Orders of the Day — Equality Bill [Lords]

House of Commons, 16 January 2006.

New Clause 9 — Discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is intended to enable the protection of transsexual people from discrimination in the supply of goods and services by creating a power to introduce secondary legislation. It is a near copy of the provisions relating to the provisions on sexual orientation, which the Minister will be aware were not in the original Bill as introduced in the House of Lords, but were by the time it came to be considered by this House. That was partly as a result of the pressure applied by other hon. Members, including those, such as myself, who signed early-day motion 710 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner).

That was a very welcome move on the part of the Government and it is unfortunate that the Government have so far chosen to ignore the requests for a similar provision in the case of transgender people; for example, 88 hon. Members signed early-day motion 1083 in my name on the Equality Bill and the supply of goods and services to transsexual people.

There are three reasons for including the provision now: the need for protection, administrative efficiency and compliance with EU law. Society is much more accepting of transpeople today. The Gender Recognition Act 2002 was passed unopposed with all-party support, a far cry from 1994 when there was widespread discrimination against transsexual people, which led me to found the parliamentary forum on transsexualism.

At that time, Ministers tolerated blatant discrimination in employment against transpeople. Nevertheless, discrimination continues. It took five years to see the introduction of the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999, which amended the Sex Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination in employment and vocational training. However, those regulations do not extend to discrimination in the supply of goods and services.

The media have reported several cases involving transsexual people refused access to pubs. Press for Change, the lobby group on behalf of transpeople, is particularly concerned about young transsexual people who are forced to leave home when relationships with their families break down. Discrimination by private and institutional landlords means that these young and vulnerable transsexual people often encounter great difficulty in finding accommodation.

The more widespread problem is that without legal protection against prejudice, many transsexual people censor their lives by taking care to avoid situations where they feel discrimination, knowing that the law currently leaves them with no redress. In that regard, we have made little progress since the time shortly after I was elected in 1992, when I was approached by a transsexual woman who was absolutely terrified of her gender status becoming known by her employer. It was that kind of discrimination that led to legal challenge and to the regulations that I have mentioned.

In relation to the provision of goods and services, a few test cases have so far come to court, but most potential litigants stand down when advised that they have no case as the law currently stands. As I have said, the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations amended the Sex Discrimination Act in 1999 to prohibit discrimination in employment and vocational training. This was done to implement the 1996 ruling in the European Court of Justice in the case of P v S and Cornwall county council. That was the case of a transsexual woman who, having initially been promoted by the council, was then sacked by it when she informed it that she was going to undergo gender reassignment surgery.

The directive determined that discrimination on the ground of sex includes discrimination on the ground of gender reassignment. Because the 1999 regulations were introduced under the terms of the European Communities Act 1972, they could not exceed the scope of the equal treatment directive. They extend only to employment and vocational training, and not to the rest of part III of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

An opportunity to legislate for goods and services protection arose with the Gender Recognition Act 2004. At that time, however, Ministers preferred to wait for the outcome of discussions on a new EU directive on gender discrimination in goods and services. In Committee, the then Minister with responsibility for such matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), responded to a query from me as follows:

"She is right in saying that there is nothing to prevent the Government from acting. However, as I indicated, we are in discussion with our partners in Europe. We have a draft directive as of three months ago, and it appears that there will be legislation on the matter. The Government welcome that and believe that it is right to have that dialogue with our European partners, come to a conclusion and then take the matter forward."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 March 2004; c. 186.]

That conclusion was reached later in 2004. European Council directive 2004/113/EC, of 13 December 2004, implemented the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to, and supply of, goods and services. However, no provision was made in the Equality Bill to implement the directive, which surely would have been the obvious means of dealing with the issue. The Equality Bill is therefore the second missed legislative opportunity to provide that protection for transpeople.

One major concern that the Government expressed about introducing such protection through the Bill was that a substantial amount of work would be required in considering whether any exceptions were necessary. Given that the 1975 Act already contains exceptions to cope with single-sex facilities, it should not be considered problematic that new exceptions are required to permit continued discrimination against transpeople. However, there are likely to be rare and complex situations in which exceptions may be needed—probably those involving people in the process of changing gender. The new clause would address that by introducing a power for Ministers to issue regulations creating exceptions. It is intentionally constructed as a replica of clause 81, which creates a power to introduce goods and services protection on the ground of sexual orientation. The new clause can therefore be presumed to be acceptable to the Government as a workable framework.

However, the power to make regulations would allow Ministers to make any special provision that might be necessary, and it would ensure that Parliament does not have to satisfy itself at this stage that all possible exceptions have been considered. The provision allows more time and flexibility to ensure that the protection can be provided now, and in a way that works.

Ministers have argued that it is not the right time for such a step. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), the Minister referred on Second Reading to the Government's equalities review and the discrimination law review, with a view to the inclusion of any changes in the promised single equality Act. However, as the Government are aware, waiting for a single equality Act would risk leaving the UK in breach of its obligations under EU law. The directive that I mentioned earlier, which implemented the principle of equal treatment in the access to and supply of goods and services, does not explicitly refer to transpeople or to gender reassignment. However, the minutes of the Council meeting include an explicit note that the directive should be determined in the light of the 1996 European Court of Justice ruling in the P v. S and Cornwall county council case, which I mentioned earlier also. In that case, the European Court of Justice held that the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex should be construed to include discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment.

Goods and services protection for transpeople will therefore be required no later than December 2007, when the directive enters into force. It is very unlikely that a single equality Act will be passed by Parliament and have entered into force in time to meet that obligation. It would, of course, be possible to implement earlier the directive to implement goods and services protection by making regulations under the European Communities Act, which I understand is the Government's intention. That appears, however, to be little different from using the Equality Bill now to create a power for regulation, and I am therefore confused about why the Government are not taking that opportunity, particularly as it would enable some areas not included in the European directive to be addressed. Some areas protected by the goods and services protection provided under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 fall outside the scope of the EU directive. Education, as a reserved area, is one example, and media representation another. Clearly, in introducing regulations under the European Communities Act, the Government will not be able to extend protection in those areas.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I respect the hon. Lady's record in this field and strongly support her new clause. I put it to her that the Government's rationale for not acting now is no more compelling than the rationale that they offered in the other place in the first instance in respect of the similar problem of goods and services discrimination against lesbians and gay men. In fairness to Ministers, I may say that on that occasion, not least under pressure from the noble Lord Alli, the Government saw sense and conceded the need to act. Should they not do so in this case, too, on grounds both of equity and of efficient use of parliamentary time?

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I was coming to the point about administrative efficiency and entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, in many ways the issues concerning transpeople are perhaps a little easier for the Government to deal with than those concerning lesbians and gay men; we already have gender regulations in relation to employment, which cover many complex areas. I have with me, for example, a guide to the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999, which covers employment where it is required for employees to share the same accommodation. A lot of issues that might require detailed scrutiny have already been dealt with in those regulations.

Work is already under way within the Government on regulations to implement the Equality Bill's provision for protection against discrimination in the supply of goods and services on grounds of sexual orientation. Many of the issues raised by discrimination against transpeople are similar to that. For example, religious bodies have similar concerns, and many organisations address the issues on the ground jointly through a lesbian and gay network and bisexual and trans framework.

Even if the Government introduce regulations, however, goods and services protection will not be comprehensive for transpeople. The means by which the Government propose to implement the EU directive will result in our missing the opportunity to introduce protection in these crucial areas. In addition, it will add unnecessary complexity to the law. It therefore makes administrative sense for the work on discrimination against transpeople to follow on quickly from the work on sexual orientation, rather than being left until the Equality Bill has passed through the House. For those reasons, I hope that the Government will accept new clause 9—I know that they are committed to introducing this protection for transpeople.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising this point now, because it does not directly relate to the business at hand, but I wanted to give you notice of this point of order. I hope that this is an apposite moment. You will know that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) is not present and, indeed, is incommunicado. However, he managed to sign last Thursday 12 early-day motions, which appear on today's Order Paper. One of them, early-day motion 1297, is about abandoned animals at Christmas, but I do not know whether cats were included. Is it in order for an hon. Member who is not present and has no means of being in communication with this House to sign early-day motions? I suggest that it might be worth while investigating how he has managed to do so.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow North East)

I do watch "Big Brother" and I saw the one about the cat and the one about the boxers. I know that some hon. Members give authority to another hon. Member to put their names on early-day motions, but I cannot think of any hon. Member who would do so in this instance. I will look into the matter, and that is the best that I can do. I will also continue watching "Big Brother" in my spare time.

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I acknowledge that this is an exceptionally important debate and I do not want to digress from it, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has raised an important point. In considering that point, Mr. Speaker, will you find out whether any of the early-day motions have been tabled during the incarceration of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway), because if so, it is difficult to see how he could provide authority for them to be signed?

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow North East)

As I said to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), I will look into the matter. It could be a question of authority to add a name being given to another hon. Member, so we will continue with the debate unless I get into serious difficulties for promoting a television programme—I use that term lightly.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

New clause 9 should be an essential part of this Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) said most eloquently a few moments ago, there is no logical reason why protection from potential discrimination on the ground of transgender should be treated any differently from protection from potential discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. The Opposition were pleased that the Government were flexible, far-seeing and honest enough to accept the amendments in the other place that have led to the addition to the Bill of protection from potential discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. It is a matter of simple logic and reason to say that the same protection should be afforded to people who have chosen to change gender. We have already passed legislation to make formal the status of transgender and we all appreciate that there is no reason why people should not have that protection.

I understand why the Minister is likely to argue that the Government do not want to include the new clause at this time: they want to give the matter further consideration as it is part of an ongoing review. We discussed the matter at some length in Committee in a constructive debate. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) proposed the new clause in a thorough and meaningful way and she speaks for many, many Labour Members. She speaks for many Conservative Members, too, and she has the full support of the Opposition Front Bench.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I have little to add to the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), who put the case well. Although it is welcome that during the passage of the Bill the Government have extended goods, facilities and services protection on the ground of sexual orientation, there seems no reason not to extend the provision on the ground of transgender.

In Committee, the Minister was pressed repeatedly to give an assurance that the directive implementation date of December 2007 would be fully met, yet failed, unfortunately, to produce any such reassurance. I accept the need to get the measure right and iron out the fine details, but as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, this will be the second missed opportunity to address that aspect of inequality. In 2004, the then Minister said that a review was ongoing and that something was expected within a year. However, almost 18 months later we are no further forward.

The simple reality is that if we wait for the Act to be passed, we will have missed an opportunity to implement the directive fully and to extend the provision, because, as has already been pointed out, education and the media are not covered. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the process, give us assurances that the directive will be fully implemented and indicate where we go from here. Only a small group of people may be affected and it is important that we get the provision right, but the Government have had enough time.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I, too, signed the new clause moved so ably by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and, on the basis of our past association during the passage of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, I want to say how much I admired both her constructive approach to those macro-debates and the clear way in which she proposed the new clause. On both, more often than not, I agreed with her—and, indeed, with other Members. This is not fundamentally a party political issue. That is why the Government should catch the tide and eliminate discrimination in one of the few remaining areas that is as yet inadequately covered by our legislative arrangements, and should do so in the way that the hon. Lady put so clearly to the House. She invites us to accept a new clause that is framed to give the maximum possible flexibility of detailed implementation, if there are detailed or technical issues that need further thought and ultimate resolution—as there usually are, in my experience. I am with her on that.

I regret that owing to other duties, which we sometimes have, I have been a country member of the debates on the Equality Bill. That does not signify any lack of support for it; it merely means that I have not been able to participate in the Committee and listen to the detailed discussions that have taken place. One by-product of that is that coming to the new clause fresh, as it were, without having been a direct participant in the debates in Committee, it seems odd that nothing has been done in this area.

I have three points to put to the House. First, I disagree slightly with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who rightly said—I do not disagree about this—that there have been great advances in our approach to transgendered people. Nevertheless, my experience of people in such a situation is that there is still a real sensitivity and scope, to put it no less strongly, for wide misunderstanding among the general public of the position of transgendered people, not least because they are such a small minority.

Frankly, I would have known little about it, and might have had less sympathy than I have, if one of my constituents, who is very articulate, had not been able to brief me extensively during the passage of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. My constituent has gone through a marriage annulment and, I think, the first civil partnership in the country under the accelerated procedure. I was delighted to congratulate her on that relationship, which I hope will last. She is an excellent person who shows some measure of the quality of people who are transgendered and who are being disregarded and sometimes demeaned by society.

There was some unpleasant press comment last week about somebody who had sought a reversal operation after an initial operation. That was the old Adam coming out, at least in the press, in people who are still unsympathetic to transgendered people. It seems offensive to have a situation in which the small number of transgendered people—probably a handful in each constituency—feel that they are being singled out at a time when other people's inequalities are being addressed.

Secondly, I should like the Minister to comment on another issue in her response. I remember well from our exchanges in Committee, when considering the 2004 Act, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak bringing forward some interesting legal opinion and comments—on which we did not have a wholly satisfactory answer from the Government—in the relation to The Hague convention on the operation of private international law.

Increasingly, there will be situations—I notice the Minister looking a little quizzical—where persons who find themselves translated to the UK, either as temporary visitors or permanent residents, may have private rights attaching to them through their membership of other member states of the European Union. That creates a further anomaly that Ministers may need to consider, quite apart from non-compliance with the European directive in time, which I would have thought they would take seriously, but instead they seem to be taking a casual attitude.

Thirdly, on discrimination, it seems daft that under the legislation shopkeepers, for example, will no longer be able to refuse services or the supply of goods on the grounds of people's sexual orientation or their religion, or for any other reason, but that the one area where they could continue to refuse would be in relation to transgendered issues. That seems grossly unfair and sends exactly the kind of signal on persecution, or demeaning people, that we should not be sending.

Having not participated in the debates in Committee, I thought for an awful moment that the Government might, in some strange way—perhaps as the index of the ignorance that is still widely attached to such sensitive issues—have thought to themselves that the provisions on sexual orientation that they were making would, in some sense, cover gender reassignation. Of course, the provisions will not do that because gender reassignation has nothing whatever to do with sexual practices or orientation, nor does it imply anything for them. In that sense, if we are to rake around in moral concerns, it is much less "reprehensible"—I emphasise the inverted commas—to have undergone gender reassignment than to have a particular sexual orientation. I have no objection to the law dealing with those issues either, but I do not understand why the Government are so diffident about this issue.

Finally, I shall emphasise a point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak made so eloquently. Her new clause is an entirely facilitative new clause. It provides for an order-making power and not for a precise set of criteria. Therefore, if there is a problem it is possible for Governments to accommodate that. However, to accommodate it by doing nothing at this stage will facilitate the condoning and permission of discrimination in this very narrow area for an indefinite period of a year or two, when that has no justification or merit and should be stopped.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend rightly refers to the fact that we are debating provision for an order-making power. As part of a belt-and-braces approach for the Government, does he agree that if Ministers are anxious in some way that pressing ahead now risks error or a lack of satisfaction, the order-making power can be designed in such a way as to minimise that threat? Ministers can say that they will issue draft regulations that will be subject to wide-ranging consultation and that they will then subject the regulations to the affirmative procedure of the House.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's comments. Ministers have the maximum flexibility and the lowest level of commitment, but the House should not turn its back on the interests of transgendered people by rejecting the clause and saying that they alone should not be able to avail themselves of the equality agenda of which the Government are so proud and on which, as matter of record, I have supported them.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) for raising the issue and I pay tribute to the long-standing work that she has done. Like the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), I, too, have two constituents who have come to me with issues surrounding transsexuality and transgender. One of them mentioned on many occasions the work that my hon. Friend had done, and for which we are all very grateful.

As I said in Committee, I want to stress that the Government support the intention underpinning the new clause, and to make it absolutely clear that we are committed to ensuring that transsexual people are protected against discrimination in the areas of goods, facilities and services. Work is already under way, within the context of the discrimination law review, to ensure that transsexual people gain the legal protection that we all agree should be available. That builds on the rights that the Government have already ensured for transsexual people through the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which several hon. Members have already mentioned.

It has been argued that because the Bill contains an order-making power to extend protection against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, we should bring forward regulations to protect transsexual people. Indeed, as my hon. Friend said, her new clause mirrors the provisions in clause 81. We are not persuaded, however, that legislating now to bring in a power to introduce the regulations that my hon. Friend is seeking is the right approach. The circumstances are far from identical. In many cases, discrimination issues facing transsexual people are not the same as those facing gay men and lesbians. We need to understand them properly before we legislate.

I was very pleased to hear today—as I always am—the commitment of many Members to issues of equality, but I must reiterate to them, as I did on Second Reading, that the Bill was never designed to cover all equality issues. I fully understand the frustration felt by hon. Members because it takes time to achieve what we are setting out to do, but the discrimination law review is the mechanism that we have put in place to ensure that we have a proper approach. That will lead to a single equality Bill in the lifetime of this Parliament, which is our manifesto commitment.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

I am trying to gather some understanding of my hon. Friend's position, especially as she says that we must learn about the experience of such discrimination and the way in which that is qualitatively different from other people's experience of discrimination, because I do not understand precisely what she is trying to get at. There is also a question of time. We are constrained not only by expectations—not least those of the community—but by the strictures on us due to the need to comply quickly with European legislation. Will she indicate how quickly she might reach that position of understanding?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

If my hon. Friend will bear with me on the question of timing, I shall come to it shortly. I will respond specifically to the matter because it was raised in Committee.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

rose—

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

Will the hon. Gentleman contain himself until I have responded to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford)?

On the experiences of transsexual people, there are specific difficult questions that we must resolve. I am not saying that there are not answers to those questions—I fully expect that there will be—but we must examine the provision of single-sex hospital wards and the situation in prisons. We must consider services that are provided to people that are based on their gender. I fully expect that we will find ways through that, but we must have a proper look at the matter. We also need to consider terminology and the way in which we define terms that are used in different ways, such as transsexual and transgender.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

The hon. Lady is deploying arguments that, as far as I know, are precisely those that were advanced by Ministers in the other place against the inclusion of sexual orientation as a criterion—the position was reversed as a result of the wisdom of the other place. Why is she persisting in making those arguments, and what is the difference between the two criteria?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

The hon. Gentleman wishes to establish why such an order-making power has not been added to the Bill. It is interesting to note that the Government are often criticised for making order-making powers, precisely because it is difficult to amend regulations after they are drafted, although the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) rightly pointed out that the affirmative procedure would be used. I am not 100 per cent. sure about this, but the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) might well have made that point before—he is smiling, so I think that I might be right. We would want to go down that route rarely.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

rose—

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I will make some progress because hon. Members might find that I refer to the points that they wish to raise. I am happy to ensure that I give way before the end of my speech if I have not answered their questions.

Let me explain why and how we will move forward to provide protection for transsexual people. The work that we are already doing in the discrimination law review has highlighted the importance of making sure that the law takes proper account of the specific issues that transpeople face. We need to consult fully with them and the organisations that represent them, as well as those who will have responsibilities under law to ensure that we achieve well-focused and workable law. We will publish a consultation paper before the summer that will include our initial proposals and options for extending, beyond employment protection, protection against discrimination for transsexual people.

The purpose of the discrimination law review is to produce proposals for a single equality Act, which we are committed to bringing forward in the life of this Parliament. It is precisely because there are differences between protection for different groups and anomalies in the existing framework that we have made the commitment to overhaul and simplify the statutory equality framework.

The work to develop proposals on extending protection for transsexual people is being taken forward in the context of the discrimination law review for two reasons. First, we want to ensure that the new legal framework that will be set out in a single equality Bill can take account of the issues that transsexual people face. Working within the review means that can take a broad view of the protection from discrimination afforded to transsexual people. Secondly, we want the provisions that cover transsexual people—

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Will the Minister give way?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I said to the hon. Gentleman that I wanted to proceed with my speech and that he might find that he did not need to intervene. If he still wishes to intervene, I shall happily give way before I sit down.

Secondly, we want the provisions that cover transsexual people to benefit from the development, simplification and harmonisation that will be the outcome of the review.

As hon. Members pointed out, the Government made sure that the EU gender directive on goods and services covered gender reassignment. That directive is due to be implemented by December 2007, and we have the option to use existing powers under the European Communities Act 1972 to make regulations to do so. We therefore already have two legislative vehicles to extend protection against discrimination to transsexual people, so further regulation-making powers are unnecessary.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

The problem with having to save up points is that one does not have time to make them all in an intervention, so I shall ask only one question. If the Minister is to meet the deadline for implementing the European directive through regulations, she will have to deal with the issues relating to hospital wards, prisons and so on within that time scale, so what stops her putting in the Bill regulation-making powers to enable her to deal with issues that she will have to deal with anyway under the European Communities Act mechanism?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

As I just said, that is unnecessary.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I want to comment on the two examples that my hon. Friend gave—single-sex hospital wards and prisons. The Prison Service has been working on guidelines on the treatment of transsexual prisoners for at least two years. I have tabled several parliamentary questions, and the last I heard was that those guidelines are almost ready or imminent. As for single-sex wards, the issues they raise are similar to those relating to joint accommodation in employment. I do not see that those issues are so problematic that the Government are prevented from accepting the amendment.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

As I said, I do not regard the issues as being without solutions. However, they need to be resolved and the solutions must be workable. I gave only two examples; there are others, of course.

I hope that I have been able to make it clear that the Government are unequivocally committed to tackling discrimination against transsexual people.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the Minister give way?

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I give way.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I think that the Minister is giving way to me rather than to her right hon. Friend, and I am grateful to her for doing so. As she knows, I hold her in the highest esteem, so I do not say this with any personal malice or resentment—but having listened very carefully to what she has said in the past 10 minutes, I am none the wiser. It may be that I am a slow learner. Does she accept that, to me, her answer is thoroughly impenetrable? I cannot fathom a single good reason why the Government can act in a year or so's time when no great issue of minutiae or detail is involved, but are somehow incapable of acting now, as the House would prefer.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

What I have said is that because the EU directive sets out the matter, we are in a position to work through regulations to meet that time scale. We want to consider issues that go wider than the EU gender directive as part of the discrimination law review. I sincerely believe that there is a great deal to be gained from simplifying our legislation and having all discrimination law in one Act that sets out everyone's human rights, because equality affects us all. That is what I am trying to achieve through the discrimination law review.

The issues are being worked on—they have not been put on the back burner. Discussion is ongoing and we are moving ahead. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I was not proposing initially to add further to the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), but I wish to return to what the Minister said. It was difficult to engage as fully as we might have wanted, given that she wanted to make her position clear before taking interventions. I wish to make two points, but I do not speak for the mover of the new clause who, I am sure, will present her own view. We do not doubt the Minister's personal commitment to the issue that is before us, nor, indeed, the Government's overall objectives in creating a climate and a statute requiring non-discrimination. In those terms, her answer was particularly disappointing, as it was when I raised the matter in Committee.

The Government have decided, I am pleased to say, to take order-making powers in respect of sexual orientation. The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) has already recognised that there is a moral imperative to do that because of the problems that are people have to face. There are two imperatives. First, there is the moral imperative, which is no less than the imperative that has already been conceded in respect of action following the enactment of the Bill in respect of sexual orientation discrimination. Therefore, it is hard to understand why the Minister does not take the opportunity of ensuring that she has regulation-making powers that will enable holistic regulations and laws to be made that cover also education and media portrayal, which are exempted from the European Communities Act 1972.

The second imperative is the time scale that is placed upon us by the implementation date of the European directive. As I understand it, that does not apply in respect of sexual orientation. I think that the Minister said that she will definitely meet the deadline through the use of the European Communities Act regulations. If that is so, why not do the whole thing properly and have one consultation approach in time for the deadline and use the same mechanisms as have been proposed, which we are delighted to see, for dealing with sexual orientation discrimination?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not a matter only of principle, although the principle is itself extremely important? It is also a matter of practicality. Does he accept that unless the change is made sooner rather than later, it logically follows that the number of instances of discrimination will be that much more numerous? For transgendered people, discrimination and denial is not an occasional exception, it is a regular occurrence.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

That is right. It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know, given that my party introduced a single equality Bill proposal in another place through Lord Lester some years ago, that we believe that every year and every month that is wasted in not initiating quicker action in these areas will lead to more discrimination. However, we welcome the fact that the Government have made significant advances.

The Minister gave two examples that came after she said that work had to be done to understand the sort of discrimination that was faced. I am sure that she did not mean this, but to the outside world that might seem as though the Government and those who helped to draft the law do not understand the sort of discrimination that is faced by transgender people. However, through the work of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), there are many in this place, as has been demonstrated by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who understand—and we believe that the Government similarly understand and recognise—what the problems are.

Given that the Government will have to deal with the issue of hospital wards and prisons to implement the European directive deadline by the end of 2007, using regulations under the European Communities Act, it is not a convincing or logical argument to say that it is not possible to proceed through regulation-making powers in the Bill to provide a complete approach. Those matters will have to be dealt with in any event.

If the Minister were to say that there were real difficulties in terms of education or media portrayal, which would take longer than the available time scale, I would not accept that but it would be logical. In choosing the hon. Lady's examples from areas that fall within the deadline with which she must abide if she is not to fall foul of the European directive, she is not using either the logical or the strongest of arguments. Regardless of the intentions of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who will decide these issues for herself, I think that my hon. Friends will be keen to see the House divided on the issue, given that we have not had the undertakings or understandings that we deserve.

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

The Government have rightly accumulated a good deal of credit on this issue in previous legislation. I pay tribute to Christine Burns, who received an MBE for her work on gender issues and was among the constituents who drew my attention to the new clause. Given that the Government have accumulated a good deal of credit on the issue, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider her response in the light of the provision, which does not bind the Government or put them into a straitjacket. If it did so, I could accept her argument that time was needed to consider specific issues relating to transgendered people as distinct from people suffering from discrimination as a result of their sexual orientation.

My hon. Friend says that the Government will undertake a consultation, but they would not be constricted in any way if the new clause were accepted, as proposed subsection (1) says:

"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision".

It does not say that the Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision. Proposed subsection (3) says that the "regulations may . . . make provision". It does not say that they shall make provision.

The inclusion of the new clause in the Bill would not put the Government in a straitjacket, but if they did not accept it they would be in a straitjacket. We all know that legislative opportunities are constricted. The fact is that there is a Bill before the House that provides a vehicle to introduce the new clause. My hon. Friend—no one doubts her good faith—said that the Government wish to consider the issue as part of the consultation. Several of us in the House would be a little more relaxed if we could be sure that within a reasonable period a legislative vehicle would be introduced so that changes could be made.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I am happy to confirm that that is precisely our intention. We wish to ensure that the consultation is completed very quickly, and we will publish a Green Paper that deals with this and other issues very soon. We will then be in a position to introduce an appropriate legislative framework. We are therefore committed to deal with the issue. EU regulations, too, have been introduced, so I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance.

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

I am not questioning in any way the good faith of my hon. Friend or the Government. It is a fact of parliamentary life, however, that whatever the Government's conclusions, and even if the Green Paper that they promise to introduce includes precisely what is wanted, the constrictions of the legislative timetable mean that it is not possible to know when or, indeed, if legislation can be introduced in this Parliament to enact what my hon. Friend has promised in good faith. By contrast, the new clause gives the Government time and scope to deal with the issue, given its inclusion of the word "may", which I have cited twice. Acceptance would therefore not bind the Government or lead them into a cul-de-sac.

Perhaps you could advise me, Mr. Speaker, on a procedural, not a policy, matter. If the Bill is amended today, I understand that it must return to the House of Lords because it is a Lords Bill. If that is so, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be satisfied by an assurance that the Government will reconsider the matter before the Bill's return to the House of Lords. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister responds positively, because nobody wants division in the House on this issue.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

The Minister has given certain assurances. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the minimum requirement for the withdrawal of the new clause is an assurance that new legislation will be enacted within this Parliament? The problem with leaving the matter to the House of Lords is that if the Bill is not amended, it will not return to the House of Lords.

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

My hon. Friend is right, but I am trying to find a new way. It is possible, but far from certain, that the Bill will be amended today, and if it is amended the House of Lords will be able to reconsider the matter. The House of Lords can do anything when it reconsiders a Bill—it is not bound by the rules of procedure of this House—so it could bring the Bill back. Alternatively, the Government could provide an assurance in response to my hon. Friend's request, which is generous on her part, for a guarantee on the introduction of legislation within this Parliament. If that happens, I would support my hon. Friend in withdrawing her new clause, because nobody wants to divide on the issue—we want to unite.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

As ever, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said much of what I wanted to say, but I shall briefly repeat some points. I agree about the permissive word "may", which appears twice in the new clause.

On whether the Government can reconsider the Bill in the House of Lords if it is amended in the House of Commons, my hon. Friend the Minister referred to two other avenues by which such legislative protection could be introduced within the lifetime of this Parliament. It would help if she were to repeat her assurance that the issue will be addressed within the lifetime of this Parliament and that there will be legislative provisions rather than simply a Green Paper.

The Minister discussed the simplification and codification of anti-discrimination legislation and I share her objective, because the complicated layers of anti-discrimination measures that have built up over the past 40 years bedevil people in enforcing their rights. However, the wording of clause 81, which contains the power to make regulations on discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and which I support, is, with one or two key changes, almost exactly the same as that of new clause 9. If it is too complicated to accept new clause 9 and introduce another layer of anti-discrimination legislation, then that argument can also be used in relation to the provisions on discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in clause 81.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 9 does not mean that action will be taken, because it only says "may"? I have made the precise commitment asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones). The discrimination law review will lead to a single equality Bill that will be passed in the lifetime of this Parliament. That is a manifesto commitment on which all Government Members stood before the election. As much as it is within my power to do so, I will ensure that that manifesto commitment is advanced, which meets the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I believe that there is a contradiction between what the Minister said about the new clause and clause 80, which I fully support. However, I am satisfied by her reassurance and hope that other hon. Members will be satisfied. I am grateful to her for that helpful reassurance.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I am not at all convinced by the Government's reasons for not accepting the new clause, but, in view of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman)—

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Does the hon. Lady agree that although the whole House trusts this particular Minister, who has given us her assurance from the Dispatch Box, Conservative Members do not trust the rest of her Government to follow through what she has said? She cannot necessarily bring about what she says that she wants to bring about, so the time for action on the issue is not in the future but now.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I do not entirely agree that the Government are not trustworthy in this matter. I am prepared to accept the Minister's assurance—

David Lepper (Labour, Brighton, Pavilion)

On the point made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), in 2001 I went with two of my constituents to meet the Minister's predecessor in the Home Office, who then dealt with these matters and who gave us an assurance that the Government would introduce a gender Act. From that day forward, we saw the Government take action, irrespective of who the Minister might be. With that precedent in mind, we can accept with confidence the assurance that she has given, even though she may not be in the post—I hope that she is—when the Bill is enacted.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I agree. The Minister's words will be recorded in the written record of these proceedings. The Government are fully aware of the cross-party support for this measure and of Labour Members' widespread support for my new clause.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Of course, everyone welcomes the Minister's assurances as far as they go, but they do not go further than the assurances that she gave in Committee that there would be a single Equality Bill, which, presumably, if there is not an early election, will lead to a single Equality Act. The point of the new clause is to say that transgender rights in respect of non-discrimination in goods and services should be put through at the same time as those given to people discriminated against on the grounds of religion or sexual orientation. This excellent new clause gives the House that opportunity. That is why the Minister's promise of tomorrow is not good enough for many of us.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

As I said, I am prepared to accept the Minister's assurances, although I ask her to look at the clause again. If the Government intend to legislate in this area and to introduce the EU directive, I still argue that a sensible way forward would be to accept the new clause. I accept that it is not possible for the Minister to agree to it today, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton suggested an alternative way forward, and either would be acceptable to me.

I would prefer the matter to be dealt with in this Bill, because that is the most sensible way forward. However, in view of the assurance that legislation will be introduced in this Parliament, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 10 — Guidance on the application of prohibition in relation to school transport

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 10, which is in my name, has the support of Liberal Democrat Members. It deals with guidance in relation to school transport and wider parts of the Bill. It seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State issues guidance setting out how the provisions of part 2 on school transport and wider matters will be implemented. We ask that such guidance as the Government are, I hope, planning to introduce shall have particular regard to the obligations retained for all schools, which are public authorities under the Human Rights Act 1998, to comply with the duty of non-discrimination, irrespective of the exceptions that apply under the Act.

Clearly, there are exceptions in respect of discrimination law, but there is an overriding provision to respect human rights, especially in relation to non-discrimination—that is not a free-standing provision—in relation to certain other rights covered in the Bill, and that exceptions as implemented have to be for a legitimate purpose and must be proportionate.

In particular, the new clause draws attention to the duty not to discriminate on the grounds of religion and belief and to carry out public functions with due regard to the Human Rights Act in relation to school transport under various sections of the Bill that deal with the subject. Crucially, the new clause suggests that this part of the Act should not come into force until the guidance under the new clause has been issued. The reason is that there are still major concerns about how the exceptions will be implemented in a way that is fair.

