Equality Bill

Public Bill Committee, 2 June 2009.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements to make. The Programming Sub-Committee met earlier this morning and agreed a revised resolution. Copies of the new resolution are available in the room. Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets during Committee sittings. Please ensure that mobile phones and pagers are turned off or switched to silent mode. I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the room.

Adequate notice of amendments must be given. To be eligible for selection at a Tuesday sitting, amendments must be tabled by the rise of the House on the previous Thursday. For a Thursday sitting, amendments must be tabled by the previous Monday, as a general rule. I and my fellow Chairman do not intend to call starred amendments.

Not everyone is familiar with the process of taking oral evidence in Public Bill Committees. It might help if I briefly explain how we will proceed. The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, for which debate is limited to half an hour. We will then proceed to consider a motion to report written evidence, and then a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence sessions, which I hope we can take formally.

Assuming that the second motion is agreed to, the Committee will move into private session. Once the Committee has deliberated, witnesses and members of the public will be invited back into the room and our oral evidence session will commence. That will be at about 11 o’clock. If the Committee agrees to the programme motion, oral evidence will be taken today and next Tuesday, and the Committee will revert to the more familiar proceedings of clause by clause scrutiny next Thursday.

I call the Minister to move the programme motion. I remind the Committee that the text of the motion is printed on a separate paper.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 2 June) meet—

(a) at 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 2 June;

(b) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 9 June;

(c) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 11 June;

(d) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 16 June;

(e) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 18 June;

(f) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 23 June;

(g) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 25 June;

(h) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 30 June;

(i) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 2 July;

(j) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 7 July;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table—

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

We will now hear oral evidence from the Equality and Diversity Forum, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Tribunals Service. Welcome to our three witnesses and thank you very much for coming. Will you start by introducing yourselves to the Committee?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Thank you very much. The Committee will ask a series of questions. Before we commence, may I ask whether you have submitted written evidence?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Thank you very much. We will start with the questions now.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Thank you, Mr. Benton. I want to start with the socio-economic duty. There is a clear problem with socio-economic inequalities. Just looking at the views of Cabinet Ministers, Alan Johnson and Alan Milburn have come out with memorable quotes about the fact that it is more difficult, and becoming even more so, for people from poor backgrounds to escape their upbringing. The obvious question is not that there is a problem, but how one deals with it. Perhaps the witnesses could explain whether they think the approach that the Government have taken in the Bill is the right one and is likely to be effective.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

I will come back with one further question, if I may, Mr. Benton. If the Bill is not effective and is no more than political posturing, how will it drive organisations to do things differently from what they are doing today? If they are doing this already, the measure will be meaningless and have no effect. In what way will it change how public sector organisations behave?

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Do any of you have concerns about the discretionary powers that are given to Ministers under the Bill, and the instability that that might cause in equality law, which the Bill will hopefully sort out for the next 20 years? The Government of the day may change. Quite a lot of powers in the Bill are left to the discretion of Ministers in the future.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Sorry, but I thought that it had been a long time in gestation, and that there had already been a lot of consultation.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

No. I am concerned about anything that is kicked into the long grass in case it does not happen. I was trying to see whether you felt likewise.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Perhaps a commencement date in the Bill might be the answer.

Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)

Can you see how the socio-economic duty applies to Scotland? Does it apply to both reserved and devolved areas? If not, why not?

Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)

So, is the commission not involved in negotiations with the Scottish Government on this matter?

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

In the recent Work and Pensions Committee inquiry into the Equality Bill, one of the consistent criticisms made about the existing duties on public sector bodies was that there was little recognition of the difference between outputs and outcomes. Given the nature of socio-economic inequality, will it be easy for public sector bodies to appreciate that aspect?

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

May I pursue that, particularly in the context of health inequalities, which make up a big part of the socio-economic side of it? You are probably as aware as I am that many county councils have created the post of a director of public health in association with their primary care trusts and are focusing on addressing health inequalities within their area in a very aggressive way, which is to be much commended. What additionality do you see this providing in that sort of situation?

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

Yes.

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

May I pursue that further? Are you making the criticism that not enough public bodies—particularly local authorities—are taking this into account, and therefore it is a general criticism of what they are doing, or are you pointing to something that is going to be achieved as a result of tackling socio-economic inequality through this Bill that is additional to what they are doing now?

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

May I pick up on those answers and push a little further? Do public authorities not already do this? Do they not already worry—in some cases, obsessively, and rightly so—about socio-economic inequality and whether they are achieving the right set of outcomes? Health outcomes, as John Howell was saying earlier, are particularly intractable. Are health authorities already worrying about whether they are putting the right level of resources into an area with high indices of multiple deprivation?

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

I am sure that no one would argue with the importance of achieving that. What we are discussing is whether it will make any difference and whether it is the right method for achieving that. A question to all three of you: do you have any evidence that could be submitted to the Committee in the next little while of public authorities that are not considering the issue adequately, in your view?

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

Put that aside for one second. What I am concerned about is that if there is no evidence that you are aware of—clearly it is important for the Committee to see such evidence, if it exists—it is entirely possible that the very real problem of health inequalities, for example, which we have just been discussing, although there are many other examples, arises not because of a failure to consider it. In fact, given the terms of political debate, it has, quite rightly, over many years in this country, been something that has been considered very carefully and very deeply by a very large number of people.

