Equality Bill [HL]

I shall certainly try. I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord so eloquently justify the existence of lawyers, not that it is necessary to do so here. I am well aware of what I said about lists. I do not think that the noble Lord should exaggerate my position on lists; the use of lists occasionally has value. However, I have a general view that although lists in legislation are occasionally necessary, one needs to be cautious about constantly seeing them as a solution, as we are sometimes a little prone to do. However, the list we have in this context is right, proper and valuable. I say to my noble friend that I absolutely recognise the EOC’s work on critical issues—in particular its support of women in the workplace and attempt to enable parents and carers to make the life choices they want. The balancing of work and family life is essential and to be supported at all costs. We will look to the commission to continue the EOC’s and the DRC’s work in that area. We expect the commission to promote equality for women and men in their roles as carers, parents and part-time workers through its role of promoting understanding and good practice in equality and diversity. It might decide to use its inquiry powers to look into these sorts of issues, as these powers are not tied to equality and human rights legislation. Under Clause 12, noble Lords will know that the commission is able to comment on the impact of any law, or proposed change in law, relevant to its functions. So it will have ample scope to express its views and recommend action to government on those issues. Under Clause 14, the commission will be able to undertake research and provide general advice in these areas. The commission’s regulatory role, however, is primarily concerned with the equality enactments, where it has powers to support cases, issue codes of practice and bring enforcement action. I believe that it would be inappropriate to extend this role into areas where other bodies have responsibilities. To do so could risk the loss of focus on the commission’s key role in equality and human rights. However, under Clause 30, the commission will be able to provide legal assistance, as we have already indicated, if the case relates to a provision of the equality enactments, including where it is combined with a matter under other legislation, which would include those listed in this amendment. Additionally, there is no reason why the commission and other relevant bodies should not work closely together and produce joint guidance where that would be a helpful step. We do not believe that it is necessary or correct to extend the remit in the way the amendment proposes. However, there is an order-making power in Clause 35(3) which will allow the Secretary of State to add to the list of equality enactments in the future should he or she believe that it is necessary to do so. Furthermore, the Equalities Review and the Discrimination Law Review will no doubt consider the legal framework and the issues relating to those with familial and caring responsibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is right on the EU law, as I understand it, but only those parts of EU law that we have implemented within the UK. The noble Lord nods, so I think that I am right on that. I therefore hope that my noble friend in particular will agree that these reviews are the correct places—that is, the Equalities Review and the Discrimination Law Review—to consider those issues that are beyond the scope of the current Bill. On that basis, and with that assurance, I hope that my noble friend is able to withdraw her amendment.