Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on introducing this Bill. I welcome its aims, as outlined by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I have heard with great interest the speeches of many noble Lords. The depth of knowledge in this House is so great and I always learn a huge amount. I will concentrate on the issue of age, although I am interested in all the other strands. I declare an interest as vice-president of Age Concern and I am involved with various other relevant bodies, including the All-Party Group on Equalities. I welcome the useful briefing notes we have had from many bodies, including Age Concern and Help the Aged, as well as those summarised by the Equality and Diversity Forum on behalf of many of them. Legislation alone cannot change attitudes, which are behind a lot of discrimination. However, it can change behaviour, which is a necessary first step. When I was a student, I remember that landlords could display notices saying which categories of people they would not allow to rent rooms or flats in their properties. The minute this became illegal, there was a step change. That started us on the road to banning discrimination on the grounds of race. Recognition by society that such behaviour is unacceptable is a necessary first step, introduced through legislation. I am an example of someone who, without stretching the imagination too much, could benefit from a unified commission. I think there are at least five counts on which I could conceivably be discriminated against—perhaps more. One commission I could consult to represent my interests and seek redress would be better than having to go round to five to see which one could best represent those interests, so I have long supported a unified body. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, is right. The delay in inclusion of the CRE until 2009 might be negative for that commission rather than positive, because, as he said, it will in effect be joining the party late, even though its chief executive will be an ex officio commissioner from 2007-09. I ask the Minister whether it would not be better to set up the commission with all constituent parts from 2007. I know there are difficulties in doing this, but it would be nice to know whether the Minister feels the way I do. We are all worried. Many worries have been expressed that the commission might not be adequately resourced in terms of money and staff. That did not apply to the noble Earl, but others are worried, and I should like reassurance that this will not be the case. Obviously a lot of work needs to be done, especially after this Bill becomes an Act, which will demand huge co-operation and coalitions working together. These will be essential if the commission is to succeed and be up to running in 2007. I should like to know how the Equality Review chaired by Trevor Phillips will input into this Bill’s passage. By the time his review reports in the summer of 2006, the Bill may already be law. On age, I welcome at last its inclusion as a main strand in discrimination. The anti-age discrimination in the workplace regulations come into force from October 2006, one year before the commission begins its work. It will be interesting to know who will fill that gap. Will it in fact be the voluntary organisations that have campaigned so steadily over the years? I have taken part in those campaigns myself on many occasions. What is meant to happen during that time? The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, made an important point. The Bill requires one commissioner to cover Scotland and Wales on disabilities for the first five years. No doubt the committee will consider amendments on the precise make-up of the commission, but, if one commissioner is to cover those areas, could not a case be made for one commissioner to have responsibility for the other areas, with them all coming together as a while commission? On age, that might be tantamount to creating a commissioner for older people, such as Wales will have. Will the Minister tell us how this Bill interacts with the Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill, which had its Second Reading yesterday? It sounds confusing to have two potentially different types of commissioner. I should like to understand that better. The Bill states that there will be only a duty to promote gender, disability and race equality. I should like to know why a duty to promote age equality and the other areas that are being introduced is missing. Does this perhaps reflect the strength of the existing bodies involved in this work? Age discrimination is an issue about which people are often quite unconscious. They do not realise they are being discriminatory. In fact, it is everywhere in our society. It is deeply embedded in attitudes and actions, and there is often indirect discrimination. It needs to be tackled not only by legislation but by awareness and attitude changing. This will not be easy. Discussions on the age discrimination in the workplace legislation has demonstrated how difficult it will be. Very often, having age discrimination makes life a lot easier for everyone. It is much easier to have an age at which renting a car is banned than actually having to prove that you are capable of renting a car and driving it. It is much easier to say that it is the fault of insurance, because you cannot obtain insurance cover, than proving that you are able to drive. It is much easier to say that it is the fault of ““them””—meaning the Government or the state—by making an age of retirement apply across a whole industry or everywhere, than putting the responsibility on people to prove that they can do a job or to prove that they are capable of doing a job, unless it is proved that they are incapable. These are all difficult things to do. You must test for speed of reaction, for vision, for hearing, for capacity to learn or re-train. It is important that we fight for equality, but it is not easy. In services and goods, we know that discrimination affects a huge number of older people. In the NHS, we know that discrimination has led to bad prescribing over the years. Older people are often excluded from clinical trials and from a whole range of treatments and therapies, simply on the grounds of age. These are attitudes that devalue people and say that some younger people are worth more than people who are older, whereas, in fact, people who are older often show that they can benefit from treatment more than younger people. That is quite unacceptable, but it is a difficult matter. Age discrimination in goods and services is complicated, because if it is outlawed without due consideration, it could often prove to be a disservice to the people that the law is designed to help. For example, benefits or services that are targeted at older people might have to go, so the matter needs careful consideration. Many people in this House would not wish to see their bus and tube passes disappear, but they could go if we are not very careful that the clauses are defined carefully. Certain benefits could also go. So the unintended consequences of anti-age discrimination in goods and services need to be carefully considered. It might mean that a review or a study of all the pros and cons of abolishing discrimination on the grounds of age in goods and services needs to examine these issues in depth before the commission is established—that means rather quickly. What is important is the review to update equality law, announced in February, which underpins the new   commission. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester. The fact that the single equality Bill is the policy not only of his party, but of the Government, had, I am sure, something to do with him. It is wonderful that it is there. Like the noble Lord, I think that it is putting the cart before the horse, because we have a Bill to create a structure before we have the law that underpins that structure. That law will be necessary as soon as possible after 2007 if the commission is to work effectively. On human rights, I welcome the combination of equality and human rights in one commission. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned a new definition of public authority or a change of position to do something about the loophole that was illustrated by the Leonard Cheshire case. I seek reassurance from the Minister that the Government will close that loophole because, surely, my human rights are the same wherever I live or whatever service provider is providing me with a service. Somehow that must be clarified as the Bill progresses. I am sympathetic to the points that have been made about the commission having enforcement powers. Many of us welcome the intentions behind the clause on religion and belief, but I agree absolutely with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine. They were important and we must go into a great deal of detail to get that right. The matter is sensitive and there are some dangers—although I share her view that this must be incorporated. We all believe in the importance of the Bill. We need to consider it carefully, but we must ensure that it becomes law, because most of us, at some stage in our lives, could benefit from its powers. Those who are the most vulnerable among us need its protection most.