| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan): I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) about the inclusion of disabled people on the Equality Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) also mentioned that. It would be intolerable if the new commission did not contain representatives of the disabled. I have a brief question. Clause 60 lists the commissions that will be incorporated in the Equality Commission. Will the staff of the Fair Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality be absorbed into the new Equality Commission?
Mr. McNamara: I tabled two amendments to delete clauses 59 and 60 because I wanted to express the concern throughout Northern Ireland about the Government's proposals for the new Equality Commission. I do not want to go over ground that many hon. Members have already covered, but it is right to say that the matter was subject to the outcome of public consultation and that the public were overwhelmingly against the proposals. I know from the answer to a parliamentary question that 23 per cent. were in favour and 45 per cent. were against; the remainder did not voice an opinion. Two bodies were excluded from the list of those who were against. One was Derry Women, but I cannot remember the name of the other one.
There is a feeling that the proposals are part of an existing agenda. The Government's desire to amalgamate the current bodies existed when the most recent employment legislation was passed. There was a desire to weaken the set-up. One has the feeling that there has been no real examination of the alternative proposals by many of those who responded. The essence of those proposals was a strong internal mechanism in the civil service to ensure the implementation of the duty. That would have been coupled with a strong external mechanism to ensure the adequate participation of groups in the making of decisions that affected them.
One can appreciate the benefits of the Equality Commission but, unlike my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), I do not want to go to the wall for the proposed commission and I do not see any value in having one commission rather than four. The allocation of resources, time, money and manpower and womanpower is important. The Government amendments do not go far enough. As a result of the Bill's vagueness, there is concern that the powers and functions that will be transferred could be harmonised down rather than harmonised up. Some of the strong existing powers on the equality of women and fair employment might be lost.
Clause 60 lists the commission's principal functions. Subsection (4) states:
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South rightly praised the role of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Women's Coalition. However, she should remember that the only party that produced a document on women's rights in the Assembly elections was the Social Democratic and Labour party. Brid Rodgers and several of her colleagues were very active in the negotiations around the agreement. That was true also of Sinn Fein. It is fair to point out that, apart from the Women's Coalition, SDLP and Sinn Fein are the only two parties with women Members of the Assembly.
Mr. McNamara:
I am sorry; there is also a woman Ulster Unionist. I immediately apologise for my error. I welcome the appearance into the early 20th century of the Ulster Unionist party. Who knows, it may one day have more than the one woman Member it now has.
Rev. Martin Smyth:
On a point of order, Sir Alan. Is it right to mislead the Committee by welcoming the Ulster Unionist party into the early 20th century, when my party has had women Members of Parliament in this Chamber and in the Northern Ireland Parliament--and Cabinet Ministers at that?
The Chairman:
Order. That is a matter of debate.
Mr. McNamara:
I can just about remember when the Ulster Unionists had a lady Member of the House--Mrs. Patrick McLoughlin, if I remember correctly. She was well known for some of her relations with rubber companies.
My hon. Friend the Minister needs to answer some questions about the Government amendments. What is meant by "appropriate division of resources"? Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intend to issue guidance on what is appropriate? What remedies, if any, will exist for those who believe that the resourcesare inappropriately allocated between the different discrimination bodies?
What specific resources have been allocated to fund the operation of the consultative councils? We need a little more description about the role of the consultative
councils. Who are the people, the great and the good, who will advise the Equality Commission? In what capacity will their advice be taken? Whom will they represent--what interests and what issues? Will they have any statutory powers? Must the Equality Commission refer to the advice that it has received from a consultative council in making its decisions? If it has not accepted that advice, must it say why? Is it duty bound to refer matters to a consultative council and can a consultative council refer matters directly to the commission, which must then examine them? All those questions are not answered in the Belfast agreement, which is fairly thin on this matter, or in the schedule, yet they involve matters of considerable importance.
There is a rather strange sentence about the unified commission:
I am not certain what that strange sentence means. It appears to be a compendium of different ideas thrown together, as it refers to the commission's role to
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, given his background, that I must not cherry-pick, so I am not suggesting that the sentence should be altered one word or one iota. I merely point out that it must have been very late in the night when people were dealing with this issue.
Mr. Grieve:
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. One way of reading much of the text in the clauses is that there is a great deal of verbiage and pious aspirations, but not much reality. Will he comment on that? Of course, we could look at the matter in two ways. One is that the text should be simplified and the other is that it should be made more complicated.
Mr. McNamara:
I do not think that it should be made more complicated--it should be simplified, although that might require many more words, explanations and definitions. That is what I am urging on my hon. Friend the Minister when he considers the matter in the summer months--and perhaps even between now and Report, although that might strain matters too much. There should be opportunity for real discussion.
There is a real suspicion that, given the decision to establish the Equality Commission, and given the nature and range of some of the powers that it may or may not have, the urgency for legislation to amend the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 is likely to be put on the back burner. Will my hon. Friend the Minister say whether that suspicion is correct? If it is not, when can we hope to see the legislation that the Government appeared to promise in their reply to the report from the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights? As the
major thrust of the reply seems to have been taken from the statement in May and is contained within this Bill, will we or will we not see legislation?
