---

Equality Bill [HL]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor speaking to his amendments and I was considerably moved by the attempts to give greater independence to the commission. That was a major concern particularly in the light of the clear erosion in confidence in existing commissions as a result of perceptions of political manipulation and their failure to challenge those who occupy powerful positions—such as Secretaries of State who may admit to direct, deliberate and unlawful sexual discrimination—and when nothing is done and no challenge is made. How does that give confidence to victims of discrimination that the commissions are operating independently, effectively, purposefully and on behalf of the victims? So I welcome a package of measures that will give greater strength to the way in which this commission will be seen as independent. However, I do not believe that the proposals on the appointment of commissioners move us far enough towards a more representative commission. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has shown movement in bringing forward Amendment No. 1. However, I should have thought that his description about making appointments only on the basis of merit already described how we make appointments—only on the basis of merit. I hope that we are not saying that in future, and in this case, we will seek to make appointments on merit. I thought that that was an automatic and essential criterion. I should also have thought that knowledge and experience of discrimination and human rights were essential requirements for anyone to have even a remote possibility of being considered for appointment as a commissioner. Amendment No. 1 is too vague to achieve the range of representativeness necessary for a body such as this. The body we are seeking to create is important because it will handle all our affairs on equality and human rights. Five major points are important in achieving an effective commission. It must have good law to work with. We are still awaiting it and are promised it, and we hope that it comes sooner rather than later. It must be independent, competent and confident as well as accountable. It must have the confidence of the public in its work. It must be effective in its law enforcement—which is not happening at present, and I am not certain that the entirety of the proposals will enable it. Finally, there needs to be demonstrable evidence that the commission is making a difference in achieving the goals of equality, fair treatment and human rights. If we are to achieve a more representative commission, we must see proposals for balanced appointments alongside the criteria of relevance to the purpose of the commission, as well as appointment on merit. The Bill rightly provides specifically for the appointment of a commissioner who is disabled. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has already appropriately articulated that there probably should be more than one such commissioner. I do not think that there is a problem with that at all. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has argued appropriately for the representation of trade union and employer business interests. That also can be accommodated within the proposals for representativeness. But—I am afraid that I do not accept what has been articulated so far—the Bill remains silent on the issue of representation from all other strands of discrimination and interest groups. The amendments put forward to achieve a commission composed half of women and a quarter from a black and ethnic minority background as a statutory requirement would, we believe, remedy that serious anomaly. If it is argued, as it is, that to impose such a strict requirement would impinge on the independence and flexibility of the commission to make its own decisions, why have we already imposed a requirement for the appointment of a commissioner with a disability? The commission needs to be effective and we have to get it right first time. There is no point in having a toothless talking shop of experts without empathy or identity, and part of the notion of representativeness is to achieve that. We want to see independent, competent and non-politically aligned commissioners who are prepared to challenge and root out all aspects of unlawful discrimination and thus promote confidence in relations across all groups of people through engagement and empathy. We do not want to see people sitting in their CEHR towers among other out-of-touch metropolitan elites. We want competent commissioners who are in touch with the realities of the experience of discrimination and exclusion, and I am afraid that the notion of merit will not necessarily enable us to achieve that because it has not enabled us to achieve it so far. The present proposals are inadequate and unacceptable. They will fail because they will cause resentment relating to inequality and treatment which is perceived as favourable as well as unfavourable, and they will create conflicts among commissioners. We need to resolve those issues before they emerge. In my view and, I know, in the view of many stakeholders in the business of equality, fairness and diversity, the best way forward is to create a visibly representative commission that is competent, confident, independent, accessible and reflective of our diversity. If we cannot do that now, when will we ever achieve such a goal? The commission should set the standard for equality, fairness, human rights and visibly representative diversity.