---

Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, I rise with some trepidation because I am not going to join the great chorus of ““hurrahs””. I am grateful to the Government for thinking again about this, but the amendments do not go far enough. The concern about the wording of Clause 3 relates to two issues: first, whether it would make it difficult to succeed in any judicial review of the commission’s actions and, secondly, whether it was, in terms of normal statutory drafting, an excessively broad duty for a quango. In Committee, the issue of judicial review was raised by my noble friend Lady Miller, who had obtained advice from a number of lawyers who suggested that it could be prayed in aid by the commission to provide a legal basis for almost any action it chose to take. That would make it virtually impossible to succeed in challenging the commission by judicial review. The issue of drafting was raised by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Holme, in a letter dated 21 June to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the Constitution Committee, as regards which I declare an interest as a member. He referred to the whole of Clause 3 as containing,"““language of a generality and depth that is seldom found in Acts of Parliament . . . their interpretation will require the making of far-reaching and sensitive decisions that will turn on the Commission’s political, social and cultural perceptions””." Sadly, I do not think that the small change proposed by the Government today goes far enough. The fact remains that the commission is being given a huge overarching mandate in relation to the whole of society. The new wording leaves in place the same possibility that actions for judicial review will fail because nothing, but nothing, would fall outside the scope of the commission’s ““fundamental duty””. It remains an exceedingly general power whose application could have far-reaching implications for our society. I really hope that the Minister will take it away and think again.