Orders of the Day — Equality Bill [Lords] — Order for Second Reading read.

House of Commons, 21 November 2005.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am pleased to open the debate on the Bill on behalf of the Government. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is disappointed not to be in the House, owing to unavoidable commitments connected with the UK's presidency of the European Union.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

How could I refuse?

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Has the hon. Lady spotted the fact that religious equality takes up 36 clauses, whereas sexual equality has merely one? That is a shocking shortfall in a Bill about equality. Is she working on an amendment to put sexual equality on the same footing as religious equality?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend does not care about either.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

The hon. Gentleman answers for me. I ask the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) to be patient, as I will get to those aspects later. If he takes the time to read the one clause, he will find that it is about sexual orientation.

The Bill is a key element in the Government's work on equality and human rights. It puts in place a new commission for equality and human rights that will support individuals, employers, service providers and public bodies. We are also examining the root causes of inequality and how they can be tackled through a fundamental review of equality in our society. Furthermore, we are reviewing the legislative framework concerning discrimination with a view to how it should be shaped for the future. The Bill and those reviews should be viewed in the wider context of the Government's manifesto commitment to bring forward a single equality Bill later in this Parliament.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Does the Minister share any of my anxieties that the creation of a huge bureaucratic quango is in danger of trampling on many of our much valued freedoms of speech or even—dare one say it—attitude? Is she not concerned that, even if enacted with all the best intentions, a Bill of this size and scope could create more problems that it will solve?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's anxieties on that, or anything else.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I hope that hon. Members will permit me to make a little progress.

The Government have done more to promote equality and tackle discrimination than any previous Government. We have outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of sexual orientation, religion and belief, and will do so next year for age. The Government have introduced the ground-breaking duty on public authorities to promote race equality, which has been followed by duties for disability, which are on the statute book, and for gender, which are being introduced by the Bill. We established the Disability Rights Commission. We have continued to extend the rights of gay men and lesbians, with the Civil Partnership Act 2004, in an important addition to which we are introducing powers to protect against discrimination in goods and services.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

My hon. Friend is right to say how much work has already been done on gender equality and for transgendered people, as with the 1999 regulations. Is she prepared to take another look at that issue to ensure that transgendered people are included in the scope of goods and services, as outlined already?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. A number of people have raised that issue with me. Of course the Government are entirely committed to equality for transsexual or—as some people prefer to be described—transgendered people. However, there are a number of complexities. We have put in place the discrimination law review, about which I will say a little more shortly, and we think that that is the appropriate place to deal with that issue.

Those achievements add to the record of over four decades of the House tackling discrimination, beginning with the first race legislation in the 1960s, and the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act in the 1970s. It is, of course, 30 years this month since the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was passed.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Having enthusiastically supported the Bill on Second Reading on 5 April this year, I do not feel the need to weary the House with the same contribution all over again.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend is on his own.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I may be on my own, but I happen to have the advantage of being in the right, which is not something that my right hon. Friend can boast.

May I simply tell the Minister that, in introducing the regulations to protect gay people from discrimination in the provision of services, facilities and goods, it is important that they be introduced soon, that they be comprehensive and that they do not contain get-out clauses that would provide licences for the continuing practice of prejudice?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes some important points. Of course, it is absolutely right that those regulations should be subject to a good deal of consultation and that we should get those issues right. That is one of the reasons why we want to take our time and why we did not want to proceed with amendments at this point, but have accepted an order-making power in the Bill.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

Contrary to the mumblings among Conservative Back-Benchers, by which they seem to suggest that equality does not interest them at all, many Labour Members and a few Opposition Members are very grateful to the Government for giving way on the issue of goods and services for gays and lesbians—in particular, because many people in this country are already sick and tired of the fact that their general practitioners refuse to look after them because they are homosexual. That must surely be wrong, and we are grateful to the Minister for giving way on that issue.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Of course such things are wrong, and they are precisely some of the issues that we hope to deal with.

Bob Spink (Conservative, Castle Point)

Will the Minister give way?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I should like to make a little progress. I will give way soon.

We are also proud of what we have achieved in the area of human rights. The Government passed the Human Rights Act 1998—a historic step in bringing home the rights of the European convention on human rights and making them part of our domestic law.

The things that I am listing should not just be seen as combating unfairness, although that is certainly worth doing. Living in a country that values equality and human rights benefits everyone; it helps us to develop a better society. Equality is not a minority pursuit—although it appears to be among Conservative Members. We all have a stake in a successful society. For instance, if everyone is given the chance to participate in economic success on their own account or in a co-operative environment, wealth is created. Our country and our communities need the talents and the energy that each person has to give. Without those talents and energy, particularly if they are held back by bigotry and hatred, we are all diminished.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Does the Minister agree that hard work needs to be fairly rewarded? Will she have a look at the gender pay gap? Am I right in thinking that there is still a 16 per cent. difference between male and female salaries at the Department of Trade and Industry?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

The hon. Gentleman raises a point that I shall address later when we deal with the gender duty.

Many people in our society still do not have a fair chance in life. Prejudice and disadvantage continue to blight the prospects of far too many. We live in a world in which there are many identities, cultures and faiths, in which the patterns of family life are changing and in which changing demographic patterns raise important issues about the rights of older people. Those matters are not remote; they touch all our lives.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

As the Minister knows, Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. Will she address a group of people who have not been mentioned in her speech: couples—one man, one woman—who have chosen not to marry, but have remained together for years as a partnership? Will such partnerships be recognised by the Government either through the Bill, or in the near future?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

The Bill does not cover that matter. I understand that there are no plans at present to deal specifically with those circumstances.

Parents want their children to have a fair chance in life, whatever their race and gender, and whether or not they are disabled or gay. We all grow old and want to do so with dignity and respect.

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam)

I, too, welcome the Bill. The Minister touched on the discrimination that older people can often face in terms not only of their rights to employment, but of their access to goods and services. The Bill will not extend protection on goods and services to older people. Will she give us some sense of the urgency that the Government attach to extending such protection to older people and a timetable for achieving that?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

Issues of age are pervasive. Provisions on age in many aspects of our legislation affect not only older people, but younger people. We are examining the matter as part of the discrimination law review and intend to bring forward a Green Paper early next year. That will enable us to have proper consultation on such matters, which will lead to a single equality Act. I will say a little more about that later.

Tony Baldry (Conservative, Banbury)

I basically welcome the Bill, but I hope that the Minister can solve a mystery. She referred to the substantial review that the Government are undertaking on equality and discrimination legislation. I do not understand why they are not waiting for the outcome of the review before bringing forward substantive legislation. They seem to be putting the cart before the horse.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I thought that I was being asked to solve a mystery, but it is a bit simpler than that. The work that is going on to establish the commission will indeed take some time, as will work to examine the range of issues with which we expect the commission to deal. By bringing forward the Bill now, we can begin to move towards having the commission in place near the end of 2007.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Will the Minister ignore the siren—if majority—voices that are coming, interestingly, from Conservative Back Benchers, although they did not appear when we had this debate just before the general election?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

We were very sound then.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

We were sound all round, so I am sorry that we seem to have regressed, at least in some parts of the House. Will the Minister give us an indication of how quickly the single equality Act, which will put the last pieces of the jigsaw into place, will come before the House? Some of us are anxious for it to appear as quickly as humanly possible.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am very happy to ignore certain sounds from certain Benches. Obviously, we want to make as much progress as we can in moving towards the very important single equality Act, which is a manifesto commitment for this Parliament. I am not in a position to give a great deal more detail at the moment, but I will say more about the processes as I continue; and on that note, Mr. Speaker, I intend to make some progress.

Parents want their children to have a fair chance in life. Looking to the future, young minority ethnic workers will account for more than half the increase in the working-age population over the next decade. More than two thirds of additional jobs expected to be created over the same period are likely to be filled by women.

The Government are addressing those profound changes in society in many ways, including through the three elements of our equality and human rights programme. First, the new commission for equality and human rights will be a champion for equality and human rights, using its influence and expertise to deliver real and lasting change. Secondly, there is the equalities review led by Trevor Phillips, who is currently chair of the Commission for Racial Equality. We need better to understand the long term and underlying barriers to opportunity so that we can identify the most effective ways to improve outcomes for individuals. Thirdly, the discrimination law review will develop proposals for a simpler, fairer legal framework while taking full account of the need of employers and service providers.

The two reviews are part of the essential work that is needed to deliver on our manifesto commitment to bring forward a single equality act in this Parliament. It is essential to get the new commission in place quickly.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I need to make some progress.

The commission for equality and human rights will make a difference. It will act as a champion and influencer, putting equality and human rights on the agenda across society, and helping to ensure that fair treatment becomes the norm everywhere.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I will give way shortly, but I need first to make more progress.

The commission will reach out to all sections of society, through a duty to consult on its strategic plan. It will be relevant to all—no more pigeon-holing people by one characteristic—underlining the fact that equality is important for us all, not just for particular groups.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

In a moment. The commission will work for individuals, providing advice and support on all discrimination issues. It will map Britain's progress towards equality and human rights through a duty to produce a "state of the nation" report. It will look at the hard evidence of what has been achieved and what more needs to be done. It will help make communities better places to live in through its good-relations work, to build trust and reduce tension between different groups.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Joan Ruddock (Labour, Lewisham, Deptford)

I very much welcome the Bill, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that under clause 10, on good relations, there is no hierarchy of inequality and that, indeed, there is equality of resources going to the different strands? Will she therefore look again at clause 10 (4), where there is a clear indication that particular regard should be given to "race, religion or belief"? That is of great concern to many of the other strands—we understand why there is such a provision, but it looks like a hierarchy and there is concern about the allocation of resources.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The Government believe that it is enormously important to carry forward the innovative work in that area of the Commission for Racial Equality.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

Will the hon. Gentleman please wait while I answer the previous intervention?