I want to spend the rest of my short remarks reading from the fourth report of 2005–06 by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which deals with the Equality Bill. The report makes two important recommendations in this area. The first is in paragraph 41 and says that the Committee did

"not consider the exceptions under clause 49"

—it is clause 50 in the version of the Bill that we are considering—

"to be incompatible on their face with the Convention rights, they may in our assessment fail to prevent discrimination which would be contrary to the Human Rights Act."

The Committee drew attention to the recommendations made in its previous report—the 16th report of 2004–05—and went on to say that it hoped

"that the Bill would provide for statutory guidance to be produced before Part 2 comes into force, making clear that all schools that are public authorities under the Human Rights Act retain obligations to comply with ECHR rights of non-discrimination, irrespective of the exceptions which apply under the Bill. It is essential for any difference in treatment to be objectively justified in order to comply with Article 14 ECHR."

That is clear and speaks for itself. However, I would like to note a Government amendment that I presume we will reach, if not debate, later that recognises that, in this area, the Government have limited the exception available to faith schools in respect of their ability to discriminate on the ground of religion by subjecting a pupil to any other detriment and, indeed, to expulsion if, for example, the child changes religion, having been admitted to a faith school. I warmly welcome the fact that the Government have considered what was debated civilly in Committee and accepted that that was unnecessary and went too far. The need for guidance still applies and I want to hear how faith schools will apply their exceptions and what the Minister will say in respect of the time scale for guidance, as well as what that should cover.

On school transport, the Minister will remember that there is a long-standing thorny issue in respect of the appropriate guidance. In Committee, I set out my concern and that of successive Select Committees at the inadequacy of the current guidance, and the fact that that is reinforced, if anything, by the explanatory notes to the Bill, which talk only about denominational schools, as if those parents who have children who they do not wish to go to a denominational school do not have the same rights to help if they need it to go a further distance to a non-denominational school. The Minister knows that that is the nub of the point. I refer again to the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, paragraph 49 of which states:

"We are concerned that this current Bill does nothing to dispel, and may reinforce, the apparent misapprehension of some LEAs that it is permissible to discriminate against children of parents with non-religious convictions in the provision of school transport. We reiterate the concerns of the previous Committee, that guidance for LEAs on this matter"—

it exists, as the Minister knows, in the form of a circular letter on school transport from the then Department for Education, dated 21 January 1994—

"is inadequate to ensure compliance with the Human Rights Act, and recommend that guidance should be produced under this Bill which should make clear that, as the Government has previously accepted, there is a duty under the Human Rights Act to make equal provision for school transport to support education in accordance with both religious beliefs and non-religious beliefs."

I stress that the Bill should make equal provision in accordance with both religious and non-religious beliefs.

Provided that the education system involves denominational schools, we Liberal Democrats recognise the need to provide help with school transport for children whose parents have religious beliefs and who wish to send their children to a school further away than their nearest one. The Minister will be well aware, however, that the guidance and local education authority practice seem to imply that those who do not have a religious belief do not qualify for the school transport concession.

I hope that the Minister will repeat what she said in Committee by making it clear that the provision applies to those with, and without, religious beliefs, and that clear guidance will be produced in good time. Perhaps she might even ask the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Education Committee—the latter issued a critical report on the School Transport Bill in respect of these matters—to consider the guidance before it is published, in order to ensure that it is absolutely right. I hope, too, that she will put on the record the need for guidance in both those important areas. That way, the problems that parents without religious beliefs face because of the unfair way in which the school transport system sometimes operates can finally be rectified, after many years of trying to rectify them.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I commend the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on his ingenuity in tabling this new clause, which touches on an important issue. However, my experience of the problems of home-to-school transport as operated in my county, where there is selective education and, therefore, the need—in a way perhaps similar to that which he described—to do a great deal of juggling to get children to the appropriate school, makes me think that his proposal would cause massive headaches for local education authorities with very little benefit. I am bound to say, moreover, that the Minister would find it difficult to draw up guidelines, and even harder to implement them.

If, as a result of this legislation, the Human Rights Act 1998 is infringed because of the way in which home-to-school transport is offered—and in a way that is unacceptable, even allowing for the exceptions provided for in the Bill—I have no doubt that somebody will take that case to court to get the situation clarified. I hope that the Minister is not encouraged by the hon. Gentleman's proposals, because they would cause intense muddle and land her and the Government with an impossible task.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

In Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) tabled similar amendments relating to guidance for school transport, which he then withdrew. In respect of school transport, the Bill contains exemptions for local education authorities and public authorities from the provisions on discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. Local education authorities have a statutory requirement to provide free home-to-school transport for certain pupils and they also have some scope to decide when transport is necessary in other circumstances. Each pupil's case will be considered on its merits, taking account of all relevant factors, including a parent's wish that their child attend a school of the religion or denomination to which they adhere. That discretion means that LEAs often provide subsidised transport for pupils of a particular faith to attend a school of that faith located outside the local area. An exemption from the Bill's discrimination provisions was included to ensure that that practice could continue. Otherwise, local education authorities would be vulnerable to challenge of transport policies that take into account the historical distribution of religious schools, which have often been built on out-of-town sites.

I emphasise that local education authorities may—it is, indeed, our view that they should—provide subsidised transport to a non-faith school for a child whose parents are strongly opposed to their attending a faith school close to home. That, too, would be unlawful without the exception in the Bill.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Will the Minister confirm that all those functions are, in fact, judicially reviewable, if a local education authority is not providing them in a fair and reasonable fashion?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

That is certainly my understanding.

The exemption has been included merely as a protection for local education authorities against those who may use religion as the basis for a claim if they have not received free school transport for which they may have applied. There are no new school transport provisions in the Bill that warrant accompanying statutory guidance, yet this is the second time that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has tabled an amendment attempting to introduce such guidance. I have sympathy with some of his concerns about school transport and have already indicated, both in Committee and subsequently in writing, that I agree that policy on school transport needs updating. I can confirm that that is being addressed by the Department for Education and Skills.

I have already agreed with the hon. Gentleman that new guidance is needed. I agree that it needs to make it clearer that cases of those seeking school transport to non-denominational schools should be treated in the same way as the cases of those who seek transport to denominational schools. I have indicated that new guidance will be produced, but it can be produced only by the DFES following consultation, development and the passage of the education and inspections Bill, which will, among other things, tackle school transport policy. We do not propose to produce statutory guidance for schools, but non-statutory guidance will be produced, which will make it clear that exceptions under the Bill do not override rights of non-discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1998.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the explanatory note to the Bill is not properly even-handed and we shall ensure that the note to the final Act puts that right.

This Bill is totally different from the education and inspections Bill, which is progressing on a different time scale and is not as far advanced. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concerns; indeed, the interest he has shown with such tenacity has served to reinforce the need for guidance in this area, but it cannot be given under the Bill. I hope that, once again, he will agree to withdraw his new clause.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

The Minister's excellent speech got better as it went along, and was somewhat better received, at least by me, than the contribution of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who apparently takes the view that guidance confuses rather than guides. I have heard him on a number of occasions eloquently demanding that mystifying pieces of legislation, of which the Government are, no doubt, on occasion capable, should be explained through guidance. I guess that those areas must have been more carefully chosen than the one that I chose today. [Interruption.] I shall certainly give way to allow him to respond to my gentle teasing.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that I do not think that guidance may not, on occasion, be useful. My experience from having seen home-to-school transport in operation on many occasions is that guidelines are already in force in my local education authority area that are extremely complex. If people fall foul of them, they end up being taken to court. I do not think that a general, Government-issued set of guidelines will easily meet the multiplicity of problems that different local education authorities, each of which has completely different circumstances, face on home-to-school transport. It was the particular guidelines about which I was troubled, not necessarily guidelines in general.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I am reassured and hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, if a party believes in better regulation, it is preferable to ensure that public authorities are guided on how to avoid multiple judicial reviews and the costs thereof, although they might bring his profession some benefit. Local authorities should not have to rely on constant challenges to law that is unclear and not made clearer by guidance, although I accept that it is a difficult area.

I understand that another Bill will deal with school transport and, therefore, the Minister feels that it would be more appropriate to update the inadequate guidance under that legislation. People will have to cope for a few more months or years with the existing guidelines and more judicial review may be necessary. However, I thought that it appropriate to allow the Minister to set out on the record her views as communicated to me about future guidance and the problems with current interpretations. I am especially pleased that she had the good grace to recognise that the explanatory notes continue the culture of assuming that transport on grounds of religion applied only to those with religion and could never apply to those without religion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 — Groups

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 23, in clause 39, page 26, line 20, at end add—

'(iii) all staff transferring to the Commission from the former Commissions shall be deemed to have continuity of service for the purposes of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme.'.

No. 24, in clause 39, page 26, line 20, at end add—

'(6) The protection afforded by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981, No. 1794)) shall apply to all staff of the former Commissions whenever they join the Commission for Equality and Human Rights.'.

No. 16, in schedule 1, page 60, leave out lines 13 to 18 and insert—

'(a) ensure that no fewer than one half of the Commissioners have personal or direct experience of one or more of the causes of discrimination or prejudice referred to in section 10(2), and

(b) have regard to the desirability of their together having experience and knowledge relating to the matters in respect of which the Commission has functions, including, in particular, human rights.'.

No. 17, in schedule 1, page 60, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

No. 20, in schedule 1, page 60, line 33, at end insert—

'(d) at least two Commissioners with experience and knowledge of trade unions and employee relations.'.

No. 10, in schedule 1, page 60, line 33, at end insert—

'(3A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that not less than one quarter of Commissioners appointed under paragraph 1(1) are from a black or other ethnic minority background.'.

No. 18, in schedule 1, page 60, line 33, at end insert—

'(3A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that—

(a) not less than one half of Commissioners appointed under paragraph 1(1) are women, and

(b) not less than one quarter of Commissioners appointed under paragraph 1(1) are from a black or other ethnic minority background.'.

No. 25, in schedule 1, page 60, line 33, at end insert—

'(d) a Commissioner appointed under paragraph 1(1), with the consent of the London Assembly, who knows about conditions in London.'.

No. 1, in schedule 1, page 64, line 21, after 'Committee', insert

'or to the Race Committee'.

No. 2, in schedule 1, page 64, line 22, after '52', insert 'or paragraph 68'.

No. 3, in schedule 1, page 64, line 41, after 'Committee', insert

'or to the Race Committee'.

No. 4, in schedule 1, page 64, line 41, after '52', insert 'or paragraph 68'.

No. 5, in schedule 1, page 65, line 24, after 'Committee', insert

'or to the Race Committee'.

No. 6, in schedule 1, page 65, line 25, after '52', insert 'or paragraph 68'.

No. 7, in schedule 1, page 65, line 44, after 'Committee', insert

'or to the Race Committee'.

No. 8, in schedule 1, page 65, line 44, after '52', insert- 'or paragraph 68'.

No. 26, in schedule 1, page 66, line 2, at end insert

'London Committee 31A (1) The Commission shall establish a decision-making committee to be known as the London Committee.

(2) The Commission shall ensure that the London Committee is established before any of sections 8 to 12 comes into force (to any extent).

31B The Commission shall appoint as the Chairman of the London Committee a Commissioner appointed for the purpose of satisfying paragraph 2(3)(d).

31C The Commission shall appoint each member of the London Committee for a period of not less than two years or more than 5 years, subject to the possibilities of—

(a) reappointment, and

(b) dismissal in accordance with the terms of appointment.

31D The London Committee shall advise the Commission about the exercise of the Commission's functions in so far as they affect London.

31E Before exercising a function in a manner which in the opinion of the Commission is likely to affect persons in London, the Commission shall consult the London Committee.

31F (1) The power under section 13—

(a) shall be treated by virtue of this paragraph as having been delegated by the Commission to the London Committee in so far as its exercise, in the opinion of the Commission, affects London, and

(b) to that extent shall not be exercisable by the Commission.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not apply to the power under section 13 in so far as it is treated as delegated to the Disability Committee in accordance with paragraph 52.

(3) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not prevent the Commission from making arrangements under section 13(1)(d) or (e) for the provision of advice or guidance to persons anywhere in Great Britain.

31G In allocating its resources the Commission shall ensure that the London Committee receives a share sufficient to enable it to exercise its functions.

31H The London Committee shall have its offices in London.'.

No. 42, in schedule 1, page 68, line 4, at end insert—

'(c) the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons.'.

No. 9, in schedule 1, page 72, line 16, at end add—

'PART RACE COMMITTEE Establishment 65 (1) The Commission shall establish a decision making committee to be known as the Race Committee.

(2) The Commission shall ensure that the Race Committee is established before either section 8 or section 10, insofar as they relate to matters of race, comes into force (to any extent).

Membership 66 The Commission shall ensure that—

(a) there are no fewer than seven or more than nine members of the Race Committee,

(b) at least one half of the members of the Race Committee are persons from a black or other ethnic minority background, and

(c) the Chairperson is a person from a black or other ethnic minority background.

67 The appointment of each member of the Race Committee shall be for a period of not less than two years or more than five years, subject to the possibilities of—

(a) reappointment, and

(b) dismissal in accordance with the terms of appointment.

Functions 68 (1) The Commission shall by virtue of this paragraph be treated as having delegated to the Race Committee—

(a) the Commission's duty under section 8 insofar as it relates to matters of race and may be fulfilled by the exercise of the powers conferred by or referred to in—

(i) section 11,

(ii) section 13(1)(a), (c) or (d) (or paragraph (e) or (f) insofar as it relates to paragraph (a), (c) or (d)),

(iii) section 14,

(iv) section 15,

(v) section 19, insofar as it relates to matters of race,

(vi) section 27,

(vii) section 29, or

(viii) section 31,

(b) the Commission's duty under section 10 insofar as it relates to matters of race and may be fulfilled by the exercise of those powers, and

(c) those powers insofar as they are or may be exercised for the purpose of matters concerning race.

(2) Delegation under this paragraph shall not prevent the exercise by the Commission of a power, or the fulfilment by the Commission of a duty, by action which relates to any one or more than one of the causes of discrimination or prejudice referred to in section 10.

(3) Before exercising a power to which paragraph 21(2) or 22(3) applies the Race Committee shall consult the Scotland Committee.

(4) Before exercising a power to which paragraph 29(2) or 30(3) applies the Race Committee shall consult the Wales Committee.

69 Before exercising a power or fulfilling a duty in relation to matters of race, the Commission shall consult the Race Committee.

70 The Race Committee shall advise the Commission about the exercise of the Commission's functions insofar as they relate to matters of race.

Resources 71 In allocating its resources the Commission shall ensure that the Race Committee receives a share sufficient to enable it to exercise its functions.

Report 72 (1) The Race Committee shall for each financial year of the Commission submit to the Commission a report on the Committee's activities in that year.

(2) The Commission shall incorporate each report of the Race Committee under sub-paragraph (1) into the relevant annual report of the Commission.

Five Year Review 73 The Commission shall arrange for a review of the activities of the Race Committee to be conducted as soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of the period of five years beginning with the date of the commencement for all purposes of sections 8 and 10 insofar as they relate to matters of race.

74 The following may not participate in the review (although those conducting the review may seek views from any of the following)—

(a) a Commissioner or former Commissioner,

(b) staff or former staff of the Commission,

(c) a person who is or has been an Investigating Commissioner, and

(d) a person who is or has been a member of a committee established by the Commission.

75 The Commission shall ensure—

(a) that those conducting the review consult persons whom they think likely to have an interest,

(b) that those conducting the review submit a report to the Commission, and

(c) that the report is published.

76 The Race Committee may not be dissolved under paragraph 14(c).

Definition 77 In this Schedule "race" includes colour, nationality, ethnic origin and national origin.'.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

Thank you for calling me so early in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to support amendments Nos. 1 to 8 and 9. I also speak in support of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) and I have great sympathy with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), although I am sure that they will have the opportunity to contribute to the debate themselves.

I have just come from the Members' Dining Room, where I was attending the bi-annual Eid celebrations. It is an achievement of those who were responsible for timetabling that we should have a debate on race and equality at the same time as most of the leading members of the Muslim community have gathered, along with many other right hon. and hon. Members, in another part of the Palace of Westminster. I know that they also wish to take part in this debate, but they are meeting constituents and listening to the speeches—including by the President of the Liberal Democrats and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know that several of my colleagues wish to take part in this debate and I hope that we will see even greater attendance later.

