Clause 80 - Regulations
Equality Bill [Lords]
8:55 am
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.