Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am glad to be able to participate in the Second Reading debate of this important Bill. I was for a number of years a member of the Equal Opportunities Commission. My experience there taught me that it is not only necessary to have a good legal framework to protect people against discrimination, but a means of enforcement must also be available. That was for many years provided by the EOC in relation to gender discrimination. Under the Bill the EOC will ultimately be replaced, as will the other commissions dealing with race relations and disability. A new over-arching Commission for Equality and Human Rights will be established. During my time on the EOC, a suggestion was made that we should be merged with the CRE, but both commissions objected and the idea was not proceeded with. I was inclined to a similar viewpoint when the present Bill was first mooted, but I understand that the EOC is in full support of the Bill, with some reservations, and I now fully support the idea of the new commission. However, in speaking in general support of the Bill, I pay tribute to the work of the EOC and the many devoted people who have worked for it over the years. They include my noble friend Lady Amos, the Leader of the House, who was chief executive for some time, my noble friend Lady Lockwood and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who are both speaking in this debate. I particularly remember the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, who chaired the commission during my time. She was responsible for the WISE campaign—Women into Science and Engineering—aimed at encouraging young women to train for and to take up careers in these vital areas. I also recall some ground-breaking cases, notably that of speech therapists, which took years and involved references to the European Court before the women engaged in that important profession received their just reward. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, will remember that case very well, because he acted for the EOC at that time. The EOC activities continue, with emphasis on the continuing gap between male and female earnings. A great deal has been achieved on behalf of women and much expertise has been developed. Therefore, I wonder whether it might not be possible to include in the Bill provision for the establishment of separate committees dealing with gender and race discrimination. I see that that has been done in regard to disability and it seems a good idea. There would also need to be a separate arrangement in regard to religious discrimination, which I will come to later. All would operate under the authority of the over-arching Commission for Equality and Human Rights. The experience and expertise of the existing commissions would be readily available. The Government say that the powers of the existing commissions will not be diminished. I understand that the EOC is concerned that its powers under Section 73 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 are not repeated in the present Bill. That point has already been raised by my noble friend Lady Lockwood, and we would appreciate hearing from the Government on that point. There will be a transitional period until the three existing commissions are dissolved. There are, of course, obligations to their existing staff. It would appear that the Government envisage quite a long period of transition. It must all be completed by 31   March 2009. However, too long a period of uncertainty may not be good for the staff and, in particular, people will wish to know to what extend the TUPE regulations will apply. It is important that the new body, CEHR, is seen to be independent and in no way subject to government direction. That must be made clear in the wording of the Bill, a point already made by a number of noble Lords. I am glad that the intention is to give protection against discrimination against lesbians and gay men for the first time. But Stonewall, the campaigning organisation with which I have been in contact, points out in its briefing that there is still no protection against discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services for this group. I know that a review of legislation is taking place, and presumably we shall soon have a new single equality Bill, but it really is time that discrimination of that kind, which I understand is quite widespread, is dealt with. The Bill introduces new provisions about discrimination on religious grounds. Those are much to be welcomed. An attempt has been made in the Bill to describe precisely what is meant by religion and/or belief. I am glad to note that lack of religion and lack of belief are also to be covered. Victimisation and harassment are also defined in the section. However, in the section dealing with education, I am a bit concerned about provisions made for exceptions. It seems to me that some of those, in Clauses 52 and 53, could be used to discriminate against, even harass, pupils who are non-believers. Under Clause 53, it would even seem possible to discriminate in the provision of school transport. I am sure that that is not the intention, but the wording could be said to allow that. We shall have to explore those issues further in Committee. The Humanist Association has raised those points with me, and I happen to be a vice-president of that association. However, in general, I support all the provisions in that section of the Bill. In the light of those provisions, however, why is it still thought necessary to introduce a Bill about incitement to religious hatred? That is currently under consideration in the other place and will no doubt eventually reach this House. The problem about that Bill is that it could be used to inhibit freedom of speech. There are religious beliefs which many of us would oppose, often quite vehemently, because some of them result in the repression of women. Generations of women in this country have fought and suffered to achieve the level of equality that we have now. We will not have all that undermined by clerics and others attempting to do so under the cloak of religious belief. Others, as we have seen recently, encourage their adherents in the bizarre belief that children can be possessed and must be beaten and tortured to get rid of the alleged possession. Sometimes the death of a child has resulted. Those are crimes, and can be dealt with under criminal procedures if those responsible are caught, but such so-called religions are hateful in themselves and we must not be constrained from saying so or from opposing them by whatever legal means are available. I therefore hope that the excellent provisions in the Bill designed to protect people from being discriminated against because of their beliefs or absence of belief should be regarded as sufficient and that the Government will not feel it necessary to proceed with the other Bill, which has already occasioned much controversy and will probably do so if and when it reaches this House. Of course, we need a new single equalities Bill, because we have tended to deal with discrimination in a very piecemeal way. In the meantime, the Equality Bill deserves support and I commend the Government for its introduction.