Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken so fervently and eloquently today. The speeches that we have heard from all sides of the Chamber confirm and support the view that equality and its converse, discrimination, have the ability to arouse extreme interest and passion. As my noble friend Lady Miller has made clear, we welcome the general thrust of the Bill. Our country and all sides of this House take great pride in our tolerance. The prosperity and economic success of the United Kingdom are due in large part to this attitude and to the broad diversity of people that it has, as a result, attracted, offered sanctuary to and allowed to prosper. We have to ask ourselves whether the Bill is effective in the move towards greater equality, and that is where we have reservations. The move to consolidate and streamline the existing equality bodies into a single one is prima facie a positive one. To promote a consistent approach and a single point of contact across all areas would appear to make for efficiency, fairness and greater understanding. The promotion of what the Government might call a ““joined-up approach”” should work to the benefit of everyone without losing sight of each group’s special needs. While in favour of consolidation where it promotes efficiency, consistency and fairness, it is our duty also to identify and resolve or justify areas where it may create difficulty or increased cost. The commission must not become a bureaucratic black hole which pursues political correctness and unnecessary interference. I shall start with the new unified commission. We are lucky to have in this House so many of your Lordships who have served or still serve with great distinction on the current commissions. Many of those who have spoken today have done so with the benefit of considerable experience of a particular type of discrimination, be it gender, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or age. The diverse nature of today’s debate highlights one vital point which we must not forget: not all discrimination is generic. There is a wide range of ways in which people are discriminated against, different legislation which currently covers that discrimination and tools and mechanisms for dealing with it. Currently, we have three commissions with a wealth of expertise and experience in their specific fields. Like my noble friend Lady Miller, I find myself in a strange position for one on this side of the House of seeing the viewpoint of the Mayor of London when he questions,"““how these different interests and strands will compete for profile and resources within one unified commission””." Less surprisingly, I see the viewpoint of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell, who voiced similar concerns. Perhaps the Minister can reveal how an integrated approach will be taken. How will the commission be structured internally and how will the funding work? It is not enough to say that these decisions have not yet been made. They must have been made for matters to have progressed this far and for a budget to have been estimated. My noble friends Lady Miller, Lady O’Cathain and Lord Ferrers have emphasised that they have some deep-rooted concerns about some of the phraseology employed in early clauses of the Bill. I support their comments. We will want to challenge and amend parts of the Bill which we see as unenforceable aspirations. How should the commission go about its fundamental duty to create a society in which there is mutual respect between communities based on the,"““understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect for equality and human rights””," as set out in Clause 3(e)? This is not merely a semantic issue; it is a point of principle. There is something wrong when we talk about a non-departmental public body creating our society. There is a concern that these words could mean that the courts find it almost impossible for any action of the commission to be deemed ultra vires, placing it above the law. While we all hope that the work of the new commission will help promote equality within our society and engender a greater tolerance of individuals within it, we think that the wording currently in the Bill goes too far. My noble friend Lord Ferrers drew out the contradiction between the aims of equality and diversity.