|
Mr. Grieve: I have listened carefully to the Minister. She will appreciate that these are probing amendments.
The situation is unsatisfactory and I believe that the Minister acknowledges that. One asks oneself whether a whole lot more time and trouble will be spent if the Government do not accept that when the review has taken place they should introduce a short Bill to cover these areas. Such a Bill would enable the matter to be considered in this place and the other place, and in Committee. When dealing with a matter of such importance, which we must get right, and when there is unanimity of aim throughout the parties in the House on what we want to achieve, that is all the more reason to ensure that the detail is correct.
The Minister knows the reality and we all know what we intend, but there is always the law of unintended consequences. As she rightly highlighted, the rights of people not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation, for example, might clash with the rights of people to practise their religion or belief properly, and balancing those rights is a real problem. Somehow, we in the House must find our way through that maze. I wish the Government well in doing that by consultation, but the problem with consultation is that it comes to an end. My experience is that consultation involving hon. Members never works because we have far too much on our plates to become involved in scrutiny and response by letter to the Government's request for views. Inevitably, the matter lands up in Committee as part of a statutory instrument, and then suddenly everybody is up in arms about it when some of the problems could have been ironed out earlier. I have seen that happen far too often not to realise that that is the way that the world works.
Column Number: 240
9.30 am
The apparent inability of Members of the House, whether in Standing Committee or Select Committee, to express their views about the detail will be one of the real problems that the Government will have to face. I urge the Minister to find a way in which a Select Committee can comment on the draft regulations. They will need to be published long before they are put before each House because what the Government say they intend to do and what appears in the regulations can often be different, albeit unintentionally. We discussed that in earlier sittings. That is all the more reason why, with something of such complexity, there should be a full opportunity for that to happen.
The proposals were probing amendments. I concede that there might be circumstances when we want harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation, but not on the grounds of religion or belief. That is a logical position to adopt. I do not want to be prescriptive today and remove the harassment clauses. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 160, in clause 80, page 46, line 1, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
This is really the promulgation of our earlier debate, and I do not intend to take up much of the Committee's time. Clearly, ''shall'' is prescriptive and ''may'' provides the Government with great latitude, so we must ask ourselves to what extent we want to fetter the Government and say what they should be doing. It could be argued that by inserting ''shall'' into the clause, we are saying that they should be producing something similar to the discrimination rules under part 2 of the Bill. The probing amendment is designed to ensure that the Government understand that people will be looking to the provisions under subsection (3), including exceptions and definitions that are elsewhere in the Bill. As the Bill is drafted, the Government have a let-out clause. They could produce regulations that bear no relation to the rest of the Bill and it would be within their powers to do so. That is the problem with Henry VIII clauses. The position is unsatisfactory.
Ms Celia Barlow (Hove) (Lab): I was delighted to hear the Minister say that she aims to move as quickly as possible and that, at the same time, there should be consultation on goods and services. I am worried, however, that the power to make regulations in respect of goods and services discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation should be considered at the same time as other provisions under the Bill. I was pleased that the Government accepted the amendment tabled by Lord Alli in another place. I know from my constituents in Hove and Portslade exactly how important the regulations will be to many of them. That was highlighted on Monday at an event that the Minister and I both attended to celebrate civil partnerships.
I want to establish what timetable the Government have in mind. It is important to set out when and how the regulations will be introduced. There has been great worry about that. There has even been some
Column Number: 241
mischief-making on behalf of the Green party, which said that regulations on sexual orientation will be delayed. It is important to give the lesbian and gay community an assurance that what will happen will happen, and happen quickly. The changes in terms of sexual orientation should be implemented at the same time as those on religion and belief in part 2, because that would signal to both gay and faith communities that no discrimination will be tolerated. It would also make things easier for the businesses and services that are involved, for example, with the civil partnership. In my constituency, a number of companies and businesses have been set up purely to cater for this change in legislation. However, other businesses with a more varied and eclectic clientèle would find it difficult if the regulations were brought in piece by piece.
I know that consultation still has to take place on the scope of the Bill, and I welcome the fact that we have been given an indication as to when it will start. However, it is vital both that the protections should be comprehensive and robust and that we should have a clear idea of the timetable for their introduction. The lesbian, gay and bisexual community feel that they should have equality with the other communities that are covered so excellently in the Bill.
Meg Munn: As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has said, the effect of the amendment would be to require the sexual orientation regulations to do all the things listed in clause 80(3)(a) to (i). That would be undesirable. If we were to carry out our consultation in that context, our hands would be tied with regard to the outcome. I should not like that to happen. As an approach to developing new regulation, it would not meet the most basic better regulation test that secondary legislation should be brought forward only where it is necessary and appropriate.
To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Ms Barlow), I said earlier, as she acknowledged, that we aim to introduce these regulations together with those on religion and belief. That reflects the approach that was taken in relation to employment regulations. Our target date for that is October 2006. She is right to raise the issue of the response of businesses, whoever their customers are. That is one of the categories that we want to ensure has the opportunity to comment on the consultation. I do not want to set out a more specific timetable at this point because that would be unhelpful in that it would tie our hands. Everybody on all sides is seeking the same outcome, so it would not be sensible to do that. However, we are aware that it is already December 2005, so the processes need to commence very shortly.
On my hon. Friend's comments about the need for comprehensive and robust regulations, we must aim for the best regulations that we can have. The opportunities that are presented by the discrimination law review, which is well under way, enable us to continue to keep all matters under review. We can consider them as we work to develop a simple but comprehensive framework that will cover all groups. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it cannot be right to limit our options in a significant manner at this stage—that would be to deny ourselves the opportunity to produce properly targeted
Column Number: 242
regulations that are likely to be effective in addressing the sort of discrimination that we want to use this order-making power to tackle.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that a key advantage of the order-making power in clause 80 is that it allows us to address the issue of sexual orientation discrimination at the earliest possible opportunity, without denying us the opportunity to take the time needed to explore and resolve fully the complex issues that arise in this area before detailed proposals for legislation are introduced. I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield spoke to the amendment, but I ask him to withdraw it.
Mr. Grieve: I am grateful for the Minister's response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman: May I say for the benefit of the Committee that the general provisions of the clause have been thoroughly aired, so I do not propose to call a stand part debate unless any members of the Committee seriously object to that?
Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 81
Prohibition of discrimination
Mr. Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 164, in clause 81, page 47, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (c).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 165, in clause 81, page 47, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (d).
No. 166, in clause 81, page 47, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (e).
No. 167, in clause 81, page 47, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (f).
Mr. Grieve: We now consider public functions in relation to sex discrimination. The clause would make it unlawful for a public authority exercising a function to do any act that constitutes such discrimination.
Exactly the same issue—exemptions to the prohibition—applies to this clause as to the clause on religious discrimination. The grounds for exempting from the provisions the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ and the part of the armed forces of the Crown that assists GCHQ are, however, even weaker than the ones that may apply in the case of religious belief. I know that it has become almost standard practice in House of Commons and House of Lords legislation of this sort to include those bodies in the list, but I hope that the Minister will explain in detail why that is necessary.
After all, I should have thought that any issues of national security would apply identically to people of whatever orientation, whether gay or heterosexual, and it is difficult to understand why this particular exemption should be applied. Will the Minister say, as far as she can, what internal mechanism may operate in those organisations to allow complaints to be made administratively if the protection of the Bill is not extended to people working in those organisations?
Column Number: 243
| 
