Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, it is a particular pleasure for me to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on disability. His work on disability is very well-known. He certainly carries the torch for those with a learning disability, and carries it very well. I begin by paying tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for his presentation of the Bill which was a model of clarity. The House should now fully understand what it involves. I warmly commend and welcome the Bill which constitutes one more hammer in the battle against discrimination and for increasing human rights. The   aim is equality—no matter that that has been denigrated by some people—which we are all trying to achieve with this legislation. I believe that this Bill can usher in a new age of human rights which transforms the opportunities of millions of people. Notwithstanding any caricature of the Bill that we have heard today, it is a marvellous, forward looking Bill which can have a great effect on the relevant people, by whom I mean those people lacking human rights. However, the proposed new single Commission for Equality and Human Rights, which is admirable in every way, needs decisively to reject the concept of a ““light touch”” and to pursue human rights vigorously. That light touch has been suggested in various quarters. It would be the death of the commission if it tried to operate with a light touch. What we really need is a strong, firm commission that is determined to eradicate abuses and discrimination and to further human rights. That is its objective but it will achieve that only if it is tough and there is no nonsense about adopting a light touch. My particular concern is provision for disabled people as the new commission created by the Bill will take over the disability rights remit of the Disability Rights Commission. The work of the Disability Rights Commission is very well-known and admired. I pay warm tribute to its chairman, Bert Massie, the chief executive, Bob Niven, and the various experts who help us so much and who carry forward the field work, such as Agnes Fletcher and Caroline Ellis. Their work has been outstanding and I think it is of vital importance that we retain them and their expertise in the new body. To fail to do so would be a lamentable waste of great skill and expertise. Britain’s 10 million disabled people will be looking to the new commission to defend and extend their rights. Now that the Disability Committee is to be charged with driving forward the work on disability rights, they will have a clear voice and powers. That is what we have been seeking. After all, disability is at its heart a human rights issue. These advances will be an enormous fillip to the next major objective of disabled people—independent living. Certainly, the three ““pillars””—equality, human rights and good community relations—will cumulatively help to establish clear, new rights. But although the existence of the Disability Committee is to be reviewed after five years, the Bill refers only to the review to recommend how long the committee should continue to exist and it provides only for the Secretary of State to dissolve the committee in the light of the review. This has raised fears among disabled people that the review would not be open and objective. It would be far better if the Bill provided for an open-ended review. Personally, I think that the committee should be permanent—or last as long as the CEHR exists—but at least the Government should agree to an open-ended review. If not, I intend to propose amendments at a later stage of the Bill. I hope that the Government will attend to that point if they can. In those amendments I think that it would be desirable to incorporate a requirement that when the Disability Committee is reviewed, disabled people and their representatives must clearly be among the persons whose views are to be taken into account. The present provisions in the Bill simply require those conducting the review to consult persons who they think are likely to have an interest. Although that would make it likely that disabled people would be consulted, it does not make it definite—and definite commitments are what Bills are all about. The Bill provides that the term of the transitional commissioner will cease when the Disability Committee comes into operation. But the same provisions do not apply to the EOC or to the CRE. Their transitional commissioners remain unaffected. It does not make sense or logic to torpedo the disability transitional commissioner and leave the others sacrosanct until 2009 and 2011. I hope that the Minister will be able to alter the arrangement to the benefit of the disability transitional commissioner. I am also concerned about the lack of enforcement powers of the new commission for human rights. Far from being a monster with monstrous powers, the commission reveals the weakness of the Bill in that the new commission will have only limited enforcement powers in relation to human rights. The provisions of the Bill may well have been misunderstood by some people who say that the commission has no enforcement powers at all. In fact, it has full enforcement powers as regards the DDA and other equality enactments, including the power to assist individuals in bringing cases. But its limited enforcement powers on human rights is a cause for deep concern, and many will find that unacceptable. The fact that the CEHR cannot support and fund individuals to bring human rights cases weakens the whole structure and certainly weakens the CEHR. Why should it be deprived of power to provide legal assistance on representation for stand-alone human rights cases? My noble friend the Minister will know that on disability there is a specific provision in the Bill which is carried over from the DRC Act, which, if activated, would allow the CEHR to support individual disabled people with cases under the Human Rights Act. That would be very valuable. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister—and I would appreciate an answer when she winds up—how about that? Is it possible to activate that provision? I believe that the changes I propose will improve an already admirable Bill—and I hope to make the good better. But while we have a league table of legal equality, this Bill simply must be underpinned by a single equalities Act. Otherwise, when this Bill becomes an Act it will have great difficulty in operating with different equality legislation providing different degrees of protection for different people. It has already been mentioned that there are some 30 Acts of Parliament, endless statutory instruments, codes of practice, directives and recommendations which make it difficult for anyone to know where   they stand. Some people have more rights than others and it is still legal to discriminate against some groups but   not others. Key terms are defined differently in different Acts. That needs attending to. The only way to do that is with a single equalities Act. I know that work is proceeding on the Equalities Review—chaired by Trevor Phillips—and on the Government’s Discrimination Law Review, but we need urgent action to move forward to a single equalities Act. I was glad to see my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer say in his opening speech that the Government are committed to a single equalities Act, and I hope that it will be pursued as quickly as possible. This ambitious Bill deserves warm support, because it constitutes a major step forward on human rights. It can become one of the great landmark legislative Acts dealing with human freedom, independence and equality. If when it becomes law it is accompanied by a single equalities Act, we shall have comprehensive legislation of which we can all be proud.