We want to ensure that that work is carried forward, and we believe that it is enormously important that that be given some priority. Nevertheless, the purpose of a new commission that will work across a range of issues is not to identify particular budgets for particular areas. As I said, people do not have just one identity or one characteristic. For example, we know that white working-class boys currently do not do well in education, and that might well be an issue that the commission will want to consider. So in that respect, there is not a hierarchy, although there is provision for the duty to which my hon. Friend referred.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman; he has been very persistent.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

I confess that I have not followed the passage of the Bill through the House of Lords as closely as I should have done, so will the Minister help me? She says that the Bill will make things simpler, but will she also explain how much money will be saved for taxpayers and from the lessening of bureaucracy as a result of one body taking in three commissions?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

The hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of the commissions coming together. Even though there are three existing commissions, some areas currently have no institutional support; for example, there is no such support for human rights, sexual orientation, religion and belief, or age. Moreover, and as I just pointed out, white working-class boys do not necessarily figure so far as the existing commissions are concerned. This is a question of equality, which is why we are bringing the commissions together. The overall budget will increase—[Interruption.] It will increase because we are taking on additional responsibilities, which we believe is the right thing to do. Our consultations show that this is the correct way to proceed.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I shall make a little more progress before taking more interventions. I am very pleased that there is such a lot of interest in this issue.

The new commission will give Britain a body dedicated to supporting and protecting human rights for the first time. It will have specific powers and duties to advance a human rights culture based on respect for individual rights and the worth of each person.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Will the Minister give way?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

If the hon. Lady will be patient, I want to make a little more progress.

Bringing equality and human rights together will help us to provide better protection for the most vulnerable in our society, such as elderly people in care homes. The commission will encourage compliance and good practice by public authorities with obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998, thereby helping to make fair and decent treatment the norm.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

Will the Minister give way?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I want to make some progress.

Such efforts will help to bring human rights out of the courtroom and into the fabric of public services.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I give way to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke).

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I thank the Minister for giving way. Will she consider including in the Bill an explicit reference to children, and does she agree that without such a reference, there is a danger that any such organisation might ignore children's needs and rights, or give them insufficient attention?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I do not agree. Children are people and this Bill is for all people. It is important that they be considered along with everybody else, so I would resist including a specific reference to children. It is enormously important that clear guidelines and procedures be established for the commission's working with the children's commissioners. We expect that to be achieved through memorandums of understanding.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber).

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

Given that, to judge by past experience, the commission will put a considerable amount of effort into dealing with employment issues, and given that one concern is dispute resolution, we will need the commission to include people with experience of such issues. Will my hon. Friend therefore consider extending to the new commission the existing commissions' practice of having experienced people from both sides of industry? Such people also have wide experience of discrimination and prejudice issues. I hope that she will continue that practice—an idea for which the Bill does not currently provide.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

My hon. Friend raises an issue of detail, and I should be grateful if she held on to that thought until I come to the relevant part of my speech, as I am about to do. First, I give way to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth).

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have to say that, as a white, Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Scot, middle-class male heterosexual, I feel that we are increasingly becoming the persecuted who might be in need of protection. The Bill is nothing if not the ultimate manifesto in political correctness. She said that it will apply to public authorities. Can she explain why, for some obscure reason, this place, the other place, the Security Service and the authorities of both Houses are exempt from all this absurdity? Does that not undermine the whole case for this absurd and ridiculous Bill, which should be consigned to the dustbin now?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I am enjoying this more than I expected to; the Conservatives' arguments are indeed interesting. The Bill's application to public authorities is a matter of detail and if the hon. Gentleman, to whom I was extraordinarily polite, can hold on to his question, we can consider it a little later.

I now turn to the detail of the Bill. It comes to this House following thorough scrutiny in the other place. During that process, the Government showed that they were willing to listen to proposals for improving the Bill, and to amend it accordingly. I have already mentioned a key example—the inclusion of a new part 3, which provides a power to make regulations prohibiting discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Other important improvements include strengthening the independence of the new commission; integrating more closely the commission's duties and functions in relation to disabled people with its duties and functions in relation to other groups; and bringing provisions in part 2 on religion and belief more closely into line with existing legislation. Part 1 establishes the commission for equality and human rights and defines its purposes and functions, including its enforcement powers. It will build on the achievements of the Commission for Racial Equality, the Disability Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission, which have worked tirelessly to keep equality issues high on the policy agenda. Through their work, they have made real and practical differences to people' lives.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

Is the Minister aware of the criticism of Lord Ouseley in the other place, who says that it would be possible for the commission to be an all-male, all-white body? That is most unlikely, but the Government should address that structural problem. The Minister said that she wanted to advance existing race equality work, but is that not best done by a race equality committee and a race equality commissioner?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

Again, my hon. Friend has anticipated something that I shall deal with shortly.

The Commission's general duty set out in clause 3 sums up our equality and human rights vision—to encourage and support the development of a society where everyone can achieve their potential unlimited by prejudice and discrimination, where there is respect for the dignity and worth of every individual, and where there is mutual respect between groups based on the understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect for equality and human rights.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

rose—

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

rose—

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I will give way to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

Will the Minister comment on the fact that in the past 10 years the Commission for Racial Equality has faced about 20 claims of racial discrimination from its employees, some of which have been settled out of court with taxpayers' money? Does she think that that record justifies using even more taxpayers' money to bolster that organisation?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

The hon. Gentleman should read the Bill's provisions more closely.

Clauses 1 to 7, together with schedule 1, establish the new commission and set out provisions concerning its constitution, membership, planning, consulting and reporting arrangements, as well as other internal machinery. Schedule 1 provides for at least one commissioner to be a disabled person, and for a disability committee to oversee the commission's disability-specific work. The disability committee, which will be subject to a review under the Bill, will build on the work of the Disability Rights Commission and will reflect the unique aspects of disability law including, for example, the requirement to make reasonable adjustments. The schedule also specifies that there must be commissioners with special knowledge of Scotland and Wales, and committees to steer the commission's work in Scotland and Wales. That is right for modern Britain, where the devolution settlement recognises the different social, cultural and political contexts of those countries. The Government want to allow the commission as free a hand as possible in the way in which it structures and organises its activities, which was an issue of concern in the other place.

Turning to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), the Bill gives the commission complete discretion to establish committees and delegate functions to them as it sees fit. It can establish committees to provide a voice for specific groups, to bring in specific expertise, or for any other purpose. It is better for the commission to make those decisions, rather than impose committees through the Bill. Clauses 8 to 12 set out the commission's duties in relation to equality and diversity, human rights, and good relations between groups, as well as its duty to monitor the law and undertake a regular equality health check for Britain.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

Is my hon. Friend aware of the sad death of Charles Smith a week ago? He was a CRE commissioner and a Gypsy who fought endlessly for equality and human rights. Will my hon. Friend ensure that Gypsies have a voice on the new commission?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Indeed, I was aware of the gentleman's sad death and pay tribute to the work that he did.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

rose—

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

The appointment of commissioners needs to reflect the whole range of equality issues. Regardless of what some Opposition Members seem to believe, I repeat that equality is an issue for everyone. We need a balance of commissioners who take into account a range of issues, such as trade unions and employers. Specifying individual commissioners in the Bill might prevent the commission from covering the full range of equality issues that we want it to cover.

I will give way to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) for his persistence.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I thank the hon. Lady. Whatever else we may say, she has certainly been generous with her time. Does she acknowledge that one of the failings of the Commission for Racial Equality has been its presumption that the only people in our society who are racist are white? Will the successor body to the CRE take action to eradicate the racism and prejudice that are clearly present among the black, Asian and Muslim communities, and also acknowledge that white people are occasionally the victims of that racism?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

Again, the hon. Gentleman takes me away from the specifics of the Bill.

Clause 10 places the commission under a duty to promote good relations, work to eliminate hate crime and encourage participation in society. We recognise the significance of the commission's good relations role with race and faith communities and have ensured that the commission for equality and human rights will be required to consider the particular importance of that. This reflects the need to build on the pioneering work of the Commission for Racial Equality in this area. It also enables us to underpin our commitment to support the important local race equality work carried out by the network of racial equality councils and others.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

I am grateful to the Minister, who is indeed being generous. I hope she is now being treated equally in the Government and being paid for what she is doing. In the other place, an amendment was moved and carried by some 90 votes to remove religious harassment from the Bill—a very wise move. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government will not seek to re-insert that?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I will come to that shortly.

Clauses 13 to 19 set out the commission's general powers to publish information and give advice and guidance, arrange for research and promote compliance with the law. The commission will be able to issue statutory codes of practice and conduct general inquiries into equality and human rights issues. Clauses 20 to 32 set out the commission's enforcement powers. These are based on those of the existing commissions, with some modernisation and increased flexibility. The remainder of part 1 sets out the provisions for transition from the existing three commissions to the new one.

In part 2, clauses 43 and 44 define religion and belief, and discrimination. Clauses 45 to 54 generally set out the prohibitions on discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services, premises, education and public functions. General exceptions are at clauses 55 to 63, and the rest of the part deals with enforcement and other matters.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been astonishingly understanding. Are we really to understand that public organisations such as our own are to be excluded from the Bill? It is always better to lead by example, rather than by exception.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I shall return to it shortly.

At present, case law under the Race Relations Act has seen protection against discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services, and in education and the provision of public functions, extended to Jews and Sikhs, but to no other faith or belief groups. This inequality of treatment is not right, and the Bill corrects it.

Part 2 was thoroughly debated in the other place, and a number of significant and helpful amendments were made. For example, in clause 44, the grounds on which discrimination can occur were clarified, and in clause 52 provisions were made against discriminatory practices. The exception for the immigration service in clause 51(f) was narrowed in response to comments from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and others. There was considerable debate, in particular, around issues connected with education. I am sure these important provisions will enjoy both the robust scrutiny and the support of the House.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Minister has been extremely generous in giving way. A few moments ago, she referred to the importance of tackling hate crime. Given that there have been several instances, including a number of relatively well publicised cases, of musical lyrics urging the assassination of gay people, and that in each and every one of those cases no action has been taken, does she think that the existing law is adequate, and if not, what does she propose to do about it?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. It is important to deal with hate crime, wherever it occurs. Hate crimes from which people with disabilities suffer were debated in the other place, and we must tackle them, too. The Bill does not seek to do everything in relation to equality—it is a further step along the road. The discrimination law review, on which a Green Paper will be introduced early next year, will enable us to consult much more widely and begin to consider all the issues in detail with a view to introducing a single equality Bill to tackle a range of issues and bring all our discrimination law into one place, which will make it much simpler to access for individuals, organisations, companies and public authorities.

