Equality Bill

No. The hon. Gentleman made a ridiculous point. Let us move on to age. Three cheers for what the Government have proposed on age discrimination! I cannot say how glad I am that protection against age discrimination is being extended to goods and services. However, it is unacceptable for the exemptions to be handled through regulation; they should be in the Bill, and fully debated in Parliament. They are an intrinsic part of the package. I have a concern about the start date of the proposals on age discrimination; it is not satisfactory to leave it up to a Minister to decide at a later date when the measures should be introduced. For the avoidance of doubt, we will ask the Government to set a mandatory deadline. My last point about age discrimination and matters mandatory is that I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government have retained a mandatory retirement age. It seems completely wrong. I am surprised, as it is clearly discriminatory to decide on an arbitrary age as a cut-off. I heard what the Leader of the House said about the default retirement age being on a separate track, but the issue should be included in the Bill. I want briefly to touch on some of the good things in the Bill. We welcome the inclusion of sex and age in the positive duty. We also welcome what we hope is a move away from treating transsexualism as a medical condition. It is currently labelled gender reassignment under the protected characteristics. For a long time, those in the transgender community have had physically to change gender before qualifying for the same protection as other strands. To date, the transgender spectrum has not really been understood. While we understand the desire for clear definitions in the Bill, many people find themselves on that spectrum but do not necessarily want a sex change. This is about people who face discrimination because of how they express their gender but do not fit into neat boxes. As the Bill progresses, we will test the Government on exact definitions, because we are still concerned about the continued, fairly narrow definition whereby transgender is seen as part of a process on the way to a change of gender. That is only a slight advance on where we are now, and we would wish those anywhere on the spectrum to have the full protection of equality under the law. We are pleased with the Government's proposals on carers and welcome the enshrining in law of the Coleman case and the protection that that affords. We also welcome the measures on breastfeeding, pregnancy and new mothers. However, there are some missing strands that we will probe in Committee: for example, castes are missing from discrimination protection; and there may be separate issues to do with children. We have outstanding concerns about the proposed changes to restrictions on who can give blood. Obviously, the safety of the blood supply is paramount. However, prohibiting homosexuals as a group from giving blood, as has been the case, bears close examination. It is, without a doubt, discrimination to say, in blanket terms, that all homosexuals should not give blood because they pose such a tremendous risk. Surely we need some sort of risk-based system that assesses the risk posed by an individual, given that there will be overactive heterosexuals who practise unsafe sex and abstinent homosexuals. Liberal Democrat Members understand the Government's motives in including religion and belief under the positive duty for equality. However, given the arduous and extensive arguments on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill—on which the Government, I hate to remind them, were defeated—we hold to the view that religion and belief should not be a protected characteristic. Of course, we all believe that people should not face discrimination in their work because of their religion, and subscribe to promoting good relations to advance equality of opportunity and eliminate discrimination. However, religious views on matters such as abortion, alcohol, homosexuality and sex education in schools are varied and often at odds, and it would be absurd to require public authorities to accommodate all those views in public policies that affect us all. We are also worried that if exceptions for religious organisations in employment are too broad, there will be abuse of that protection. It is obviously acceptable to discriminate in some circumstances, such as advertising for a Catholic to fill the job of a Catholic priest—that makes complete theological sense—but it would be unacceptable if we then found it specified that only a Catholic caretaker could work in a religious school. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) will spend many hours in Committee happily arguing our case, particularly in relation to harassment, where there is a balance to be struck between protection from harassment and free speech. We are somewhat disappointed that the Bill proposes to continue the medical model of defining disability and that greater consideration has not been given to the social model. We also believe that there is a lack of clarity about the extension to the reasonable adjustment requirement for common areas in rented accommodation. Is that proposal workable? Where liability for costs is shared, who will bear those costs? Such details matter if a Bill is not to come into disrepute. The intention is very good, but the proposal has to work. We welcome the correction of judgments that have seriously undermined protection from disability discrimination, but we are seriously concerned that the remedy proposed in the Bill will not undo the Malcolm case. I shall pursue that issue in detail in Committee. I draw my remarks to a close by saying that the Liberal Democrats will challenge, and seek to improve, what is on offer in the Bill. It would be easy to knock the proposed measures, as we heard to some degree from the Conservatives. However, legislation in the equalities field has been the advance guard of change.