Equality Bill [Lords]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to give due regard to a range of views. We are talking about a commission that deals with discrimination. We will not be looking to replicate how our society is. Precisely those people who experience discrimination should be given representation in greater numbers than they would be in a body that reflected society in general. I hope that that reassures hon. Members that we want to ensure that that is the case. If we did not do that, the commission would neither command the confidence of communities nor champion equality with credibility among employers and service providers. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, and the complete range of amendments—Nos. 1 to 10—seek to establish a statutory race committee. I thank those who have raised that important issue. The amendments respond to the strong concerns of some black and minority ethnic communities. Like my hon. Friend, I, too, believe that if the new commission cannot effectively tackle racism, it cannot demonstrate real progress in improving race equality in Britain, and it will have failed. In setting out the Government’s view it is important to understand the process that led to the Bill. The responses to the consultation on the White Paper in 2004 overwhelmingly supported an integrated body, not a federal structure of separate interests. Many pointed out that a federal structure would risk the new commission being blighted by inertia and infighting. Equality is not a minority issue, but an issue for us all. I am encouraged by the strong support for a unified and integrated approach to these issues. We talk about six strands and about human rights, but there are groups of people who genuinely feel that because they are a minority concern—whether it is transgender, transsexual or those with a learning disability—their voices are never heard. The commission will have to hear all those voices. Black and minority ethnic groups have lobbied strongly for a race committee to be set out in the Bill and for there to be a designated race commissioner, as that would guarantee for them that their concerns would be considered by the new body. However, had that been placed in the Bill, other strands would also have sought to have a committee to represent their interests and we would be setting up a federated structure—an approach that we had specifically rejected for good reasons and that would go against the overwhelming consensus for an integrated approach. The CRE, until very recently, accepted that there was no need to have a race committee in the Bill. I come to why we have made provision in the Bill for a disability committee. I refer to what I said at the outset in taking forward existing powers and duties. In working with the existing commissions, we agreed that there should be no regression from their existing arrangements. There is no requirement that the CRE must support black commissioners or a quota of black or Asian commissioners. The Disability Rights Commission requires that disabled people be appointed to the commission. We have taken equal care to avoid regression in the race area in terms of our commitment to continue funding for the race equality councils, giving priority to race and faith in the new commission’s good relations remit and carrying forward the CRE’s powers in full. All the commissions will have a transitional commissioner to ensure that the experience and priorities of the existing commissions are adequately reflected in the new arrangements. I draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to the disabilities committee. It has a sunset clause so that as the transition takes place and it, too, moves into place, consideration can be given to whether that process needs to continue.