Letter from the Chairman to Vera Baird
QC, MP, dated 30 June 2009
EQUALITY BILL
Thank you very much for coming to give evidence
to the Joint Committee on Human Rights last week and for your
further memorandum of 22 June in which you responded to a
number of our specific questions on the Bill.
The Committee would be grateful if you could
address a few supplementary questions on the Bill which we were
not able to cover during the evidence session. The Committee may
have further questions in due course, once we have considered
the implications of the recent Court of Appeal decision in R(E)
v the Governing Body of JFS [2009] EWCA Civ 626, or should
the Government bring forward any amendments to the Bill.
Equality compatibility
You refer in your evidence to the requirement
for Ministers to make a statement as to a Bill's compatibility
with Convention rights under section 19 of the Human Rights
Act 1998 (HRA). As a former member of this Committee, you
are of course aware of the importance of that section in facilitating
proper parliamentary scrutiny of a Bill's compatibility.
1. In your view, would a similar provision
to section 19 HRA, certifying a Bill's compatibility with
equality, be helpful in ensuring that Government considers the
human right to equality with the necessary rigour when drafting
new legislation?
No equivalent provisions to those included in
the HRA (such as the section 3 duty to interpret compatibly,
the possibility of declaring legislation to be incompatible under
section 4 and the duty on public authorities to act compatibly
under section 6) are contained within the Bill.
2. Has the Government considered including
in the Bill an interpretive obligation equivalent to section 3 HRA,
so that all other legislation must be interpreted compatibly with
the Equality Bill (or the right to equality) so far as it is possible
to do so? If so, what are the Government's reasons for rejecting
that approach? Please also explain the Government's position on
whether to include equivalent provisions to sections 4 and
6 HRA within the Equality Bill.
Multiple discrimination
You rely on evidence from Citizen's Advice that
the large majority of cases of discrimination concern one or two
protected characteristics and suggest that increasing the number
of grounds would make the law more complex and increase the burdens
for employers. You also state that there is no evidence of a need
to prohibit indirect discrimination or harassment on multiple
grounds.
3. If the Government decides, follow its consultation,
to legislate to prohibit direct discrimination in relation to
only two protected characteristics, and not to allow claims on
multiple grounds for indirect discrimination and harassment, will
it commit to reviewing the operation of the legislation within
two years of it coming into force to see whether further extension
is required?
Education: Curriculum
In your response of 22 June, you state
that faith schools will be able to teach sex and relationships
education in a way consistent with their religious ethos and values,
and that they should be able to retain that freedom which is "central
to their role" (Q 48).
4. What is the justification for exposing
a gay student to being taught that their sexual orientation and
relationships with people of the same sex, are sinful?
I would be grateful if you could reply by 14 July
2009 and if an electronic copy of your reply, in Word, could
be emailed to jchr@parliament.uk.
| 
