Clause 80 - Regulations
Equality Bill [Lords]
8:55 am
Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 162, in clause 80, page 45, line 40, leave out 'or harassment'.
Janet Anderson (Rossendale and Darwen, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 163, in clause 80, page 46, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (c).
Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)
We now come to part of the Bill that is not controversial in its intention but, I regret to say, is extremely controversial in terms of the way in which the Government have decided to implement it. Although we are mindful of the Government's problems, the introduction of complex legislation relating to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation on the basis of providing one paragraph of vague guidelines to bring in subsequent regulations is profoundly unsatisfactory. The Minister for Women and Equality will have noted last week's debates on religious discrimination; she will know that important issues needed to be considered then and that we are, in effect, to be deprived of the opportunity of doing that now.
The general problem with regulations, as and when they are brought in, is that there is no possibility of amendment and thus no opportunity to improve them. I know that the Government intend to consult widely before any regulations are introduced, but I am sure that the Minister will be the first to agree that, even after lengthy consultation, it sometimes happens that someone in Committee either here or in another place has an idea that commends itself even to the Government. On that basis—at the risk of repeating what was said on Second Reading—I must register my considerable concern at the manner in which we are proceeding. We do not want to send out a signal that we are not interested in discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. We support what the Government are trying to achieve. All we can do—short of considering on Report whether the clause should be in the Bill at all in its present form—is examine the detail this morning to see whether the framework can be improved.
Amendment No. 162 relates to harassment. Given that in another place harassment was removed from the part dealing with discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, what should be done with the clause? The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), will appreciate our anxiety. There could be a logical argument for saying that harassment should be included in the regulations. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman said that he might return to harassment in religious discrimination, after the publication of the report that the Government have commissioned.
The difficulty is that, if we leave the provision in its present form, it will be impossible to remove harassment unless the Government voluntarily decide to do so. My view is that if harassment is not considered suitable to be included in the legislative framework for religion, there are compelling grounds to leave it out in respect of sexual orientation. I should be grateful to hear the response of the Minister for Women and Equality on that point. The hon. Lady will have noted that amendment No. 160 would ensure that the regulations are of a more prescriptive nature. The merit of our persuading the Government to accept the amendment is that we would have proper definitions. The amendment would also ensure that harassment had subsequently to be included in the regulations.
For those reasons, I ask the Minister to explain why harassment has been kept in for sexual orientation, but removed for religion. I ask her also to explain to the Committee, in perhaps a bit more detail than was possible on Second Reading, how the Government intend to proceed generally in dealing with the regulatory framework, given that Parliament will not have the opportunity to consider it in detail.
Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
This appears to be a time for a general discussion of the clause, so I shall first say a few words about its genesis.
The Minister and Committee members will know that my party has long argued for equality on the basis of sexual orientation of the sort that we are discussing—indeed, the first time that we made a serious attempt to achieve that was when my noble Friend Lord Lester introduced an Equality Bill in the House of Lords a number of years ago. It was extremely disappointing that the Government did not take that opportunity to bring in that sort of equality—that is, to end discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services. Ending that discrimination has been in our manifesto on a number of occasions and there is no doubt that the Government have similar intentions. Labour's 1997 manifesto said—
Janet Anderson (Rossendale and Darwen, Labour)
Order. If the hon. Gentleman intends to speak on the general nature of the clause, he may prefer to do so on clause stand part, because I have had an indication that another Member would like to contribute on clause stand part. It is entirely up to the hon. Gentleman; he is at liberty to carry on now, if he wishes.
Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful to you for giving me the options of carrying on or not, Mrs. Anderson. I will carry on, and therefore limit my remarks on clause stand part. I have started, so I will finish, so to speak. I have tabled no amendments to the clause.