Race and equality are an essential part of the Government's agenda. In the 19 years that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) have been Members of Parliament, we have seen several debates on race, immigration and the general good relations that exist in our country. When Governments seek to foster those good relations and, indeed, enhance them, they are under a duty to ensure that the institutions and organisations that they create have that purpose. The Commission for Racial Equality has been in existence for all the years that I have been living in the United Kingdom, and I came here when I was nine years of age. The then Government had just abolished, or were just about to abolish, the old Race Relations Board, and its successor was the CRE. So for all the time that I can remember, the black and Asian community has had an institution that was supposed to support and protect it and to speak up for its needs and concerns. In later legislation, even more powers were given to the CRE than the old Race Relations Board had had. Therefore, it is sad that the Government propose to abolish the CRE through this Bill and replace it with an organisation that brings together several other strands of the equality agenda. I want to make it absolutely clear that I support those strands—for want of a better word—having appropriate representation, with a body and organisation that speaks on their behalf, working in like-minded fashion with other organisations to ensure that equality is kept firmly at the top of the Government's political agenda.

I am disappointed that between the First Reading of the Bill in the last Parliament and the Second Reading and Report of the Bill in this Parliament more time has not been spent consulting the black and Asian community. That is a lost opportunity. The Minister will know that at the weekend, under the banner of the former chair of the CRE, Lord Ouseley, several individuals and organisations signed an open letter to her protesting against proposals to abolish the CRE; they accept that a new body may be necessary but the powers that it will be given do not reflect the aspirations and needs of the black and Asian community. They say that in any new body there should be a proper opportunity for the black and Asian community to be represented, hence the importance of the establishment of a race committee.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

Two years ago, my hon. Friend and I, and a group of black and Asian Members of this and the other place, went to see the then Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry and raised with her, in private, the serious concerns of the black community that the new commission would not deal adequately with matters of race. Does he agree that it is regrettable that the issues raised then by Members of both Houses were not taken seriously?

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

It is regrettable, but what my hon. Friend said about that meeting was important. At least, the then Secretary of State was prepared to meet us and listen to our concerns. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, because before the Second Reading of the previous Bill she was prepared to listen to our concerns and to engage fully with the chairman of the CRE, Trevor Phillips—as was the then Lord Chancellor, who is still Lord Chancellor, my noble Friend Lord Falconer. Both those senior members of the Cabinet took on board, to some extent, the concerns we expressed and understood that the proposals would mean a serious change to the way in which black and Asian people could both put their views to Government and be protected.

Over the last year, sadly, there has been a lack of consultation and communication. I regret the fact that more time was not spent trying to enter appropriate dialogue with the chairman of the CRE and that organisation about the needs of the black and Asian community. I do not agree with everything that Trevor Phillips says: I certainly do not agree with his views on multiculturalism, which is very much alive in places such as Leicester, Wolverhampton and other parts of the country. I am not speaking as a great cheerleader for him, but I respect his integrity and when he tells me openly that there needs to be better consultation with the CRE I take that seriously.

It is also important that organisations such as the Greater London authority, and the Mayor of London and his special adviser, Lee Jasper, and the 1990 Trust, with Karen Chouhan, Simon Woolley and others, are all involved in the measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington is as old as me and has been a Member for as long as me, so she will remind me if there has ever been a time when so many black and Asian groups and organisations came together to protest at what the Government were proposing—

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

rose—

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

My hon. Friend is now going to tell me that there was another occasion, but my point is important, because Ministers have not listened to the concerns of the community.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

Does my hon. Friend agree that no—not one—reputable black or Asian group supports the commission going ahead without a race committee? It will cause disquiet in our black and Asian communities that the Government have not listened to their united voices.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I agree with my hon. Friend. She is right. This is a united voice in favour of the establishment of a race committee; it is also a united voice in favour of proper representation of black and Asian people on the new commission.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most important roles of organisations campaigning against discrimination is to focus the spotlight of the media on abuses where they exist? One of the dangers of the new legislation, which all hon. Members hope that the Government will be alive to, is that a single, larger organisation will not have the figureheads that we have in the person of Trevor Phillips at the CRE, or Bert Massey at the Disability Rights Commission, who are effective at getting the media to look at abuses, because of their position and their personal experience of discrimination, which makes them a powerful voice in the media.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is important that we have such focus. I am not saying that I do not agree with a body that involves everybody else and every other strand of equality—it is good that they should be able to share the experience of discrimination—but there is a need for the focus that he describes, which is missing.

We are at a time in the politics and history of our country when all the political parties talk about the need for better representation. When I first came to the House, I was the first person of Asian origin for more than 50 years. I was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, the late Bernie Grant and Paul Boateng, who is now the high commissioner in South Africa. Since then, other black and Asian Members have been elected. I am sitting next to a very talented one—my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Ms Butler).

As far as I can remember, Labour party leaders have always talked about the need for more representation in Parliament. Conservative leaders have done the same thing. I heard a passionate speech by the last leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who talked about the need to get more representation for women and the ethnic minority population of this country.

I am pleased that the Opposition now have the hon. Members for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), both of whom come as elected Members representing the whole of their constituencies, but with the added dimension of being from the ethnic minority community.

The first thing that we notice about the Front-Bench spokespersons is that they are women. That is the most distinguishable thing that we notice about the difference between, for example, the Minister for Women and Equality and her colleague sitting next to her. That is the most important thing that we notice. There are other issues, but gender is a defining issue, which is why race and gender are so important.

I pay tribute to the disability lobby—my hon. Friends sitting around me—for the work that it has done and to the gay and lesbian lobby for what it has done in ensuring that it gets to first base. There is no point just talking about representation. Sadly, the Liberal Democrats had one person of Asian origin in Leicester, South, but he is no longer with us in Parliament, so it is, in a sense, not truly representative. I will not go into the other parties, because they are slightly smaller and may think that I am being unfair.

We all talk about representation. When I first came to the House that was not a fashionable subject, but now, when the new leader of the Conservative party makes a speech, he talks about more women and more black and Asian people, as do all political leaders—not just in this country, but in other countries throughout Europe.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If he has just paid me a compliment—I am never sure—I thank him for that as well.

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent argument about why debate on equality has to address all strands of equality, in every way that we can imagine, but he is arguing against his apparent argument on the Order Paper for pre-eminence for race, religion and belief.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

My remark was meant as a compliment; I am always happy to pay the hon. Lady compliments. However, I do not pay her another compliment as I do not think that she has read my amendments. They do not make race pre-eminent. In terms of representation, we will have a disability commissioner, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and I, along with other Members, are asking for the Bill to make it clear that a certain number of people of black and Asian origin will be on the commission. At the moment, we do not have any and there is no guarantee that any of the 10 to 15 commissioners will be either women or black or Asian. When the Minister stands up at the Dispatch Box, we will look for a cast-iron guarantee and commitment that those groups will be represented. Only the disability lobby, which has played a very canny game, is guaranteed a commissioner.

The hon. Lady has me on the equality argument. The black and Asian community are not against the creation of a new body provided that there is, as her colleagues have said, sufficient time, attention and focus on these issues. If we are creating an organisation—some would say a tower of Babel—with so many strands sitting round the table that are, of course, united by the common agenda of equality, there must be adequate representation.

Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent South)

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the CEHR is set up without any black or women commissioners, it will have no credibility at all when it comes to being able to represent race or sex issues effectively?

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The commission will have no credibility at all. Not even warm words will be sufficient for the communities outside. We want hot words from the Minister and a commitment from her that the issue of representation is first and foremost in the Government's agenda. As she is the Minister responsible for equality, I suspect that it will be quite easy for her to do that.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

The hon. Gentleman makes his case as eloquently as he always does, but the premise of his argument appears to be that he wants to continue the excellent work that has been started by the Commission for Racial Equality. Will he comment on the fact that parliamentary answers that I have received show that, in the past 10 years, something like 20 claims of racial discrimination have been made against the CRE? Taxpayers' money has been used to settle some of those cases out of court, so perhaps the CRE does not have such a good record on these matters as he would have us believe.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

If an organisation is not working or if it can be improved, let us improve it. I have my own story about the CRE. When I first came to Britain, my mother went to the CRE to ask for help in a discrimination case that she had. She was then, I think, the only person of Asian origin teaching in the London borough of Richmond and we could not understand why she could never obtain promotion. We went to the CRE—I think I was about 11—and asked it for help. Although it did not help my mother, it did not put me off the concept of the need for an organisation that provides help.

A lot of other organisations have claims of racial discrimination made against them, and I concede the point that we need a new organisation provided that it makes for better representation. The representation point is of paramount consideration for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrat party, which is always banging on about representation. I have just heard a speech from the president of the Liberal Democrats, and I name him even though I have not given him notice that I would. I have just rushed away from the speech to take part in the debate, but his speech was all about representation. With Muslim people sitting in front of him, he called for more Muslim Members of Parliament from the Liberal Democrat party. Such words are cheap if one goes on to a platform to say that we want more and then one takes away the very mechanism by which we get more.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I have a lot of sympathy with the motivation behind the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. I have been reading a biography of the pre-war life of Lord Halifax, alias Lord Irwin, viceroy of India. It was interesting that the British Government's commission on India contained no national of that country—it was an entirely Caucasian show. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whether or not this is a matter of formal representation, if there is no membership from minority communities, it is extremely unlikely that those communities will readily identify with the body and its actions?

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am not familiar with the life of Lord Halifax, but he makes the good point that representation is crucial. When the Minister responds to this first point, I ask her to be absolutely unequivocal. She should not use the words "I hope", "I wish", or "there should" because we have heard them before. We are looking for the words "there must be" if we are not to press the matter to a Division.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

On a point of clarification, does the hon. Gentleman think that the case for guaranteed representation that he is making about the ethnic minorities is as strong as, or stronger than, a similar such case that could be made on behalf of another minority? Is it of equal value, or—I think that this is a perfectly reasonable inquiry and I do not ask it tendentiously—is he arguing his case especially strongly because the CRE originally had genuine concerns about the danger of powerlessness as a result of the creation of the new body?

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

The hon. Gentleman has an excellent record on these issues. Even though he represents a constituency such as Buckingham, which must have a small percentage of black and Asian people—it is certainly smaller than the 49 per cent. figure for my constituency—he still speaks passionately about such matters, for which I respect him. I think that it is a bit of both. People need to identify readily with the commissioners who will speak on their behalf. It might well be that all the commissioners decide at the first meeting that they have a common agenda that they need to take forward, but we need specifics. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood has tabled an amendment to provide for parity for women, which I fully support. Half the commission should consist of women because they make up just over half the population of this country. If we want to go for crude figures and base representation in some way on numbers, we should look at the population of the black and Asian community—it now makes up about 5 million of the 60 million people in this country—and ensure that it is properly represented.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me such a candid and straightforward answer. Further to that answer, would he on the same basis argue that because the gay population is by general consent thought to be approximately 10 per cent. of the adult population, it would logically follow that if the body were to consist of 10 people, there should be one guaranteed place for the gay community, irrespective of whether Stonewall is arguing for such a position? I am not aware off the top of my head that it is arguing for that, but it is an interesting point to establish.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

It is an interesting point and I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There should be at least one such guaranteed place. The whole thing about the commission is that a person could be gay, black and disabled, so several different groups could be covered. If we are serious about the equality agenda, we should consider these issues and ensure that people are guaranteed a place on the commission. Of course the gay community must be guaranteed a place, but that is not what is happening at the moment.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

On the question of representation, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to nail the allegation that has been made that those of us who argue for black representation are in some way arguing for a hierarchy of discrimination? We are not putting forward such an argument, but simply saying, from our personal experience, that all types of discrimination are distinct, both in their manifestation and because of the solutions to the problems that they pose. Unless there is a proper balance of commissioners who have personal experience of discrimination, the commission will lack credibility and might not engage with different types of discrimination with the precision required.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she takes me on to my next topic, policy and decision making, which are central to the purpose of the race committee.

Bob Spink (Conservative, Castle Point)

Is the hon. Gentleman not selling his case rather short by calling only for pro rata representation on the commission? Given that many incidences of discrimination are suffered by the black and Asian community, should not there be greater than pro rata representation for that community? Would not that be more acceptable to that community and make the commission work better?

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am happy to start with pro rata representation given that at the moment we have nothing. There are no guarantees on the face of the Bill, so the new body could consist of 10 white men, plus the disability commissioner, who could be a woman. For now, pro rata representation is fine by me.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I am listening with interest because I am torn on this issue. There must be representation across the board of the various groups who suffer different forms of discrimination, and there are overlapping areas of discrimination, but I caution my hon. Friend. He has on several occasions referred to black and Asian residents of the United Kingdom, whereas amendment No. 9, which is the linchpin of the group even though it comes at the end, refers to "black or other ethnic" minorities. There is a difference, and I urge him to recognise that difference. There is a significant Ukrainian community in my constituency, for example, and we have a significant Polish community. The discrimination that they face may take a different form from the discrimination faced by members of visible racial or ethnic minorities, but we have to be cognisant of that nuance.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

We are cognisant of it. However, my hon. Friend talks about the Polish community, which is white. Although its members may face discrimination, it is not the racial discrimination that I am describing. I agree that everyone should watch their language and he is right to point out that there are different ways to define these matters.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

Is not the flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument in favour of having certain quotas of people on the commission most evident in relation to disability? In appointing one person with a disability, how on earth is one to define what type of disability that person should have, given that there are so many different types of disability? Should one appoint a person who uses a wheelchair when wheelchair users make up only 5 per cent. of people with a disability? It is nonsensical to suppose that one could ever get a cross-section of people with all sorts of disabilities. I believe that there have even been moves to define left-handedness as a disability under the Bill. The fact that someone does not have a particular disability does not mean that they cannot empathise with people who do have that disability.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

The hon. Gentleman is right to this extent: a person can empathise even if he or she does not have a particular disability. However, I can assure him that people who have a disability know that they have a disability. I remember that when my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and I were trying to set up black sections in the 1980s, the then leader of the Labour party, who is now a Member of the House of Lords, asked us to define "black." We replied, "People know instinctively whether they are black—they just have to look in the mirror."

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

My hon. Friend takes us back in time. When he said that the commissioners could be 10 white men, the Minister shook her head fiercely. However, the working party that considered the establishment of the commission comprised 28 people of whom only three were from visible minorities. Does he agree that that feeds the concern felt by the black and Asian community that we will find ourselves hopelessly marginalised in the new commission?

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

That is an important point, which must be pursued. The way in which the consultation process has taken place is regrettable. It has taken place at the time when, following the events of 7 July, the Government have been eager to engage with sections of the Asian community by setting up commissions and working parties. As I said earlier, words are okay and statements and speeches can be magnificent—we have made some fantastic statements on diversity—but in the end what counts is our ability to change legislation for the purposes of progress.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

Does my hon. Friend accept that much of the argument against what he is putting forward was put far more strongly 40 years ago when it was argued that there are other forms of discrimination, which undoubtedly existed and which remain, and therefore there was no reason why preference should be given to black and Asians? We have made considerable progress—I do not underestimate that progress when I look at those who occupy the Government Benches and those elsewhere in the country—but the form of discrimination against those who happen not to have a white skin remains. Hence there is undoubtedly an argument—less so now, but the argument of 40 years ago remains—for there to be a committee within the new body that is proposed along the lines that my hon. Friend is proposing. I will be delighted, as I am sure that he will be, when that is no longer necessary.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

Absolutely. I am so glad that my hon. Friend has taken me on to my second point, which I have been trying to make. I have only two points to make to the House.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I will give way only because it is the hon. Gentleman.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am genuinely glad that I have been in my place to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech. I am not making a frivolous point. I am trying to underline the rather serious point that he is making by saying that he should not be led astray, in however well-meaning a fashion, by the intervention and the challenge of definition from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). May I illustratively point out to the hon. Gentleman an observation that the House has been favoured with in the past by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), on the subject of definition? Clement Attlee was once asked to define an elephant, to which he replied that on the whole it was quite difficult to do so but equally, on the whole, when someone had seen one, they knew that they had seen it.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

We have had Clement Attlee and Lord Halifax, so goodness knows who we are going to hear from next. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that quote, and I shall use it in my next speech.

The issue of policy and decision making will be important. The proposed body will be charged with making policy. The point of having a race committee is that black and Asian people, it is to be hoped, will be able to decide on policy that affects black and Asian people. There will be a voice for them and somewhere for them to go. This is not happening at present.

I say to my hon. Friend the Minister—this is not meant personally to her because she has been a Minister for only the past year—to quote Mario Puzo, that to criticise people is not the business of politics. It is not personal. I think that we have failed in terms of the equality agenda after eight years. I expected more from our Government than we have given. We need to do more. We need more than good speeches about more black people here and more Asian people there. We need to have good laws, which I hope that we shall introduce as part of the measure that is before us. In addition, we must have bodies that will be able to allow the communities to be able to represent themselves. I am sorry that that is not happening. That is lamentable.

