Equality Bill [Lords] |
|
James Brokenshire: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position and for recognising the need for the actions of the commission not to be under question. In the light of her comments and considering the legal advice that she has received on the definitions of “commissioner” and “vacancy”, as set out in the schedule, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Meg Munn: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in schedule 1, page 67, line 41, leave out ‘and’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 6, 22, 2, 23, 25, 24, 3, 26 to 29, 4 and 30 to 33. Government new clause 2—Adaptations of rented housing in Scotland. Meg Munn: This is a large group of amendments, but with one simple purpose: to ensure that disabled tenants and occupiers in Scotland are able to receive the same help and support from the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and the Disability Rights Commission as tenants and occupiers in England and Wales. Some explanation of the history will assist the Committee in considering the amendments. Hon. Members who followed the progress of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 in the previous Parliament will, I hope, forgive me for repeating anything that they already know. The Housing Acts 1980 and 1985 ensure that, in England and Wales, where there is a secure tenancy, a statutory tenancy or a protected tenancy, the landlord cannot refuse consent unreasonably if the tenant wants to make an improvement to the premises he rents. In plain language, that means that most tenants in the social rented sector, and Rent Act tenants in the private and social sectors, have the right to make alterations to their rented premises with the landlord’s consent, although the landlord can impose reasonable conditions. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, by virtue of changes made by the 2005 Act, gives other tenants, including long leaseholders, in England and Wales similar rights from December 2006. From then, if certain conditions are met, landlords in the private sector will be under a duty not to refuse consent unreasonably if a tenant wants to make a disability-related improvement to his dwelling. In plain language, again, that means that tenants might be able to install grab rails, for example, to improve access for themselves or for disabled occupiers such as their children. Column Number: 31 The 2005 Act provided the DRC with new powers enabling it to draft a code of practice giving practical guidance on all matters relating to disability-related improvements, to provide conciliation in cases of dispute and to provide legal support should the issue go to court. The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 provides similar rights to make alterations for secure tenants in Scotland: tenants in the Scottish social rented sector. When the Bill that became the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 was debated in the previous Parliament, there were uncertainties about putting private sector landlords in Scotland under a duty not to refuse consent unreasonably. The Scottish Executive had consulted on such a duty and included it in their Housing (Scotland) Bill, but the Bill was at an early stage. There were also complex devolution issues about whether and by which Parliament the DRC could be given powers to conciliate in respect of Scotland. The DRC is a reserved body, so only the Westminster Parliament can confer functions upon it, but housing matters have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament—I think that I am now making points that the hon. Member for Epping Forest made when she spoke about the day-to-day complexities of devolution issues. Hon. Members might recall that the 2005 Act received Royal Assent in the closing hours of the previous Parliament, which meant that there simply was not time to resolve such issues, so the new duty and the new powers of the DRC were accordingly restricted to England and Wales only. Similarly, clauses 14, 27 and 28 of the Equality Bill, which roll forward powers of the DRC to the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, cover only England and Wales. That means that, without further legislation, there would be no statutory guidance on making alterations available in Scotland and disabled people would not be able to receive any help or assistance from the DRC or the Commission for Equality and Human Rights if disputes were to arise about disability-related alterations to rented residential premises. We and the Scottish Executive are keen to ensure that such arrangements are made for Scotland, and we have been working closely together to ensure that that will happen when the two sets of provisions establishing the right to make such alterations are brought into effect in Scotland and in England and Wales. I am pleased to say that the various issues have been resolved and the way is now clear for us to ensure parity of treatment north of the border. That will be done by changes to the law in Scotland under the Housing (Scotland) Bill and by the amendments in the group that we are considering today. The Housing (Scotland) Bill will place the landlords of all remaining tenancies in rented residential premises in Scotland under a duty not to refuse consent unreasonably when a tenant wants to make disability-related works to the premises. Works are the Scottish equivalents to improvements in England and Wales. The Bill completed its final stage in the Scottish Parliament on 24 November and is awaiting Royal Assent. Accordingly, the way is clear for us to confer powers,
