Equality Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 102:"Page 6, line 29, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—" ““(a)   the progress that has been made or is expected to be made in fulfilling its fundamental duty specified in section 3, (b)   the results at which to aim for the purpose of fulfilling that fundamental duty (““outcomes””), and”” The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment to tease out of the Government a more detailed explanation of the meaning and purpose of this clause. In Clause 13(1)(a), the ““fundamental duty”” set out in   Clause 3 is transmuted into a mere ““aim””. The commission is called upon to identify changes, factors and results ““from time to time””. That is in subsection (1). Eighteen lines later this vague timetable is firmed up to three yearly. It is certainly not for me to correct the Government’s loose drafting, but why does Clause 13(1) not simply say ““on the dates specified in subsection (4)””? In identifying what the subsection calls ““outcomes”” and ““indicators””, the commission is required to consult whoever it thinks fit, as well as anyone who volunteers to join this consultation. Having done that, the commission is required to publish the results of this vague exercise, and the Secretary of State is to lay the report before Parliament. At this point in the progress of the Bill, I am most certainly not going to reopen the debate about the fundamental duty of the commission, so no one need have any fear of that. Equally, I am not going to complain about the commission being obliged to report to the Secretary of State on the outcome of its activities or about the Secretary of State having to lay that report before Parliament. Even the excellent Explanatory Notes, however, are extremely vague about the purposes of this clause and how that purpose is to be achieved. The Explanatory Notes state that,"““the CEHR will need to evaluate available evidence in order to identify desired outcomes for society and the indicators by reference to which progress can be measured””." Frankly, I have to confess that I am not absolutely sure what that means. What is clear, however, is that, as proposed, it is not to be an ordinary annual, or even triennial, report—one that says, for example, ““Here are our accounts, and during the year we dealt with x number of matters of this sort and y of that sort, and we participated in this activity and inaugurated that initiative””. In other words, this will not be a report on tangible activities, results and achievements. This report will be on what the commission claims to have achieved in the course of its vague, philosophical objective of changing society. It will be based, according to subsection (2), on the opinions that the commission solicits from such persons that the commission decides to consult. Dare I venture to suggest that it may not be consulting anyone who, in the preceding three years, has been critical of the commission or any of its activities? In fairness—the Minister will know that I always like to be fair and see both sides of the argument—I must point out that subsection (2)(c) requires the commission to issue a general invitation to make representations to it. But that passive action of receiving such opinions as someone may take the trouble to express is not the same as the positive action of consultation. The result of this consultation will, I believe, be nothing more than an expensive, glossy brochure, containing a great deal of waffle and pious hopes, and very little in the form of tangible results that can be identified beyond argument. I have to admit that my amendment does little, if anything, to improve the situation. All it does is make the requirements less prescriptive and more focused on   the actual work of the commission, its future objectives and the way to judge them, than the woolly wording of subsections (1) and (2). I look forward to hearing from the Minister a more detailed explanation of this somewhat nebulous clause so that we may be better able to judge it before the next stage of the Bill and so that Parliament may, in the future, judge how its provisions are to be complied with. I beg to move.