There is no doubt that the creation of a single equality body (SEB) is a step in the right direction if the government wishes to harmonise the confusing discrimination legislation and win over businesses (see [2003] Gazette, 11 December, 14).

But there is little point to having a SEB without single equality legislation that would legitimise the body and provide it with a single piece of harmonised legislation.

Most statutory bodies are created by an Act and not vice versa.

In this case, the body will not have the legislative powers to harmonise and streamline the current labyrinth of endless Acts, directives and statutory instruments, often contradictory, that comprise our unsatisfactory discrimination legislation.

Indeed, many organisations have argued for single equality legislation.

While the need to pair the SEB with an Act is obvious, it is not obvious that the SEB should share the umbrella of a Human Rights Commission.

As Lords Hope and Millett pointed out in Qazi v Harrow LBC [2003] UKHL 43 in dismissing the human rights argument in a contractual property dispute, the Human Rights Act is primarily concerned with the arbitrary intrusion by state or public authorities into a citizen's life.

The discrimination legislation is not only narrower, but it includes the private sector, and is primarily concerned with unequal treatment in the context of employment and the provision of goods and services.

Therefore, the discrimination legislation is neither identical to nor a true subset of the Human Rights Act.

The scope and expertise of a Single Equality Commission and a Human Rights Commission are different enough for us to be concerned that a half-baked and underfunded attempt to combine them (particularly with no powers of enforcement) would be to the detriment of both.

Joyce Glasser, London