Equality Bill [HL]

I welcome this opportunity to put on the record why we are not placing the commission under an express duty to consider all applications for support that it receives and why we think it is unnecessary to specify ““case work”” in the Bill. I recognise that there is an obligation placed on the CRE by the Race Relations Act and on the Equal Opportunities Commission by the Sex Discrimination Act to consider every application against set criteria and decide whether to grant it within a fixed time period of two months. This obligation is not conferred on the Disability Rights Commission. It is not our intention that the new commission will support every meritorious case. It will simply not have the resources to do so, as the current commissions do not. There are about 20,000 discrimination cases before the courts and tribunals each year; fewer than 400 are supported by the existing commissions combined. The intention is that the commission will use its power to assist an individual in bringing proceedings in an effective and strategic way, as we would expect it to use all its powers. So we have taken away the statutory criteria for supporting cases that feature almost identically in each of the commissions. The purpose behind that is to allow the commission to use its power in the way it considers most effective. That goes back to my point about freedom of action for the commission, as I indicated on the first day of Committee. That is very important. We do not see any need to put an express obligation on the commission to consider applications. In practice, it has to consider all the applications if it is to identify which, if any, it wishes to support. As a public body, it has an implicit obligation to not act unreasonably and could be challenged if it ignored applications it received. We do not think it sensible to carry forward a duty   that may potentially drain a significant—and disproportionate—share of resources from the commission’s other work on the basis that I said of how we would expect the commission to operate. Amendment No. 131 would add case work to the list of legal assistance that the commission can provide. Case work is a subset of the legal advice listed; it is encompassed within Clause 14, which allows the commission to provide general advice and guidance on matters which are not the subject of legal proceedings. Specifying case work would cast doubt on whether the references to advice and guidance and legal advice and representation cover case work, and imply that it is something different, which it is not. So, on the basis that it is already covered, I hope that the noble Baroness will not wish to press that amendment, and on the basis of what I have said about the way that the commission would operate, will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 129.