moved Amendment No. 154:"Page 20, line 14, leave out ““and””"
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 are probing amendments to illustrate that the work of the EOC in particular is not only concerned with the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act but also draws upon key pieces of employment legislation, particularly in respect of maternity and paternity leave, part-time work and employment rights. The statutes listed in these amendments are not the only relevant legislation, but they illustrate the position.
In the view of the Equal Opportunities Commission, if the commission’s remit is interpreted strictly according to the enactments listed in Clause 35, then key elements of its work would not be covered. This is because an increasing amount of discrimination legislation that it currently covers, or the legislation that has implications for discrimination, is covered in employment law. For example, of those cited in this amendment, the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires employers to issue a written statement of terms and conditions of employment. The way that the Maternity and Paternity Leave etc. Regulations 1999 operate—and any proposals to reform maternity leave provisions as set out in the Government’s recent work and families consultation—is of material concern to the EOC. And the regulations of 2000 on part-time work for male and female workers apply to all aspects of pay and conditions of employment, contractual and non-contractual, and will require that the part-time worker should be paid and receive other benefits on a pro rata basis.
The key point is what the Equality Bill allows the commission to do in relation to employment legislation. For example, under Clause 15 the commission will be allowed to issue codes of practice in connection with a matter addressed by the equality enactments. That will cover the kinds of legislation cited here, and that is welcome. But the commission will not be able to exercise its enforcement powers in relation to anything other than the equality enactments. That means, for example, that it will not be able to investigate why many employers do not carry out health and safety assessments of pregnant women and take enforcement action in connection with that.
Similarly, the denial of access to training is a fundamental issue for many male and female part-time workers, but it would not be directly covered by the commission’s enforcement remit. It would therefore be difficult for the commission to take enforcement action in relation to it.
Access to flexible working for fathers and rights for those with unpaid caring responsibilities are also issues with which the EOC is concerned, but they often fall outside the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act. The Government are proposing to extend the right to request to those with caring responsibilities, but as that is not a sex discrimination issue it would not fall within the scope of the commission; nor would it be covered by any other organisation.
I believe that it is crucial that all these equality enactments continue to be covered by the commission. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify how they will be covered in the new legislation. I beg to move.
Equality Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 11 July 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Equality Bill (HL).
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c978-9 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:56:20 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261300
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261300
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261300