HL Deb 17 December 2001 vol 630 cc30-2WA
Lord Lester of Herne Hill

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 28 November (WA 56), what are their reasons for considering that being a Member of Parliament is not an occupation that falls within the scope of the Equal Treatment Directive even though it falls within the scope of the employment provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975; and [HL1808]

Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 28 November (WA 56), whether they consider that the control of access to employment and occupation falls within the scope of the Equal Treatment Directive; and if not, why not; and [HL1809]

Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 28 November (WA 56), whether they consider that a political party falls within the scope of the Equal Treatment Directive when controlling access to employment and occupation; and, if not, why not; and [HL1810]

Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 28 November (WA 56), whether they consider that the control of access to occupations and vocations (whether involving public office otherwise) falls within the scope of the Equal Treatment Directive; and, if not, why not; and [HL1811]

Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 28 November (WA 56), what are their reasons for considering that political parties are not public authorities, within the meaning of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, when exercising the functions of selecting candidates for election to the House of Commons. [HL1812]

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn)

Whether or not a provision falls within a particular part or section of an Act in domestic law is not decisive of how it will be regarded for EU law purposes.

The Government's view is that being a Member of Parliament is not an occupation within the scope of the directive: an MP can more properly be characterised as someone holding political office. Occupations are within the scope of the directive only where an employment-type relationship arises. Being a Member of Parliament does not, in the Government's view, give rise to such a relationship.

Apart from the issue of whether being a Member of Parliament is an occupation under the directive, the Government are of the view that the directive does not apply to the electoral process because it is not comparable to selection for employment.

The Government accept that the equal treatment principle applies to the control of access to employment and occupations covered by the directive. By accepting this, however, the Government do not accept that the selection by a political party of a candidate for election is control of access to employment and occupation. Holding political office would not, in our view, cause an employment-type relationship to arise, whether between the Member and their political party or otherwise. Standing as a candidate for election or standing for selection to be a candidate is not the same as having access to employment or occupation.

It is accepted that the directive covers access to vocational guidance, vocational training, advanced vocational training and retraining. It may also cover access to occupations and vocations, but only so long as the occupation or vocation concerned involves an employment-type relationship. For the reasons advanced above, however, this does not mean, that the directive applies to selection of candidates as MPs.

As to whether political parties are public authorities for the purposes of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, a body will only be a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act if it has a public function, that is, a function which is governmental or quasi-governmental in nature and which seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public. The Government's view is that the selection of a candidate to stand for election is internal to the party and its members, and is more a private act that furthers the party's own ends than a public function.

As stated in my Answer on 28 November (WA 56), however, it is not for the Government to give assurances as to how the law will be construed. The Government reach their view after due deliberation, but that it is binding in any way ultimately it is for the courts to decide.