Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I invite the Minister to clarify what subsection (3) means in plain English. It states:

“It is unlawful for a person to discriminate against another by refusing permission for the disposal of premises to him.”

That is not subject to an exception under clause 47. I presume that it will prevent discrimination in the selling of a property or—and this is what I wanted to check—the renting of a property where the landlord is not living. I raise the point with particular reference to an advertisement that the Minister may be aware of, which attracted some controversy. I think that it was in a Catholic newspaper, and offered a tenancy only to Catholics. That received some attention, about 18 months ago, on the question whether it constituted the sort of discrimination that would not be permitted any more. It is clear that it is caught by the clause and it is not the subject of any exceptions under clause 47(1).

Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

I hesitate to comment on the specific example that the hon. Gentleman gave without knowing a little more of the detail. If he has a copy of the advertisement, I would be more than happy to have a look at it and give him my considered view.

Very briefly, subsection (3) relates to a situation in which a person’s permission is required for the disposal of someone else’s interest in a property. Typically, that would be the executor of a will. Where that permission is required for the disposal of premises, to withhold that permission on the grounds of religion or belief would be discriminatory. The provision seeks to rule out such behaviour.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister answered my question in legal terms—I am not surprised about that. He talked about an executor. I am asking whether subsection (3) covers the disposal of premises—I do not know whether “disposal” is a particular term that relates only to probate matters—when a property is just sold to another person, or someone who is not living on the premises rents the property to another person. What is the difference between subsection (3) and subsection (1)? I guess that it is to do with refusing permission. If the Minister could clarify the meaning of that in normal life, I would be grateful. If I have not made my question clear, I would be happy to discuss it with him outside the Committee, if that would be convenient to the Committee.

Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

I am always happy to pursue discussions outside the Committee as well as inside it, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is on to something when he highlights the words “refusing permission”. That is the key thing that the provision seeks to capture. The obvious example is the executor of a will because their permission would be required before a particular property could be disposed of. The hon. Gentleman may be able to think of other circumstances in which that occurs. The executor of a will would be the most common case. We want to   ensure that nobody can stop a sale on the grounds of religion or belief in those circumstances. As I said, I am happy to discuss the matter further outside the Committee if he wishes.