Baroness Thomas of Walliswood (Women, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and to be the first to congratulate him on his maiden speech. It was particularly pleasant for me to listen to him because, as a former member of Sub-Committee E, it was delightful to hear the successor to my chairman show the same stout defence of human rights and the rights of the individual that characterised the committee under its previous leadership. It is a good tradition, and it is great to see it continuing.

The noble and learned Lord has had a distinguished career in the law, with particular emphasis on public law and as a Treasury devil—a phrase which I only partly understand. I think it is to his credit that, despite that, he is widely liked in his own profession and very much welcomed in this House. I understand from private sources of information that it is not very long since he had a hip operation. I am sure that we all wish him a total recovery and look forward to hearing him again in this Chamber when his other duties permit.

The noble and learned Lord described the fact that our inquiry into the proposal for a European institute for gender equality was subsumed at our request into Sub-Committee E's inquiry into a fundamental rights agency, which I will not go into. Members of Sub-Committee E first considered the Commission's proposal to establish a European gender institute in April 2005. From the first, we were doubtful about the role and purpose of the proposed institute and whether it could do anything which was not already being done at a national level or by collaboration with national bodies.

After a good deal of correspondence with the Minister, we therefore invited oral evidence from the Minister and the Equal Opportunities Commission, which was given in November 2005. The EOC endorsed the need for a European body to collect data, exchange information and good practice, and run studies and conferences on gender issues. It very much welcomed the creation of this area of work, but would have preferred to see a single EU body bringing together work on all the equality strands—race, age, disability and sexual orientation, as well as gender—to support a comprehensive policy approach. That preference was to bring all this activity under the proposed fundamental rights agency, although it already felt, a year ago, that this was "not politically possible" at that time.

The Minister said that she agreed with the EOC on the need for the institute. In line with government policy on the organisation of equality bodies in the UK, she initially sympathised with the comprehensive fundamental rights agency approach. However, she seemed to regard the two-institute approach as a fait accompli. At that stage we were still far from convinced that a separate gender institute could be justified, but we also had other concerns.

In particular, the proposed management structure, which involved a 25-member management board supervising a smaller executive board, which supervised in turn a director and a small staff of up to 30 people, seemed totally inappropriate. It was not merely expensive and unwieldy, but likely to undermine the director's authority. We concluded that if, despite our recommendations, a stand-alone gender institute was established, a more efficient and cost-effective management structure should be created in proportion to the size of the institute. We thought that it was high time, and a good opportunity, to question the practice of automatically awarding a seat on EU agency boards to every member state—a view very strongly endorsed by the Select Committee. Another concern was that the budget for the new institute was to be cost neutral. The new institute, with an estimated budget of €8.5 million in 2013 when it will be at full strength, would be in danger of either being underfunded or taking funding from another body in the same group of bodies and programmes.

We were concerned about the legal base of the proposal. This is a question of whether incentive measures under Article 13 of the treaty are an appropriate base for the establishment of agencies. The Government's response to our findings argued, first, that gender equality would be better served by a separate institute whereas merging with the fundamental rights agency would result in a "loss of focus". Secondly, the management structure was still under discussion, but might end up as originally proposed by the Commission. Finally, the appropriateness of the legal base would depend on an ECJ ruling on a case about the European Network Information Security Agency.

For completeness, I should say at this point that although we understand that the ECJ has made its ruling, we have not received any formal notification of this from the Minister, nor been told what the implications are of that ruling for the legal base of the new gender institute. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to enlighten us today.

On 19 May last we were told that the Commission had produced an amended proposal. This new text reflected changes in the management structure recommended by the European Parliament and would be considered at the Social Policy Council on 1 June. We considered the new proposal at our meeting on 25 May. The Commission's proposal still involved a separate gender institute, but also contained a proposal to reduce the management board to 13 people—nine representatives of member states, one from the Commission and three stakeholder representatives. This composition, I should point out, closely mirrors that suggested by the Select Committee for the fundamental rights agency. The response of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, sent the same day, pointed out that the proposal for a separate gender institute was still at variance with the view taken in our report and that scrutiny could not be lifted prior to the debate on the original proposal. However, the Minister's letter, which crossed with that of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, indicated the Government's decision to override scrutiny on the grounds that the proposal would be carried under qualified majority voting no matter what the UK Government did. The argument was that British agreement on the main issue might help secure a better settlement on the budget issue and the management structure.

In the event it has become clear that the proposal was indeed carried on 1 June. However, the presidency compromise solution went against the recommendation of the European Parliament, the Commission and Sub-Committee G in favour of a 25-strong management board, one for every member state, with the support of the British Government. It seems unfortunate, to put it mildly, to have overridden scrutiny reserve, something we take very seriously, and arrive at so unsatisfactory a conclusion.

It is clear to us that it is more than time for the European Union to face up to the issue of member state representation on European Union bodies now that we are already 25 member states and will soon be 27, with a further potential extension to a total of 35. Of course any change will need careful management to provide a solution that does not disadvantage, for example, smaller or newer member states. Can the Minister tell us whether there is any interest or determination on the part of the Commission, the Council, the European Parliament or, for that matter, the United Kingdom Government to make progress on this issue?

Meanwhile there are still some issues, albeit relatively minor ones, awaiting decision, of which the most important is the location of a new gender institute. Will the Government at least try to ensure that it is co-located or located close to the fundamental rights agency, which seems likely to find a home in Vienna? That would at least help to ease the business of collaboration between the two bodies, which is so essential to the good work of both.

I hope that in trying to describe the history of our consideration of this matter I have not sounded too tetchy. I think we all found it a somewhat frustrating episode, where both principle and practice seemed to lead to an unsatisfactory solution which in the end we were unable to influence. I hope that despite everything the institution will be able to do the work it was set up to do. I cannot close without thanking the members of Sub-Committee G for their work, and all members of the committee and I are enormously indebted to our Clerk, Gordon Baker, who assists us so valiantly and maintains his persistence and good humour no matter how difficult things appear to be.

Finally, I hope that in the end such work on behalf of women's rights, and indeed all the equality strands, will be reunited within the fundamental rights agency. Can the Minister support that pious hope? After all, it reflects the policy of Her Majesty's Government when acting within the UK.

