---

Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, let me say from the outset how very pleased I am that the Minister has been true to her word and has looked again at the definition whereby ““communities”” were the focus of efforts rather than the many individuals who comprise groups and communities. Those changes are most welcome and will add definitional clarity to the very good intentions behind this clause. Amendment No. 47 relates to the principal clause dealing with good relations—that is, Clause 11. I am disappointed that the drafters of new Clause 46 have sought to remove paragraph (d), which placed on the commission the duty to,"““work towards the elimination of the involuntary isolation of communities””." The existing clause is flawed. It addresses only the involuntary isolation of communities instead of also recognising that some ““voluntary”” isolation may also be detrimental to social cohesion. I understand that the Government’s reluctance to address this issue is that they are concerned not to be seeking integration from those communities who choose the path of isolation as an article of faith or culture. I think that their concern here is mainly for orthodox religious communities. But the effect of my amendment, which covers voluntary and involuntary isolation, would not be to ““force”” communities or groups who choose isolation to integrate with each other or to integrate in general. It would place on the commission only the duty to ““work towards”” those aims. I would not bring up that clause so late in the consideration of the Bill—it was there and I am sorry to see its removal—but it is important because the Minister has moved some way. As many people have said, the noble Baroness was a very listening Minister. Given the importance of events over the summer, in terms of the isolation and segregation of mainly minority communities—much of the debate today has covered those communities—it is quite surprising to see the removal of paragraph (d). At a time when the Prime Minister and Home Secretary are calling for greater integration and buy-in from British Muslims and other minority communities into what they define as British values—I must say that I broadly agree with their aims—it is curious that the department is retreating from those laudable objectives when social cohesion is less good than it might be. Reading the report by the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, a couple of years ago, for example, and by Ted Cantle, which touch on the detriment to community cohesion from isolation, it is clear that even inadvertently leaving communities to lead parallel lives cannot be good policy, especially as of itself it will not fulfil the new aims of paragraph (d), which is to work towards enabling members of groups to participate in society. So the new clause is not quite sufficient and it would be helpful if, through the amendments, we could reinstate the previous provision again. I hope that the Minister will consider that.