| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 pm.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.42 to 8.45 pm.]
Equality Bill [HL]
House again in Committee on Clause 3.
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 62 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 63.
The noble Baroness said: I am aware that it is late and I want to move Amendment No. 63, but as the Minister has already said that she intends to take Clause 3 away and look at it again, I am perfectly content not to say any more about the strong feelings I have about this. I am more than happy, tomorrow or any other time, to show the noble Baroness what I would have said.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 64:
The noble Lord said: I was hoping that this amendment would be moved by my noble friend Lady Falkner. It was she who spoke at Second Reading about the unsightliness or inappropriateness of the way in which "communities" was defined in the Bill. We have sought to deal with that by concentrating upon the notion that one is a member of a group rather than looking at the community as a whole. To be "members of different communities" seems better than simply lumping together one community with another.
This is not a matter on which we are dogmatic, and there may well be better wording to express the idea that my noble friend Lady Falkner so well expressed at
6 Jul 2005 : Column 720
Second Reading. I hope that the Minister will reply by treating what was said at Second Reading as the basis for the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am perfectly happy to address the issue in the way the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has requested. A number of noble Lords have sought clarification of the definition of "communities" in the Bill, as have other external stakeholders who are concerned that the commission's duties might not apply to individuals who, for example, did not identify with any part of a particular community. I agree entirely with the principles behind the amendment. In that sense, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and I are in accord.
With the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, Clause 11(3) refines the concept of community to include sub-groups and sub-classes within that community. I have already said that we need to look at this again. Brevity is often everything in your Lordships' House, particularly now, so let me be brief. There is confusion about the way in which the concept of community is applied in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured that I intend to take it away and see if we can make it clearer on the basis of accepting the principle behind the amendment that the noble Baroness, had she been here, would have moved.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: That is an extremely helpful answer. I am sure that it will be welcomed by my noble friend as it is by me. We look forward to further thought. Brevity is the soul of this place. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I can speak to Amendment No. 67 because I have my notes with me. However, we were told that this evening we were going only as far as the debate on whether Clause 3 would stand part. That is why my noble friends did not stay after dinner.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My understanding was that we would go as far as group 22. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, explained to me that they had dinner engagements and, therefore, could not be here. We would be covering issues around the strategic plan. We could do that relatively quickly and have it out of the way in readiness for our next day in Committee. I think that the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, is leading on those groups, which we thought we could cover tonight.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Some extremely non-controversial amendments are in groups 20 and 21.
6 Jul 2005 : Column 721
They are government amendments and it seems to me that no one would object to them. Perhaps we will be able to deal with those as well.
Lord De Mauley moved Amendment No. 67:
"( ) The strategic plan shall, so far as is reasonably practical, aim at a proportionate and fair allocation of priorities, activities and resources to each of the different strands of the responsibilities of the Commission under this Act, varying with the circumstances prevailing from time to time."
The noble Lord said: This amendment is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Miller. It is merely a probing amendment and is relatively self-explanatory. I hope your Lordships will forgive the far-from-elegant nature of the drafting, but it is important to debate the essence of the amendment at this stage of the Bill.
Some concern was voiced at Second Reading and in various briefings that we have received about how the new commission will be structured internally so as to represent all three current commissions, as well as support the new areas of age, religion and sexual orientation, which are being brought in.
The bodies representing these new areas are concerned about the resources which will be available to them under the new commission. These areas will be new, and there will be no case work, no dedicated staff and no structure in place at the outset. I do not want to argue about who deserves more money or where the priorities of the commission, as Clause 4(1) states should be set out in the strategic plan, should lie. I realise that the idea is that the commission should not have specific and competing departments for each of the areas, but take a unified approach to equality and discrimination and work in a joined-up manner as one amalgamated body. This is a laudable aim. Our worry is that the new areas, which do not have dedicated staff and high-profile current commissioners to fight their corner, may get lost in the commission. It should not be the case that he who shouts loudest gets the most funds.
Age Concern is just one of the organisations that have contacted us on this issue. It believes that the Bill as drafted does not guarantee,
"a fair allocation of resources across the range of equality strands . . . We are keen this issue is raised to ensure older people benefit equally from the Commission and to stress that it is important a hierarchy of equalities is not allowed to develop as concessions are made to other equality strands".
In the light of those fears and concerns, we tabled the amendment. The idea is to place an obligation on the commission, so far as is reasonably practical, to aim at a proportionate and fair allocation of priorities, activities and resources to each of the different areas. We believe that such a duty would provide more support for the newer areas, as well as setting minds at ease that they will not be overlooked. Including such a duty in the strategic plan under Clause 4 is in the interests of accountability and transparency.
I expect that the Minister will claim that subsection (1)(c) will ensure that there is a fair and transparent allocation of resources and ensure that the commission
6 Jul 2005 : Column 722
can justify its priorities. However, I believe that our amendment commends itself because of the insistence on proportionality. I also feel that we have provided adequate flexibility for the commission by allowing circumstances to dictate any variants in the allocation of resources, the priorities of the commission and the activities that it undertakes.
The amendment is not intended to be over-prescriptive; we do not want to tie the new commission's hands, but we want to ensure as far as possible that there is an allocation of priorities and resources which is proportionate and deals fairly and equally with all areas in the commission, not only the most dominant. I look forward to hearing some assurances from the Minister on this vital issue. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I entirely agree with the objective of the amendments. Indeed, in my Private Member's Bill, I tried to achieve something similar. It is extremely important in bringing together the "different strands" that there should be confidence that the new commission will secure a,
and so on, as the amendment puts it, and that the process should not create a hierarchy of rights and interests, otherwise the CEHR will not command confidence.
I am perfectly in favour of the amendment's objective. On the other hand, as we have said in earlier debates, this is really a matter that the chairman or chairwoman and the commissioners must get right themselves. When the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland was set up, there were teething problems beforehand with each of the existing commissions not wanting to be brought together. I know that the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland had to do precisely what the amendment seeks to do—namely, ensure that there was no hierarchy so that some rights are seen as more important than others.
We would very much support the aims of the amendment, but doubt that it needs to be in the Bill in this particular way.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |