Proceeding contribution from Baroness Andrews (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 25 March 2008. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Sex Discrimination (Amendment of Legislation) Regulations 2008.
Sex Discrimination (Amendment of Legislation) Regulations 2008
I am extremely grateful for the welcome given to these regulations and I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that all parties are united in their determination to outlaw discrimination. We are very grateful for his party’s support on that. I always feel slightly intimidated in debates like this when I am confronted by two Members of the Committee with very wide experience, both of whom are forensic but who come from slightly different angles. It has been a useful debate and I apologise for speaking for a rather long time. I did that not because we have anything to hide but because it is extremely important, given the complexity and technicality of these regulations and the fact that they are part of an ongoing discourse, to put on record the implications as far as we could anticipate them. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, recognised the sense of urgency, but he also raised some important questions about the timetable. I cannot add a great deal to what I said about the timetable as it proceeded past the autumn, but because we were discussing with Northern Ireland, under the Memorandum of Understanding, how we could take these forward, given the complications that had arisen, it was necessary for some debate to be had, so there was another delay in the process. As for the summer consultation, it became more complex and wider in general because we bundled consultation on this with consultation on the Equality Bill. Moreover, the machinery of government changes; new Ministers had come in, inevitably with slightly different perspectives and views on how to add what they wanted to the consultation. However, the consultation period was for the full 12 weeks. That is the good practice as set up with the Cabinet Office, and we observed it in this case. The noble Lord’s other important questions were particularly practical and it is important to clarify them. He asked, for example, about the costs to business. These changes are relatively minor compared with the sorts of requirements imposed on business since 1975 not to discriminate on the grounds of sex. Those were the big changes, and these are relatively small. He is, however, quite right. This is the sort of issue where we continue to listen to business and discuss. We will be watching the implications of the change. The noble Lord also raised the issue of tribunal capacity. These cases will go to the courts and not to tribunals. Protection under the 1975 Act has existed since 1975. We can draw some comfort from the fact that there have been very few such cases. We therefore do not anticipate a great number of additional cases arising from this. Because the transgender population is so small, I think it unlikely that it would place a great burden on the processes.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 700 c78-9GC
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Companies Costs Women Equality EU law Gender Harassment Discrimination Facilities Northern Ireland Men Mothers Pregnancy Transgender people
- Legislation
- Sex Discrimination Act 1975
- Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976
- Sex Discrimination (Amendment of Legislation) Regulations 2008
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-02-04 14:41:31 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_457589
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_457589
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_457589