Equality Bill

I am joining the Front Bench for a fleeting moment, which requires me to declare an interest in that I am a member of a local authority, which under these terms would be a public body. We have dealt a lot with Clause 148(1), but Clause 148(2) states that: ""A person who is not a public authority but who exercises public functions must, in the exercise of those functions, have due regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (1)"." We agree with this subsection. We think it is right that a public authority that has subcontracted part of its public sector duties to an alternative organisation must ensure that the other organisation provides services compliant with the public sector equality duty. It is interesting that the subsection starts with "a person". I am assuming, therefore, that the services, which is what this is all about, can be contracted to a person or that "a person" can be construed as a company, as a voluntary organisation or as any other body that is carrying out the services on behalf of that public authority. We need to be clear that the definition of "a person" is covered. Whoever "a person" is, it is right that the services should be delivered to the highest ideals that the public sector equality duty brings in. We also welcome the fact that subsection (2) states that organisations to which services have been subcontracted have to comply with the duty only, ""in the exercise of those functions"." We would, however, welcome some clarity from the Minister in this regard. Will she confirm that the intention of the Bill is that the public sector equality duty should apply only to those organisations in the exercise of those specific functions and not in any other capacity? In other words, the company’s or voluntary organisation’s own internal functions and processes will not be affected by the contract—only the contract will be affected, and other processes are exempt. We believe that it is important that a private company or voluntary organisation is not made subject to the higher demands of the public sector equality duty across the whole gamut of the company simply because it has been contracted to perform a service for a public authority. We should not forget that these companies are already subject to the anti-discrimination legislation as well as equality provisions in the private sector. We are not at all arguing that private companies should be excluded from equality legislation, merely that in their everyday functions, which are over and beyond those that public bodies are contracted to, they should not be made subject to a duty that is designed to apply only to public bodies. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on that. We have tabled Amendment 109, which would leave out subsection (2) and insert a requirement that the public sector equality duty should apply to someone who exercises public functions except as regards employment. This amendment has been tabled to probe the Minister further on the extent to which the public sector equality duty applies in these circumstances to these organisations. We do not wish to remove subsection (2); we agree with it. This is a probing amendment about the duty that will apply in practice to organisations—I think specifically of small organisations—or, indeed, to individuals who have duties contracted to them. We are concerned that small organisations which are performing subcontractor services should not have to obey the provisions of the public sector equality duty in respect of its employment law. Will the Minister confirm whether that would be the case? We hope to ensure that these companies are subject to the same provisions of employment law as their non-public counterparts. We very much hope to minimise onerous burdens on potentially very small organisations. I hope that the Minister will lay out for the Committee the detail of how the application of a single duty only to certain parts of the organisation might work. In other words, how do the Government envisage the mechanics of applying this public sector equality duty only to subcontracted functions, which is what I have been talking about all the way through? That is what we all think is going to happen, and what we desire, but we would be interested to see how that division is designed to work in practice, although, of course, companies already work on behalf of public bodies and have some responsibilities in that regard under the law, but I think this measure widens them substantially. I beg to move.