Lord Harrison (Labour)

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, for introducing this debate in his maiden speech. I extend my thanks also to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, who so ably chairs our Sub-Committee G. Like her, I wish to concentrate on the European Union institute for gender equality. Perhaps I, too, may say how much we value the work of Gordon Baker, our estimable amanuensis, who is so helpful in preparing the reports which are presented to your Lordships' House.

We did, perhaps, start off sceptically in viewing the gender institute, but I for one became convinced of its aims and purpose. I think there is merit in collating information and data across the European Union on the different approaches to gender matters and, of course, in seeking to interpret what is gathered together. When I think of our own country and the pioneering Acts that a former Member of the House—Baroness Castle of Blackburn—brought about in the 1970s in regard to equal wages, I realise that we still have a long way to go. I am sure that is very true elsewhere in the European Union and it is worth trying to seek out the reasons for that and whether we might take actions in common together.

Let us take, for instance, the question of access to promotion for women in jobs. There are glass ceilings throughout Europe; they are just set at different levels. Again, I think it would be worth exploring why that is the case. The same applies to access to training and education.

Having a gender institute will give us an opportunity to spread best practice. By comparing and contrasting practices throughout the 25, soon to be 27, countries of the European Union, we can see where we do well and where others do better. We could then, perhaps, incorporate their ideas into our practice and our ideas into theirs. Indeed, I would describe it as a spur for action. Not only that—it would save duplication. Rather than 25 countries reinventing the wheel—or, indeed, inventing the wheel—we can compare and contrast and perhaps learn from each other.

A third role could be in the commissioning of new studies and areas of investigation. I have recently taken up an interest in a matter which is the subject of an all-party group in these Houses of Parliament, led by a woman MP—that is, the construction industry. One of the items it is exploring is the role of women in the construction industry. We want to make sure that in such an important industry we use all the opportunities we can to enable people to come through to offer their skills for the benefit of each and every one of us, but I have no idea what the situation is like in the construction industry in other parts of the European Union.

We are told that such an institute will not be policy-making, but what is the point if it does not provide the data and information to inform us better about these subjects and help to promote sensible and practical policies which might then be adopted by the European Union?

Duplication is a theme of the debate and, in our committee, we wondered whether the work to which the gender institute is committed could be done by the United Nations or by other international bodies. Indeed, our report states, somewhat grudgingly, that yes, there may sometimes be a requirement for a specifically European focus which the UN and other international bodies could not be expected to give. I think that is absolutely true; the European Union is a different institution in many ways. To realise that, one has only to think of the single market and the freedom of workers to move across borders, which is important, and the sharing of childcare and opportunities for those families who do so to pursue work and jobs.

Despite the differences of practice within it, the European Union is perhaps much more developed in its understanding and promotion of gender issues than other parts of the world. Therefore, it is worthy of a focus of its own. However, it is imperative that the European Union does not look inward as a result. I hope that it would be an exemplar for the rest of the world, which may later tread the same road.

I return to the vexed question of duplication. Are there EU gender equality groups and institutions existing in Brussels which could do the same job; for instance, the EOC and its European Union equivalents? I think ultimately not. Were we to commission through them some of the tasks that we would require of a gender institute, their independence might then be undermined, which would be a bad thing.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, pointed out, the duplication of the role of the fundamental rights agency is an issue: that is perhaps the nub of the debate today. I want to make clear the attitude, as I understand it, of Sub-Committee G. Paragraph 46 of our report states:

"We conclude that the case for a separate European Institute for Gender Equality has not been demonstrated".

It goes on to state that we should think of incorporating it in the European fundamental rights agency and so pass it on to Sub-Committee E. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, clarified that we believe that the institute is worth while. The question then becomes whether it is better placed under the FRA. That needs to be discussed.

I agree with the Government that a separate agency is worth while—perhaps mine is a lone voice today. While I would encourage the Minister to explain why we appear to be doing something at European Union level which is different from what we are doing in our own country, I argue strongly that there is a coherence about the United Kingdom which would validate the idea of bringing such rights and ideas together under one agency, while the multitude of practice elsewhere in the European Union would suggest that a separate gender institute was preferable. I therefore agree with the Government's keeping the two agencies separate, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, pointed out, it is imperative that they work closely together.

While I welcome the institute, I too have serious concerns about its administration. We are entertaining the idea of there being 25—it may be 27 next year—representatives from the European Union on the management board. I know that there is to be an executive board and so on. That is over-larding things. It would be a mark of the European Union's maturity if we were able to sort out this business; it is time. The highest need should be the effectiveness and efficiency of such agencies operating on its behalf, and we should not overload them with the principle that there must be a seat for each individual country. Indeed, with some imaginative thinking we can make sure there is parity of treatment for all nations within the European Union by taking and looking at the representation on such management boards for a number of agencies together. That would be the logical way of ensuring we could make some sense of this.

We insisted the budget must be adequate. I harbour concerns that there is some sleight of hand going on here. We are told this has to be budget-neutral, but if the gender institute is to be properly financed, it will take away money from other possible areas. It is no good covering that up by saying it will be budget-neutral. It is not. It spoils other opportunities.

On the legal base, I understand people's concerns, but I am content that "Incentive Measures" is satisfied. Such an institute would be a spur to action by comparing and contrasting practice across the European Union. I think it is highly desirable. I also enter this caveat: I sometimes think that the legal base is very important, but we are talking about political realities. Sometimes we become semi-detached in our political commitment to the EU by hiding behind the cover of querying the legal base. Others carry on making progress in the EU, and we are still at the back arguing about that.

I put my final concerns to the Minister, but they have already been broadly exorcised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. Will the Minister update us on some of the things mentioned in the Government's reply to our own report? What happened in the social affairs committee on the common position? I am pleased to say that my former colleague Lissy Gröner has been promoting the common position in the European Parliament, and I am pleased to see her name attached to it. What is the budget position? Finally, what has been done and said in the April and May meetings of the working groups, which were trying to look at the vexed question I alluded to earlier of the representation on the management and advisory boards? I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)

My Lords, I shall address my remarks principally to the report on the proposal for a fundamental rights agency, so ably introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I speak as a member of Sub-Committee E of the EU Committee. In the time available, I wish to offer a general observation and address two specific aspects of the report.

The general observation concerns the value of the reports emanating from the EU Committee. Their importance is not always apparent through having an observable impact on decision making. The real significance of the work of the committee lies in its capacity to contribute to debate and influence thinking. It is one of several bodies across the EU engaged in scrutiny, but it contributes with these bodies to the process of deliberation in Brussels. There is certainly more we can do. We shall shortly be debating the committee's report on public awareness of the scrutinising role of this House with regard to EU legislation. The scrutiny undertaken by the committee, however, contributes at a number of levels, informing as well as influencing.

The report on the proposed fundamental rights agency illustrates the contribution the committee can make in terms of informing debate and engaging with others in that debate. There has been a sharing of views with a number of bodies as the discussion on the proposal has progressed. There has certainly been some movement in the direction favoured by the committee in the two areas on which I propose to focus.

The first is that of the independence of the agency, which may come as no surprise in the light of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. If there is to be an agency, it is important that it is fit for purpose. There is no point in having one that duplicates work done by other bodies, or that exists primarily for cosmetic purposes. If the agency is to carry out its tasks effectively and thus add value in the protection of human rights, it is crucial that it is able to work independently of other EU bodies.

This is recognised under Article 15 but, as noted in the report, a number of the proposal's provisions could compromise the agency's independence by allowing other bodies to interfere in its work. Under the initial proposal, the threat came principally from the Commission, which was given responsibility for adopting the agency's multi-annual framework. Among other things, the framework document was to be in line with the Commission's annual work programme.

The report also noted that the presence of two members of the Commission on the agency's executive board effectively gave the Commission a veto in respect of the decisions made by the board. There was some indication from the Minister that the Council of Ministers was also moving in the direction of seeking a greater role through having to approve the agency's annual work programme.

The committee took the view that the independence of the agency required some detachment from executive bodies and that it would be strengthened through greater involvement by the European Parliament. It recommended therefore that the Parliament should be consulted before the multi-annual framework was adopted and that the agency should be accountable to the Parliament. The committee also favoured greater involvement by the Parliament in the process by which members of the board, and the agency director, were appointed.

On the management structure, the committee was concerned by the move in the direction of having the membership based on the principle of "one member state, one representative", which clearly gave rise to an unwieldy management board. Such an approach may have been appropriate, or at least not too unwieldy, when there were 15 member states, but is difficult to sustain with a membership of 25. However, I shall not dwell on that matter because the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, made that very point. The committee felt that it should have a membership of 11, drawing on representatives of the Council of Ministers, Commission, European Parliament, and, in this case, the Council of Europe.

In the Government's response to the report, the Minister accepted the need for the agency to be as independent as possible, but argued the case for a strong link between the agency and national governments. Making the agency accountable to the European Parliament, she argued, would distance it from member states. She cited in support of her argument for a strong link with national governments the 2002 evaluation of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. She supported the Council approving the multi-annual framework on a proposal from the Commission and in consultation with the European Parliament. She argued against the principal recommendations in respect of the management board.

Though the Minister may be right in contending that there is value in maintaining a link with member states—in other words, national governments—this should not be at the expense of the independence of the agency. The 2002 report to which she referred does not advocate the maintenance of a strong link between EU bodies and national governments and it is, of course, possible to engender support and trust among member states without investing them with power over the work of the agency.

Since the Minister's written response, negotiations have continued and there has been some progress. There appears to be a consensus in favour of the European Parliament being consulted on the adoption of the multi-annual framework as well as having a greater role in the appointment of the director. The Minister also reports that there appears to be a consensus in favour of member states appointing "independent persons" instead of representatives. This is welcome but essentially protects what was in the proposal at the time that the committee reported.

So some step in the right direction is welcome, though it would be helpful to have gone further. I think it important that the principle of the agency being able to carry out its work independently—which does not mean that the agency is not accountable—is not only recognised, which it is, but that it is given somewhat firmer institutional protection. On this, the committee is more in line with the thinking of the European Parliament than the Government. I do not quite understand the Minister's concerns. I understand the politics but not necessarily the substance of the argument. She may wish to take the opportunity today to provide a fuller case for the somewhat protective approach adopted by the Government.

I turn to the second aspect, that of pre-legislative scrutiny. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has already touched on this. It is a subject on which I have form. The proposal fits well with the emphasis given to pre-legislative scrutiny in the United Kingdom. I was chairman of the Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House when it published its report on Parliament and the legislative process. The report stressed the importance of pre-legislative as well as post-legislative scrutiny. The Minister in the inquiry recognised that one might be able to draw on the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights as an example of the approach that might be taken.

On the face of it, the argument for some degree of pre-legislative scrutiny to be undertaken by the agency is compelling. However, in her response to the report the Minister stressed that the principal role of the agency should be in respect of the implementation of legislation, and that the agency would in any event be limited by the treaties on what it could do by way of scrutinising legislative proposals. There would also be the problem of overload if it were to have responsibility for checking all legislative proposals.

There is a distinction to be drawn between having a formal capacity to intervene and report and being empowered to offer advice. That was recognised by the Minister when she appeared before the sub-committee. In her written response to the report, she emphasised that the Government were firmly of the view that the agency should not,

"play a formal pre-legislative scrutiny role",

but she was almost wholly silent on the issue of an informal or advisory role. I say "almost" wholly because of the words in parentheses at the end of footnote 7 in her response, where she noted that only the Commission could bring infraction proceedings, "although"—as she writes—

"the Agency's reports could be used by the Commission to do so".

That gets to the relevant distinction. There is scope for the agency to produce thematic reports. The agency would be in a position to offer informed and detached advice.

