated in our response to the Disability Rights Taskforce."

The manifesto confirmed the Government's intention to bring a Bill before Parliament. Two and half years later in October 2003, the Government declared that a Bill on disability discrimination would complete its parliamentary passage before the next election—the coming election—and that a draft Bill would go before a Joint Committee of both Houses.

At that point, many disabled people and disability organisations began to express heightened anxiety because they believed that the Joint Committee report and the Government response to it could push back the introduction of a Bill to the very late stages of this Parliament, and that scrutiny would therefore be telescoped and truncated. Those anxieties have been justified, because it looks as though that is exactly what will happen. We consider the Bill today on Second Reading. In other words, it has taken four years from the Government response to the taskforce report to the introduction of the Bill in the elected Chamber.

Irrespective of what the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier today, a general election is expected on 5 May, so the House expects to be dissolved no later than 11 April. Furthermore, the Easter break lies between now and that date. The House is therefore unlikely—I put it no higher than that—to have a full Committee stage, if any, or a full Report stage, if any, in which further to improve the Bill by taking into account the suggestions for improvement that disability organisations have made.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Disability Rights Commission also said in its briefing that the Bill requires no further amendment?

I am aware of that. An interesting question to ask, however, is why it said that—though neither the Minister nor I can answer it.

It is obvious.

It is important to ask whether the Disability Rights Commission would have said that were we not having a general election on 5 May and if more time were available for further consideration.

My hon. Friend will know that I have a high regard for the Disability Rights Commission and its work. However great the wisdom of the DRC, would it not be even better to tap the wisdom of hon. Members and ascertain their thoughts on amendments? When we are dealing in particular with uncontentious legislation, is it not a bad way to do business for the Government to hold a pistol to Members' heads and say, "Either give way and concede without further discussion, or the whole measure will be taken away with no prospect of return for many years"?

It is important that Members here and in the other place and disabled people and their organisations are able to make their views plain. Like other hon. Members, I have had conversations about the Bill with disabled people and disability organisations, but I can recall none saying that the Bill, though good, is incapable of further improvement.

Given the universal acclaim for the Bill, to whatever degree of perfection, will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that his party will, through the usual channels, move heaven and earth to co-operate if it proves necessary to accelerate the Bill's passage through the House?

I hear that representation and the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say earlier that we want to see the Bill on the statute book. When I asked the Secretary of State earlier whether he could guarantee the Bill a full Committee and Report stage, and guarantee its passage on to the statute book, he said that he was not a business manager, so he could not. Neither am I, so we are in the same position in that regard.

One of the reasons why the Secretary of State cannot give that guarantee is that we do not know what the usual channels on the Opposition side will do.

I am not sure whether the Secretary of State knows the full views of the usual channels on the Government side, so the argument goes both ways. The key point for the hon. Gentleman to note is that if the Bill had been introduced earlier, we would not need these exchanges across the Floor of the House and we could get on with consideration of the Bill.

Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that we should not have subjected the Bill to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee? I am interested in having that question answered, because that is the main reason why the Bill has come before the House so late. Does he believe that we were wrong?

There are two answers to that—

Yes and no.

The Secretary of State will recall that when the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee was established, many disability organisations said that they would have preferred the Bill to come before Parliament straight away. Speaking as a member of the Joint Committee, I agree that that Committee did good work. If the Secretary of State looked further into the proceedings of the Bill, he would find that, after the Joint Committee had reported and the Government had responded to it, the Government could have moved faster to introduce the Bill in the House of Lords. The introduction of the Bill was held up, if I recall correctly, by our old friend the Hunting Bill. Many of my hon. Friends do not believe that that Bill was at all necessary. I hope that I have dealt with that procedural point.

The Government accepted a number of the recommendations in the scrutiny Committee report and incorporated them in the Bill. Furthermore, the Bill was already much improved before coming before this House as a result of the Joint Committee's work. How the hon. Gentleman can argue that all that process adds up simply to delay is completely beyond me.

As the Minister knows, the Bill before us here today is late. It remains the case that, after receiving the scrutiny Committee report and the Government's response to it, the Government could have introduced the Bill more quickly in the other place. Had they done so, the Bill would have arrived more quickly here. In that case, we could have had full Committee and Report stages, which we are now most unlikely to have. The blame lies fairly and squarely with the Government.

