---

Earl Ferrers: I agree with the noble Baroness who has just spoken. It would be wrong to categorise people and say that they were the kind of people whom we wanted on the commission. If one is not careful, one will find that one has packed the commission with
 
6 Jul 2005 : Column 649
 
vested interests. The whole point of a commission, if it is to work properly, is that it should be diverse and that people should be able to make decisions from a wide perspective. If we have it so that various members must come from a particular community or must be male or female or anything else, we will immediately encircle the commission and encircle its ability to be generous and understanding. That would be a great mistake.

Lord Northbourne: I shall speak briefly along the same lines. I had understood that we were dealing with the whole group, and I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for example, has not spoken. I may be wrong about that.

Lord Carter: This is the wrong group. The third group is the relevant one.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I always try to think about the themes that might come out of the amendments that have been tabled. When I was thinking about this Bill, three themes struck me for today's debate. The first is independence, which we discussed with reference to the previous group of amendments. The second is what I call "freedom of action" or the ability of the commission to operate without being fettered—I think that that was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The third is lists. Noble Lords who have worked with me on other Bills will know that I have a particular thing about lists, precisely because we end up unable to move or to take action in an appropriate manner because we have confined ourselves entirely by lists in the legislation or because we have missed someone off.

I promise the Committee that if we go down the road of lists we will end up on our next day in Committee or on Report with another set of lists and, as a result, as my noble friend Lady Lockwood said, we shall have more lists than commissioners.

The Committee will not be surprised that I agree with the vast number of Members who have spoken in this debate. I am very reluctant to go down the prescriptive route put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, in terms of what numbers from different representative groups ought to be part of the commission. Having said that, I completely understand the point that the noble Lord makes. The commission needs to reflect the society that it seeks to serve. From the point of view of the commissioners, if it does not do so it will have automatically failed. So if it ends up being representative of only one group in our society, it would not be a success.

Where the noble Lord perhaps goes too far with his amendment is that it does not allow us to think about the expertise and experience, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, that could be brought to bear on a commission. That might rest in a variety of people who do not necessarily come from a particular ethnic group, who are not necessarily women or disabled, or who represent any other group, but who, because of the work that they have done, we can truly say are committed to the kind of society that we want to create. For those reasons I will resist what the noble
 
6 Jul 2005 : Column 650
 
Lord, Lord Ouseley, seeks to do, but with the understanding that I will consider us to have failed if we do not have a commission that represents our society in some way.

I am also going to resist, of course, what I call the almost federal structure in terms of committees. We have been very clear in the Bill and we have tried very hard to make sure that Scotland and Wales are represented through a committee, which is absolutely right. As the Committee will know from Second Reading, because of the particular role of the Disability Rights Commission in terms of reasonable adjustments, we have set up, for a period of time, a particular disability committee.

But I am very reluctant to go further. I have met with representatives from different groups, not least from the Greater London Assembly, to talk about London in particular. I accept that London is a distinct case. It is a very diverse city that will look very different in the next five to 10 years and there are certain issues to address. But it is for the commission to decide the committees that it wishes to have. The more that we create through the Bill only one set of committees, the more we hamper it to do precisely the job that Members of the Committee who have argued for independence want it to do; that is, to think cross-cutting and to think out of silos. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is not with us today, but she will be joining us for the next day of debate. She talked about silos very powerfully at Second Reading and about not creating a silo mentality in the way we put together the committees, but to allow the commission to be cross-cutting, to be strategically thinking and to look at issues in the right way.

It is for those reasons that I will resist these amendments, but I take on board what lies behind them, as, I think, other Members of the Committee have done. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I felt that perhaps on this amendment I ought to say a few words because I feel quite strongly about it. I agree with the Minister that if a commission is set up to do a particular job, it must not be constrained with all sorts of restrictions so that it cannot do its job properly. I agree that any commission which is set up should be free to organise itself in the best possible way without government or anyone else's interference.

If things go wrong, of course it is a matter for the Secretary of State, and perhaps Parliament, to intervene. I agree that it is the Secretary of State who should set up the commission and not anyone else. The only point to add is that I wish we would also give Parliament a say in who the chairman and the commissioners should be, following the American pattern.

I want also to make this point. The Bill is not about privilege, but equality. The commission ought to concern itself with the equality of all people. It does not matter who they are, what they are, what is their ethnicity or whether they are disabled; the commission
 
6 Jul 2005 : Column 651
 
should ensure that all people are given an equal opportunity to enjoy life to the full. If we put restrictions on numbers by saying, for example, that 50 per cent of the commissioners should be women, what is to be done if the proportion of women should suddenly fall to 40 per cent? That also applies to trying to equate to the very many ethnic communities in this country these days. We will run into difficulties. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, will not go too far along the path of what I believe is his wish to restrict the formation and activities of the commission. It should be independent and should work towards equality rather than privilege.

4.30 pm

Lord Ouseley: I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion on the amendment. It seeks to secure a more representative commission that reflects our diversity. The intention is not to prescribe and fetter the opportunity of the body to work in an effective manner in the interests of achieving equality and fair treatment for everyone in this country. I understand the points made and I have both sympathy and empathy with them. As the chair of a commission, I would not wish to be encumbered with too many instructions were I being asked to set up such a body. Moreover, I am not in any way canvassing for the opportunity to do so; I make that point quite clear.

However, it is important to understand the reason for bringing forward this amendment. It is based on the wide range of consultations conducted in response to the White Paper published in anticipation of this Bill which revealed that some people have little confidence in the existing commissions, but not necessarily because they are doing a bad job. However, people feel that it is right to put their concerns forward if their support and confidence for the new body is to be won.

I have listened to the Minister's response setting out her understanding of the reasons for bringing forward these amendments. In that spirit, while acknowledging fully and supporting the reasons why there is to be a disability committee, nevertheless it immediately creates a disparity in which some will see themselves put at a disadvantage. If we do not recognise that conflicts will arise and will have to be resolved, they will grow. I acknowledge too that simply setting out certain specifications in the Bill will not necessarily ease those difficulties. But if we are to command the confidence of the variety of communities to be served, we must recognise the immense disadvantages that continue to be experienced by some sections of our society in spite of 40 years of legislation. If we do not do so, those sections will not perceive this body as one representing their interests in terms either of its visibility or in its construction.

I understand what has been said by way of response. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was right to point out that no one appointed to the commission should bring with them their vested interests. Equally, however, if we do not have people who understand those interests and are able to take them forward as part of their ability, skill and competence to tackle a range of duties, the commission
 
6 Jul 2005 : Column 652
 
will not fulfil its objectives. It is to provide a range of functions in line with its responsibilities and so must be able to respond to the needs of the widest possible range of people.

In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]

---