It could be that what is involved is not a failure to consider, but the actions taken being the wrong ones, rather than people not being worried about the issue in the first place. In that case, this would be entirely the wrong policy approach to take. We should be focusing on actions rather consideration. We should be saying, “We know that there is a problem with health inequalities.” The problem is with something that the health authorities are doing, in spite of their best efforts and endeavours—something that they are getting wrong. Asking them to consider the matter again is not going to get us anywhere.

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

No, and that is rather the point—if it is not the secondary issue.

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

But what happens if it distracts from the main issue—if the main issue is something else and costs money and time?

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

I look forward to your evidence.

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

But there is no obligation to publish information, so they will not necessarily know that. Your opening statement was about likelihood.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. Sorry to interrupt, but I have reached a point of exhaustion on this. Other people want to ask questions. I call Tim Boswell.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

If I may, following the questions so far, and then perhaps asking Mr. Sadler, who is somewhat beached at this discussion. The first issue is on the question of the socio-economic duties. Do you envisage that this will end up with a series of plans, which individual authorities will produce, or explanations as to where they are, rather along the lines of, say, disability awareness plans? Otherwise there will be no template to know what they are doing and whether it could even be sufficient.

I realise that there is no action in private law envisaged, but there could be a judicial review that in effect says, “You have not tried.” In a sense, your being a lawyer, Mr. Wadham, and my not being, you are not really seeking to get this into court, but you are at least trying to influence the action of authorities. How do you see the drivers of this working?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Ms Spencer?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Okay. We come quickly to two other points. The first came out of Mr. Wadham’s earlier remarks. Do you see the Equality and Human Rights Commission as the custodian in relation to developing inequalities? Is there a possibility of identifying separate protected characteristics that might need protection, especially in the Bill as drafted? If, for example, caste, or something dreadful such as being an MP in current circumstances, were to be regarded as grounds of discrimination—or harassment even—would you consider that the sort of machinery that would bring matters forward to the attention of Ministers?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Perhaps this is a lawyer’s point, so I will ask you before I pass it to Mr. Sadler—the question about principles. I know the Equality and Human Rights Commission wanted a principles clause, and I spoke up for that on Second Reading because I am familiar with the one in the mental capacity legislation. Is there a fear among Government lawyers that it will end up as a kind of double jeopardy? If they cannot get you under the exact terms of the Equality Bill, they will have a go at you because it is inconsistent with the principles. What is stopping a principles clause, and is it important to you that we should have one?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

You mean there is?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Mr. Sadler, if I may, do you have a word about the likely load on tribunals if the Bill is passed? Will it create an excessive work load? Perhaps to save time, I might ask another question. I am familiar with special educational needs legislation, and there is some disparity between what goes through the tribunal route and what goes through the courts. There is a similar and related issue in Scotland. Will you talk to your colleagues and try to ensure that wherever possible those matters hinge reasonably and there is equal access? Finally, there should be at least some opportunity for mediation in cases, without having to force the issue where that is not appropriate.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

So you will drop us a line on that?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Clearly, it is not your direct area, but I have a question about the awesome business of having to go to a county court. For example, there might be a discrimination issue in further education or in the universities. Do you talk to the Courts Service regarding its approach on that?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Thank you.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I want to ask about harassment. Perhaps we could start with John Wadham and ask whether you think that it is satisfactory for there to be no protection from harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation or religion for captive populations such as school children.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Obviously, I understand the need to preserve space for debate, but if someone is looking for a hotel they can shop around. If they are in school, they are in school and have no way of escaping harassment on the ground of sexual orientation, unless it is so severe that it becomes discrimination. I would be interested in Sarah’s view on that, as it seems peculiar to have the same lack of protection for schoolchildren—who are particularly vulnerable—and users of public services as for users of commercial services, who are adults in a grown-up world.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I am sure that we will be keen to hear from you when we have a detailed discussion.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

May I ask John Wadham about the definition of harassment? It has been argued that the current definition of harassment used historically from the origins of racial harassment is quite wide. There has been a disjunctive provision under clause 24 where the harassment either violates B’s dignity, which is hard to define unless you are B, or creates an

“intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or an offensive”

environment. “Offensive” is rather in the ear of the recipient. An environment to some people could easily be offensive. We could argue that humiliation or degradation is never acceptable, and that some people can easily be offended. If we intend to extend protection from harassment, but still seek to protect free speech and debate, is there a case for having a narrower definition of harassment for the more tricky areas that we have just been discussing, assuming that that is allowed within the terms of the directive?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

There are two at the moment.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

It is one factor. I am surprised that you say that it is sufficient. If you are a devout Muslim, you might be offended. It would be reasonable if you were particularly devout to be offended by something that someone else would not find offensive. Objectively, given your devoutness, it is reasonable that you would be offended, but that still does not necessarily solve the problem of certain people being particularly sensitive and someone saying something without knowing that a particular sensitivity is out there. That objective test could be argued not to be sufficient to protect free speech.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