The likely lack of time for improvement and amendment means that many disabled people will greet this all but unamendable Bill—that is what it looks to be, in practice—with mixed feelings: with gladness, naturally, because it is a good Bill, but with a measure of regret for missed opportunities, because it is not as good as it could have been. Throughout this Parliament, we have consistently called for the Bill to be presented and considered as soon as possible. Had it been presented and considered earlier, as I said a few moments ago, it would have been amendable and improvable in this place.

rose—

I shall give way in a moment.

The blame for this singular lack of urgency lies fairly and squarely with the Government's business managers. They, lest we forget, timetabled the only debate on disability in Government time in this Parliament on the worst possible day of this Parliament: Euro-election day, the day on which most Members from all parties were most likely to be absent. The business managers plainly had other more pressing priorities, such as finding time for the Hunting Bill.

We must presume that the legislation that reaches the statute book will look almost indistinguishable from the Bill before us today. The Bill is, indeed, as the DRC has indicated, very much improved as a result of cross-party and Back-Bench pressure on the Government in the other place. I want to pay tribute to the peers of whatever political party who, for example, forced no fewer than 13 concessions from the Government on Report and defeated the Government in a crucial vote on depression. That vote extended the Bill's protection to people with depression, and is now enshrined in clause 18. I shall return to that matter later, in light of what the Secretary of State said. In the meantime, I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale, who moved that amendment, for his work on the Bill, and to my noble Friend Lord Higgins. As the DRC states in its briefing on the Bill:

"As the result of tough cross-party scrutiny in the Lords, and effective engagement with disabled people and their organisations, the Bill has been strengthened to deliver major gains for disabled people in access to housing, access to rail transport, in relation to public bodies' responsibility to tackle hate crime and promote positive attitudes towards disabled people and in relation to participation in public life."

A moment ago, I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg). I do so now.

For some 12 minutes, I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman complain about the lack of time for scrutiny of the Bill. I have been waiting for him to get on with explaining what the Bill lacks. I hope that he will stop wasting time complaining about the lack of time.

Order. It would be a very good idea to get on with the content of the Bill. We have dealt sufficiently with the time element.

I am very grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to say that some of the gains in the Bill—and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South supported the provision in respect of depression, at least in principle, during the Joint Committee proceedings—were originally suggested in the Joint Committee report. For example, the report proposed that disabled people in rented accommodation should have effective rights not to have requests for access improvements to their homes unreasonably refused by landlords. That proposal was originally suggested in recommendation 56 of the Joint Committee's report and is now enshrined in clause 16.

Another example concerns the imposition of clear duties on the public sector to promote positive attitudes towards disabled people, to tackle all forms of harassment and bullying, and to promote participation in public life. That was originally suggested in recommendation 14, and is now enshrined in clause 3. In the other place, the Government also moved towards the Joint Committee's position on cancer. Originally, the Government directly rejected 17 of the 75 recommendations from the Joint Committee, and eight indirectly. However, I note from the Secretary of State's figures that we got there in the end. All members of the Joint Committee, and others, will therefore welcome those gains.

As I said, the Bill builds on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government. The Equal Opportunities Commission described that as

"the most important legislation in a generation",

and said that it was

"the most radical of our discrimination laws".

The Secretary of State gave us a tour d'horizon of the Bill. I want to concentrate on five areas—depression, cancer, hate crimes, transport and schools. I shall begin with depression.

I referred earlier to the amendment tabled by my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale to extend the protection given by the Bill to people with depression. The Government opposed the amendment but, as we have heard, it was nevertheless carried in the other place and is now enshrined in clause 18.

The Joint Committee recommended that people experiencing separate periods of depression totalling six months over a two-year period should be considered to meet the long-term requirement set out in the 1995 Act. Lord Skelmersdale's amendment, which was supported by Mind, was a variant on that theme. According to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, depression is usually a time-limited disorder lasting up to six months. Clause 18(3) stipulates that people will have protection if they undergo episodes of depression and if one such episode in the previous five years lasted at least six months.

We agree with the Disability Charities Consortium—the coalition consisting of Leonard Cheshire, Mencap, Radar, the Royal National Institute of the Blind, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, and Scope—that clause 18(3) is modest and reasonable. We want it to stay in the Bill, so we were obviously disappointed by what the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks. Given that there has been no confirmation in this debate yet that the Bill will receive full Committee and Report stages, I am curious to know how the Government propose to remove the provision from the Bill. No doubt, we shall discover that in due course.

I cannot answer the conundrum that my hon. Friend has just put to the House, but does he agree that the amendment was an honest attempt to introduce the concept of linking rules into qualification under the disability discrimination legislation, in the same way that similar rules apply to benefit claims made by people who suffer recurrent periods of illness or disability? Does he also agree that it would be sensible to consider applying those linking rules to the circumstances covered by this Bill?

