![]() House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Equality Bill |
Equality Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall, Eliot Wilson,
Committee Clerks attended
the Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 23 June 2009(Morning)[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]Equality BillWritten evidence to be reported to the HouseE48 - C2E
(Committed to Equality) E49 -
Equity Partnership E50 -
Scottish Womens Aid E51
- Elaine Smith MSP E52 -
Equality and Diversity Forum (additional
memorandum) E53 - Paul
Thomas
Clause 38Contract
Workers 10.30
am John
Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con): I beg to move amendment
213, in clause 38, page 28, line 2, after worker,
insert with a protected
characteristic compared to a contract worker without a protected
characteristic.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 214, in clause 38, page 28, line 10, after
worker, insert
with a protected characteristic
compared to a contract worker without a protected
characteristic.
John
Penrose: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair,
Mr. Benton, as we prepare to consider these measures. The
amendments are multi-technical and seek clarification. During the
evidence sessions at the start of our deliberations, there was some
discussion with representatives of the insurance industry about
contract workers. I want to clarify whether the Government are clear
about the comparator for the clause and to know whether, when talking
about discrimination against contractors, we are talking about
discrimination against contracted workers without a protected
characteristic or non-contract workers, such as regular employees, as
the relevant comparator. I hope that the comparator that the Minister
puts on the record is
straightforward. The
evidence session a couple of weeks ago sounded a few warning bells in
my mind, and it is important that we clarify matters. Without trying
your patience too much, Mr. Benton, I want to highlight the
fact that all members of the Committee are aware that separate measures
that are before the House will impact on contract and agency workers,
and I want to ensure that the Bill is not a stealthy way to achieve
something that is supposed to be in those measures and that it will do
what it is intended to do, rather than something broader. I hope that
the Minister can put our minds at rest.
The
Solicitor-General (Vera Baird): Good morning to you,
Mr. Benton, and to all members of the Committee. The
provision is not an attempt to do anything stealthy of the type that
has been mooted, although my response will be a tiny bit more
complicated than my just saying
no. The
clause makes it unlawful for the principal, the person
who makes work available to contract workers, to
discriminate, harass or victimise a worker. Amendment 213
would change the effect of the law by limiting the comparison by which
discrimination was established to another contract worker. That would
be the
comparator. However,
clause 22 already establishes the fact that, as under the current law,
the comparator must be someone whose circumstances are not materially
different from those of the complainant. That is likely to be another
contract worker, but it is not impossible that a claimant could seek to
compare their treatment with that according to a permanent member of
staff employed by the principal if there were, as clause 22 requires,
no material difference between the circumstances in the case. It would
be a question of fact about whether there was any material
difference.
John
Penrose: To clarify the Ministers point, it is
important to understand what the similarities and the legitimate
differences might be. I hope to hear reassurance that the legitimate
differences might be that contract workers would be different because
of the terms of their contract and the fact that they are not permanent
employees and have different terms and conditions as a legal basis for
their engagement with the principal. However, if the task that they are
performing is, under the terms of the contract, the same as that of a
full-time employee, that would be a fair comparison. In other words, we
are not trying to eliminate the differences between contract workers
and full-time workers, those being different forms of
employmentboth of which have a legitimate purpose and value in
the workplace, and which we would not want to fudge or try to
elide.
The
Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
The issue is protected strands and discrimination. Issues elsewhere
relate to different contractual terms, which are often different
between contract workers and employees, and there is no sneaking
elision of the
two. May
I speak to amendment 214 before I specifically say what the hon.
Gentleman wants me to say? Amendment 214 would introduce a
comparator to victimisation where no comparator is necessary at all,
and it would turn current law on its head. I know that it is only a
probing amendment, but I need to say that we could not possibly accept
it, because it would have that peculiar
effect. On
8 May, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
issued a consultation document on the proposed approaches to the
European agency workers directive, which requires that agency workers
be treated equally with permanent staff in the organisation in which
they are placed after a qualifying period determined by member states,
along with social partners. According to the directive, the qualifying
period is to be 12 weeks. In our view, the document does not contain
any policy risks in relation to the
Bill. The
proposal is that protection be granted to agency workers as for a
permanent staff member. It is to be decided whether a
hypothetical comparison will be permitted as a comparator, but the
entitlement will be
to equal treatment with that comparator in terms of conditions of work.
