Dr.
Harris: I beg to move amendment 299, in clause 195,
page 138, line 39, at end
insert— ‘(ee) regulations
under Clause 145 (power to specify public authorities) if they do
anything other than add bodies to the list under Schedule
19’. An
affirmative resolution of both Houses is required if the list of public
authorities is
narrowed. I
do not know whether the Minister was tempted to deal with this
amendment in the previous debate, but it is a simple request to the
Government to ensure that any proposal by a future Government to remove
a list of public authorities from the list of public authorities
affected by the positive duty would require a debate in both Houses.
Removing an organisation from such a list is different from merely
adding new organisations, for example, as they are created.
I believe
that there is precedent in other legislation for recognising the
distinction between removing such an important obligation and adding
another organisation to the list of organisations bound by that
obligation. Will the Minister consider that
point?
Mr.
Boswell: I simply add that it would seem likely that such
an organisation would be being removed in circumstances of some heat or
controversy. Otherwise,
how would the Government have got round to thinking of removing them? I
think that that reinforces the point that the hon. Gentleman is
making.
Dr.
Harris: Indeed. On that basis, I look forward to hearing
the Minister’s response.
The
Solicitor-General: Actually, we envisage using that power
only when an organisation or authority does not exist. For instance, we
had to replace the entry for the London Fire and Emergency Planning
Authority with an entry for the Greater London Fire and Emergency
Planning Authority. That is really all that we envisage the power being
used for. It would clog up parliamentary time in a fairly unhelpful way
to require affirmative procedure for that type of
change. Should
a future Government seek to emasculate the public sector duty, by
removing wholesale lots of bodies from schedule 19, people would then
pray against the relevant regulations to prevent that from happening
and expose the issue. Given the overall ambience in the Committee, it
does not seem as if anybody will do that
anyway.
Dr.
Harris: I admire the Minister’s faith in future
Governments. She said that the amendment is clearly not intended to
apply to organisations that no longer exist. If that point needs to be
pursued, their lordships are good at that, so when the Joint Committee
on Statutory Instruments gets going, it might wish to consider whether
there is room for a narrower amendment to deal with the
mischief—although it might never occur—of the wholesale
removal of an existing authority. Clearly, the negative procedure
exists and one could pray against, but that is not the same as draft
regulations having to be affirmed—otherwise, we would not have
that procedure. However, given what she has said, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
195, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
196 to 198 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedules
26 and 27 agreed
to.
Clause
199General
interpretation Amendments
made: 89, in clause 199, page 141, line 43, after
‘“Employer”,’, insert
‘“deferred
member”,’. See
explanatory statement for amendment
65. Amendment
90, in
clause 199, page 142, line 2, at
end insert— ‘( ) Nothing in
section 26, 30, 79, 85, 90 or 95 is to be regarded as an express
exception.’. —(The
Solicitor-General.) This
amendment would clarify that a provision specifying when a particular
Part of the Bill, or Chapter of a Part, does or does not apply is not
to be regarded as an express
exception. Clause
199, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
200 and 201 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
28 agreed
to. Clause
202 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
203Commencement Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Harper: I shall be brief and not trouble the Committee too
much. We have already had some debate on commencement and on when
various provisions will come into force, but I thought that it might be
helpful if the Minister gave the Committee a little more information.
We have already discussed the age provisions, and she has made it clear
that those will not come into force until the regulations with the
exceptions are in place. What is the Government’s current
thinking on the rest of the Bill, and is there an indicative timetable
for that?
With regard
to tying things together, we have just discussed clause 95, and new
clause 26, which looked at the importance of guidance. It was clear in
that discussion that much of the business concern will be assuaged if
there is clear guidance. I seek the Minister’s understanding on
when the EHRC will start its work on producing guidance, how long that
process is likely to take and whether the commencement of various
provisions in the Bill will effectively be tied to that guidance. It
will not be helpful if clear guidance is not available when some of the
provisions come into force, particularly where there are changes or
extensions. I just wonder what the Government’s thinking is on
that, as that would give the Committee an idea about those
plans.
The
Solicitor-General: We expect most of the Bill to come into
force in autumn 2010. That is the earliest realistic commencement date
after it is given Royal Assent. The socio-economic duty on public
bodies and the public sector equality duty are likely to come into
force in 2011. We have already dealt with the age discrimination
provisions.
We certainly
hope and expect, and will probably have to demand, that the appropriate
guidance is delivered by the commission in time for people to be guided
on the impact of the Bill, particularly its new aspects. A lot of the
law on equalities has, of course, not changed. I am told that the aim
is to publish the guidance three months before commencement. That would
be excellent; there is a lot of guidance to be put together. That is
the aim, and let us encourage
it.
Mr.
Harper: I just wish to pick up on one thing. Part of the
benefit is to enable businesses and other organisations to have that
clear guidance. Given, therefore, that one of the objectives of the
Bill was to simplify matters and make them more straightforward, I
suggest that where provisions are effectively just being carried across
and there is no change in the law, getting the guidance in place first
would help. It is the ability to produce more straightforward and clear
guidance across the whole range of protected characteristics that will
deliver the real benefit of the Bill, both to those protected by it and
those organisations that have to implement
it.
The
Solicitor-General: I can see that that is right, and we
will encourage the EHRC’s aim to publish the guidance three
months before commencement.
I do not know
whether I need to mention that there is an oddity about schedule 20,
which concerns the enthralling topic of rail vehicle accessibility that
we discussed this morning. In fact, on Royal Assent, clause 179(2) will
enable schedule 20 on that topic to be repealed at the end of 2010, if
it is not brought into force before that date. That sunset clause is
there because of the Department for Transport’s ongoing public
consultation on the reappraisal of the unimplemented compliance
provisions of the DDA 2005, from which schedule 20 comes. Following
consideration of the consultation responses, it might be decided not to
implement schedule 20, any more than the DDA provisions of relevance
here have
been implemented. That is just an extra complexity, but I thought that I
would mention it because someone might spot it
later. Clause
203 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
204 and 205 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Lyn
Brown.) 3.43
pm Adjourned
till Tuesday 7 July at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