My hon. Friend is correct. I believe that Lord Skelmersdale was trying to introduce that linking principle. The other place agreed with him and voted for the amendment in the face of Government opposition.

I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in response to my earlier intervention, but employers frequently discriminate against people diagnosed with depression. In one case study, 200 CVs were sent out to personnel managers. They were identical, apart from the fact that 100 of the people involved had been diagnosed with diabetes, and the other 100 with depression. It was no great surprise to discover that the people with diagnosed diabetes were far more likely to get interviews and make further progress down the chain. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a fine Bill, and that it has been introduced by an excellent Secretary of State? I hope that it will not be weakened. If clause 18 is deleted, I hope that it will be replaced with something equivalent.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I was very interested in the information that he offered the House. It is true that people with depression face such discrimination, and that is why the other place voted as it did. It is also why the Joint Committee wanted to extend cover for people with depression—and other members of the Joint Committee are present in the Chamber today to vouch for that.

The Bill extends protection for people with HIV, multiple sclerosis and cancer to the point of diagnosis, and that is welcome. However, clause 18 also contains regulations that may prescribe circumstances in which that protection will not apply to certain cancers. Late last year, the Government issued a consultation document listing some of the cancers to which protection might not apply. They included in situ skin cancers that do not affect the full skin thickness and can be treated easily and simply. That seemed to the DRC, and to our colleagues in another place, to miss the vital point that stigma and discrimination can follow from the point of diagnosis, regardless of the severity of the cancer and the degree of medical treatment necessary.

The Government have undertaken, as a result of pressure in another place, not to make any regulations until a consultation and review of the proposals has been carried out with the DRC and cancer charities. That is to be welcomed. A Government amendment was also passed ensuring that any such regulations will be made under the affirmative, rather than negative, resolution procedure. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will report later, when she replies to this debate, on the timetable for that consultation and review.

I turn next to hate crimes.

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to discuss hate crimes, I want to tease out what he is asking the Government for in respect of cancer. Is he talking about a cancer that is not debilitating but affects the sufferer only in the sense that others perceive an ugly mark—a strawberry mark or some other deformity that attracts attention? Is not the effect of the latter condition worse than some of the other cancers to which he has referred? If so, should not it be covered by the Bill too?

I was asking simply for a timetable in relation to a concession that the Government have already made in another place. It is true that disabled people can be discriminated against regardless of the severity of the illness affecting them. As the hon. Lady would concede, they can be discriminated against simply because they have the condition in question, so it is right that such questions be raised.

As I said, I want next to move to hate crimes. Clause 3 extends the duties of public authorities. Amendments made in the Lords strengthened the duties to promote positive attitudes towards disabled people, to tackle all forms of harassment and bullying, and to promote participation in public life. That is welcome. The Disability Rights Commission reports that hate crimes affect one in five disabled people, and Mencap reports that hate crimes affect nine out of 10 people with learning disabilities. When does the Minister anticipate that the Home Office will implement section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides for an increase in sentences for crimes aggravated by hostility based on a person's disability or sexual orientation?

On transport, the Joint Committee recommended an end date on rail accessibility of 2017, together with a limited exemption system that would expire in 2005. Amendments accepted by the Government in the Lords, after much debate, set an end date of 2020 in the Bill. I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Higgins, who helped get an end date in the Bill by originally pressing the Government for 2017.

An amendment to remove the power to make exemptions after 1 January 2020 was narrowly defeated in the Lords. The Disability Charities Consortium believes that that sends a strong signal that the Government need to state explicitly that any exemptions granted for the period after 1 January 2020 will have to be proportionate, necessary and for a very limited period only. We agree with the DRC that the 2020 end date must be a firm and definite deadline and that the exemptions procedure set out in clause 6(3) must not be allowed to offer a get-out clause to companies that fail to comply.

That would usually be a matter that we would seek to explore with a Minister in Committee. However, since we are sadly not guaranteed a Committee stage—I am happy to give way to the Minister if she wants to confirm that there will be one—will she assure disabled people that the exemptions will be proportionate and necessary and last for a very limited period only? What guidance can she give them about how long that period is likely to be?

The Government agreed during the passage of the Bill in another place to publish draft regulations to make changes to part 5 of the DDA in relation to transport. Will the Minister look again at public service vehicle accessibility regulations with a view to including a requirement for audio-visual provision on buses? At present, there is no provision in the regulations for such a requirement.

