Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, at the outset of my contribution, I wish to state firmly, strongly and truthfully that I am for equality. I believe in the fundamental dignity of every human being. I believe in basic human rights, civil liberties and fair treatment and justice for all. In fact, I am well known for standing up for justice on many occasions. However, I have to say that I am against this Equality Bill. I am not violently against it, because there is quite a lot—well, a good deal—in it that is good, and I am sure that it is well intentioned. However, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor introduced it, he said that an equality Bill would also be introduced. I think that this is an equality Bill. If we are to have   another Bill—I acknowledge that there will be differences between them—surely in the interests of the good management of legislation it would be better to hold back on this Bill and integrate the legislation so that we do not go round and round like the horses on the Grand National course, incurring casualties along the way. However, that is just an observation. The purpose of my contribution is to point out where, I think, there are major problems. If we come to the conclusion that the Bills should be consolidated, it may be possible to overcome them. I hope that the Minister will accept that my aim is to be constructive and helpful. The Equality Bill gives the impression that the Government think that they have a monopoly on equality. They seem to believe that in this politically correct climate they can legislate for the behaviour of   every individual. We all know that that is not so. There is violence on the streets, people use offensive language, and discrimination is universal. I am sure that each of us is discriminated against in a minor way many times during the year, and I do not believe that anyone can legislate for that. A recurring theme of the debate is that we are looking to improve basic, fundamental behaviour, but I do not think that we can legislate for that. Unfortunately, the Bill virtually prescribes the language of equality, but surely we should be more concerned about the substance and effect of this very long Bill. I am also seriously concerned that much here is likely to encourage the very opposite of tolerance and could certainly undermine our Christian heritage. The Bill enshrines a model of equality that is actually at odds with the development of a free and just society. For example, it might well create an equality police force, a powerful body with a legal mandate to sniff out those who are not politically correct enough and bring them to heel, if necessary hauling them before the courts. As one reads those clauses, the term ““thought police”” comes readily to mind. Would that be right in a free and just society? My noble friends Lady Miller and Lord Ferrers have already said that you need only look at Clause 3 to get a flavour of what is in store. The body is legally bound to bring about the ““creation of a society””. I would be grateful to any noble Lord who could tell me when such a phrase was last included in a parliamentary Bill in this country. My noble friend Lord Ferrers mentioned Chairman Mao in China and Stalin’s Soviet Union. That caused me to wonder whether Mugabe had used those words in legislation in Zimbabwe. No doubt, we will be told that the wording is ““aspirational””, to which I respond by saying that election manifestos and party conference speeches should be aspirational, not parliamentary Bills. The commission will be legally bound by the Bill and, when it has been enacted, the courts will have to interpret and apply it. It is dangerous wording, and I hope that we can get rid of any mention of the ““creation of a society””. I have seen legal advice that states that Clause 3 could make the commission immune to judicial review. Is that something that we need? I should like that to be investigated. Normally, a statutory body has clearly defined powers. If it acts outside those powers, it is breaking the law, but this commission is to be instructed to exercise its functions in order to bring about the ““creation of a society””. That is its ““fundamental duty””, according to the clause heading. Surely it can seek to justify almost any activity, including the highest degree of meddling, in the pursuit of such a general a duty. Clause 3(e) requires the commission to bring about ““mutual respect between communities””. I listened avidly to the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, who referred to that. In business, we have a term ““silo management””. Each department or directorate has its own management hierarchical structure, jealously guards its rights and never communicates with the other silos. The system just does not work. Looking at the six community groups, I wonder whether the Government are beginning to think about silo management. Perhaps I am too concerned about the problems of silo management and do not understand what the provision means, but it has all the marks of that style.