Mr. Paul Murphy:
Hon. Members are right--the Equality Commission was discussed in the talks in a slightly different context from the Human Rights Commission, because the consultation on its establishment started simultaneously with the talks. The result of that consultation has only recently been determined. Paragraph 6 on page 17 of the agreement states:
In the end, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided that we would retain the Equality Commission, but we have made changes as a result of the consultations. A number of them have already been mentioned. Consultative councils will allow for the maintenance of strong links between the existing bodies and the non-governmental organisations in Northern Ireland--not necessarily the great, but I certainly hope the good, will be on those councils.
The councils will be adequately funded. Perhaps more significantly, the bodies that currently deal with those equal opportunities matters--the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Fair Employment Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the commission dealing with disability--will be sitting on the working party that establishes the commission itself and all its structures. Therefore, those bodies' identities--what they represent--will not be subsumed into the Equality Commission, as some people fear.
There is still tremendous merit in having a "one-stop shop". There is merit also in ensuring that, in creating the Equality Commission, the employment aspects of discrimination do not predominate over the difficulties faced by people who use the EOC and other bodies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken account of those matters.
What about the commission's funding? As I told the Committee earlier, the figures in the explanatory and financial memorandum are inaccurate. However, I assure hon. Members that funding will be at least as generous as that currently received by the four statutory bodies taken together. The estimated initial cost of the commission will be the same--at £4.9 million--as that of the four bodies, although some economies of scale will be achieved. However, as the commission will also perform other functions, there will be no diminution in funding. The commission will be created not for financial reasons but because we think that it is best and most effective way of tackling discrimination.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)--who has left the Chamber--raised the important issue of what will happen if the Assembly somehow collapses or fails. We all hope and believe that it will not fail, but, in the unlikely event that it does--whatever happens--it is important to remember that the issues dealt with by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and by the Equality Commission will continue to exist. There is a strong case for saying that, whatever the future holds, those bodies should continue to operate. Moreover, my right hon. Friend has created the Equality Commission because of a review started before the current talks began, and, as I said, SACHR is not an entirely new body.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) asked about the various commissions' staff. They will become employees of the Equality Commission once it is established.
I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that legislation on fair employment issues consequent to the White Paper will be dealt with later in the year.
Amendment No. 156, which was moved by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), deals with the wider aspects of discrimination. We shall deal with that matter when we debate the next set of amendments, to clause 61. However, everyone involved in the talks knew that the Equality Commission would be established to accommodate the four commissions that I mentioned--dealing with disability, gender, employment and race. The commission will deal with those matters because people were consulted on those matters. However, I do not in any way undervalue the important points that he made, which, as I said, we shall debate in more detail later in the debate.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has tabled Government amendment No. 170. My hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume), for South Down(Mr. McGrady), for Greenock and Inverclyde(Dr. Godman) and for Hull, North have tabled amendment No. 192. The two amendments say essentially the same thing. I ask my hon. Friends not to press their amendment and to accept in its place Government amendment No. 170--which deals with the appointment of Equality Commission members by the Secretary of State and would require her to
Government amendment No. 205 deals with the issue of resources, which has been raised by many hon. Members in today's debate. The amendment was tabled in response to consultations that the Government have held on the Equality Commission. The fear was that issues of gender, race and disability might receive insufficient priority in the commission's work.
"The Secretary of State may by order make such supplemental, incidental or consequential provision as appears to him to be appropriate as a result of subsections (1) to (3).
There is no limitation on that power. We need to spell that out much more clearly, perhaps after extensive consultation in the summer, and there should be more detail about what will happen.
In particular, an order may include provision--
(a) amending an enactment".
"Such a unified Commission will advise on, validate and monitor the statutory obligation"--
which statutory obligation?--
"and will investigate complaints of default."
Which default? We have been told that all parties and all Ministers, north and south, considered the issue for hours, weighing the value and importance of every word.
"advise on, validate and monitor the statutory obligation and . . . investigate complaints of default."
Why will it not investigate the statutory obligation or monitor complaints of default? These are important matters.
"Subject to the outcome of public consultation currently underway, the British Government intends a new statutory Equality Commission".
The White Paper consultation was genuine and showed how we might protect the priority given to gender, race and disability within the new structures. We believe that, in the Bill and the amendments which we have tabled, we have taken account of the concerns expressed during the consultation. I am aware that a number of bodies objected to the creation of the Equality Commission, but there were also bodies that said that it was a good idea--for example, the Fair Employment Commission and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Authorities.
"as far as practicable secure that the Commissioners as a group are representative of the community".
The Bill requires only that my right hon. Friend should have regard to the desirability of that objective. The amendment is a stronger provision and will fulfil the intention of amendment No. 192.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |