Equality Bill [Lords]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I welcome the Bill and its aspirations of promoting not only a just, decent and tolerant society, but the concept of opportunity for all, whatever background people come from, and whatever their creed, colour, religion, or faith. I associate myself with such opportunity in society. I welcomed the comments of the hon. Member for Hove (Ms Barlow) about the need to focus on the assumption that the problems of homophobia and racism have gone away. I know from my constituency that that is unfortunately not the case. In the earlier part of the year, a Jewish cemetery in my constituency was desecrated, vandalised and covered in graffiti. That brought home to me the fact that a lack of understanding and a great deal of intolerance and fear remain in our society. Homophobia is a problem, and people can be assaulted, abused and ultimately killed because of their sexuality, or for following their creed or religion. Those problems are bound up in the direction that a society takes. The Bill in itself tries to address the underlying problems, given that the actions that I have highlighted already have a criminal sanction. We must continue to focus on the cause of such actions and the issues that lie behind them, so I welcome the thrust of the Bill. I also welcome the logic of trying to bring together the various strands that the Bill tries to address, whether that discrimination is on the basis of ethnicity, disability, age, or religion. Trying to pigeonhole such complex matters into individual organisations and addressing them with a disparate body of case law does not promote the vision that I want for this country: a much more tolerant and understanding society for us all to live in. We must face up to several challenges when bringing together those various strands. We need to ensure that the necessary skills and qualifications exist in the commission for equality and human rights because the wide issue about which we are talking is extremely complex. We will also need to focus on how the body addresses its many challenges. I welcomed the fact that the Minister said that the structure of the commission would be such that funding would not be pigeonholed for different aspects of its work. Such an approach must be adopted. Clause 3 sets out the basis and scope of the commission’s work, which is, by its very nature, extremely broad. I am concerned that that breadth will lead to a lack of focus and that it will be unable to achieve what it needs to achieve. The commission needs an independent role, but it is interesting that the strategic plan of targets by which it will seek to measure its work will be delivered merely to the Secretary of State, whereas the code of practice that it will adopt will be subject to a much greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny and involvement of the Secretary of State. Although I accept the need for independence and for the commission to take a robust approach, clause 3 in essence contains political aspirations and ideals. The commission should have such a role and responsibility, but in examining provisions on the way that it draws up its action plan and three-yearly reviews, we must acknowledge the need for scrutiny to ensure that it focuses on the complex objectives that have been set for it. We must ensure that we have the opportunity to scrutinise its roles and how it is proceeding. The lack of that in the Bill could on one hand be said to be a strength, but on the other a weakness. There is also a need to ensure that we do not end up with a bureaucratic structure. I hear the comments of the Minister and other hon. Members, but the structure is in danger of becoming bureaucratic and lacking focus. There is vagueness in the intentions of clause 3 and the definition of human rights. The Bill says that human rights will be those under the European convention, but it could mean other human rights. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said, it could mean the rights of the child. That is very interesting, but that lack of focus and certainty about the commission’s role may ultimately mean that it cannot fulfil its function. The use of resources has been debated and numbers have been bandied across the Chamber. It is interesting to note that the Equal Opportunities Commission and various other stakeholders have said that the money to be provided is not enough. When one considers the breadth of the work, it is possible to envisage how money could be fired off in different directions. That underpins my argument that greater focus and clarity are needed in the direction and scope of the organisation’s work. Comments about political correctness have been interesting to note. In some way, I endorse those made from the Conservative Benches. One function of the commission is to try to stop litigation and to encourage a culture in which there is not always the need for a litigious approach. However, we are entering a dangerous period. We have a society that might be described as very defensive, so we need a law to tell us what we can do, as opposed to the rule of law under which we could do something unless some enactment prevented us from doing it. I respect and understand the need to create a just and tolerant society, but I do not want us to go down the track where we feel that our actions need to be sanctioned in order for us to feel comfortable about them. Gold-plating and the approach in the Bill might result in local authorities and other legitimate organisations, which might be faith-based, feeling constrained in their actions—not because of the way that they act, but because they fear litigation and that they might be doing something that has not been sanctioned, which will be costly and time-consuming in the courts. I welcome the Bill, but a lot more needs to be done in terms of the operation of the commission that it seeks to establish, and the culture and climate that it seeks to foster. We must ensure that it positively promotes a tolerant and just society, not a society in which people are always looking over their shoulder and looking for comfort in law. It must enable people to act normally, and in a way that we in this House regard as acceptable.