My Lords, I do not want to prolong the debate and I am anxious to hear the Minister’s explanation. However, it is vital that Clause 148(2) remains as it is and that it covers more than employment. It should cover the whole range of public functions performed by a body that is private in form but exercises functions of a public nature. Exactly the same problem arises under the Human Rights Act which covers public authorities in the strict sense but also covers bodies that are private, as I say, but act in place of the state.
As I understand it, this measure ensures that bodies which are genuinely exercising a public function of a particular kind must have regard to the matters in Clause 148(1). If that were not the case, there would be a most regrettable gap because, apart from employment, it would mean that in all the other provision of public services the duty to have regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and to advance equality of opportunity would not apply. That would be regressive and would certainly drive a coach and horses through this part of the duty. Therefore, we hope that the Minister will be able to explain better than I have done why the measure is needed.
Equality Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 27 January 2010.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Equality Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
716 c1498-9 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-06-21 09:59:45 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_616819
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_616819
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_616819