So you would just rely on the courts at the end, after hundreds of trials.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Thank you. Some people worry about relying on European or Strasbourg jurisprudence. But that is not your problem.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I want to move on to disability discrimination. My interpretation of the concerns that have been sent to us so far is that there are two major issues about the Bill. The first is that it blurs, in some way, the current asymmetry between disability discrimination and other strands. The other is that the Bill represents some kind of regression from the current position. The Government position is that we are in favour of retaining asymmetry—that is important—and that there is no regression. I know that the commission has put in some evidence about the matter. Mr. Wadham, is there anything you can tell us? Perhaps Sarah also has something to say. What are the precise concerns that you have about regression?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

So is it the commission’s position that there is regression as currently drafted, or not? Or are you just not quite sure yet?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

That is the Government’s position.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

Sarah, do you have anything to say about that?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

On the question of the public sector duty, we are planning to include religion and belief as well as sexual orientation. I think there has been some fear expressed that the authorities are going to choose between the different strands which one they want to promote more than another, and some would be afraid that they would promote religion at the expense of sexual orientation. Others would be afraid that they promote sexual orientation, and religion would be at the bottom of the pile. Do you have concerns about any of that?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

I want to make a wider point, too. Ms Spencer, you are part of an organisation to do with equality and diversity. There is a lot about equality in the Bill, but is there enough about diversity? I want a society in which you have a strong Muslim group, a strong this and a strong that, and in which we are all working together, rather than ending up with some kind of grey mass. Are you comfortable with that?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

An example is adoption agencies—would it not be good to have an adoption agency that just deals with Muslims, or one that deals with Christians? As long as the local authority dealt with all of them equally, that would be one interpretation of equality, or are we saying that every adoption agency must be exactly the same?

Lyn Brown (Labour, West Ham)

Unfortunately, Dr. Evan Harris was not at our pre-meeting, so he was unaware of the question that I was going to pursue, but I would like to go back to where he left off in terms of schools and their captive audience. I would like to ask you about enforcement around this. Is one of the reasons why this has been exempted that young children who are being harassed on grounds of religion, belief, sexual orientation or gender variance might not find themselves with an able or willing advocate to guide them through a process that could involve action against an institution where the teachers and ancillary staff were responsible for, or complicit in, the harassment that the pupil was experiencing?

Lyn Brown (Labour, West Ham)

May I follow that up? I want to mention an interesting article that I saw, which is one of the reasons I got interested in this area. It was in The Independent on Sunday last July, I think. It mentioned that nearly half those children who are transgendered had attempted to commit suicide before their 18th birthday. That suggests that perhaps there is something systemically wrong with the way in which we allow our children to be treated, and bullied and harassed in our schools.

I would like to know whether there are any other data that the Committee could look at showing evidence within our schools regarding the types of bullying that children experience, and the impact and effect of that bullying on their lives. I go back to the matter of enforcement, as it is often class actions together—people unifying underneath a trade union movement, for instance, or an interest group—that can form the law, or allow it to be framed and understood by the wider general public and different institutions. Given that these are isolated children in difficult circumstances, who will take the class action for them and enable our society to understand the damage that such harassment and bullying can have on individual children’s lives?

Lyn Brown (Labour, West Ham)

Indeed.

Lyn Brown (Labour, West Ham)

That was the answer that I was hoping for. Thank you.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

That brings us to the end of the allotted time. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for your very informative evidence. It was much appreciated.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I welcome our witnesses. Thank you very much for your attendance. The Committee will be putting questions to you over the next 60 minutes or so. We shall begin with Mr. Mark Harper.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

I want to probe three areas. I shall try to keep them focused so that I do not overrun my time. I come first to age discrimination, particularly in respect of clause 190. It is probably more directed to Help the Aged and Age Concern, although not necessarily. It seems that the Government have identified a number of good aspects of age discrimination, such as some of the business ventures in which Saga is involved. There are some other positive things. There are some policy initiatives such as bus passes and TV licences. What they want to do is to keep all the good things and get rid of, if you like, bad age discrimination. But it seems that they have not worked out a way of drafting that, which is why there is no clause in the Bill to define those things properly.

What the Government have come up with is something that I find unsatisfactory, which is a clause that gives Ministers lots of powers to pass regulations, seemingly on a case-by-case basis, when somebody comes up with a good piece of age discrimination that they want to allow. That does not seem to be a good way of doing it. That is my first point. Who wants to tackle that first?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Does anyone else have a burning desire to tackle that? No.

We talked a little about public duties in the previous evidence session, and my second question is about the disability equality duty. What was the evidence about the effect on the delivery of public services of the implementation of the disability equality duty? What lessons might the Committee take from that when we are thinking about how the general public equality duties might work? Perhaps you might want to take that up, Ms Gooding.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Do you agree that, in terms of the specific requirements that are laid down under the duties, the one about involving people in service delivery has been one of the very important things, because at the moment we do not have the detail about what those specific factors will be. Probably one of the things that we will discuss in Committee is the extent to which Ministers bring full draft proposals, which we can then consider to see what they are thinking of. Would you agree with that?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

This is a question about the employment of people. At the moment employers are allowed to ask various questions at the employment stage, before they get to an offer decision. A number of people have suggested—I know the Work and Pensions Committee has—that the law should be changed so that pre-employment questions and questionnaires are not allowed, in the same way that they are not allowed in the US. You would still be able to make a decision at the offer stage if someone then disclosed a disability or a health condition that actually did impact on their ability to do the job, but you would not be able to ask about those facts during the employment process. Can I ask whether you support such a restriction on pre-employment questionnaires?

