![]() 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 7 July 2009(Morning)[Ann Winterton in the Chair]Equality BillWritten evidence to be reported to the HouseE62 - National
Assembly for Wales Equality of Opportunity
Committee E63 - Royal College of
Physicians E64 -
Lovells E65 - David
Mason E66 - Tribunals
Service E67 - CasteWatch
UK 10.30
am
The
Chairman: I welcome hon. Members to the Committee. I am
sure that they are feeling demob happyas I am, but for
different reasons. I call the Minister to move new clause 5
formally.
New Clause 5Non-discrimination
alterations (1) This section
applies if the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme
do not have power to make non-discrimination alterations to the
scheme. (2) This section also
applies if the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme
have power to make non-discrimination alterations to the scheme but the
procedure for doing
so (a) is liable to be
unduly complex or protracted,
or (b) involves obtaining
consents which cannot be obtained or which can be obtained only with
undue delay or difficulty. (3)
The trustees or managers may by resolution make non-discrimination
alterations to the scheme. (4)
Non-discrimination alterations may have effect in relation to a period
before the date on which they are
made. (5) Non-discrimination
alterations to an occupational pension scheme are such alterations to
the scheme as may be required for the provisions of the scheme to have
the effect that they have in consequence of section
57(3)..(The
Solicitor-General.) This
amendment would ensure that trustees and managers of occupational
pension schemes have power to amend scheme documentation so that it
conforms to the provisions of the scheme as they have effect after the
operation of the non-discrimination
rule. Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New Clause 26Combined
discrimination: dual
characteristics (1) A person
(A) also discriminates against another (B) if, because of a
combination of two relevant protected characteristics, A treats B less
favourably than A treats or would treat a person who does not share
either of those characteristics.
(2) The relevant protected characteristics
are (a)
age; (b)
disability; (c) gender
reassignment; (d)
race (e) religion or
belief; (f)
sex; (g) sexual
orientation. (3) A does not
discriminate against B by virtue of subsection (1) if, in
consequence of another provision of this Act, As treatment of B
is not a relevant
contravention. (4) A relevant
contravention is a contravention of this Act by virtue of section 13
because of one of the characteristics in the
combination. (5) For the
purpose of establishing a contravention of this Act by virtue of
subsection (1), it does not matter whether, in relation to either of
the characteristics in the combination, there is sufficient evidence to
justify a finding that there has been a relevant
contravention. (6) Proceedings
relating to a contravention of this Act by virtue of subsection (1) may
not be brought if subsection (7)
applies. (7) This subsection
applies
if (a)
a provision of an enactment (including this Act) requires, in
circumstances to which the provision applies, proceedings relating to a
relevant contravention to be brought in a specified court,
and (b) in
those circumstances, the court does not have jurisdiction to determine
a claim relating to a relevant contravention involving the other
characteristic in the
combination. (8) A Minister of
the Crown may by order specify other circumstances in which proceedings
relating to a contravention of this Act by virtue of subsection (1) may
not be brought; and an order under this subsection may amend this
section. (9) The reference to a
court includes a reference to a tribunal and the reference to a claim
includes a reference to a complaint..(The
Solicitor-General.) This
new clause would provide for the discrimination prohibited by the Bill
to include discrimination that is because of a combination of two
protected characteristics. It would also confer power to specify
circumstances in which claims for such discrimination may not be
brought. Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New Clause 1Free
miners (1) The Dean Forest
(Mines) Act 1838 is amended as
follows. (2) In section XIV
(Who shall be deemed Free Miners), line 1, leave out
male. (3) In
section XV (Quarrymen to be deemed Free Miners for certain purposes),
line 1, leave out
male..(Mr.
Harper.) Brought
up, and read the First
time. I
ask for the Committees indulgence. The new clause concerns a
local matter that affects the Forest of Dean, my constituency. I want
to take some time to lay out what is involved. I say to those members
of the Committee who find it interesting that I am pleased to have
interested them; the rest will have to indulge me in my constituency
interests, which I am sure they will understand.
The purpose of
the new clause is straightforward. It falls squarely within the scope
of the Bill. It would amend the Dean Forest (Mines) Act 1838. In
section XIV, under the heading, Who shall be deemed
Free Miners, the Act states
that All
male persons born or hereafter to be born and abiding within the said
Hundred of Saint
Briavels could
be free miners. My new clause would leave out the word
male. It would also amend section XV of the Act, headed
Quarrymen to be deemed Free Miners for certain
purposes, by leaving out the word
male. It
is important to note that the new clause would not change the
requirement under the Act that, to be become a free miner, the person
must work for a year and a day in a coal or iron mine within the
hundred of St. Briavels. It is important that a free miner should
remain skilled in mining work and mining craft, and the aim of my new
clause is to give women the same opportunity that is available to
men.
