Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in introducing the Bill, sounded almost euphoric about it. In fact, I was surprised at the end of his speech that he did not add, ““All this, and Heaven too””. Later we had the speech of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, which was a most splendid counterbalance to the opening speech. I hope that as we go through the Bill noble Lords will keep both those speeches in mind. If we want to bear in mind what people outside in the street think on these subjects, we need to remember what was said in both those speeches. They made a balance, which is important. My humble contribution, which I hope will   be rather brief, will come somewhere in between those speeches. Thank goodness that there is a broad acceptance in our country today that people are born of equal worth; that a baby, no matter where or to whom it is born, is just as important as another baby born elsewhere. Most people in their hearts believe that nowadays. At the same time, it is obvious to most people that no two babies’ life chances are equal. Opportunities, and the ability to make the best of opportunities, vary hugely. Human beings themselves vary hugely; of course they do. So do the settings of their lives; and luck is involved as well. Few people are so dreamy nowadays as to believe that public policy can ever make life chances equal. They also believe that policies can help in some ways, which is why the education and health systems and a fair legal system matter so much. It is also why, on the whole, there is broad support for the intentions of the Bill, as there has been broad support for the three commissions that the Bill is replacing. The aim of the Bill is to make possible more equality and better human rights in certain areas, and few will complain about that if they really go into the purposes and the mechanisms of the Bill. The questions that we must consider as we scrutinise the Bill are not its broad aims—they seem to me impeccable—but whether the detailed proposals will in fact work in practice. Will the proposed new Commission for Equality and Human Rights work better for its customers than the three commissions that it replaces? That is a critical question. Will the new mechanisms in the Bill—the mechanisms of the commission and the other mechanisms—be cost-effective? Will the new intrusions into business that the Bill proposes be justified by the intended benefits for the citizen? Those are the sorts of questions that this House and the Government must ask themselves as we go through the Bill. The Bill applies to the whole of the UK, and I want to ask the Minister about what seems to be its somewhat intricate relationship with Scots law and the Scots Parliament. I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would see this Second Reading out, because he would be in a strong position to help the noble Baroness to respond, but I am sure that she will have assistance from her advisers on this. Clause 7(1) states:"““The Commission shall not take human rights action in relation to a matter if the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to enable a body to take action of that kind in relation to that matter””." I understand that this rather strange and clumsy wording is there because the Scots Parliament may set up its own Scottish human rights commission. If it   does, and the idea has not gone beyond the consultation stage in Scotland, the Scottish commission would deal with human rights in devolved areas, and the Westminster commission would deal with reserved areas. If a Scottish human rights commission is set up, how will a Scot know where to go for help, especially if a supposed breach of human rights is in matters both devolved and reserved; for example, if the claim is that asylum seekers are being refused local authority housing? Asylum and immigration are reserved matters; but housing is devolved. How would someone living in Scotland know which commission to consult? I hope that the noble Baroness might be able to tell us the answer to that when she replies. My second question on this clause is what happens until a human rights commission is set up, or if the Scots Parliament decides not to have its own commission at all? Does the Bill as drafted allow the Westminster commission to act on everything, including devolved matters? It would be helpful, and it would save time at later stages, if we could know the answer to that. I also want to ask about Clause 53, which deals with   discrimination and harassment in education. Clause 53(1) states:"““It is unlawful for a local education authority (in England and Wales) or an education authority (in Scotland) in the exercise of their functions to discriminate against or harass a person””." That is somewhat surprising to me, since education is a devolved matter in Scotland. I realise that Clause 53(3) makes exceptions to the prohibition in Scotland, but why are Scottish schools in the Bill at all? Will the Minister explain that? The same question applies to Clauses 51 and 52, which are also about schools. Those are the clauses that I want to ask about at the moment. I know that the Law Society of Scotland is seeking clarification on other points in the Bill, which will doubtless emerge at a later stage, because we shall want to deal with them. We have interesting discussions ahead. From the briefing so far, it seems that what one might call the entire ““equality and human rights industry”” wants to have a copious say on the Bill. We shall have to be selective in deciding which amendments to put down. This is not a Bill about dreamy aspirations; it is about practical mechanisms. The mechanisms must be as simple as possible so that people understand them. The mechanisms must be workable, and they must be cost-effective. I suggest that the Bill does not call for long discussions about whether life chances matter; we surely agree that they do. We should be discussing the practical and constructive ways to lessen here and there the inequality in life chances that people experience. I look forward very much to the discussions ahead of us.