The previous enforcement regime on train operating companies that operate inaccessible stock illegally was considered too severe. It has been replaced by a light-touch regulatory framework and a new regime of fines described in clause 8, but as yet the Government have given no indication of the scales that will be used to determine fines. Such information must be forthcoming if disabled people are to have confidence in the new framework. Will the Minister tell us how the fines will be calculated and how the Government will ensure that serious breaches will be more seriously punished? Can repeat fines be applied and, if so, how soon after the initial fine? What systems are in place for when a train company appeals against a fine?

Finally on transport, the aviation and shipping industries will continue to operate under a code of practice on accessibility, unlike the rail and bus industries, which will operate under a legislative framework. The regulation powers set out in clause 5 allow the Government to make both codes statutory, but the draft regulations that were recently considered do not include aviation and shipping. The Government have indicated that they will await the outcome of research into both industries before taking further action. Will the Minister say when the first fruits of that research will be published? The House will aware that that is a sensitive issue, as the DCC has mustered some high-profile examples of discriminatory treatment, such as its claim that Brittany Ferries has a policy of not carrying assistance dogs unless they are confined to the car for the entire journey.

I turn now to disability equality duties for schools. As the Secretary of State said, schools will be subject to the general anti-discrimination and pro-opportunity duties set out in clause 3. The question, which he touched on, is whether specific duties should be laid on schools, which would arguably boost outcomes for disabled children. I have heard it suggested that those duties should be in the Bill, rather than applied by regulation. Some 24 per cent. of disabled young people had no qualifications whatsoever in 2003, compared with an average of 11 per cent. for the same age group in the same year. The DRC argues, inter alia, that the lack of specific duties sends the message to schools that disability equality is not as important as race equality, and that that is inconsistent with and undermines achievement of the recommendations made by the Prime Minister's strategy unit, which are based on effective implementation of disability equality schemes.

The DRC claims that Ministers originally intended schools to have such specific duties. It is certain that Baroness Hollis suggested on Report in another place that the way forward now is to review the existing policy and legislative framework in 18 months. It is suggested that there has been some tension on the issue—heaven forbid—between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education and Skills, and in particular the implementation review group in the DFES. That group was the only organisation to respond negatively to the consultation by the DWP last year.

None the less, I welcome what the Secretary of State said about the regulations. We would be opposed to imposing unnecessary and unwelcome new duties on heads, teachers and governing bodies, so if any proposed specific duties were opposed by teachers, we would oppose them too. However, as the Secretary of State knows, it is striking that they do not seem to be opposed to such duties. The Special Educational Consortium to the TUC, National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers argues that such duties would actually reduce red tape. In ordinary circumstances—if I may refer to the timetable one more time—we would have hoped to explore the issue by tabling amendments in Committee or on Report, but that course is unlikely to be open to us.

We would also have hoped to table amendments to explore—I put it no more strongly than that—whether the DDA should be amended to enable cases concerning education discrimination in Scotland to be heard by the additional learning support tribunal for Scotland rather than the sheriff court, on the ground that tribunals are the most appropriate place to hear discrimination claims.

The Bill also invites us to look ahead. The Government intend to set up a commission for equality and human rights and to absorb the DRC into that commission by October 2007. By that time, many provisions in the Bill will have been in place, we hope, for nearly a year. The Bill to introduce the commission is apparently due to receive its Second Reading in this House after Easter, so it has not yet passed through one House of Parliament, let alone two, and must consequently be unlikely to reach the statute book. We will want to examine that Bill closely, but we have already made it clear that we are deeply concerned by some of the possibilities opened up by the proposed abolition of the DRC. The commission is the guardian of the present Bill, and people with disabilities have special needs and requirements.

I am not sure that the DRC regards the present proposals as its abolition. There has been considerable consultation with all the representative bodies—not just with the three existing strands that have commissions, but with the other strands that will be included in the 2006 regulations—which is why the equalities legislation is being introduced now. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the DRC has welcomed the consultation on the equalities commission and, as it now stands, is happy to go along with it?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the DRC expressed anxieties about protecting the role of disability work in the new commission. We wait to see exactly what happens during the passage of the Bill. We want to reserve our position until the issues in that Bill have been fully explored, but we have no opposition to an equalities commission in principle.

The barriers that prevent people with disabilities from participating on equal terms in modern Britain are formidable. There is concern that the distinctive identity mission and work of the DRC could be imperilled, which is why we look forward to discussions on the Bill.

Consideration of Bills is necessarily a dry and dusty business, at least in part; clauses are examined, improvements are suggested and intentions are probed. There is far more to the Bill than the sum of its clauses. It is part of a story of legislation and action to try to ensure equal opportunities and social justice for disabled people. The source of that legislation and action is not Government, but disabled people and the wider community.

Some progress has been made under the Governments of both main parties, although that progress is hard to measure. However, disabled people all too often remain an untapped source of talent and potential and all too frequently find themselves marginalised and excluded. We should remember that a disabled child is still less likely to survive birth than a non-disabled child. As a disabled child grows to be an adult, they are less likely than a non-disabled adult to gain qualifications, go to university, get a job, earn as much money, have easy access to transport or enjoy leisure activities. As a disabled adult ages, they are still less likely to enjoy the same income in retirement, access to the benefits system as quickly or live as long as a non-disabled person of the same age.

Equal opportunities have not yet been realised. Perhaps they will always be work in progress, just as anti-discrimination legislation, like the Bill, is always work in progress and always capable of improvement. Although, sadly, the House may not have further opportunities to improve the Bill, it is part of a process of legislation and action to fight discrimination and to deliver better life chances for disabled people. We are grateful to have had the opportunity to play a part in that.

I am delighted to be involved in the debate on this Bill. A few weeks ago, I met some disabled people at the Labour party Scottish conference and may have given them the false impression that, if there were an early election, the Bill might fall and not reach the statute book. However, I was delighted when I returned to the House the following week and spoke to the Minister for Disabled People, because he assured me that the Government have every intention of ensuring that, whenever the election is called, the Bill will be on the statute book. I apologise to those whom I spoke to that weekend if I gave them a false impression about the Government's intention; it is clear that they intend to put the Bill firmly on the statute book.

I take issue with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) about whether our discussion has been truncated. It is worth remembering that, when a Bill is introduced in the House of Commons first, that is generally the first bite of the cherry in amending and scrutinising it. However, this is the third attempt at scrutinising the Bill. The draft Bill was first considered by the scrutiny Committee on which the hon. Gentleman and I served. Many changes were made as a result of that, probably more than would have been achieved during the normal parliamentary procedures in Standing Committees in either place.

Can the hon. Lady confirm that I did not say that consideration of the Bill had been truncated at this stage? I said that it was likely to be truncated after Second Reading. Does she disagree?

That answers the point I am making that, by the time the Bill goes into Committee in this House, most of the serious work will have been done. Not only were serious amendments made to the draft Bill—the hon. Gentleman will agree that those amendments were welcome—but it has been further amended in the other place. As a result of those amendments, the scrutiny remaining for this House to do is perhaps less than would normally follow Second Reading, Standing Committee and remaining stages in this House followed by those stages in another place. The Bill is at the end of that process and has gone through a lot more scrutiny than many other Bills would have had by this stage. The Government cannot be accused of lack of scrutiny of the Bill. I believe that everyone in this House wants the Bill on the statute book and I hope that it will go speedily through Standing Committee in this House.

The Bill is the final missing piece in a jigsaw of equality legislation. It does not hang together easily because it is slightly bitty and covers different aspects, partly because of its purpose, which is to fill the gaps left by other legislation. Starting with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, we have seen that legislation works.

Long before I was elected to this place, I was involved with a number of organisations for the disabled. I often met people who argued that to bring about the changes in people's attitudes to disabled people that we have seen in recent years required education and persuasion, not legislation. That argument was often used in this House against private Member's Bills. It was argued that the best way of changing attitudes and the way in which disabled people are perceived in society was not by legislation, certainly not heavy-handed legislation, but by education. However, we know that education and persuasion did not work. The 1995 Act proved that, when there is a framework of legislation, attitudes change more rapidly than with gentle persuasion or pointing out that things are wrong. That is mainly because in this country people want to abide by the law, and legislation can provide the framework or civic context that says that something is wrong. To discriminate against people because of their disability is wrong. To stop someone getting a job because they happen to have a disability is wrong. Without the context of legislation, people are not always sure what is right or wrong. Legislation has been proved to work and I am pleased that the Government are continuing to plug the gaps of the existing legislative framework.

I do not want to go into the details of the Bill, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the framework very well in his speech, and I am conscious that other hon. Members want to scrutinise the Bill. I am most pleased about provisions covering, for example, private clubs. The fact that private clubs could discriminate against people with disabilities was always a huge gap in the provision. Guests and members of clubs with more than 25 members will be covered by the Bill.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for highlighting the provision covering private clubs, which will do a great deal. Does she agree that the perniciousness of the previous situation was not just that disabled people went to clubs and were not admitted, but the climate of uncertainty and the feeling that they would not be welcome in such clubs in the first place?

