Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the Bill. In doing so, I acknowledge the many people across the   country who ceaselessly and tirelessly work for their fellows, their brothers and sisters, who suffer discrimination and inequality. I am speaking not only of those in the existing commissions but also of those who voluntarily give up their time on a daily basis to help those who are the victims of discrimination and exclusion. I also congratulate the Government on achieving a wide range of support for the Bill, which demonstrates their intention to eliminate all forms of unfair discrimination and to enhance the fundamental human rights of all members of our society. The Bill represents a giant step change from the tentative proposals set out in the White Paper Fairness for All, which promised inter alia a light-touch enforcement, especially for the private sector. That approach outraged many stakeholders and interest groups because it is surely not possible to achieve an even lighter touch than the one that already exists on anti-discrimination enforcement. Praise must go both to the staff who worked on bringing the Bill together and to Jacqui Smith, now the Minister of State for Schools. It has not been an easy task to straddle the demands of the different interest groups and stakeholders. We now have a broad consensus in your Lordships’ House supporting these proposals. However, that consensus and support have been achieved by trying to please the many diverse interests. As a result, we now have a Bill containing numerous inconsistencies and anomalies. As has been said by many noble Lords, that would best be remedied by having a single equality Act. The future introduction of a single equality Act to harmonise, simplify and modernise the raft of existing anti-discrimination legislation was belatedly made a manifesto commitment by the Labour Party at the recent general election. Given the complexity of the existing equality regulations, a harmonised equality Act would provide clarity to enable us to determine the sort of enforcement body that we require. We would then also have a better understanding of what needed to be done and how it could be done most effectively. Thus, a single equality Act should precede the Equality Bill now before your Lordships’ House. The Government have partially acknowledged that point through the reviews they have set up on existing discrimination law and the reasons for persistent discrimination and inequalities, both of which will report some time next year. The outcome of those reviews should inform the shape of a single equality Bill and influence the planning for the establishment of a CEHR. If not, what is the point of the two reviews? How can the Government be committed to clarity, simplicity and effectiveness in the operation of the proposed new body if they pursue the present course? Therefore, while the CEHR is urgently needed, it would be better to put the horse before the cart and get it right the first time. That said, the fundamental duty of the proposed new body, especially as it is stated in the much-mentioned Clause 3, sets the tone for the challenges ahead. There is the matter of the text and the wording about the creation of a society, but the ultimate goal is to create the conditions that enable us to be part of a society in which people’s ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination. It is very aspirational, but it is right to be aspirational. The legislation should help us achieve the respect for, and protection of, each individual’s human rights. There must be respect for the dignity and worth of each individual, and each must have an equal opportunity to participate in society. There should be mutual respect between communities based on understanding and the valuing of diversity and on shared respect for equality and human rights. Those may be seen as fine words; I think they are excellent words. Is this aspirational? Yes, it is. Is it achievable? Yes, it is. How do we do it? We do it with demonstrable political will, adequate resources, strong comprehensive and coherent legislation, unfettered, effective enforcement and powerful political and corporate leadership to stand up to those detractors and opponents ready and willing to dub this ““political correctness gone mad””. Are we prepared to let all those who discriminate or condone discrimination know that they will be pursued, caught and punished? We are probably not prepared to do so. Are we prepared to support the victims of everyday discrimination by giving them the confidence to challenge all perceived acts of unfair and unjust treatment? Probably not, if we continue to be fearful of being accused of perpetuating a mythical compensation culture. What would be the consequences of not getting these vital proposals and consequential arrangements right first time? It would result in more of the same, and probably worse. I shall highlight some, but only some, of the disparities and anomalies that must be addressed in the Bill. In doing so, I apply six tests against the following criteria: clarity of purpose; simplicity for comprehension; fairness in treatment for all; consistency for coherence; reasonable for proportionality; and effectiveness for outcomes. For a start, the Bill’s provisions allow public authorities, Ministers and the Crown to be exempt from compliance with equality legislation on too many occasions. That is not even maintaining the status quo; it is worse. There are too many opportunities for ministerial interventions through directions and approval requirements, which make independence from political interference unachievable. Any CEHR should be accountable to Parliament. There are inconsistent definitions of a public body or authority. Private and voluntary bodies providing public services do not have to comply with the Human Rights Act or with certain provisions of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act and the Disability Discrimination Act. Those must be addressed. The public duty for race, gender and disability should be extended across all strands of discrimination and inequality. It should therefore cover sexual orientation, age, transgender status and religion and belief grounds. The terms of coverage should include harassment and there should be consistency for all people affected by discrimination. Clause 38 refers to the dissolution of the existing commissions not later than 31 March 2009. It is understood that the Commission for Racial Equality will not be dissolved until then. What good reasons are there for the proposed commission not to begin its comprehensive operations at the same time for all strands of discrimination? If the date is to be April 2009, that would provide ample time for a single equality Act to be put in place, and for a shadow enforcement body to be positioned to plan and effect a seamless takeover and a coherent beginning. Obviously, for some people, 2009 is too far away. A disability committee is considered necessary—the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a powerful and valid case for one. There is also justification for other committees to represent the other strands of equality characteristics. There is no doubt about that. Some of the interest groups and stakeholders are already saying that they see the need for that. Separate committees are proposed for Wales and Scotland. Bearing in mind the strategic importance of the capital city and its reputation as the most ethnically diverse capital city in the world, should there not be a London committee? Certainly, that is one of the things for which the Mayor of London will be campaigning. The final point is about the level of support for victims of discrimination. Discrimination is still pervasive in our society. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, made an excellent exposé of the problems faced by people with learning disabilities. Most of those who are the victims of discrimination do not complain. That is a fact. They are afraid; they are victimised. They have no voice—no choice. Employers especially know what they can get away with. They know that they would be unlikely to be caught, and even if they were the punishment would be insignificant. In February of this year the EOC published new research showing that each year around 30,000 working women are sacked, made redundant or leave their jobs due to pregnancy discrimination. Information in the reply to a Written Question that I tabled last June revealed that, in that year, the amounts earmarked by the various existing commissions for assisting complainants of discrimination were derisory. For the CRE it was 2 per cent of its annual budget; for the EOC it was 3.1 per cent; and for the DRC, 5.5 per cent. If we are really serious about ending discrimination we have to recognise that it should be more in the region of about 30 per cent to 40 per cent of annual budgets, whatever those annual budgets are. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, we must not fluff this opportunity. It must be equality for all. This Bill is very good but it needs to be improved. It is long overdue, but it is needed now. However, it should not precede a harmonised single equality Act, which is promised, a draft of which has already been before this House, as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The proposed CEHR should bring on board the work of all existing commissions and the new areas of coverage at the same time. In the mean time, adequate support must be given to the agencies that are providing support and protection by leading on the issues of age, religion and belief and sexual orientation discrimination. The many disparities, inconsistencies and anomalies identified have to be addressed during the passage of the Bill in your Lordships’ House. If it is to be successful, the new CEHR needs to be an effective independent body with adequate resources and an unequivocal commitment to tackle all discrimination vigorously, in order to build and maintain trust and confidence across all sections of British society. Finally, the proposed CEHR must be established in shadow form with independent-minded commissioners who bring no baggage with them from the existing regimes, thereby obviating the likelihood of potential disruptive cabals and self-serving hierarchies.