Debate on The Scotland Bill: equal opportunities (1998-03-31)

From House of Commons Hansard
Parliamentary copyright © is acknowledged

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1052

Considered in Committee [Progress, 30 March].

4.40 pm

[section deleted]

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1114 (cont)

Ms Roseanna Cunningham (Perth): I beg to move amendment No. 347, in page 76, leave out lines 21 to 39.

The First Deputy Chairman With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 94, in page 76, line 28, at end insert—

 
’Imposing a duty on the Parliament to adhere to equal opportunities principles in its policies and procedures,’.

Government amendment No. 558.

Amendment No. 348, in page 76, line 32, leave out

 
’need to meet the equal opportunity requirements’

and insert

 
’principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.’.

Amendment No. 349, in page 76, line 35, after ’sex’, insert ’, sexual orientation’.

Amendment No. 350, in page 76, line 35, after ’sex’, insert ’, gender identity’.

Government amendment No. 559.

New clause 7—Equal opportunities in conduct of business—

 
’.—The Parliament shall make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that its business is conducted with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.’.

New clause 8—Principle of equality of opportunity—

 
’.—(1) The Parliament shall make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that its functions are exercised with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.
(2) After each financial year of the Parliament the Parliament shall publish a report containing—
(a) a statement of the arrangements made in pursuance of subsection (1) which had effect during the financial year in question and
(b) an assessment of how effective those arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity.’.

Ms Cunningham: Amendment No. 347 and amendments Nos. 348 to 350 are tabled in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) are also included. That means that the amendments are cross-party amendments, and I hope that the Government will consider carefully what I have to say.

I welcome Government amendment No. 558 because it goes some way towards what is intended in amendment No. 348, by amplifying the exceptions to the reserved powers. Although it does not go as far as I would wish, it empowers the Scottish Parliament to encourage—although not regulate—equal opportunities in our country. Government amendment No. 559 covers the subject matter of our amendment No. 349 by specifically

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1115

including sexual orientation within the definition of areas of equal opportunity, the observance of which the Scottish Parliament will be empowered to encourage. It also specifies age, language and origin moves, which are equally welcome. I appreciate that the Government have come some way towards what I should like to see.

Scotland’s gay community will welcome the Government’s flexibility. The recognition of the specific discrimination that is faced by gay men and gay women in Scotland is heartening not just for them but for people throughout the United Kingdom. Equal opportunity and anti-discrimination regulations are a fast developing area. There is likely to be increasing pressure to improve legislation in that area and to widen its remit. Unfortunately, it seems that the Scottish Parliament will be unable to respond to those pressures to improve regulations against discrimination.

Amendment No. 347 is clearly substantive because it would result in the devolution to the Scottish Parliament of all equal opportunities legislation. The power would enable the elected representatives of Scotland’s people to take the initiative in promoting equality in our country. It could mean more sensitive race relations legislation for Scotland and the stronger promotion of the rights of women and minority groups in our society.

I think that most people accept that although at one level problems of discrimination are the same for people throughout the world, particular circumstances in different countries make the needs of legislation different. The amendment would allow the Scottish Parliament to take steps forward. Indeed, the European convention on human rights would allow us only to take steps forward. I envisage a Scottish Parliament that would perhaps be more ground breaking than Westminster has been in the past. I hope that we can look forward to that, and I certainly do not think that any minority group in Scotland should feel threatened by the powers that would rest in the hands of Members of the Scottish Parliament. As the legislation stands, that Parliament will only have the power to encourage the observance of the existing equal opportunities legislation and can only impose duties on public bodies to observe that legislation It is not clear what sanctions there would be if those duties were, in any way, not carried out.

Mrs. McKenna: Does the hon. Lady agree that the way to change people’s opinions is to win hearts and minds on this issue? Much of the work by Labour local authorities since 1984 has been about that: persuading people and creating the right climate. That is what brought about a cultural shift in attitude in Scotland. Will not the rights given to the Parliament do more than legislation?

Ms Cunningham: I certainly agree that one has to change the hearts and minds of people; I do not think that any of us would disagree with that. We will not effect the substantial and long-term change which, I presume, most of us would like without real social change within the population, but we need the legislative back-up to reinforce that—otherwise we would not have existing anti-discrimination legislation. One tends to go with the other. Legislation without the changes in society will perhaps be difficult to enforce, but simply changing social thinking without legislation is not enough either.

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1116

I agree with the hon. Lady at one level, but we can take it further forward by legislation and I would have hoped that we could have done so in the Parliament. I would certainly have wished to have been able to argue for that in the Parliament. Specific issues with which we have to deal in Scotland would be helped by our being able to address them in a specifically Scottish context.

8.30 pm

Amendment No. 348 would move the situation forward at least some way. The Parliament would at least be given the power to promote equality of opportunity in Scotland’s public bodies by imposing certain duties on those bodies to secure equal opportunities. The amendment has been prompted by a question mark over the relative powers given to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly, and the belief among several commentators that Scotland will have weaker powers to promote equal opportunities than Wales.

Mr. Dalyell: This is not a hostile intervention, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and I are a bit curious to know what examples the hon. Lady has in mind. It would clarify her argument. She said that there were things that could be done better. There may be, but what examples does she have in mind?

