---

Equality Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 40:"Page 4, line 25, at end insert ““, and" (   )   conduct its affairs in the public interest and with an appropriate degree of independence”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this simple and short amendment requires the CEHR to conduct its affairs in the public interest and with an appropriate degree of independence. I introduced an identical amendment in Committee and I withdrew it in order to consider the Minister’s reply. That I have carefully done, but despite the assurances that the Minister gave me in, I accept, entirely good faith, I still feel that the concept ought to be spelt out in black and white not only for the benefit of the public but for the guidance of the CEHR and any tribunals which might have to adjudicate on any matter coming from it. The amendment was inspired by the identical provision in a Private Member’s equality Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in 2003. After expressing his surprise at being reminded of his authorship of this highly commendable concept, the noble Lord told your Lordships that he certainly agreed with the substance of what I had said. Later in the same brief debate, he exacted an acknowledgement from the Minister that if the commission were not to act in the public interest or abused its powers, the courts could intervene. On the abuse of powers, yes, clearly the courts could intervene, would intervene and no doubt should intervene. But deciding what is in the public interest is a subjective political opinion for angels. I suppose that it is probably not an area which judges would want to rush into—and nor should they. Judges are there to interpret the law and not to make or even to define public interest or public policy. The responsibility of taking the public interest into consideration in deciding cases before it belongs to the powerful organisation that the Bill is creating. It is likewise essential that it should act entirely independent of the Government and not be swayed by populist announcements from the soapbox by Ministers of whatever government happen to be in power at that time. When the Bill originally reached your Lordships’ House, I was concerned with the degree of control being sought by the Secretary of State over the activities of the commission; by the power of the Secretary of State to direct it to do this or that; and by the lack of any requirement to account, via the Secretary of State, over its future plans. I am grateful to the Minister for having gone a long way to meeting those concerns in a number of important areas—not all of them, but a satisfactory number, which again underlines the importance of this Chamber. Do the Government think that there would be anything wrong in the commission basing its actions on what it perceives to be the public interest? Do they believe there is anything wrong with this quasi-judicial organisation acting with what I and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, very moderately requested: namely, an appropriate degree of independence? Will the Minister tell us yes or no? If, as I am sure, the answer is no, there is nothing wrong with either statement. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would say he did not think there was anything wrong with the statement—at least that is what I think. There is no reason why those principles could not be spelt out in crystal-clear words. This would certainly put the matter beyond doubt in the minds of the commission. I beg to move.