Schedule 1 - The Commission: Constitution, &c.
Equality Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Eleanor Laing (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Scotland; Epping Forest, Conservative)
The hon. Lady makes a perfectly reasonable point. If the commission were to consist of only eight people, it would be quite over-prescriptive to prescribe conditions for six of those eight, because that would mean the commission losing the flexibility that we consider necessary to any such body. However, there are likely to be far more than eight or 10 commissioners, so prescribing the broad qualifications of 50 per cent. of them leaves flexibility to ensure that all groups in society are somehow represented.
I do not suggest for a moment that it is possible to analyse the make-up of our society, using the 2001 census and to say that the commission should be made up proportionally to reflect the exact numbers of different groups in society. That would be nonsense and the opposite of what we should have. I suggest, however, that Parliament should prescribe some of the qualifications for the commissioners, and that is what amendment No. 52 is intended to do. It is difficult to argue against it; why should we not prescribe that there should be a female commissioner? If we do not, those who appoint the commissioners might create a commission composed entirely of men. That is unlikely, but it is not impossible, and Parliament should create law that is precise, not vague. The amendment would add precision to the law.
I particularly point out the part of the amendment that prescribes
“at least one Commissioner who at the time of appointment is aged over 65 years”.
I have spoken to some of those concerned with age discrimination, such as Help the Aged and Age Concern, excellent bodies that promote the interests of people who are—I almost said in their later years, but I do not think of 65 being “later years”—above the current retirement age, although I appreciate that that is rather a sticky topic this week. People do not lose the abilities that they had during the previous year just because they reach a certain age, and there is every reason to say that at least one person over 65 should be on the commission.
There is a danger that head-hunters looking for a person to provide continuity will consider only somebody who is likely to be in a post for 10 or 12 years. One sees that sort of thing in job descriptions put out by organisations that want to ensure a build-up of wisdom and experience, and which do not therefore want somebody for just a short while. People approaching official retirement age, or those have reached it, are often ignored, passed over because their dates of birth appear on the front of the form and nothing else about them is considered.