Only this morning, there was an article in The Times about the number of police officers who are not only joining the police service, but leaving it. The police service had 4,629 ethnic minority police officers in 2004. That was an 18 per cent. increase on the previous year. Hooray. That is a fantastic record. However, 17.8 per cent. of black and Asian recruits in 2004 resigned or were dismissed within six months of starting their jobs, compared with 7.7 per cent. of white officers.

Last year, 12.6 per cent. of ethnic minority recruits dropped out of the service within six months compared with 7.6 per cent. of white officers, and the figures continue. In that public service—one that is constantly monitored—to see that sort of reaction and to hear stories of racism against police officers makes me wonder what we have been doing over the past generation. We certainly should have done much more. These are lamentable figures for any Government. For me, someone who is passionately committed to the Labour Government—when I told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) that I was tabling the amendment, he said, "Why are you doing so? You are part of the payroll vote even though you are not on the payroll"—that worries me intensely. I do not mean that as a slight to the Minister because she is not yet on the payroll vote, even though she will be voting for the Bill's passage through the House.

I think that we have let people down. We have lost the plot on equality. We have only reacted since 7 July last year, because we discovered that some people who are trying to destroy the good race relations that we enjoy in this country do not come from Lebanon, have not been trained in Syria, and do not have Iranian connections. They were born and bred in Leeds. That is the challenge for us—which body will take up that mantle and try to deal with that fundamental issue? Will it be the new commission for integration and citizenship? Will it be part of the Phillips review? Will it be the Commission for Racial Equality, or what has been left of it in the past 18 months? Will it be Lee Jasper and the Greater London assembly? Will it be Simon Woolley and the 1990 Trust, or Operation Black Vote? Who will accept that mantle? The hon. Member for Daventry talked about Lord Halifax dividing and ruling, but if we divide the community in that way and do not give its members a focus it is a recipe for disaster.

Michael Wills (Labour, North Swindon)

I have been listening very carefully to the case that my hon. Friend is making. While I understand the Government's approach—and I certainly think that our record on equality is rather better than he suggested—I was struck by what appears to be consensus among all black and Asian organisations on the amendment. It is important that the Government always listen, and I hope that they will reconsider their attitude to the amendment in the light of our discussions. I should be grateful, however, if my hon. Friend would spell out in a little more detail the consequences if the amendment fails.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

Before I respond, may I commend my hon. Friend on his work on Britishness? I read his excellent newspaper article about the concept of Britishness, and it reminds me of a point that I intended to make. Nothing that we say takes away from the fact that a black or Asian person who was born in this country, or who, like me, has emigrated here, has a passion for being British. Nor does it take away from our support for the flag or our commitment to the things that are British. A definition of Britishness, besides including a cup of tea, as an article in The Sun said, should include chicken tikka masala and the music on "Top of the Pops", which is very much dominated by black British musicians. We do not wish to take away from that, and I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—incidentally, I congratulate him on his good news today—on their work on Britishness.

As for my hon. Friend's question, if the amendment fails, members of the black and Asian community will think that the Government have let them down at a time when they need their support. If I were marking them, I would say that they have scored "average" on equality. I expect them to achieve "excellent", and we have four years before the next election to make sure that they do so. May I tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, whom I have known for a number of years, and who believes in what she is doing, that she may choose to take the common-denominator approach, but she should recognise the needs and desires of the communities? I urge her to speak with passion at the Dispatch Box and to give us the guarantees that we want. I do not want to ask the Deputy Speaker to take the amendment separately so that we can vote on it, as I would have to vote against my own Government, bearing in mind my comments about the non-existence of the payroll vote. However, that needs more than words about wishing and hoping.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

rose—

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I shall give way for the final time to the hon. Gentleman.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for generously accepting my interventions. He has spoken extremely eloquently. If he is not successful in persuading the Government to accept his amendment, does he agree that they should consider including in schedule 1, part of which deals with the appointment of commissioners, provisions to cover the recruitment of a commissioner who is specifically appointed to deal with race relations, of a commissioner specifically appointed to deal with disability rights and of commissioners to deal with other key areas, so at least someone can focus directly on those issues and thus make sure that there is a figurehead for those important campaigns.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, and I accept that he is sincere. The fact is, however, we need proper representation in the Bill. The issue of portfolios is applicable now. The CRE has a number of commissioners, some of whom deal specifically with, for example, the Muslim community. The portfolio issue is a secondary consideration, but the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to paragraph 2 of schedule 1, because the issue of representation is the key point.

The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that I have spoken eloquently, but I think that I have spoken for too long. [Hon. Members: "No."] I want to allow my hon. Friends the opportunity to speak. We rarely debate equality in this House, because the Opposition never want to debate it in their time. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) disagrees, but when was the last time that she used one of her Opposition days to discuss equality? The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has told us all about his commitment to equality, but I cannot remember when the Liberal Democrats last provided time to debate it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) has just returned from Eid celebrations to attend this debate, which must have been a difficult choice.

This is an opportunity to send a powerful message to the black and Asian community, and I hope that the Minister takes it and does not leave me and my hon. Friends in the position of having to call a Division against our own Government.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) has made an important and eloquent speech. He mentioned that the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) has attended Eid celebrations, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who is usually here on the Front Bench, is doing. We cannot all attend Eid celebrations, which are important, but I am sure that all hon. Members support them.

I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Leicester, East. When I challenged him on one point, he answered another point, but I still disagree with him on the first point, which amendment No. 43 addresses. Given that we are discussing equality, it is strange that the Bill gives pre-eminence to matters concerning race, religion or belief. We discussed that point at length in Committee, where I argued that it is illogical to include the word "particular" in clause 10(4), because it is not right that particular attention should be paid to one of the strands of equality. However, I will not press that point, because other issues are far more important and I do not feel strongly about it. When we made that point in Committee, the Minister gave a reasonable explanation why the word "particular" should remain. I accepted her argument then and, being consistent, I am sure that she will advance it again today, in which case I shall probably accept it once more.

The hon. Member for Leicester, East has made some important points. In Committee, I moved amendment No. 52, which suggested that the commission should consist of:

"(d) at least one female Commissioner,

(e) at least one Commissioner who represents an ethnic minority,

(f) at least one Commissioner who at the time of appointment is aged over 65 years, and

(g) at least one Commissioner who is either gay, lesbian or transgender.'."

To that extent, I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, East.

In Committee, my concern, which I still harbour, was that we should be prescriptive on Report, because law is better if it is not vague, but precise. My amendment in Committee, which is similar to the general points made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East this afternoon, would have allowed Parliament to prescribe some of the qualifications for some of the commissioners. It is important that at least one commissioner is female and that at least one commissioner can discuss issues around age from their own experience. I am not sure whether all hon. Members agree that "aged over 65 years" is a qualification, and if others think that it should be 70, 75 or even older, I would not argue, because the point is sensitive.

In principle, it is important that the commission has members who know about discrimination from their own experience rather than from a second-hand, academic or professional understanding. A reasonable proportion of the commissioners should have an understanding based on their own experience, which is different from an understanding derived from academic study or professional experience. I therefore agree with the general principles behind what the hon. Member for Leicester, East has said this afternoon.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I therefore assume that the hon. Lady will support the amendment.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

My amendment was slightly different from the hon. Gentleman's amendment. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has suggested that his amendment is better, which is his prerogative. If I had wanted to press the matter to a vote, however, I would have tabled a different amendment. I do not support the letter of his amendment, but I support what he has said in principle. However, I suspect that the Minister will advance a legal argument to try to persuade the House that a provision in schedule 1 already covers all those points. Nevertheless, it is important that we have it on record that this House feels strongly that the commission should be composed of people who understand the issues of discrimination against which we are legislating from their own personal experience.

It is also important to recognise that this is a cross-party matter. I suspect that the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) agrees with me in principle as she did in Committee, although she may argue about the exact dots and commas. When such matters are considered in the wider sphere, it is important that Parliament is seen to be concerned that the commission is made up of people who have relevant personal experience.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I am surprised by the hon. Lady, because I should have thought that under the new leadership of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) she would want to appeal to the black and Asian community in the United Kingdom by saying that it has a voice in the Conservative party, which says that it must have equal representation. Why is she struggling with the issue, which should be an easy win for the Conservatives?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken—I am not struggling at all. My speech in Committee was made prior to the election of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney as leader of the Conservative party. My principles are those in which I have always believed and continue consistently to believe. It is delightful that the new leader of my party agrees with me on these matters, as he honestly does. I am pleased that he is directing my party in the right direction in this respect. I might struggle with the exact words that the hon. Member for Leicester, East has used in his amendment—I am not giving him any assurances in that regard—but I am not struggling with the principle. Conservative Members agree with what he said, and he deserves to be complimented on saying it in such a heartfelt way.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I know that my hon. Friend performed with great skill and dexterity in the Standing Committee on the Bill. However, as I was not fortunate enough to be chosen as a member of the Committee, I am familiar only with some, not all, of the exchanges that took place there. I understand her argument that the terms and wording of her amendment differ from those of the hon. Member for Leicester, East, but if there is something wrong with his amendment, what is it?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

As usual, my hon. Friend asks a very precise question. In principle, there is nothing wrong with the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but I am not willing to commit my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to supporting exactly what he has said word for word. I know that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for that, and I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me as well. I confess that I am a cautious lawyer by training, so I do not rush into precise and binding promises on every dot and comma of a particular amendment unless I am 100 per cent. sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I wish to be led down precisely that path.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I like the hon. Lady, but I do not forgive her, because this moment represents a genuine opportunity for the Conservative party to show some fresh thinking on the equality debate. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who is sitting next to her, will have just come back from the Eid celebration, having made his usual marvellous and eloquent speeches in support of this country's ethnic minority communities. If the hon. Lady agrees with the principle of what I have said, here is her chance—her moment in history—to strike a blow for those communities. Why does not she seize it with both hands?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I am tempted by the hon. Gentleman's flattery, but I simply repeat that in principle we support what he said—he advanced some good arguments. It is quite something for agreement on principle to be reached between Conservative and Labour Members. He should quit while he is ahead, or I will find something specific to disagree with.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

It might assist my hon. Friend if I were to tell her my view, without anticipating any speech that I may shortly be called to make. Is it not absolutely crucial that we have a robust and entirely convincing response from the Minister, because some of us will be listening to the debate and deciding what to do in the light of that?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

My hon. Friend is, as ever, extremely wise and experienced in these matters. He is entirely right and anticipates what I am about to say. Although, as I said, I have every respect for the hon. Member for Leicester, East—I must stop paying him compliments or it will be bad for his political image—it is not what he says, but how the Minister responds, that determines how we go forward. The Minister's response will probably be a carefully thought out legal argument. As such, I may well be convinced by it. However, I have already confessed to being a cautious lawyer, and I will continue to proceed with caution. Perhaps that backs up my earlier remarks about the importance of people who sit on the commission drawing their conclusions not from their cold professional understanding but from their own personal experience.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I, too, am a lawyer, although perhaps not as cautious as the hon. Lady. I see no Conservative amendment relating to the disability committee, which is covered in part 5 of schedule 1. The wording in that part of the schedule is on all fours with amendment No. 9, except that one would have to take out the word, "disability", and insert the word, "race". As the hon. Lady has not tabled an amendment to part 5 of schedule 1, I presume that she accepts the disability committee, so why is she being so cautious about the wording—and perhaps even the concept, although I am not so sure about that—of the amendment?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I have been examining the principles that we are debating. Unfortunately, in my position, I do not have the power to do any of the things that the hon. Gentleman would like to be done. When I am sitting on the Government Benches—I think that it will be in the not-too-distant future—I hope that I might have the privilege of dealing with these matters from the Dispatch Box. If the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Leicester, East were to ask me such questions then, I hope that I would be able to reply positively.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

rose—

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

There is no point in the hon. Gentleman continuing to ask me questions, because I am not the Minister.

I want to move on, because we have taken up a lot of time on this and there are many equally important matters still to be debated. Amendment No. 42, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, relates to the way in which the new commission will be held accountable for the spending of taxpayers' money. I brought that up many times on Second Reading and in Committee. The Minister and the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) are smiling because they have heard me make this argument so often, but I make no apology for repeating it.

The cost of the new commission and the work that it undertakes will be very much greater than the cost of the three bodies that it replaces. I am very worried about that. Of course, I accept that as we are widening the scope of the work done by the existing three bodies, excellent as they are, the new operation will cost more than the current one. That is correct. However, there is a difference between more and an enormous amount more—indeed, multiplied several times over. The Minister has given me many answers on that point in our previous deliberations but none has satisfied me.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I am puzzled by the hon. Lady's view. She says that the figure has been multiplied many times. The budget for the new commission is £70 million whereas that for the existing commissions is £48 million. By anyone's calculation, the figure is not multiplied many times.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The Minister is right. The new commission will cost twice as much. We had that argument previously. [Interruption.] I know that 48 times two does not equal 70, but if any hon. Member can give me an example of a Labour Government's projection and the relevant figures at the end of the year for which it was done coming in below that same projection, I shall withdraw my comments. If the Government estimate £70 million, the commission will cost more than that.

The current £48 million is probably money well spent and I do not therefore argue for a cut in spending on such an important matter. My hon. Friends and I always argue for spending the smallest possible amount of taxpayers' money, yet if the Government plan to put three bodies under one administrative roof, there must be economies of scale and the current budget of £48 million should be reduced. Nevertheless, given that the new commission can rightly cover six strands of work instead of three, that budget will clearly increase. However, if one decreases and then increases a budget, one should not predict spending twice the amount of taxpayers' money.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

We are considering a new body that will cover six strands, but the difference between 48 and 70 is less than 50 per cent. A 50 per cent. increase would be 72. I understand the hon. Lady's position but, if she believes that £70 million is too much, how much would the Conservative party be prepared to pay to tackle discrimination?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

At present, discrimination is tackled by £48 million a year and it is well done. I pay tribute to the three bodies that currently carry out the excellent work. They have worked hard to inform hon. Members about the issues that we are debating and they should be congratulated on their hard work on our proceedings, as should the bodies that represent the other strands of inequality that will come under the new commission for equality and human rights.

The current work represents taxpayers' money well spent, but I am worried. I wager that, when we examine the new body's accounts at the end of its first financial year, it will have cost more than the £70 million predicted by the Minister. I fear that the new body will cost more than twice as much as the current bodies. That is worrying because every pound spent on the commission is a pound of taxpayers' money not spent on health, education or some other matter.

It is our duty, as a House of Commons, to be the guardian of taxpayers' money. Whatever we want to do and however good the intentions of the legislation that we wish to pass—I have said time and again that the Bill's intention is good and we thoroughly support it—if it costs too much, is over-bureaucratic and puts too many burdens on business, thus costing more indirectly to the economy, it will undo some of its good work. It falls to me as Opposition spokesman to make this point because the Government will never make it: Labour Governments always spend more taxpayers' money than they intend because they do not have the regard that they should for the economy.

Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent South)

Equal pay, with men and women paid equally, would improve the economy. Do not the new compassionate Conservatives believe that equality and eliminating discrimination are worth it?

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Of course I did not say that—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. May I remind hon. Members of the amendment under discussion? They should confine their remarks to the amendments.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not need to answer the hon. Lady's question because I have said at least six or seven times in the past half hour how worthy I consider the Bill to be and stressed the importance of the work of the new commission for equality and human rights. The hon. Lady's question was therefore unnecessary and I should not have given way to her.

The new body should be accountable for its spending. Without amendment No. 42, the commission would be required to

"send a copy of a statement under sub-paragraph (1)(b)"—

a statement of its accounts for the year—

"to . . . the Secretary of State, and . . . the Comptroller and Auditor General."

Amendment No. 42 would require the commission to send a copy to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It is essential that hon. Members should be able to examine the accounts of the new body and hold it to account for every pound of taxpayers' money that it spends.

It would be wrong if my concern for fiscal prudence were misinterpreted as opposition to the Bill. I reiterate my total support for the principle of the measure. The official Opposition support the Bill's intention. However, in doing that, it is our duty to be the guardians of taxpayers' money and amendment No. 42 therefore proposes that, every year, we should be able to examine every pound that the commission spends. Of course, I have confidence that every pound will be well spent.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I want to speak about the amendments that I tabled, but I begin my associating myself with those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz).

As the Library research paper emphasised, when the Bill was first introduced, it and the intentions behind it gained a breadth of support that we had not witnessed for several years. Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty said:

"This Bill is a beacon of hope for many of us and I hope that the Government will put real political will behind it."

