Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his clear explanation of the objects and contents of the Bill. I also thank him for his courtesy in sending to me and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in advance of today’s debate, an explanation of the amendments the Government have made to the Bill since its Second Reading in the other place. No right-thinking person could be opposed to the prevention of discrimination on the grounds of a person’s race, sex, age, religion or disability. That is why my honourable friends welcomed the general concept of the Bill when it was presented to the other place before the election. However, I must ask about the timing of the introduction of the Bill in the other place and its reintroduction to your Lordships’ House now. An equality and discrimination law review is in hand, and there will be new regulations on age discrimination in October 2006, before the Commission for Equality and Human Rights will be in place. Will the Act be in force before the review is completed and how can we be sure at this stage that the review will not conflict with some of the provisions that we are now considering? We agree that combining the activities of the commissions that, until now, have had jurisdiction over these matters should make for a more consistent approach, more consistent standards and, where appropriate, more consistent rules of procedure. That is not to say that the proposal has received universal approval. I have received a communication from none other than the Mayor of London—who is not generally regarded as being opposed to the principles of equality. He states:"““It is regressive to force different equality strands  . . . within a single body, which is not independent from government””." It is rare that I find myself either quoting Ken Livingstone or agreeing in any part. But the lack of total independence is clear in many clauses throughout the Bill. As is so often the case, even when there is a broad consensus over objectives, the detail of how those objectives may be achieved needs looking into. We hope that we can improve some of them. The first that I wish to highlight is the provision in Clause 3 that,"““The Commission shall exercise its functions  . . . with a view to the creation of a society in which””," and so on. We do not believe that it is the function of any unelected quango to create any sort of society or to engage in social engineering. Its ““Fundamental duty””, as the Explanatory Notes put it, is to enforce the laws laid down by Parliament to create what is ultimately wanted. The same clause requires the commission to ensure that,"““there is mutual respect between communities””," and so on. I will not read the whole paragraph now. But how can anyone legislate to make one love one’s neighbour? At a later stage, I shall invite your Lordships to consider some less high-flown language on the commission’s fundamental duty. I shall not take up further time today elaborating on that point. I remind noble Lords that almost a year ago the Prime Minister announced the creation of a Women and Work Commission to examine the problem of the gender pay gap, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Later last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer hosted a summit on the same subject. Will the new all-embracing commission advise on those and similar topics, rather than ad hoc overlapping commissions being set up from time to time? It is interesting that, despite his warm words about women at work, not only did the Prime Minister in his recent reshuffle forget to appoint a Minister for Women, but, when he realised his mistake, he had run out of funds and the unfortunate Minister, unlike her colleagues, had to work for nothing—never mind about equal pay. Should that not be a matter for the EOC to investigate? We support the principle of bringing the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission together under one umbrella. Certainly, there are cases where individuals or groups suffer from discrimination on multiple grounds—race and sex, for example. It is sensible for there to be what several speakers in the other debate described as a one-stop shop. Indeed, we have been lobbied by people who believe that that is very helpful. It is equally sensible for the one-stop shop to operate on one set of standards, one set of rules and one methodology. However, that gives rise to my first question. We currently have three commissions, with three able, effective, and, might I say, forceful chairmen. Under Schedule 1, the new commission will consist of between 10 and 15 commissioners, an ex officio chief executive who is also a commissioner, and a chairman, all of whom, apart from the chief executive, are appointed by the Government. It will be impossible for either the chairman or the chief executive to be involved in the day-to-day duties of running what until now have been three full-time, major organisations. Leaving aside the fact that the Secretary of State is empowered to appoint ““one or more”” deputy chairmen, can the Minister say how the Government expect the new commission to operate, even though it will be given power to regulate its own proceedings? It seems as if the Disability Rights Commission has succeeded in persuading the Government to ensure that there is a separate committee to handle its existing functions, while Northern Ireland is to have its own commission. At present, there is diverse expertise in the existing commissions in the separate fields of their work. Will the   staff of the new commission be expected to be multi-skilled, or will its executives and officials still operate in separate compartments? Will the CEHR be a single committee covering the wide range of the commission’s duties or will there be several sub-committees handling day-to-day matters? If the latter is the case, how will the chairman be able to ensure the uniformity of approach, practice and procedure that the Bill, rightly, is intended to promote? I now turn to the question of cost. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor nods and smiles at me as though he knew that I would raise that. The regulatory impact assessment published by the DTI puts the total budget for the three commissions at about £43.4 million in 2003–04. The start-up costs of what may be described as the new super-commission are reported to be over a staggering £24 million. What will the cost be and how will it be made up? That question was raised by my honourable friend in the other place, but has not been answered so far. The Explanatory Notes simply lump the whole £24 million into four headings, with an average of £6 million each, which is pretty vague. I hope that the Minister has had time to find the answer, but if she still cannot tell us, perhaps she will write to me. Then there is the matter of the operating costs of the new super-commission. Again, the Explanatory Notes tell us that the annual funding required is to be increased from the current combined cost of £43 million to £70   million. That is an increase of 63 per cent, which the Government put down to an increase in staffing levels by between 20 and 50 per cent of levels in the present commissions. That is a pretty wide divergence and represents an increase in staff of between l00 and 250   people. Do the Government have any idea of how many extra people will be needed—and why perhaps so many? One would have thought that economies would have been made possible by the process of rationalisation, even though new duties will be performed in relation, for example, to religious discrimination. As if that increase is not enough, the Commission for Racial Equality is asking for total funding, not of £70 million, but £120 million. That is about £2 for every man, woman and child of the population. The three existing commissions provided casework support in just under 4,400 cases in 2002 and supported 248 court and tribunal cases the same year. On the basis of the Government’s own estimated costs, that represents over £15,000 per case and, if the Commission for Racial Equality’s request were approved, that figure would be £26,000. Of course I acknowledge that all the commissions disseminate a great deal of useful, good information via their respective websites, which many visit each year. However, I hope that this expansion of staff, where one plus one plus one plus one seems to make five, or even six, will not result in empire building, or, which would be just as bad, generate make-work projects and the chasing of statistical targets where political correctness, rather than common sense, is the order of the day. Before I leave the subject of cost, another question arises through an important difference between the Explanatory Notes issued to the other place and the ones accompanying the Bill before your Lordships. The other place was told:"““The estimate of the annual budget for the CEHR when it is fully operational, which will not be before 2007 and could be later, is £70 million””." The corresponding paragraph in the Explanatory Notes provided for your Lordships reads that,"““the annual budget for the CEHR when it is fully operational, encompassing the functions of all three Commissions, is £70 million””." There is now no reference to the words,"““2007 and could be later””." Perhaps the Minister will tell us what is the date on which the Government propose to bring the Act into force, whether there has been a change from the original target date of 2007, and the reason for the change. Particularly confusing is the situation vis-à-vis the existing commissions, which can continue until 31   March 2009. What guidance will be given to the commissions about the dates of their respective demises? They clearly need that information for the purposes of forward planning. Is it intended for them all to cease simultaneously, or will they vanish one by one? The Federation of Small Businesses has particular concerns about the operation of the new Act. Small businesses, by their very nature, have neither internal personnel departments—human resources as they are usually called—nor access to constant legal advice on some of the complex issues which will be governed by the commission. I would like to hear an assurance that among the duties of the commission will be the need to provide a help line to enable small businesses and others to obtain expert advice on potential problems before they arise or escalate. I refer to an adequately staffed help line, not one playing ““Greensleeves”” endlessly, interrupted by a voice saying, ““Press one””, ““Press two””, or ““Your call is important to us””. One topic to be within the jurisdiction of the commission will be religion or religious belief. This is a subject where, if we are not careful, political correctness and the muzzling of free speech could run rife. I speak as someone who, along with friends and family, has had to put up with a certain amount of religious intolerance over the years. I do not say that in a bad way; it just happens at school and later on. People say things to you that you wish they would not.   