| Draft Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Designation of Public Authorities) Order 2002
|
|
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne): I am trying to ensure that I understand what the Under-Secretary is saying about Postcomm. Did he say that the Government did not consult Postcomm initially when they were thinking about the order and that Postcomm has only recently found out about it and is now making representations? Is that what is being implied? Mr. Browne: We consulted Postcomm initially. There was communication, but that communication was not concluded to Postcomm's satisfaction. In its view, the order has come before the House while discussions on the proposed designation are still incomplete. I am being entirely candid. Postcomm made no point of principle, but said that the designation was unnecessary; essentially because of the nature of the work that it does with regard to the interests of exactly the sort of people that equality provisions are designed to protect. Although I appreciate the work that is being done, it is important in Northern Ireland that public authorities such as Postcomm demonstrate their Column Number: 007 commitment to equality through the mechanisms provided by section 75, even if that is in addition to work that they are already doing in the area. The hon. Gentleman knows what Postcomm does, so he knows that the nature of its work means it has an obligation to ensure equality of provision of postal services.Mr. Wilshire: The order is the third in an ongoing series that lists and deals with the various bodies, but one body says that it has not been properly consulted, that negotiations have not been completed and that there are outstanding issues. Will the Under-Secretary consider removing that body from schedule 1 to allow discussions to be concluded? There will be further orders, so what is the rush? Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that other bodies are referred to in the schedules. I am anxious that the Postal Services Commission be designated, and as the Minister with responsibility for the matter I do not see any reason why it should not be. I shall come to other matters in a moment. The order cannot be amended. I am not willing to forego the work that has been done with the bodies referred to in the order. The reason why designation is unnecessary put forward by the Postal Services Commission is, with respect, due partially to its misunderstanding of the importance of designation to public authorities in Northern Ireland. I accept entirely that Postcomm's business is about the equality of provision of service, which is why it, of all the bodies, should be brought under section 75. The additional burden that that will be created for it will be minimal, and I am satisfied that the Equality Commission will work with Postcomm in a proportionate fashion to meet the demands of the order and of designation. Mr. Wilshire: How can the Under-Secretary be satisfied that the order is the correct way in which to proceed if Postcomm has not yet had the opportunity to comment fully? Is he not prejudging an issue before there has been an opportunity to conclude discussions? That seems to be another reason why either Postcomm should be removed from the order or the order should be withdrawn. Mr. Browne: I have heard the comments of Postcomm and I am satisfied that they are exhaustive. I have dealt with the issues that arise from those comments, and I have made decisions on the arguments. To deal with those arguments again will not advance our position. Postcomm's principal objection to designation is that it is unnecessary. In my view, it is entirely necessary to reinforce its work. More importantly—I have made this point more than once and you will be glad to hear, Mr. Cran, that I am making it for the last time—it is of significant importance in Northern Ireland that public authorities demonstrate their commitment to equality through the mechanisms provided under section 75. I am pleased that Postcomm is in a position to satisfy that requirement; it can do so more easily than many Column Number: 008 other local authorities because, effectively, that is its business.Lady Hermon: I am most grateful for the Under-Secretary's patience in taking so many interventions. Given that he is so committed to ensuring that public authorities fulfil their obligations to equality of opportunity and to promoting good relations, is it not in the interests of section 75 for him to enhance the funding of the Equality Commission, which I understand is in a parlous state at present? Mr. Browne: No approach has been made to me about the funding of the Equality Commission. I have been the Minister responsible for it for a comparatively short time and, granted, the commission may be holding its breath, but other people in Northern Ireland have not held their breath on funding and resources since my responsibilities have increased. In respect of the work that we require the Equality Commission to do for section 75, I am not aware that it is underfunded. If the hon. Lady knows otherwise, I shall always have a receptive ear for any arguments about equality. I shall finish this chapter about Postcomm. I repeat my apology to Postcomm for the breakdown in communication. As with other organisations, we commenced discussions with Postcomm, but concluded them with the relevant Department. I am satisfied that it should be designated, and I am pleased to be able to do that. The Government intend that the statutory duty should in time embrace as many bodies as possible. It is the Government's policy that non-designation should be the exception rather than the rule—I hear myself echoing the words of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley). Since the last order was made, we have continued our consultation with the Equality Commission to consider what other bodies might need to be designated. To deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about the drafting of the order in relation to the schedule, I understand that the designation in respect of those in schedule 2 falls under section 75(3)(b), which uses the word ''person'', whereas the schedule 1 designations are under paragraph (a), which uses the word ''body''. The order is not the end of the process, and we will introduce further designation orders as and when required. More importantly, the statutory duty represents the beginning of a process of increased dialogue between the public sector and community and voluntary bodies, putting equality at the heart of the policy-making process. That can only help lead to better, more responsive services for the people of Northern Ireland. Peter Bottomley: I have one point that the Under-Secretary may not want to respond to today, but which he might like write to the Committee about. Do any of the bodies that have United Kingdom responsibilities find it awkward to consult in Northern Ireland on reflecting a balance of political opinion, when they do not have that responsibility elsewhere in the UK? That issue is not relevant to today's listing, so I shall not pursue it in a speech, but it would be helpful to know whether the Under- Column Number: 009 Secretary has had responses suggesting that it is in some way awkward. If so, could he share that with the Committee later?Mr. Browne: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no personal knowledge of any such responses, but I shall check to see whether there were such responses before I became responsible for the matter. We remain determined to build a society where the active promotion of equality and good relations is seen as an integral part of public life. Section 75 is the key to that goal, and I am pleased to be able to extend its reach to further organisations. Accordingly, I commend the order to the House.
4.52 pmMr. John Taylor (Solihull): It is my pleasure, Mr. Cran, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. You and I have sat together on the Conservative Benches in the past, but now I welcome and recognise you as Chairman. The Opposition will not detain the Committee, but I should like to put one or two small points to the Under-Secretary for the convenience of the Committee and to assist him in clarification. He always presents such measures with his crisp legal mind and fluent mode of expression, but he has not dwelt on what is meant by a dependant. I should like to know what a dependant is. Is it an arbitrary measure of age or a subjective judgment about the relationship between two people? That is not clear, and it would be helpful to know the definition. I am slightly sceptical—I do not think that I am alone in this, judging by comments that I have heard so far—about the penultimate paragraph in the explanatory memorandum. That states:
I shall not hold up the Committee on that, but I do not actually believe it. Among the many desirable things in the order there are equity, fairness and equal treatment. However, such things can be achieved only at some cost. The Under-Secretary may care to comment on that, but it is not a point of sufficient substance to hold up the debate. I am always stimulated by the Under-Secretary. While he was speaking to us and explaining the measure, I thought about equality of opportunity in terms of postal services. I began to think about what that actually meant, particularly for people with a disability. I imagined that if I were in a wheelchair, I might find it difficult to post a letter in a standard-sized pillar box. Is that the sort of thing that he has in mind? More importantly, it is easy to understand how these matters come to bear on an employer. There must be no discrimination in employment. People from different walks of life and community backgrounds and of different religions, races, sexes and creeds should be equally admissible. They should all have an equal opportunity to become employees and, as employees, should be treated with an even hand. But does equality of opportunity extend to consumers? In Solihull, that might be an almost Column Number: 010 nonsensical proposition, but one can understand that, in a community where there are partisan divisions, a postman from background A might favour early delivery of mail to people who are also from background A and defer deliveries to people from background B. Perhaps the Under-Secretary thinks that my imagination is in overdrive, but I believe that that point is valid.In Northern Ireland, it is possible for one community to discriminate against another, which is part of the reason why we are here. It has happened in the past, and Parliament is trying to dampen that process as much as it properly can by creating equality. There is a point to answer as to whether equality of opportunity applies to the delivery of services to different communities. I would be advantaged if I received my mail an hour before my neighbour did. Have such questions been taken into account? I said that I would not delay the Committee, and I shall not. I approach the measure in a spirit of good will. There is mild cause for celebration this afternoon, in that we have yet another Northern Ireland measure that does not create a commission, a board or an ombudsman. That is very good and commendable.
4.58 pm
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2002 | Prepared 20 November 2002 |