The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) raised the issue of harassment. Hon. Members know that the one point on which the Government were defeated in the other place involved an amendment that removed harassment on grounds of religion or belief from part 2, the effect of which is that the Bill no longer prohibits harassment on the grounds of religion or belief in the exercise of public functions, housing or education.

We have considered very carefully how to respond to the debates in the other place and that vote. We remain convinced that it is important to act against harassment on the grounds of a person's religion or belief, particularly in the provision of public functions and the other areas that I have mentioned. We are committed to the development of sensible proposals to combat harassment in its different manifestations across the range of equality strands. However, the strength of feeling in the other place, the current work of the discrimination law review in fundamentally examining issues of inequality and discrimination, and the subsequent opportunity to reintroduce the provision before Parliament in a single equality Bill have persuaded us not to seek to reintroduce those provisions in this House at this time. We will continue to consider the detail as part of the discrimination law review before making further proposals. I hope that the House will join me in recognising the principle that it is important to act against harassment on grounds of religion and belief, as many people do not feel that the current arrangements adequately protect them.

Bob Spink (Conservative, Castle Point)

Will the Minister explain why the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 does not provide a sound basis for dealing with those issues?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

The hon. Gentleman has introduced a level of detail to which I am unable to respond at this point, but I will try to obtain a response for him.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

As I raised the subject, may I thank the Minister for her response? I urge the Government to consult widely before they tackle the subject in any future Bill.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is our intention through the discrimination law review.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) on the wisdom of the course that the Government have taken, which has clearly caused genuine disagreement. In the spirit of the discrimination law review, which is being conducted in-house at this stage, will the Minister confirm that she welcomes representations from, for example, hon. Members on both sides of the House and others, which will allow those representations to be fed into the review at an early stage, because I agree that it is important that the review come up with a series of balanced and defensible findings?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

Of course I am always happy to receive representations that seek to take us to law that effectively does what we want in preventing harassment. The views of hon. Members and many people outside Parliament are important in these matters.

I want to deal with the question of why there are certain exclusions in discrimination law. It is sometimes necessary to ensure that legislative measures are not fettered by public duties to promote equality and that the important work of the security and intelligence agencies can continue effectively.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Will the Minister give way?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I need to proceed, because many hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman stays he will have an attentive audience.

I turn to the new part that was added to the Bill during Third Reading in the other place. The Government have accepted amendments to provide a power by which the Secretary of State may make regulations that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services or in the execution of public functions. We recognised the widespread support in Parliament and beyond for these measures, and continue to be firmly committed to the provision of comprehensive rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. This change in the law is another important move, among many taken by this Government, towards that aim.

Part 4 contains provisions that prohibit public authorities from discriminating on grounds of sex when carrying out their public functions and place on them a duty to promote equality of opportunity between men and women when exercising their functions. That will lead to important changes and may be the biggest advance since the passage of the 1975 Act itself. It complements the duties in respect of race and disability that are already on the statute book.

Although the Bill is not intended to deal comprehensively with all equality issues or all discrimination law, it is another major step towards a society where every person has a chance to achieve their potential, not limited by prejudice and discrimination—a society that is based on the enduring values of respect, dignity and fairness, which we all share and which form the foundations of British society, and where groups and communities are able to live side by side with mutual respect and understanding, not fear, ignorance or hostility.

These are important issues that we must address if Britain is to face the challenges of the future with confidence. The Bill will help us to do that. The time is right for the Bill. The Government moved swiftly to introduce it following the election because it ran out of time in the last Parliament. There is a great deal of support for the Bill across the House and among the many groups outside the House who have a detailed interest in its provisions. Equality and human rights are important to everyone. I commend the Bill to the House.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I welcome the Minister to her first Second Reading debate in her ministerial role. She puts her points eloquently, even where I do not agree with her, and I am grateful to her for doing so. I am also grateful to her for listening patiently to many of my hon. Friends. I think that we are going to have a lively debate.

I pay tribute to the many outside bodies that we and the Government have consulted on these matters. The Equal Opportunities Commission, the Disability Rights Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality have worked hard to refine the contents of the Bill, as have the Christian Institute, Stonewall and Age Concern. We have considered their views carefully; I am sure that the Minister has done the same.

The Bill has been considerably refined and improved by many of my noble Friends and other Members in another place, particularly Baroness Miller and Baroness O'Cathain. Lord Alli and Lord Rix also made terrific contributions, all of which will inform and improve our debate.

In general, the Bill has good intentions and we support it. However, as some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, like all good intentions, the Bill must be refined and implemented in a workable fashion. When it goes into Committee—I hope hon. Members will decide that it should—we will have many detailed questions to ask and suggestions for improvements to make, and I hope that the Minister will consider them positively.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

As the Member who leads the Conservative party's support for the Bill—and who did so historically—is not the hon. Lady as upset as I am by the Neanderthal comments from Conservative Back Benchers? How does she cope with the yobs at the back?

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow North East)

Order. The hon. and learned Lady must withdraw that last remark.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I am sure that there is not a single yob on the Back Benches of the Conservative party.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow North East)

Withdraw the remark.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I have.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for withdrawing a question that I cannot answer.

I hope that the Minister will consider our reservations positively. Any criticism that Conservative Members make is meant to be constructive because we want the proposals to work. To command the widespread support that is necessary for that, the Bill must fulfil four specific conditions.

First, the new body—the commission for equality and human rights—must be cost-effective. I am worried about the Government's estimate of its running costs. The Minister said that they are likely to be £70 million per annum—almost 50 per cent. more than the current cost of the three bodies it would replace.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

Forty-three per cent.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I withdraw the "almost 50 per cent."; let us stick with 43 per cent. The cost will be 43 per cent. greater than the current cost of the three bodies it would replace.

Bob Spink (Conservative, Castle Point)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point but she forgets the economies of scale of combining those organisations. With economies of scale, the cost almost doubles. Why will that happen?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I thank my hon. Friend, but of course I had not forgotten the economies of scale—I am about to deal with them. Why is there such a significant increase in cost? We all know that when the Government or any other body estimate a cost, it almost always increases in reality. I therefore suspect that when we examine the measure in two or three years, my initial 50 per cent. figure will probably be nearer the mark than 43 per cent.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

My hon. Friend's comments are important, but something else is even more important. The new body should be credible and earn respect. If it is to achieve that, is not it important that it does not appear to be meddlesome on the side of those who would remove Bibles from lockers and do silly things that would bring it into disrepute?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

My hon. Friend is right—he must have read page 5 of my speech. We will get there in due course. Cost is only my first point; there are many others.

We understand that the new commission will have additional powers and duties and that a balance must therefore be struck between the economies of scale of bringing together the administration of the three bodies under one roof and expanding its remit. I strongly welcome the fact that the new body will deal with discrimination on the ground of age, sexual orientation and religion or belief as well as race, gender and disabilities, which the current bodies cover.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I hope that she will continue to be robust with the reactionary tendencies on the very back of her Back Benches. She is making a case about the increase in funding. In addition to the three strands that have traditionally formed part of the pioneering anti-discrimination legislation of the 1970s, we now have four more. Are not the increases in funding therefore entirely in order, to enable the new protections that are being extended to many of our citizens to become a reality?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The hon. Lady makes a point about arithmetic, but none of us can prove the arithmetic until we see exactly what the new body will do, and exactly how the economies of scale will work in bringing the three existing bodies under one roof. It makes sense to bring all the aspects under one directing body, especially as many instances of discrimination relate to more than one of the six categories, and I totally support that plan. However, when we do the arithmetic, the necessary increase in funding—taking into consideration economies of scale and the expansion from three aspects to six—will surely not amount to 43 per cent.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Increasing the commission's remit and bringing in the additional four strands will lead to an initial increase in costs, but the new quango will need only one information technology department, one human resources department and one new public relations department. Surely that is where the savings could be made. Far from making savings, however, the commission's budget will almost double.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Yes, I would have thought that savings could be made in those areas, and that they could be offset against the increases that will be necessary to bring in the other three strands.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) raised a perfectly fair point about the need for the commission to establish credibility. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) agree that, in its dealings with individuals and organisations, the commission should be guided by a very simple principle, namely that it should be the friend of the willing but uninitiated, and the foe of the wilfully non-compliant and incorrigibly discriminatory?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. His poetic way of expressing his view is excellent, and I hope that he will forgive me if I steal his words to use in future discussions—[Interruption.] The Minister seems to suggest that she might do the same.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

Notwithstanding the hon. Lady's point about costs, is not there a strong case not only for a London committee, but for the commission's national base to be in London? If we do not want a situation in London similar to the one that we have seen recently in Paris, the commission will surely need to be on hand and active in London, and able to lobby Ministers here.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I understand why the hon. Gentleman is standing up for London, and I am sure that that matter will be discussed at a later stage. If I were the Minister, I might be able to give him an answer on that point, but sadly I am not.

The Government will have to go a lot further to justify the proposed increases in the cost of the new body. This is all taxpayers' money, and it is the Government's duty, when spending it, to consider that, if that pot of money were not spent on the administration of the new commission, it could be spent on education and training, for example, which would give more opportunities to all kinds of people in all parts of the country. I am sure that we shall return to the issue of costs in our further consideration of the Bill, and I hope that the Minister and her colleagues in the Treasury will give the matter serious consideration.

The rules and regulations imposed by the Bill must not put too many burdens on business, especially on small businesses that do not have human resources departments to deal with them. I cannot emphasise this point too strongly. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire rightly said, it is important that the new body—and all that it stands for—commands respect. If the new provisions are seen to be disproportionately bureaucratic and overbearing, all that will happen is that employers will find an excuse not to employ women, disabled people, people from ethnic minorities or gay people in the first place. Reasonable employers who have an unreasonable fear of expensive litigation will find a way round it. They will not risk having a case brought against them, so the Bill's good intentions will backfire. I do not want that to happen, so the balance must be kept reasonable.

Thirdly, the new provisions must not be seen to interfere in people's lives where such interference is unnecessary. I am pleased that my noble Friends have succeeded in removing the clause relating to harassment on grounds of religion or belief. We all want to see an end to such harassment. No one wants to see harassment on any grounds whatsoever, but the end that the Government rightly sought to achieve will not be achieved by enacting overbearing legislation that would have had unintended consequences.

In all that we do in considering the Bill, it is vital that we preserve the distinctiveness of traditional groups, organisations and institutions of any religion or belief from any part of the country, representing any sector of our society. That distinctiveness is absolutely essential. There was a danger that that might have been lost under the Bill as originally drafted. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said a few moments ago, displaying a subtle and peaceful symbol of a religion, be it a necklace with a cross or a seven-branch candlestick at the back of a room, or playing traditional Indian music at a gathering, must not be allowed to be interpreted as causing offence to someone of another religion. That is going too far and would make the legislation backfire. So I am pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government do not intend to reintroduce the relevant clause to the Bill, but I am also pleased that the matter will be considered at greater length under the review, because it is a complex matter that deserves deeper consideration.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

My hon. Friend is right about the complexity and the need for greater reflection, but she will notice that in relation to part 3 the harassment provisions remain within the Bill, and it is within the Minister's power to make regulations. Surely that is not acceptable.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In principle, it is acceptable to try to enact legislation to stop harassment, but I intend to look at the matter in great detail in Committee, because we must be careful that the provisions relating to preventing harassment do not have unintended consequences.

Will the Minister now give me an assurance that the Government will, in their further deliberations, protect the distinctive ethos of groups, organisations and institutions throughout the country? Perhaps when the Minister replies she will give that serious consideration. Every group, society or institution should be allowed to have their distinctive ethos, and we do not want, in the name of equality, to destroy distinctiveness.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

Like the Minister, my hon. Friend has been extremely generous in giving way. Is she aware that reputable bodies such as the Christian Institute feel that, if we are not careful—I choose my words carefully—some of the Bill's proposals could create a situation where one has freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion and for religion?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

My hon. Friend makes another good point. I mentioned the Christian Institute and its consideration of the Bill at the beginning of my speech. Many of the unintended consequences were dealt with very well by Conservatives and others in the other place. I am sure the Minister will be pleased to hear that we will deal with the issue in more detail in Committee, when I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said.

I mentioned the excellent work done in the other place. I am also very pleased that the Government have accepted the amendments relating to discrimination in the provision of goods and services on grounds of sexual orientation. It is only logical to give those who might be discriminated against on such grounds the same rights as other groups, and I commend Stonewall for its reasonable arguments in that regard.

Bob Spink (Conservative, Castle Point)

Does my hon. Friend accept that there should be exceptions for religious groups?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Of course there should always be exceptions. Laws without exceptions are not good laws.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

In the interests of fairness and equality, I will.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

When we consider exceptions, what is important is scrutiny of the parliamentary process. However, one clause in part 3 effectively hands over the entire legislative process to a Minister, in the form of regulation-making powers, thus denying the House the opportunity properly to scrutinise a very sensitive and technical issue.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

We shall have to look at every word of the regulations if and when the Government attempt to introduce them. We shall have to be very wary. I certainly intend to be.

My fourth point is that the Bill must not be seen a merely another vehicle for political correctness. People are fed up with political correctness. I do not want my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), or my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), to feel persecuted. Political correctness gets a bad name, and law made in the name of political correctness alone is bad law.

Jim Devine (Labour, Livingston)

Can the hon. Lady give a definition of political correctness?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I possibly could, but I might have to write a book. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall use the phrase in its usual sense for the moment.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I have given way a good deal. If I do not make more progress others will have to make much shorter speeches, and I am looking forward to hearing what Members on both sides of the House have to say.

As well as not being merely for the purposes of political correctness, the Bill must not become merely a charter for lawyers by creating rights and causing more litigation. A litigious society is not a harmonious society. I want the Bill to result in a harmonious society, not a litigious society.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

rose—

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The hon. and learned Lady is a lawyer, and so am I, so I will give way to her.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

Is not the purpose of the commission to take the emphasis away from individual cases? Attempts to achieve equality can be very haphazard. Someone who is wronged must have the money and the courage to keep going—those elements must coincide—and once the case has gone to court, the outcome will not be widely published. Is not the point of the Bill to reduce litigation and generate a culture of equality?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Yes, it is. I was about to make that point. For the sake of brevity, I will not repeat it. The hon. and learned Lady has made it well. That is the whole point. This Bill is not about creating more work for the courts. It is not merely about being politically correct, but about creating a different framework where disagreements between employer and employee or any other parties can be sorted out without resort to litigation and without going so far on the political correctness agenda that we take rights from people to whom we want to give rights. The Bill does not deserve to be interpreted as being merely politically correct, but we must fight to protect it to an extent from itself and from those who would push its provisions too far.

It is 30 years since the Sex Discrimination Act was passed and it is very disappointing that we still need to introduce more legislation to try to enforce it. I appreciate that today we are talking not only about sex discrimination but about five other strands and indeed the general issue of discrimination. I welcome that, but one would have thought that we might have made more progress than we have in 30 years. However, I do not support the campaign for equality only because it is altruistically correct, which it undoubtedly is. It is also economically imperative.

I was struck by something that the Minister said last week. I do not think that she repeated it this afternoon, so let me repeat it for her. Unusually, I am quoting her and agreeing with her. She made an extremely important point:

"Maximising women's skills in the economy could bring economic benefits worth up to 3 per cent. of GDP, which equates to the total value of UK exports to Germany"—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 10 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 192WH.]

That is an enormous amount. At the moment, our GDP is failing by that 3 per cent. because women are not working to the full extent of their abilities. If that is the case as far as women are concerned, there can be no doubt that a similar proportion of people from ethnic minorities, gay people, older people, younger people and disabled people are contributing far less to the economy and to society than they might if only we protected them and gave them the opportunities they need.

We as a country are missing out economically as well as socially because we do not encourage all our citizens to contribute to their highest potential. That is shameful. Therefore, we should support the Bill today not just because it is altruistically correct and equality is a good thing, but because it is an economic imperative. The suffragists would not have succeeded had it not been for the changing economic circumstances after the first world war.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Suffragettes.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

No, I do not mean suffragettes; I mean the suffragists. They would not have succeeded had it not been for the changing economic circumstances after the first world war. Equality legislation will not succeed now unless it is recognised that there is a good economic case for its success, which there is.

I hope that today's debate will open a few eyes and that the Minister will seriously consider those four concerns as the Bill progresses: costs, burdens on business, unwarranted interference in everyday lives and overplayed and unnecessary political correctness. I will raise them again in Committee.

Equality is a bit of a misnomer for what we are considering today, or at least it is shorthand for a much wider issue. We all want to see equality of opportunity for everyone, but the essence of a free society is that people are not equal because each individual is different from every other individual, and we much respect that diversity.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

rose—

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I want to finish, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.

I want to see every person in Britain today being encouraged, first, to use his or her talents and abilities to the very limit of their potential; and, secondly, being allowed to live their own lives as they wish, while respecting the right of every other citizen so to do. In trying to achieve equality, we have no wish to make everyone the same, but simply to allow everyone to be different and to encourage, understand and support that diversity. I would say that that is not much to ask of a decent and civilised society.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who spoke from the Conservative Front Bench, and, as I often do in such debates, I wish her well in dealing with her recalcitrant Back-Bench colleagues. It is good to know that at least some parts of the Conservative party understand the importance of the anti-discrimination agenda. Unfortunately, not all Conservative Members believe that discrimination is wrong and their behaviour at the start of the debate was extraordinary. That saddened me, as I had thought that progress had been made when we last debated the Second Reading of this very Bill in the dying days of the previous Parliament. On that occasion, the chorus of, how shall I call it, antediluvian chuntering and reactionary chatter on the Conservative Back Benches was absent, and it is a great pity that that element has turned up today.

Conservative Front Benchers should be supported in their attempts to change the views of their Back-Bench colleagues, but on the basis of today's evidence, the hon. Member for Epping Forest has a long way to go. I wish her well—[Interruption.] She supports the Bill and Labour Members welcome that. That said, she wants to starve the new commission for equality and human rights of the funds necessary for it to do its job properly, especially in respect of establishing new strands of work to enshrine equality in terms of human rights, age, sexual orientation and religious belief. That task would be a challenge for any new body and I certainly believe that the suggested funding allocation is the minimum necessary to ensure that the single commission gets off to a good start.

The Bill is most welcome and it has improved since its introduction in the dying days of the last Parliament—not only as a result of events in the other place, but when the Government realised that they could extend the scope of the Bill in certain necessary respects. The Bill sets up a new commission for equality and human rights to take forward equality work and enforce those new rights.

It is argued that extending equality protection to the majority of citizens in this country somehow sets the scene for us all to be the same, but the Bill is about protecting people from the adverse effects of overt discrimination and extending those rights from the three strands covered by the previous Labour Government to include two new strands. That is to be welcomed. It is not about uniformity or creating some false equality. It is about giving positive protection to sections of our citizenry who have never been afforded it and who have faced overt discrimination day-in, day-out of a type that has been outlawed in terms of other groups of people. Two obvious examples of that are, first, the extension of protection against discrimination in the supply of goods and services to people on grounds of their religious belief and, secondly, in respect of sexual orientation. The latter category was included as a result of the Government's decision in the other place.