Other supporters include the Muslim Council of Britain, Ben Summerskill—the chief executive of Stonewall—the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress. It would be regrettable to waste all that good will on the issue of representation among the commissioners. I hope that the Minister will make a strong statement that the issues raised in the debate will be tackled properly and that we shall hear a firm and concrete commitment from the Government that the new body will be adequately representative.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East talked about the definition of black and ethnic minorities. I am the chair of the all-party group on the Irish community in Britain, and I should like to point out that, among all the other definitions of ethnic minorities, we need to recognise that the largest ethnic minority in this country are the Irish, who have suffered discrimination at the hands of the various institutions of this country over the generations.

I have tabled amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 20. If we are to set up a new organisation from the merger of existing organisations, it is important that we help to maintain the morale of the staff of those organisations who transfer to the new one, particularly those who have built up expertise in these fields as a result of working for the existing organisations over the years. A number of members of staff have expressed their concern to the all-party trade union group representing the Public and Commercial Services Union, of which I am the chair. They are worried about continuity of service and the application of TUPE—the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

Amendment No. 23 addresses the issue of continuity of service by ensuring that all the staff from the former commissions transferring across to the new commission will be deemed to have continuity of service for the purposes of the civil service compensation scheme. This means that if, for example, a member of staff were to be compensated for redundancy, their service on the existing organisation would be taken into account.

Many hon. Members will think that that would naturally be the case, but I have raised the issue because of the recent experience of staff at the Learning and Skills Council, which is implementing massive redundancies. Many of its staff had previously transferred from the training and enterprise councils, and they thought that that service would be regarded as part of the continuity of their employment. However, many of the staff who are facing redundancy have had their entitlement calculated only from the creation of the LSC. Their service with the TECs has not been taken into account, and their supposed continuity of service has not been recognised. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could place on the record the assurance that, for the purpose of the civil service compensation scheme, all the staff transferring from the three existing commissions will be regarded as having continuity of service.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I have some sympathy with the point that the hon. Gentleman has made about the Learning and Skills Council. Does he agree that there is already an exemplary code of practice for the handling of transfers and redundancies in the public sector? Should it not, therefore, be a matter of general principle that that should apply to all such cases, rather than a particular one being exempt?

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

It is true that there is a code of practice—it is helpful and it should be applied generally. It would be reassuring, however, if the Minister could put on the record that these particular members of staff will be protected. I say that because of the experience at the LSC, which undermined the morale of the large numbers of people who had transferred across from the TECs and who thought that they had some security.

Amendment No. 24 also deals with staffing. It would ensure that the TUPE regulations apply to all staff of the former commissions, whenever they transfer to the new commission. Again, I seek a statement on the record from the Minister to reassure the staff who are now being identified for transfer. The transfer from the existing commissions will be a staggered process. Most of the staff at the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission will transfer to the new body in 2007. However, staff at the Commission for Racial Equality will not transfer until 2009. As this is a piecemeal process, rather than a wholesale transfer of staff, it is important that we have an assurance that the TUPE regulations will apply to all transfers, whenever they occur.

Furthermore, some members of staff are anxious that the TUPE regulations do not cover all matters and that they will not be fully protected.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Hornchurch)

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. Does he agree that for the new commission to be effective in its roles and responsibilities, it is important that there is continuity of staffing so that the knowledge and experience gained by the staff of the existing bodies is properly transferred to the new commission? The doubts that the hon. Gentleman is raising about TUPE and continuity of service might encourage existing staff to look for other opportunities, rather than transferring across.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I have no doubt that the staff who serve the existing commissions will seek to serve the new one with the same commitment and dedication that have made the existing ones so successful. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, however. We need to reassure those members of staff who are transferring across that they are secure in their employment, and that they will have the opportunity to continue what for many of them is a vocation, as a result of the dedication that they have demonstrated over the years. The last thing that we should be doing is undermining their morale or their commitment to their work. I would therefore welcome an assurance on the record from the Minister that TUPE will apply at each stage of the transfers from the different bodies, no matter when they occur.

I mentioned that the TUPE regulations were not effective in guaranteeing full protection in regard to a whole range of issues. They allow flexibility for the employer, but they do not apply to fundamental issues such as pensions. I hope that the guidance that has been issued for past civil service transfers to new organisations—and even to organisations outside the public sector—on issues such as the protection of pensions and ensuring that alternative proposals are put to staff in full consultation to give them that protection, will apply in this instance as well, so that we can offer security to those members of staff.

Amendment No. 20 is about representation. The three existing commissions have secured representation from both sides of industry, including the trade union movement. There have been trade union nominations—usually two per board—to each of the existing organisations. The reason for that is that the bulk of the casework of those organisations has arisen as a result of discrimination in employment. It was therefore natural to ask the organisations with experience in employment relations—both employers and trade unions—to nominate people to sit on the commissions' boards. It is interesting that the nominations from the trade unions have largely involved women and representatives of the black and ethnic minority groups.

I am worried that there is no commitment in the Bill to seek trade union representation on the new body, and I ask the Minister to assure us—in any form of words that she can give us this evening—that at least some direction will be given to the new body to consult and involve the trade unions and, if possible, seek nominations from them, and not just for commissioners. An alternative might be to ensure that there is adequate trade union representation on the advisory bodies that will be established to advise the commission on individual inquiries and on the overall direction of policy. In that way, we would achieve a representative body that would be effective in building on existing experience, which has largely been focused on issues relating to employment rights.

We welcome the Bill, but it is on these points of detail that the new body will fail or succeed. I hope that the Minister will respond flexibly so that we can genuinely take into account the issues raised in this debate. In that way, we would demonstrate that the House of Commons has a value, even at this late stage of the Bill, in ensuring that the legislation will be effective.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

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 (Labour, Leicester East)

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.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

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 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 (Labour, Leicester East)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

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 (Labour, Kingswood)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

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 (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Does the hon. Lady accept that the first qualification for being a 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 (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

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 (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

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 (Conservative, Shipley)

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. People do not have to be from certain backgrounds to be good advocates for the causes for which they are arguing.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

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.

Roger Berry (Labour, Kingswood)

It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the amendments that stand in my name and to welcome the Bill, which is part of the significant progress being made by the Government towards the creation of the kind of society where people can participate equally without the fear of discrimination or prejudice.

I am delighted that we have a consensus, as we tend to have nowadays on equality issues—it is marvellous—on most of the key issues in relation to establishing a new commission for equality and human rights. A mere eight or nine years ago, the Conservatives were fighting tooth and nail against the setting up the Disability Rights Commission and were arguing on the quiet to get rid of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. In fairness, none of the Conservative Members present tonight was involved, but I am convinced that we would not have the Bill were it not for the fact that we have a Labour Government.

I have, however, tabled amendments, for the obvious reason that I believe the Bill can be improved. I wish to support amendments Nos. 16 to 18, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). I have reciprocated by attaching my name to all his amendments and he made powerful arguments in their support.

The amendments are essentially those that were tabled on Report in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Ouseley. The purpose of amendment No. 18 is to address representation and ensure that the commission represents the society that it will serve.

The Bill is a curious one in some respects, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) pointed out—indeed, he stole much of my speech. Schedule 1 contains a specific commitment that at least one commissioner will be, or will have been, a disabled person. I confess that I had considered asking for two or more disabled commissioners, but to my astonishment I discovered that we are still in the same position as with the first draft of the Bill: when it comes to the other equality strands, there is no provision whatever for commissioners with particular characteristics.

My main concern over the years has been with the disability strand and I am delighted that the Government have accepted the principle that there should be at least one disabled person as a commissioner. A disabled person will bring experience to the commission that the commission should own and that experience is directly relevant and important enough to the work of the commission that we should legislate in that way. I cannot understand why the principle has been abandoned when it comes to gender or race.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

The hon. Gentleman is arguing two separate points and answers some of the questions that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) asked. There is a big difference between amendments No. 16 and No. 18, in that the first is general and speaks of

"no fewer than one half",

which is acceptable, while the second gives specific quotas and therefore is not. Otherwise, the hon. Gentleman's point is absolutely correct.

Roger Berry (Labour, Kingswood)

I was speaking to amendment No. 18 and was going to come to No. 16 in a moment. Amendment No. 18 is acceptable and should be supported because it would cater for a minimum provision of women and members of black and other ethnic minority communities as commissioners. It is acceptable because this House apparently, and quite rightly, is going to accept that at least one disabled person should serve as a commissioner. I do not understand why the Government have said that, as a matter of principle, there should be representation for disabled people on the commission but that that should not apply to women or members of black or other ethnic minority groups. That is why the amendment proposes that no fewer than half the commissioners should be women and that no fewer than one quarter should be from black and other ethnic minority backgrounds. That is the same aim as that of amendment No. 10, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East. It is not tokenism, nor is it denying the obvious, which is that people should be appointed on merit. It is simply an attempt to ensure that all communities are fairly represented as commissioners.

The Government's arguments against the amendments have tended to be of the following kind: that it is possible under the Bill that we could have 10 white men, but as my very good friend the Minister rightly says, that could not possibly happen. No one believes that the Government would be so foolish as even to think of doing that. I genuinely believe that it has never crossed anyone's mind to have 10 white men serving on the commission, but nothing in the Bill would prevent a Government from appointing commissioners in that way.

The Government have said that the need for flexibility in appointments requires that no such restrictions be imposed, but apparently, there can be restrictions in respect of appointing at least one disabled person. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that it would not be that difficult to make first-rate commission appointments on merit, with at least half the commissioners being women and at least one quarter representing black or other ethnic minority groups. Doing so would be no more difficult than appointing, on merit, a disabled person.

Other Members referred to the third Government argument, which is that to appoint commissioners in such a way would reflect silo thinking. I understand the point and entirely oppose silo thinking in the commission's work. When the commission was proposed, I supported the idea of a single commission for equality and human rights, precisely because I oppose silo thinking. There were those in the disability movement, as in other equality strands, who had grave reservations about that idea. I had practical reservations about the manner in which the commission might be set up but, in principle, I have always supported a single commission, precisely because I oppose the silo mentality.

A friend of mine, Professor Paul Steven Miller, was one of President Clinton's commissioners at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Washington DC. He is a disabled lawyer and he convinced me—as if I needed convincing—that, when people come through the door, the cause of discrimination may be not abundantly clear. People could be discriminated against on the grounds of race and gender, race and disability, disability and orientation, or goodness knows however many different circumstances. It is right to have a single commission to provide a service to people who allege discrimination; that is the only idea that makes sense. People being referred from one commission to another would not promote equality or human rights.

I support the commission because I am against a silo mentality. I want people to feel assured that allegations of discrimination will be tackled holistically—another term used by Members today. Having said that, I do not believe that a representative commission is a threat, but rather that it is an opportunity. It would strengthen the expertise of the commissioners. Having commissioners who are disabled, or who have experienced discrimination as women or on the ground of race, would strengthen the commission, not weaken it.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's work on disability over many years, but will he explain what somebody in a wheelchair knows about visual impairment that somebody who is not in a wheelchair does not?

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Where does one start?

Roger Berry (Labour, Kingswood)

Yes, where does one begin? First, the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) may have noticed from his constituency experience that there is a fair degree of communication between disabled people with different impairments. For example, people who use wheelchairs frequently talk to people who have a sight impairment or other such conditions. A strong network of disabled people's organisations share views, and as a result, they become better informed.

I realise that, in establishing a representative commission, the question is where do we draw the line? It is self-evident—I did not expect to have to say this—that although the Bill, which the whole House will doubtless support, proposes creating 10 to 15 commissioners, we can all think of perhaps 50 different interests that we would like to be represented. I am talking about not an abstract situation but a real one, and I am simply suggesting that, just as we need to appoint someone with experience of disability, it is important that those with experience of discrimination on the grounds of gender and race are adequately represented on the commission.

One may disagree with having 50 per cent. representation for women, but the point is that the Bill as drafted makes no provision for women at all. One may be against a quarter of commissioners coming from black and ethnic minority communities, but the Bill as drafted does not require that any commissioners come from such communities.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is easy to trivialise the arguments in favour of representation? Some of us have heard those arguments trivialised for 20 years or more and it is sad to have to rehearse them. However, we are not talking about abstractions but about how to ensure that the commission draws on the many disabled people, women and black people who have a lifetime's knowledge of and expertise in campaigning on those issues. We are talking about how to ensure that the balance of expertise in the community is properly represented on the commission.

Roger Berry (Labour, Kingswood)

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 for which most right hon. and hon. Members have argued.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry), who has considerable expertise in the field of disability and with whom, through my own involvement in that area, I have collaborated constructively in the past. He made some trenchant points about not thinking within a silo mentality. From my own experience, I came at the issue with an interest in disability and found myself driven by the fact of discrimination to take a lively interest, too, in issues of gender equality and race equality. In the end, they become indivisible, which is the compelling case for having a single commission.

I like, as it were, to play mental games when anticipating ministerial arguments, and I have been trying hard to do so on why there should be any justification for the special treatment of disability in the Bill. One could say it is because Bert Massey and the Disability Rights Commission were not very happy about it, and that is certainly true. That may well be reflected in the Bill, but in trying to produce acceptable and defensible arguments for the Minister—I offer them to her for nothing—there seem to me to be two.

First, the Disability Rights Commission is relatively new in comparison with the other equality bodies. Secondly, the nature of the discrimination concerned is, as it were, more by analogue than by digital: whereas one is either a racist or one is not, and one is either a feminist or one is not, the test in relation to disability is whether reasonable adjustments are being made, which is a much more opaque area.

Having said which, I have absolutely convinced myself that those arguments are implausible. To return to the beginning of the Report stage, it seems that the Government have already conceded the primary point, as they did on the first group of amendments about the difference between sexual orientation and transgendered people. Having provided to legislate for one group, it seemed difficult to many of us not to legislate for the second. Having provided to legislate for disability, it equally seems difficult not to argue the case for legislating on race. I was particularly attracted by amendment No. 16, at least in that it provides an instruction to Ministers on good practice, which they should adopt.

As the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) developed his case with his characteristic charm and eloquence, I found myself increasingly warming towards it. As I went through the nature of the argument in the same way that I did on the amendment spoken to by the hon. Member for Kingswood, I anticipated all the ministerial problems. I am sure that the Minister has a great big brief in front of her—I speak from experience—that bears the six-letter word "resist". It will say that first, we need flexibility, and, secondly, it would be insulting to type people by their particular cases. How can we know that people are not multifunctional in two or three areas of disability? Why should we seem to single out one group when we cannot, for example, appoint a transgendered person because we would run out of places on any reasonably sized commission? Would that not send the wrong signals? And Ministers have the right intentions anyway. I think that the Minister has to show the House tonight that the Government do have the right intention, which is to produce a multifunctional and effective commission that is seen to represent the interests engaged in this important area.

The one point on which I perhaps did not quite agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, East—I think I did not; it may have been misinterpretable—was his remark that there are good race relations in this country. I think that that is the case, but we have an obligation to maintain perpetual vigilance, at which I see him nodding. One does not have to agree with every last word that Trevor Phillips said in his rather controversial speech at least to be aware that things can go wrong. Indeed, in other countries with rather less of a multiculturalist tradition than ours—France, in particular—they have gone wrong. We should be conscious that at the very moment when we think things are all right, they may be formally so but that does not necessarily mean that there is deep engagement. That will take more than one generation to achieve and will vary very much with levels of education and experience in particular areas. I am conscious of what one of my colleagues once described as the kind of polite apartheid that can apply in some cities: different ethnic groups may stand off without actually falling out with one another but find little affinity or involvement. That is not a happy position, although those are perhaps wider issues that we cannot develop in full tonight.

Implicit in what the hon. Member for Leicester, East said was the idea that the Bill is all about something real—a significant economic imbalance. If one considers the proportion of people from ethnic minorities who are unemployed, the rates of pay that those in work receive and the general economic position, the figures are still depressingly unpositive. There is a problem and we cannot fail to start by acknowledging that.

If that is the economic side, the other side is representation or stakeholder involvement, which is what the amendment and the debate are about. If people do not feel that they have a stake in this country and that their interests are being taken seriously and represented, we should be ashamed of ourselves in this place, but whether we are or are not, we are building up problems for the future. We have to involve all our people, and I did not need the recent change in the leadership of my party to reinforce my views in support of that. If one is a one-nation politician of any party, one is about bringing people together and recognising that they have views, aspirations, fears and experiences that need to be taken extremely seriously.

