| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the support that these amendments have received. As regards the specific point that the noble Lord raised, the point of Amendment No. 188A has already been included in Amendment No. 183. It simply tidies up the matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 181:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 182:
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we all welcome the amendment introduced by my noble friend to provide that a public authority should prepare a scheme showing how it proposes to fulfil the duties imposed by Clause 71 and submit it to the commission. Not only will that enable the commission to monitor what public authorities propose to do; it will also concentrate the mind of the public authorities
Therefore, I am a little reluctant to introduce a dissident note. Our joy was somewhat modified when we read that the commission should have power to exempt a specific public authority from the duty to prepare a scheme. There were no conditions or restrictions on the power. The commission appears to have a complete discretion. This is not a Henry VIII clause, but a James II clause. It is a claim to total dispensing and suspending power.
It raises two questions in my mind. First, in what situation and for what purpose is it envisaged that the commission shall exempt an authority from the duty? Secondly, if the discretion is intended to be exercised in order to achieve some specific purpose, why should that not be stated and written into the Bill? Why is the discretion put in such unrestricted terms? I may well find my noble friend's reasons convincing, but at the moment I do not know what they are. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, on this amendment. It may well be that there are explanations as to why the provision should be implemented, but on the face of it it appears excessive to give unrestricted power to exempt the authorities from the need to prepare schemes. There is no guidance as to the ground on which exemption can be given. I, too, am somewhat concerned by this measure. I await with interest to hear what the Minister will say.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it seems to me that it was a useful example of flexibility to allow the equality commission to exempt a public authority. I doubt whether it will want to do that very often. The commission makes the decision and not the Government or the authority concerned. No doubt there will be some public authorities--the definition is extremely wide--where the commission itself will not consider it necessary to call for a scheme of this kind. We do not want people undertaking bureaucratic work unnecessarily. Provided the Minister can suggest some public authorities which come within the definition where it would not be very sensible for them to go through such trouble, then a degree of flexibility given to the commission--I would have a different view if it were given to the Government or the authorities concerned--may be wise.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble and learned friend's amendment would remove the provision whereby the commission may exempt a public authority from the need to prepare an equality scheme. It is intended that such exemptions will be rare and that the vast majority of the public authorities, defined in Clause 71(3) and operating in Northern Ireland, will prepare such schemes.
There are, however, circumstances where the work involved in preparing a scheme and having it validated by the equality commission, would be disproportionate to a particular public authority's activities in Northern
In other cases, it might be more efficient to subsume a public authority's equality scheme within another. For instance, the definition in Clause 71(3), as amended, includes all the sub-committees of Northern Ireland district councils, as well as councils themselves. The commission might consider it more feasible to exempt sub-committees of councils from the need to prepare individual equality schemes, provided that the activities of each were fully covered by the equality scheme of the district council to which it belonged. Such an arrangement would be a matter of common sense.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said in his helpful speech, which uniquely made part of my speech for me, any decision on exempting an individual public authority would lie with the equality commission but we would expect it to bear in mind these considerations and to make only limited use of the power to exempt. We believe, nonetheless, that, for the reasons I have given, it is a useful reserve power for the commission to hold. Therefore, I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, have persuaded me. I think that I noted the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, nodding his understanding, if not his agreement. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 183:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 184:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 185, I must inform the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 186.
Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 185:
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, at the risk of being thought a pussy cat, I say at the outset that this, too, is a probing amendment. Paragraph 4(2)(b) of the schedule requires a public authority to subject its policies to an impact assessment. That is precisely what some of us called for in Committee and I strongly support that.
However, I wonder whether the drafting is ambiguous. I am not given to criticising parliamentary counsel; they do a remarkable job, sometimes under formidable pressure. Their workload this Session must have been onerous. However, unless I have misunderstood the provision, this is an unusual fall from grace. Does it require a scheme to state the arrangements for assessing the likely impact of policies which relate to the promotion of equality, or for assessing the likely impact on the promotion of equality of all policies? I hope that the intention is the latter. It is not only policies designed to promote equality which need to be assessed; all of an authority's policies, even those which do not leap from the page as having an impact on equality, will need to be assessed.
My amendment is designed to remove the ambiguity, but my noble friend may be able to persuade me that I have simply failed to read the paragraph correctly; that it is not ambiguous; and that it means what I have always hoped it means. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, Amendment No. 185 would amend paragraph 4(2)(b) of Schedule 10. It may also be helpful if I explain the intended meaning of that provision.
Paragraph 4(2)(b) refers to the inclusion in an equality scheme of details of arrangements for assessing the likely impact of policies adopted or proposed to be adopted by the authority on the promotion of the equality of opportunity mentioned in Clause 71(1). There has been some comment that the sub-paragraph is ambiguous. Indeed, my noble and learned friend suggested that. To clarify the position, I should state that it is the Government's intention that impact assessments should relate to the general run of a public authority's policies. It is not intended that the assessments should be restricted only to policies aimed at promoting equality of opportunity.
I hope that that makes our intention clear, that I have answered my noble and learned friend's question and that he will therefore feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, my noble friend has, indeed, answered my question and precisely as I had hoped. I suggest only that as it seems that the Government have heard from other sources that there might be ambiguity--I was not aware of that--there might be some merit in suggesting a possible redrafting to remove the ambiguity. However, I do not press that matter today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Page 67, leave out line 19.
6.15 p.m.
Page 67, line 19, leave out from ("Schedule") to end of line 21.
Page 67, line 32, at end insert ("and for consulting on matters to which a duty under that section is likely to be relevant (including details of the persons to be consulted)").
Page 67, line 33, after ("assessing") insert ("and consulting on").
Page 67, line 33, leave out from ("impact") to end of line 35 and insert ("on the promotion of equality of opportunity of policies adopted or proposed to be accepted by the authority;").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page