In reality, that means something very simple: once this legislation is enacted, it will be illegal for people to be denied a hotel room, or access to a service such as hiring a car, simply on the grounds of their religious belief or sexual orientation. That has surely got to be right, and I do not see how any Member of this House could possibly object to it.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Well, an objection might be about to be made.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I entirely agree with the provision, as the hon. Lady has just enunciated it. What I do not understand is why it is included in the Bill in respect of religion, but is to be achieved by order-making power in respect of sexual orientation. I regard that as wholly unacceptable.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

This legislation is a welcome patch job, which will be put right by the single equality Bill, which I hope will be introduced soon and will add goods and services protection across legislation more coherently than at present.

The hon. Gentleman will know if he reads his history that current equality legislation is a patchwork of provisions that has been created piecemeal over the years. That is why we need the process of consolidation and entrenchment that the single equality Bill will give us when it is finally enacted. Protections will then be enshrined in legislation, as they should be. However, I welcome the decision to protect immediately against discrimination access to goods and services on the grounds of sexual orientation, as otherwise it could take two years or more for such protection to be offered. This measure is entirely appropriate in the circumstances.

Sadiq Khan (Labour, Tooting)

Is not one of the reasons for urgency in this regard the outrageous behaviour of Tory Bromley borough council, which is depriving its citizens of the right to celebrate civil partnerships? Is that not one reason why the Government have done the right thing by bringing this provision forward now, rather than by waiting for the single equality Bill?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I agree, and there are many other examples of gay people being blatantly denied access to goods and services that others take for granted. It is right that this House takes a stand, and puts a stop to that.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) has made a perfectly fair point about Bromley borough council and I agree that its attitude is to be deplored. However, to ensure that we maximise cross-party agreement, can I make the fair point that, by contrast, Kensington and Chelsea borough council has done the decent thing?

In respect of taking this matter forward, does the hon. Lady agree that, in terms of exemptions, people should not be able to use the possession of religious belief as a cloak behind which to continue their practice of prejudice?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I certainly agree, and I am more than happy to have cross-party consensus, at least with the hon. Gentleman, on this issue. However, perhaps he should talk to the hon. Member for Epping Forest. In what was otherwise a good speech, she said something that worried me a bit; when she was talking about political correctness, she said that she supported goods and services protection on the grounds of sexual orientation, but with exemptions. She did not specify the circumstances in which she thought that exemptions from that protection would be acceptable. That is clearly an issue for debate in Committee, but I would be interested to know what she thinks they are.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I am sure that we will consider this matter at length in Committee. However, let me explain the exemption I have in mind: a small hotel with two or three rooms should not be treated in the same way in legislation as a large central London hotel with 100 rooms that is part of a hotel group. In forming legislation, we must respect those upon whom a duty lies, as well as those to whom rights are given.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I am sorry to hear the hon. Lady say that. I do not see why there should be an exemption in that case. It is hard when people are refused a hotel room simply for being a gay couple, when it is currently illegal for an ethnic minority couple to be refused a hotel room. I am sad to hear the hon. Lady's comments and I do not agree with her.

Today, Labour Members should celebrate our record on equality, not only in this Government but going back many years. On a day such as this, I think of our women pioneers.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Quickly.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

Following the point made earlier, if one forces somebody to do something that is entirely against his or her principles is not that making another victim? Is not outlawing victimisation what we are really about today?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

That is an issue for Committee, but it is currently not legal to deny somebody a hotel room because they are black. We have just commemorated with sadness the passing of Rosa Parks who demonstrated that principle powerfully. I do not see why similar provisions should not apply on the grounds of sexual orientation. It is a simple matter of human rights.

I wanted to recall the Labour pioneers who did so much to bring us to this point. In political life, we rise on the shoulders of our pioneers. I think of women such as Ellen Wilkinson, otherwise known as Red Ellen or the Mighty Atom, who led the Jarrow march and was the first woman trade union official to battle for equal pay in the 1920s. When she came into the House she showed many people what a fantastic Member of Parliament she was. She worked in this sphere long before we were born.

I think of Jo Richardson, our first shadow women's Minister when we were ridiculed for even thinking that there should be such a post. She did much work in opposition to prepare the way for the agenda of change that we brought naturally to government. I think of Barbara Castle, whose Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Equal Pay Act 1970 paved the way and showed the future, bringing us the most enlightened protection against discrimination in Europe in the 1970s.

That legislation has stood the test of time but it needs amending to become more effective so that we can move on. The gender pay gap has been cut from 31 per cent. in the 1970s to 18 per cent. That is still too high, but it is nevertheless an improvement. We need to remould our anti-discrimination and protection laws, and the Bill paves the way for us so to do by introducing preventive measures in the duty to promote gender equality. I should like those provisions extended to the private sector where the problem is much worse than in the public sector. When we look at the pay gap on a sectoral basis we find that it is 60 per cent. in the financial services industry, but less than 10 per cent. in the national health service. We need to consider how to address the problem of both the gender pay gap and the race pay gap, so that we can prevent discrimination rather than compensating people after they have suffered discrimination. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for women and equality is engaged on that work and she follows a long line of doughty, famous women whom Labour hold in great respect.

Many of us attended Mo Mowlam's memorial last night. She put women and equality at the centre of achieving and solving the problems of that difficult place, Northern Ireland. We can learn many lessons from the way that anti-discrimination legislation was developed in Northern Ireland, which have resonance in this country. I think of all those women as I congratulate the Government on making the progress that we see today.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

In the hon. Lady's list of female pioneers in Parliament, has not she forgotten the outstanding achievement of Britain's first female Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher? She did a far better job than any of the men could have done at the time.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I have a great deal of respect for Lady Thatcher, but I fear I cannot include her in my list as she did little for women's equality, except for leading by example—I give her that. In the 18 years that the Conservatives were in power, our anti-discrimination legislation was weakened and ignored and no progress was made. A Labour Government set up anti-discrimination legislation in the 1970s and we had to wait for the return of a Labour Government to take it forward.

As we see, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who sits on the Conservative Front Bench, has a difficult job persuading some of her recalcitrant Back Benchers that they should even support the Bill. However, she does have a handbag and I wish her luck. Perhaps she needs to put a couple of bricks in it to persuade them of the way forward.

The Bill includes a public duty to promote gender equality, which will help to tackle the issues today, the 30th anniversary year of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. That duty will help us to deal with the pay gap problem. Women working full-time still earn, on average, 18 per cent. less than men, so a woman earns 82p for every £1 that a man earns. That is considerably better than in the 1970s; but, clearly, we need to reform and remould our protective legislation to go the extra mile and close that gap still further.

The position of women who work part-time is particularly difficult because, on average, they earn 41 per cent. less than full-time male workers. As many Labour Members who have been campaigning on pensions know, only 15 per cent. of women currently qualify for the basic state pension in their own right, essentially because of the way that the pension system has been moulded—by Beveridge, originally—on a single male earner model, which simply does not reflect the shape of society or the working lives of many women.

The pay gap for ethnic minorities is extremely similar. It is clear that we are dealing with institutionalised discrimination. I do not mean, however, that loads of people want deliberately to discriminate against different groups in our society, although there are some such people, and they need to be dealt with harshly.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

No. I am sorry, but there is a time limit, and I have very little time left. The hon. Gentleman will have to make his own speech.

The important thing is that we can close the pay gap by providing protection for those who are discriminated against. The positive duty to promote gender equality is extremely important, and it is obvious that that requirement will need to be extended. I am looking forward to the outcome of the findings of the women and work commission because I want to see what it says about pay audits and to find out how we can close the pay gap. We need compulsory pay audits and pay plans to ensure that we can end pay discrimination systematically over a period.

The Low Pay Commission should be given a specific remit to narrow the gender pay gap as part of its deliberations on the national minimum wage. I would support more training and development opportunities, particularly for women who work part-time. We should simplify our equal pay legislation so that it is more user-friendly. I welcome the Bill as the starter to the main course that will put the final legal structure in place—the single equality Act that is yet to come. Such an Act would deal with some of the problems of our existing anti-discrimination law, which is complex, piecemeal, sometimes mutually inconsistent, under-inclusive and needs updating.

In total, 30 Acts of Parliament, 11 codes of practice, 38 statutory instruments and 12 EU directives have a bearing on our anti-discrimination legislation. With the best will in the world and with the best employers and employees in the world, it is difficult to untangle the plate of spaghetti that that leaves. We need to ensure that we simplify, so that those who want to ensure that they do not discriminate can follow the law more easily.

I look forward to the single equality Bill and to my hon. Friend the Minister publishing the results of discrimination law review. I should like all strands of our anti-discrimination legislation to be consolidated to make it more proactive, more preventive, more effective and simpler for everyone to understand. I look forward to speaking on the Second Reading of the yet to be announced single equality Bill, which is a manifesto commitment, and welcoming it as the final piece in the jigsaw that will ensure that everyone has the right to protection from discrimination simply on the grounds of skin colour, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, age or disability. We can then be proud of what the Labour Government have done, following in the footsteps of our great pioneers, such as Barbara Castle. I look forward to that time. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on introducing the Bill. I wish it a safe and speedy passage.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

Liberal Democrat Members welcome the Bill, although that is not to say that it is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. It was improved during its passage through the other place, and we will work together in Committee to improve it further.

A strengthened human rights remit is probably the way to tackle the problems of prejudice and discrimination generally. We have the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission, but with the three new strands, it is important that the approach to the problem becomes unified. We need a bottom-up approach, rather than a which-bit-of-legislation-can-we-use-now approach, because that will be the only way of tackling the common problem of multiple, or cross-strand, discrimination.

The Fawcett Society produced a report in January called "Powerless, poor and passed over", which examined the experiences of black and minority ethnic women. It shows that the experiences of those women are often overlooked because studies focus on either race or gender, but not both. It highlighted the lack of data on gender and ethnicity combined.

The report also found that women experiencing domestic violence often had to contact agencies 11 times before they received the help that they needed, but black and minority ethnic women had to contact agencies an average of 17 times. If we are talking about the pay gap, women of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin earned 56 per cent. of the average salary of a white man. There are clearly many problems that must be tackled.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

The hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) made some excellent points by referencing statistics from the Fawcett Society. It is important to examine the pace of change of the disparity between what women and men are paid. The pay gap between full-time workers has moved by just 0.6 per cent. over the past year to 17.2 per cent.—I think that my figures are slightly more updated—and the gap between female and male part-time workers has moved by just 1.1 per cent. to 38.5 per cent. Given that rate of change, it will take 80 years, or even a century, for women to catch up with men. The point that I would like to make is—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

Those of us who are regular attendees at questions to the Minister for Women and Equality are well aware of the statistics cited by the hon. Gentleman. Although the full-time pay gap has narrowed since the introduction of the Equal Pay Act 1970, the big problem that must be addressed is the fact that the part-time pay gap has narrowed little.

I welcome the Government's attitude towards the Bill and the spirit in which they have worked with all the stakeholders and agencies involved. Talking to people in preparation for the debate has been illuminating because most of the organisations seem fairly happy with what has been achieved so far. That makes it a challenge for Opposition Members to come up with major points of difference—[Interruption.] There are always some luddites in the House who do not want any change, but the Front Benches of all three parties are as one on the Bill. I hope that that spirit is allowed to prevail in Committee.

It is worth paying tribute to some of the changes that the Government allowed during the passage of the Bill through the other place. They accepted an amendment to outlaw discrimination in goods, facilities and services on the grounds of sexual orientation, and that is very welcome. However, the issue of transgender people has been raised today, and it seems inappropriate to kick that into the long grass. It would be more useful to address that during the passage of the Bill.

The Lords also improved the Bill so that the elimination of harassment is included in the gender duty. However, the Equal Opportunities Commission has raised concern that the interpretation of harassment is worryingly narrow and will leave some without protection under the law. An example of a woman working in a local authority leisure centre who is harassed by a customer has been cited. Her employer clearly has a role to play in doing all it can to prevent and deal with such a problem, but even under the proposed harassment provisions the woman would have no grounds to challenge her employer if she felt that it could have done more to prevent or deal with harassment unless she could prove that the employer would have treated a similar complaint from a male member of staff more favourably or show that it would have taken different action in similar circumstances. It seems an unintended consequence of the Bill that an employer could therefore fail in equal measure to protect its male and female staff but not be held to account for doing so. That clearly needs to be addressed further in Committee.

Provisions in section 73 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 were missing from the draft Bill, but that has been partially addressed. That power allowed the Equal Opportunities Commission to tackle persistent discrimination, but there is still some way to go, because the Bill has been amended to give the commission for equality and human rights the power to apply for an injunction if it thinks that discrimination is likely to take place. That sounds positive, but in previous cases an early court or tribunal ruling would have been made. The tribunals in particular have built up great expertise in such cases, so by limiting the power to the courts, expertise and familiarity with discrimination law currently found in tribunals could be lost. Will the Minister confirm when she sums up that additional support and training will be provided to the courts that might have to become involved in such decisions? There are also some concerns—I am not sure whether we can be reassured on this today—that discrimination cases could be less successful in the courts.

I very much welcome the fact that the Secretary of State's direction-making powers have been removed, because many stakeholders feel that that has reasserted the independence of the CEHR from Government interference, and that can only be welcome. However, all is not rosy. Some concerns have been raised and it is worth running through them, because they will form the basis of discussion in Committee.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Just before the hon. Lady goes on to those important budgetary issues, she will doubtless agree with me that two of the main contributory factors to the pay gap are straightforward discrimination on the one hand and occupational segregation on the other. Given the growth of market testing and competitive tendering—a phenomenon which I warmly welcome—does she agree that it is important for the Government to ensure not only that their own house is in order but that they have satisfied themselves that contractors with which they deal adopt such practices?

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point to which I will return. There is an educational element to gender segregation which is not covered in the Bill.

I turn to the budgetary implications. The existing budget is approximately £50 million and the new one is estimated to be £70 million. It is very difficult for us in this place to comment on whether that is the right amount. It has been interesting to hear the comments of Conservatives; every single agency that I spoke to insisted that a lot more money was needed.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I want to finish my point. It would be helpful if the Government published a breakdown of how the costs were arrived at, so that Members who want to deal with the arguments made by organisations such as the Commission for Racial Equality can reach an informed opinion about, and decision on, what is a realistic level.

Concern has also been expressed about the existing agencies' input into the new body. A particular worry is how the CRE's input will be managed, bearing it in mind that it will come on board later on. While researching for this debate I discovered the alarming fact that the three main equality bodies have different pay rates. Indeed, I was somewhat horrified to find out that the EOC has the lowest pay rate, which seems perverse. It would be helpful if the Minister gave guidance on how that issue will be resolved.

Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)

Is not that difference down to the location of the different commissions' offices? Does not the hon. Lady accept that most London workers receive a London premium?

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

That point can be taken into account only to an extent. The EOC is in Manchester, but so, I believe, is the Disability Rights Commission. The CRE is based in London, but that does not account for the entire anomaly.

There are also concerns—they have been hinted at today—about the location of the new commission. The current commissions are split between Manchester and London, with some small regional variations. Because London has the highest ethnic minority population, much of the expertise that has been built up is London-based, and the CRE is concerned that people will not necessarily want to relocate. It would be helpful if the Minister gave some hint as to whether that problem will be dealt with.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The CRE is based in my constituency, which is very welcome, but it is very important that the new commission is not seen as a metropolitan organisation that is close only to those close to the levers of power. Of course there should be a London presence, but the commission should be equally accessible to the rest of the country.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as always. The key is achieving a balance between retaining existing expertise, and ensuring that other areas of the country are not disadvantaged.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

Is the hon. Lady aware that there is an EOC, a DRC and a CRE in Cardiff, in Wales? She omitted to mention that point.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I am aware of that, but given that such responsibilities are partially devolved, and that I have limited time, I did not want to go too far down the road of considering the complete geographical picture of the United Kingdom.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I want to make a little progress.

Another idea, which has been discussed by a number of people, is having a decision-making committee for each equality. I am not greatly supportive of that idea. As I said earlier, many discrimination cases have multiple strands. I would almost prefer the opposite to that idea, and that some reassurance be given that we will not move to a bureaucratic, council-type structure with sub-committees for each specialty. The real way to tackle the problem is a rights-based approach, as I said earlier. The Mayor of London is a keen supporter of the proposals, but they run counter to that approach, so I do not agree with him. The CRE has expressed concern about grants for local race equality work, so it would be helpful if the Minister explained how that provision will be managed during and after the transition. Understandably, the CBI has said that it does not want further enforcement powers.

Age discrimination has received less attention than other strands in the Bill. Three deficiencies in particular give rise to concern. First, we have missed the opportunity to impose a ban on age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services. It would be useful to harmonise practice across the strands, as older people face discrimination in the provision of goods and services in insurance, social care, housing and hospital treatment. We need to level up protection for all groups rather than leave a hierarchy of discrimination in the Bill. Secondly, we should impose a positive duty on public bodies to promote age equality. Thirdly, a loophole in the legislation means that older people who receive care from private or voluntary sector organisations are not protected by the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government committed themselves to seek a test case to overturn the Leonard Cheshire judgment, but such a case has not yet been brought. I am not sure whether that is due to lack of opportunity or to lack of will, but the Government have undertaken to consider the issue as part of the discrimination law review. One of our overriding concerns is that positive proposals to even out inequalities across the strands appear to be kicked into the long grass with the promise of a further review or further legislation. We welcome what the Government have done, but sometimes they could do more.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has expressed concern about local authority contracts and their basis in human rights. However, older people who make their own private arrangements with a care home will not be covered by the legislation. That needs to be addressed if we are to protect all the vulnerable people in our society. Discrimination against older people is much more hidden than discrimination against other groups. However, there are numerous cases in which the treatment of older people demonstrates a complete disregard for their human rights, which is another strong argument for the rights-based approach. Those cases include residents of a home being fed breakfast while seated on the toilet; the death of older women from dehydration; and care home residents not being given their weekly personal expenses. The list is endless, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) may seek to develop that argument.

Will the Government make a commitment to act so that we can ensure that today's recipients of social care, both in care homes and in their own homes, have the rights to which they are entitled? Older and disabled people whose right to life, dignity and freedom from degrading treatment are most at risk are in reality the least protected.

We also have concerns about gender duty. The Bill places a general duty on public bodies to pay due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote equality between women and men. Can the Minister confirm that that will require public sector bodies, including councils, to take action to address the causes of the gender pay gap, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members? To what extent will public bodies be able to take appropriate action when contracting with the private sector? There is an increasing tendency under the Government to contract out to the private sector, to which I do not necessarily object, but there must be the same safeguards in place and the same level playing field as when only the public sector is involved.

The present proposals mean that education institutions are not covered by gender equality-specific duties, which is inconsistent with the way in which disability and race equality has been promoted in the sector. Concern has been expressed that as the measure is currently worded, there is a risk that the private functions of public bodies also may not be covered by the duty. That raises the question whether the Bill will have the desired impact. Such matters can usefully be raised in Committee.

The Commission for Racial Equality has expressed concern that the CEHR will not be under a duty to consider applications for assistance as currently provided for in section 66 of the Race Relations Act 1976. The removal of that duty represents the removal of a right, and no replacement arrangements have been made. The CRE is the primary source of funding for race discrimination cases, particularly tribunals, but funding is not the only issue. The CRE argues strongly that the knowledge and expertise that it builds up through its pre-litigation advice work gives it a greater awareness of the problems of discrimination and helps it come up with solutions.

The Minister mentioned earlier that she did not consider it useful to include explicit provision for children. On Second Reading in the other place Baroness Ashton, the Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, suggested that the Minister responsible for the Bill in the Commons should meet various Baronesses to consider how children might be explicitly included. Have such meetings occurred? Is it as a result of those meetings that the Minister has decided that there will be no explicit mention of children? When the Minister sums up, will she elaborate on the point?