I therefore welcome the progress that has been made in negotiations and the changes to Article 4(2) that now appear in the presidency draft of the regulation. Under this provision, the agency will be able to formulate opinions on specific thematic issues at the request of the European Parliament, the Commission, or the Council in relation to Commission legislative proposals under Article 250 of the treaty establishing the European Community. The limitations on the agency in scrutinising the legality of Community law or questioning whether a member state has failed to fulfil an obligation under community law remain. I therefore welcome the change that has been made. It enables the agency to fulfil a worthwhile role and avoids overlapping with the work of the Council of Europe. It is a step in the right direction.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said, there are some who will question the need to have another body looking at human rights. We already have the highly valuable work undertaken by the Council of Europe and—the point that I have developed elsewhere—there is more that national parliaments can do. The new body is not necessary for the completion of the single market. Given that, if the agency is to win acceptance, it must add value, and be seen to add value, in protecting human rights. Both aspects of the report that I have emphasised are core to achieving that. I welcome the changes that have been made, although I would have preferred more changes in line with the recommendations proffered by the committee. I commend the committee on what has been achieved. I end as I began. The EU Committee and other committees of the House fulfil an important role in informing and influencing debate. Perhaps they provide a good example of what the proposed agency might aspire to.

Lord Brennan (Labour)

My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, on his maiden speech. The clarity with which he presented the report shows that he will chair Sub-Committee E with the same distinction as that of his predecessors who listened to his speech.

The noble and learned Lord has always been a person of perceptive judgment, and he said that he would not be surprised if there were some who found a trace of scepticism about this report. I would not want to disappoint him; he is right, in my case in particular. Why is that the case, when I come from a background, or at least from chambers, that are devoted to human rights principles? It is that very concern about human rights that teaches me in particular to be very careful about any new institutions that affect the public perception of human rights. They are of fundamental importance, and if we are to create agencies designed to safeguard them, those agencies must be given a clear remit, a proper scope for inquiry with staff and resources, and the ability to influence the public, whose human rights are being affected. I am afraid that I do not find this proposal for a fundamental rights agency meeting any of those requirements. That is why, while I accept the political reality that it will take place, I remain sceptical.

I do not favour the creation of bodies as acts of symbolism, generally speaking. Even in Sub-Committee E, or the sub-committee that looked into gender equality, when intelligent, considered and detailed analysis continues, meeting after meeting, it can produce a state of affairs in which intellectual generosity adds to proposals an importance they do not really deserve. I shall ask the questions which led me to make that comment. What is the fundamental rights agency supposed to do? What are the fundamental rights it is assigned to safeguard? Would it work?

First, what is the agency supposed to do? In our national consideration of human rights and an agency to safeguard them, we in Parliament have in the past few years debated at length whether we should have an agency, a commission or a commissioner, because we consider it not only such an important but such a complex question. There are three points we usually have in mind to illustrate that complexity. First, such a body or person should be able to review the observance of human rights in our society. Secondly, there should be a check on legislation with regard to its human rights compliance. Finally, perhaps, and very controversially, there should be a body that can investigate either serial breaches of human rights within the country, which are fortunately very rare, or egregious cases of particular breaches of human rights. We thought that that required really serious debate. We have not yet reached a national consensus on how to safeguard our human rights within the United Kingdom. But we have two means of seeking to do so within the law: one is the European convention, described in this report as the seminal instrument; secondly, we have our common law principles. The combination of the two usually gives reasonable protection.

If that is the situation domestically, what happens when we turn to Europe with regard to the proposal? The agency will have a review function of some kind; it will not check legislation except under some fuzzy notion of quasi-pre-legislative scrutiny, and it certainly will not be able to introduce any investigative procedures of individual or serial cases of breaches of human rights. So we are left with the review function. What kind of review, designed to achieve what, is going to be effective at the European level? I cannot imagine that it is supposed that this agency will be a surrogate to investigate national compliance of human rights. Rather, it will be there to determine whether European legislation has been applied so as to comply with human rights. That is a limited function, but it should be clearly identified. At the moment, to the question of what the agency is supposed to do, the answer appears to be, "We will have to wait and see".

Next, what are the fundamental rights that the agency is supposed to safeguard? We already have the European convention applied in every member of the Union. We already have the Council of Europe and its attempts to ensure compliance with the convention, with the added role of the Secretary-General to make inquiries as he thinks appropriate. So what else will this agency safeguard?

To the best of my knowledge, the phrase "fundamental rights" does not figure in British jurisprudence. We talk about human rights but not fundamental rights in a legal sense. So I ask myself: what are they? They are convention rights and perhaps certain fundamental aspects of some international conventions, but I am not so sure that they are rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It reproduces to a great extent the convention, but it also has a chapter, or chapters, dealing with economic and social rights, which we in our society have not yet accepted as being fundamental rights—certainly not by legislation and, in my view, not by general public debate. So in what way will this agency safeguard rights not yet recognised in our country or in many European countries?

Only three or four years ago, my noble and learned friend Lord Hope, as chairman of the committee, followed by my noble and learned friend Lord Scott of Foscote, produced reports about this charter and its future status. In the sixth report in 2002–03, it was said by the Minister, my noble friend Lady Scotland, that it gave no new rights, no new jurisdiction and no new competence. The horizontal provisions which we insisted on being inserted in it were designed to ensure that no one in this country—or, so far as we were concerned, in Europe—could say that a breach of the charter would produce a remedy. That was our position and, so far as I am aware, it remains our position. In those circumstances, what are these rights that the agency will protect, above and beyond convention rights?

The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, must forgive me for not spending time on the gender equality institute, but I am sure that if I paid it adequate attention, the line of my critique would be much the same as the one I have just gone through. At the very least, I would conclude with the question: two agencies? Why not one? The report talks about a proliferation of useless agencies. I would not want to be so unkind as to use the word "useless" but certainly I would object to a proliferation of agencies in terms of competence, efficiency and cost.

I shall close on the important issue of rights. If the agency starts to act in respect of rights not yet recognised by us as rights that give competence to courts and Parliament, how can we endow it to Europe and one of its agencies? My last question is: will it work? I propose to the Minister what I might call the "herbaceous" approach to this matter: take it slow, take it carefully and do not spend a lot of money on it until we find out where it might go—in the pragmatic Anglo-Saxon expectation that it might not get anywhere.

