Schedule 3
Equality Bill
2:30 pm
John Mason (Glasgow East, Scottish National Party)
The amendments are broadly probing provisions. I want to hear the Government’s explanation of some of the exemptions under the Bill. Clearly, we all accept that there are areas where it would be inappropriate to apply discrimination law—or to apply it fully—because it could have harmful side effects. I know that people will sometimes say things like, “Equality is an absolute and there can be no exemptions,” but the reality is that we can and should apply equality and discrimination law pragmatically and flexibly because different considerations apply in different cases. If we do not, the Bill would be very short indeed and would simply say, “Discrimination on these grounds is prohibited,” and we would let the courts work it out.
Of course, even the act of selecting which grounds are protected places limits on equality, and clearly people could be discriminated against on a number of issues that are not included. There are limits on exemptions in equality law. Paragraph 1 of schedule 3 exempts Parliament. Paragraph 2 exempts legislation. The functions of Parliament, including the Committee and the process of preparing, making or considering a Bill, whether of this Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales, are not bound by the strictures of equality law.
The exemptions may make perfect sense, but I wait to hear from the Minister what they protect against and their purpose. If their purpose is to stop people making mischief, bringing endless legal claims and tying up Parliament in endless litigation, that would be a bad thing. However, I note that the exemptions are total, broad and unrestricted. They do not contain the sort of hoops through which people have to leap if they want to obtain the benefit of other exemptions for any of the other strands.
New clause 15 would have a similar effect, and I must admit that I have some sympathy for it. However, we seem to be inconsistent in allowing continuing discrimination by some organisations, but not others. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of schedule 6 exempt political appointments, honours and peerages. Again, I understand why the Government want to maintain the freedom to make important appointments without being tied up in litigation over allegations of discrimination. The Prime Minister may not be able to get rid of a Cabinet Minister simply because he had clever lawyers who claimed that his dismissal was related to a protected ground. Furthermore, I observe that religious groups and others feel the same way about appointing youth workers and pastoral workers.
Amendments 39 to 41 draw attention to the exemptions. Amendment 50 would exempt the two Parliaments and the Welsh Assembly from the public sector equality duty. It is a broad exemption. I shall not say anything more about it, but I think that I have made my point. I could have tabled probing amendments to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the schedule, which exempt insurance, but we accept that the insurance industry needs some protection. The exemptions are pretty comprehensive. I understand the need for that, although like other exemptions, the details and the limits might be subject to debate. I hope that the Minister will give us a full explanation and justification for each of the exemptions, because the subject of exemptions is an important one.
There are a lot of exemptions, and some of them are very broad. Therefore, we must not say to the Churches—as the Solicitor-General appeared to suggest when we heard evidence from them—that there is something unusual or shocking about wanting exemptions, or something wrong with wanting to ensure that those exemptions are wide enough. We go into great detail in protecting the insurance industry, sport and so on, so surely we can give our attention to protecting everybody’s freedom.
The danger the Government face is that by allowing broad exemptions for their own activities, but insisting that exemptions for religious groups, and others, should be as narrow as possible, people will conclude that there is one rule for the Government and another rule for everybody else.