Equality and Human Rights Commission: Draft Updated Code of Practice Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateBaroness Blower
Main Page: Baroness Blower (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Baroness Blower's debates with the Department for Work and Pensions
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords Chamber
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On the noble Baroness’s last point, I do not believe there is anything in the previous code or in any future code that would prevent the NHS making decisions on the basis of clinical need, rather than any other reason.
On the point the noble Baroness raises about the impact assessment, let me be absolutely clear: the EHRC has not been asked to carry out a full regulatory impact assessment, but rather to provide a minimum proportionate cost assessment to evidence exclusion from a full regulatory impact assessment and enable us to take an informed decision. Understanding costs and impacts is not new; it would have been a consideration in the 2011 code. The guidance on impact assessments was introduced by the party opposite, so I am sure they are familiar with the processes the Government have to follow.
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister share my concern that details of aspects of the code are being conducted through public letters in the press rather than through proper parliamentary scrutiny? In the other place, the Secretary of State has suggested that the EHRC should focus on providing the required information to the Government, and, as she said, perhaps show
“a little less focus on public debate”.
Does my noble friend agree?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I always agree with what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State says, and I certainly do in this case. This just emphasises the point I made earlier: this code will have implications for service providers up and down the country, and, incidentally, it provides guidance across all protected characteristics, not solely sex and gender reassignment. It is therefore important for the Government to take the appropriate time to consider it, so that it can then be laid before Parliament for consideration.