I am making a quip about something serious, but if we are serious about protecting fundamental rights in the European context and an agency is required, let us have a proper agency and a proper remit, properly funded and properly supported by the peoples of Europe and not by those in Brussels. Your Lordships have listened to the words of neither a Europhobe nor a Europhile but, I hope, a Eurorealist.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Advisory Team On Legal Matters, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I have a special interest in the subject matter of these two excellent reports: first, as a member of Sub-Committee E, admirably chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and, secondly, given my responsibility on these Benches for women's rights, in succession to my noble friend Lady Thomas, who has made such a distinctive contribution in that area. I have learnt over the years that, as an advocate, one should never become too matey with judges and that one should not say nice things about them, because they always punish you in argument afterwards, bending over backwards in their desire to demonstrate their independence. However, I can in this debate say nice things about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. He has always been a wise judge and a committed supporter of the effective legal protection of human rights through law. It is a great pleasure to serve under him in Sub-Committee E. As he showed this evening by the way in which he presented his summary, my goodness, he is a diplomat.

I would join counsel for the prosecution, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in what he said, except for in one thing. He displayed uncharacteristic narrow-mindedness about economic and social rights. I had thought that we had all reached the stage of understanding that economic and social rights are intertwined with civil and political rights. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has never drawn the kind of distinction that he sought to draw. Having said that, I join the prosecution bench in this debate with enthusiasm.

To give a bit of context, there are some 80,000 cases pending in the Strasbourg court. By 2010 it is estimated that there will be 250,000. The process by which its 46 judges are put forward by their Governments and elected by the parliamentary assembly is not consistent, fair or free from political patronage and interference. The UK's selection of the British judge is admirable, but among the member states that method is regrettably unique. There is a pressing need to reform the convention system. There is also a pressing need to bring together in a better way the two European systems and to reduce the grossly wasteful duplication in the legislation and judicial spheres with the European Parliament and its officials having to meet in three cities—Strasbourg, Luxembourg and Brussels—at huge inconvenience and waste of public money.

It is in that context that we consider these proposals. As has been said, they are to create not one but two new institutions: the fundamental rights agency, which will have meagre resources and powers; and a separate institution for gender equality, which will also have meagre resources and powers. Instead of combining these institutions into a single body, as many have pointed out we British are doing in creating a single equality and human rights body, the EU Commission insists on there being two bodies based not in one city but in two cities: in Vienna and, I believe, in Brno or Warsaw. Instead of having a lean and efficient system of management in each of the bodies, every one of the 25 EU member states will nominate representatives on the top-heavy management board and, instead of there being a single management board, there will be two. It would have been sensible, before developing the proposals, to have considered ways of strengthening the existing human rights protection within the wider Council of Europe system, with which I began.

For example, it would have been sensible to have given the European human rights commissioner the power to bring proceedings in his own right against defaulting states, or to intervene as a friend of the court in important pending cases. It would have been sensible to have put forward a treaty that would at last have enabled the European Union to accede to the European convention. It would have been sensible to have created some fact-finding mechanism to relieve the overburdened Strasbourg court. Instead, we are to have two top-heavy and weak EU human rights institutions side by side with the existing Council of Europe institutions, with concordats to reduce the risks of wasteful duplication and overlap.

I am not the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. For 40 years I have been a committed supporter of the European protection of human rights and of European political integration. But I regard these proposals with dismay.

The problems are analysed wisely and clearly in the two reports. The report on the gender equality institute asks the right questions: first, to be sure that any proposal to set up yet another European institute is soundly based; secondly, to know what in practical terms the proposed institute is supposed to do and whether it is necessary to set up a separate EU-funded institute to do it. The committee rightly concluded that a case for a separate institute for gender equality has not been demonstrated and recommended that further consideration be given to the alternative of incorporating the gender equality work envisaged for the institute into the activities of the proposed fundamental rights agency. It also strongly criticised the management structure proposed as "potentially unwieldy and inefficient". I respectfully agree.

In the course of the inquiry, the Minister responsible gave evidence explaining that the institute was intended to carry out tasks not being done by existing institutions, such as,

"questions of co-ordination; centralisation and dissemination; the raising of gender visibility; and the provision of tools for gender mainstreaming".

The Minister, Meg Munn MP, told the committee that merging the activities of the institute with other bodies and agencies would, in the Government's view, run the risk that general equality would be sidelined, but she was unable to explain how it made sense to create a single integrated equality body in this country while balkanising in the European Union.

Also in the course of the inquiry, the noble Lord, Lord Moser, who knows more about the gathering of statistics than anyone in the country, pointed out to one witness that Eurostat is probably the best of the international statistical agencies, and that he did not understand why the potential institute might even think that it could get better statistics than Eurostat. He received no coherent answer from any witness.

The committee gave the fundamental rights agency a very cautious welcome, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said. We addressed the vagueness and over-breadth of the remit of the agency; the absence of a strong investigative or legislative scrutiny role; the overlap with and possible undermining of the activities of the Council of Europe; and the agency's lack of independence. Our report points out that the current proposal does not appear to envisage a legislative scrutiny role for the agency, which is a most remarkable omission. We recommended that, when the final role of the agency is clear, the Government should report to Parliament on the question of its legal base. We concluded, diplomatically, that the agency might potentially play a useful role in enhancing observance of fundamental rights in the EU, but we share our witnesses' concern that failure to delineate the agency's tasks risks leading to wasteful duplication of the work of other bodies in the field. We emphasise the importance of making sure that the agency is more than just a postbox for collecting and sorting data.

We pointed out that the very limited general role envisaged does not add much, if any, value to the existing mechanisms but serves to reinforce the views of the critics, who argue against the proliferation of useless agencies in the EU. The agency will not, apparently, even have the power to seek information from EU institutions and member states or to probe them should they delay in providing it. It does not have the right of initiative and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said, it would be anomalous not to give the agency the third pillar remit, given that proposals from the third pillar regularly engage fundamental rights, as he explained.

As we say in paragraph 110, we are disappointed that the Government have not taken a consistent approach in this matter and, despite having championed integrated human rights protection in the UK, support the two separate proposals. We recommend that if there are to be two separate agencies, they should both be in Vienna. That I should live to see that day! It seems a most forlorn hope, given the ambitions of states to have institutions in their own capital cities.

I conclude with the words of a great Danish writer that could have been written for this debate. He said:

"Nothing would have persuaded them"—

the courtiers—

"to admit that they could not see the clothes, for fear they would be thought stupid or unfit for their posts. So the Emperor set off under the high canopy, at the head of the great procession. It was a great success. All the people standing by and at the windows cheered and cried, 'Oh, how splendid are the Emperor's new clothes. What a magnificent train! How well the clothes fit!' No one dared to admit that he couldn't see anything, for who would want it to be known that he was either stupid or unfit for his post? None of the Emperor's clothes had ever met with such success.

But among the crowds a little child suddenly gasped out, 'But he hasn't got anything on.' And the people began to whisper to one another what the child had said. 'He hasn't got anything on.' 'There's a little child saying he hasn't got anything on.' Till everyone was saying, 'But he hasn't got anything on.' The Emperor himself had the uncomfortable feeling that what they were whispering was only too true. 'But I will have to go through with the procession,' he said to himself. So he drew himself up and walked boldly on holding his head higher than before, and the courtiers held on to the train that wasn't there at all"

In this debate, I feel young again.

Lord Howard of Rising (Deputy Chief Whip, Whips; Conservative)

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, for introducing this debate. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on such a clear and articulate maiden speech. He will certainly add lustre to this House, and I look forward to his participation in future debates.

I also thank the members of the EU Committee for these illuminating reports. I wish I could add that they have filled me with enthusiasm for the proposed agency and institute. Unfortunately, this is not so in either case. Indeed, the reports highlight much of what is wrong with the European Union.

The proposed fundamental rights agency is one of the ever-expanding number of quangos and non-governmental organisations within the European Union. The proposal has been sternly criticised by the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe's Human Rights Commissioner and the European group of national human rights institutions. That this proposal—which at least has the virtue of not creating yet another new body, but reforms an existing one—has invited criticism from so many sources is deeply worrying. The agency is accused of being ill-defined, illegal and, quite possibly, completely unnecessary. It is understandable that the report comments that,

"it only serves to reinforce the views of its critics who argue against the proliferation of useless agencies in the EU".

The proposal seems to embody what the general public objects to about the European Union. It is symptomatic of the detachment of the European elite that they do not realise how frustrating it is for so many Europeans to see ever greater costs and restrictions imposed on them by an organisation over which they feel there is no control, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. If there is a genuine need for better data collection and analysis on human rights within the European Union, then the bodies involved in this area—and there are several—can set out to achieve this, instead of creating an agency which this report demonstrates to be full of confusion and conflict, with a lack of clarity about its thematic and geographic remit. There is also the unwieldy management structure, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Harrison. It is difficult to see whether the agency will add value and be effective, or whether it will just conflict with existing bodies.

In addition to all these concerns, we come to the legal basis of the proposal. In spite of what we have heard, it is clear that there is significant doubt about the legality of this proposal, which was appreciated by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, in his Written Answer on 11 January. Why has this issue not already been clarified to everyone's satisfaction at a much earlier stage? A cynic might answer that when the law does not suit its wish, the European Union will not let trivial matters, such as limits to its powers, get in its way.

Given that there is no possibility of the European Union constitution being ratified throughout Europe in the near future and that we are not being asked to agree to any new treaty, it is hard to appreciate how this issue can be resolved unless the further discussion by the Council referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, revolves around how to interpret the relevant articles in new and ever more flexible ways to accommodate the proposal. So we are being asked to consider the proposal of an agency that will add another expensive layer of bureaucracy when the job it will do, the areas it will cover and the legal basis it will operate under are not decided.

I have spent enough time pouring cold water on to the first proposal, and I am afraid I must now turn my attention to the second. It is very unfortunate that so many of the concerns that were expressed about the fundamental rights agency are also applicable to the institute for gender equality—I must say that when I look at the Benches opposite and I notice my inferiority to the noble Baroness, I long for a bit of gender equality. The possibility that the whole proposal does not have a legal basis is again mentioned. It would be wonderful if, occasionally, discussions on legal competence resulted in the conclusion that whatever is being proposed should be scrapped and the matter left to those bodies empowered by the public to carry out those duties.

This proposal is another example of the ever-expanding number of quangos. It will waste public resources and unnecessarily increase the complexity of the European Union. I have read and understand the arguments for giving the issue of gender equality a greater prominence through a separate body, but I remain unconvinced. I do not see that having a parallel organisation to collect data solely on gender issues will add any measurable value to work already being done. The amount of resources that this proposal seeks to expend to protect against the possibility that the fundamental rights agency will not give gender issues their due significance is silly.

Given the record of the European Union in taking every opportunity to extend its competence, I do not know for how long either of these agencies would remain data-collecting organisations. I fear that they would metamorphose into instruments for yet more direction from the European Union in areas better left to member states, areas where subsidiarity should be predominant.

I am sorry to have been so negative throughout this speech. I would like to hope that my criticisms will not be interpreted as a lack of support for the eradication of discrimination on the grounds of gender, race or religion. I simply do not believe that these proposals will further those laudable aims.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)

My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, that on the basis of that speech there is nothing unequal about us.

I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, on introducing the debate. I have looked forward to it because, as the noble and learned Lord knows, I spent a large amount of my time in work in the European Union on this issue. Indeed, I remember with great affection appearing before the noble and learned Lord's committee for what I thought was going to be 45 minutes which, I think, turned into two and a half hours—a very enjoyable two and a half hours. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing this matter forward. Although he began by saying that human rights may have a poor press, I hope that your Lordships' House can agree that human rights are fundamental to the way in which we wish to live in our society and of which we should be extraordinarily proud in terms of the Human Rights Act.

The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, quite rightly indicated that the fundamental rights agency and the gender equality institute have been the subject of criticism. The difficulty in working with the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and, indeed, with your Lordships' House is that criticisms vary. We have either gone too far, not far enough or we should have had two institutes or one. We need to consider carefully whether in both cases we have organisations worthy of funding and whether we give them power in the third pillar. There are as many views as there are Members of your Lordships' House. That is one of the interesting and enjoyable parts of trying to discover what the UK position should be.

