Section 31 deals with indirect discrimination. Congress feels the wording of subsections (1)(d) and (2)(d) are less favourable than those dealing with gender equality. They recommend that the wording in these paragraphs should be the same as in section 22(1)(c) for gender equality, in order to have continuity and clarity in the legislation for all workers covered by it. Perhaps the Minister would comment on this.
SECTION 31.
Question proposed: "That section 31 stand part of the Bill."
Section 31(2) deals with indirect discrimination as regards membership of regulatory bodies. Section 13, which deals with direct discrimination is wider in scope, covering trade unions and employer organisations. Why is the protection of section 31 as regards indirect discrimination more narrow than section 13 as regards direct discrimination?
As regards indirect discrimination for the non gender categories, a test of reasonableness is proposed. The test in section 31, reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, is being extended to section 29 to ensure harmony. A distinct approach on indirect discrimination is considered justified as gender cases will continue to be subject to ECJ case law developments and because there is no experience of the implications of applying indirect discrimination provisions to categories which are predominantly minority groups compared to the gender category, representing 50 per cent of the population. This differential is considered appropriate at present.
The gender cases are covered by ECJ case law but the other categories are being included because we want to include them, not because we must include them on the basis of European directives. Another difference is that the gender ground involves 50 per cent of the population while the other categories involve considerably smaller percentages. This is why the base of reasonableness was considered appropriate in this area.
Question put and agreed to.