Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Handsworth]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Section 3 represents more than a statement. It represents a commitment to the principles of equality—equality of opportunity, equality of dignity and the responsibility of the state to its citizens.

The EHRC needs a benchmark, a flag, by which it can promote the principles on which it was founded. It needs to be measured, not against the principles of race, disability or gender, but in a much wider context, because it makes a statement about the sort of society we are, the aspirations that we hold for ourselves, and the signals that we send far and wide.

In that context, if the amendment before this House is not embraced, we will be sending a negative statement. We will be saying that after all that we have achieved over many years in terms of race, gender, disability and children, we have turned around and are heading in a totally different direction. It is not my belief that that is the Government’s intention: I believe that the Government’s intention is to continue to improve the standards and opportunities of all their citizens. However, in any journey, we all sometimes take a wrong turn; I genuinely believe that on this occasion, the Government—with all their good intentions—have got it wrong. It is for those reasons that I ask the Minister to look again and to say to the Government that so much depends on their credibility with a vast swathe of this nation and its citizens that to take this wrong turn would be an inevitable downgrading of the concept of equality of opportunity for all. We all believe in that principle and it is in that spirit that I support the amendment, but more importantly, I ask the Government to think again.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I cannot begin to emulate the eloquence of the speech that we have just heard. I too regret that I was not present when this matter was discussed in Committee on 9 January but, after reading Hansard, it is clear to me that the debate was of an exceptionally high standard, particularly the contributions of my noble friends Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lord Low of Dalston. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Low cannot be here today; I cannot begin to take his place, but I agree with everything he said in that debate.

There is another person who cannot be here today for a different reason. He was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, as one of those who led the way in this area of the law in the 1990s and long before that. I refer, of course, to the late Lord Morris of Manchester. It is not difficult for me—or I suspect, anybody else in the House today—to imagine what Lord Morris’s reaction to the proposed repeal of Section 3 would have been. I do not doubt for one moment that he would have regarded it as a serious backwards step, and he would have said so in his usual trenchant terms.

I want to deal first with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, as a lawyer—I am sure that his heart was not really in it—that if we leave out Section 3 we are losing nothing. Secondly, I want to comment on the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, at the end of her reply for the Government’s decision to repeal Section 3. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, gave two reasons for his view. The first was that Section 3 was purely aspirational, so it would make no difference if it were repealed. It contained nothing, he said, that could be enforced in a court of law.

However, if that argument were correct, it surely proves too much. If Section 3 is purely aspirational, so, surely, are Sections 8 and 9. How would the noble Lord enforce in a court of law the duty under Section 8 to promote understanding of the importance of equality and diversity? How would he enforce in a court of law the commission’s duty under Section 9 to promote understanding of the importance of human rights? If the legal argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, were correct, it would surely mean that we should repeal not only Section 3 but Sections 8 and 9, which would leave us with absolutely nothing. Of course, the truth is that the argument is misconceived. Recent legislation is littered with examples of duties which cannot be enforced in a court of law but serve, nevertheless, a very useful purpose. For example, Section 1 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 provides that:

“This Act does not … affect … the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law”.

How is that to be enforced in a court of law? However, it serves an extremely useful purpose.

Another example that occurred to me is Section 1 of the Climate Change Act, which provides that:

“It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline”.

How—perhaps I should say, when—is that duty, clearly stated by Parliament, to become enforceable: in 2048, 2049, or when? Therefore, with respect, that argument carries very little weight. For all those reasons, I suggest, with the utmost delicacy, that the legal argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, should not deter us in any way from supporting this amendment.

However, the noble Lord had a second argument. He said that there is nothing in Section 3 which is not also contained in Sections 8 and 9, so Section 3 is in effect otiose. I suggest that he is wrong, but suppose for a moment that he is right: if Section 3 adds nothing to Sections 8 and 9, how is that consistent with the Government’s argument all along that Section 3 is too broad? As the noble Lord, Lord Low, pointed out, the Government simply cannot have it both ways. I suggest that he was right. In truth, Section 3 does indeed add something which is not in Sections 8 or 9, and something of the very greatest importance. It provides for the first time in legislation the unifying link between equality and other fundamental human rights. This was the point made by Sir Bob Hepple in his memorandum, which I hope the noble Baroness has read, and which has already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. That deserves an answer and I hope that it will get one. Indeed, the assertion of a unifying principle in Section 3 was surely one of the main objectives of the 2006 Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, himself pointed out when he was promoting the Bill. Therefore, I again suggest, as delicately as I can, that the noble Lord might in this instance have done better to follow his heart than his head.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak and it is a misfortune for the House that I now do so, with extraordinary brevity. When I joined this House almost 20 years ago, Lord Alexander of Weedon said to me, “Remember, Anthony, that the House of Lords is not a court of appeal, it is a jury. Try, if you can, to speak to a jury”. I totally disagree with almost everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has said today, and would do so in a court of appeal. However, when we are dealing with a jury whose sentiment has already been powerfully expressed, I do not think that it would do the slightest good if I were to explain exactly why I continue to hold the view that I did previously.

By the way, I did not promote the 2006 Act, but I certainly took part in debates on it and I did not oppose Section 3. However, being a practical person—I am no philosopher—I shall concentrate in these debates on three practical things: one is caste discrimination, the second is the abolition of the questionnaire procedure, and the third is the relationship between the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the commission. I hope that I shall not speak on anything else.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I was dealing only with the arguments which the noble Lord advanced in Committee. I thought he might be advancing them again. He has not, but at any rate I have given my answers to those arguments and the House will in due course decide.