Ms Cunningham: The composition of racial minorities in Scotland is different from that in England. [Interruption.] Hon. Members buzz about on the Back Benches, but there has been much controversy over attitudes towards English people in Scotland. There is little point in trying in Westminster to deal with the problems that arise in Scotland because it will not be seen to be something that can properly be dealt with in Westminster. A Scottish Parliament would be better placed to tackle the issue.

Mr. Salmond: Am I right in remembering that my hon. Friend is the only hon. Member who has taken legal action against an anti-English group in Scotland?

Ms Cunningham: I cannot speak for anyone else, but it is true that I did so. Each country has different demographics and Scotland has different demographics from other parts of the UK. Let us accept that fact and, in doing so, go on to try to deal with it in the way that seems best for that country. We are not going to get that opportunity, which is sad.

I should like to deal with the relative difference between what is being proposed for Scotland and what appears to have been proposed for Wales. The commentators who have examined the matter may have got it wrong, but a different wording is used and I should like to hear the Minister’s response on the issue.

On the face of it, it looks as if the Scottish Parliament will have weaker powers than the Welsh assembly. A duty has been imposed on the Welsh assembly to ensure that its functions—

Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish this point because it concerns the purpose of the amendment?

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1117

The Government of Wales Bill says that functions should be exercised with due regard to the

“principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.”

Most commentators regard the equal opportunities requirements that are defined in the Scotland Bill as weaker than the

“equality of opportunity for all people”

requirement in the Government of Wales Bill.

I should like to hear the Minister’s response to that. It may be difficult for him because he, like me, may not be familiar with the exact wording of the Government of Wales Bill, but our amendment would include in the Scotland Bill the same wording as appears in the Government of Wales Bill. It is perceived that that would give the Scottish Parliament a much wider remit. Present equal opportunity requirements cover only race, gender and, to some extent, disability, whereas

“equality of opportunity for all people”

would cover a much wider range—for example, sexual orientation and gender politics, so I am keen for the Minister to indicate some of the thinking behind the relative powers granted to Scotland and Wales.

Amendments Nos. 349 and 350 simply amend by addition the existing exceptions. I have largely dealt with amendment No. 349, but I press the Minister on amendment 350, which would include gender identity within the equal opportunity definitions.

Mr. Browne: I am obliged to the hon. Lady for giving way; I realise that time is short. Early in her speech, she referred to the European convention on human rights—a reference that has been troubling me ever since. Has she taken into account the effect of the incorporation of the convention into UK law and the requirement that that will make of the Scottish Parliament to legislate in a manner that is consistent with the convention?

Ms Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what I said. I said that incorporating the convention would allow us to take steps forward. We could improve on that. We could do better than is suggested by that. We will not be able to do worse, so no one need be concerned. Concern seems to have been expressed in several debates that, if Scotland gains the ability to legislate on certain matters, it will end up being far more restrictive and more discriminatory or anti-freedom. In this case, the European convention would absolutely ensure the benchmark, which I think could be improved on. Nothing could stop a Scottish Parliament from going further and doing better than that. It will not be able to do worse. That was the point that I made earlier.

The amendments would include in the Bill explicit references to sexual orientation and gender identity. Many people may think that they are subsumed, but explicit references send out a fairly vital signal that Parliament is accepting the reality of discrimination in those areas. However, the Government have not accepted amendment 350, although, as I have said, they have come part of the way forward in relation to amendments Nos. 348 and 349.

I am aware of the decision of the European Court of Justice in 1996 in the case of P. v. S. and Cornwall county council. I hope that Members of the faculty who may know much more about that case than I, do not

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1118

immediately leap to their feet to talk and ask about it, but, as I understand it, that case ruled that discrimination against a transsexual person on account of his or her transgender status is equivalent to sex discrimination that is covered by the equal treatment directive. I know that United Kingdom law on sex discrimination would still need to be updated to reflect that decision of the European Court of Justice.

I should like to hear the Minister’s comments because I accept that it is possible that the Government will not accept my amendment No. 350 until they have addressed the issue of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which now appears to be lacking somewhat given that European decision. I look forward to a positive comment from the Minister to the effect that that is what the Government intend to do.

Mrs. Fyfe: As the equal treatment directive deals with regulation of the labour market in Europe, I wonder whether the hon. Lady agrees that that alone would not answer the case because there are other forms of discrimination, not just in jobs.

Ms Cunningham: The hon. Lady is right. That is discrimination in a particular area, but it points in the direction in which we should be going. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. It may be that the Government intend to look at the Sex Discrimination Act anyway.

The group contains a number of other amendments and new clauses. The SNP is broadly in favour of the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and her colleagues. I urge the Government to consider carefully the concerns that will no doubt be expressed by that hon. Lady.

It has always been my belief that a Scottish Parliament presents us with an opportunity to take radical steps forward in Scottish society and to take us into the 21st century with laws that ensure non-discrimination on the basis of sex, age, religion, race or sexual orientation. Unfortunately, we are not be presented with that opportunity, and I should like to hear the Government respond positively to all these amendments. In any case, I have every confidence that, within the next 15 years, we will get the Parliament necessary to make the change.