That is the directive, not the Bill. However, there might be issues
from an employers point of view. The protection is distinct
from that provided in the Bill, which is concerned with presenting less
favourable treatment because of protected characteristics rather than
because of the nature or conditions of the work. They are two
completely separate policy streams. I hope that satisfies the
Committee.
John
Penrose: I thank the Minister for that explanation. That
is indeed the point I was driving at and she has explained that the two
strands are entirely separateone does not affect the other. It
is important for businesses around the country to have that on the
record, so I thank her for it. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses
39 to 49 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule 6Office-holders:
excluded
offices Lynne
Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): I beg to move
amendment 199, in schedule 6, page 170, line 9, at end insert
or other authorities of the GLA
family. An
amendment to clarify that elected members of GLA authorities (MPA,
LFEPA etc.) are to be treated in the same way as members of the
GLA. This
really follows on from the clause 2 amendment where we attempted to
include the Greater London authority in the socio-economic duty. There
seems to be a similar anomaly, so I am trying to get the Minister to
clarify whether elected members of the GLA authorities, which include
the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency
Planning Authority, will be treated in the same way as the members of
the GLA
itself.
The
Solicitor-General: Paragraph 2 of the schedule excludes
political offices from the protectionavailable under clauses 46
to 48against discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The
provision ensures that essentially political matters, such as
appointment to council offices or indeed to ministerial offices, do not
come before a tribunal. There is a carefully drawn exclusion of
specific offices in specific political settings, which include GLA
offices held by the Mayor and members of the assembly. That is
obviously a good
thing. The
connection between election and offices in places such as the MPA is
not so clear. Protection for people holding offices in such bodies will
be available in any case only if the office satisfies the definition of
a personal or public office for the purposes of clauses 46 to 48, or if
it fits under any other provision in part 5, but it will not arise as a
result of
election. The
amendment would cause confusion between members of the authorities
mentioned in it, some of whom are elected, although many are not. We
think it would complicate the provision. In essence, the provision
protects people who are elected, as opposed to those
who get to their office in some different way, and it would be
unlawfully regressive if the amendment were
accepted. The
hon. Lady has made her point; she has probed the issue. I hope that she
now appreciates the complexity of the matter and I invite her to
withdraw the amendment.
Lynne
Featherstone: I have listened carefully to the Minister.
To clarify, is she saying that if someone is elected to the GLA and
then appointed to the MPA, which is what happens to elected members on
the GLA, they will not be
protected?
The
Solicitor-General: If it was a personal or public office,
or if they were in employment, but otherwise
not.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Schedule
6 agreed to.
Clause 50
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51Interpretation
The
Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment 62, in
clause 51, page 40, line 14, after
second a, insert
relevant. This
amendment and amendment 63 would correct a minor drafting error to
clarify that the interpretation 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: The amendment inserts the word
relevant before qualification, thereby
making the wording more specific. I do not know whether there is any
need to debate
that. Amendment
62 agreed
to. Amendment
made: 63, in
clause 51, page 40, line 15, after
a, insert relevant. (The
Solicitor-General.) See the
explanatory statement for amendment
62. Clause
51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 52Employment
service-providers
The
Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment 226, in
clause 52, page 41, line 12, leave
out from service-provider to end of line 14 and
insert , except in
relation to the provision of a vocational
service.. This
amendment and amendments 227 to 229 would maintain the effect of the
existing law by providing for persons who provide certain employment
services to be subject to the anticipatory duty to make reasonable
adjustments that is imposed by Part 3 in relation to services
generally.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 24 June 2009 |