Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, I should like to add my appreciation to that of others in welcoming the Bill. As someone from both a racial and a faith minority, as well as being a woman, I have considerable experience of the discrimination and equality debate. I can assure the Minister that there are many from my background who wish the Bill safe passage in the months to come. First, I add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord   Lester and others who have expressed regret that we have not seen a single equality Act precede the establishment of a Commission for Equality and Human Rights. Introducing a single equality Act would have been more logical in terms of pulling together the various strands of legislation dealing with equality and discrimination. Stonewall points out that some 35 Acts, 52 statutory instruments, 13 codes of practice, three codes of guidance and 16 European directives and recommendations apply to equality law. It makes the point that Britain’s 3.4 million lesbian, gay and bisexual people still do not benefit from the public duty to promote equality. Indeed, that group still has no statutory protection from discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services, which is regrettable. I know that the Government are committed to introducing an Act. Will the Minister give us an indication of when she envisages this happening? I am conscious that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has mentioned that it will happen in this Parliament, but could we enter a plea for it to be sooner rather than later? The Bill breaks considerable new ground in many areas, and so it should. Putting a human rights agency on a regulatory footing is a most useful development, as it will, particularly in its awareness-raising role, change the human rights culture of this country. The incorporation of responsibility for promoting equality and combating unlawful discrimination in relation to age and sexual orientation is also most helpful, and will go some way to redressing the existing gaps. I also broadly welcome the inclusion of religion or belief in this category in general terms, but expect to go into greater detail in Committee into some of the provisions. There is also the issue of timing. I am familiar with the arguments put by the Commission for Racial Equality for a phased entry, with its responsibilities transferring to the commission in 2009. However, I have not found any reference to that date in the Bill and wonder whether its inclusion might be helpful in signalling more directly the remaining shelf life of the CRE. Like many speakers before me, I wish to highlight the issue of independence for the commission. Discrimination takes myriad forms and can have serious consequences for the individuals concerned. Often this discrimination is caused by the acts of state or its agents, as is the perception of Muslims in terms of the use of some laws after 9/11—hence the very regulatory protections we are talking about today. So, for the delivery of remedy from discrimination, it becomes all the more important that the authority responsible be independent. When the Secretary of State has powers to direct a regulatory body such as the commission, that not only affects its freedom to act to the contrary in rare cases but also imposes financial obligations for which it may not have the resources or to which it may not assign the same priorities. With respect to financial resources, the Commission for Racial Equality, Liberty and several other groups with long experience in these matters have highlighted two pertinent points. First, there must be sufficient resources from public funds to ensure full and effective implementation of current obligations. Secondly, there must be generous funding for the commission’s role in promoting knowledge and awareness of rights and responsibilities and carrying out its duty to enforce these rights, as set out in Clauses 8 to 11. While many of us are pleased that there will be a duty to promote an understanding of these areas and particularly welcome the new role for the promotion of the human rights culture, we also recognise that this menu comes with a bill, and that it is likely to be higher than the £70 million currently envisaged. There has been much talk on the Conservative Benches of the cost of the commission. My view is that for the many millions of us who have direct experience of discrimination, £70 million—a little more than £1   per head of population—is a very low price to pay for social cohesion and tolerance. The establishment of the commission will rightly raise expectations, and it will be an opportunity lost if the body is unable to deliver its wide mandate for a lack of funds. I turn briefly to Clause 11, which deals with communities. In my new role as spokesman from these Benches on communities and local government, I have been intrigued to see how the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister defines the community part of the role. I am afraid that I have not been able to fathom very much, other than to observe that community, and a sense of belonging to one, can be very different from one individual to the next, and indeed mean different things in different contexts. I am therefore somewhat wary of aspects of Clause 11. The importance of good relations between and within communities is axiomatic and beyond dispute; what is troubling is the tone and wording of this clause, as it seems to attempt to legislate for ““respect””—in plain English. A particularly troubling aspect is subsection (2), which defines community in that it impinges on an individual’s self-definition of his or her own identity. As one coming from an intellectual position in which human agency and autonomy lie with the individual to a large extent, I am troubled by the tone of this clause. I suspect that instilling respect and tolerance of pluralism will call for more than the approach evidenced in this Bill. Finally, I turn to those aspects of the Bill that deal with religion and belief. I broadly welcome the new emphases in dealing with discrimination in that area. For communities that are disadvantaged, equality of treatment in the economic, social and cultural aspects of life is essential. That is why I believe that dealing with those aspects in Part 2 of the Bill is preferable to, and more appropriate in providing protection against religious intolerance, than the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. However, returning to this Bill, I have some concerns with regards exceptions in Clause 52. When you tread into the nebulous area of belief and its relationship to law, you need to tread carefully. So while I understand the intention behind the thinking in how religion and belief are dealt with in this Bill, I suspect that we shall have to revisit those areas in Committee. In concluding, I hope that this most useful Bill makes good progress, and I look forward to working constructively with Ministers to achieve the ends that we all look forward to in enhancing equality.