In the 1997 Labour manifesto, there was a commitment to end unfair discrimination wherever it existed. There is no doubt that the Government agree that the sort of discrimination faced by gays and lesbian in the provision of goods and services exists and is unfair. One has to ask why, three manifestos and eight years on, we are still trying to get legislation on to the statute book. It is a big disappointment, not only to me but to Members of all parties, that we are still in this situation; it certainly is to the community of people who face that type of discrimination.
We read about cases of such discrimination regularly, and it almost certainly occurs far more widely than we read about, because victims are not necessarily always in a position to, or willing to, complain. We are talking about the sort of discrimination that leads to the atrocities—there is no other word for them—that we read about in which, tragically, people are killed on the basis of their sexual orientation, as courts have found. We know that there is a great deal of queer-bashing, too. The fact that it is still lawful to discriminate in the provision of goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation at least eight years after that should have ended, given what politicians have said, leads to an atmosphere in which queer-bashing and hate crimes can take place.
The Government decided that they were going to end discrimination and make unlawful any unreasonable and unfair discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. The Bill presented an opportunity to do the same in respect of sexual orientation There is no doubt that discrimination on those grounds is just as acute, widespread and damaging to the fabric of our society, and just as hurtful to the victims. It was extremely disappointing that the Government chose not to take the opportunity of the Bill to do that, especially as they had decided, rightly, to tackle the problem in respect of religious discrimination.
The problem is the creation of hierarchies. The Government are not directly responsible for the discrimination that people face, but they appear to be creating a hierarchy of victims of discrimination, and that is provocative and deeply disappointing. That is why Lord Alli and others rightly proposed amendments to ensure that the same provisions apply to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) made those points on Second Reading and they have also been mentioned in the House of Lords. It was disappointing that the Government resisted those amendments. Instead, they have compromised and included a clause giving regulation-making powers.
In so far as that is better than nothing, as Lord Lester said in the House of Lords, it is welcome compared with the previous position, although it is a second-best option, or a third-best option given that we have had other opportunities to make provision. Nevertheless, we should welcome it in those terms. However, it raises the sort of problems that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) mentioned in that the regulations will not be subject to amendment and scrutiny, as is possible during Committee and other stages of primary legislation. It would be helpful if the Minister gave some assurances so we know what to expect at a later date.
On harassment, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield made, as usual, an interesting and important point on whether the timing of the Bill will ensure that harassment provisions are not controversial. No one wants to see harassment in the criminal sense, or in the sense of the general tort, against people because of their sexual orientation. However, there is a balance to be struck with free speech, which is a difficult issue for a liberal to deal with. People with strong religious views may wish to express them and, while not they may not be discriminating in the provision of goods and services, that may be felt by some to be harassment. We have to ensure that we get the balance right. The balance goes further in respect of restricting free speech than it does in respect of religion, because people can argue about religion and it is natural that one religion will attack another. I do not think that an attack on someone's sexual orientation has the same value in free-speech terms, because sexual orientation is innate—something that someone is—rather like race and gender.
There are difficult issues to deal with in connection harassment and I hope that the Minister will offer to pre-consult Members of both Houses, rather than just produce draft regulations and have the usual consultation, and discuss with us how the Government propose to deal with that. The understanding is that the regulations will come into force at the same time as the religion or belief measures. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that. If that is so, it will be useful to know whether she envisages that happening before or after the outcome of the discrimination law review and whether that review has any relevance to the way in which harassment will be dealt with.
The definition of harassment will be important. I do not support the amendment, which I suspect is probing, but it raises issues about which we need reassurance.
I should also like to know how exceptions will be dealt with. I should be grateful if the Minister explained that, although not in detail, because that would be pre-empting the regulations. There is concern among those who are campaigning for equality for lesbians and gay men that the provisions for exceptions in subsection (3) will allow too many exceptions, particularly in those areas where we know that there is already discrimination. Clearly, some people who discriminate wish to discriminate; they will think that they have good reason to do so and they will seek exceptions. There will have to be objective justification for those exceptions in a way that the Government did not require when it came to some of the part 2 exceptions for religious organisations, religious charities and faith schools.