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I am concerned about the compulsory retirement bit and I wondered whether you could give any examples of a case where compulsory retirement has led to detriment and harm.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I am sure that we will try to help you with that. I have two or three small points. In terms of children’s rights, I am trying to find out where the desire of society to protect children starts and young people’s rights begin. Could there be examples of that? When we get to Committee stage, I will need to argue the point with examples.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

That is helpful and I will certainly take a closer look at the arguments you make and the evidence you have given. My last question is to Caroline. Are you satisfied that the Bill fully addresses the chasm in the disability and equality law created by the Malcolm ruling?

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Thank you. It does need probing, yes.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

I would like to start by asking about views on positive action, how you see the place for that in the Bill and how it is in your opinion going to improve matters.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

So what improvement would you suggest? How would you suggest changing things?

Sharon Hodgson (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)

I want to talk about carers and the provisions in the Bill about discrimination by association. Do you believe that that will provide carers with rights to request further provision such as flexible working? Do you think that that is an area into which the Bill should be moving?

Sharon Hodgson (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)

Is there any other aspect in the Bill about carers that you think we should be looking at further?

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

May I go back to age discrimination in the workplace? Andrew, when we were last in this position you were quite forceful, in that there were a huge number of opportunities to increase employment for people between the ages of 50 and 69. I would like to get a feel for whether you think that concentrating on removing barriers between that age is likely to improve outcomes for older people, rather than concentrating on adjusting or abandoning the compulsory retirement age.

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

If the default retirement age proves politically more sensitive, is it still possible to adjust and account for other age discrimination in the 50 to 69-year-old bracket that will still have a positive effect on outcomes for older people?

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

Thank you. My last question is about the meaning of disability. We have seen that quite a debate takes place between the medical and social models, and we have a sort of hybrid in the Bill. Does it deal adequately with the differences between those and, if you do not think so, where would you like to see the boundary shifted?

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

Thank you. Does anyone else want to chip in?

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

I thought you might.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

May I first ask Ruth to say a little more about the interaction of a positive action taken by anyone, and whether the disability equality duty is adequately reflected in the new duty? Dealing with that point first, I take it that it would be all right if public authorities used positive action to achieve an equality of outcome. The inference of your earlier evidence was that there was some concern that public authorities might think that they were entitled to opt out of positive action. Do you read it that nobody is suggesting that you must take positive action if that may not be the best way, but that you should take it if it produces the outcome?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

That is helpful, because you just used the phrase “in order to achieve the appropriate outcome”. Presumably some kind of clarificatory amendment along those lines might be the way of taking the trick. I do not think that anyone doubts the intention behind the proposal, but we need to ensure that we do not impose restriction by accident.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

May I turn to a more general issue about outcomes? Inevitably, and partly because of the long history of this and the fact that there are two different regimes in relation to gender discrimination, issues such as equal pay come up quite a lot. Some of us are equally concerned about disability discrimination—functional discrimination—regarding both pay levels and outcomes. We all appreciate that you cannot wish those away through an Act of Parliament, but is there anything else that we can do in the Bill to beef up that provision without imposing unreasonable burdens on employers who would have to make the reasonable adjustments to do it?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

So might that be reporting or other demonstrative action to show that employers are being compliant?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

So there is no question of their being diluted—at least in the terms of the Bill as drafted—but they might not be as effective as you would have liked in terms of achieving an outcome in the public sector, because the position there seems to be as bad as it is in the private sector.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Particularly if there is a mental illness.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

Going back to young people, would your argument be that we should just do away with the 18 limit altogether? If we could push it down to 16, would that be a step in the right direction?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

I take the point you are making. However, I wonder if we should not move on the 16 to 18-year-old age group, which most people would consider to be pretty much an adult age group. Do you feel it has to be all or nothing?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

Thank you. My other point is more on disability. The word “reasonable” is used a lot. Clause 19 speaks of making “reasonable adjustments”. I wonder if that word is too weak in practice. Do you think that it is the ideal word or the best we can come up with? A lot of organisations have been at the slower end of reasonable. It is a vague word in my mind.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I want to probe the issue of positive action and positive discrimination that Ruth and Caroline have both mentioned and Tim has already explored a bit. One plank of what you are concerned about is that positive action, being new, might look like a weaker version of positive discrimination to the casual observer who has not yet had the benefit of the commission’s guidance. But as I understand it, that is not your main point and I would not think it a good idea to remove disabled people from the positive action provisions because I can imagine that they could be useful.

Is your real point that that adds an extra complexity to the lack of clarity that you perceive in the Bill about the availability of positive discrimination, as we know it, in the old Act? If that is your point—that it is less to do with the problem of the new positive action provisions, and more to do with that might just complicate what you think is not clear enough already—how do you think that it could be clarified so that everybody is satisfied that positive discrimination is just as available as it always was? As you rightly perceive, that is the intention.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

As it does, it is just that there has got to be an additional, or separate, provision for positive discrimination. Are you saying that we are not declaring that second limb, or are you saying that your preference would be to withdraw the disability strand from the positive action provisions, which looks like not a good thing to do? Would you not still want some additional clarity in the definitions?

