Public Bill Committee: 9 June 2009

65

Equality Bill, continued

of its public functions. This amendment would remove that exemption.

John Mason

40

Schedule  3,  page  150,  line  14,  leave out paragraph 2.

Member’s explanatory statement

Parliament’s legislative functions are exempt from the ban on discrimination, harassment and vic­

timisation. This amendment would remove that exemption.

Lynne Featherstone

Dr Evan Harris

162

Schedule  3,  page  151,  line  14,  at end insert ‘to the extent that the discrimination is

a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.’.

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment imposes the ‘legitimate aim’ test when armed forces want to treat a person detri­

mentally.

Lynne Featherstone

Dr Evan Harris

123

Schedule  3,  page  151,  line  18,  leave out ‘reassignment’ and insert ‘identity’.

Lynne Featherstone

Dr Evan Harris

159

Schedule  3,  page  153,  line  9,  at end insert—

‘(1A)

In assessing risk in sub-paragraph (1)(a) a blood service cannot make an

assumption of risk that relies on all people of a protected characteristic sharing

the same risk.’.

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment makes clear that blood services cannot use blanket assessments of risk based on

people of a protected characteristic, such as their sexual orientation, sharing the same level of risk.

Lynne Featherstone

Dr Evan Harris

160

Schedule  3,  page  154,  line  10,  leave out from ‘following’ to end of line 11.

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment redrafts the exception in the application of disability discrimination to immigra­

tion matters.

John Mason

101

Schedule  3,  page  154,  line  11,  leave out ‘for the public good’ and insert ‘to protect

public health’.

John Mason

102

Schedule  3,  page  154,  line  13,  leave out ‘or remain’.

Public Bill Committee: 9 June 2009

66

Equality Bill, continued

John Mason

103

Schedule  3,  page  154,  line  14,  leave out ‘or remain’.

John Mason

104

Schedule  3,  page  154,  line  15,  leave out ‘or remain’.

John Mason

105

Schedule  3,  page  154,  line  16,  leave out ‘or remain’.

Lynne Featherstone

Dr Evan Harris

161

Schedule  3,  page  154,  line  22,  at end insert—

‘(5)	Section 27 does not apply in relation to sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) only to the

extent that any treatment, or a failure to comply with a duty, are a proportionate

means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(6)	Regulations may make provision for purposes of sub-paragraph (5) as to

circumstances in which treatment, or a failure to comply with a duty, is to be

taken to be justified, to the extent that those regulations are a proportionate means

of achieving a legitimate aim’.

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment redrafts the exception in the application of disability discrimination to immigra­

tion matters.

John Mason

106

Schedule  3,  page  155,  leave out lines 14 to 26.

Lynne Featherstone

Dr Evan Harris

124

Schedule  3,  page  157,  line  20,  leave out ‘reassignment’ and insert ‘identity’.

Lynne Featherstone

Dr Evan Harris

125

Schedule  3,  page  159,  line  4,  leave out ‘reassignment’ and insert ‘identity’.

Mr Mark Harper

John Penrose

Mr John Baron

Lynne Featherstone

Dr Evan Harris

11

Clause  30,  page  22,  line  6,  leave out paragraph (a).

Public Bill Committee: 9 June 2009

67

Equality Bill, continued

Lynne Featherstone

Dr Evan Harris

163

Clause  30,  page  22,  line  7,  leave out paragraph (b).

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment extends protection against discrimination because someone is married or in a civ­

il partnership as it relates to premises.

Lynne Featherstone

Dr Evan Harris

164

Clause  34,  page  25,  line  27,  leave out subsection (8).

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment removes the powers of Government to remove specific types of premises from the

application of this protection.

The Solicitor General

61

Schedule  4,  page  166,  line  14,  leave out ‘5(4)(b)’ and insert ‘5(4)(c)’.

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment would correct a minor drafting error.

