Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

Yes, of course I will seek leave to withdraw amendment 29, and I thank the Government and the Father of the House for the explanation offered as to the change. It makes sense for this provision to be more flexible and to take into account the chance that the appropriate body to consult might change. I shall not be pressing amendment 31 to a Division either, but the explanation that the Minister offered is slightly puzzling, in that the chances of this indirect discrimination happening and affecting anybody are remote. As I understand it, the argument put forward was that as a younger person would face a longer ban, in terms of years, than an older person, disproportionately more younger people, as opposed to older people, would be put off and that would therefore qualify as indirect discrimination on age grounds against the young. I suppose that is theoretically possible in some remote circumstance, but it does not strike me as the most obvious discrimination case that anyone would bring, especially when one considers the consequence of bringing such a case for one's career. The reason for the two-year ban has not been entirely explained. The Minister mentioned the possibility of a five-year ban—I am not entirely clear about in what circumstances the commission suggested a five-year ban—but she did not offer any particular reasoning as to why the ban should be for two years, rather than for five. Given that the whole point of this clause is to maintain public confidence in the neutrality and independence of the CAG, if anything we should err on the side of caution.