The key items in the group are amendments Nos. 23, 27 and 30 and new clause 2. Those give the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and the DRC their new powers with respect to Scotland. Amendment No. 23 would give the Commission for Equality and Human Rights the power to draft a code of practice giving practical guidance on all matters to do with disability-related works in Scotland. The commission would thus be able, for example, to issue a code giving guidance on the circumstances in which it would be unreasonable for a landlord to refuse consent to a tenant to install grab rails, for example. Amendment No. 27 would enable the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to make conciliation services available with respect to disability-related works in Scotland and amendment No. 30 would enable it to provide legal assistance with respect to disputes about disability-related works in Scotland. There is also a substantive new clause—new clause 2. As I have mentioned, by virtue of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, the DRC already has powers in England and Wales to issue codes of practice on disability-related improvements, and to provide conciliation services and legal assistance. The new clause gives the DRC such powers in Scotland with respect to issuing a code of practice on disability-related works, conciliation services and legal assistance. That is necessary because the DRC will exist for some time before the Commission for Equality and Human Rights is set up and thus needs to be able to help people in Scotland as well as those in England and Wales. Related minor amendments clarify clauses 14(3), 27(2) and 28(2) with regard to codes of practice, conciliation and legal assistance in respect of disability-related improvements. First, they make it clear that the existing provisions apply only to England and Wales. For example, amendment No. 22 puts it beyond doubt that the power to issue a code of practice on disability-related improvements applies only to England and Wales. Secondly, there is a slight alteration of the relevant wording, by, for example, amendment No. 2, which makes it clear that the powers of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights include circumstances in which the landlord imposes unreasonable conditions when giving consent to a disability-related improvement. The relevant powers, and the DRC’s existing powers, provided for under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, already apply to disputes about the imposition of unreasonable conditions, as they do to disputes about refusal of consent. However, we are taking the opportunity slightly to adjust the wording, in case the insertion of the new Scottish provisions drafted to reflect Scots law casts any inadvertent doubt on the matter. Further amendments ensure that the disability committee established by schedule 1 has delegated to it functions relating to the issuing of codes of practice and the provision of conciliation services and legal
12.30 pmFinally, there are a number of minor or consequential amendments and repeals, although, to save the Committee’s time, I shall not go through them all. These amendments, coupled with changes made to Scottish legislation by the Scottish Parliament, are essential to ensure that disabled people in Scotland will receive from the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and the Disability Rights Commission support broadly similar to that which disabled people in England and Wales will receive. The number of amendments and their complexity might seem daunting—indeed, they did to me—but their purpose is simply to ensure equity. In the briefing that it sent to hon. Members on Second Reading, the DRC supported our intention to table these amendments, so I hope that they command support from both sides of the Committee. Mrs. Laing: I set out on the second to last group of amendments precisely the principle that I shall apply to this group of Government amendments. I commend the Minister on clearly setting out the case for them, and I particularly welcome and support them. If I did not do so in my capacity as shadow Minister for Women and Equality, and if the Committee did not accept the amendments, I might be standing here again in a few months’ time, in my other capacity as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, considering a statutory instrument to introduce the very provisions that the Minister has just outlined. As I said earlier, it is much better that we get the legislation right first time. Sometimes, people do not appreciate what devolution has done. Indeed, some members of the Committee might not fully understand the difference between a reserved matter and a devolved matter. If they do not, that is because they did not spend nearly two years, in 1997 and 1998, looking in detail at the Scotland Bill. I did, however, and I can assure the Committee that what the Minister said is absolutely correct. I thoroughly support the intention behind all these Government amendments. It is essential not only that we respect the distinctiveness of the Scottish legal system and the particular powers of the Scottish Parliament, but that we have equality of protection under the new commission and the Bill. The Government’s amendments are therefore essential and I support them. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: No. 6, in schedule 1, page 67, line 42, at end insert
Column Number: 34 The Chairman: I said earlier that we might well cover the contents of schedule 1 during our debate, but that is not the case. Parts 1 and 2 have been thoroughly debated, but part 3, on money, part 4, on status, and part 5, on the disability committee, remain open for debate if any Member wants to raise related issues. Otherwise, I shall put the question. Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to. Clause 3 General Duty Mrs. Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 2, line 5, leave out ‘to participate in society’. Clause 3 was the subject of a great deal of debate in another place. My noble Friend Baroness Miller succeeded in persuading Ministers to amend it, so that the general duty imposed by it is as set out in the new version of the Bill. I commend my noble Friend and all who supported her on their achievement in this respect. I am pleased that the Government have not sought to restore the original wording, because the clause is very much better for having been amended. Our further amendment simply deletes from subsection (d) the words “to participate in society”, so that the clause states that the commission will exercise its functions with a view to encouraging and supporting