That is important because we want disabled people to play their full part in an equal society. That includes social life and engagement with other people who may not share a disability. For many disabled people the only clubs they could go to were those for disabled people where they would meet only people who shared some of the same problems. They want to be able to go to mainstream clubs. Just because someone has a disability, it does not mean that they necessarily share the same hobbies and interests as other people with disabilities. It would be absurd to assume that, but 30 years ago it was often assumed that if someone was severely disabled and in a wheelchair they would like to go along to a club to play draughts, dominoes and other passive pastimes.

When I was teaching, one of my pupils said to me, "I think we should have clubs for disabled people, so that they could go along and play draughts or whatever. That's how we should get disabled people back into society." I asked that young girl if she would like to go to a club to play only draughts and dominoes. She said, "No, I would hate it." I said, "Well, I would hate it too." It took a wee while for the penny to drop that I as a disabled person—perhaps she did not regard me as a disabled person—would hate such a club. The limit of imagination about what disabled people are capable of doing often limits disabled people themselves.

That story illustrates the perception of what disabled people could do on the part of those who are not disabled. However, I am glad to say that attitudes have changed immeasurably in recent years, thanks to this Government and the legislative framework. When the Bill was undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny, I received an email from a climbing club, which was concerned that if it was, as a private club, brought under the remit of the DDA it would have to make its huts—or bothies, as they are called in Scotland—accessible to people in wheelchairs, which would be an unreasonable cost. I pointed out to the club the test of reasonableness. If someone in a wheelchair could not get up the mountain to the hut, there would be no need to ensure wheelchair access. However, less than 5 per cent. of people with disabilities use wheelchairs and what the climbing club could no longer do was to discriminate against someone who was blind or had a limb missing, but who could still get up to a hut to stay the night. We often need to point out that people with disabilities have different disabilities and a raft of different access needs. It is important that private clubs be brought under the DDA, and the Bill will achieve that.

Another important provision in the Bill concerns housing, especially in the rented sector. As the hon. Member for Wycombe pointed out, in the Joint Committee I was concerned about what happens when disabled people cannot get adjustments made to the access to their homes because it is along a communal path, up communal stairs or through some communal ground and the other people who have access object. That concern was based on the experience of one of my constituents, who had bought their own council flat, as had the person who lived upstairs—the properties were four-in-a-block flats. The upstairs neighbours objected to a ramp being installed up to the front door of the downstairs flat because it would have been along the communal path. That seemed grossly unfair. The Bill would not necessarily answer all such problems, but I welcome the fact that the DRC can act as mediator when relationships break down in such circumstances. That was what was missing in my constituent's case. No one had the ability to act as mediator to ensure that the changes could be made. I am glad that housing, especially in the rented sector, will be brought under the DDA by the Bill, because inevitably many disabled people live in the private rented sector and it is important that landlords have the duty not to block the aids and adaptations that may be necessary to allow disabled people to live in their own homes.

I am also glad that councillors will be covered by the DDA under the Bill. As a disabled MP, I am probably already covered under employment legislation, so I cannot be discriminated against, although since I was elected I have not faced such discrimination. It is good, however, that councillors, who are not employees in the normal sense, will be covered.

Perhaps the aspect of the Bill that will make the biggest change in the lives of disabled people is the inclusion of travel and transport. It was a huge gap in the original 1995 Act that transport was not regarded as a service, and it has been a perpetual bugbear for disabled people that transport is so difficult. Disabled people have difficulty getting around in the first place, and then they find that the vehicles that they may use are not adapted for their needs. That is a double whammy and feels like a particular insult.

I noted that the Budget introduced free bus travel at off-peak times for disabled people in England, following Scotland's example. However, there is no point in giving disabled people free bus travel if they cannot get on the buses in the first place. The imperative is to ensure that all new rolling stock is accessible. That will not be the case for coaches, and we need to do more work on that. When disabled people want to travel by bus using their free bus pass, they should have access. There is no point in giving people extra freedoms if the transport providers have not come up to scratch.

I am glad that the other place put into the Bill an end date for accessibility for rail rolling stock. I would have liked it to be earlier, and the Joint Committee recommended 2017 by splitting the difference between what the Government wanted and what the disabled organisations wanted, which was 2015. I was heartened to hear the Secretary of State reiterate that 2020 is an end date, not the date at which change must start. I hope that rail operators will recognise the economic advantages of providing accessible rolling stock. More disabled people will travel more, but so will those who accompany them. I always have somebody else with me, and if I cannot travel, they do not travel either. It is not only the disabled people, but their friends and families who are discriminated against. There is, therefore, an economic case for making all forms of transport accessible as soon as possible. That is crucial and I hope that the rail operators will take heed of it.

