Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the Bill and the cross-party support given to it, although I was somewhat disappointed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. Her remarks seemed to be less fulsome in their welcome than those of her colleagues in another place. However, I am sure she did not mean it in that respect. The Bill breaks new ground in two very important ways. It brings together existing strands of anti-discrimination provisions and it introduces new provisions to safeguard and promote human rights through the establishment of a very powerful equality and human rights commission. My remarks will largely refer to gender issues. That is because of my experience as chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission for the first eight years of its life. I declare that interest, although long past. In that respect I was fully conscious of the value of working within a legal framework, both with enforcement powers and the duty to promote equality of opportunity between the sexes. Initially I had some reservations about bringing the three commissions together lest the issue of sex discrimination and equality might get sidelined in a combined equality commission. However, following the extensive consultations that have taken place and the consequent work on the Bill, I   am confident that that is not the case. Indeed, I believe that a body such as an all-embracing equality commission will be much more powerful politically than three single or perhaps more bodies tending to be regarded as operating within their own boxes, as it were. Since 1975, when the Sex Discrimination Act came into existence, we have moved on tremendously. Progress has been made in eliminating obvious discriminations and in understanding the more intangible areas of hidden and indirect discrimination, while at the same time positively promoting equal opportunity. The attitudes, aspirations, expectations and achievements of young women today are a reflection of that progress. However, much more still remains for the new commission to do, especially in the field of equal pay and breaking down occupational segregation, which is an important feature leading to unequal pay. As we have dealt with familiar areas of discrimination, new and very often hidden areas of discrimination have come to light. I refer to issues such   as harassment in all its ramifications—gender recognition, civil partnerships, age discrimination, discrimination on grounds of religious belief, and of course human rights under the Human Rights Act have come into prominence. Those issues will now be given an institutional framework in which to operate and will be given a new impetus by the Bill. Because I concentrate on gender issues it does not mean that I regard all other issues as less important. Certainly not; indeed, I give two illustrations. As chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, I worked closely with the CRE on areas relevant to all types of discrimination. That provided an insight into the value of bringing together strands of discrimination. I had the opportunity to take through this House a Bill on disability discrimination in co-operation with my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester who, at the same time, was attempting to pilot a similar Bill through the House of Commons. Both were unsuccessful precursors to the present Disability Discrimination Act, in which my noble friend Lord Ashley played such an important part. I look upon the proposed legislation as a tremendous step forward. I particularly welcome the new provisions in the Bill to impose a duty on public bodies to promote gender equality—a duty already included in race and disability legislation—the absence of which has been a real weakness in the Sex Discrimination Act. But certain principles must be preserved and they will need to be looked at closely as the Bill proceeds through its various stages. First, as regards the independence of the commission, an issue to which both the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred, it may be uncomfortable on occasions for government—any government—to have on their back an independent and powerful commission, but it is a part of the whole process of eliminating discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity and human rights. I hope it is a price that the Government will willingly pay. Secondly, there must be no diminution of the powers under existing legislation—again a point to which reference has been made—and we shall need to consider that issue in Committee. Thirdly, the expertise accumulated by the three existing commissions must be preserved and built into the new structures and staffing arrangements of the new commission. This underlines the importance of the transitional arrangements when we will have two sets of commissions operating simultaneously. Fourthly, the establishment of one comprehensive commission should not be looked upon as a savings device. While there might be some administrative and legal economies to be made, the new commission will have extensive duties in new areas of anti-discrimination work as well as in the promotion and safeguarding of human rights. A stronger regional structure is also envisaged, which is to be very much welcomed. We will need to examine the proposed funding against the extended commitments with which the commission will be faced. Arising from these principles, I should like to put a number of specific questions to my noble friend. These have been copied to the Secretary of State’s team dealing with the Bill. It would be helpful, and might save time in Committee and at other stages, if these points could be clarified during the course of the debate. First, the powers of the commission are addressed in Part 1, Clauses 22 to 34 of the Bill. These appear to be less than the powers given to the Equal Opportunities Commission under Section 73 of the Sex Discrimination Act to address persistent discrimination where an individual chooses not to proceed with a case. Can my noble friend confirm that the Bill will be amended to include an equivalent power to the one contained in Section 73 of the Sex Discrimination Act, in accordance with some of the undertakings given by Ministers that there will be no regression of powers? Secondly, in relation to casework and existing EOC practice, and the combined effect of Clauses 14 and 30, will the Minister clarify that it is the Government’s intention that, as a minimum, the new commission will be able to provide casework advice and support in the same way and to the same extent as that currently provided by the existing commissions? Thirdly, in his opening remarks my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to harassment in the gender duty under Clause 82. Those remarks were very welcome but I did not quite understand just how far they went. So, again, will the Minister indicate whether it is the Government’s intention to amend the gender duty during the passage of the Equality Bill and to include a duty to eliminate unlawful harassment, thereby bringing the gender duty in line with the disability duty? Fourthly, as regards transgender in the gender duty under Clauses 81 and 82, will the Minister give an indication of the Government’s intention to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to extend goods, facilities and services protection to ““trans”” people—that is, to people who may or may not have proceeded with an operation to give final expression to their sexuality—under the gender duty on public bodies to promote equality for ““trans”” people? If this is not possible under this Bill, will the Government give a commitment to take this forward as part of the discrimination law review? Finally, as regards budget allocation, the budget as a whole needs to be looked at. Will the Minister clarify that the combined effect of paragraphs 23, 31, 38 and 55 of Schedule 1 is that the budget will be allocated to the Commission for Equality and Human Rights as a whole, and that that commission will then have the responsibility to decide the level of funding for the statutory committees under the commission? As I said, if the Minister can help me with those questions, we could perhaps save some time later. This is a Bill to make available to every individual new opportunities to be free of discrimination and to develop their potential to the full, both for their own personal fulfilment and for the benefit of society. I hope that the House will support it fully and give it the necessary resources to meet the high expectations set.