The noble Lord, Lord Lester, set me off on my Hans Christian Andersen days which, for me, will always be Danny Kaye. Noble Lords who remember the film will know that there is a great song in it which begins, "The king is in the altogether", which will be with me for the rest of this debate. I love the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, being the little child in that context. I am not sure I quite agree with the analogy but, none the less, it is important. I understand the point he is trying to make with the fairy-tale that he so kindly gave us today.

I want to start by saying a couple of things about how we work in the European Union in the context of this dossier. Noble Lords will know that this is an important dossier in that it is a unanimity dossier within the Council of Ministers. The European Parliament has played a very important role in deliberating on how the fundamental rights agency, which I know best in this context, should work. I pay tribute to Kinga Gál, a rapporteur in the LIBE Committee in the European Parliament, who sought to try to bring together disparate views in the European Parliament as well as to formulate sensible propositions. Noble Lords may know that the commissioner for justice and home affairs issues, Franco Frattini, has been very keen to see the fundamental rights agency as part of the balancing between the work we have to do in order to tackle issues of serious and organised crime and terrorism on the one hand, which lead to our need to share information and to think strategically across the 25 nations about how we deal with those issues, and to ensure that people's fundamental rights are not disturbed by having the agency. So, he would always describe it as part of the balancing act that he is trying to maintain on these issues.

It is worth saying that the UK also has a balancing act to perform, which is to recognise issues where we simply do not have a view that is recognised by other nation states, either with the gender institute through qualified majority voting or through the fundamental rights agency, even where we might be quite isolated, although, because of the unanimity nature of the dossier, in a stronger position.

In our work in the European Union we always have to consider very carefully which issues we feel it is right to press. So I agree with a huge amount of what was said and accept entirely some of the criticisms raised. I hope that in the comments I make noble Lords will perhaps understand better why we have not pushed particular issues which, from the point of view of either the committee or individuals, may seem to be fundamental and where on other issues we felt strongly that the UK should have a strong position.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, raised the issue of the third pillar in the fundamental rights agency. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, who quite rightly asked about the legal basis on these issues, that there is now consensus among member states to use Article 308 of the treaty establishing the European Community as the legal basis for the regulation that establishes the agency. There was a lot of deliberation about the legal basis for the agency. When Commissioner Frattini was thinking about involving the European Parliament, he thought about using the legal basis in Article 13(2), but discovered that would have affected the work that the agency could do. He therefore decided against it and rather considered how best the Parliament could be involved consultatively. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, was right to raise the fact that there was quite a lot of discussion about how best we might take that forward.

We had to consider the legal basis for third pillar involvement. We were clear that the third pillar remit does not exist. We understand that the equivalent of Article 308 is absolutely clear that there is no basis for third pillar involvement. We are joined in our opposition to that by Germany, Slovakia, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus. Indeed, the working group met this week to consider those issues yet again.

I want to make clear that just because we do not have the third pillar remit—and feel strongly that they should not be a third pillar remit because there is no legal basis for it—does not mean that we feel that police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters should have no scrutiny. Far from it. As noble Lords will know, that has been part of our dialogue with the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe has what I consider to be quite effective mechanisms to consider such matters. Of course, we always retain our national law.

We are very clear and are joined by other nations in the view that there is no legal basis on which the agency can have a role in the third pillar. That remains a key part of our strategy that we shall pursue in the final discussions on the question of the role of the fundamental rights agency. In that sense, that is not a political decision.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Advisory Team On Legal Matters, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, if the Prime Minister cannot have the third pillar, which is the one that deals with terrorism, crime, privacy and such matters and if the answer is that the Council of Europe or national Governments can do that, that hole cannot be filled by the fundamental rights agency. Is that not an appalling gap in the system that the EU says that it needs to balance security, on the one hand, and liberty, on the other?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Labour)

No, my Lords, I do not believe that it is. I want to make progress, but I hope to address that question more fully. One big question in trying to work out the role of the fundamental human rights agency has been its relationship with nation states and the Council of Europe. Looking at the basis on which it is to be established, it does not have a third-pillar remit as far as we and the other member states that I mentioned are concerned. That does not mean that those things are not covered in the work that we are doing. It does not mean that the agency does not have a role to play. It may not be the role that the noble Lord would want it to have; I accept that, but that does not mean that it does not have a role.

That is the other balancing act to which I have been alluding. For some noble Lords, some member states and some Members of the European Parliament, such things are fundamental to how the agency can deliver and its purpose. For others, they are not. On balance, the UK Government's view is that there is a role for a fundamental rights agency. It is not the role that the noble Lord would want, but there is a role. Who knows, if an agency can prove its worth, it may do other things. One big debate in the LIBE committee when I attended was about ensuring that the agency we set up is not only fit for purpose—something about which my noble friend Lord Brennan feels very strongly—but has the capacity to do what we want it to do. We have a lot of sympathy about what has been said about the management structure. We need to give it a sensible series of things to do so that it can achieve, be successful and develop. One thing that I have learnt about working in the European Union is that you have to start from one place and build to where you want to get to. You have to do it in stages; you cannot always get there all in one go, although I understand the frustration of the noble Lord that we cannot do that.

The second point about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, in particular, was concerned was the charter and the relationship between that and what is proposed. He asked whether we have reference to the charter in the body of the regulation or in the recital. Noble Lords will know that the charter was to have been part 2 of the constitutional treaty, which would have given it some kind of legal force, subject to lots of official explanations that were going to be mentioned specifically in the treaty. As we do not have a treaty, of course, it is only a political declaration at this point. We do not believe that it is right to anticipate what might happen in any future treaty negotiations by implying that the charter has any status as a legal document, so we have made it very clear that we believe that it should be moved into the recitals to the regulation, and that that will be the appropriate place for it.

I have to say that that view is not shared with our colleagues in the European Union, but we certainly feel very strongly about it across government. Indeed, this week, we considered the issue again at the appropriate committee in government. It was described as a showcase in my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, at the beginning of our discussions on the fundamental rights agency, and that is what we believe the charter should be. We have been putting out those very clear and strong signals and messages about the third pillar and the appropriate place at which to refer to the charter throughout our discussions with colleagues across the European Union.