I consider it essential for each person to have equal opportunity. That is the basis of the Bill and it is right that it be stated under the title “General duty”, which is in one of the Bill’s first clauses. We see no need for the phrase “to participate in society”; each individual simply has to have “an equal opportunity”. This subsection is much stronger for such brevity and simplicity. James Brokenshire: The only thing that I want to add to my hon. Friend’s very relevant comments is that the amendment would also make clause 3 consistent with clause 8, subsection (1) of which is concerned with promoting equality of opportunity, rather than promoting the opportunity to participate in society. For consistency’s sake, it is therefore appropriate to amend clause 3 so that it is clear that we are talking about a general opportunity to participate. I therefore support the amendment on the basis not only of clarity, but of consistency with the Bill’s other provisions. Meg Munn: May I inquire, Mr. Gale, whether you intend to have a clause stand part debate? If not, I shall make all my comments now. The Chairman: It is a fairly brief clause, so unless anybody has a reasonable objection, it is probably appropriate for the Minister to embrace the full argument now. Other members of the Committee will have the opportunity to respond if they wish to do so. Column Number: 35 Meg Munn: Thank you, Mr. Gale. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest said, clause 3 is the outcome of a full consultative policy development and significant discussion in the other place. It was shaped and developed in partnership with key equality and human rights interest groups in businesses and trade unions, and it sets out the context in which the Commission for Equality and Human Rights must exercise its duty. It does not give the commission any powers; rather, it places its role in context. The general duty of the commission makes it clear that it is for everyone and not just for those whom we traditionally consider as being concerned with discrimination and equality issues. The clause also gives coherence to the duties that are set out in clauses 8 and 10(1), as the hon. Member for Hornchurch said, by describing the outcomes that the commission must encourage and support. Those outcomes will help to shape the commission’s three principal duties—equality, human rights and good relations—so that they work together and in the same direction. The commission should exercise its powers with a view to encouraging and supporting the development of a society in which prejudice or discrimination do not limit people’s ability to achieve their potential. In that way, it will fulfil its remit on equality of opportunity and anti-discrimination. The commission will be required to encourage and support a society in which all people are valued. In ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate in society, the commission goes beyond the traditional understanding of equality and fair treatment. That links with the requirement to support good relations between groups. Amendment No. 55 would change the paragraph that deals with equality of opportunity by removing the last four words. I am pleased that all members of the Committee recognise the importance of equality of opportunity, and I know that the hon. Member for Epping Forest understands the importance of ensuring that the talents and skills of all are realised, and that all are able to make a contribution. That will have the obvious benefits to the economy and society that we have discussed before. One of the commission’s key roles will be to tackle the discrimination that denies opportunity to many. The clause would be weakened if the reference to participating in society were dropped. That phrase indicates the need to equip individuals with the opportunity to take part in society in the broadest sense: not just in employment, in social and political life, or as members of the community, but in all those senses. The reference to society in no way downplays the need to provide opportunities for individuals and to equip them to realise their goals and aspirations in their careers, or otherwise; nor does it downplay the business benefits of a diverse work force. It is not limiting in any way. It is intended that the clause go wider than later clauses; in doing so, it sets a much wider context. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, further clarification is provided in clause 8. I accept that it is an ambitious and aspirational clause. It describes the
James Brokenshire rose— Mrs. Laing rose— The Chairman: Order. I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that the reason why I look around the Room is that once the Chairman calls the mover of the amendment to sum up, there is no further opportunity for anyone else to intervene. For the benefit of those hon. Members who may not have served on a Committee before, I point out that you take your chance, or you miss it. Mrs. Laing: I certainly do not wish to prevent my hon. Friend from speaking; he is giving me valued support in scrutinising the Bill. I accept what the Minister says. I do not wish to be pedantic and to argue about the verbal structure of a particular clause if it can be interpreted in a broadly consistent manner. However, I reserve the right to do so when we disagree on the detail. The important thing about clause 3 is that we all admire the aspirational nature of the general duty within it. There are greatly differing views on how one achieves equality of opportunity, but there is no doubt that we must strive to achieve it. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 Strategic plan: consultation Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 12.45 pmVera Baird: Briefly, clause 5 requires certain consultations to proceed before the strategic plan that we have just approved in clause 4 is made. It says that the commission must
and
to the broader, less specialist world. It then requires the commission to
It seems that the clause requires the commission to take account only of the representations made by the broader world and not of the responses to its consultations under paragraphs (a) and (b). That concerns me slightly, because there seems to be little point in inviting input from experts and then not giving the commission a duty to take account of the response.