Lynne Featherstone

Dr Evan Harris

165

Clause  36,  page  26,  line  22,  at end insert—

‘(1A)

An employer (A) discriminates against a person (B) in the arrangements in

subsection (1)(a) if A fails to take reasonable steps to ensure that—

(a)	the selection for interview is carried out on an anonymous basis, or

(b)	the person selecting for interview does not know the gender, race, sexual

orientation, age or marital status of B or whether B has a disability.’.

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment protects job applicants from subliminal discrimination arising from information

assumed from an applicant’s name. It also prevents information being made available to people

short-listing that reveals whether an applicant has protected characteristic.

John Mason

41

Schedule  6,  page  169,  line  15,  leave out paragraphs 2 and 3.

Member’s explanatory statement

Political appointments, honours and peerages are exempt from the ban on discriminating against

Public Bill Committee: 9 June 2009

68

Equality Bill, continued

office-holders. this amendment would remove those exemptions.

The Solicitor General

62

Clause  51,  page  40,  line  14,  after second ‘a’, insert ‘relevant’.

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment and amendment 63 would correct a minor drafting error to clarify that the inter­

pretation of a reference to conferring a relevant qualification applies in relation to all relevant

qualifications. A reference to conferring a relevant qualification would then include a reference to

renewing or extending its conferment.

The Solicitor General

63

Clause  51,  page  40,  line  15,  after ‘a’, insert ‘relevant’.

Member’s explanatory statement

See the explanatory statement for amendment 62.

The Solicitor General

64

Clause  53,  page  41,  line  37,  leave out subsection (3).

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment would omit Clause 53(3) which excludes from the scope of Clause 52 services the

provision of which is otherwise than by way of a trade or profession, reinstating the effect of ex­

isting law, whereby the manner in which employment services are provided is irrelevant.

The Solicitor General

65

Clause  58,  page  45,  line  19,  leave out from ‘person’ to ‘scheme’ in line 20 and

insert ‘who is a pension credit member of an occupational pension scheme as they apply

in relation to a disabled person who is a deferred member or pensioner member of the’.

Member’s explanatory statement

A non-discrimination rule does not apply in relation to pension credit members of an occupational

pension scheme. This amendment and amendments 66 and 89 would ensure that disabled pension

credit members are protected from discrimination in so far as communications in relation to the

scheme are concerned.

The Solicitor General

66

Clause  58,  page  45,  line  26,  leave out subsection (2).

Member’s explanatory statement

See explanatory statement for amendment 65.

Public Bill Committee: 9 June 2009

69

Equality Bill, continued

Mr Mark Harper

John Penrose

Mr John Baron

28

Clause  73,  page  55,  line  14,  leave out ‘by regulations’ and insert ‘not’.

Mr Mark Harper

John Penrose

Mr John Baron

15

Clause  73,  page  55,  line  17,  at end insert ‘and

(b)	employees who have a disability and employees who do not have a

disability.’.

Mr Mark Harper

John Penrose

Mr John Baron

14

Clause  73,  page  55,  line  19,  at end insert—

‘( )	the Armed Forces;

( )	the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or the Government

Communications Headquarters;’.

Mr Mark Harper

John Penrose

Mr John Baron

13

Clause  73,  page  55,  line  20,  leave out paragraph (b).

The Solicitor General

67

Clause  73,  page  55,  line  20,  at end insert—

‘( )	a government department or part of the armed forces not specified in that

Schedule.’.

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment would exclude the security and intelligence agencies and GCHQ’s military help­

ers from the scope of Clause 73. As a result, that clause would not apply to any government de­

partment or any part of the armed forces.

Mr Mark Harper

John Penrose

Mr John Baron

12

Page  55,  line  13,  leave out Clause 73.

John Mason

44

Schedule  9,  page  181,  line  33,  leave out ‘proportionate’.

Member’s explanatory statement

The addition of a new proportionality test narrows the scope of existing exceptions for religious

employment. This amendment, in conjunction with the amendment to leave out sub-paragraph (8),

Public Bill Committee: 9 June 2009

70

Equality Bill, continued

retains the status quo.

The Solicitor General

68

Schedule  9,  page  181,  line  36,  leave out ‘work’ and insert ‘employment’.

