Equality Bill [HL]

I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. I also know not only from our discussions on Second Reading but from other discussions that he and other noble Lords on all sides of the Committee are champions of small businesses. These businesses employ the majority of the country’s workforce and are often ill-equipped to deal with the sometimes complex obligations that legislation can bring. The establishment of the commission, bringing together expert advice and guidance on a range of issues, therefore represents a major advance in helping small business to comply with the law. I know that the Federation of Small Businesses and the CBI have both generally welcomed the commission. They have in a sense been the strongest champions for moving in this direction. I am certain that in exercising its power under Clause 14 to give advice or guidance, the commission will provide a free helpline and website and conduct correspondence with its service users. As the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, knows, one need only look at the examples of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission to see that. The DRC in particular offers an excellent and highly-praised helpline, without charge to individuals and businesses alike. As I understand it, in 2003–04 the line took almost 120,000 calls of which 40,000 were from employers and service providers. They do so without a statutory duty to provide one. It is an example that we expect to be followed. Looking at the particular amendment, I do not claim to be able to predict the future. Yet I am pretty certain that, in a decade, communications and technology will change and probably be unrecognisable from what they are now. From my experience with other legislation, I know that it is important that we do not impose a duty that roots our advice and guidance in today’s communication media. That needs to be thought about in the context of what may be; for example, had we done this 30 years ago, we may well have required typewritten correspondence from the commissions. That would be inappropriate in terms of the technology of today. A further consequence of the amendment is to preclude the commission from working with others to provide advice. The Disability Rights Commission helpline is thought of so highly partly because it uses specialist third-party providers to deliver the service. We want to ensure that the commission is able to do that again, if that were the right way forward. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that if the commission is to meet its obligation, it is absolutely imperative that it finds effective ways of communicating with businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why we also want to see business expertise reflected in the knowledge and experience of the appointed commissioners. As the noble Lord probably realises, although I have enormous sympathy for the amendments, I shall resist them because I want the commission to move forward. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the commission is able to support businesses in the way I have indicated. I will indeed take forward some of the excellent current examples so that they are a source of advice and support for small businesses and not a burden.