Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure that this Bill should begin its legislative journey in your Lordships’ House. I am sure that for many in the other place, where the Bill had its first trial run, that will have been a disappointment. However, when I look around the Chamber and see the cumulative experience and expertise that your Lordships have already brought to bear on this subject, I am sure that the decision was the right one. When I think about expertise and equal opportunities, I always think of the noble Lord, Lord   Lester, who has already confessed his past to us and was hugely responsible for shaping the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. He was also the person to whom those of us who were involved with the EOC in its early years—especially the noble Baroness, Lady   Lockwood, the first and very distinguished chairman of the commission, who has also spoken very effectively today—owed so much for his guidance and support. As usual, I agree with much of what he said. During the relatively short time that I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House, I have been particularly impressed by the time that has been devoted to human rights and equal opportunity issues. We have passed important laws on disability, civil partnerships, equal opportunities for women to join clubs on equal terms with men and on the right of political parties to increase women’s representation in Parliament through positive action. We have debated disability, equal opportunities in education, proper treatment of asylum seekers and those in prison, and much else that we are also dealing with today. So I, too, want to congratulate the Government on that, as well as on the immense trouble taken in preparing this Bill. It is clear from the considerable evidence that your Lordships have received that not everyone believes that the Bill is yet shaped precisely to reflect all the concerns expressed during the extensive consultations carried out. Most particularly, as has been stressed again today, there is the lack of a simultaneous underpinning equality Act. But, however that may be, it is clear that the majority of organisations affected by its provisions—voluntary and statutory and including the three existing regulatory bodies that have done so much already for those who rely on them—have all in principle welcomed the decision to create the single commission. Having said that, I must admit that I am far from being an unconditional fan of what appears to be a growing cult of creating giant regulators. Using a different example—namely, Ofcom—I remain to be convinced that it was wise to combine the ““techy”” and economic side of regulating broadcasting with the sensitive issues of content. Nor indeed do such combinations, despite the practical advantages of providing a ““one-stop shop”” and cross-cutting opportunities, always deliver the kind of financial efficiency savings that might be expected—and which the Treasury will certainly expect. However, I have to admit that, warts and all, because of the multiple strands of equality, growing and urgently needing attention, the single commission route may be the only sensible way forward. A fair amount of fun has already taken place about the likely cost of the new commission. The current combined cost of the three existing commissions is estimated at some £43 million, while estimates for the   CEHR—which no doubt the Minister will confirm or otherwise—could be considerably higher. But additional resources will certainly be needed for dealing with the widened responsibilities proposed, such as the welcome new general duty on public bodies to eliminate unlawful discrimination and promote equality between men and women. Then there are the specific new responsibilities proposed, on age discrimination and discrimination on grounds of religion and of sexual orientation. The new human rights duties will also add to the total cost of the new commission. In those circumstances, the CRE in particular is understandably concerned that there should be no reduction in the resources available for any of the services provided by each strand of the existing commission. So, on top of the estimated £24 million for the non-recurring set-up costs, the commission must be provided with guaranteed ongoing financial resources sufficient to enable it to make the important contribution the Government expect—in other words, to live up to the high expectations raised by the Government themselves. Thus there will be obvious challenges for the Government and the commission. First, and not least, is the need to ensure that there is an agreed allocation between each of the existing and the proposed new equality areas of whatever budget is agreed. I very much hope that the Minister will explain the background and how all that will be achieved. Secondly will be the need to ensure that the budget eventually agreed is both sufficient and guaranteed for a long enough period to underpin the essential independence from government that will be vital for the new commission to do its job—a point made forcibly by the CRE and noble Lords today. On the other hand, there will be expectations of cost savings resulting from the creation of a single body. So the commission will need navigational skill of a ““Scylla and Charybdis”” quality if it is to avoid an over-glossy Ofcom-style overspend and yet avoid Treasury attempts to cut its resources in real terms. Other aspects of independence will be important to the credibility of the new commission, all the more so at a time when the Government are striving so hard to ensure diversity and independence when making appointments to the judiciary. They are protected, of course, by the fact that they are appointed for life, but not so the commissioners, who will be appointed only for a fixed term, with no certainly of reappointment. In those circumstances it will surely be essential for the appointment and re-appointment processes to be as open and transparent as humanly possible and at the very least subject to the full rigour of scrutiny by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments. Not just appointments but also the commissioners’ freedom of action from government interference will need reinforcing. Can being asked to comply with directions from the Secretary of State, for example, really be consistent with the kind of independence required? I want to make two comments about the commission’s proposed powers. In my EOC experience the fact that the Sex Discrimination Act gave us enforcement powers that could and would be used if necessary meant that our powers of persuasion, our promotional powers, achieved much greater success. The second crucially important power was our ability to give financial support to occasional test cases to clarify the law. I may previously have mentioned to your Lordships one of the first early cases backed by the EOC of Price v Civil Service Commission. It was important in two   respects: first, in helping people to understand the new legal concept of indirect discrimination—where seemingly the same conditions are applied to both sexes, but in practice to the clear disadvantage of one sex—and, secondly, even more interestingly, that case exposed age limits as potentially sex-discriminatory. As your Lordships know, these are now to be a fresh and a very important responsibility of the CEHR. I understand that moves are now afoot to spend fewer resources on individual cases and more on strategic campaigns. In general this makes sense, but I hope that the Minister will reassure your Lordships that the new commission’s basic powers, when considering possible test cases of this kind, will remain at least as clear as they are now. I want to end by saying that I am encouraged that the new commission is to have a range of HR promotional powers and eventually a full equalities Act. The ability to encourage good practice and promote good relations within and between different communities where potential or actual discrimination may exist must be important. Children’s human rights have been stressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Walmsley, so I shall not overemphasise that. However, many of us put huge effort into trying to improve the Children’s Commissioner for England’s powers and general function, as the Children Act 2004 passed through this House. Improvements were made, but it is to the CEHR that children will look to promote and protect their human rights and to tackle age discrimination as well as the other forms of discrimination they face. Finally, I hope that the Minister will explain how the time between now and 2007—or is it 2009?—will be spent, where the responsibilities for those important tasks will remain in the mean time, and how the resources will be divided.