Mrs. Fyfe: I congratulate the Government and welcome the fact that they have tabled amendment No. 559, which would include sexual orientation in the interpretation of equal opportunities set down on page 76 of the Bill. It is an important move to recognise that particular form of discrimination, which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham). The Government are making progress on that front in Northern Ireland and UK-wide. Clearly, we are going to see change that was resisted by the previous Government during their term in office.

New clauses 7 and 8 were tabled because I believe that it would be good to have something like them in the Bill. New clause 7 would ensure that the Scottish Parliament made arrangements to conduct all its business with due regard to equal opportunities “for all people.” The Bill requires the Scottish Parliament only to encourage the observance of equal opportunity requirements listed on page 76 and imposes a duty on public bodies. As the Bill stands, it could do that, while being remiss in its own conduct.

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1119

New clause 8 refers to the Scottish Parliament’s functions and calls for an annual report showing what has been done and an assessment of the effectiveness of any action. It will not have escaped the notice of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the words in new clause 8 are the same as those in clause 113 of the Welsh Bill.

I want to make it clear that I am not calling for Scotland to have totally separate law-making powers on equal opportunities. That should be a reserved matter. However, I want the Parliament to have full control over what it does within its devolved powers, so that if it is so minded, it can make advances in the practice of equal opportunities. Parliaments can list all sorts of ways in which prejudice should not be allowed and where it should be confronted and made illegal, but the inculcation of good practice is essential, as is providing a good example.

Equal opportunity is a fundamental principle that the Scottish Parliament will want to observe. I wonder whether there can really be any objection to making that explicit in the Scotland Bill.

I do not want to speak for long because I know that other hon. Members want to participate, but I have heard one objection. The suggestion is that there is no need to put anything in the Bill because the fact that it is a Parliament means that it will be able to decide what it wants to do. We have sat here for many an hour over past weeks telling the Scottish Parliament what it will and will not do. We have even found time to discuss whether it will deal with hypnotism. I hope that my hon. Friends can look at this before the Bill goes to Her Majesty for approval.

The Scotland Bill is an excellent Bill—a first-class piece of work in many ways. However, I should like to correct this minor flaw.

8.45 pm

Mr. Jenkin: We have heard from the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) that she does not believe that the Bill as drafted goes far enough with regard to anti- discrimination invocations on the Scottish Parliament. She believes that the Scottish Parliament would be able to improve on that. Amendment No. 347 would delete the reservation altogether and leave the matter entirely up to the Scottish Parliament.

The hon. Member for Perth is right to dismiss the intervention of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) on the European convention on human rights. That convention deals not only with anti-discrimination but with a whole range of issues, some of which are among the reservations in the Bill and some of which are not. For example, the European convention deals extensively with the rights of prisoners and that is not reserved. The Government have not been advancing that case in talking about the issues that are to be reserved.

Mr. Browne: The point that the hon. Gentleman may wish to dismiss, given the advice that he has been giving other hon. Members, is that, in terms of the incorporation of the European convention on human rights, there will

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1120

be a requirement on the Scottish Parliament to legislate in a manner consistent with that convention. Does the hon. Gentleman agree or disagree with that?

Mr. Jenkin: I agree entirely with that. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be implying that, because the European Commission of Human Rights is an international obligation, that is a justification—

Mr. Browne: Convention, not commission.

Mr. Jenkin: I believe that the body is called the Commission of Human Rights: the convention is the document. Just because something is an international obligation, it does not necessarily have to be reserved.

Mr. Browne rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is a minor point and I do not want to dwell on it for too long. I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again because we do not have a great deal of time for this debate.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) was once again, ironically, in anti-devolution mode. She was justifying the reservations in the Bill when there are no practical reasons why this matter should not be devolved.

We have here yet another example of a contentious issue—it is particularly contentious among Labour Members—over which the Government, for political convenience, wish to keep control at Westminster. The devolution of the issue to the Scottish Parliament would inevitably lead to embarrassing differences between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments, even if the Labour party was in a majority in both places.

It is the Conservative party’s policy to respect all people regardless of their race, colour, creed, sex, religion and so on and to respect all people primarily as individuals.

Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Gentleman really believes that it is Conservative party policy to be completely non-discriminatory against people whatever their ethnic origin, race or sex, why did Margaret Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, make that speech about our native culture being swamped by immigrants to this country?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely irrelevant point. I will not be sidetracked into a debate on a speech made almost 20 years ago by a former Conservative party leader, who did a great deal for this country.

We respect people primarily as individuals. All people should be accorded their liberties and rights, regardless of their circumstances. The guiding principle of an atmosphere of anti-discrimination is tolerance. Conservatives are in the vanguard in changing attitudes towards, for example, those with a different sexual orientation. Although some people argue that society would not develop tolerance towards minority groups without anti-discrimination legislation, many people—not only Conservatives—remain inherently suspicious of such an approach. It could be argued equally well that the

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1121

acceptability of anti-discrimination legislation simply reflects the fact that attitudes in society are changing already.

Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman must have a very short memory. Most hon. Members recall section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, and how disgracefully the Government behaved on that occasion.

