Equality Bill [HL]

I entirely agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said. In its report the Joint Committee on Human Rights criticised the narrow case law of the Court of Appeal on the meaning of ““public authority”” under the Human Rights Act. During debates on this Bill the Government have indicated that they agree with those criticisms and that they would intervene in any suitable case to seek to persuade the Law Lords to come to a view that is in accordance with our intention when we enacted the Human Rights Act. I do not think that it is desirable to seek to amend Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. I think that the flexible definition in it is entirely satisfactory provided it is interpreted and applied correctly. As I do not believe that the discrimination law review will ripen into legislation for at least a couple of years, I simply throw out one possibility to think about. If there were   an individual with a suitable case involving a care establishment or agency, they might think of something on the following lines. They could go to the High Court and submit to judgment. In other words, they could say that the Court of Appeal decision is binding and they are bound to lose. With the consent of the agency itself they could leapfrog the Court of Appeal; that is, not have to go to the Court of Appeal but go straight to the House of Lords from a High Court on the basis of a pure question of interpretation of a statute. They could then seek to get proper funding or probably get a prospective order that they would not be obliged to pay the other side’s legal costs. I am sure that they could find public-spirited lawyers who were quite willing to take the case, if necessary without fee. It could be done quite quickly if a suitable case could be identified, and it might well be that the case could be decided by the Law Lords well before the Government introduced legislation. That is a very shorthand way of saying that if there is enough energy and creativity, this could get to the House of Lords sooner than legislation. Meanwhile, although I entirely agree with everything that the noble Baroness said, I would be unhappy with any attempt by legislation to change the broad, flexible definition that is in the Human Rights Act. For that reason, I hope that means can be found to do what the Government wish to do, which is to get a case before the House of Lords, if necessary with the Attorney-General intervening, in the public interest, to explain the Government’s point of view.