Equality Bill [Lords]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Creating a more representative commission would strengthen the expertise available to the commissioners and give confidence to stakeholders, as several Members have pointed out. It is true that those from black and other ethnic minority groups in particular—along, of course, with the Commission for Racial Equality and the Greater London authority—have made a strong case for such representation, but so have others. It is because I favour making the commission more representative that I also support the creation of a race committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, it is self-evident that amendment No. 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, replicates part 5 of schedule 1, which deals with the establishment of the disability committee. But if the Bill is to provide for a disability committee, why should it not provide for a race committee? Notwithstanding the question of consistency, it makes very good sense to create such a committee. Interestingly, at the outset of these discussions, the Disability Rights Commission suggested that, for a period, it might be necessary for each of the equality strands to have a committee, in order to pursue their interests. I repeat that the last thing that I want is for the commission to have a silo mentality—heaven forbid—but I do want it to have expertise; after all, that is how government is run. Any organisation that wants to use expertise efficiently might well find it useful to set up the odd committee in which such expertise can be found. I turn to amendments Nos. 16 and 17 and the point that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) raised. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 proposes that the Secretary of State shall appoint an individual only if the person concerned"““has experience or knowledge relating to a relevant matter, or . . . is suitable for appointment for some other special reason””." I should have thought that that was stating the blindingly obvious. Those requirements are self-evident and I cannot imagine anyone seriously considering appointing a commissioner who did not have experience or knowledge that was relevant to the job. The provision should be tightened, which is why amendment No. 16 would"““ensure that no fewer than one half of the Commissioners have personal or direct experience of one or more of the causes of discrimination and prejudice””." I do not say that people who have not suffered discrimination can have no understanding of a society in which discrimination takes place, but those who have been victims of discrimination or prejudice have something very special to bring to the table. That is the reason for the amendment. When the amendments were discussed in the other place, the Lord Chancellor said:"““I very much hope that, when the commission is appointed, its make-up will broadly reflect the balance that these amendments seek to secure””.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2005; Vol. 674, c. 753.]" I am sure that the Government do want that, but he talked about ““hoping”” that the commission would do that. We do not need to rely on hope because we can, in fact, legislate. The Government are not relying on hope on disability—they are legislating. I welcome the fact that the objective behind the amendments tabled by my colleagues and me is widely shared by the Government. It is only through primary legislation, however, that we can ensure that the commission is representative, rather than just hoping it might be. The Government have accepted that principle on the face of the Bill in relation to the appointment of a commissioner who is disabled and of the disability committee. Having a representative commission from the outset is essential if we are to have the expertise to do the job and if the commission is to win the trust of the communities whose members it will serve. In particular, I mean the communities who are most commonly victims of discrimination and prejudice. The Government clearly agree with that view. Those requirements should therefore be in the Bill. If they will not accept the amendments, they will, in my humble opinion, have to come up with some absolutely cast iron guarantees that the commissioners and the structure of the commission will indeed be along the lines that most right hon. and hon. Members have argued for.