I would be grateful if the Minister assured us that the exceptions made in such regulations will be subject to objective justification and that there will be a high threshold for exceptions because of the distinction that I have urged her to consider between matters to do with religion and those to do with sexual orientation. One is a belief, the other is a part of who one is to a far greater extent. Subsection (3)(e) makes a clear reference part 2:
''whether or not of a kind similar to those provided for by Part 2 of this Act''.
That is indeed the question. Will the regulations be similar to those provided for by part 2 or will they be drawn more stringently?
I am conscious of that concern, which is held by Stonewall and others from the lesbian and gay community and those who support them, because in the employment regulations in respect of sexual orientation, where one would have thought that the threshold for exception would be higher because they deal with one's income, career and means of support, a broad exception was made for religious organisations. I consider it to be very broad, as did the trade unions, Stonewall and other such organisations. The exception is over-broad because it allows religious organisations to continue to discriminate either on the basis of doctrine or because significant offence would be caused to a significant number of the congregation of that religion. That is as high a test as that given in part 2, but even that was too broad and too low a threshold for the exceptions than that that should be warranted by this clause.
Since the Government clearly felt that they could allow people to point to doctrine or say that a significant number of their congregation would be offended if they continued to employ a gay person, does the Minister think that such exceptions are appropriate, civilised and likely to arise from part 3? It is an important point. The record of our debates will show that the matter was highly controversial. We would feel much less happy about giving regulation-making powers to the Government to provide exceptions like those in the employment regulations or anything broader. Although the clause is welcome compared with the original draft of the Bill, I hope that the Minister understands that there is great concern about the delay that has occurred and the hierarchy that has been created, and a worry that there will be over-broad exceptions for discrimination against people on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)
Good morning, Mrs. Anderson. I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield for the way in which he moved his amendment and the spirit in which that was done, which was helpful. As hon. Members know, we accepted the amendments that inserted clause 80 on Third Reading in the other place. We were pleased to be able to accept the amendments as they offered a welcome way to address the considerable concerns shared by many Members of both Houses about the absence of protection from sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services and public functions. Let me tell the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that it was not a subject of compromise. There was concern that the amendments tabled to replicate part 2 would not achieve the desired outcomes and the present route was deemed to be a more acceptable way of achieving a shared aim.
The Government are strongly committed to achieving full equality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. We have demonstrated that commitment in numerous ways since 1997, and we are proud of our record. Let remind hon. Members of a few of the important steps that we have taken. We have equalised the age of consent for gay men, repealed section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 and outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of sexual orientation. The latter was mentioned by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. We must examine that issue in the context of the provision of goods, facilities and services. It is too early to say whether we will adopt the approach that was used for the employment regulations. However, we are well aware of concerns on that matter.
The Government have also passed the Civil Partnership Act 2004, and this week we celebrated its coming into force. We have also taken action to tackle homophobic crimes and issued guidance on tackling homophobic bullying. The power provided in clause 80 will lead to a further important change in the law. The regulations will mean that gay men and lesbians need no longer put up with the discriminatory treatment that has blighted areas of their daily lives for too long. We intend to implement sexual orientation discrimination regulations in October 2006, alongside the religion and belief provisions in part 2 of the Bill. That answers questions that have been raised by hon. Members in Committee and on Second Reading. Those measures bring us a welcome step closer to achieving the comprehensive rights for gay, lesbian and bisexual people that this Government have been working to achieve for eight years.
The amendments raise questions about the scope of the regulations, and whether it should be possible for them to cover harassment. As hon. Members will know, harassment in the context of public functions was originally included in part 2 of the Bill, but was removed by amendments in another place. As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East, made clear in a previous sitting, that was not the Government's will, but we have accepted that in the specific context of religion or belief discrimination, it is appropriate that that issue should be considered further in the context of the discrimination law review. However in the context of the sexual orientation order-making power, we have not yet had the opportunity to carry out the detailed consideration of the issues and consultation with interested stakeholders that was done before the provisions in part 2 were drafted. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to limit the scope of the order-making power as proposed.
