Peers revive blocked Bill on disabled rights
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE Government's nightmare on disabled rights began all over again yesterday, as peers revived an emancipation Bill repeatedly - and controversially - blocked by ministers in the Commons, writes Andrew Gilligan.
The veteran disability campaigner Lord Ashley, reintroducing a modified Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, insisted it would eventually reach the statute books - a process begun yesterday, as the Lords gave it an unopposed second reading.
The Bill would enshrine new rights of disabled access to employment, public facilities and transport. Ministers remain opposed to so comprehensive a law, making it likely it will again be blocked in the Commons.
Yesterday the Minister for the Disabled, Nicholas Scott, said he would ask each government department to produce its own measures instead. Lord Ashley said that piecemeal rights were not sufficient, but their entry into the debate was a sign that the pressure created by the earlier, abortive Bills had softened ministers' attitudes.
Ministers' claims that any comprehensive measure would cost pounds 17bn or more to implement was denied by disability campaigners, who said that they had removed any tight timescales for implementation from the Bill. But Mr Scott said: 'Whether it is phased in or implemented quickly it is still a cost which British business will have to meet. I believe it is excessive, and our approach is better attuned to British society.'
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments