Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

A message has been received from the Lords relating to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. Under the orders of the House of 16 April and yesterday, any such message may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

We will debate two motions. The first relates to Lords amendments 35 and 36, and consequential amendments (a) to (c). The second relates to Lords amendment 37 and amendments (a) to (d) in lieu. The motions will be debated together and are available from the Vote Office, as is Bill 163.

At 12.44 today, the Government tabled a revised version of amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 37. Despite the short notice, the Speaker has selected the amendment for debate. The revised version of the relevant paper is available in the Vote Office.

Lords message considered forthwith (Order, 22 April).

Clause 56

Commission for Equality and Human Rights

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendment 36, does not insist on its disagreement to Lords amendment 35 and proposes consequential amendments (a) to (c) to the Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this we will consider the motion that this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendment 37, but proposes amendments (a) to (d) in lieu.

[Jo Swinson]

I would like to put on the record my thanks for your flexibility, Mr Deputy Speaker, in accepting the late tweak to the amendment that had been tabled earlier this morning in relation to Lords amendment 37 on the issue of caste. I shall come to that issue in a second or two.

We are returning to the discussion on the equality provisions of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which were debated in the other place yesterday. We have paid regard to the strong views and concerns that were expressed in that debate, and have tabled motions to respond to them.

As I have made clear in the course of our debates, the Government want a strong and effective Equality and Human Rights Commission. As part of that and to focus the EHRC on its core functions, we proposed the repeal of its power under section 3 of the Equality Act 2006, which is known more commonly as the general duty. However, in light of the clear views expressed in the other place, the Government have reconsidered our position and will not insist on our disagreement to Lords amendment 35. That will allow the general duty to remain in the 2006 Act. Although it is accepted by all that the duty has a symbolic rather than a practical effect, it is clear that considerable importance is attached to this overarching statement.

We maintain that the commission’s monitoring and reporting should be carried out in respect of its core equality and human rights duties. The EHRC will continue to be required to monitor and report on changes in society, but, as has been agreed to in the Bill, that should relate to the areas that it is uniquely placed to influence and change: equality, diversity and human rights. For that reason, the motion is to disagree with Lords amendment 36. Instead, the EHRC will monitor its progress against the duties specified in sections 8 and 9 of the 2006 Act, and the form of that reporting will remain unchanged.