Mr. Jenkin: That section of that Act was to prevent local authorities galloping off with ratepayers’ money, spending it on priorities that were not the direct priorities of local authorities. If one asked an average taxpayer whether he or she wanted money spent on those activities, they would express a very clear view.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I will not give way to the hon. Lady again. It is so easy to antagonise her that I rather regret having given way to her initially.

The imposition of draconian anti-discrimination laws has to be handled with great care, because it is all too easy to substitute one type of intolerance of minorities for another—such as intolerance of those who do not support imposition of specific anti-discrimination laws. The hon. Member for Maryhill has just demonstrated that.

Article 19 of the European Community treaty that essentially deals with the principle of equal pay for men and women has given rise to the equal treatment directive—which has allowed the European Court of Justice to develop the highly dubious doctrine of “indirect discrimination” whereby it is judged illegal to treat part-time workers differently from full-time workers simply because a majority of part-timers tend to be women and a majority of full-timers tend to be men.

The laws of a tolerant society should, as far as possible, seek to protect freedoms rather than to impose obligations that might seem arbitrary and unjust in their application. For that reason, I support equality of the age of consent at 16, for example, for all people.

Ms Osborne: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that all anti-discrimination legislation should be abolished?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) should listen more carefully to what I am saying.

We remain inherently suspicious of laws that corral individuals and groups of individuals into legally defined categories, to be treated differently, and therefore tobe regarded differently. Ultimately, so-called anti- discrimination legislation may do the opposite, so that people are treated as part of a category, rather than being accorded the respect that they deserve as individuals.

Surely everyone should agree—this may answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Ayr—that the perfect society would be one in which such legislation is superfluous, and in which all people are treated equally according to their individual qualities, without the need for legal sanction.

Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I have listened very carefully to the speech being made by the Opposition spokesman, and wonder whether it is within the context of this group of amendments? It seems that

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1122 the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is sharing his anti-European views rather than speaking to the amendments.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has so far been in order.

Mr. Jenkin: I am most grateful, Mr. Martin. It seems that my comments are inciting exactly the type of intolerance that a tolerant society should not exhibit.

Until we establish a perfect society, the issues that we are debating are bound to be controversial—as we have seen in this debate. There will always be those—among whom I include some hon. Members—who are more concerned about equality and parity of outcome than about the simple fairness with which individual cases are treated.

I remind the hon. Member for Perth that she favoured the words

“equality of opportunity for all people”,

which does not necessarily mean that there will be, for example, equal numbers of sexes in the Scottish Parliament—[Hon. Members: “How many are there?”] There are two sexes.

The question that we must confront is whether such issues should be the responsibility of Westminster or of Holyrood. We have tabled none of the amendments in this group, and therefore take the privilege of commenting as dispassionate observers.

Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I have given way enough.

The logic of the Scottish National party’s amendment No. 347 accords with the cry of pro-devolution campaigners that this Parliament should trust the Scottish people. It is extraordinary that that reservation in the Bill shows, once again, that the Government do not trustthe Scottish people with a contentious matter. The Government’s amendments in this group amplify that lack of trust.

The SNP amendments demonstrate that both it and the Government want the same obligations to be imposed on the Scottish Parliament. However, with additional logic, the SNP wants those obligations to be imposed by the Scottish Parliament itself and not by Westminster.

Mr. Browne rose—

Dr. Godman rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman).

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he was perfectly right to mention the European Court of Justice, as matters that we are debating could be taken there for a decision. Does he agree that that court—that supreme court of European member states—has a pretty poor record in defending the interests of women workers?

Mr. Jenkin: Again, I shall not be tempted into a debate entirely on the European Court.

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1123

In principle, if those obligations are to exist, they should be self-imposed rather than imposed from above.

Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and do not intend to do so again.

We shall not be voting for any of the amendments in this group. The reality behind the amendments is an ugly competition to decide who wins the prize for political correctness. Specifically lurking in the amendments is the issue of candidate selection—which will be debated in a later group of amendments—and the conflicting legal opinions in the Government on the legality, or otherwise, of positive discrimination. That issue was raised in the debate on Second Reading, when it was made clear—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will discuss those matters when we reach that later group of amendments.

Mr. Jenkin: The fact remains that the SNP, and its separatist counterparts in other parties, is looking forward to the Secretary of State’s humiliation when he fails in the Scottish Parliament on the gender equality issue—which the Scottish Constitutional Convention proposed, and to which, originally, the Secretary of State gave his approval. It will be yet another bone of contention between London and Edinburgh for nationalists to chew on, demonstrating yet again the real lack of consensus that surrounds the project’s crucial details.

Ms Osborne: I support those amendments which seek to inculcate the principle of equal opportunities in the way in which the Scottish Parliament conducts its business and in the exercise of the functions devolved to the Parliament, including the provision of an annual report on how that is being achieved. That would strengthen the Bill as well as emphasising the intention that the Parliament will conduct its business in line with the year 2000, not the dark ages.

The Minister may well say that the Scottish Parliament can consider such matters for itself, but it has been my experience that unless a clear commitment to equal opportunities exists from the start, it is at best pushed on to the side lines or, at worst, ignored.

