UK Parliament / Open data

Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, I echo the tribute paid by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the great contribution made in recent years by the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission. The Equality Bill has two major parts and I shall speak to both of them. I shall speak first to the proposed commission. In the process of consultation that led up to the proposed commission on equality and human rights, we in the Church of England have emphasised our strong support for creating a legal framework to safeguard basic rights and to promote dignity, equality and fairness for all members of society. For Christians that understanding of equality is derived from our belief that all human beings are created in the image of God and our beliefs about the justice of God and His action in the world. We therefore support the vision set out in Clause 3 for a fairer, more inclusive society that celebrates diversity. We believe that the diversity of Christian belief and commitment can play a major role in contributing to such a vision. We also recognise that the law can help to influence attitudes positively by formulating enforceable rights and proscribing what is clearly wrong. Anti-discrimination legislation in the fields of race, gender and disability has been working to this end over the past quarter of a century. We would not want to see any reduction in the advances that have been made in those fields. We believe that progress can also be made in three more recent strands of anti-discrimination regulation that will come into force by the end of 2006. Having one body to turn to for advice—the ““one-stop shop””—has real advantages for individuals and   groups who believe that they are experiencing discrimination, whether single or multiple, and for employers seeking to put equal rights procedures and policies in place in a coherent and consistent way. With a proper structure, a single body could reduce some of the bureaucratic and overheads costs. It could also tackle issues of multiple discrimination. I highlight a concern that will apply to the single commission, hinted at by the noble Baroness, Lady   Miller. It will be important to ensure that the commission has no loss of focus on the individual strands and no artificially homogenised approach. While there may be some common principles—race, gender, age, disability, religion and sexual orientation—each raises its own distinct issues in relation to tackling discrimination and to human rights. Therefore, it is not axiomatic, for example, that identical investigation and   enforcement powers are needed for each. ““Strand specific”” expertise with the capacity to handle issues that cut across two, three or more strands will be needed at a national level. A similar pattern of expertise will be needed at regional and local levels. Discrimination on the grounds of race, gender and disability has been well defined by well established United Kingdom legislation and enforcement by the respective commissions. One of the tensions for the new commission to face is the disparity between that experience, those ways of working and the situation of the new strands—religion and belief, sexual orientation and age—which lack any case law and will have to develop their own track record. They will also require the right expertise and opportunity to build experience and methods of working so that they are not subsumed into the systems and the cultures of that which already exists. We are particularly concerned at the distinction that is becomingly commonly accepted between ““religion”” and ““belief””. Both terms are notoriously difficult to define in practice, but it is important to recognise that religion is a multi-dimensional phenomenon and not to slip too easily into a sharp distinction between ““religion”” and ““belief””. For people of faith the two overlap. Those of faith and non-faith have belief systems that are important to them and to their communities and have consequences for society. Among the challenges facing those addressing non-discrimination and human rights in the areas of religion and belief will be the capacity to enter into the diverse range of religion and belief in this country and to apply and provide guidance for the implementation of the regulations and the development of good practice. A further challenge to the commission will be how it handles and balances the range of rights protected by the Human Rights Act. In particular, I draw attention to the need to ensure that guidance and good practice is consistent with the freedom of thought, conscience and religion enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That recognises that religious groups and faiths have rights to order their lives and communities according to their beliefs and doctrines, which is an aspect of human rights legislation that can easily be overlooked in the understandable and right emphasis on individual rights. Arguably one of the benefits of a single equality and human rights body, the commission, is that it will be better equipped to ensure a more informed dialogue and action about the necessary balancing of conflicting human rights. I turn briefly to what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, describes as the ““swampy area”” of Part 2 and the proposals to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief in the provision of goods, services, facilities and premises. We are grateful for the helpful dialogue the Government have had with Churches and other faith communities on Part 2 of the Bill. Here the Government’s concern for diversity has led to the inclusion of special exemptions to give space to Christians and other people of faith to pursue their beliefs and to make their particular and, I believe, highly significant contributions to society through their institutions, schools, charities and organisations, and, indeed, their premises. It is important that the application of provisions designed to protect people of faith and belief do not in practice make life more complex and difficult for them. There are detailed points to make in support of the exemptions. That may be necessary in Committee, but in this general debate I emphasise the importance of the principle of giving space to faith and belief groups to make their contribution in these areas to the diverse but equal society that the Government are encouraging through the Bill.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

672 c1235-7 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top