| A General Framework for Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation
|
|
The Chairman: Order. We now have until 5.30 pm for the Minister to answer questions. I remind all members of the Committee to keep questions short, if possible, and to ask them singly. That should deliver concise answers. Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her opening statement. First, I wish to establish whether the Government are unhesitatingly committed to the idea of a directive and have now excluded from the range of possibilities a decision to veto it. Secondly, and along much the same lines, is the right hon. Lady satisfied that on grounds of proportionality it is proper for the European Union to legislate on the matter? She is doubtless aware of article 3b of the Maastricht treaty and the protocol on the application of principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the Amsterdam treaty. Is the European Union behaving properly in proceeding with the proposed directive despite the apparent assurances--I use the word "apparent" advisedly--that we received on the passage of both treaties? Thirdly, will the night hon. Lady confirm that despite the attempt to bring forward negotiations on the directive, the Government have no intention of being hurried towards reaching a conclusion because of the legislative or political ambitions of other member states? In the absence of an assurance on that point, I can only assume that she is happy to be bullied on that score. I have a final question to the right hon. Lady. The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that I asked hon. Members to ask one question, not four. Ms Jowell: First, I hope I made it clear in my remarks that the negotiation is in progress and our objectives are clear. The devil of such a directive is in the detail, and several other member states would share that view. We can all sign up to the principle that it is intended to serve, but the key is to establish a framework text that will be workable in practice. That is the answer to the first question. The test that we shall apply will be whether we are happy to sign up to the text that is finally negotiated and whether we are content that it is workable. We are negotiating in good faith to achieve that, because we support the directive's principle objective. However, we would not support a flawed means of securing it; we are engaged in negotiations to secure what the UK Government want. Secondly, on the question of subsidiarity and proportionality, a responsibility exists with respect to employment and I am satisfied that both tests are met. The question raises important points about safeguarding the text of the directive as a framework text setting minimum standards. We would want to avoid an overly-descriptive text or one that undermined domestic legislation that was working well. Finaly, I hope that I have already made it clear that we will not be hurried into signing up to a directive that we do not believe to be workable. The interests that we want to serve would not be served by rushed and unworkable legislation. Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet): I also welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Gale. What are religious organisations, particularly schools, allowed to do at present in pursuit of preferences with respect the people whom they employ? Will that state of affairs be affected if the measure is passed in its present state? Ms Jowell: As things stand, there is clear statutory protection for schools in preserving their religious ethos. One of our key negotiating objectives is to retain the present relevant legislative framework under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. We want Church schools to remain free to recruit teaching staff of the faith in question. As my hon. Friend will know, the current provisions do not extend to ancillary staff. Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon): I declare a non-pecuniary interest in that I find, from reading its letterhead, that I am an honorary associate of the National Secular Society. Compared with our current law, in what areas would new rights and protections be introduced for those who face discrimination if the directive were implemented, either in its current form or in the form favoured by the Government? Ms Jowell: In relation to disability, the relevant domestic legislation is the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There are differences between the provisions of that legislation and the provisions in the framework directive that relate to disability. We are seeking to ensure that the definition of "reasonable adjustment" in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will be the test that operates under the directive, rather than the definition of indirect discrimination that currently applies. The extent to which new rights will be conferred is at the margin and open to interpretation. New rights will be conferred in relation to discrimination on the grounds of age, sexual orientation and religion. Mr. Jack: I formally welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale. Will the Minister throw a little more light on the definition of the word "disability" used in the directive, and say when the Commission's proposed study into different definitions of disability used throughout the Community will be completed? Ms Jowell: The directive does not define disability, and that is a problem. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 does define disability, and I can quote the definition if it would help the hon. Gentleman. The Act states:
If there is no definition, the risk is that disability will be interpreted differently in different member states. In addition, domestic law could be reinterpreted in the light of judgments of the European Court of Justice. On the Commission's study of definitions of disability, we understand that the proposals were not intended to inform these negotiations. That may come as much of a surprise to the right hon. Gentleman as it does to me, but we do not expect the study to be published this year. Mr. David Borrow (South Ribble): I want to follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who referred to the areas in which the directive could extend legislation, and my right hon. Friend specifically mentioned discrimination on the basis of age and sexual orientation. I know that the Minister's policy has been to allow those areas to be dealt with by voluntary codes of practice. However, in view of the fact that we envisage the introduction of legislation following the directive, will the Department for Education and Employment give a higher priority to the speedy implementation of a code of practice, and create the impetus for discussions with employers to ensure that such codes are observed in preparation for legislation? Ms Jowell: There is already a code of practice on age diversity, which is intended to deal with ageism at work. That has been circulated to about 70,000 employers. We have made it clear that its impact will be evaluated before a decision about legislation is taken. The evaluation is due to be completed towards the middle of next year. The Equal Opportunities Commission is currently preparing a code of practice on sexual orientation, and that work is still in progress. We expect it to be completed some time next year. Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): I welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Gale. The Minister referred to existing case law and mentioned that, under the framework directive, the burden of proof would be reversed, so that respondents would have to prove that there had been no breach on the grounds of discrimination. I thought that the Minister said that that burden of proof already existed. Will she help the Committee by explaining what is the relevant case law and say when the European Court of Justice gave a ruling on that? Ms Jowell: The standard case in this area is that of Zafar, which the House of Lords judged in 1997. The matter was considered at great length in the final stages before the race directive was agreed. Previously, there was much uninformed comment about the impact of the shift in the burden of proof The directive clearly incorporates existing case law into the requirement to establish a prima facie case of discrimination before the respondent has to prove that the discrimination did not take place. Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster): My right hon, Friend will be aware of the widespread concern about the drafting of article 4, which deals with genuine occupational qualifications. Will she make specific representations to the European Union about the definitions of church youth workers and Christian playgroups? They are concerned about the implications for their activities. Ms Jowell: We shall certainly pursue the interests of those groups of workers during our negotiations, and I hope that I have made our negotiating objective clear. The enormous amount of correspondence that I have passed on to the Commission shows that the matter is of great public concern. Mr. William Cash (Stone): I am deeply concerned about small and medium-sized businesses. On the regulatory impact, the Minister says in her explanatory memorandum:
She mentions the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and many other organisations. However, when the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, asked the Minister questions at the end of June, she said:
The consultation process began in January, but the implications were still being considered in June. Is that because the representative organisations consulted by the Minister remain--rightly--deeply concerned about the implications of the proposals?
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2000 | Prepared 24 July 2000 |