We have always said that new measures to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination should be developed through close consultation. That must include those who are discriminated against, the businesses and public sector organisations that provide the services that will be covered by the regulations, as well as other groups—for example, those who hold religious convictions. We propose to publish a consultation paper early next year setting out the issues to facilitate that process so that we can develop appropriate and targeted regulations that are effective in tackling sexual orientation discrimination.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that consultation is essential. In response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, we want to engage in a very detailed process that involves all the interested parties. We expect that a great deal of time and effort will be given to that consultation because, as he said, the regulations cannot be amended and we want to ensure that we have taken account of the full range of views.
James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)
I thank the Minister for that clarification. Could she go further and give any indication of how long she anticipates the consultation will take and therefore when the regulations might be introduced?
Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman is getting very good at interventions—he knows that, as soon as someone takes a breath, that is the point at which to jump up. I said earlier that we intend to implement both the provisions on religion and belief the sexual orientation regulations by October 2006. We must therefore begin the consultation process fairly quickly. I hope that members of the Committee will bear with me on the exact details, but that time scale requires us to move fairly quickly if we are to meet the deadline.
Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
Will the Minister clarify whether she would consider adopting the approach to consultation that I suggested? My concern is that the first time that we will see the regulations will be when the Government table them for approval by both Houses of Parliament. At that point, it is more difficult politically for the Government to withdraw them, take them away and redo them. Would the hon. Lady consider an approach in which there is the opportunity to comment on draft regulations before they are tabled to be voted on, rather than merely inviting comment on a consultation paper on the issues? That might give the Government greater flexibility.
Meg Munn rose—
Mr. Grieve rose—
Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I agree with what the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has just said. One of the problems, as I am sure the Minister is aware, is that when the Government put out regulations for consultation, all sorts of people fail to notice. It is only when the regulations actually arrive in Committee on the day on which they are debated as a statutory instrument that everyone is suddenly up in arms because they see something that they do not like. One possibility that the Minister might like to consider—I think that it would be a novel approach, although it may have been done previously—would be to submit the draft statutory instrument to the relevant Select Committee, so that questions could be asked about it and comments made before it was presented to the House.
Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)
I thank both hon. Gentlemen—a double intervention; I have never done one of those before. I will think about what would be the best way forward. We want to adopt an approach that really does enable hon. Members, as well as all the other people to whom I have referred, to be properly consulted.
The Government have been criticised, not just this morning, for not moving quickly on this issue. However, moving quickly has its dangers because if the processes that the hon. Gentlemen have mentioned are to achieve what they should achieve, they will take time. We want to move as quickly as we can, because we have taken into consideration people's concern that the religion and belief regulations and the regulations on sexual orientation be introduced at the same time. That puts some constraints on the process. However, as I said, I shall consider the hon. Gentlemen's proposals.
Ideally, the Government wish to proceed on the matter within the context of the discrimination law review. That is why we initially resisted calls to undertake this process at an earlier stage. We believe that the benefits of the discrimination law review are that we can examine our approach across the whole range of inequality and discrimination issues and arrive at a much more comprehensive, simple and easy-to-understand framework which deals with all those issues.
We have been a listening Government in responding to the calls to act more quickly, but the discrimination law review is available to deal with any issues that arise subsequently. In saying that, I am not saying that I do not want to have a proper consultation; I am trying to reassure hon. Members that if issues arise after the regulations in relation to a whole range of matters of law—hon. Members will be aware that sometimes there are unintended consequences of legislation—we will have the opportunity to put any matters right through the discrimination law review and the subsequent steps that will be taken leading to a single equality Bill, as is set out in our manifesto. I hope that that provides some comfort.
Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
What the Minister is saying is that the outcome of the discrimination law review will not be available before the regulations are made. I understand what she says in that regard. Given the controversy about harassment, I think she is suggesting that there is a need to ensure additional consultation or thought-sharing about harassment in respect of these regulations pending the full outcome of the discrimination law review, and particularly about how harassment will be dealt with in relation to the religion strand and other strands that have not yet been tackled. Is that a correct understanding of the timing, and can she give an assurance that there will be further discussions with hon. Members about how harassment will be dealt with, given that we have this vacuum?
Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman should perhaps wait to hear what I was about to say on that.
On the discrimination law review, our commitment is to a Green Paper in the spring—who knows, we may have a long spring next year—and then to develop our further thinking on the basis of that consultation.
On the specific issue of harassment raised by the amendment, it is precisely because we do not at this point want to rule out the possibility of including it in the regulations that we do not want to limit the scope of the regulations that can be made under the clause at this point, but we will give proper consideration to that in the consultation.
It was extremely regrettable that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon referred to a hierarchy of inequalities. That was not helpful and is not our intention. The fact that we are asking the discrimination law review to have a proper look at the framework on discrimination indicates that we recognise that progress has been made for different sections of our communities in ways that are not helpful to people seeking redress for discrimination or to people providing goods and services and employing people. I particularly regret that the hon. Gentleman used the word ''provocative''. We are not being provocative; we are responding to concerns that have rightly been raised by people outside and inside the House. The hon. Gentleman should welcome the progress that we are making.
I have made the case against the amendment and I ask the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to withdraw it.
Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I have listened carefully to the Minister. She will appreciate that these are probing amendments.
The situation is unsatisfactory and I believe that the Minister acknowledges that. One asks oneself whether a whole lot more time and trouble will be spent if the Government do not accept that when the review has taken place they should introduce a short Bill to cover these areas. Such a Bill would enable the matter to be considered in this place and the other place, and in Committee. When dealing with a matter of such importance, which we must get right, and when there is unanimity of aim throughout the parties in the House on what we want to achieve, that is all the more reason to ensure that the detail is correct.
The Minister knows the reality and we all know what we intend, but there is always the law of unintended consequences. As she rightly highlighted, the rights of people not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation, for example, might clash with the rights of people to practise their religion or belief properly, and balancing those rights is a real problem. Somehow, we in the House must find our way through that maze. I wish the Government well in doing that by consultation, but the problem with consultation is that it comes to an end. My experience is that consultation involving hon. Members never works because we have far too much on our plates to become involved in scrutiny and response by letter to the Government's request for views. Inevitably, the matter lands up in Committee as part of a statutory instrument, and then suddenly everybody is up in arms about it when some of the problems could have been ironed out earlier. I have seen that happen far too often not to realise that that is the way that the world works.
The apparent inability of Members of the House, whether in Standing Committee or Select Committee, to express their views about the detail will be one of the real problems that the Government will have to face. I urge the Minister to find a way in which a Select Committee can comment on the draft regulations. They will need to be published long before they are put before each House because what the Government say they intend to do and what appears in the regulations can often be different, albeit unintentionally. We discussed that in earlier sittings. That is all the more reason why, with something of such complexity, there should be a full opportunity for that to happen.
The proposals were probing amendments. I concede that there might be circumstances when we want harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation, but not on the grounds of religion or belief. That is a logical position to adopt. I do not want to be prescriptive today and remove the harassment clauses. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 160, in clause 80, page 46, line 1, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
This is really the promulgation of our earlier debate, and I do not intend to take up much of the Committee's time. Clearly, ''shall'' is prescriptive and ''may'' provides the Government with great latitude, so we must ask ourselves to what extent we want to fetter the Government and say what they should be doing. It could be argued that by inserting ''shall'' into the clause, we are saying that they should be producing something similar to the discrimination rules under part 2 of the Bill. The probing amendment is designed to ensure that the Government understand that people will be looking to the provisions under subsection (3), including exceptions and definitions that are elsewhere in the Bill. As the Bill is drafted, the Government have a let-out clause. They could produce regulations that bear no relation to the rest of the Bill and it would be within their powers to do so. That is the problem with Henry VIII clauses. The position is unsatisfactory.