That kind of behaviour is totally unacceptable, whether it is the Jewish Community, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics or indeed the members of any other genuine faith who are subjected to it. Prejudice against people simply because they are members of a particular faith, or because they are not members of a preferred one, is something that has to be prevented. However, I believe that a line has to be drawn between religious intolerance, and genuine criticism of a particular religion or branch of a religion because of doctrinal issues. I do not propose to stir up matters by giving examples. I am certain that your Lordships will be able to think of some if you want. Similarly, a line has to be drawn between reasonable light-hearted banter—the late Dave Allen with his jokes about his Church springs to mind—and the deliberate, persistent taunting of, say, a fellow worker or a neighbour. How will these provisions impinge on honest criticism, not of established religions, but of some strange sects with abhorrent practices? How will the new proposals affect genuine campaigns against, say, the Moonies or Scientology? Will they prevent the activities of those who are called on, often by distraught parents, to rescue those who have fallen victim to some form of brain-washing? I trust that the commission and its enhanced staff of up to 750 people will be able to draw those lines and will not come clumping down on people who express views, or even tell jokes in a moderate and non-malicious way. The Law Society, in its comments about this Bill, complains that the commission’s role in the area of human rights will have no enforcement powers. I for one am glad about that. The work of the super-commission—in all its several aspects—should not include being judge, jury and executioner. It must continue, as hitherto: when all else fails, it should confine itself to bringing matters to the appropriate court or tribunal on its own, or supporting a claimant with a bona fide grievance. Still on the subject of human rights, I would like to mention one specific problem which has been drawn to my attention by Help the Aged and Age Concern. In 2002, the judgment in the case of the Leonard Cheshire Homes ruled that the Human Rights Act did not protect those in private care homes. It applies only to publicly operated homes. That is an extremely worrying loophole. More than   90 per cent of those in care homes are in private   homes or homes operated by voluntary organisations. Often such places are funded—at least in part—by contributions from a local council. It is vital that the duty of public bodies to protect the human rights of vulnerable people is extended to private providers carrying out public functions. I accept that this Bill may not be the best vehicle to address this anomaly, but I hope the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that something will be done to protect the human rights of those in care homes. This is particularly important in view of the fact that age is to be one of the strands drawn into the new commission. We would not like to see it lost beneath the louder voices of the existing commissions. There are other problems concerning ageism, and I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, will be telling us later in the debate. I agree with the Law Society in their plea for a single Equality Bill to be introduced, as promised in the Labour Party manifesto. It is becoming increasingly difficult for lawyers and other professionals involved in this area, let alone lay members of the public, to find their way through the existing tangle of piecemeal legislation. There may be a manpower problem among parliamentary draftsmen who are snowed under with the Government’s mountain of proposed legislation. If that is the reason why certain matters are not getting through, I suggest that outsourcing to some of the larger firms of solicitors or senior barristers could solve the problem. Finally, no doubt many of your Lordships have received the same brief as I did from Age Concern, and here I have to declare an interest; namely, that I am not as young as I used to be. Age Concern points out that anti-ageism law in the workplace will be in force by the autumn of next year, and it will be up to the new commission to see that it is complied with. But as I pointed out earlier, we do not know for sure when the new commission will be fully functional. It is not just in the area of employment that older people are discriminated against—except in your Lordships’ House. They are discriminated against in healthcare, the inability to apply for disability living allowance or grants from the Independent Living Fund. In those instances it is the miserly hand of the Treasury that I believe is to blame, and it is something that the Government could rectify at a stroke of the Chancellor’s pen. I trust that the new commission, despite being on the Government’s payroll, and subject to directions from the Government, will try to do something about those inequalities, as well as the discrimination against older citizens by insurance companies, which is a constant source of complaint. I have mentioned the commission’s lack of complete independence from the Government. The commission is subject in certain places to the direction of the Secretary of State. Which Secretary of State? The existing commissions are under the jurisdiction of four   different departments and hence four different Secretaries of State. If no man can serve two masters, how can one commission serve four? May we please be informed whether one single department is to be responsible for the commission, and if so, which one? I repeat that in principle we support the concept of the Bill. There are aspects of the detail that we most certainly will want to consider, but I believe that we shall do it in a constructive manner. For the moment, we concur with the Motion that the Bill be read a second time.