Before the noble Baroness finishes, would it not be a good idea to have paragraph (h) at the bottom of this list in Clause 8, which indicates that all this should be done in the public interest. It is possible to get so carried away with equality and diversity issues that a commission might begin suggesting things which are unreasonably expensive or which perhaps cater for people who do not have any disability of the kind for which they are catering in a certain place.
I remember many issues of this sort in the past. For example, buses were required to be equipped for blind people in a glen where there had never been a blind person and there was not one at the time. It seemed very unreasonable to everybody. That is a small example. It is problematic. This somewhat airy-fairy list—and I agree with my noble friend Lord Peyton’s criticism of it—is a strange way to legislate. But if one does do this, it would not be a bad idea to put at the end that whatever is done should be in the public interest. The public interest must be considered by the commission as well as the specific issue of disability, race, or whatever it is. I think that the Government should consider that. On those simple grounds, if no other, I would suggest that they do not completely disregard my noble friend’s idea.
Equality Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Carnegy of Lour
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 11 July 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Equality Bill (HL).
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c897-8 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:55:55 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261199
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261199
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261199