Equality Bill

My Lords, we have tabled these amendments, 126A and 126B, to raise another issue which has been brought to our attention by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We have spoken a great deal about the order-making powers contained in Clause 195, which allow exceptions to be made to the provisions regarding age discrimination. We have debated the need for these regulations, their timing and which areas they will cover, and we have received assurances from the Minister that regulations would be introduced to allow exceptions relating to age-specific holidays such as those provided by Saga, insurance provision and other financial services. These would be in one order and due to come into being at the same time as these sections in the Act. I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can quickly reiterate that reassurance. We have not spoken about the nature of the power contained in subsections (3) and (6). Those who have read the third report of the committee on this Bill will know that it has raised significant concerns about the strength of these powers. Its worry centres around the fact that, with these subsections, orders can be made which also impose requirements by reference to guidance or documents specified in guidance. This guidance is obviously not necessarily subject to parliamentary procedure. Therefore, while the power in Clause 195(1) is subject to affirmative procedure, the sub-delegation powers which allow requirements to be made by reference to guidance or other documents contained within that, mean that these requirements are capable of avoiding the affirmative procedure. This means that it is possible to bypass parliamentary control over the nature and extent of the exceptions. We have therefore tabled Amendments 126A and 126B, which would remove these powers of sub-delegation. The committee objected not only to the use of these powers, but also that the Government had offered no justification for them. We have subsequently seen, in a letter from the Minister, justification which states that the guidance would be too detailed for legislation, but it was necessary to have an order which required guidance to be complied with because this would give certainty to business about how a business was allowed to operate. We have constantly fought for certainty for businesses and very much want to ensure that. The Government’s amendment would allow a certain amount of scrutiny because it would make the date for the guidance to come into force subject to the negative procedure. Can the noble Baroness support this decision to compromise with the recommendations of the committee with evidence of any precedent to enshrine guidance in legislation in this way? Does she consider this to be an appropriate procedure and is the negative resolution strong enough? I should also like her to comment on any discussion she may or may not have had with the committee on this matter. Furthermore, can she clarify what would happen if parliamentary scrutiny showed that there were problems with the guidance? Would the only option then be to vote against the commencement date? If that were the case, would it not be more difficult for businesses, and in fact provide less certainty, because they would have to wait for the changed guidance to be implemented and go through the procedure again, even though there might be only a relatively minor change? We understand the need for clarity and certainty, but it would be very helpful to hear what discussions have been had with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and whether it is satisfied now with the changes. After all, the noble Baroness will have noted that in the report the committee’s reaction was strongly opposed to these measures. It is vital for your Lordships now to know what its response is in order that we can then say that we are content with the amendments. I beg to move.