9 pm

Labour Members are very well aware of the strength of feeling on this issue, and this is currently highlighted at the moment in relation to equal representation. However, this is but the culmination of many years of work in the sphere of equal opportunities carried out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) stated, by local authorities and trade unions.

A culture of promoting equality has gradually been created in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom by local authority women’s committees. This is not and should not be the property of any one political party or organisation, expendable if there is a change of political climate, a cut in resources, or even a change of majority

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1124

control in the Parliament. I use my experience as an example. I was formerly a councillor on Kyle and Carrick council. When Labour lost control of the council to the Conservatives, the Conservatives closed the women’s unit and the creche which had been very popular locally.

We have an opportunity to make good equal opportunities practice a reality from day one, but experience shows that monitoring and evaluation are required if an equal opportunities policy is to be effective.

Let us consider the example of violence against women. Tackling this problem is one of the Government’s three main priorities for women. Many reports on this topic have been produced over the years—some have sat on the shelf, while others have been implemented piecemeal. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that recent research has shown that women, especially those in rural areas, do not experience a consistency of service nor a coherence of approach across Departments and agencies. Proper monitoring arrangements could ensure a more effective response to this and other issues.

I return to the importance of a modern approach. I believe that equal opportunities is central to this and to the new Scottish Parliament. There is plenty of best practice to which the Scottish Parliament can look, and I am sure that many women councillors in Scotland can teach the new Members of the Scottish Parliament a thing or two about equal opportunities and especially about operating on the basis of consensus.

In the new Scottish Parliament, issues that have not traditionally been at the forefront of debate, but which have a tremendously important impact on all our lives, have to be formalised by inclusion in the Bill. I hope that that notion will find favour with the Minister and that consideration will be given to supporting it.

Mr. Gorrie: The Liberal Democrats are happy to support amendment No. 347, which we hope will be voted on shortly, and the others that try to promote the cause of equal opportunities in the Scottish Parliament. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) put his name to several of these amendments to show our support.

We think that amendment No. 347 is the best. It provides that equal opportunities should be deleted from the list of reservations, thereby leaving the matter entirely under the control of the Scottish Parliament. However, there is a great deal of merit in the two new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), and if it is easier for the Minister to accept them than to accept the amendment tabled by the SNP, and to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland has put his name, we shall certainly encourage him to do so.

We take a straightforward approach. Everything that refers to affairs in Scotland should be dealt with in the Scottish Parliament, unless there is a good reason to the contrary. We see no reason why the Scottish Parliament should not legislate for equal opportunities.

As has been said, the Scottish Parliament will be constrained by international and European obligations, and by existing British law. It is very unlikely that it would reduce the power of equal opportunities legislation, and I would be confident that Members of the Scottish Parliament would move in a progressive direction rather than relax the rules.

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1125

Clearly, the Government think that encouragement is adequate. I suppose that Government amendment No. 558 is a step in the right direction, but it is a pretty feeble step. It would make the reservation in the schedule read:

“The encouragement (other than by prohibition or regulation) of equal opportunities, and in particular of the observance of the equal opportunity requirements.”

The Parliament could make noises but do nothing. With due respect,that is the wettest amendment I have come across in my brief time in the House.

We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to legislate. I probably do not have the necessary experience or imagination to conjure up the right suggestions but, as has been said, the Scottish Parliament might wish to take a more active line against domestic violence by organising tenancies for women in a more favourable manner. As I understand it, it would not be allowed to do so. The Parliament might wish to legislate differently from England in order to discourage racism at football matches. It might even wish to discourage people at Murrayfield from whistling when the English are about to take a place kick.

Mr. Browne: I am very interested in those examples, but my understanding is that they represent breaches of the criminal law, which is well within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and its devolved powers. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could give a case that is not within the devolved legislative powers of the Scottish Parliament, and thus provide the example that the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) was unable to give, other than in the context of discrimination against England.

Mr. Gorrie: With respect, I should have thought that altering tenancy arrangements to make them more favourable to women and offering positive discrimination to assist battered women was not a matter of criminal law. There was recently a case in which a senior police officer—

Mr. Browne rose—

Mr. Gorrie: I am not a lawyer and you are, but I am trying to approach the matter in a common-sense manner—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am not a lawyer.

Mr. Gorrie: I apologise, Sir Alan. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a brilliant advocate, so I shall not allow him to trip me up.

In a recent case, a senior police officer felt that he had been discriminated against in applying for the post of chief constable in Scotland because he was English. There are other such cases in Scotland where different issues arise because of the prominence of English and other European people. The Scottish Parliament might wish to take a slightly different attitude from that of the Westminster Parliament to ensure that those people got a fair deal.

Dr. Godman: With regard to the example that the hon. Gentleman has just used, may I remind him that a Scots

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1126

police officer sought the post of chief constable in Northern Ireland and was most put out when he did not get on the shortlist? Many of us would agree that it made good sense not to have someone from elsewhere taking on such an important post in the Province.