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

The positive action provisions will apply in very specific situations, will they not? Then you have the wider position that we are all used to under the DDA.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Before I call the next Member to ask a question, I should point out that we conclude our proceedings at 1 o’clock, so there should be time for just one more question.

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

So reminded, I want to go back briefly to carers. I was taken by the comment about something that was not necessarily discriminatory, but which was jolly bad treatment of carers—I think that the example was health inequalities and problems with respite care. Obviously, this is not a discrimination Bill—it is an equalities Bill—but is there anything else that you would like to see? Are we missing a trick?

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

So broadening discrimination by association through a wider definition of indirect discrimination is the way you want to go?

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

On behalf of the Committee, I thank all the witnesses for their evidence this morning. Our session has been very informative. Thank you once again for your attendance.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Good afternoon. I welcome everyone to the Committee. At the outset, may I remind hon. Members and witnesses that we are bound by the time divisions that were agreed to this morning? That means that the first evidence session must end no later than 5 pm and the second no later than 6 pm. I hope that I do not have to interrupt hon. Members or witnesses in the middle of sentences. I will try not to, but if I have to, you will have to forgive me, because I will need to keep my eye on the time. First, we shall hear evidence from representatives of Stonewall, Press For Change, the Runneymede Trust and Race on the Agenda. Perhaps before hon. Members begin their questioning, you could introduce yourselves to the Committee, starting with Professor Whittle.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Thank you. Lynne Featherstone will begin this afternoon’s proceedings.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

This is really to Stonewall. I wondered what concerns Stonewall might have, if any, about the new disparities that will be created by the Bill—for example, in terms of harassment, the exclusion of sexual orientation. I would like your views on that.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

It is an area of concern. I know it is quite hard to find precise examples, but I think one was given in which you might be staying in a hotel where there was a poster that denigrated homosexuals. That might be a case of harassment in a way.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

It does create an anxiety for me that there will be a differential between some of the strands. Can I move on quickly to Professor Stephen Whittle? Do you think that the Bill goes far enough to protect the transgender community from discrimination, and particularly those who choose to express their gender differently, but do not want to go as far as gender reassignment?

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Because it is medically based?

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Are you saying that there is a whole spectrum in terms of transgender identity and that people should be protected against discrimination wherever they are on that spectrum?

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I am persuaded by your argument.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

If I might just follow up on that, Professor Whittle, you may be aware that Dr. Harris and I are veterans of the consideration of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. I find very congenial your comment that there is no absolute point and would just add—perhaps you could confirm this—that one of the prerequisites of formally applying for a gender recognition certificate is that one has lived in the assumed gender for a period of time. Therefore, anything that has happened before is highly relevant to the legal process.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Given that, if this comes to court, it is likely to involve a legal process, are you satisfied that you can come up with a suitable watertight definition that reflects the diversity and complexity of trans issues without actually making it impossible for anyone to decide whether discrimination has taken place?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Okay. I have no doubt that you will want to share that with the Committee in one form or another.

May I ask one other question, which is about juveniles? It surfaced in a different context this morning. My impression is that trans people under 18 and those who are contemplating their position are very much under the radar of this legislation. Is that a concern for you, and can we deal with them as well?

Lyn Brown (Labour, West Ham)

This morning, I pressed on the issue of the isolated bullied child in a school, and the possibility that the teacher and ancillary staff colluded in or even instigated the bullying, whether it be on grounds of religion, belief, sexual orientation or gender variance. I asked who, in that case, would or could take legal action on behalf of the child, and I was told that the Equality and Human Rights Commission could or would do so. First, can I have your take on that? What do you think? Do you think that that is adequate? Do you think that the Bill should be strengthened in respect of enforcement? Should it include provision for representative or class action?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

On a point of order, Lady Winterton. I should briefly like to refer to the fact that I omitted the Parliamentary Secretary, Government Equalities Office, from my list; perhaps I may append her to it. For this purpose in particular we are extremely grateful that she is on the Committee, with her expertise and experience in these complex issues. I think that that will be helpful to the Committee.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

A couple of things: first, on positive action, there are two provisions in the Bill dealing with that. Clause 152 is on the general issue, with which I have no particular problem. The question I wanted to ask—and I want to see which witnesses want to deal with it—is about clause 153, which is about positive action on recruitment and promotion. The way it is written in the explanatory note very much portrays it as being used in a tie-break situation: in a narrow set of cases where the candidates are equally qualified. On Second Reading it was put very much in that way. The Bill talks about candidates who are “as qualified as” each other, which, to my way of reading, is not quite the same thing.