Meg Munn: I shall come to that point shortly, but I thank my hon. and learned Friend for her general views on the clause. While advancing our proposals to create the commission, we have found there to be strong consensus among stakeholders that engagement, consultation and public involvement in the decisions that the commission takes will be essential if it is to succeed in fulfilling its aims. The Government strongly agree, and the clause imposes a duty on the CEHR to consult. Without pre-empting the commission, I am sure that we can all think of stakeholders whose input and involvement will be vital. There are, for example, the voluntary and community sector organisations that work on particular equality issues, the business community, trade unions and advice-giving organisations. Those stakeholders have suggested that they are keen to be consulted on equality and human rights issues. That is not enough, however. Equality and human rights matter to everyone, and an inclusive vision of society requires an inclusive consultation to get it right. The commission will get the full picture only by reaching out widely to consult those who might otherwise be missed and who have important views or ideas that the commission needs to understand. That could include hard-to-reach or vulnerable groups, or those who do not see themselves as part of the traditional equality constituency but who none the less could be discriminated against unlawfully and so would benefit from the protection of discrimination legislation. The clause requires the commission to consult as wide a group of people as is practicable. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend—she often shows us her learning on this issue—for expressing her concern about the clause. I shall seek greater clarification on that point, because it is important, and I shall write to her. As well as carrying out the consultation, the commission will be obliged to take account of representations made. It will not, however, have limitless resources, and it will not be able to act on stakeholders’ every suggestion and view. It will need to take hard decisions on priorities, and will therefore need to show that it has listened and has taken account of the views of stakeholders in taking those decisions. It will also have to communicate clearly the priorities that it decides. That will allow stakeholders to see from the strategic plan how the commission has responded to them. Question put and agreed to. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 38 Clause 6 Disclosure Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. James Brokenshire: I seek clarification from the Minister of subsection (3), which authorises disclosure in certain circumstances. My question relates to whistle-blowing and whether any illegal or inappropriate actions would be taken by the commission. Do protections exist to permit individual commissioners to blow the whistle in such circumstances? Although we would not anticipate any illegal or inappropriate action being taken, I want it to be made clear both that protection exists in the Bill or in wider law to allow a commissioner to make a disclosure and that the let-outs provided in subsection (3) are sufficiently wide and drafted in such a manner to permit whistle-blowing. Meg Munn: The clause makes it an offence for active or former commissioners, employees or committee members of the commission to disclose to third parties information that was acquired during an investigation, inquiry, assessment, agreement or compliance notice process. That replicates—with one important difference that I shall come to in a moment—the limits on disclosure of information for the three existing commissions. The fine for a breach of up to £5,000 will remain at the same level as in the existing legislation. There are many issues that we are taking forward in relation to the position of the existing commissions. We wish to have no regression in the powers or general position. Disclosure will be limited in this way to protect individuals and organisations from potential harm caused by the release of information that may be confidential or sensitive and to provide assurances to potential witnesses that they will have the necessary protection when providing information in confidence. As with the current legislation, various exceptions are provided whereby the commission is allowed to disclose the information concerned, which are set out in subsection (3). Most of those exceptions are designed to ensure that the commissioners and the commission’s staff or agents are able to execute inquiry and enforcement functions, such as carrying out inquiries, reporting on investigations, serving an unlawful act notice or applying to court for an order or injunction, without placing themselves at risk of committing the offence of unauthorised disclosure. The commission will also be able to disclose information with the consent of the person to whom the information relates, as is the case with the existing commissions. In order to ensure that information is not disclosed that could be prejudicial to national security, the commission will be prohibited from disclosing information provided by or relating to an intelligence service, unless that service has authorised disclosure. By intelligence services, I mean the Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters. Those arrangements are not currently in place for the existing commissions, but it is fundamentally right that,
As I indicated earlier, there is one important difference between the clause and the models found in the earlier legislation, which is that the bar on disclosure falls away 70 years after the information was supplied by a third party to the commission, except in respect of information provided by or relating to an intelligence service. That should not be confused with a sunset clause, where the clause itself falls away after a fixed period. That provision would not automatically lead to the disclosure of the information in question, as it would then come within the ambit of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Under that Act, the information may remain partially or wholly exempt from the general right of access to information held by public authorities, through the application of another of the exemptions. Committee members will appreciate that the Government wish to strike a balance between the need to protect confidential information about individuals and the need to ensure access to information, which is in the public interest as promoted by the 2000 Act. It is the Government’s view, as reflected in the clause, that individuals and organisations must be protected from the release of information that could inadvertently or unjustifiably harm them. We also want to ensure that
It is also reasonable to assume that the risk of such damage is likely to reduce with the passage of time, so the clause allows such information to be disclosed after 70 years. That appears to be an eminently sensible and reasonable compromise between the protection of individuals and the public’s right to know. An application for disclosure can always be made under the Freedom of Information Act to the provider of the information as opposed to the commission, which would be required to disclose it if it were subject to the freedom of information requirements. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hornchurch for raising the important issue of whistle-blowing. I want to go away and consider further how the clause relates to the issue and to check, as the protections have been in place for the current commissions, whether they have had any experience that could inform my response. With that caveat, the clause is necessary and important. The Government have carefully thought it through. Question put and agreed to. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Dhanda.] Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to One o’clock till this day at Four o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 30 November 2005 |