Application of this Chapter

I beg to move amendment 100, in clause 79, page 59, line 37, leave out paragraph (c).

Hopefully, I shall be brief. The clause deals with education and schools, and specifically when discrimination is allowed. The purpose of the amendment is to seek an explanation of why pregnancy and maternity are not protected characteristics when it comes to education, and I am grateful to Liberty for its help. A woman who is treated less favourably because she is pregnant or has recently given birth is protected, so why is that protection not extended to younger women in schools? We all know that young mothers and expectant mothers can—and do—experience discrimination and disadvantage at school, and there is research to support that. They are also less likely to have qualifications.

For starters, can the Solicitor-General reassure us that the Government do not intend that pregnant girls should be excluded from education merely on the grounds of their pregnancy? The explanatory notes state:

“It is not unlawful discrimination for a school to organise a different timetable for a pupil who has a baby, to help her fit her education with her parenting responsibilities.”

That is fine and good, but it seems an excessively wide exemption to achieve that end. After all, an employer might also organise a different timetable for a new mother returning to work to help her, and that would be acceptable and even encouraged. So why is a much wider exemption being given to schools than to employers? If such matters are not covered by the Bill, will the hon. and learned Lady reassure us that protection will be provided in some other way?

I keenly support the amendment. Further to what the hon. Gentleman has said, the explanatory notes are quite strange. They state that it is not unlawful discrimination

“for a school to organise a different timetable for a pupil who has a baby, to help her fit her education with her parenting responsibilities.”

The implication is that, if pregnancy and maternity were deleted from the clause as proposed under the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, in some way schools would be prevented from taking such action. That is not right. I accept that it is not necessarily the argument of the Solicitor-General. Perhaps she will argue, as she did before, that the discrimination that we want to oppose is already covered under another heading, but I should be grateful if she clarified whether that is the justification. If it is, it would also not be unlawful for a school to refuse to admit a girl pupil who is pregnant or who already had a baby. Although that might be the position under current legislation, we should not permit schools to discriminate against pregnant pupils or pupils with babies in respect of admission, exclusion or any other detriment. I am concerned that the clause allows schools to do that, even if guidance and the public sector duty might discourage them from doing so. The Government are under a burden to show that the inclusion of paragraph (c) is justified. I look forward to hearing from the hon. and learned Lady.

It is not through discrimination legislation that pregnant schoolgirls or young mothers will get the help that they need, but through sensitive handling by the school. There is an absolute bar on pregnancy as a ground for exclusion. No schoolgirl should be excluded for getting pregnant. A teenage pregnancy strategy ensures that pupils receive support and tuition to complete their education, and dedicated reintegration officers work with schools and pupils to advise on the best way to accommodate and re-engage them in education. In addition, the new public sector duty will ensure that schools have regard for pupils who become pregnant. We feel that it is most appropriate to protect that category of person through that mechanism and other protections.

I do not totally follow the point of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon about the explanatory notes. When I do, I will drop him a line.

I will not pursue that point. I assume that something in the corresponding schedule makes it clear that one cannot exclude a pupil on the grounds of maternity under sex discrimination provisions. However, the Solicitor-General did not say why that was. She did not address my example of admission. Notwithstanding the public sector duty, a school would have the right not to admit a pupil simply on the basis that she was pregnant under discrimination law. As such a person would not be the school’s pupil, which is the term the Solicitor-General used in explanation of the public sector duty and the teenage pregnancy code, it is not clear why the school could not do that. I do not see why we should not use the opportunity of discrimination legislation to deal with that issue if we can. I would be grateful if she addressed the issue of admission.

We are talking about somebody who gets pregnant while they are at school. The hon. Gentleman is talking about somebody who moves school. That would be facilitated by reintegration officers. We do not think that discrimination law hits the spot. It is certainly not in the schedule that exclusion is not available for pregnancy. However, education law sets out clearly that that is not a ground for exclusion. I do not think  that there is an issue here, but it is good to probe the matter. There is plenty of law that covers this matter, as well as policies and guidance.

I thank the Solicitor-General for the reassurances she has given. I still feel that the amendment would strengthen the position of women in such circumstances. However, I accept her reassurances and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 80 to 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.