Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Hussein-Ece and Baroness Lister of Burtersett

Monday 4th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I apologise for not being able to be present when this amendment was debated in Committee. However, I have read the debate and the balance of opinion clearly lay with the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton—not surprisingly, given the powerful speech she made and the one which she has also made today. It is a privilege to support an amendment moved by such a respected champion of equality and human rights, who I would like to call my noble friend. In doing so, I wish to address just two points that emerged during the debate in Committee.

First, the Minister argued that the general duty contained in Section 3 “creates unrealistic expectations”. She went on to acknowledge the importance of the statement contained in the general duty and suggested that it could,

“be replicated in the commission’s own strategic plan”—[Official Report, 9/1/13; col. GC 61.]

or mission statement. Surely, however, that is to undermine her own argument because if the problem is one of unrealistic expectations, they would still be created if replicated in a strategic plan or mission statement.

The other main argument put forward in the debate was that repeal of the general duty would not make any difference anyway, as it is of symbolic rather than practical importance. This is the official stance taken by the commission itself. I have two responses to that: first, as a number of noble Lords noted in Committee, this justification was challenged by Professor Sir Bob Hepple of Cambridge University. He argued that Section 3 has an important legal function and that without it equality law would be “rudderless” and would lack the “important unifying principle” that Section 3 provides, and which the Joint Committee on Human Rights welcomed in its report on the Equality Bill. However, even if the significance of the general duty were more symbolic than practical, symbols matter in politics and we should not underestimate the symbolism of removing the section. The deluge of e-mails that I have received in recent days defending Section 3 is a testament to the power of that symbolism.

At a time when politics has become increasingly managerial and uninspiring, I find it rather wonderful that the Equality Act contains an aspirational, visionary statement of intent. Moreover, the European Commission study on national equality bodies advised:

“In order to fully realise their potential in promoting equal treatment for all, equality bodies should develop a vision of their role within the administrative culture and society”.

It is a sad day if the vision enshrined in the legislation is now struck out. As the British Institute for Human Rights argues, it sends a worrying message that the Equality and Human Rights Commission,

“is to be a compliance factory with no real ambition or purpose”.

I fear that the suggested alternative put forward by the commission in its briefing, namely that it should be,

“a national expert on equality and human rights”,

and the strategic regulator for equality offers neither ambition nor visionary purpose but is, as the British Institute argues, purely descriptive, as the noble Baroness has already said. It offers mundane prose where Section 3 offered the poetry of high ideals.

I hope that the Minister will have thought again in the light of the support for this amendment in Committee and the public concern now being expressed. If not, should the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, decide to test the opinion of the House, I hope that noble Lords will support her. The amendment will cost nothing, but it will provide reassurance that the work of the Equality and Human Rights Commission will continue to be framed by a vision of society in which each of us without exception is treated equally and with dignity and respect—the core principles of human rights.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I associate myself with what has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Lister. I do not want to repeat what I said at Second Reading—we had a very full debate then—but I was disappointed that we continue to hear that removing the general duty was a bit of tidying up and that it would have no effect whatever on the work or legal responsibilities of the commission. The question that has been put a number of times, including by myself, was then why do it? Why do something if it will have no impact at all? I am afraid that the reply has not given me much confidence.

I strongly believe that the Government have a choice between a strong independent body that is committed to promoting and safeguarding our values, which I believe are British values, independent of the Government of the day—whichever colour—or we go for the option of a watered-down, less independent, weaker institution, which in time would be rendered merely an enforcement agency or regulator without the vision and underpinning that is so important. I cannot think of another organisation, independent or statutory, that does not have some sort of mission statement or a duty to promote or do something. This is the only organisation of its kind in this country. Are we suggesting that the Equality and Human Rights Commission does not need such a mission or values, which were very much fought over and arose as a result of cross-party agreement when the Equality Act 2006 was debated and enshrined?

I said at Second Reading, and it is worth saying again, that the then Opposition gender and equality spokesperson Eleanor Laing, MP, spoke of how important it is that the general duty is ambitious and wide ranging. With the change of government and apparently as part of an unwritten agreement, this seems to have changed for whatever reason, and I am disappointed.

There is an opportunity here for the Government to say what sort of organisation we want. We have a choice, but I also think that maybe we need to take a step back. Perhaps this is not the right place to debate what sort of mission statement or general duty an organisation as important as this, with such a multifaceted function, should have at this stage. We evidently need more time to consider this. It cannot be resolved via this Bill on the Floor of the House.

Will the Government take this away and consider the type of organisation they want and what they want it to do? As I said, in line with other organisations, if not in this country then in the world, it should have some form of agreed mission statement incorporating its aims, responsibilities and duties to the taxpayers and citizens of this country. The Government should do this in consultation with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and bring it back to the House. Will the Minister respond to that?