Queen’s Speech

My Lords, I shall focus on the equality Bill. As has been noted, it is appropriate that we examine this issue as we note the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and—as I learnt this afternoon from the APPG on equalities—the debate in Europe on the anti-discrimination directive gets under way. I hope that Britain will be a leader in that conversation and will ensure that our legislation complements that of Europe. The equality Bill presents us with an opportunity to clarify an area marked by opacity, complexity and a degree of myth. I support the Government’s commitment to the legislation, although, like others, I feel that there is much to debate. I am sure that we shall do so vigorously in the weeks and months to come. There are real fears that bringing together the different pieces of discrimination legislation will result in a ““lowest common denominator”” approach and weakened legislation. I have heard comments on this from those involved in combating racial discrimination and in disability campaigning. Some women have expressed the fear that gender discrimination, particularly the pay gap, will not be vigorously pursued. Others make more specific comments on that in their responses to the Government’s consultation exercise. There is a nervousness that advances made under the old legislative regimes will not be carried over into the new Bill except in a diminished form. Particular needs must, of course, be considered in legislation. Discrimination manifests itself in a variety of ways which are not necessarily consistent across all the different groupings. We need to achieve a balance between the generic and the specific. I can see that some people might interpret this as weakening legislation. We must be mindful of that. We can also see how complex this endeavour is. For example, we need to examine carefully how we tackle disadvantage and discrimination on the basis of religion. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark addressed that issue, albeit from slightly different perspectives. I look forward to a probing debate on that matter. I take the view that our goals are best achieved by working together across boundaries formed historically as a result of perceived and real common interests and experiences to secure the best possible legislation. Even though it may be argued that there are qualitative differences in the experience and degree of discrimination and disadvantage between the targeted groups, and even though tactically there may be some advantage in maintaining divisions at certain points, it is more productive to combine forces to achieve longer term strategic goals. These concerns about which sections of society might lose out and which might gain are based in part on a perception that there is a hierarchy of need or a deficiency model which sees the various groupings as having to compete with each other for limited resources. However, this is not just about perception. As the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, demonstrated, it is very real. He gave the example of the disparity between the pay of ethnic minorities and that of their peers, which seems to have dropped off the agenda. These issues are particularly urgent in the current economic climate where it will be possible to claim that some initiatives are too costly and cannot be implemented in ways that we might wish because of the financial situation. However, fairness and social justice should not be bound exclusively to the present conditions. Indeed, it seems to me that we have a responsibility to ensure that the legislation enacted is fit for purpose for some time to come. I agree with the Minister that during such difficult times we most need to aspire to the highest possible levels of justice and fairness in order to protect the disadvantaged and vulnerable. Another important issue, which has been touched on, concerns the clarification of what is meant by, and allowable under, the umbrella term ““positive action””. Such clarification is sorely needed. At present, this is an area of substantial misunderstanding and, indeed, ignorance. It is sometimes referred to as ““positive discrimination”” and/or ““reverse discrimination””, often by people who should know better. I agree with the results of the consultation on the Bill, which showed a broad consensus, that clear and authoritative guidance on this matter is essential. There will be tough areas to address though, particularly if there is a move towards enabling employers to take into account under-representation of disadvantaged groups when choosing between two equally qualified candidates for a job. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, said on that matter. It sounded to me very much as if he was advocating quotas. I am not in favour of that strategy. I should like to hear him speak further on that. I am sure that we will go into it in detail. Many people have pointed to the level of seemingly endless bureaucracy being a real deterrent in implementing current anti-discrimination legislation. Public sector bodies that will have to understand and deliver policies will not be helped by having to fill in dozens of forms each time they need to implement a particular action. I hope that there will be scope for developing a framework which moves away from process-bound outcomes based on a ticking boxes delivery. It is interesting to note that it was not so long ago that anyone seen as a proponent of equality of opportunity was caricatured as a member of the ““loony left”” or as a ““woolly minded liberal””. Although today we have made significant strides towards—for want of a better term—mainstreaming equalities, there are still those who are unable to accept or grasp the significance and importance of a systematic, fair, embedded approach to equality of opportunity, even though the moral, business and human rights cases and justifications for attempting to eradicate discrimination have been effectively argued for many years now. Often public misconceptions are fuelled by scare stories in the press and elsewhere and the bullying tactics of those who attempt to close down reasoned debate through the use of terms such as ““political correctness””. This sloppy, overused expression is often called into play to denigrate notions of fairness and social justice which underpin the legal and other types of mechanisms adopted to help us move towards equality of opportunity. Accusations that equality means trying to make everyone the same, that every attempt to level the playing field constitutes political correctness gone mad, and claims that white middle-class men need not apply, are a common feature of popular journalism which serve to undermine the quest for a more equitable society. I am sure we can expect a litany of such comments in the press as we debate these issues in the months to come, and I hope that we will not be intimidated or caught on the back foot, or backtrack apologetically. In his foreword to Fairness: A New Contract with the Public, Trevor Phillips, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, states: "““Britons today aspire to live in a society in which no one’s destiny should be determined by the circumstances of their birth””." I would like to think he is right in that assumption but we still need to do a better job of informing the public about equalities and human rights. We are not talking about a minority, when all is said and done. This is not a minority interest where only other people are affected by the impact of discrimination and disadvantage. The majority of people will probably have been subjected to or experience them either directly or indirectly at some point in their lives. What we are seeking is, on one level, quite simple—to be fairly treated regardless of where we come from and what we are seen as representing. I do not underestimate the enormity of the task which lies ahead but I look forward to working with noble Lords across the House to make this a truly effective Bill, enabling us to take another step towards a fairer, more equitable society.