In conclusion, the Bill is welcome. It is a shame that we have not had a single equality Act sooner. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have long campaigned for that, and we welcome the possibility of building a culture of human rights across public services. I have urged that we should not kick too much into the long grass of the equalities review and the discrimination law review. Those must not be allowed to be used as a cop-out. Ultimately, if we can complete the passage of the Bill with few anomalies between the various strands and less of a hierarchy of discrimination, we will have achieved a worthwhile outcome.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

Like every other speaker, I welcome the Bill. I echo the sentiments expressed by some of my hon. Friends about the proud record of Labour in government on anti-discrimination legislation. The Bill is a logical progression. It offers a point of reference and a facility to challenge multi-strand discrimination. The commission will become a champion of people's rights. I welcome the fact that the commission's remit is significantly extended. I am always loth to repeat what other Members have said in the Chamber. The fact that their comments on the Bill have been so positive is sufficient. Obviously, I want to see the introduction of the single equality Bill sooner rather than later, because it makes sense to tie all the anti-discrimination legislation into a legal framework.

I am interested in all aspects of the Bill, but this afternoon I shall discuss the provisions relating to disability in general and autistic spectrum disorder or autism in particular. I chair the all-party group on autism, so I take a particular interest in the matter, and I seek an assurance from the Minister that disability discrimination will not be overshadowed by the other strands. I am also concerned that autism is not lost within the concept of disability.

I followed the Bill's passage through the other place with interest and was extremely pleased that their lordships made some amendments on disability. In the Bill as drafted, disability discrimination and the disabled group were excluded from a general provision on good community relations, which was amended in another place. In the first instance, the disability group was not seen as a community, which was an interesting take on that particular group, but the issue has been resolved.

The Bill initially proposed that the transition disability commissioner should have a shorter term of office than either the commissioner for equal opportunities or the commissioner for racial equality, but it has now been agreed that parity will be the order of the day.

Lord Rix raised the absence of a simplified version of the Bill, which should have been produced. I understand that a simplified version of the White Paper was produced, but it was published much later than the full version. I accept that the matter is probably due to an oversight on the part of the Government, but it is extremely important, given that disability is one of the major strands. People with disabilities should have access to the legislation that we are considering on their behalf.

The disability strand is unique, because the disability committee will be retained for at least five years with delegated powers and a sufficient share of resources to exercise those powers, which is vital to disabled people's confidence.

The noble Lords also raised the importance of retaining both the learning disabilities action group and the mental health group within the current Disability Rights Commission. Although that is not possible, Baroness Ashton of Upholland suggested that the disability commissioner should pay particular attention to those groups.

As far as I can see, no Member of the House of Lords mentioned the disability of autism. The DRC has just set up a neurodiversity autistic spectrum advice and action group—a mouthful. It has been set up very late, but is nevertheless welcome. Nobody argued for it to be included in, or at least listened to by, the new commission.

People with ASDs are not physically disabled and often do not look as though they have a disability. The condition is a developmental disability characterised by an inability or impairment in communication, socialisation and imagination. There is no cure. Some of those affected have learning disabilities and some have mental health problems, but they often fall into the gap between the two in relation to support services. Given that an estimated 500,000 people have an ASD, it must be treated as a significant and common disability with clear implications for mainstream policy and practice. It is now an exemplar in the disabled children's national service framework. Diagnosis in the young is better than it was, and support for children in pre-school and statutory education is improving.

However, we have an awfully long way to go to catch up in terms of the transition stage, supported living, employment, and support for carers. Seventy per cent. of carers of children with autism said that they were prevented from returning to work by a lack of appropriate care facilities. Seventy-two per cent. of schools are not satisfied with their teachers' training in autism, and only 6 per cent. of people with an ASD and 12 per cent. of those with high-functioning autism and Asperger's syndrome have full-time paid jobs. According to a report by the National Autistic Society, 40 per cent. of carers were dissatisfied with the support that the person whom they care for received from social services.

The strand of disability must have recognised within it the specific strand of ASD—a significant and prevalent disability. On Second Reading in the other place, Lord Rix said:

"I have an overriding concern that the lives of disabled people . . . will be made better by the creation of a Commission for Equality and Human Rights. The new Commission must be even more effective than the Disability Rights Commission is now, transforming the current inequalities into improved life chances".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2005; Vol. 672, c. 1246.]

He was specifically concerned about those with learning disabilities and mental and physical disabilities. So am I. I need reassurance that people with disabilities will not be marginalised in a much bigger commission, and that those with ASDs will not be marginalised either.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

It is always an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), who brings a particular expertise and a great deal of passion to the debate.

I wish to confine myself in the main to part 2 of the Bill. The definition of religion in clause 43 states that

"a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion, and . . . a reference to belief includes a reference to lack of belief."

So all those who thought that they had no religion, or had explicitly decided to have no religion, are caught by the provisions of the Bill—they count as though they have a religion and will be treated as such. That might lend some scope to mischief-makers. Indeed, it might give some offence to those who take a position of believing in no God.

Religion is different from the other strands in the Bill. It differs from disability, race and sex because, by and large, in a free society, we still choose to adhere to a particular religion.

Although some people might find it profoundly shocking, most adherents of a religion believe it to be true. By and large, they do not treat life as a supermarket where one can choose any number of breakfast cereals from the shelves and find that they amount to the same thing. Most—not all—adherents of a religion believe passionately that their religion is true and that, of necessity, casts an aspersion on other religions. Indeed, the first commandment is:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Our Lord said that he would be followed by false prophets and that we were not to treat them with respect or tolerance but to judge them. That does not lend itself to the general principle that is set out in clause 44.

Clause 44(1) states:

"A person ("A") discriminates against another ("B") for the purposes of this Part if on grounds of the religion or belief of B . . . A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat others".

That is a wide and dangerous principle to apply to religion. Religions rub together pretty well in this country, but introducing such a wide-ranging principle is dangerous. The danger relates to the zealot or the mischief maker and the provision could cause more harm than good.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Where does the hon. Gentleman's rather Old Testament view of religion leave the scope for ecumenical co-operation, of which the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury are great exponents?

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

The hon. Lady puts her finger exactly on the point. Religions are working together and rubbing along well without the Bill. Intruding with legislation provides scope for mischief and for zealots.

The Bill's principle is so broad that the remaining clauses of part 2 properly take every aspect of what one would normally understand to be religious practice and experience out of the measure's scope. So despite its size, clause 44 applies only to a narrow provision of goods and services. That is proper, but I am worried about the structure of the Bill because so many of the exemptions are potentially only temporary.

For example, clause 49 properly removes educational establishments from the scope of the Bill. Otherwise, it would be permissible for an evangelical Christian to demand access to a madrassa. I suggest that that would be done only to make mischief. Nevertheless, why is that proper exemption fatally weakened by clause 49(3)(a), which gives the Secretary of State the power to "amend or repeal" the provision? I do not believe that it is acceptable for a self-respecting legislature to give the Secretary of State the power to undermine a provision. That is nonsense and I hope that those who serve on the Committee will strike out the paragraph.

Clause 63 is a Henry VIII clause that gives the Secretary of State the power to amend any exemption in part 2. Again, that is unacceptable given the sensitivity of the matter and the need for the exemptions.

I have several questions that I hope will be tackled in the winding-up speech or at least in subsequent correspondence. Clause 44(3)(b) states:

"A person . . . discriminates against another . . . for the purposes of this Part if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice . . . which puts persons of B's religion or belief at a disadvantage compared to some or all others".

Has the Minister taken any constitutional advice, given that clause 77 binds the Crown, on whether such a general principle is compatible with the coronation oath?

What is the meaning of clause 45(5), which states:

"For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether or not a person charges for the provision of goods, facilities or services"?

I am sure that it cannot be the case, but the provision appears to suggest that, if I, as the provider of gardening services, for example, were to mow the lawns of the church of my own denomination for free, I would also be required to provide the same service to the local mosque. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain whether that is the case.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I appreciate that clause 44(3)(b) might be incompatible with the coronation oath. I am not certain about that, as I am not a lawyer—I say that with some pride—but if it were, may I suggest to my hon. Friend that a constructive way forward would be for him to join me in a campaign for the disestablishment of the Church of England?

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I shall have to disappoint my hon. Friend; I shall not be following him down that route. As in so many other areas of public policy, I disagree with him profoundly on that issue.

Clauses 46 and 47 deal with premises, and I would like the Minister to explain the difference in principle between taking a lodger and running a bed and breakfast. My reading of the provisions and the exemptions is that those who take in lodgers would be exempt from the provisions of the Bill—that is, they could discriminate on the ground of religion—while those who run bed-and-breakfast establishments would not be exempt. That might not be the case; these provisions are certainly ambiguous. Religious organisations have made representations to me on that basis, however, complaining that they would not want Satanists in their bed-and-breakfast establishments. For my own part, I should have thought that taking an adherent of another religion into one's house would present an opportunity for evangelisation. That would now be entirely appropriate given that the Minister has said that the provisions on harassment are not to be reintroduced in the Bill, which is most welcome.

Clause 59 deals with religious charities. Will the Minister tell me the significance of 18 May 2005?

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

It is my birthday.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I congratulate my hon. Friend; he is looking very well on it.

Why is it that, prior to that date, membership of a religious charity can be confined lawfully on the basis of adherence to a particular religion, whereas that is not the case thereafter? What is the Minister saying about religious charities? Why should no such charities be able to discriminate in respect of their membership on the ground of religion in the future, if they were able to do so in the past?