Mr. Gorrie: The person to whom I referred was already working in Scotland, so he would not have been imported. However, the Scottish Parliament might wish to draw the rules slightly differently from the Westminster Parliament because different circumstances apply in Scotland. The same argument applies to equal opportunities as applies to education, health, housing and many other matters. The Scots should have the right to do things a bit differently if they want to and are prepared to pay for it.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman has made several references to housing as if the Scottish Parliament would be prevented from implementing anti-discrimination policies in housing because of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Race Relations Act 1976 and so on. Positive Action in Housing, one of the foremost campaigners in Scottish housing, is proposing a variety of changes to Scottish law. Such matters will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and it would be perfectly consistent for it to continue with those policies without offending anyone.

Mr. Gorrie: The body to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not receiving adequate Government funding, but that is a separate issue.

The right of a Scottish Parliament to legislate is important. It may be that, through inexperience, my examples are not too hot, but the principle is that the Scottish Parliament should be allowed to legislate. We cannot predict the future and, as has been said, equal opportunities is a rapidly moving subject and new aspects may occur that none of us—even those who are far more intelligent than I—can foresee. Why should the Scottish Parliament not control measures relating to equal opportunities? It seems to be a perfectly straightforward issue and the Minister must give positive reasons why it should not be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

Dr. Godman: I shall be brief. First, may I offer my compliments to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on her new clauses and her presentation of them. I hope that she agrees that the Government’s amendment No. 559 comes close to addressing some of the legitimate concerns that she shares with the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham).

Mrs. Fyfe: For the record, yes, I agree.

Dr. Godman: That was an astonishingly brief intervention from my hon. Friend and I have no difficulty in thanking her for it.

We are concerned that the Scottish Parliament should include a substantial number of women representatives from all points of the compass. We are also concerned about the people who are employed at the Parliament. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State are concerned to protect the interests of those with disabilities. I should certainly like the Scottish Parliament

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1127

and the Welsh assembly to employ people with disabilities—especially learning disabilities. All kinds of people should be involved, not only as elected representatives, but in various other functions and jobs. People aged 50 or more should also be employed as there should be no ceilings in terms of career prospects.

It is important that the Government recognise the need to defend, and indeed promote, the interests of people with mental or physical disabilities. We all have constituents with learning disabilities who find it enormously difficult to find work. The new Parliament could set a splendid example in terms of fair and reasonable contracts of employment for people employed at Holyroodhouse. It should be Calton hill, but I had better stick to Holyroodhouse. I once suggested that we should use that much underused building, the palace of Holyroodhouse, but I was slapped down, so I shall not return to that.

We have to send a message to the people of Scotland that, in addition to fair play on sexual equality, there will be fairness for many other groups, including those of different sexual orientation. That must cover the representatives in the Parliament and those who are employed by it.

9.15 pm

Mr. McLeish: I wish that there had been more time for this important debate. We may have some differences on some of the amendments, but there is a general concern that the Parliament should push forward the frontiers of equal opportunities. In the 10 minutes available, I should like to respond positively to the constructive points that have been made.

Government amendment No. 558 is intended to clarify the fact that the exception from the reservation designed to ensure that the Parliament has competence over the encouragement of equal opportunities does not extend to prohibition or regulation. It was always our intention that the Parliament and the Executive should be able to encourage equal opportunities, but not that they should be able to impose new duties or additional regulation in equal opportunities matters. That is the substance of the reservation. The amendment will also ensure that the Parliament is not prevented from encouraging equal opportunities generally.

Mrs. Laing rose—

Mr. McLeish: With the greatest courtesy, I should like to get through what I have to say. There are several amendments to deal with and I have some constructive comments to make.

Government amendment No. 559 makes it clear that the Parliament will be able to discourage discrimination on grounds of a person’s age, sexual orientation, language or social origin. It reflects concerns that have been expressed in Committee and outside. Although the amendment will not change the existing legislation on equal opportunities, we recognise that people can suffer discrimination on those grounds, especially sexual orientation. I commend both amendments to the Committee.

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1128

I am also very aware of the need for a close and effective relationship between the main equal opportunities bodies in Scotland—the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the National Disability Council—and the Scottish Parliament and Executive. As I made clear earlier in Committee, they will not be cross-border public bodies because it is not our intention that the Scottish Parliament should have competence over their functions.

However, I am concerned that there should be a Scottish element in the membership of those bodies and that the Scottish Parliament should have a guaranteed opportunity to debate their work. The Government intend to make the necessary arrangements to ensure that one member of each of the EOC, the CRE and the NDC will be appointed with the agreement of the Scottish Ministers and that there will be provision for the reports of those bodies to be provided to Scottish Ministers and submitted by them to the Parliament at Holyrood. That will allow the Parliament to keep in touch with the work of the equal opportunities bodies. That is an important step forward, within the framework of the general reservation of those bodies.

Within the framework set out in the Bill, the Parliament and Executive will be able to create and implement their own equal opportunities policies. They will be able to encourage equal opportunities by exhorting and giving guidance to public authorities and others to adopt equal opportunities policies, running advertising campaigns and setting up an advisory committee. They will be able to seek to influence the development of equal opportunities legislation in Westminster. Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster can ensure that Scottish interests are reflected in any new legislation.

On page 76, the Bill refers to important equal opportunities legislation—the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Those important competencies are reserved to Westminster. Scottish Members at Westminster will contribute to those issues. As I have just made clear, the Parliament and the Executive will maintain strong links with the EOC, the CRE and the NDC. One member of each will be appointed with the agreement of the Scottish Ministers. The bodies’ annual reports will, of course, be provided.

