Equality Bill

My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 111 and, secondly, to Amendment 112, which is a different type of amendment about a separate issue. The equality duty is to get public bodies to think about the discrimination that individuals may be suffering or may be likely to suffer and then consider whether there is anything that they can or should do to tackle it. We know from the evidence available through the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the equalities review, that some people with religious beliefs—for example, Muslim women—or without religious beliefs are suffering disadvantage or have different needs. If we talk about different needs, some people with a particular religion or belief who engage with public services may have certain needs—for example, dietary requirements, or they may not be able to sit exams on holy days. Advancing equality of opportunity involves thinking about whether the service you provide is one that everyone is able to make use of, not just those people who fit into a traditional mould. It should mean more sensitive, personalised services from which everyone can benefit. I think we would all agree about that. The problem with this amendment is that we suspect that it might create and build a hierarchy of inequality into the duty, which would send a completely wrong message. It could suggest that we do not consider disadvantage linked to religion or belief to be as bad as other forms of disadvantage. But we also understand that competing demands may occur. If they do, an integrated duty that embraces all strands provides the best legal framework for considering how decisions affect all groups, and not just some groups. We also believe that the guidance to the equality duty, which would have to be carefully drafted, could cover and make clear the responsibilities of public bodies in relation to promoting equality of opportunity for religion or belief. However, I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the other contributors to this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the most reverend Primate in particular made compelling arguments, which led me to believe that the best thing we can do at this stage is to take this away and think about how we can best achieve what we want to achieve. I take on board very much the concerns expressed in the debate. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment on that basis. Amendment 112 would not require immigration authorities to take the equality duty into account as far as age and race are concerned, but they would be required to have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a religion or belief and those who do not share such religion or belief. We want our borders to be secure from certain individuals whose religious beliefs are so strong that it would not be in the public interest to allow them to enter or, in some circumstances, to remain in this country. For that reason, the duty to have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity on the ground of religion or belief may not always be compatible with the essential functions of the UK Border Agency to provide effective immigration control that is consistent with government policy and public safety. We also do not want to open ourselves up to meaningless challenges, as other noble Lords have said. This exception is not designed to be a blank cheque to permit the immigration authorities to evade their responsibilities. It is intended to ensure that, where necessary, they can exercise the essential functions in these respects without the possibility of hopeless and irrelevant challenges, so I request the Lord to withdraw the amendment.