If there is a genuine tie-break and two equally qualified candidates meet the requirements of the job in the same way, using one of the protected characteristics as a tie-break to widen the diversity of the work force seems to me acceptable. However, it also seems to me that the likelihood of that happening very often, and of there being two equally qualified candidates, is pretty slim. Equally, you cannot have a general policy. That would clearly be unlawful. I just wanted to get the take of the witnesses—those who want to comment—on whether they think the clause will be of wide use, or whether it will be used in those narrow tie-break situations. The reason I am concerned is that I do not want it to be used to discriminate against other groups of people. My experience is that that has a negative effect—the opposite effect to the one we want to see. I do not know who wants to pick that up first.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Just to be clear about your view, and the view of your organisation, is it your view that it is only acceptable to do that in those limited cases? Or, if you have got a range of candidates, where there is a spread of ability, is it acceptable, where one candidate for a job is actually better than the other, to pick someone who is less good? They are qualified for the job—it is not that they are not qualified—but they are not as good as someone else, and it is purely on the basis of making your work force diverse. Do you think that that is acceptable, or do you think it is only acceptable in the narrow, tie-break-type situation?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Does anyone else want to answer?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Do either of you want to speak?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I want to ask about the public sector duty, if that is okay with colleagues—in particular, the controversy over clause 143(1)(b). I do not think there is any controversy over the first part, which is the public sector duty to help “eliminate discrimination, harassment” and so forth, or indeed the part that says:

“foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic”.

But there is the part that says “advance equality of opportunity”, where it is controversial in respect of religion. I want to ask the panel whether they can identify any examples that would help rectify the inclusion of that duty—a problem that is based on the characteristics or needs of people who share a religion. Perhaps they can point to one of the examples in the explanatory notes on page E106, because I do not see it there, either.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Let me explain why I think it might be for you. The wording of the Bill implies that it should apply to the needs of people, for example, who share a religion. People with religious views often feel that their needs relate to the doctrine of that religion. For example, they do not want to have a community where there might be too much gambling for one religion, or gay nightclubs might be around the place and they could argue that it is not fair on their needs, which are not to see that sort of thing in their community according to their strongly held and sincere religious views. Why are not their needs not to have that “shoved down their throat” being recognised by the relevant public authority? That has been cited in some academic papers as one of the concerns that might emerge. Is that something that you are aware of?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

What about the scenario where some religious organisations are entitled to discriminate under the exemptions when they are delivering services, as long as it is not mainly commercial? Even on the grounds of sexual orientation, there is that exemption in order to avoid upsetting or mocking the views of a significant number of their followers.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

You are not clear that is the case? Let me refer you to schedule 23. Do you have a copy of the Bill there?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

So, you do not believe there is an exemption for religious organisations, in providing services, that would enable them to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation? Is that what you are saying?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

May I read you the relevant section, and then you can explain?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Paragraph 2 of schedule 23 states:

“This paragraph applies to an organisation the purpose of which is—”

and then it lists a number of religious organisations. Paragraph 3 says—

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Order. I think that, perhaps, on reflection, this might be a question to put to the Minister at some stage, so we should move on. I call John Mason to ask a question on the same issue.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

Thank you, Lady Winterton. To build on some of the things that Evan Harris was saying, there are bits of the public sector duty in clause 143 that I really like, such as the part about fostering good relations, which is to be welcomed, but do you feel that it puts an unfair burden on public authorities to try to hold together the eight protected characteristics? Will they be forced to choose between them and somehow create a hierarchy? How will they resolve conflicts, or will there not be conflicts?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

On that point, may I ask you this? We also believe in diversity, as well as equality, and trying to keep the two together. Is it only individuals who can be diverse, or do you accept that care homes may be diverse too, and you can have different kinds of care homes, and people can choose which one to go to?

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

The problem that Theo is pointing to was corrected in the health Bill. The gap that you just referred to, rising from the cases of Heather v. Leonard Cheshire and YL, was filled. But I take your point about public functions, which was unexpectedly interpreted narrowly by the court. Of course, we are not entirely reliant on public functions. There is also a list of public authorities in the Bill that will be covered by it, and there will be additions to the list as time goes on. As you know, there is now a duty on public procurers to reflect the public sector duty in the way in which they procure goods and services from the private sector. That is in the Bill. I am not suggesting that we have perfected it, but almost all of the gap you perceive has been filled in. I am sure you are making a good point, but I thought that those additions were helpful at this stage. Thank you, Lady Winterton, and thanks to the next contributor.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I shall have another go with Ben Summerskill from Stonewall, if I may. I just want to get on the record his interpretation of the Bill. On page E236 of the explanatory notes, there is an example of what I am talking about. It states:

“A Church refuses to let out its hall for a Gay Pride celebration as it considers that it would conflict with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of its followers. This would not be unlawful sexual orientation discrimination.”

Do you think that that is correct? This is a chance to clarify your answer from before.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Right. So if it does something commercially to anyone, even if its main or sole purpose is not commercial, it should not be allowed to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation in that way.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I am not sure that the Bill is, but we can deal with that in the next stage.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

Of course it is clear.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

For the record, the Solicitor-General says that the Bill is clear. Paragraph 2(2) of schedule 23 states:

“This paragraph does not apply to an organisation whose sole or main purpose is commercial.”

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Order. I think that this issue can be discussed later during the passage of the Bill.

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

May I move on to the subject of multiple discrimination? A recent Select Committee report pointed out that the current legal framework was totally inadequate in addressing cases of multiple discrimination. This Bill is the first opportunity to address that. How important is it for the Bill to address multiple discrimination? If you can, please give examples from your own experience, so that we can understand the extent of the injustices that are being done under the current system. I do not mind which of you starts.

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

Do you have any thoughts on how you can reconcile two discriminations with very different burdens of proof? The word that you used there of “consistency” is important because then everyone knows exactly where they stand. Trying to ensure that there is not a dumbing down of the standards of proof, which does not help anyone, is something that will have to be addressed. Have you thought about how we might address that?

John Howell (Conservative, Henley)

Thank you; I will find that very helpful.

Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)

In relation to encouraging diversity and political participation, there is provision in the Bill for the women-only shortlist to be extended to 2030. Places can be reserved on shortlists by parties on the grounds of race and disability. Do you think that that will achieve greater diversity? Do you think that it goes far enough, and are you in favour of the provisions as they stand?

Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)

What provision would achieve that, other than what has been proposed?

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

May I take us back to the question of multiple discrimination, which John Howell was asking about before? I am concerned because there is a clear intellectual argument about why multiple discrimination is important—we have already had that very ably summarised. It is clearly a serious issue. The problem that I have encountered until this afternoon has been in asking a number of stakeholders in this area to provide me with examples—concrete, real world examples, rather than theoretical ones, although there are some pretty good theoretical ones. It was not until Mr. Gavrielides, just now, said that he had a useful paper with examples that I had heard anyone bold enough to stand up and say, “I have got some.” Would you please circulate that to the Committee as promptly as possible, Mr. Gavrielides?

In advance of that, could you tell us about those cases, which you were citing, that were lost, post-2004—I think that that is when you said the courts changed the rules? The argument that I have had made to me was that anyone who has had troubles with multiple discrimination since then would have either won it or lost it on a single ground of discrimination, whether or not they would have won it or lost it on a multiple ground of discrimination—that is to say, the outcome of the case would not have been affected one way or another. Do the examples that you have in your paper there, which you are going to cite to us, disprove that assertion and show that it would have actually made a difference to the outcome of those cases?

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

Does that mean that they were not brought at all, or that they were brought on a single basis and lost, whereas in your view they would have been run if they could be brought on a double basis?

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

I think that we shall have to circulate that—that would be very helpful. Sorry, Professor Whittle.

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

I guess my point was not about the intellectual logic of multiple discrimination existing, but whether people had concrete examples of it existing in the real world. A final question on this to any of the panel: how do you feel about the notion of limiting multiple discrimination to just two grounds? We have all the different strands of discrimination in the Equality Bill, so why limit it to only two?

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

But intellectually, would you want to see it limited to three, four or none at all, or just lump them all in—not that I think that anyone would necessarily qualify for all of them; but, in theory, as many as apply?

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

It would be hideously complicated, I am sure.

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

A huge regulatory burden, which would be gratefully looked at.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

As no one else seems to be catching my eye, I thank the witnesses for their contribution this afternoon and suggest that we move on to the second set of witnesses.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I welcome the second set of witnesses this afternoon, from the Fawcett Society, the Women’s National Commission and Women Like Us. Before members of the Committee begin their questioning, perhaps each witness would like to introduce themselves and their organisation to the Committee.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Thank you.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

I want to probe the witnesses on the issue of the gender pay gap proposals in the Bill. At the moment, clause 73 gives Ministers the power to make regulations without putting in a great deal of detail about what those regulations might consist of. I know that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is doing work on getting agreement on the metrics and information that employers would have to publish. It would be helpful if the witnesses could give the Committee their thoughts on what might be appropriate.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Just to come back on that, because I was not clear enough at the beginning, if you were to do a pay audit, what information would you publish? By the way, the Bill does give Ministers the power to act on this—it does not force them to wait until 2013. It is just that the Government have said that they do not intend to make regulations yet. In terms of the kind of burden that the provisions will impose, what exactly will you require people to publish and will that information go to the heart of the matter? When we have this debate, the question as to the size of the gender pay gap depends to some extent on what you are comparing—is it full-time with full-time? Is it full-time with part-time? We have to be clear about what we are comparing. Have you done any work on what you might publish?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Yes.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Thank you.

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

Can I just be clear about what you mean? When you say “the part-time pay gap”, do you mean comparing men working part-time with women working part-time, or women working part-time with men working full- time?

Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)

You think that that is an appropriate comparison?

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Briefly on that point, I am of the view that if businesses have not done it in 39 years, I cannot see that they will rush forward now. I wonder whether you have any ideas about why business has been so slow to deal with this glaring inequality.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

If someone who thinks that they are paid unequally takes a case, do you think that the necessity of having to find a real comparator plays a part?

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

You would like to bring that into the Bill, perhaps?

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I am sure that we will debate those kinds of issues when we go through the Bill.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I thought that it was quite interesting when Mark, through the Chair, asked you if you were comparing part-time women with full-time men. There is obviously a huge differential. Once you go part time, you are not considered—the high jobs do not come in part-time packages. What can I do in the Bill to help with that? Is there some way? I understand that there is a whole raft of things outside the Bill in terms of training, education and working with employers. But is there anything in the legislation that you see that we can help you with? You do not have to answer now, but think about it. Inevitably, we will take the Bill through, and I am sure that we will all welcome external things. I am just looking to see whether there is something around that differential that we can work on.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Thank you.