Amendments Nos. 347 to 350, tabled by the Scottish National party, raise related issues to those covered by new clauses 7 and 8, which were tabled by my hon. Friends. Amendment No. 347 would simply remove equal opportunities from the list of reserved matters. That would undermine the level playing field for business and individuals in employment and other matters in the UK, and clearly the Government cannot accept that.

I suspect that the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) knew that I could not accept amendment No. 347, because she tabled an alternative, amendment No. 348, which would enable the Scottish Parliament to require public bodies to make arrangements with a view to securing that their functions are carried out with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people. That would go further than the exception to the reservation, which is to enable the Scottish Parliament to establish requirements relating to the observance by public bodies of the legal requirements of equal opportunities that may be in place.

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1129

That approach is needed to preserve the level playing field. Leaving scope to impose greater duties would be contrary to that underlying principle.

Amendments Nos. 349 and 350 would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” respectively to the interpretation of equal opportunities in the schedule. I have already spoken to Government amendment No. 559, which adds age, sexual orientation, language and social origin to the list, and which, of course, accepts the point made in respect of amendment No. 349. Any list could be extended to cover all possible instances of discrimination. I hope that the hon. Member for Perth will recognise the steps that we have taken to meet her concern. I therefore ask her not to press her amendments to a vote.

Amendment No. 94 and new clauses 7 and 8 reflect a concern to support equal opportunities that I wholly share. Equality of opportunity will be fundamental to the Scottish Parliament both in the way in which it conducts its business and in the policies that it adopts through legislation. Our White Paper made that very clear. However, our priority is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament will be able to encourage the observance of equal opportunities. The exceptions are designed to ensure that the Parliament can exercise a role in respect of equal opportunities by, for example, supporting the various campaigns to which I referred earlier, giving guidance to public bodies dealing with devolved matters and developing non-discriminatory policies in all devolved areas. The two new clauses would impose new duties on the Scottish Parliament to observe equal opportunities in the conduct of its business and the exercise of its functions. New clause 8 would require an annual report. I hope to persuade my hon. Friends that there is no need for the provisions.

I do not think that such provisions would sit well with the role and purpose of the Scottish Parliament. It would be quite inappropriate for a body with primary legislative competence, unlike the national Welsh assembly, to be given duties and required to report on its performance as if it were an executive body. Whereas my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has concluded that it would be appropriate for those and a range of other duties to be imposed on the Welsh Assembly, which in certain key respects is construed as an executive body, it would be inconsistent with the status of the Scottish Parliament and an unacceptable constraint on its discretion.

We must remember that we are creating—I hope—a mature and responsible Parliament, which will be capable of making important decisions and developing its own policies. I am sure that equal opportunities for all will be one of its guiding principles—although I repeat that we do not need to legislate for that here. I hope that I have said enough to convince my hon. Friends that amendment No. 94 and new clauses 7 and 8 are unnecessary, and that they will not press them to a vote.

This matter is very important not only to the Government, but to me. It is crucial that we lay markers down to do things differently in the new Parliament. That is the essence of devolution—devolving competencies, but ensuring that, if we can do better, we will do better. I sincerely hope that the debate’s unifying theme is one of taking equal opportunities very seriously. Given that and the Scotland Act that the Bill will surely become, I am sure

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1130

that Members of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood will be able to move forward and give every minority adequate protection in Scotland in order to develop their potential.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham:

I welcome some of the Minister’s comments, particularly the moves that I mentioned in respect of some of the amendments. I welcome his further statement on the various bodies’ Scottish element and their membership, and the fact that such bodies will be required to submit reports. I am sure that we are all thankful for that.

I am disappointed by the Minister’s retorts about amendment No. 347. The hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne)—I hope that I am not misquoting her, even though I did not take a note of it at the time—said that equal opportunities had to be at the heart of the Scottish Parliament, which is absolutely right. I agree with the Minister that the new Parliament has to be one that does better. I would like it to do a great deal better all round, but it will not have the opportunity. I therefore wish to press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 39, Noes 284.

[9.24 pm]

Division No. 236

AYES

Allan, Richard
Baker, Norman
Beith, Rt Hon A J
Brake, Tom
Brand, Dr Peter
Breed, Colin
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Burnett, John
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Chidgey, David
Cotter, Brian
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Dafis, Cynog
Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Fearn, Ronnie
Foster, Don (Bath)
George, Andrew (St Ives)
Hancock, Mike
Harris, Dr Evan
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Keetch, Paul
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Kirkwood, Archy
Livsey, Richard
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Moore, Michael
Oaten, Mark
Rendel, David
Salmond, Alex
Sanders, Adrian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab’d’ns)
Stunell, Andrew
Swinney, John
Tyler, Paul
Wallace, James
Welsh, Andrew
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Willis, Phil