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment would ensure that paragraph 2 of Schedule 9 refers consistently to “employ­

ment”.

John Mason

45

Schedule  9,  page  181,  line  37,  leave out ‘proportionate’.

Member’s explanatory statement

The addition of a new proportionality test narrows the scope of existing exceptions for religious

employment. This amendment, in conjunction with the Amendment to leave out sub-paragraph (8),

retains the status quo.

John Mason

42

Schedule  9,  page  181,  line  41,  leave out sub-paragraph (8) and insert—

‘(8)	Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion if—

(a)	A has an ethos based on religion or belief, or

(b)	the employment wholly or mainly involves—

(i)	leading or assisting in the observation of liturgical or ritualistic

practices of the religion, or

(ii)	promoting or explaining the doctrine of the religion (whether to

followers of the religion or to others).’.

Member’s explanatory statement

Sub-paragraph (8) narrows the scope of existing exceptions for religious employment. This

amendment would instead broaden the scope of the exceptions to benefit all religious organisa­

tions.

John Mason

43

Schedule  9,  page  181,  line  41,  leave out sub-paragraph (8).

Member’s explanatory statement

Sub-paragraph (8) narrows the scope of existing exceptions for religious employment. This

amendment, in conjunction with the amendments to lines 33 and 37, retains the status quo.

John Mason

46

Schedule  9,  page  182,  line  6,  leave out from ‘requirement’ to ‘if’ and insert ‘to

which sub-paragraph (2) applies’.

Member’s explanatory statement

Place the exceptions from paragraph 2 of Schedule 9 into paragraph 3, which has a broader

framework. This would provide wider protection for the freedom of association of religious bodies.

John Mason

47

Schedule  9,  page  182,  line  13,  at end insert—

‘(2)	This sub-paragraph applies to—

(a)	a requirement to be of a particular religion or belief;

Public Bill Committee: 9 June 2009

71

Equality Bill, continued

(b)	a requirement to be of a particular sex;

(c)	a requirement not to be a transsexual person;

(d)	a requirement not be married or a civil partner;

(e)	a requirement not to be married to, or the civil partner of, a person who

has a living former spouse or civil partner;

(f)	a requirement relating to circumstances in which a marriage or civil

partnership came to an end;

(g)	a requirement related to sexual orientation.’.

Member’s explanatory statement

Place the exceptions from paragraph 2 of Schedule 9 into paragraph 3, which has a broader

framework. This would provide wider protection for the freedom of association of religious bodies.

The Solicitor General

69

Schedule  9,  page  182,  line  26,  leave out ‘52(1)(b) or (c) or (2)(a) or (b)’ and insert

‘52(1) or (2)’.

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment would expand the scope of the exception in paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 9 (per­

mitting discrimination in relation to work for which having a particular protected characteristic

is an occupational requirement) so that it applies to all circumstances in Clause 52(1) or (2) giving

rise to liability.

The Solicitor General

70

Schedule  9,  page  182,  line  30,  after ‘52’, insert ‘(1) or (2)’.

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment would limit the exception in paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 9 (permitting discrimi­

nation in relation to training for work for which having a particular protected characteristic is an

occupational requirement) so that it applies to discrimination only and not harassment or victim­

isation.

The Solicitor General

71

Schedule  9,  page  182,  line  33,  leave out ‘52(1)(b) or (c) or (2)(a) or (b)’ and insert

‘52(1) or (2)’.

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment would expand the scope of the exception in paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 9 (per­

mitting discrimination in reliance on a statement that a particular protected characteristic is an

occupational requirement) so that it applies to all circumstances in Clause 52(1) or (2) giving rise

to liability.

Mrs Sharon Hodgson

184

Schedule  9,  page  183,  line  25,  leave out paragraph 8.

Mrs Sharon Hodgson

185

Schedule  9,  page  183,  line  35,  leave out paragraph 9.

The Solicitor General

72

Schedule  9,  page  188,  line  17,  at end insert—

‘( )	section 38(1) and (3);’.

---

Revised 9 June 2009