In relating all that to the substance of the debate, it seemed to me that I should like three sets of assurances from the Minister. The first is on the wider work of the Commission for Racial Equality. It would be useful if she could put on the record how some of the other functions—what I might call the positive functions—of the CRE are to be discharged, particularly its work on local racial integration. Many of us feel strongly that that should continue and be safeguarded, and is—in a sense, although I do not wish to give a hierarchy—more important than the mere legal enforcement of equality. Both are extremely important, but the positive approach, which says, "Let's encourage good practice and good race relations", is an important part. Some of that activity may transfer to the new commission, but it would be useful if the Minister could confirm that.

The second issue is economic imbalance and I hope that Trevor Phillips's commission will carry out some studies on that. My party will not prescribe a magic solution that would somehow produce economic equality overnight, but no one should be comfortable unless we are working towards that.

The third issue is the institutional and operational matters that are under debate in the Bill. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was right to mention staff issues because, in my sad experience, they are not always well handled by Governments, of whichever party, in legislation. The issue of participation is central and whether we have a separate race committee or another structure—the Minister may come up with a good argument on that—the institution will not work unless people feel comfortable with it and that it has some relevance to them.

The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned India, and I should point out that Lord Irwin, as he then was, was rather a rather liberal—if it is not derogatory to use the word these days—Viceroy, but he was wrestling with a commission that was a non-starter because it was all Brits and no Indians. That does not work, because any structure needs to be acceptable to the various communities involved.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend makes his point pithily and eloquently, as ever. With due respect, may I take him back to a point that was interestingly but wrongly made by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) earlier? She mentioned a possible analogy between the issue we are debating and the role of a midwife. Does a midwife have to have given birth to be a suitable person to deliver a baby? What we are talking about here is not a one-off function: it is an ongoing advocacy and representational role, and that is the important point that we have to bear in mind.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I agree, and had I wished to indulge myself earlier I would have taken up the hon. Lady on a related point to her analogy of the midwife. At least part of the case that she made is that a midwife, whether or not she has given birth, should be experienced and knowledgeable about people giving birth and, by definition, sympathetic to them. A midwife should not be multifunctional and also act as a physiotherapist, occupational therapist or speech therapist in her spare time. Therefore, we need people on the commission who are heavyweights, who understand what is involved and who can engage with and win the confidence of the minority communities, minority interests and others who might be discriminated against.

I love moving amendments and trying to get a Bill right, and part of that includes the cerebral function and taking a cool look at how legislation works, as with the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) rightly made about the administrative cost of the new commission. However, it is also important to understand that the process includes an element of emotional intelligence and the reflection of anger and disquiet in the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) asked about the common feature and I think that at least part of it is the anger people feel—for example, whatever their skin colour—at the discrimination that they have endured for no good reason and, sometimes, as they see it, as the fault of society. The Bill will not solve all ills, but we could make a start by saying that it should reflect not only the best structure that we can produce, but the anger of individuals about how they have been treated and a determination across all the parties to do our level best to see that that does not happen in the future.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

I wish to speak in support of the amendments that would introduce a race committee and provide proper representation among the commissioners. I also support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and other colleagues on issues of staff protection, and I hope that the Minister will take them seriously.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) reminded the House, it is some 20 years since he and I were first selected as prospective parliamentary candidates, together with Bernie Grant and Paul Boateng. We were not selected because of our good looks and charisma, at random or as an act of patronage by our leadership. Indeed, as a group, we were regarded with some fear—yes, even my hon. Friend—when we first entered the House in 1987. We were selected on the back of a feeling in society that had arisen because of the riots in London, Bristol and Liverpool in the early 1980s. There was a strong feeling in society at the time, especially in the communities from which we were selected, that it was high time that, towards the end of the 20th century, this House of Commons started to look like the people of Britain.

The argument, which was accepted on all sides at the time, was that for young black and Asian people to feel part of and engaged with this society, they had to see representation at the highest level. That was not because only black and Asian people can understand the issues of black people and other ethnic minorities. Nor was it because of quotas or numbers. Nor was it because in an ideal world it would not matter what colour MPs were. The idea was that representation mattered because of what it said about an institution. People can read about issues of discrimination and even do dissertations on them, but unless they have lived them and felt them, they will not be able to give them the emphasis that only living them gives.

I have heard all the mockery about needing to have a one-legged person, one blind person and one Chinese person for the past 20 years, but the arguments on representation are about the legitimacy of institutions and the wealth of talent available to institutions. If the arguments about representation were valid for the House of Commons 20 years ago, how much more valid are the same arguments for this commission on equality today? I beg Members not to have a continuous rehearsal of arguments that we heard 20 years ago. If the case for representation was important 20 years ago, it is—if anything—more important today.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

The hon. Lady is here because of her ability, and so is the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). Does she agree that true equality means that the best person for the job is given the job, whatever their background? If that means that all the people on the commission are black, so be it. If that means that all the people on the commission have a disability, so be it. While we talk about quotas and look at people on the basis of their colour or whether they are disabled, we will never have true equality. It should be irrelevant what colour people are or whether they have a disability: what matters is that we have good people, whatever their background.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

Of course, in an ideal world colour, gender, sexuality or physical challenges would not matter, but we are not in an ideal world and all my experience of these issues, which goes back a few years before the hon. Gentleman entered the House, tells me that unless we debate representation, raise the issue and put in place the structures and the law to ensure it—as we are calling for in this case—we will find that the majority of people best placed to empathise with the issues are somehow, magically, always white males. Time after time, that is the practical outcome.

I am old enough to remember when the CRE was set up and am the first to acknowledge that although it has had some excellent leaders, it has not been as effective in recent years as it might have been. I am the first to acknowledge that the CRE has faced challenges as an institution, but I remind the House that when it was set up in 1977 it embodied the best and most hopeful aspirations of our society for racial equality. In those early years, it attracted the best and brightest members of our black and Asian community. The House should also remember that the CRE is not just a London organisation; in community after community, in town after town, local racial equality committees, often with only one or two paid staff, do incredible work 18 hours a day, as beacons, fighting for equality in their community.

As this debate may be our last chance to say anything about the CRE before it goes in two years' time, we should not just look at where it has failed and where we might disagree with one of its chairs on a particular issue. We should look at the hopes and aspirations that it embodied and at the incredibly brave work of hundreds upon hundreds of individuals for the national body or for their community, long before race and equality were fashionable or acceptable. It would be wrong for the House not to acknowledge the contribution that the CRE has made to ensuring that we do not see in our society what the French saw last summer—community after community in flames.

I entirely concede that the CRE may not have achieved all that we hoped. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, I do not agree with what Trevor Phillips said about multiculturalism, but we should not forget what the CRE represented, the hopes it embodied and the real achievements of individuals associated with it.

Andrew Pelling (Conservative, Croydon Central)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

No, I must make progress.

Of course, I support bringing all the equality strands into one commission, but my fear is that unless we get the legislation and the structures right, the commission will embody what I have seen so often, whether at local authority, non-governmental organisation or Government level: lowest common denominator equality, which is no good for anyone, although it provides a laugh for some people who are hostile to the whole notion of equalities in principle. Lowest common denominator equality sells every equality strand short. Sadly, it is my experience that if race is merged with other equalities issues, without sufficient thought and care about the structures, race inevitably falls to the bottom of the agenda. That is why, when the Government set up a working party to look into the matter, out of 28 people there were only three visible minorities. When we say that we want not just assurances but legislation and structures, we are not looking in the crystal ball, we are reading the book.

It astonishes me that two years after my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and I took a group of concerned parliamentarians to see Ministers, the Government have not moved on the issue. As I said earlier, I am arguing not for a hierarchy of equalities, but that, based on my experience of working on equality for 30 years—not just as an MP, but in my trade union and my community—all the equality strands have a distinct character. On employment, for example, the problem for most white women is how to get through the glass ceiling: the problem for most black people is how to get through the door. Of course, the commission must broker a collective view at the end of the day, but unless there are people on it who understand the distinctions between the challenges faced by disabled persons, by people whose problem is their colour or by women, we shall end up with lowest common denominator solutions that pay lip service to, but do not address, the difficult issues.

Many issues concerned with race are difficult. This society still finds it difficult to face many of the realities about race. When I started raising the issue of the underachievement of black boys, white people asked me whether it was not a little embarrassing to talk about that. I was not afraid to talk about it, because the issue is real and it needs to be addressed. However, if we have a commission with no structures and without the right legislation, the temptation will be to duck the difficult issues; there will be lowest common denominator equalities.

Ministers talk about empathy and hoping. No individual in the black community is more committed to institutions, to the state and to making things work through the political process than I am, but there are persons out there in our communities who are really not that interested in middle-class white men empathising with their situation; they want representation and stakeholder involvement. We have heard about Lord Halifax and the end of the Indian empire, but I have to tell the House that the days of white men empathising with the situation of other people have long been left behind. I do not say that because we are not all people and because everybody cannot represent everybody else, but because institutions are more than the sum of their parts. They are about what they say—the message they give to a society. So when Ministers tell me that they hope that the commission will not be all white men, what do they mean? They are Ministers. If they want to ensure that the commission has proper representation, the remedy is in their hands. They can put those matters on the face of the Bill.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East that the Government have made progress on inequalities. This society has made progress on equalities in the 20 years since I have been a Member of Parliament; indeed, sometimes society makes progress ahead of politicians and they have to scrabble to keep up. We have made progress, but if the commission goes ahead with the Government resolutely refusing to listen to the united voice of black and Asian communities and the Bill goes forward without a race committee, without the proper structural arrangements, we shall set the race issue in this country back many years.

Ministers say to me, "Diane, why are you going on about race? The issues are different now, it's all about human rights." All the issues are serious, but if they do not have mind to the race issue, it will have a way of forcing itself back on to the political agenda. Rather than the House having to create structures and produce law to deal with a situation where black, Asian or minority persons feel disfranchised and marginalised, why do not we this evening ensure that we have the thought-out structures and arrangements that will reassure black and Asian people that just as representation mattered to the House of Commons 20 years ago, it matters for the new equality commission? I could not let the debate go past without speaking on this matter, because representation is important.

Of course, I am here to represent everybody and I try to balance every view in my constituency and work for every community. However, the people, black and white, who worked so hard to elect me in 1987 would have been disappointed if, at a point when the Government are being completely obdurate and it seems as though there is no hope, I had not stood up and spoken to this issue. That is what representation is about. It is not about advancing the issue when it is easy, or when a Member is in a majority, or when the Government are on their side; it is about advancing the issue because it has to be done—because that is where we come from and where we learn and, in the end, we know that we are answerable.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who is my good friend and parliamentary colleague. I fully agree with her. I did not want to interrupt her passionate flow in the debate. She talked about the local race equality councils, but from my experience as a Member of Parliament since 1983, and as a local councillor for 11 years before that, I can say that the local race equality councils stopped serious trouble in parts of our country. I note that there is no guarantee of any local institution being set up, following from this measure.

My amendment—No. 26—is about setting up a London committee, but before I talk about that, I want to praise my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) for suggesting that there should be a race committee. I fully support the eloquent and strong case that he made. Indeed, I have added my name to the amendments that he tabled in that regard.

I should also like to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry), who talked about the need for the commissioners to have direct experience of the discrimination strands that they are suppose to represent—that was Lord Ouseley's amendment in the other place. I referred to that on Second Reading, during an intervention, and I still do not think that that has been properly addressed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said, the Minister and the Government are hoping that it will come about. I should prefer that to be included in the Bill.

I was here when my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about TUPE rights, which are important, and trade union rights. I saw a little bit of data from the last honours list that shows that, whereas scores of businessman got gongs, only three trade unionists did so—and two of them were from trade unions that are not in the TUC. There is a case to be made for trade union representation on organisations such as the CEHR. It is sad that a Labour Back Bencher has to argue for that.

I return to amendment No. 26 and the case for a London committee. I am arguing the case put forward, for example, by the Mayor of London, who said in his representations to hon. Members:

"The Equality Bill does not recognise the unique devolution arrangements in London. The Bill should establish a London Committee, in line with the decision-making committees proposed for Scotland and Wales."

Just as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood has said, if this is okay in relation to a disability commissioner, if it is okay to have a race commissioner and a race committee and if that is all right for Scotland and Wales, it should be all right for London as well. London has more extensive discrimination problems, but also more positive experiences than the other regions on how to bring about solutions to the problems that we face in the discrimination streams. There is a big case for the London committee. That London context provides unique lessons, opportunities and challenges with regard to equality and diversity. London is one of the most diverse cities in the world and is certainly unique in the UK context.

Sadiq Khan (Labour, Tooting)

My hon. Friend made the point that we will be losing the race equality councils and the local connection. Bearing in mind that more than 300 languages are spoken in London, that more than 14 faiths are represented in the community and that almost 50 per cent. of ethnic minorities live in London, does not that compound the need and the call for a London committee?

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

Absolutely. My hon. Friend has been looking over my shoulder at the next point in my speech, which contained those important statistics. I will not repeat them, but they are important. That level of diversity is unmatched, certainly in this country. Some 30 per cent. of residents are from ethnic minority backgrounds. There are also more ethnic minority businesses in the capital—a greater concentration of them.

There are more than 60,000 voluntary organisations, a significant number of which are involved with ethnic minority concerns and the ethnic minority sector. London is the base for the highest number of listed public bodies subject to the race equality duty, and those will soon have the disability and gender duties. London has a specific element that cannot be safely and properly abrogated or absorbed into the nationwide body.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I am not a London Member, but I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend is saying. I introduce what is not, I hope, considered a controversial point among one or two colleagues. Would not race relations in our capital be strengthened if a visiting cleric with notorious racist views on Jews or homosexuals was not embraced, whether by the Mayor of London or anyone else? If we are against racism, surely we are against all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism, presumably.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

That sort of issue provides a perfect case for having a London committee. That point could not be more relevant. However, I will not get drawn into that; I shall discuss that matter with my hon. Friend on another day and another occasion.

I shall read another part of the Mayor's briefing, although it is a bit jargony. I want to read it into the record, because I think that the point is made. The Mayor's staff say:

"A Greater London Committee would enhance the work of the CEHR by helping to ensure . . . a regional focus on London appropriate to London's size, demography, complexity and diversity, and experience in developing and delivering equality policies . . . appropriate engagement with London's unique governance arrangements . . . synergy between regional strategies and national strategy and policy"

and

"tailored stakeholder engagement and dialogue, which will aid clear and transparent channels of communication."

That is a bit jargony, but when hon. Members read it in Hansard, they will see the point.

Andrew Pelling (Conservative, Croydon Central)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the points that he is making, because there is dynamic change in London's population. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) indicated that there can be many controversies within London's governance and perhaps there is value in a London committee intervening occasionally when some of the local CRE bodies get into difficulty.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I want to return to that point, which is well made. It would be better if there were a London committee that worked together with, for example, the GLA, the Mayor and other stakeholders—to use that jargon—when we have an important issue on race to discuss.

The Commission for Racial Equality sent to Members its concerns and one of them was about the location. It recognised that the CEHR will be

"based at two sites, with a majority of CEHR staff based in Manchester. This is a disappointing development, as despite having a 'significant presence' in London, the CRE believes it is vital that the headquarters of the new body be located in London . . . London is still the centre of decision making in the UK. In order for the CEHR to be a powerful, influential body, it needs to be located where the majority of decision makers are also located."

All the ministries are in London. The Prime Minister is in London; the Treasury is in London; the major health authorities and bodies to do with policy making are in London; the main police force is in London; and the courts are in London. In the private sector, the City of London is the finance capital, and the stock exchange is in London. Much of business is in London and there needs to be a connection.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to come to Sheffield to talk to the range of civil servants who work for the Government and who are based in Sheffield. Not everybody is in London.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I take that point and I agree with moving some of the ministries out of London. Why do we not have the CEHR's headquarters in London where the main ministries are and a "significant presence" outside the capital?

Barbara Keeley (Labour, Worsley)

I apologise for not being present earlier, but I have been following the debate elsewhere.

Many hon. Members and many agencies believe that it is vital that the CEHR is a new, single statutory body that can offer integrated advice and guidance, and that is the problem. Does my hon. Friend not see that the amendment and the idea of a London committee work against that aim? People who favour London rather than Manchester as the location for the main services of the new body are almost striving to split it. The key point is that it is integrated and can offer advice by working across all the disciplines. The question of the CEHR's location has been settled and the amendment would work against the key features that would make the commission work as a body.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I agree that the commission must be integrated and cover the whole country and that it needs to be effective. However, on the specific point of how it lobbies and gets in touch with the policy makers, I should point out that the policy makers are not in Manchester or Sheffield. They are in London. The CRE and the new commission need to be able to approach them.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

Does the hon. Gentleman consider the EOC and the Disability Rights Commission to be ineffective because they are based in Manchester?

