Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, this widely welcomed Bill has been a long time in gestation. It has been the subject of much activity and thought on the part of the organisations, both statutory and voluntary, whose clients will be most affected by it and which have been in close consultation with the Government. I welcome the Bill’s broad thrust, as vigorously presented by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, in the early part of his speech. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in replying will respond carefully to the points made in the House during the debate. It is clear that there are still parts of the Bill that cause concern outside Parliament. I want to concentrate on two main topics that concern a number of different groups and organisations. First, the changes to substantive equality law made in the Bill, and their limitations; and, secondly, uneasiness about the problems attending on the transition arrangements as the existing commissions wind down and the CEHR comes into being. I will not repeat the arguments that I have already made in your Lordships’ House about the cart-before-horse way in which the Government have decided to approach the problem of persistent inequalities in our society. In any case, Clause 3 creates a brief but impressive vision of the society that we wish to create. I am grateful for that, as are many others. The broad duties of the CEHR as defined in Clause   8 are also welcome. I know that some members of your Lordships’ House do not agree with that approach; in particular, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave a typically spirited account of his disapproval in detail. The noble Earl was the first Minister against whom I had to sharpen my powers and I have never underrated him from that moment to this. I shall read his speech with interest when it has been printed because I think that it will contain remarks that are relevant to our concerns. Some important extensions to existing anti-discrimination law are made in the Bill. The first is the   long-awaited—many would say long-overdue—inclusion of a duty on public bodies to promote gender equality. The EOC has worked long and hard on that matter, but it still has some residual concerns about what it describes as the most radical change in sex equality law in 30 years. The first matter of concern is the definition of public authority in Part 3. There is a fear that the difference between the wording of that definition and the wording of the definition in the Disability Discrimination Act—the DDA—could be considered significant by the courts. Will the Minister reassure us that despite the differences in wording the definition in the Bill should be read as being the same as that in the Disability Discrimination Act—or will she undertake to change the Bill’s wording? Secondly, I want to support the remarks and questions put to the Minister on harassment and protection of transgender persons made by the noble Baroness, Lady   Lockwood, whose prestige in that world is without equal. Thirdly, will the Minister confirm that the gender duty will enable public sector bodies to look at the causes of the pay gap, such as the concentration of women in lower-paid occupations? Will the duty enable public sector bodies to use contract compliance procedures to persuade contractors to move towards equal pay for men and women? Finally, there is the question of further statutory protection for groups of people who currently lack it. Stonewall, the EOC and other groups have welcomed the inclusion in the Bill of protection against discrimination in the provision of goods and services on grounds of religion and belief. I will not go into that area, as it will affect our debate at a future stage. However, they also point out that there is still no such legal protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and transexuality. Yet evidence of such discrimination is not far to seek and can impact in a damaging way on individuals in many areas of their daily lives. We are all aware that the Government are engaged in a process that should result eventually in a single Equality Act, but there seems little certainty about the timeframe for that process or even for the discrimination law review that precedes it. Is it the Government’s intention not to legislate for that large group before the introduction of a single Equality Act, which might not appear for another two or three years? If so, the Minister may be faced with amendments at a later stage. I turn to the transition problems. The Minister may say, possibly rightly, that the detail of those cannot form part of the Bill. Nevertheless, there are some important concerns surrounding the process of keeping the existing commissions on the road and functioning effectively while preparations are being made to create their successor body, which is expected to be operational from late 2007. The coverage of anti-discrimination legislation will increase with the Bill’s passage, perhaps further than the Government anticipated. We shall see. In 2006 protection against discrimination on the grounds of age will be on-stream, but how and by whom will those new legal provisions be administered, given that the existing commissions will be in their dying days? What reassurance can the Government give that employees will be offered the chance to contract their experience and expertise to the CEHR? After all, as the right revered Prelate the Bishop of Southwell pointed out, experience and expertise in the individual strands will still be required in the new commission. Finally, will the full force of the TUPE regulations apply fully to those employees who do not or are unable to obtain ongoing employment at the commission? The Bill says quite a lot about the appointment of the new commissioners, including a reference to them being appointed in line with the requirements of the Office of the Commissioner of Public Appointments. On the face of it, that seems satisfactory, at least in the context of the Bill as it stands. However, I understand that the current commissioner has not previously been asked to monitor such appointments on the grounds of sexual orientation. Nor has she ever been asked in the past specifically to ensure that lesbian, gay or bisexual people should be represented on public bodies. Is that the best way to give this group confidence in the process of appointment to the CEHR; and will the Minister give us any reassurance? I have tried to be brief. I could have added a third concern about the Bill, namely about the powers and the independence of the new commission as compared with its predecessor bodies, but I was correct in assuming that many other people would take up that point. I hope that the Government will work on the Bill during its passage through the House in the collaborative way that best suits such legislation and this Chamber. We shall need to listen to and learn from each other across the Floor of the House if we are to make the best of the opportunity offered by the Bill to continue the work of removing illegal discrimination from our society.