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mr. Alasdair Morgan and
Mr. Donald Gorrie.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov’try NE)
Alexander, Douglas
Allen, Graham
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Ashton, Joe
Atherton, Ms Candy
Atkins, Charlotte
Austin, John
Banks, Tony
Barnes, Harry
Bayley, Hugh
Beard, Nigel
Begg, Miss Anne
Beggs, Roy
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Bennett, Andrew F
Benton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald
Betts, Clive
Blackman, Liz
Blears, Ms Hazel
Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Bradshaw, Ben
Brinton, Mrs Helen
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Browne, Desmond
Buck, Ms Karen
Byers, Stephen
Caborn, Richard
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C’bridge)
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Canavan, Dennis
Cann, Jamie
Casale, Roger
Caton, Martin
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Chisholm, Malcolm
Clapham, Michael
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Clark, Dr Lynda
(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Clelland, David
Clwyd, Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coleman, Iain
Colman, Tony
Connarty, Michael
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Cooper, Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Corston, Ms Jean
Cousins, Jim
Cranston, Ross
Crausby, David
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Cummings, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Cunningham, Jim (Cov’try S)
Dalyell, Tam
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Davidson, Ian
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Davis, Terry (B’ham Hodge H)
Dawson, Hilton
Dean, Mrs Janet
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Dismore, Andrew
Donohoe, Brian H
Doran, Frank
Drew, David
Drown, Ms Julia
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Eagle, Maria (L’pool Garston)
Edwards, Huw
Efford, Clive
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Etherington, Bill
Fatchett, Derek
Field, Rt Hon Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Fitzsimons, Lorna
Flint, Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Forsythe, Clifford
Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Foulkes, George
Fyfe, Maria
Galbraith, Sam
Galloway, George
Gardiner, Barry
George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Gerrard, Neil
Gibson, Dr Ian
Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Godman, Dr Norman A
Goggins, Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin
Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Grogan, John
Gunnell, John
Hain, Peter
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Hanson, David
Healey, John
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Hepburn, Stephen
Heppell, John
Hesford, Stephen
Hill, Keith
Hodge, Ms Margaret
Hoey, Kate
Home Robertson, John
Hood, Jimmy
Hoon, Geoffrey
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Howells, Dr Kim
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Humble, Mrs Joan
Hurst, Alan
Hutton, John
Iddon, Dr Brian
Ingram, Adam
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Jamieson, David
Jenkins, Brian
Johnson, Miss Melanie
(Welwyn Hatfield)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Jowell, Ms Tessa
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Keeble, Ms Sally
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Kelly, Ms Ruth
Khabra, Piara S
Kidney, David
Kilfoyle, Peter
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Kingham, Ms Tess
Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Lepper, David
Leslie, Christopher
Levitt, Tom
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Linton, Martin
Love, Andrew
McAllion, John
McAvoy, Thomas
McCabe, Steve
McCafferty, Ms Chris
McDonagh, Siobhain
Macdonald, Calum
McFall, John
McGuire, Mrs Anne
McIsaac, Shona
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
McLeish, Henry
McNamara, Kevin
Mactaggart, Fiona
McWalter, Tony
Mahon, Mrs Alice
Mallaber, Judy
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Martlew, Eric
Meale, Alan
Michael, Alun
Michie, Bill (Shef’ld Heeley)
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin
Moffatt, Laura
Moonie, Dr Lewis
Moran, Ms Margaret
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Morley, Elliot
Morris, Ms Estelle (B’ham Yardley)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Mudie, George
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Norris, Dan
O’Brien, Bill (Normanton)
O’Brien, Mike (N Warks)
O’Neill, Martin
Osborne, Ms Sandra
Palmer, Dr Nick
Pearson, Ian
Pendry, Tom
Perham, Ms Linda
Pickthall, Colin
Pike, Peter L
Pond, Chris
Pope, Greg
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Sir Raymond
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Primarolo, Dawn
Prosser, Gwyn
Purchase, Ken
Quin, Ms Joyce
Radice, Giles
Rapson, Syd
Raynsford, Nick
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Roche, Mrs Barbara
Rogers, Allan
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Roy, Frank
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, Ms Joan
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Ryan, Ms Joan
Salter, Martin
Sawford, Phil
Shaw, Jonathan
Sheerman, Barry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Smith, Miss Geraldine
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Soley, Clive
Southworth, Ms Helen
Squire, Ms Rachel
Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Steinberg, Gerry
Stevenson, George
Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Stinchcombe, Paul
Stoate, Dr Howard
Stott, Roger
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Sutcliffe, Gerry
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
(Dewsbury)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Timms, Stephen
Todd, Mark
Touhig, Don
Trickett, Jon
Truswell, Paul
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh’ton SE)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Vis, Dr Rudi
Walley, Ms Joan
Ward, Ms Claire
Watts, David
White, Brian
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan
(Swansea W)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Winnick, David
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Wise, Audrey
Woolas, Phil
Worthington, Tony
Wray, James
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Wyatt, Derek

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Jim Dowd and
Jane Kennedy.

Question accordingly negatived.

31 Mar 1998 : Column 1132

It being four and three quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, The Chairman, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [30 March], put the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.

Amendments made: No. 558, in page 76, line 29, after ’encouragement’, insert

 
’(other than by prohibition or regulation) of equal opportunities, and in particular’.

No. 559, in page 76, line 36, after ’disability’, insert

 
’, age, sexual orientation, language or social origin,’.—[Mr. McFall.]