---

Equality Bill [HL]

It means that one respects, as an ancient Judeo-Christian principle, that every individual human being is entitled to respect because of their common humanity. It does not mean that someone who behaves in a criminal way is entitled to the same respect as someone who does not. The desire to promote human dignity underlies many of the rights under post-World War Two international human rights instruments—it is not the invention of this Government. The Preamble to the UN Charter in 1945 explains that the peoples of the United Nations reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and   worth of the human person. The Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 refers to the dignity and worth of the human person. There is similar language in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. They include declarations that,"““recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world””," and,"““that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person””." Similarly, the dignity of the human person is relied on   frequently before the European Commission and European Court of Human Rights in their case law. I shall not mention the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, since there may be some here who would regard that as a fatal reference. The Joint Committee on Human Rights in its 16th   report on the Bill refers specifically to Clause 3, welcoming its terms with its echoes of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The committee said that it would serve in practice as a unifying factor in the commission’s efforts to undertake its duties under Clauses 8 to 11. That report was unanimous. The committee included three powerful Conservative members; the noble Lords, Lord Bowness and Lord   Campbell of Alloway, and Richard Shepherd MP of the other place. I was not on the committee, but I agree with what was said. The clause does not in any way constitute an unconstitutional threat to the rule of law. It does not place the commission in any way beyond judicial review. It does echo all the values in the code of international human rights. I have sympathy with one of the later amendments proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to which he has not yet spoken, Amendment No. 102. We shall not be debating that amendment this evening, but I shall mention it because it goes with this one. I find the way   that Clause 13(1) on ““Monitoring progress”” is expressed to be, to say the least, a bit heavy-handed. What is then done is to give the commission the task of identifying changes in society in a rather unattractively worded way. When we come to that, I shall be interested to see what is said about it. As far as Clause 3 is concerned—