John
Penrose: I am sure that the Minister will be far more
aware than the rest of us that the number of successful applications to
courts to bring the kind of action that she is describing is
tremendously low. It is much more difficult to deal with pre-employment
discrimination than discrimination after getting a job. I am sure that
she is aware of the figures showing that it is much rarer for someone
to do so successfully at the moment. Anyway, surely we ought to be
trying to create an environment that raises the chances of success by
allowing employers to do the right thing as well as threatening to beat
them with a big stick, particularly because the provisions that she
described that allow potential cases to be brought have been in place
for a long time, and most of the available evidence shows that they are
not having the effect that I am sure we would all
want.
The
Solicitor-General: I agree completely that it is a
cumbersome, difficult and personally trying process to take an action
in respect of disability discrimination, and that it is not easy to
prove that it was the disability that played either a partial or an
exclusive role in the lack of recruitment. The position is not
straightforward, so it is all the better if we can devise some
mechanism to ensure that discrimination cannot take place because there
is no information on which it can be
based. Although
I know less about it than about the strand of work that I referred to,
I understand that the DWP is considering the matter as well. There is,
of course, nothing to prevent firms from making their own efforts to
reduce the chance of such discrimination. We are worried about putting
it in legislation rather than putting good guidance in place when we
have more evidence. Although we invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw
the amendment—we would resist it—we will consider it,
because it is a difficult issue, and I am glad that it has been
raised. Mr.
Harper: There is broad support for the proposal. In our
private discussions with business organisations, whether representing
small or large businesses, and in the evidence that they gave during
our evidence sessions, they were all relaxed about that approach. No
issues were raised at all. Also, it works very well in the United
States. Given
what the Minister said about the extensive research that the DWP is
doing to see whether names give rise to discrimination, will she, at a
suitable opportunity—perhaps she can write to us—answer
this question? If the DWP is either currently doing or would commit to
doing similar research, and if as a result there were some clear
evidence that satisfies the Department—although the
representations that we have had have been fairly unanimous—will
the Minister be willing to consider tabling amendments on Report or in
the other place? If that is the case, we will be suitably
reassured.
The
Solicitor-General: Another point that I should
make—in fact, there seem to be two—is that we would delay
the time in which the question of reasonable adjustments needs to be
addressed. That might make difficulties for an employer. The hon.
Gentleman is right—there are outlawing provisions for
pre-employment inquiries in the US—but we do not know whether
that element of protection is used. Nor do we know whether it has had
any effect on the recruitment of disabled people.
That is the
crux of the issue. If we ban the introduction of such information at
that early stage, will we encourage more recruitment of disabled
people? We do not know that. However, I am engaged with the issue and
am impressed by the arguments. Therefore, I urge the hon. Member for
Weston-super-Mare to withdraw his amendment and to let us consider the
issue. I will either write or speak directly to him about the matter in
Committee.
John
Penrose: I cannot pretend that we are overwhelmed by the
Minister’s response, but we recognise the good will with which
she is trying to approach the issue. We will wait and see what is in
any letter or communication that she writes to us. We are concerned
that there may not be enough in that, and we will look to press the
issue at a later stage if necessary. However, on the basis that she has
promised to write to us and to consider the matter further, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Lyn
Brown.) 4.53
pm Adjourned
till Tuesday 23 June at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