John
Mason (Glasgow, East) (SNP): It strikes me that the
legislation is slightly obscure and that the hon. Gentleman knows about
it because he is from the area. Is it his opinion that there are
hundreds of other similar pieces of legislation, which also need to be
amended?
Mr.
Harper: The hon. Gentleman is right: the legislation might
seem obscure to him, but it is certainly not obscure in the Forest of
Dean. I will explain later why I came to the conclusion that, to solve
a real problem, it was necessary to amend the Act and to say why the
framework within the Bill does not solve the problem. Will he just bear
with me? When I reach the relevant point, he is free to intervene if he
thinks that I have not dealt with it
adequately. This
place should legislate, whether to create new laws or change old ones,
only when there is a real problem to solve rather than a theoretical
principle to deliver. The older the lawhon. Members can see the
date of the Actthe more hesitant I am about changing it, and
when it relates to the valued traditions of my constituency, I am even
more cautious. The Free Miners Association would probably not be
particularly enthusiastic about the change. I have discussed the matter
with its president, Eric Morris, who represents a conservative
association, with a small c rather than a large
C. I am trying to make the change because the problem
is not theoretical, but real, affecting a real constituent today. That
is why it is worth attempting to reform the
law. At
the moment a free miner can only be a man, says the Dean Forest (Mines)
Act 1838. I have a constituent, Elaine Morman, who wishes to become a
free miner, following in the tradition of her family. She works at
Clearwell Caves, which is an iron ore mine, and she has attempted to
register as a free miner. She has been refused by the deputy gaveller,
an office under the CrownI shall explain how that all works in
a moment. He made it clear in his letter of 8 January 2009, titled
Application for Freeminer Registration,
that the
principle obstacle to your application is that of gender. As you are
aware, only male persons are permitted to be registered and extensive
research indicates that there are no grounds for allowing variations to
this registration requirement. Regrettably therefore, your application
to be registered is refused.
That was signed by John
Harvey, the deputy gaveller of Dean forest, and an officer of the
Forestry Commission. That is the nub of the problem that I am trying to
solve with my new clause: to give Elaine Morman the opportunity, which
would be available to a man who was in exactly the same circumstances
as her, to be registered as a free
miner. Given
that most, if not all, Committee members will be unfamiliar with free
miners, it might be helpful to share a little background information so
that hon. Members, including the Minister, can make a proper assessment
of the case for my new clause. I shall keep my eye on you, Lady
Winterton, to make sure that I am not straying outside the scope of my
new
clause.
There
is an interesting and comprehensive description of free miners,
available on the website of Clearwell Caves, the organisation that
Mrs. Morman works for and on account of which she hopes to
be registered as a free miner. That website makes it clear that, as the
Act
says: All
male persons born or hereafter to be born and abiding within the said
Hundred of St Briavels, of the age of twenty one years and upwards, who
shall have worked a year and a day in a coal or iron mine within the
said Hundred of St Briavels, shall be deemed and taken to be Free
Miners. There
is an official register of free miners, which is kept by the deputy
gaveller, who is a Crown officer responsible for the administration of
the free mining customs and for the collection of mineral royalties.
Specific gales are granted to free miners, at their request, and the
deputy gaveller keeps a record of the minerals and the particular areas
in which they can work. In my constituency, ironworking was extensive
by Roman times and has played an important part in the history of our
country. In fact, the Forest of Dean was the most prominent
iron-producing district in the British
isles. The
free mining customs go back many years. The earliest known copy of the
Dean Miners Lawes and Privileges is from 1610,
but contains references to much earlier origins. There are 41 laws and
privileges for the mining of iron and coal, and the rights for access
and the method of staking a claim are outlined. The duties of the
Kings representative, the gaveller, included the collection of
royalties, as well as registering free miners. The exact date when
those privileges began operating is not known, but in 1244 it was
recorded that free miners already had the exclusive right to mine ore
in the Forest of Deanso they go back a considerable
distance. For
those Scottish Members on the Committee, whose interest may be waning
at this point, it is worth mentioning that there are many references to
mediaeval free miners being instrumental in recapturing
Berwick-upon-Tweed several timesin 1296, 1305 and
1315as it passed between Scottish and English hands. Legend
tells us that it was for their indispensable services during Edward
Is Scottish campaigns that he granted the Dean miners a royal
charter, as he had with other mining districts such as Derbyshire. I
hope that Scottish Committee members do not hold that against my new
clause.
John
Howell (Henley) (Con): My hon. Friend is making an
interesting and widely historical point. Does he recall, although I
know that he was not around at the time, that Edward Is
campaigns against the ScotsI do not want to dwell on that
pointalso involved the miners of Derbyshire? Is he aware of
whether the free mining tradition is alive and well in other parts of
the country? I know that the 1838 Act was specific to his constituency,
but does he envisage the same problem occurring in other parts of the
UK?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 8 July 2009 |