I turn now to the reasons—and I am sorry to take so long—given by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for repealing Section 3 as it stands. She gave two reasons and it is as well that the House should actually have them in mind. The first reason is as follows:

“But the problem with Section 3 is that it implies that the commission, uniquely, is responsible for encouraging and supporting the development of such a society. This is patently wrong and arguably insults the efforts that we all make in support of these goals, whether through the work of Parliament, government, the wider public sector, business or the community. We are collectively responsible. We might need the commission’s help, but it cannot achieve an equal society on its own”.

Section 3 provides that the object of the commission is to encourage and support the goals of which we are all aware. But there is nothing that I can find in the words of Section 3 which suggests or implies that the commission is to be solely or uniquely responsible for encouraging and supporting those goals. I fear that, in adding those words, the noble Baroness was reading words into Section 3 which are simply not there and for which there is not the slightest reason.

I fail to see how it can be argued, as the noble Baroness does, that Section 3 is an insult to the work done by Parliament or government or to the public in general. Of course, the commission cannot achieve an equal society on its own. Whoever suggested that it could? So I am puzzled by the first reason given. There is no insult involved. But I am equally puzzled by her second reason, which is as follows:

“We are seeking to repeal the general duty on the commission because it creates unrealistic expectations, positive and negative, about what it on its own can achieve”.—[Official Report, 9/1/13: cols. GC 60-61.]

I repeat, the commission’s job is to encourage and support. How does that create any expectations, positive or negative, that the commission can do the job on its own? What is the evidence that there is any such unlikely expectation and, if there is, that it is due to Section 3?

We are being asked today to repeal a very recent piece of legislation which was regarded as of some importance at the time and was well considered. We should not do so unless good reasons are given. The reasons so far given on behalf of the Government are, to my mind, wholly unconvincing. I therefore support the amendment.

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, in putting my name to the amendment, I would like to endorse the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in relation to the magnificent contribution made by my noble friend Lady Campbell in the context of human rights.

The general duty created by Parliament in Section 3 of the Equality Act 2006 is a profoundly important obligation. It is not vague. Its terms are absolutely clear and quite brief. As Liberty has said, the fact that the commission has not yet fulfilled its potential —and despite its early failings to deliver on its mandate—should not mean that its crucial powers and functions are compromised or circumscribed.

We have heard a description of what Section 3 actually does. It asks the commission to exercise its functions to encourage and support the development of an inclusive society that encourages people to achieve their potential, values diversity, respects the dignity and worth of every citizen, and respects, promotes and protects human rights. It does not, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, require the Equality and Human Rights Commission to establish a fair and equal society. That would be vague and impossible of performance. Rather it provides the vision that is necessary to guide the operation of equality and human rights law in this country. It is not uncommon for such a purposive section to be included in legislation. It provides a very necessary statutory underpinning to the operation of equality and human rights law.

When one seeks to work legislation of this type in a day-to-day context, provisions such as this are profoundly important. The legislation that applied to me as Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland required me to carry out my functions in the way that I thought was best calculated to secure the confidence of the people and the police in the police complaints system. If you were so minded, you could argue that that was similarly vague, but it was not vague at all; it was very precise.

Section 3 provides the principles that are absent from the Equality Act 2010 and which are necessary for the interpretation of that Act. Without it, there would be gaps and deficiencies and, ultimately, Parliament would be required to legislate further on this issue. There is widespread unease and concern, articulated not only in this House this afternoon, at the proposal to remove Section 3—the lobbying has come from wide sectors of society.

I refer to the response of Justice to the Home Office consultation in 2011 on this issue. Justice pointed out that the objectives set out in the general duty were,

“agreed by all political parties in Parliament following amendments proposed by Conservative MPs”.

Justice also stated:

“The General Duty provides a clear mandate which the EHRC must have regard to when deciding how to act. By repealing the General Duty, the mission and very purpose of the EHRC would be altered, and the UK’s commitment to the Paris Principles would be fatally undermined”.

The commission achieved its fundamentally important United Nations “A” status only three years ago. It had to demonstrate compliance with the Paris principles in order to do that. The achievement of “A” status gave it full participatory rights at the UN Human Rights Council and access to other UN bodies. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission had had such a status three years previously. That status, with the opportunity for influence and engagement, is important in the context of the international credibility of this country.

Reference has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to Professor Sir Bob Hepple’s statements. He has stated that repeal will remove the unifying principle to which both the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred when promoting the Equality Act 2006—the link between equality and other fundamental human rights. At the core of the commission’s general duty, and implicitly underlying the specific rights against discrimination, harassment, victimisation and the positive duty to advance equality, is respect for and protection of each person’s human rights.

This is not merely a political statement. It is the difference between the commission pursuing a society in which everyone is treated well and one in which law can be complied with simply because everyone is treated equally badly. When the Commission for Racial Equality investigated ill treatment of black prisoners prior to the creation of this commission, the defence given by the prisons was that white prisoners were treated equally badly. That was a legally sound defence. However, the operation of Section 3 ensured that a use-of-force policy against young men in detention had to be abandoned when the commission intervened. Had Section 3 not existed, the Home Secretary could have simply reconsidered the matter and reissued the policy.

I have seen no evidence that Section 3 has been in any way a hindrance to the operation of the commission, equality law or business. It is a necessary framework within which our equality and human rights law operates. The commission is facing the harsh reality of trying to maintain its UN “A” status while suffering from 76% budgetary cuts and 62% staffing cuts. It will struggle. If Section 3 is lost, the commission will be reduced in status and clarity of mission and purpose. That would be detrimental to the governance of our society.