Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 144, in clause 82, page 50, line 2, at end insert

'and

(c) to promote equality of opportunity for those with unpaid responsibility for the care of another person or persons.'.

Vera Baird (PPS (Rt Hon Charles Clarke, Secretary of State), Home Office; Redcar, Labour)

This amendment is not techie at all, really. My purpose is to probe how the new duties will help carers by proposing the addition of a duty to promote equality for unpaid carers. I am by no means   attempting to add a further strand of equality at this stage of the Bill's progress; I simply wish to find out what the Government think about the position of carers.

The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland deals with caring as a separate strand; there is a positive duty on public bodies which includes promoting equality between persons with dependants and persons without dependants. In the future we may have to consider some specific provision in relation to carers. For the moment I am questioning whether the duty to promote equality for women and men will adequately ensure that the caring that they both do will be recognised by public bodies covered by the duty in the way they design their services and in their employment practices.

It will be for a public authority to ensure that it is promoting sex equality once the gender duty comes into force. Although there is no bar on any individual challenging discrimination thereafter, the point is to try to prevent that. My concerns come under two headings: parents and carers other than parents. EOC research shows that fathers increasingly want to play an active part in their children's lives, with eight out of 10 new fathers saying that they would like to stay at home to care for their new child. Other EOC research shows that fathers of under-fives are doing about a third of child care.

None the less, society still works on the assumption that mothers continue to be the main carers, and public service providers might correctly interpret the new gender duty as meaning that they have to adjust their services to reach both men and women carers. For example, GPs might be more flexible in allowing men to attend with their children; but if the health centre provides a mother and toddler group, will the primary care trust realise that it needs to include those men who look after their children?

When considering non-parent carers—those with caring responsibilities—I was surprised to discover that the gender divide is more evenly split, with 11 per cent. of men and 14 per cent. of women aged over 16 providing care. It is often unpredictable, but carers do not like to ask for time off or for flexibility—caring is less visible than parenthood, and it is not often recognised as a legitimate reason for any sort of flexibility. The Government propose extending the right to request flexible working to carers, which is welcome. However, because caring does not split along gender lines, it will be difficult to ensure that the particular needs of carers will be dealt with by the duty to promote equality.

If carers were all women or all men, one could see how proper provision could be made through the application of the gender duty, but as they are so mixed it is not at all clear that their special interests will be recognised by public authorities in a sufficiently detailed way. I would be interested to know the Government's thinking on the problem.  

Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for moving the amendment. She will be aware that the Government are keen to consider the sensitivities and complexities of balancing working lives with caring responsibilities. We recognise the enormous and valuable contribution that carers make to society and we are keen that they should have greater recognition.

My hon. and learned Friend has helpfully described the issues that face carers and discussed the important question of the roles that men and women take. The Government have and will continue to act to ensure the recognition of carers. Employment legislation since 1997 has helped women to advance in the workplace and enabled parents and carers to balance work and family life. The Work and Families Bill, which had its Second Reading on Monday, will extend the law to cover carers of adult relatives; they will be able to request flexible working from April 2007. The Bill before the Committee will empower the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to carry out the important role of the Equal Opportunity Commission for promoting equality for parents and carers. That will be done by raising awareness and encouraging good practice in equality and diversity.

The amendments propose that a duty be laid on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity for carers. However, they are not the best way forward. I have said before that our good friend the discrimination law review is considering the duties that should be required of public authorities. That is the right place to deal with the complex issues that will arise when extending the duty to cover carers. We would need to consider the issues in detail and consult interested and affected parties, especially on the scope of the term ''carer''. That will include consideration of other public sector duties to promote equality of opportunity between persons with dependents and persons without, including the one in Northern Ireland, to which my hon. and learned Friend referred. As she knows, we intend to bring forward a single equality Bill within the life of this Parliament, so the matter is not one of principle; it is about consultation and ensuring that the matter is properly considered.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for bringing the matter to our attention, and trust that she will withdraw her amendment.

Vera Baird (PPS (Rt Hon Charles Clarke, Secretary of State), Home Office; Redcar, Labour)

Again, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I am very reassured and cheered by the obvious depth of the Government's understanding of the complexities that the new gender duty introduces and its effect on carers. We all look forward to being back in a couple of years to try to reconsider it all. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

I rise to give the Minister the opportunity to place on the record her explanation of the different definition of ''public authority'' in the context of a question that I am going to ask. I had not expected her to explain the matter before.  

In clause 82(2)(a), the term ''public authority'' is defined to include—as it is in the previous clause, I should say—

''any person who has functions of a public nature''.

The definition in the Human Rights Act 1998 is:

''any persons certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature''.

The wording is different. This is a sensitive area, because case law has not given as wide a definition of ''public authority'' as some people, myself included, would like. It would be helpful if the Minister explained—if there is an explanation—why the wording is different and gave an assurance that the one in the Bill is no narrower than the definition under the Human Rights Act, which as I said, is slightly different. The wording

''any person who has functions of a public nature''

is easily capable of encompassing people who have some public functions as well as private functions. It would help if the Minister could make that clear.

Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)

I made this clear only a few moments ago, but the hon. Gentleman was not in the Room. For clarity's sake and because it is an important part of the Bill, I shall say a few words on the public sector duty.

On whether the use of different definitions from the ones in the Human Rights Act and the Disability Discrimination Act are intended, let me say that although the wording may be slightly different, the policy intention and the legal effect are the same. It is a very small difference in the parliamentary draftsman's approach, but no difference of substance between the clause and earlier provisions.

The clause introduces into the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 a duty on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity between men and women. It is similar to the duty that public authorities currently   have to promote opportunity and good relations between different racial groups, and their recently approved duty under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 to promote equality of opportunity between disabled persons and other persons.

To put the clause into context, we announced in the White Paper establishing the Commission for Equality and Human Rights in May last year that steps would be taken to introduce a public sector duty to promote equality of opportunity between women and men. Following the Government's equality statement in the context of the McPherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, action on race was swiftly taken to impel institutional change as quickly as possible by legislating for a public sector duty on race equality. Although it is still early days, a report issued in 2003, ''Towards Racial Equality'', found that just under 70 per cent. of respondents felt that their work to date on the public duty had produced benefits leading to a positive impact on the approach that public bodies take to matters relating to race and ethnicity. As the Committee is aware, the Government passed a similar duty to promote equality for disabled people in the last Session of Parliament.

Clause 82 introduces a similar duty in relation to gender. It will build upon legislation that has advanced equality for women and men. After 30 years of legislation, it is clear that there still remains room for improvement in achieving a lasting cultural change and this is the opportunity to ensure that public services can lead the way. Creating a truly responsive public service means ensuring that public authorities are fully aware—

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at One o'clock.