Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I will look at it and talk to him about it. You can no more force members of society to respect each other, as under Clause 3(e), than to categorise a society into mutually exclusive and isolated communities, as under Clause 11. As the noble Baroness, Lady   Greengross, said, there is a need to guard against   unforeseen consequences. My noble friend Lady   O’Cathain referred to the danger of vexatious litigants exploiting the legislation for purposes for which it was not intended. Clause 30 might create a situation, for example, where the commission provides legal assistance for what turns out to be a spurious case. What legal assistance and recompense will be given to the wrongly or questionably accused religious institution, business or person to whom the commission may not provide legal assistance? The Bill is broad in its definition of religion and belief. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell says, it gives Christians cause for concern. My noble friend Lady O’Cathain referred to the risk of malicious targeting of religious groups. My noble friend Lord Ferrers rightly considers that we must encourage, not frustrate, religious charities which are trying to help people. Among our concerns is that the provisions of the Bill will foster a conflict between the rights of Churches and religious bodies and the human rights of non-believers. This will require further careful thought. The commission must exercise great care to avoid being tempted itself into discrimination. For example, in pursuing its strategy to eradicate discrimination against any of the categories of people the Bill is concerned with, the commission must not discriminate against other people, which would then infringe their human rights. On the issue of human rights, I thank my noble friend Lady Carnegy for her questions on Scotland and the yet to be established Scottish human rights commission. We will certainly need to explore this issue in Committee. My noble friend Lady Carnegy also raised some interesting questions that need answers about the interaction between the Bill and Scottish devolution. Returning to the subject of human rights, Clause 9 places obligations on the commission, among other things, to promote understanding of the importance of human rights, to encourage good practice in relation to them and to promote awareness, understanding and protection of them. However, there is as yet no corresponding obligation on the commission to promote the notion that human rights come with responsibilities and to disseminate an understanding of the responsibilities that individuals must bear if they are to enjoy the benefits of human rights. My noble friend Lady Miller referred to the budget for the commission. The Government have proposed a setting-up budget of £24 million and an annual budget of £70 million. The current budgets for the three extant commissions total £43 million. As my noble friend Lady Miller said, there is a 63 per cent increase in the total annual budget. How has the new commission been costed? There must have been some idea of the internal structure of the commission in order to do the costing. If the Government have anticipated some economies of scale, which the electorate is entitled to expect from all the streamlining and consolidation, where will they be? How do the start-up costs and annual running costs reflect the fact that the CRE is not to join until 2009, and the disability committee has a limited shelf life? How will the risk that there is a disproportionate allocation of resources between strands, as they are termed, be dealt with? What assurances can be given to staff at the existing commissions? It would be a tragedy if their specific knowledge were lost. How will it work in practice when, aside from the disability committee, the different strands are integrated? Those questions have arisen several times in this debate. I turn to the potential effects of the Bill on business. In a recent conversation, the equality commissioner in Northern Ireland pointed out to me among other things the need for the commission to maintain a close relationship with business and other sectors. I must declare an interest as a director and controlling shareholder of a small business. The concerns of business regarding the Bill include the need to develop a constructive and non-adversarial relationship between the commission and business—otherwise there is scope for an aggressive commission to decide to make examples of some businesses, which would be unnecessarily destructive. Businesses are also concerned by the prospect of legislating for a single commission without first having in place single equality legislation and feel that there needs to be a requirement that the commission focus   on promotion before enforcement. Businesses fear litigation and warn that if the commission is merely a regulator and an enforcer it will alienate the business community. There needs to be a free advice line for small businesses, which tend not to be able to afford full-time staff to deal with compliance in areas such as this. Has there been an assessment of the impact on small business, which, I hardly need remind your Lordships, employ more than half the country’s workforce? There are also concerns about the basis for the estimate given for the costs to the private sector. Several noble Lords have suggested that the commission should have independence from government and be answerable directly to Parliament. At the same time, as my noble friend Lady O’Cathain said, there are concerns about the creation of an equality police force and the commission’s apparently unchallengeable power and immunity from review, given the broad powers in Clause 3. Both those concerns need to be taken into account. On a different matter, I think we would do well to take note of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on the issue of those with learning disabilities. In conclusion, we welcome the general concept of the Bill. However, many reasonable people consider that this country is already one of the most tolerant on earth. The problem with well intentioned legislation, as your Lordships know well, is that the intention is often far from the effect. On this side of the House, we are keen to avoid the creation of a monster with unlimited power to interfere with people’s lives that stifles growth and punishes the innocent.