The issue of education tribunals was raised by the hon. Member for Wycombe, with regard to what is happening in Scotland. Under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, the SEN provisions apply to England and Wales, but the civil rights provisions apply to the whole of Scotland, because education is a devolved function. Although education as a service was brought under the auspices of the DDA, how that was implemented was obviously left to the Scottish Executive.

At the time, when disputes arose over a child's special educational needs, tribunals were to be set up in England and Wales to hear such cases, but the Scottish Parliament had not legislated for the equivalent provisions in Scotland. The only way that any argument over such access could be settled in Scotland was through the existing legal system—the sheriff courts—as SEN tribunals did not exist in Scotland at that time. Since then, the Scottish Parliament has legislated in respect of SEN. Such tribunals now exist with regard to SEN provision, but access issues must still go to sheriff courts.

In the past day or so, I received an e-mail from the DRC in Scotland to say that, following constructive talks with members of the Scottish Executive, positive moves are taking place to set a time scale in Scotland to ensure that tribunals hear cases that relate to SEN provision, as well as cases where a child has been discriminated against because of a disability and perhaps not allowed to go to a certain school. The time scale has not yet been set, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government are in discussion with the relevant Ministers in the Scottish Executive to ensure that they have the powers to bring both sorts of dispute under the same type of tribunal hearing. I am sure that a solution can be found.

There was some discussion about whether the House would need to pass the necessary legislation or whether that could be done by the Scottish Executive, but I hope that the Minister can assure us she is engaged with Ministers in the Scottish Executive to ensure that they have the powers they require to make that decision themselves. The decision has to lie with them and it is for them to make up their minds, but if any legislative quirk means that the relevant changes must be made by the House, I hope that they will be put in place when the time comes.

Those are some of the things that I welcome in the Bill. There is a lot more in it—it has lots of little bits that fill in the various gaps—but it is worth remembering that the Bill is not the only thing that the Government are doing in relation to disability. Although the Bill will help to ensure that people will not be discriminated against on the grounds of their disability or for many other reasons, it is worth nothing that the Government are taking a great deal of action—for example, on employment—to ensure that disabled people play their full part in society and are not excluded.

It is one thing to ensure that disabled people will not be discriminated against when they go for a job interview; it is another to ensure that they are properly equipped to go to that job interview in the first place and, indeed, that the job exists so that they can apply for it. All the other things that the Department for Work and Pensions is doing with regard to encouraging disabled people into the workplace—whether young disabled people or those who are sitting on incapacity benefit—cannot be divorced from these proposals. That work is crucial to ensure that disabled people can take advantage of the rights that the Bill will give to them. It is one thing to have the rights; it is another thing to be able to use them fully.

I should like to raise another issue that has slipped past: genetic discrimination. I was delighted to hear that the moratorium on insurance companies gaining access to information about someone's genetic make-up in determining the policy that they will award has been extended. That is very important because, at some time in the future, the House may have to pass legislation saying that it is as wrong to discriminate on the grounds of genetics as on those of disability.

I do not want to take up any more of the House's time at the moment, but I want to reiterate what both the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the hon. Member for Wycombe have said: it is absolutely crucial the Bill get on to the statute book before the election, because many of the rights that disabled people are still waiting to receive are included in the Bill. It will make a difference to people's lives. It will ensure that those of us who have a disability are not disadvantaged in the lives that we lead, and we will be able to hold our heads up high and go out and do what everyone else is doing.

I welcome the Bill, as every hon. Member who has spoken so far in the debate has done, and I expect that every hon. Member still to take part will do so as well.

Since the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 first started to come into effect, steps have been taken to plug the various gaps in that original legislation. The Bill represents another major step in that direction, and no one wants to see it fall at the last hurdle. For example, the Local Government Association recently said:

"The LGA welcomes this bill, which will give greater equality of opportunity to disabled people, extending their civil rights and addressing the barriers that they face, and looks forward to its enactment. The LGA believes this to be an important piece of legislation and is keen to see that adequate parliamentary time is made available for this bill to complete its passage in the current parliamentary session."

The Disability Rights Commission, as we have heard, also strongly commends the Bill and says that it is

"urgently needed to outlaw discrimination in key areas of daily life and break down the institutional barriers which impede the social inclusion of 10 million disabled people across Britain."