Celia Barlow (Hove, Labour)
I was delighted to hear the Minister say that she aims to move as quickly as possible and that, at the same time, there should be consultation on goods and services. I am worried, however, that the power to make regulations in respect of goods and services discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation should be considered at the same time as other provisions under the Bill. I was pleased that the Government accepted the amendment tabled by Lord Alli in another place. I know from my constituents in Hove and Portslade exactly how important the regulations will be to many of them. That was highlighted on Monday at an event that the Minister and I both attended to celebrate civil partnerships.
I want to establish what timetable the Government have in mind. It is important to set out when and how the regulations will be introduced. There has been great worry about that. There has even been some mischief-making on behalf of the Green party, which said that regulations on sexual orientation will be delayed. It is important to give the lesbian and gay community an assurance that what will happen will happen, and happen quickly. The changes in terms of sexual orientation should be implemented at the same time as those on religion and belief in part 2, because that would signal to both gay and faith communities that no discrimination will be tolerated. It would also make things easier for the businesses and services that are involved, for example, with the civil partnership. In my constituency, a number of companies and businesses have been set up purely to cater for this change in legislation. However, other businesses with a more varied and eclectic clientèle would find it difficult if the regulations were brought in piece by piece.
I know that consultation still has to take place on the scope of the Bill, and I welcome the fact that we have been given an indication as to when it will start. However, it is vital both that the protections should be comprehensive and robust and that we should have a clear idea of the timetable for their introduction. The lesbian, gay and bisexual community feel that they should have equality with the other communities that are covered so excellently in the Bill.
Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)
As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has said, the effect of the amendment would be to require the sexual orientation regulations to do all the things listed in clause 80(3)(a) to (i). That would be undesirable. If we were to carry out our consultation in that context, our hands would be tied with regard to the outcome. I should not like that to happen. As an approach to developing new regulation, it would not meet the most basic better regulation test that secondary legislation should be brought forward only where it is necessary and appropriate.
To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Ms Barlow), I said earlier, as she acknowledged, that we aim to introduce these regulations together with those on religion and belief. That reflects the approach that was taken in relation to employment regulations. Our target date for that is October 2006. She is right to raise the issue of the response of businesses, whoever their customers are. That is one of the categories that we want to ensure has the opportunity to comment on the consultation. I do not want to set out a more specific timetable at this point because that would be unhelpful in that it would tie our hands. Everybody on all sides is seeking the same outcome, so it would not be sensible to do that. However, we are aware that it is already December 2005, so the processes need to commence very shortly.
On my hon. Friend's comments about the need for comprehensive and robust regulations, we must aim for the best regulations that we can have. The opportunities that are presented by the discrimination law review, which is well under way, enable us to continue to keep all matters under review. We can consider them as we work to develop a simple but comprehensive framework that will cover all groups. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it cannot be right to limit our options in a significant manner at this stage—that would be to deny ourselves the opportunity to produce properly targeted regulations that are likely to be effective in addressing the sort of discrimination that we want to use this order-making power to tackle.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that a key advantage of the order-making power in clause 80 is that it allows us to address the issue of sexual orientation discrimination at the earliest possible opportunity, without denying us the opportunity to take the time needed to explore and resolve fully the complex issues that arise in this area before detailed proposals for legislation are introduced. I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield spoke to the amendment, but I ask him to withdraw it.
Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I am grateful for the Minister's response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Janet Anderson (Rossendale and Darwen, Labour)
May I say for the benefit of the Committee that the general provisions of the clause have been thoroughly aired, so I do not propose to call a stand part debate unless any members of the Committee seriously object to that?
Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.