---

Equality Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 18:"Page 64, line 19, leave out from ““before”” to end of line 21 and insert ““either section 8 or section 11, in so far as they relate to disability, comes into force (to any extent).””" The noble Baroness said: My Lords, many noble Lords will recall that, during our debate in Committee on the commission’s community duty, noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, made very strong cases for bringing disability within the mainstream of the Clause 11 provisions, while recognising that disability is different and presents particular challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and others also raised concerns in Committee about the definitions of ““community”” raised in the Bills. Many noble Lords raised concerns about some of the drafting terminology, which, I think, my noble friend Lord Carter described as ““unfortunate””. My noble friend’s concerns were echoed by many outside your Lordships’ House who followed the debates and the establishment of the new commission with great interest. I agreed to look at those issues again. This group of amendments is the product of that further work. The amendments remove the commission’s particular disability duties at Clauses 10 and 20 and bring disability within the scope of its good relations duties in Clauses 11 and 21. Importantly, in doing so they permit the commission to promote or encourage the favourable treatment of disabled people, recognising that the Disability Discrimination Act is alone among our anti-discrimination provisions in that it requires action to be taken for disabled people in order to tackle inequality. Encouraging good practice in the treatment of disabled people is as important an aspect of the Disability Rights Commission’s work as it will be for the new commission. There was a debate in Committee about how the commission’s Clause 11 duties would apply to those who, for example, do not identify with a community, or to those who feel they may belong to more than one community. The amendments also replace the term ““communities”” with references to ““groups”” and ““members of groups””. We believe that these provisions address noble Lords’ points, and make it clear that the commission’s duties apply to everyone, whether or not they identify as a member of a group or a community. The amendments also address the concerns expressed in Committee about some of the drafting of Clause 11. They would replace the references to ““sub-class”” and ““sub-group”” with the perhaps less pejorative terms ““smaller class”” and ““smaller group””. They will also describe the commission’s duty to,"““work towards the elimination of the involuntary isolation of communities””," in terms of more positive outcomes—working towards enabling members of groups to participate in society. Together, those amendments effect the three broad changes that we seek to make: first, to bring the disability duties within the scope of the commission’s generic duty; secondly, to reflect more accurately that both individuals and groups fall within the scope of the commission’s good relations duties; and, thirdly, to amend some of the drafting terminology that caused some concern for noble Lords and those outside the House. I beg to move.