It is also very clear, as I have said, that we need to be certain about the relationship between the fundamental rights agency and the Council of Europe. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, referred to that. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, talked about being clear about the role of other organisations, and I agree that one of the most difficult and passionate debates has been how we ensure that the Council of Europe and the fundamental rights agency work effectively together but do not duplicate or overlap. There seems to be consensus now among member states on the need to ensure that a person appointed by the Council of Europe is on the management board and the executive board of the agency, and we hope that they will be able to work together to ensure that we do not have duplication, which, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, would agree would be a waste of resources and time.

The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, in particular asked about the management board and its independence. We have moved away from representatives on the board to independent persons, as the noble Lord knows.

Negotiations are obviously still in progress, but it looks as if most member states are in favour of ensuring that the European Parliament will be consulted on the agency's multi-annual framework, and will have a greater role than originally anticipated in the appointment of the director.

I have been so strong in saying that the fundamental rights agency should put its multi-annual framework report and, more to the point, its work programme before the Council of Ministers rather than the Commission because I do not want the agency to be sidelined or ignored, which would waste resources. The best way of avoiding that is if the agency presents what it is going to do to the Council of Ministers, which would have to take note of it and be aware of what it was doing. It would probably have a greater chance of being understood, recognised for the work that it could do and resourced effectively if the Council took a view about it. Although that is a different view from those of other member states, I have been arguing that position for some considerable time. If we are going to make this work, let us make it work properly and ensure that the Council of Ministers actually takes it seriously. There will be different views of how to achieve that, but that is my personal view about what we ought to be doing.

I shall now talk about the management structures and, in so doing, speak about the gender institute as well, because there are differences in the way in which the two management boards are being set up. The fundamental rights agency has independent persons on the management board, and the gender institute has representatives of member states. The fundamental rights agency has two Commission members on the board, and the gender institute has three Commission members. There is also a wonderful thing called a scientific committee, which is for the fundamental rights agency and which I think formed the basis of a French proposal some time ago.

We have tried to ensure that the management board and the structure of the fundamental rights agency and the gender institute do two things. One is to enable people to feel properly involved. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, said about the need to think carefully about 25 states rising to 27, and about how on earth everyone will be represented in reality. My preference is always for smaller management boards, but there is always the need, particularly when setting up anything new—this is pertinent not only to the European Union; it applies everywhere—for people to feel involved and, by their involvement, bound into the work of the organisation.

We are a bit trapped in that whole dilemma. We want everyone to take this seriously. The recognition of taking it seriously is people being part of the management structure. I again hope that the management structure will change over time as people get used to it. I do not know of any formal plans—if I find them, I will certainly write to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas—on how much further the UK Government can go in pushing to see how we can best work towards moving from 25 or 27 member states being represented on everything to a more sensible approach, if I can describe it as that.

Again I pay tribute to Kinga Gál, who I know has spent a huge amount of time on this. At least there is some progress in thinking about how we involve people from member states and make sure that this organisation has the support that it needs from outside and is able to operate. The last thing that we want, by creating a management structure that is unwieldy, is to prevent people with great calibre from applying to become part of the agency, which would be a huge problem.

We have said that we support setting up the European institute for gender equality. We hope that its purpose will be to raise the profile of gender equality across Europe and to get a much more coherent approach to obtaining information and gathering research. One of the roles for both agencies will be to make sure that we understand better what is happening across the European Union. We do not really have the ability to bring information together and do a compare-and-contrast exercise, which would be enormously helpful. It is very important that the gender equality institute is effective and efficient, and does not duplicate what is done in other parts of the European Union.

The different views are interesting. My noble friend Lord Harrison took a different view from that taken by other noble Lords who talked about the need to merge the two bodies. My noble friend was keen to see them separate. We on the government Benches disagree with colleagues in your Lordships' House on that. I take and understand what my noble friend said. I agree with him that other countries have very different experiences. But the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and other noble Lords are right. In our country, we have moved towards bringing together those issues into the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. As I think was said to me in the committee, it looks rather odd that the Government are in a different place on this.

In part, we are back to the pragmatism of the UK position. As noble Lords will know, I do not deal with this dossier in the European Union. But the rest of our European Union colleagues are very keen to see a separate gender institute. I suspect that that is in part exactly because of the point raised by my noble friend about their different experiences. The issue is subject to qualified majority voting, so the UK does not have the ability to alter this very much. While I cannot speak for my colleagues who have dealt with this, if I were the Minister responsible, my view would be that you have to decide on which issues you have a chance of being successful and on which issues you push. I was very clear with the committee that I also think that, when these two organisations are developed, there may well be a value in first making sure that they can operate and do their work and then looking to the future eventually to see whether we could bring them together.

As I said earlier, the basis on which the gender institute is established is Article 13(2). That is on a different basis from Article 308, the fundamental rights agency, which has different things to do. If we should think about bringing them together, we would have to reopen all the earlier negotiations on the legal base, which is not something on which we would be successful. Equally, that could delay either of them coming into being, which I am not sure would be appropriate.

We have argued for close collaboration and co-operation between the two bodies. The director of the institute for gender equality will attend the fundamental rights agency management board as an observer. We expect the officials to work closely. In answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, about the future, it may be appropriate that these organisations become one. On whether they will be co-located, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is right. Many countries wish to demonstrate—the noble Lord put it in a rather negative way, but it is a positive not a negative—that they are part of the European Union by wanting to host institutions of the European Union. I have no idea where the gender issue will end up. We certainly think that they ought to be collaborative, but who knows?

I have tried to cover as many points as possible and I apologise for any that I have missed. As always, I shall write to noble Lords about anything that I think should have been added. I hope that noble Lords know that I am always happy to return to the committee, to whose members I pay tribute for their work, or to your Lordships' House to consider this further as we develop our work.

In conclusion, as the noble Lord opposite pointed out, anti-discrimination issues are very important and there are many areas in which we are in agreement. We are merely arguing about the means to the end. Noble Lords know that we have tried to approach this in a pragmatic and practical way so as to end up with something that is worth having and worth putting resources into so that it can achieve what we seek for the future.