House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Jul 1998 (pt 26)

8 pm

Mrs. Fyfe: I come from Glasgow, which has a history of religious discrimination in job appointments, so I am familiar with that. I am familiar also with the fact that it is possible for a community to stop discriminating and, indeed, religious discrimination in job appointments in Glasgow is now virtually non-existent. Societies can change. I support all those who, with good will, are attempting to make progress on that in Northern Ireland.

I agree with the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) that there is a need to avoid discrimination on the ground of disability. That has clearly been much neglected, because, for obvious reasons, religious discrimination took up so much of our attention. Other aspects of discrimination, such as disability, have not received the attention that they deserve.

I hope that, in attempting to ensure that the community is fairly represented in all its diversity, the Minister will take account also of the need for the body to include people who are free from any kind of irrational prejudice and who can be relied on to have a clear-minded view of how the commission's business should be conducted.

If the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who tabled amendment No. 156, intends that there should be no hierarchy of discrimination, and that each case should be treated with equal seriousness, I fully support him. However, the amendment could be read to mean that equal amounts of the money and time of those involved would be devoted to each kind of discrimination, which would not necessarily be sensible. If the commission were

27 Jul 1998 : Column 88

to find that 10 times as much discrimination of one kind occurred as of another, it would not be sensible to allocate funds equally to each form of discrimination.

Mr. Öpik: I assure the hon. Lady that her first explanation is my intention, and that we should regard each form of discrimination as equally unacceptable. I accept her point that different amounts of resources are likely to be needed to tackle each of the various forms of discrimination.

Mrs. Fyfe: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has cleared up that point, because the amendment is ambiguous.

I think that I understand the Government's thinking behind having one body, but, as we have not yet heard the Minister's explanation, I am not yet sure of their reasons. I imagine that they include the considerations that the body will serve a relatively small population, that it will be possible to gather together in one unit all the expertise, and that discrimination against one individual can easily occur on two or more grounds.

Members of the Women's Coalition in Northern Ireland have told me that they were treated with extreme rudeness during the talks. If such remarks are made to women in open debate in a public place, heaven knows what lurks in the unspoken thoughts of those who made the remarks.

There may be a fear that expertise will be lost by having one body. I am sure that that will have worried some of the hon. Members who tabled the amendment that did not get selected. That would not happen if specialists were appointed in sufficient numbers to cover every aspect of discrimination.

It might be useful to consider for a moment the Equal Opportunities Commission in Scotland, which, under the Scotland Bill, will not be a separate body. However, it will be answerable to the Scottish Parliament, and will give it advice and assistance, while remaining responsible to its United Kingdom headquarters. That is inevitable as long as equal opportunities laws are United Kingdom laws, but Northern Ireland is moving towards a better understanding of the ways in which unfair discrimination can take place than exists in other parts of the UK, and that is excellent.

I have been wondering what the views are of people in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has told us that there is general unhappiness about the formation of one body, so I hope that the Government will listen to those views and state what they intend to do to reassure people.

I hope that the proposal is not simply a way to cut costs. In the current circumstances, it would be extremely foolish to cut the costs of running such a body. It must have funds at least similar to the total funding of the present four bodies if it is to ensure that the issues are tackled effectively and thoroughly. It would also be useful for the Government to consider the hon. Member for South Down's suggestion of ring-fencing moneys.

Above all, the body must be accepted by people in Northern Ireland as one that meets their needs and commands their respect. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure us on those points.

27 Jul 1998 : Column 89

Mr. John D. Taylor: It is encouraging to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) assure the Committee that there is no discrimination on the basis of religion in Glasgow. That is not exactly what I hear when I visit Glasgow. I have been told several times that no Protestant has been allowed to become the Lord Provost of Glasgow for 25 years. I am sure that the hon. Lady supports new Labour and its removal of the Lord Provost of Glasgow.

Mrs. Fyfe: To clear up a misunderstanding, I point out that I was referring to the job market. Discrimination has virtually, rather than totally, ended.

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps we can try to clear away the misunderstanding completely as it is not relevant to the amendment that we are discussing.

Mr. Taylor: The point was made because we are discussing religious discrimination, and I am glad that the hon. Lady has clarified it because I was unable completely to agree with her earlier remark. As you know, Sir Alan, the religious discrimination in Monklands has been well publicised in the past year.

I want to ask the Minister a simple question. If the Belfast agreement failed and the Assembly collapsed, would the Equality Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission continue as if nothing had happened?

Ms Margaret Moran (Luton, South): I share some of the concerns about the structure of the proposed Equality Commission, although we also need to have regard to the lessons that have been learnt in ensuring that equality issues are mainstream in our political life. One of those lessons is that, far too often, there has been too much focus on the need to retain existing structures, rather than on ensuring that the whole issue of equality is in the mainstream of the work of both Government Departments and external organisations.

In that sense, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pay less attention to the cries for retaining existing organisations and much more attention to the ways in which the equality agenda can be mainstreamed throughout the work of the Northern Ireland Office and the Assembly. That is a greater priority than worrying about one organisation's integrity and about it retaining its separate identity in relation to the Assembly.

I was grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) for his clarification of his amendment because I, too, read it as implying that he was requesting that equal resources be given to each of the areas of discrimination identified in the Bill. That would not be appropriate. It is not correct to say that equal time or equal resources need to be devoted to each area of discrimination. We need to phrase our amendments better and to look carefully at the priorities that are given to individual areas. It is true that in a number of areas of discrimination--for example, race--Northern Ireland is nearly 20 years behind this country. Some of those issues do need to be given much greater priority.

As other hon. Members have said, in some areas, Northern Ireland is at the forefront of equality, particularly in respect of fair employment. We in the United Kingdom would like some of that progress to be

27 Jul 1998 : Column 90

transferred back to us and the UK to take a lead from Northern Ireland in that respect. Therefore, we need to ensure that we give correct priority, rather than equal priority, to each area.

I raise one issue of great importance: gender equality. There is an implicit assumption that gender equality will be tackled throughout the Bill, but it is not explicit. I see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has just entered the Chamber. That issue must be dear to her heart, having been one of the very few women to be involved, with the handful of women from the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, in the negotiations at the time of the Good Friday agreement. It is important that we promote greater gender equality across civic and political life in Northern Ireland. The agreement commits the Government and the new Northern Ireland institutions to promoting women in public life and to guaranteeing the right of women to full and equal political participation.

This area often provokes some antagonism or antipathy from other parties in Northern Ireland. I pay particular tribute to the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition for its work and persistence in trying to promote gender equality throughout the agreement. I hope that it will continue to do so in the Assembly, where it will have a small but significant role. Therefore, I ask the Minister to look at that point when he considers the Equality Commission and its work.

8.15 pm

Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): Amendment No. 31, which has not been selected, would have deleted clause 60 in its entirety. That would have taken us back, effectively, to the status quo with regard to the various bodies that, under clause 60, will be aggregated under the newly defined Equality Commission.

There is a certain inconsistency creeping in here--inconsistency between interpretations of the agreement. I think that this was touched on by the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). They asked what support there was on the ground in Northern Ireland, particularly in three of the groups that will be aggregated, for establishing the new Equality Commission.

We have been told on many occasions during our deliberations on the Bill that we can never stray too far from the words of the agreement, so I went to the agreement to find the appropriate words that relate to this clause which, as many contributors have said, is one of the most important parts of the legislation. Paragraph 6 on page 17 says:

"Subject to the outcome of public consultation currently underway, the British Government intends a new statutory Equality Commission to replace the Fair Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission (NI), the Commission for Racial Equality (NI) and the Disability Council."

Those are the four groups that are listed in clause 60.

The most important thing here is that that paragraph is conditional. It says:

"Subject to the outcome of public consultation",

so when people, during the talks, looked at this point, they left it rather on the shelf; it was subject to consultation. The conclusions of that consultation would probably arrive much later than the signing of the agreement.

27 Jul 1998 : Column 91

Indeed, that has been the case. The thought has been left in the minds of many of those who are working in these key areas that this whole matter has been rushed through, and that a full and in-depth consultation has not taken place--the sort of consultation that they were promised and, on reading the agreement, felt that they were entitled to.

The proposal is opposed directly by the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland, the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland and, I believe, the Northern Ireland Disability Council, so at least three of the bodies that will be incorporated into the new Equality Commission are opposed in principle to being moved into it. The reasons are fairly clear; some have been touched on tonight. The proposal for this merged commission arose in the Government's White Paper entitled "Partnership for Equality." That was published, I believe, in March this year. It was the Government's response to a review of the fair employment legislation.

The proposal, which was in the consultative part of that document, was not made on the basis of proper consultation. It was part of the consultative section; it was not a firm proposal at that stage and those who are now involved in the changeover feel that the consultation has not been adequate or thorough.

It is being suggested by the Government that the new proposal will be a one-stop shop and that that one-stop shop will help employers. The Government have also said that they will harmonise the four pieces of existing legislation, but the people involved in these key areas believe that there is potential for conflict because the four pieces of legislation will still have to be treated separately and, at times, may set different priorities.