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

I just want to pick up on the point about the gender pay gap. I was particularly interested in Baroness Gould’s point about there being many reasons for inequality in pay. Discrimination clearly is an important one, and I think that everyone in this room will be united in trying to find ways to sort that out. I am just a little worried, though, about the pay audits. Even if they are done in the way that Ms Rake was describing—following the guidelines to ensure that we are comparing like to like—is anyone on the panel worried? It might lead to a situation where we move from false negatives, where women are not able to bring cases when they should be able to, to a situation of false positives, where firms may be blamed for inequality in pay, which is not to do with discrimination. They might have done all the right things to ensure that they are not discriminating intentionally or unintentionally—following the two classes of discrimination that Ms Rake described earlier—but the inequality is due to disadvantage or some other reason. Is there a danger of that, or does the reporting guideline that Ms Rake described avoid it entirely, meaning that we would get no false positives?

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

I will follow up on that in a second. Do the other two panel members have a comment on the last question?

John Penrose (Conservative, Weston-Super-Mare)

A final question on this. Let us assume that by one means or another we manage to eradicate discrimination by employers and that part of the gender pay gap goes tomorrow—we have a magic wand. How much of it would be left? Are we looking at a very small proportion of the problem here, with the other factors that contribute to the gender pay gap being much greater? Or is this by far the biggest thing and will only a small amount of it be left to address—all the other issues which Baroness Gould was talking about?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

May I pick up on this exchange first and ask one question about that, and one on another issue? I will ask Emma first and others may contribute. The question of access to employment seems quite important—particularly for women who may wish to work part time, or return to work part time. On Second Reading I referred to an article in Whitehall and Westminster World which talked specifically about the record of the civil service in making jobs available part time and advertising them as such. Could you tell us from your experience whether that is changing culturally and whether it is a problem concentrated in the public service, or is it also part of a systemic problem throughout the employment of women?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

So that is a positive as well as a negative?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Are there any other contributions?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Thank you. My second question is a bit more of a structural one. It struck me when I read the Bill that the attempt is to bring together all the concepts of equality in one single process, in one single house. In the interests of legal clarity and better enforceability, I have no difficulty with that.

The one anomaly, which the Fawcett Society dealt with in response to the Green Paper, is the continuing inconsistency between the provisions of the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. I want to unpack that a bit for the Committee. Is your concern about what might be termed the legal tidy-mindedness of the Bill, in the sense that it would be better to have a one-stop shop for everything—it is all expressed in one Bill but in different provisions? Is there a formal objection?

The second possibility is that there are effects on what might be termed the litigation enforcement role in relation to discrimination; that is, you can have a different regime for pay and there can be breaches there, and for advertising and employment law, which could be a separate issue. Thirdly, is there a material issue about what actually happens in the delivery of gender pay equality?

If I could just add a loop to that, to complicate it further, I know that the Fawcett Society has gone on about the equal treatment amendment directive, which deals with having no comparator, or a hypothetical comparator. Could you unpack some of those issues? If we are to do a once-in-a-lifetime job, ought we to be doing more than we are, and, if so, how do we do it?

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

If I might interpose for a moment, I think that one of the arguments is that, because an implied contract is built in, it gives greater protection.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Do you think there is a danger of that?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

I want to continue the point about comparators. You all seemed quite optimistic, but perhaps I am more pessimistic. Having been in Glasgow city council for a number of years, I found that eventually the women home-help workers got to compare themselves with the men city builders in building services, which was good because it brought up the women. The council’s problem was that it was competing with the private sector, which was not operating under the same bounds. So, you had one company employing men for building at a higher rate and another company employing women at a lower rate for home helps. The council ends up in an impossible position. Its answer has been to chop itself into bits so that it can get round the equal pay rules in the longer term. I just wonder about this. It is all built on having a colleague. If organisations or employers are able to split colleagues off from each other, does that make all of this useless?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow East)

Thank you. My second point concerns the public sector equality duty where we are asking public authorities to take on board all the protective characteristics. Is that helpful to yourselves and the issue that you are talking about, or is it less relevant?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Two more hon. Members have caught my eye. Bearing it in mind that we have to keep an eye on the clock, perhaps answers can be slightly shorter so that they can both get in.

Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)

Having worked for Women’s Aid for many years, I am aware that, under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, there was an exemption in relation to employing only women. Baroness Gould, are you suggesting that that is in question under the new Bill? Would it be put at risk?

Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)

Will you expand a bit on the idea of representative actions? What benefits could that bring, for example, to the recent single-status negotiations of local authorities? Many women found it difficult, especially if they were not represented by their trade union. Would such action have helped in that situation, for example?

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

Not long ago, Nicola Brewer of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said that employers were rejecting women and not even inviting them to interviews because of maternity benefits. It is a sort of discrimination before people even get to work. For all the reasons that we have just discussed about women having a hard time in work, they are having a hard time getting into work. Do you think that there is any room in the Bill for measures that would reduce pre-work barriers?

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

It is discrimination against young women.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

No other questions? I am so pleased that I have not had to cut anyone off in their prime.