Lynne
Featherstone: I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful
intervention. However, that is exactly the point of scrutinising
legislation. The Government have come to the Bill at the end of a very
long germination. I regard the new socio-economic duty as important,
but it is not connected in the same way with the rest of the Bill, as
Conservative Members said at this morning’s sitting. Therefore,
this amendment seeks to test out whether the proposal would make a
connection that gave the duty some substance and strength.
Also, one of
the key purposes of the Bill is to eliminate the hierarchy between
equality strands. Without giving the socio-economic duty that protected
characteristic, we create a new hierarchy that will, at some point,
need sorting out. I want to test the Minister as to whether that is an
appropriate thought pattern or
not.
The
Solicitor-General: I do not want to be unfair to the hon.
Lady, either. However, I think that she wants me to send the Bill team
out to look for the unintended consequences of outlawing discrimination
against something that she cannot
define.
Lynne
Featherstone: I would simply say that the disadvantaged
socio-economic group would be a disadvantaged socio-economic group in
terms of poverty.
The
Solicitor-General: Let me make two points. I have reason
to believe that I am a member of a group that would be
socio-economically disadvantaged compared with the group that the hon.
Lady is a member of. She would have to give me her lunch from time to
time, if we enacted the provision, to put me right. It is not an
unchangeable condition; it is not a characteristic. We want to
encourage people no longer to be in disadvantaged socio-economic
positions. We do not want to give them a right to stay there. It does
not fit at all with any of the other characteristics. We need to root
out the causes of
socio-economic inequality, and that should be done not on an individual
basis, but on a basis such as that set out in clause
1. How
will the hon. Lady define that? It is all very well to say, “I
haven’t defined it because I want the Minister to do so, even
though I think it’s a crazy concept.” Socio-economic
deprivation is a relative concept. I am certainly more
socio-economically deprived than the Queen, but does that mean that I
should have some special protection? Some of those present may regard
themselves as socio-economically deprived and may well take action, but
against who? Against me because I am richer? I come from a very
poor household, but do I still have some credit for that poverty, even
though I have crossed the class barrier? It is
impossible.
Lynne
Featherstone: Forgive me, but I was simply trying to
demonstrate that the duty on public authorities to “have regard
to” socio-economic inequality is also difficult to define. It
was a probing amendment. Anyway, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Dr.
Harris: I beg to move amendment 182, in
clause 4, page 4, line 15, at
end
insert— ‘carer
status’. An amendment
to outlaw discrimination against
carers. I
rise without much confidence that the amendment will gain the
Minister’s favour, but I look forward to further interventions
from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, because she has
added a bit of spark to the proceedings and is clearly determined to
keep us on our toes. I am sure that she will play a full part in the
Committee in future, even in a constructive way.
[Laughter.] I meant that without any irony, which
I am incapable
of—probably. The
question is whether carer status needs more explicit protection under
equality law. This is a probing amendment, so the Minister need not
unleash the full thrust of her argumentation on the principle involved.
The amendment is a way of getting at, and giving her a chance to say,
how the Bill provides sufficient, which to my mind means significant,
protection from discrimination in work and elsewhere for those who have
carer status. Now is perhaps not the time to debate the issue in
detail, and I am not inviting the Committee to discuss the case of
Coleman in detail, but there clearly has been some doubt about whether
one who cares for a disabled person is protected by the existing
disability protection in our anti-discrimination law. Is the Minister
confident that the status of men and women who care for people who
would not necessarily be described as disabled, but may be isolated,
young or even neonatal, is sufficiently covered in existing law, in the
Bill or in what she hopes the courts will interpret in the Bill based
upon the European directive that underlies
it? I
do not seek to make any party political points, because I think that we
all recognise, particularly during carers week, how much work carers
do, how much they save the country in doing it, what valuable work they
do and how important it is that those of us involved in public policy
protect them from any greater disadvantage than that that in which they
often find themselves, even though they willingly undertake their work
because of the need to care for family members. I think that we all
share that view, but I seek reassurance from the Minister that she is
confident that the Bill provides protection for that important group of
people. 3.15
pm
The
Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman strongly argues the
case for carers. There is no doubt about their good work, their
importance and the commendable position that they occupy in the
community. It is carers week and there has been a debate about carers
in Government time today, between 12.30 and 2 o’clock. The
Government recognise what carers do and how valuable they
are. Rightly,
the starting point when looking at what constitutes a protected
characteristic for the purposes of the Bill is to consider who a person
is rather than what they do. The analogy is clear so I do not need to
set it out, beyond saying that everyone has a sex, belongs to a racial
group and has a sexuality. Some people subscribe to a religion or
belief, some consciously do not, and some people have a disability. One
might say that those are part of the core characteristics that make us
what we are and, apart from religion or belief and gender, are
ultimately not a matter of choice. They are qualitatively different
from being a carer. We do not think that we could add to the protection
and support that we firmly intend to give carers, demonstrated by the
steps that we have taken, today and historically, by giving carer
status a branch in the Bill. In no way does that diminish the often,
even now, undervalued service that carers perform.
The hon.
Gentleman knows about the Coleman case. A young woman—I assume
that she was young, but I have not seen her—with a disabled
child went to the European Court, after exhausting the remedies here,
due to the way that she was treated by the firm she worked for. I am
sorry to say that it was a law firm that
used to instruct me. The court established that there was such a thing
as discrimination by association with someone with a protected
characteristic. In that case, it was discrimination on the basis of her
association with her disabled child. We looked at what to do about the
judgment, and decided that it was a good principle and that we should
not merely take on the European Court’s judgment but extend the
principle further across strands. That will help carers of disabled
people
straightway. The
other relevant strand is age. People will be protected against being
discriminated against because of their association with somebody in a
particular age group. We think that we have taken a major step forward
and the best way to support carers is through such protection, together
with the panoply of things such as the right to request flexible
working, the right to careers advice and the emerging right to have
breaks. The addition of further legal ground in respect of
discrimination would not help them. They are a most deserving community
that we intend to continue to champion and we are glad that we are able
to do so through the mechanism in the
Bill.
Dr.
Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for her response. It
provided the reassurance, which many want to see, that the
Government’s view is that the needs of carers are adequately met
and it explained why their position is different from many of, if not
all, those with protected characteristics. On that basis, I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Lyn
Brown.) 3.19
pm Adjourned
till Tuesday 16 June at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
