Equality Bill [Lords]

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak in the debate. It is particularly pleasing to follow the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley), who has talked about many important issues with regard to working women. The majority of women in my constituency are working women. Indeed, I am one myself. The issues that she raised are also important for my constituents. The Bill has benefited greatly from extensive debate in the House of Lords both on Second Reading and on Report. That helped to clarify some important issues before the debate today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said, the Bill has many good intentions but I agree that it is in need of some refinement. The issue of equality touches all our lives. I want to see a society where each individual is given the opportunity to reach their full potential and where no people are left behind as a result of their gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexuality or age. I want to see that not only because it is morally right but because as a country we cannot afford to approach things in any other way. In the debate in the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor pointed out that one of the basic foundations of the Bill is ensuring that everyone can participate in this country’s economy. We have to do all that we can to enhance the competitiveness of our country, particularly after eight years of this Government, who have done much to undermine Britain’s competitiveness. Streamlining the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission into one commission for equality and human rights will, I hope, provide a framework for a simpler, more easily accessible and consistent approach. Indeed, many businesses have welcomed the Bill, unsurprisingly, as employment has become one of the largest and most litigated bodies of discrimination law. Anything that promises to support the call for a simpler framework will receive the support of business now and in the future. Indeed, the commission for equality and human rights will provide the opportunity to achieve that. Small and medium-sized firms all too often do not have the capacity to employ special advisers on these matters so they need support and help. A great many businesses in my constituency fall into that category: they want to do the right thing, but do not always have the specialised knowledge to hand to be able to do so. I believe that the commission has the potential to become, as other hon. Members mentioned earlier today, a one-stop shop of advice and support for businesses on all matters of discrimination. The commission for equality and human rights should see itself as promoting good practice in business, offering—to use the Government’s term—a joined-up approach to reduce the spiralling amount of litigation and hopefully not add to it. That is the key. The Government have said that the Bill will not impose more regulatory burdens on employers, so good practice will be the primary route for driving change. I will be listening for an assurance in the Minister’s winding-up speech that the Government still adopt that position. The commission must not become merely a regulator and an enforcer, as it can do so much more than that. If it does become only that, it will alienate business and set back the causes that we seek to support today, such as reaching out to small businesses as a priority. As I said earlier, we cannot afford as a country to take any other approach. Ensuring that everyone can participate to their utmost in our country’s economy is vital for our future success and nowhere more with respect to older members of our community—a group that has not received much comment in today’s debate, although a couple of hon. Members have picked up the point lately. I welcome the fact that the Bill recognises the need to support older people against discrimination. I understand that new regulations are due to come in next year to outlaw age discrimination in the workplace, but more could be done to prepare the way for that legislative change. As I am sure hon. Members will be pleased to note, life expectancy for men in Britain has risen by five years to 76 since 1981 and by 10 years since the 1940s. My grandfather is in his mid-90s. Women regularly live beyond 80 nowadays, yet many remain active and want to continue to work in their communities, but are often stopped in their tracks by the ageism that permeates many aspects of our society. I would like to look at a couple of examples within the Bill and keep my comments short in order to allow other Members to contribute to the debate. Before I do so, I want to refer to a particular example from my constituency. I was contacted by one of my local parish councils in Basingstoke—Silchester parish council—which wanted to employ two local residents to collect litter. Both residents had been given a clean bill of health by their doctors: they were able bodied, but in their mid-70s. Employment levels in north Hampshire are, as hon. Members may be aware, very high, making it quite difficult to recruit people, and there were no other applicants for those jobs. The parish was unable to employ those applicants because, on account of the age of the people concerned, it was unable to obtain the necessary insurance. That left the beautiful parish of Silchester—it certainly is beautiful—without the litter pickers that it needed and left the two constituents without the employment that they wanted, purely as a result of their age. Legislation alone cannot change attitudes and I applaud the work done by organisations such as Age Concern and Help the Aged, which have championed the rights of older people over many years, but we need to join them in doing all we can to encourage full participation—both in our communities and in the economy—of all who are able and not let advancing years stand in the way of those who want to participate. Could the Bill do more to support older people? I think that some would argue that it could, as illustrated by my example of Silchester parish council where older members of our community found it difficult to find employment because an insurance company would not provide insurance. The Bill specifically prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the grounds of sexual orientation, but it will not provide protection to older residents in my constituency in employment rights. I await the raft of letters I am sure to receive if this issue is not addressed. The Minister said earlier that it could be addressed as part of the discrimination law review, but why not address it now in the Bill? The Bill could be used to better support older people, as well as to harmonise the discrimination law. I am concerned that the Bill will not do all that it could to support older people and, indeed, could create more inconsistencies in equality law. How would that help to ensure that we give everyone the opportunity to realise their potential? Some hon. Members have referred to the hierarchy of equality, but it should perhaps be called the hierarchy of inequality. The legislation is patchwork and fragmented, as the Bill reveals, and that is worthy of more discussion, perhaps in Committee. It is not difficult to find examples of inconsistency and lack of support for older people in the Bill. It makes provision for public bodies to promote gender equality—which I do support—but the Government have not taken this obvious opportunity to harmonise legislation even further and include a duty to promote age equality. They could even simplify matters for all of us and create a general duty to promote equality across all the strands to be covered by the commission. Again, the losers will be older people. I am deeply concerned by the lack of support in the Bill for those who may have contributed much to our society and wish to contribute more. Legislation lags behind. As in many areas of politics, older people’s voices are simply not heard, perhaps—in the case of the Bill— because they are lost in the crowd. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that that is not the case.