The DRC continues:

"It represents a major advance for disabled people . . . It is now imperative that the Bill reaches the statute book in advance of a general election."

Many other organisations have said exactly the same things, but not everyone agrees. I do not know whether the Minister has seen an article in The Times today, in which Alice Miles criticises the Bill, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Government's advertisements in relation to disabled access to work, to shops, restaurants and transport and to life in general. That a supposedly serious journalist in a supposedly serious newspaper can write such crass and patronising nonsense in this day and age simply illustrates why the Bill is needed. The Times article implies that there is no problem of access for disabled people to businesses, shops, transport and work because good old British common sense and our sense of fair play mean that everyone helps out the "genuinely disabled" and all is well. Hon. Members should note the use of the phrase "genuinely disabled".

I very much concur with the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman expresses. Does he agree that one of the problems inherent in such comments is the assumption that the great British public can always see what the disability is?

Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) has just made the point that most people think about people in wheelchairs when they talk about disability, but that is a small category of the range of different disabilities, and much disability is invisible in that sense.

We must not make too much of this, but the author of that piece wrote:

"The public, it seems, is capable of showing admirable common sense in the application of over-wieldy regulation".

I think that was a reference to the regulation introduced under the 1995 Act. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the public are indeed showing admirable common sense shows that the regulation is not over-burdensome in many cases, so the author was defeating her own arguments?

Again, I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman's observation. The article assumed that there were no problems with access and that everyone would realise how to overcome any difficulties that occurred. For example, it said specifically that the average adaptation to allow disabled access to premises would cost only £70 to £100. However, many small businesses do not know that. They fear that regulations will mean that they must install much more expensive adaptations and do not realise that relatively simply measures can be implemented. The article was wide of the mark.

There was a clear implication behind the article's reference to the "genuinely disabled". It seemed to be asking how many of the 10 million disabled people figure that it ridiculed might be classified as "genuinely disabled", rather than, presumably, malingerers or non-genuinely disabled.

I am afraid that I did not read the article, but perhaps the author might class me as one of the "genuinely disabled". Although I would love to think that the general public were always polite and helpful to those of us with disabilities, I know that people who park in disabled bays too close to my car so that I cannot get into it with my wheelchair have not been polite when challenged about their lack of courtesy or forethought.

I agree with the hon. Lady. No one in the Chamber can speak with more authority about the issue than her. I drive my mother-in-law to the supermarket in my home town of Chesterfield. She has a blue badge so that we can access disabled parking spaces, but they are often full. After remonstrating with people who park in them for convenience rather than because they need to use them, I know from first hand about the arrogance and rude behaviour that the hon. Lady describes.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the converse of that situation is that some people do not recognise their own disabilities or claim what is their right, especially by accessing services? I am thinking especially of people with hearing impairments who regard that as a difficulty that they must overcome, rather than something of which other people must now take account under the law when providing goods and services.

Absolutely, although we are in danger of going off into the long debate about the social and medical models of disability. The social model indicates that disability is society's problem owing to the obstacles that it puts in people's way, rather than the problem of the people affected.

Several organisations such as the Royal National Institute of the Blind and RADAR have put out responses to the ridiculous and demeaning article. I would be grateful to hear the Minister's response to it because she indicated earlier that she had read it.

Every serious commentator inside and outside the House welcomes the Bill. No one wants it to fail at the last hurdle, which is why it is disappointing that the Bill was introduced late in the Parliament and that it is running up against the buffers of an imminent general election. The progress of the Bill could have been a superb model of how to pass legislation in the 21st century.

The Bill first went before the Joint Committee for pre-legislative scrutiny. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) has indicated that he did not think that that was such a good idea, but I disagree completely. I have taken part in pre-legislative scrutiny with the Education and Skills Committee on the School Transport Bill, for example, and I think that it is a welcome innovation that can do much to improve the way in which Parliament works and improves legislation.

The pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill produced many suggestions about how to improve it and the Government accepted a great majority of them, although by no means every one. That process has led to major improvement to the Bill. However, I have never understood that pre-legislative scrutiny is supposed to replace one of the Houses of Parliament. An earlier speaker almost seemed to suggest that, given that the Bill had received pre-legislative scrutiny and gone through the House of Lords, there was no need for the House of Commons to play its part in the process. That is not the purpose of pre-legislative scrutiny. It was designed to add an additional stage to a Bill's consideration at an early time in its passage when the Government and the Opposition would not be entrenched in political stances and thus more open to accepting good, sensible suggestions. It allows legislation to be considered in a less partisan manner than is the tendency during the formal legislative process.