Equality Bill

I will write to the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), if I may, about the Polish matter, which needs better explanation. We could not have started on the Labour Benches with a better contribution than that from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), who has been a stalwart of equality throughout her career. I am grateful for her welcome. She was concerned to ensure that we encourage wider groups of people to apply for jobs. We can already do that, but that right will be made more meaningful now that we can take positive action in appointments as well. My right hon. Friend was worried that action against discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and maternity had become weaker, but clauses 16 and 17 will make it stronger. The old definition was that the treatment must not be less favourable, which prompts the question: less favourable for whom and less favourable than what? The definition now says that the treatment must not be less favourable than is reasonable, which is a clearer objective standard. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) said that we had not acted on equal pay. Well, of course we have, many, many times—the women and work commission and the minimum wage are two examples—but the problem is intransigent. The proposals in the Bill will help enormously. She would impose mandatory pay audits on all businesses. What do we do, then, about those that have already done audits and are working by consensus with their work forces towards equality? What do we do about those businesses that do not necessarily know that they have systemic pay inequality, but which, when our transparency provisions start to work, will see it and move consensually towards equality? We are all aiming at the same bull's-eye, but we have the straight arrows. Hers would miss the target. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan). Equal pay progress has been far too slow, because much of it is hidden, sometimes perhaps even to the employer, but knowledge of inequity is power to get rid of it, and that is what we will give. She suggested representative action, and there is a lot to be said for taking the burden off an individual when discrimination is systemic. We are examining the Civil Justice Council's proposals about that. My hon. Friend is worried that the age discrimination provisions will not apply to under-18s. It is a complex issue, but we have concluded that they would not address, for instance, the many concerns that she and the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green raised this evening and that they could make matters far worse for children. I pay enormous tribute to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), but I am very sad to hear that we will no longer have him with us. I really respect the commitment that he has shown over the years to equality generally and disability in particular. With permission, I will answer his specific question when I deal with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry). The hon. Member for Daventry was troubled about socio-economic equality. He asked whether we would close libraries because only the middle classes use them. The answer is no. What we will do is put measures in place to encourage people from the estate round the corner to come and read—to get a love of books, which I have been blessed with since my working-class mother and father taught me to read at three. Now, at approaching 43, I still value that great love of books. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) talked about amendments to thrust upon me, so I conclude that he wants to be on the Committee and that he will be able to keep his excellent points until then. I genuinely apologise to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) for winding her up. She accused me of not wanting to be seen as an old-fashioned socialist and demonstrated herself to be an old-fashioned Tory. She said that if the pendulum swings too far to protect rights, that will hurt business. That is what the Tories said about the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the minimum wage—and as a matter of fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you could have said it against the abolition of slavery as well. Business is not there to be altruistic, she said. I do not want a world in which disabled people have to rely on anyone's altruism to be treated well at work; I want them to have good rights. Business, by and large, is far more understanding and altruistic about the rights of disabled people and other sectors than she and other Tories have suggested tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood is involved with the all-party group on disability and has a distinguished record in this field. The clarity of his argument and his analysis of the distinct nature that it is necessary to give to disability were clear evidence of the depth of his understanding. I can give him the assurance he seeks, which was also sought by the hon. Member for Daventry. Disabled people can be treated more favourably, and the hon. Gentlemen should cast an eye over clauses 13(3) and 143. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and I did our hopeless best to understand each other. He disclosed, in the end, that he just does not favour positive action. I hope that he has told the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that. She spent some considerable time telling the House that she wanted positive action. Indeed, she boasted that the Tory party was using it with great vigour to bring things along for women. Has she told the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West that, or that champion of political incorrectness, the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)? My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), as always, spoke with the vigour of a young man. He railed against the default retirement age. The Heyday case is still pending—let us watch for a result. Anyway, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will review that age in 2011 at the latest. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) talked mainly to his constituents. He knows that the Welsh language is protected elsewhere. I am personally delighted that the Welsh Assembly Government are totally in support of the Bill and I am glad to have the welcome that he was able to give it, albeit on a limited basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), as usual, gave a fluent, common-sense, committed speech. She was amazed at the attitude displayed by some of the Tories, which I would call, in the terms of a 1960s novel, Anglo-Saxon attitudes. Such attitudes have been made public by some Tories today, but not by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). He understands equality. He gets the point again and again, amusingly and amiably exposing the slightness of his party's thinking on the equality issue. Three quarters of the party are stuck in unfair old attitudes, while a tiny minority struggle to make it look modern. I hope that he is on the Committee, but I dare say that his leadership trembles at the very suggestion. How lucky the constituents of Gateshead, East and Washington, West are to have such a fantastic MP. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) is right to feel special in her own right—what a great speech. I am proud to call her my working class sister and to include in the sisterhood my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) and to revel in her welcome. What a duo there are to the north of me in the north-east. I understood, I think, the analysis of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), and I tend to accept much of it. We will, I guess, dwell a lot longer on those issues in Committee and I shall welcome the debate. I hope that in due course we can satisfy him that we will be fair to all parties. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) was candid and straightforward, as is his wont. He understands fairness and I hope that he can come to agree with the more complex equality provisions in due course. Indeed, as he suggested might be possible, I hope that he might come to vote for the Bill when it has gone through the process of refinement that is still to come. As for the right hon. Member for Maidenhead and her three-clause equality Bill, introduced, in my view, as a political gimmick—[Interruption.] I have mentioned the hon. Member for Shipley—that is all he is getting, I am afraid. The right hon. Lady's three-clause Bill was introduced, in my view, as a political gimmick in the Lords, to try to make the party look modern despite the view of most of her Back Benchers, as we have heard tonight. Its three paltry clauses were massacred by the analysis of Lord Lester, not a member of the Labour party, who exposed its vacuity. Much trumpeted on the Maidenhead website, the Bill now lies in the other place, to all intents and purposes in its grave. If it had survived and come here, I imagine that it would have been deeply opposed by most of the right hon. Lady's Back Benchers, given their contributions tonight. For poorer people, black, white, old, young, straight, gay, women or men, disabled or able bodied, this Bill will enlist public authorities to come to your aid and alleviate your socio-economic disadvantage. For believers and non-believers struggling with bias, this Bill will help you. For our gay, lesbian and transgender fellow citizens, we honour your struggle and we are legislating to see it fulfilled: you may think that this Bill is for you. To disabled and older people: this Bill is undoubtedly yours. It is amazing that any party could seek to vote down your undeniable moral rights—that any party would try to choke them off is quite amazing. To black and minority ethnic people we say: here is your future. Heightened opportunities and fair treatment are in sight; this Bill is for you. To women—half the population, hamstrung by low pay and historic discrimination—here at last is a great lever to change culture. This Bill is undoubtedly for us. The Bill has been supported by practically all the stakeholder groups in all the sectors that it addresses. When those who would oppose it were pressed to name the groups that support voting it down at this stage, the best the Tories could come up with was—what is it called?—the society against political correctness. [Hon. Members: "You couldn't make it up!"] I have not made it up. Shall I say it again? The society against political correctness was the only group the Tories could cite that wants them to vote down the Bill.