We are already aware of the politically correct march towards an increasingly barmy Britain. Every day we see in the papers examples of organisations refusing to use the term "BC", or "before Christ", and substituting "BP", meaning "before the present". We see examples of Christmas lights having to be called "celebrity lights", of councils wanting to refer to Christmas as "the workers' winter festival", and of libraries refusing to advertise the local nativity play. The most worrying example relates to social partnerships. We hear of religious organisations that undertake a social function and are paid accordingly to provide services such as a hostel or a soup run, being bullied with regard to the religious aspects of their organisations. We have the absurdity of an organisation providing a hostel being told that if it continues to say grace before meals, its public funding will be withdrawn. The perfectly proper concern of those of us who are worried about such developments is that part 2 of the Bill, in designating such organisations as public bodies, will provide an increasingly whip hand to the zealots who wish to see these developments march forward, or indeed just to the timid in local authorities who want to avoid litigation of any kind. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) was right when he said earlier in our proceedings that there is a very great danger that we will become free from religion rather than free to practise religion.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

The absurd examples quoted by my hon. Friend are already happening. Could we not express the hope that during the Bill's passage the Minister will make it plain that she thinks that they are absurd, and that if the commission should be so stupid as to seek to endorse such bizarre practices, it would be acting unconstitutionally? I hope that by raising these matters and giving the Minister the opportunity to say how silly they are, we might have a rather better state of things in the future than we have at the moment.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

My hon. Friend is quite right. One of the advantages of Pepper v. Hart is that the Minister will be able to reassure the Committee on any number of such issues, and I hope that she will take the opportunity to do so. I notice that the Government sought to amend the harassment provisions that were originally in the Bill and achieved an amendment that prevented religious symbols from being taken out of hospitals and other such institutions. That was a positive development, albeit that it was obviated by the removal of the entire clause.

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

We seem to have strayed again into the territory of political correctness. Labour Members are interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman has a definition of political correctness, which the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) was unable to give us earlier.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

The examples that I have given are eloquent testimony to what I mean and what is commonly understood by political correctness.

Part 3 of the Bill is completely unacceptable, although I accept entirely the thrust of its intention. I do not believe that people should be discriminated against at all in the provision of goods and services in respect of their sexual orientation. But to achieve that by an order-making power is quite unacceptable. There are some 36 clauses dealing with and constraining that power with respect to religious discrimination. To provide one clause and say that the Minister shall have power by regulation to make all those measures available on the basis of sexual orientation is for us, as a self-respecting legislature, simply to abandon our proper responsibility for the legislative process.

This will be a controversial issue, not least because, for so many religions, sexual orientation itself provides some difficulty. It is therefore nonsense simply to hand over the power to the Minister to make the law, without parliamentary scrutiny, the importance of which we have seen in regard to religious matters. It is also nonsense because the Minister quite rightly came to the Dispatch Box and explained why she would not seek to return the Bill to the status quo ante in respect of religious harassment. She properly set out the reasons for which it was judged to be too sensitive to proceed, explaining that more consultation was required. All those arguments apply to harassment and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Yet, owing to a single phrase in clause 80—with all its implications for sexual orientation—the issue will be dealt with entirely by the Secretary of State, without the benefit of parliamentary scrutiny. That is unacceptable in any institution that continues to call itself a Parliament.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

I take a slightly different view from the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). He is right to say that it is unfortunate that protection against discrimination in terms of goods and services was introduced as an enabling power rather than being set out fully, as is religious and faith discrimination in part 2. Part 3 should have been equally comprehensive. Nevertheless, it is better to have a provision to deal with discrimination in regard to goods and services on grounds of sexual orientation than to have no such provision, which is what was on offer.

I congratulate the Government on having listened to what was said in the House of Lords, which is where the Bill started out with no reference to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. In an equality Bill, that was a grave omission, and I am very glad that that vital correction has been made. It will be appreciated by thousands of my constituents, and it represents almost the last step taken over the past eight years towards fulfilling the political agenda of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community—the removal of elements of discrimination from our law. That began with the repeal of section 28—an example of pure homophobia left to us by the last Government—and continued with equalisation of the age of consent, access to the armed forces for gays and lesbians and the Civil Partnership Act 2004. Now the Government have dealt with goods and services, the one outstanding area of discrimination and prejudice.

One issue is still to be dealt with, but the Bill is not the right vehicle. We need to deal with homophobia, and incitement to hatred on the basis of sexual orientation. I am glad that we are not faced with that complication, because it is difficult enough for us to deal with incitement to religious hatred. We need to get that straight before we approach the subject of homophobia.

Let me return to what was said by the hon. Member for New Forest, West. I agree with him that we must be careful to avoid an internal inequality. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the orders for which part 3 provides will be no less rigorous than part 3 itself, and that they will be implemented at the same time as part 2. Otherwise, there would be discrimination. It worries me slightly that the Bill contains no commencement date, and I hope that the Minister will give us some idea of the Government's thinking. The Bill is, after all, an interim measure pending a single equalities Bill that will have all the bells and whistles and will represent legislative perfection. Until that Bill is before us, we need protection on the statute book, and we need it as quickly as possible.

Having listened to the hon. Member for New Forest, West, I am sure that there will be a desire for many exceptions in some quarters, especially faith-based organisations. That is to be expected. I agree with Stonewall, however, that there is no case for any exemptions under part 3.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it sticks in the throat of some Conservative Members when the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends say that there should be no exceptions in measures such as this? His party made a clear exception when it excluded one sex from shortlists for parliamentary seats. It strikes some of us that the Labour party is very keen to allow exceptions from gender discrimination provisions in the selection of candidates, but does not want to allow anyone else any exceptions.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Labour party's practice in regard to all-women shortlists is a measure of positive discrimination. It is not discrimination against men. We still have far more men than women in the parliamentary Labour party, and our ideal is equal numbers. I am sorry, but I do not buy that objection.

Jim Devine (Labour, Livingston)

Nor do the electorate.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

Indeed.

Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent South)

Is it not a well-known fact that the public would like Parliament to be more representative of society as a whole? Surely the Labour party is to be congratulated on trying to ensure, through all-women shortlists, that we have more equality on this side of the House.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

My hon. Friend is right—but, as a Labour Member, I would say that.

I see no justification for any significant exemptions under part 3. I hope the Minister will assure us that, if there are any, they will be extremely limited. There is a risk that if we allow too many, protection against discrimination will be undermined.

The Bill performs a useful function. We have seen a sea change, a cultural change, since the war, especially in regard to sexual orientation. It has been refreshing to see, over the past year or so, a similar change on the green Benches opposite—at least on the front four; I cannot speak for the back row. Legislation has gone hand in hand with the change in public attitudes over the past 50 years, but it is important to underpin this cultural change with legislation.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. In my case, it dates back five years, nine months and 11 days.

Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton, Kemptown)

I can only congratulate the hon. Gentleman.

I welcome the Government's acceptance of the need to legislate in respect of sexual orientation. I reiterate the three main areas of concern: the provisions in part 3 should be as firm as those in part 2; exceptions under part 3 should be minimal; and the provisions should be implemented on the same date. Equality should be consistent throughout the Bill.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I wish to confine my remarks to a small number of issues relating to the Bill. The first is cost, to which several hon. Members alluded. I am concerned that, despite the fact that this measure should have been cost-effective, the overall cost will be about 42 per cent. greater than the combined cost of the three existing organisations.

I caution Ministers about the escalating costs of non-departmental public bodies, from which we in Northern Ireland suffer to a mega-degree. Only last week, I uncovered the fact that last year the total cost of all the non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland was more than £2 billion. That is one issue to which the Minister responded when she indicated the extent of the increase.

I want to dwell on part 2, which deals with religion and belief. I ask the Minister to clarify the matter beyond any doubt. Let us take the example a small bed and breakfast or guest house run by a husband and wife, the name of which clearly indicates that it is a Christian establishment—for example, the Bethany Christian guest house. I know of many such establishments in Northern Ireland, Scotland and the north of England. A confirmed, avowed homosexual activist might deliberately want to book a night there in order to be refused accommodation and take the case to court. What would be the position of such a guest house? We are talking about not a Marriott or Hilton but a small, family-run establishment with a Christian ethos.

Let us suppose that someone arrives at a guest house and sees either a New Testament on the desk or a small text above the check-in area that says, "This is God's house"—a clear sign that it is a Christian establishment. Under the Bill, who would be pursued? Would it be the person who makes the booking in the knowledge that the establishment is of a particular religious disposition, or would it be the husband and wife who have firmly held religious views that they believe preclude them from offering accommodation to someone who is deliberately trying to ensure that they fall foul of the legislation? I would be pleased if the Minister explained exactly what would happen in such a circumstance, because I have read in the press of at least two similar examples.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that matter should be considered in great detail in Committee and must not be forgotten.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I hope that it will indeed be considered.

Emily Thornberry (Labour, Islington South and Finsbury)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a proper Christian will understand that one can be gay and be Christian as well? If someone is to close their doors to a gay couple coming to their bed and breakfast, should not the answer simply be that they should be prosecuted, as we should not discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but I indicated in my analogy that the person may arrive at the establishment and see a New Testament on the desk, and the person working there may be reading the part of the New Testament that precludes some of the activities to which she alludes. That is the person's view and they are entitled to hold it, but do they thereby fall foul of the legislation?

Sadiq Khan (Labour, Tooting)

Is not there a difference between having an attitude and a view and practising that by one's behaviour? Is not this a classic example of a Bill that will lead to legislation that outlaws behaviour? I hope that, over time, it may change attitudes, but even if it does not the impact will be that people will not be treated differently because of their sexual orientation or religion.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I think that the hon. Gentleman has to think the situation through. Let us say that the position is as I have outlined—a couple who are Christian have a sincerely held view about sexual orientation, particularly about homosexuals. Are they to be told, courtesy of the Bill, that they cannot run their guest house and hold those views, which would preclude them from giving a room to persons who are openly homosexual and who appear to want to make the booking in order that they fall foul of the legislation?

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

Does the hon. Gentleman think that someone who has a sincerely held view of repugnance towards people who are gay should be allowed to flout existing Northern Ireland employment legislation preventing discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation? Does he support that legislation? Would he support people who wished to flout the law in Northern Ireland?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The short answer is that I do support the law in Northern Ireland, but deliberately flouting the law takes us into a different realm. I am still unclear as to who would be more likely to fall foul of this legislation.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that the Bill does nothing in that respect but gives the Minister the power to make regulations, which we would be denied the opportunity of discussing in a debate such as this. The Bill attempts to deal with one difficulty by properly drawing a distinction in respect of a lodger—someone living in your own house, sleeping in your own bed between your sheets—but does not make the same distinction in respect of bed and breakfasts.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

That is part of the difficulty. The issue remains unclear, and I agree that we need a definitive response.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.