---

Sandra Gidley : I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). I have not changed my view on these issues since Second Reading, although I have become far more aware of the strength of feeling on them in the black and ethnic minority community. I want slightly to hold the hon. Gentleman to account for his accusation that we do not take equality issues seriously. I think that it was Lord Lester, in another place, who made a serious attempt to introduce a single equalities Act, and I believe that we had a debate on equal opportunities in 2000.

Keith Vaz: My point was that there is a lot of common ground on the equalities agenda, but the race agenda that is part of that is not just about words, but about actions and deeds.

6.30 pm

Sandra Gidley: I have no quarrel with that argument and I am sympathetic to the intent of the amendments.

In some respects, the key question that needs to be considered is whether one has to have experienced an issue in order to be able first, to understand it, and secondly, to deal with it. I am not sure that I have the answers, but to return to an issue outside the equality agenda, one of the most emotional and sometimes traumatic experiences through which a woman can go is giving birth. A lot of evidence shows that having an understanding midwife will make a big difference to that experience. The key question is whether the midwife has to have given birth in order to understand the experience fully. That might seem an odd parallel, but some would argue that experiencing birth oneself is very important, while others would say that training, empathy and so on can overcome such problems.

I have some problems with the argument about whether the amendment limits the recruitment pool. I always feel highly offended, as a woman, at accusations that all-women shortlists will somehow end up with an inferior candidate. Let me knock that issue on the head. The argument has been raised with me, however, and I feel that I ought to mention it.

The Bill already provides for commissioners to have experience or knowledge relating to a relevant matter, across the strands, and to human rights. The question that I ask myself is whether that is enough. After
 
16 Jan 2006 : Column 614
 
listening to the hon. Member for Leicester, East, it is clear that there will be wider implications if we do not take seriously the discontent in the black and ethnic minority communities. I would react with absolute horror to a commission that was made up of 10 white men, but I do not think that that will happen. I wonder whether for once we should trust those concerned to get on with it rather than prescribing it in the Bill. I do not know the answer.

The hon. Member for Leicester, East also lauded the Commission for Racial Equality, saying that it was the one place where black and ethnic minority communities could go if they had a problem. Is that really the case? Although the issue was mentioned when I had briefings with the CRE, it did not seem the most important thing on the agenda of those to whom I spoke. It was only after the Bill's Second Reading that other representative bodies of black and ethnic minority communities came forward and it became obvious that there was a huge amount of discontent. Why did the CRE not make that feeling known at the very beginning? Would a single equalities commission, with a range of people with experience of different discriminations, and with a strong responsibility to consult, be a better way forward?

Keith Vaz: The hon. Lady mentioned that she wishes to trust the new body on the issue of representation, but why should we? We are parliamentarians, and there is a common agenda. To borrow the words of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), if we want to be clear why cannot we be clear here, rather than leaving it to another body to make the decision for us? If we do not legislate clearly, and if we leave wooliness and vagueness, of course people will take advantage of that. Why are the Liberal Democrats not prepared to support the amendments?

Sandra Gidley: We have not yet declared our position, so the hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see.

Were we to go down a quota route for the different strands of discrimination, we would be faced with some real problems. Gender is potentially the biggest source of discrimination in society, but I would not necessarily insist on a 50 per cent. gender representation. Racial discrimination might be one of the more acute problems in society, but we run the risk of having a committee—I hesitate to use the word "tokenistic"—whose members are chosen because of what they are rather than because of what they can do and how they can progress the agenda.

Roger Berry (Kingswood) (Lab): Will the hon. Lady and her colleagues support or oppose the Bill's provision that at least one commissioner should be or have been a disabled person?

Sandra Gidley: We have no particular problems with that, but that is the whole difficulty. Ideally, I would prefer there not to be different provisions for different strands of inequality. The Bill is an attempt to set up the commission, but several attempts have been made during the Bill's passage to try to address various other inequalities, mostly with a spectacular lack of success.

Hywel Williams (Caernarfon) (PC): Does the hon. Lady accept that the first qualification for being a
 
16 Jan 2006 : Column 615
 
commissioner is a general understanding of the power processes in society, which could be satisfied by any member? There is also a need for knowledge of and interest in particular issues such as disability, for knowledge of issues from the perspective of a commissioner from Wales or Scotland, and for a guarantee that there will be commissioners who have direct experience of the application of racism, for which Labour Members are arguing.

Sandra Gidley: The issue of direct experience is fraught with problems, particularly in relation to disability. As has been mentioned, someone who uses a wheelchair has a different perspective on life from someone who has visual impairment or a hearing problem. Do we need to have people with direct experience of and an interest in a particular issue—we must not lose sight of the human rights aspect—and how relevant is it to be pigeonholed in such a way? I am not entirely convinced that that is necessary if other provisions are in place to make sure that the necessary groups are consulted adequately.

One of the other problems, which one of the amendments attempts to address, is that black and ethnic minority communities undoubtedly experience discrimination, as do women. All the evidence shows that a black ethnic minority woman will experience more and enhanced discrimination. There is a case for considering some of the wider causes of discrimination in a more holistic way, rather than trying to tackle each separate strand. That is why I welcome the human rights-based approach.

Rob Marris: I will pose to the hon. Lady the question that I attempted to pose to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), although I am not sure that she quite understood it. Schedule 1, in part 5, contains provisions for a disability committee. The wording of that part of schedule 1 is on all-fours with amendment No. 9. Does the hon. Lady support the inclusion of a disability committee provision in the legislation, and if so, can she say that she supports amendment No. 9? If she does not support the inclusion of such a provision in schedule 1, why, if she wants to consider matters holistically, has she not tabled an amendment to remove it?

Sandra Gidley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but I have addressed it to a certain extent. This is an occasion when the Minister's response will be the key to how we vote if the House divides.

Philip Davies : The hon. Lady is making a thoughtful and balanced speech. Does she agree that the terms of recruitment for those bodies should be based on a person's ability to do the job, which is true equality? If we believe in equality we should ensure that the best person is chosen for the job, irrespective of their sex, race or background. Someone such as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) is a good advocate for anti-discrimination without being from an ethnic minority. The chief executive of the Disabled Drivers Motor Club, Ed Passant, is an excellent advocate for the cause, but is not disabled himself.
 
16 Jan 2006 : Column 616
 
People do not have to be from certain backgrounds to be good advocates for the causes for which they are arguing.

Sandra Gidley: The hon. Gentleman raises one of the key points. The danger with the amendments is that people are chosen because of what they are rather than   what they can bring. It is not necessarily the case that there is nobody available, but I am unconvinced that we are looking at the complete pool.

It concerns me that black and ethnic minority groups feel disfranchised and I am not convinced that the CRE was the voice that it thought it was. The representations that I have received have been stronger and more forceful than those from the CRE at the beginning of the process. It concerns me that a body that has a useful function and has done many good things is perhaps not linking to other sectors of the black and ethnic minority communities as well as it could be.

We must not be complacent, but we are in danger of becoming so if we say that we will set the quotas and the problem will be solved, as the people concerned will make sure that the issues are addressed. It is more important to ensure that mechanisms are built in to ensure adequate consultation with all members of society. If the Minister can reassure us on that point, there may for once be a case for saying let us trust the group and allow it to go ahead. The fundamental problem is one of discrimination per se, and it does not matter to me which strand of discrimination. We will get to the end result quicker if we stop thinking in silos and start thinking about the basic problem.

---