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I am not saying that those bodies are ineffective, although I would have liked both to have been more effective. I certainly think that the EOC would have been more effective if it had been based in London and had more ready access to Ministers. The argument that I am making is that made by the CRE itself and not just by the Mayor of London, me and other London Labour Members. The CRE is saying that its successor body needs to be in London to be effective.

Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent South)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said, who will carry the mantle of race equalities? The establishments that he named—the National Assembly Against Racism, Operation Black Vote and the Greater London assembly—are based in London and have regular meetings with key stakeholders. If this strand is to be effective, it must have strong, cohesive links in London.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

I agree with that very well made point. That is why I think that a London committee would be extremely beneficial. Even if the other headquarters were in Manchester, a London committee would provide a focus and enable the commission to lobby more effectively.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I understand the argument of London versus the regions, but many of us in London have supported measures to tackle unemployment by the devolution of decision making and administrative units to the regions. However, any such moves must take account of the impact that they have on human beings. We have many staff in the existing organisations and 60 per cent. of the CRE's staff are from ethnic minority groups, 40 per cent. of the DRC's staff are disabled and 80 per cent. of the EOC's staff are women. Many of those groups also have caring responsibilities, with their roots in London. The move that has now been determined could have been handled so much better if there had been adequate trade union consultation, which there has not been, on the impact on those people's lives.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

That is a very well made point. I will not dwell on it but we have had representations from the DRC that expresses concern that its staff in London should be properly protected. On the gender argument, we know that, in the capital, many women's issues can "disappear" when it comes to addressing their needs. Such specific issues for women would be better addressed if there were a London committee.

Let me refer again to the representations from the Mayor and the CRE. The Mayor says:

"Locating the CEHR in Manchester risks a downgrading and isolation of the institution, which all efforts must be taken to safeguard against."

The CRE says:

"We feel that downgrading equality in this way will cause considerable detriment to those from ethnic minority and other disadvantaged groups.

The concerns expressed could not be clearer, and a London committee could mitigate against the effects of what is being proposed.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, of course, Manchester is a wonderful city and that we support moves to create employment outside London? However, there must be the suspicion that some people in government believe that putting the new commission in Manchester means out of sight, out of mind.

Harry Cohen (Labour, Leyton and Wanstead)

Absolutely, and that fear was expressed in the comments I have just read out, and particularly by the CRE.

I hesitate to say this because some of my colleagues might not like it, but the argument is a bit like that over schools, sex offenders and different lists. We get into a muddle when we have different lists. In London, we have the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor and they have a role in relation to race equality duties. If the CEHR does not have a London committee, it will come in from afar and make pronouncements, statements and policies on race matters. We will then get mixed messages, unco-ordinated messages and perhaps opposing messages. That would be pretty disastrous in a situation similar to the one that took place during the riots in France. The bodies need to be together and must work together, and that means that there is a powerful case for a London committee.

I return to where we started and the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington made about local race equality councils that did so well. I hope that it will come about, but there is no guarantee of anything like a representational structure at a local level. At the very least, there needs to be a regional commitment where it matters, and it matters in London. We do not want what happened in France—in the main, it was in and around Paris—to occur here. We do not want riots and a festering situation in which people do not think that the injustices that they feel can be addressed. They need to be able to go to a body in London that is concerned with those injustices. Such a committee must be based in London.

I was not trying to make a regional case in which London was set against the rest. However, for the commission to be effective, it must have a London committee. That is why I tabled my amendment.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I somewhat disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen). I do not demur from having a London committee, but I do not think that a committee for London, as a unique region in England, needs to be provided for by the Bill. Paragraph 11 of schedule 1 makes provision for the commission to set up funded, decision-making committees.

My hon. Friend's arguments on amendment No. 26 in favour of a London committee would be better put to the commission after the Bill is passed, as I hope that it will. We could then consider a series of regional committees, such as one for the greater west midlands, which has a slightly higher population than Scotland. If Scotland and Wales are to get their own committees—I am sure that it is obvious to hon. Members why that should be—I would welcome a debate on regional committees for England. We should not forestall that debate by providing for just a London committee in the Bill, especially given that paragraph 11 of schedule 1 would allow the commission to set up a London, west midlands, or east midlands committee. I would prefer to leave the matter to the commission than to accept amendment No. 26.

I hope that the Minister will give us reassurances about staff and the TUPE stuff to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred when he spoke to amendment No. 24. We also need reassurances about matters that are not covered by TUPE, especially pensions and relocation. I appreciate that the Minister cannot give us chapter and verse on all the details tonight, but I hope that she will choose to reassure hon. Members that the needs of the employees of various bodies who might be displaced, or may have to reapply for jobs when the commission comes in, will be addressed and that their continuity of employment will be assured if, as one hopes, they get jobs in the new body.

I support the concept of a single equalities commission. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) said, I do not want any silos. I want simplification, as I said earlier. A holistic approach has been mentioned, and although I am open to correction, there is a holistic approach to most of the strands of equality and anti-discrimination stuff that we have now. There is a holistic approach on remedies because people go to an employment tribunal. It might seem strange that people who suffer race discrimination when they are not served in a bar because of the colour of their skin go to an employment tribunal—formerly known as an industrial tribunal—but I think that it is still the case. It is desirable to continue a holistic approach with a single commission and equalities body and to continue the drive towards simplification so that it becomes easier for people to assert their rights.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) referred to costs when she spoke to amendment No. 42, which would provide for a report to go to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. According to the Government's projections, the new body will cost less than 50 per cent. more than the existing framework. The hon. Lady first said that the costs would be many times more than current costs, and then that they would be twice as great. When she was told about the Government's estimates, she understandably said that she was sure that the overall bill for the six strands covered by the Bill would be more than twice the £48 million that the current three strands cost, or more than £96 million. Leaving aside for a minute the start-up costs—there are start-up costs for a new organisation—relocation costs and so on, I will wager her £100, payable to a charity, that the costs in the first year will not exceed £96 million.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I accept the hon. Gentleman's wager.

Roger Berry (Labour, Kingswood)

Double it.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epping Forest, but I will not go for double or quits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) urges—I am sure that you would not allow me to, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Sadiq Khan (Labour, Tooting)

Even if the costs were as large as Her Majesty's official Opposition suggest, does my hon. Friend agree that the commission could be considered as a loss-leader because of the benefit that we will gain? On a cost-benefit analysis, using the widest possible talent in our community—whether we are considering employment or people being served in a bar—is worthy of a reasonable cost.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I entirely agree and touched on that matter earlier when I made an intervention on the hon. Member for Epping Forest. She chose not to answer my question about how much she would be prepared to pay for anti-discrimination legislation, so I hope that she will answer now. It is a pity that she remains in a sedentary position and will not follow on from the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) made.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I did answer the question. My answer was precisely that the amount was the £48 million that it is at present, plus the corresponding amount for adding three new strands, minus the amount that could be saved due to economies of scale. That was my answer, and the amount comes to less than £96 million.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

That reply is rather interesting and revealing. If I go into a retailer and ask the price of a television, I do not expect to be told, "We calculate it by taking account of rent, lighting costs and VAT," because I expect to be told the price. However, I understand that the hon. Lady cannot give a price.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

It is not possible to put an exact price on defending and promoting equality, which is a matter of principle to which we are all absolutely committed.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

I am now slightly more confused because I thought that the hon. Lady was putting a price on that earlier when she said that she thought that the cost would be more than £96 million—more than twice the £48 million. I take the point that she was not saying that that cost would not be justified.

I suggested earlier to the hon. Lady that there was a contradiction because she and her party appeared to be sitting on the fence on amendment No. 9, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). I asked her whether she would support a race committee given that neither she nor her hon. Friends had tabled an amendment to remove the provisions in schedule 1 on the disability committee. She responded that I was urging her to do something that she had not the power to do, but that she hoped to be in ministerial office soon—I thought that that was rather optimistic of her. Forgive me if I misunderstand the procedures of the House after nearly five years here, but I thought that any hon. Member could table an amendment on Report. The hon. Lady chose—quite properly, I must say—not to table an amendment to remove the provisions on the disability committee, but she was incorrect to suggest that it was not in her power to table such an amendment.

I am rather attracted to amendment No. 16, which refers to the make-up of the commission. There is a contradiction between providing for a disability committee in the Bill and not providing for a race committee. I am entirely happy that the Bill provides for a specified commissioner with a disability in paragraph 1(3)(a) of schedule 1, but it is a contradiction that the Bill does not provide for commissioners representing the other five strands. The Bill contains contradictions.

I understand that there are different ways of approaching things. Judge Rosalie Abella said powerfully about a similar situation in Canada in the 1980s that equality sometimes means treating people the same and sometimes means treating people differently. That is one of the touchstones by which I live when I consider discrimination measures. Equality is not mechanical. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is no longer in the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was very restrained when she heard from him the arguments that she knows viscerally from her experience as a black woman in our society—I know of them one removed after talking to people—and we had 20 or 30 years ago. The hon. Gentleman certainly looks less than 40. Where have some Conservative Members been for the past 20 years? I salute the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen for at least getting up to about the end of 20th century with this stuff and welcome the fact that several Conservative Members have struggled into the 21st century, but some Conservative Back Benchers really have a pretty antediluvian approach to the matter. We should not have to go through such arguments again and again in the Chamber and elsewhere and it is sad that we must do so.

From my hon. Friend the Minister I seek assurances regarding the staff, and in particular an explanation of the contradictions between the treatment of disability and the treatment of race. That is not to say that the other four strands are unimportant, I hasten to add, but disability is mentioned at least twice in the Bill—in relation to a commissioner with a disability and a disability committee. In race, we are dealing with an incredibly important strand to me, the Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton, South-West, which was previously represented by that notorious racist Powell. Such matters are extremely important in my constituency. There is a contradiction in relation to a race committee and I beg the Minister to explain that contradiction. If she does not, amendment No. 9 and those that flow from it will be extremely attractive to me.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I thank hon. Members, in particular my hon. Friends, for raising some important issues relating to the new commission. We all share a concern to ensure that the new commission is able to operate efficiently, effectively, fairly and with the confidence of the many communities who will look to it for leadership and support.

Amendment No. 43 would dilute the commission's requirement to have regard to the importance of exercising its clause 10 duties for groups defined by race, religion or belief. We have made it clear throughout the debates on the Bill here and in the other place that there will be no diminution in the powers and responsibilities that the new commission will inherit from its predecessor bodies. That has been a fundamental principle as we progress towards establishing the new commission.

An important part of the new body's success will be its ability to do as much as, and more than, our existing arrangements. Alone among the existing equality commissions the Commission for Racial Equality has a duty to promote good relations between people of different racial groups. In addition, in 2000 we amended the Race Relations Act 1976 to require public bodies to have regard for the need to promote good relations between racial groups. The new commission will have to carry forward the historical legacy of the CRE and work with public bodies to help them to comply with the race equality duty.

Hon. Members will know that the Commission for Racial Equality has, since its inception, supported a strong network of local race equality councils and other organisations delivering local race equality work. Many of us are familiar with their work and the important role that they play in our constituencies, particularly among those who have experienced discrimination or unfair treatment because of their race or religion. I met recently with the chair of the British Federation of Race Equality Councils; the federation is concerned to ensure that the councils' work is able to continue and I look forward to continuing our discussions to ensure that that is the case.

For those reasons, we have required the commission to have particular regard to its duties in clause 10 and the importance of exercising them in relation to groups defined by race, religion or belief. That is an important guarantee to the CRE, the race equality councils and others who do local race equality work, and to black and minority ethnic communities in this country. I believe that we have found the right balance between acknowledging the historical legacy of the commission's good relations work and the need to ensure that the concerns of all its interest groups are heard and addressed.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I accept the Minister's explanation which, combined with the impassioned speeches made by some Labour Back Benchers, has led me to decide not to pursue amendment No. 43.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I thank the hon. Lady.

Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), are designed to protect the position of those who work for the existing commissions. We are aware that a transition of the type in prospect always gives rise to concerns and uncertainty among staff and we are committed to a well managed, open and transparent transition process in which staff are fully consulted.

I can reassure my hon. Friend by confirming that it is our intention that the full protection of TUPE will apply to all staff of the existing three commissions. I also assure him that it is not our intention to transfer any staff to the new commission without the full protection of TUPE. We are working closely with employee representatives and senior management of the existing commissions to develop the most effective way forward in that and related matters. We have established a union forum to act as a consultative mechanism on the commission for equality and human rights between the commissions and recognised trade unions, with Government participation.

The provisions of clause 39(5) will, in effect, safeguard the existing terms and conditions of those staff who transfer into the new commission and ensure that their period of employment continues with the new commission without being counted as a break in service for either employment or pension rights. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's specific question. TUPE applies to all contractual terms and conditions and includes an existing right to a redundancy payment. In addition to that statutory protection, it is Government policy to ensure that staff who transfer from one public sector organisation to another are no worse off as a result of that transfer.

TUPE protection will also apply to staff transferring under a transfer scheme whenever they join the CEHR, whether that is before the new commission becomes operational—our target date is October 2007—or when the CRE folds in 2009, or any time in between. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West)

Will my hon. Friend assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and me that the welcome protection to which she has referred will also cover pensions?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

Yes, that is my understanding.

In amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 20, my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Roger Berry) and for Hayes and Harlington have sought to strengthen representation on the commission to ensure that it properly reflects the society in which we live and that it includes those with the experience that they consider necessary for the commission to function effectively. The difficulty of the approach reflected in the amendment is that it encourages an ever-growing list of the sorts of people who must be appointed, and there is always someone who gets left off a list and others who spend much time making the case for being on the list.

Following the publication of our White Paper on the new commission, we received more than 400 detailed and considered responses. The overwhelming majority of those supported establishing a board that could operate in the interests of all, rather than as discrete champions of specific strands jockeying for attention.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

I understand the logic of saying that no single group should specifically be represented among the commissioners, but what is the logic of specifying in the Bill representation for disabled people, but not for any other group?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

I ask my hon. Friend to bear with me. I shall speak to that matter later in my speech and I am confident that I shall cover all the points that have been made. I think that that will enable us to make progress more quickly, but she can intervene again if she feels that I have not addressed her point.

The Government are aware that many communities and interest groups wanted reassurance that the appointments to the board would be based on knowledge and experience. We therefore took specific steps to ensure that knowledge and experience of discrimination would be key criteria for the appointment of commissioners. I assure hon. Members that when the Bill mentions knowledge and experience, it means experience of discrimination.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me for not waiting until the end of her speech to intervene, but it is important to probe her on that point.

What happens if the commission does not appoint sufficient numbers of black and Asian people, trade unionists or women to a committee? What will the Minister do about that? She does not appear to have changed her position since Committee stage; she is merely repeating what she said before.

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall make that clear well before the end of my speech and hon. Members may intervene again to clarify various points.

Such knowledge and experience will include personal or direct experience of discrimination, so the provisions of the Bill are not at odds with the intention behind the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood. Those with knowledge and experience of discrimination and human rights are only one part of the equation; we also need to draw on the knowledge and experience of those who will be responsible for complying with the law, improving good practice and identifying the most effective way of delivering the changes that we want. Many people who have direct experience of discrimination also have that experience, too. Given that the Bill requires the Secretary of State to consider knowledge and experience of the functions of the commission when making the appointments, we have made provision to take account of expertise in the trades union movement and in business as well as employers' concerns in the delivery of public services and in good governance and management.

It would be inconceivable that the board would consist only of white, heterosexual males under 16—I am sorry, under 65. Having taken the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, to task for getting her figures wrong, I am beginning to feel a little less confident. I shall say it again; it is inconceivable that the board would be all white, heterosexual males under 65. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), let me say that not only must there be black and Asian commissioners, but that that there will be black and Asian commissioners, and there will be women commissioners. When the hon. Member for Epping Forest moved amendments in Committee suggesting that there should be at least one such commissioner, I was appalled that we would be thinking of one woman or one black person being considered to be representative.

Roger Berry (Labour, Kingswood)

Will my hon. Friend explain why reference in the Bill to the composition of the board refers to disability alone?

Meg Munn (Labour, Sheffield, Heeley)

My hon. Friends are impatient. I will get there, I promise.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

Before the Minister gets there, I must say that she has listened to what we have been saying, and she has changed her "hope" to "will" and "must". That is because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making the appointments, presumably seeking the advice of the equality Minister. When the Secretary of State makes those decisions to ensure that the "will" and the "must" is better than the hope, will account be taken of the numbers that have been mentioned in the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry)? In other words, half of the committee should be women and a quarter should be black or Asian, at least.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.