UK Parliament / Open data

Equality Bill

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 19 January 2010. It occurred during Debate on bills on Equality Bill.
My Lords, perhaps I should speak to the government amendments now—and perhaps I should call the noble Lord my noble kinsman. It is getting terribly exciting. The government amendments were tabled on Friday. I recognise that that gives noble Lords very little time to look at them. However, as noble Lords will know, there has to be a clearing process throughout government. I apologise for the lateness of amendments and will try to give further notice in future. I shall speak now to Amendments 69A, 69B, 69C, 69D, 69E, 69F, 69G, 69H; 108R and 136ZD. We introduced Clause 60 at Report in the other place to respond to concerns put to us by disability organisations. There was compelling evidence that disabled people are being discriminated against by having their initial applications rejected by some employers once they are aware of a person’s disability. In addition, and as the noble Lord said, the widespread use of pre-employment enquiries can act as a deterrent for some disabled people making applications for work. RADAR told us that restricting the use of pre-employment enquiries, ""is probably the single biggest difference and improvement that could be made through the Equality Bill in relation to the employment of disabled people"." However, disability organisations continue to have concerns and have told us that Clause 60 does not go far enough. Since Report stage in the other place we have had conversations with disability organisations about what might be the best way forward. This set of amendments strikes us as being the best way. There are numerous amendments, but I will be brief. Amendment 69A makes it an unlawful act under the Equality Act 2006 to ask health questions of all applicants except in prescribed circumstances and so enables the Equality and Human Rights Commission to exercise its existing enforcement powers in relation to this issue. It seems to me that these powers might be exercised most beneficially were the EHRC to identify evidence of a systemic breach of Clause 60(1). Amendment 69A extends the period during which only permitted enquiries can be made up to the stage of making a job offer, whether conditional or unconditional, or selection to a pool of successful candidates where the person recruiting is not in a position to make a job offer for procedural or other reasons. We were persuaded that this is a more appropriate stage in the recruitment process at which to allow questions because of the two new exceptions which I will describe. We believe this strikes the right balance between the needs of employers to find the best candidate for the job and applicants not to be asked questions about their health that are not relevant to the job. Amendment 69B would permit someone recruiting to ask questions to establish whether an applicant is able to undergo an assessment involving, for instance, participation in a group physical exercise or demonstration of an applicant’s ability to carry out a function that is intrinsic to working safely. Amendments 69C and 69D would enable someone recruiting to ask questions to establish whether an applicant would be able to undertake an essential function of the job. In purely practical terms this makes sense. For example, a vacancy in a warehouse may require that the successful candidate be able to manually handle goods and operate a forklift truck as an essential function of the job. A person recruiting for work would want to establish that the successful candidate can carry out such tasks, with reasonable adjustments if necessary. I shall not dwell on Amendments 69F and 69G, which offer interpretations of phrases used earlier in the clause, nor on Amendment 69H, which deletes a subsection now embedded in Amendment 69A. Finally, the consequential Amendments 108R and 136ZD ensure, respectively, that only the EHRC can enforce the unlawful act described in Amendment 69A and add a contravention of Clause 60(1), or contraventions that relate to Clause 60(1), to the unlawful acts to which Section 24A of the Equality Act 2006 on supplemental enforcement powers applies. This is a balanced and comprehensive set of amendments, which I am pleased to note has the support of disability organisations and the EHRC. The noble Lord cited the comments of many disability organisations on Clause 60 as it stands. Since we tabled the new amendments, however, Rethink, the mental health charity, has said: ""The government’s decision to introduce the amendment should put a stop to this discriminatory employment practice which deters so many people with mental health problems from applying for jobs. It could mark a turning point in equal opportunities"." We understand that the National Aids Trust will be making a supportive statement on the amendments, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission has said: ""The Commission strongly welcomes the Government’s amendments to prohibit the use of pre-employment questionnaires, except in prescribed circumstances. We also welcome powers to take action in respect of organisations which contravene this prohibition"." The noble Lord rightly said that disabled people should not be put off applying for jobs from fear of discrimination. We believe that the amendments that we are proposing today address those concerns and I have no hesitation in commending these amendments to the Committee. It might be helpful if I responded to the noble Lord’s amendments—or do noble Lords wish to speak before I do? I shall speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, and then there will be further debate if noble Lords so wish.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c928-30 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top