Sandra Gidley (Women & Older People, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 70, in clause 9, page 5, line 4, at end insert—

‘(1A)In promoting the awareness, understanding and protection of human rights, the Commission shall assess whether, and to what extent, adequate advice and assistance is available to individuals who are or may become party to proceedings under section 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) (proceedings)’.

I, too, welcome you to this sitting, Ms Anderson.

This is a probing amendment. It attempts to obtain clarification and assurances that the Commission for Equality and Human Rights will be expected to follow the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on monitoring access to case support for individual action under the Human Rights Act 1998. Concerns have been expressed that individuals may find it more difficult under the Bill to obtain the funding to pursue a case. There is a lack of clarity about what the Legal Services Commission will fund. There are also anxieties that people who may previously have qualified for support or assistance will fall through gaps, and the support will no longer be available.

The Bill was amended in the other place to give the Commission for Equality and Human Rights the power to bring about judicial review proceedings against a public authority that acts in a manner that is not compatible with the rights of the convention. It provided a strategic power which would be a useful tool for challenging and ending routine abuses of human rights. That is particularly important in respect of disability because, as the previous clause acknowledges, it is a problem. We often have to go the extra mile to ensure equality of opportunity and access for disabled people, whose needs are sometimes complex. Another problem with disability is that the DRC’s power to provide individual case support was never activated and there are worries that the group will continue to be disfranchised.

It is also important that the CEHR’s role in promoting human rights standards in the delivery of public services is supported and encouraged. Active promotion and awareness of good standards will, in the long run, probably decrease the need for legal advice and support in certain cases. It is not clear whether the CEHR will be expected to signpost or refer individuals whose rights appear to have been infringed. It is not clear either how the system would work and who people would be referred to. Rather than a lack of clarity, it may simply be complex. The Minister may recall that she and I served on the Committee that considered the Adoption and Children Act 2002; a flowchart was created to explain the particularly complex matters dealt with in that legislation. I hope that the Equality Bill is not that complex and that the Minister will be able to describe the situation, but there seems to be a lack of understanding among those who will be lobbying the commission.

The Joint Committee On Human Rights has expressed concern that the powers of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to assist people under the Human Rights Act 1998 might be restricted. The matter needs to be kept under review. If the Minister feels that adequate provision has already been made, will she promise a review to monitor how it is working in practice? Or does she have other means of allaying some of the fears that have been expressed?

Eleanor Laing (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Scotland; Epping Forest, Conservative)

We achieved considerable agreement in our discussions this morning, and we have moved forward this afternoon in a pleasantly convivial way and with general agreement. Almost all amendments have been accepted or happily withdrawn, and no one has vehemently disagreed—until now.

Amendment No. 70 is totally unacceptable to the Conservative party. If ever a blank cheque created a charter for lawyers, that would be it. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady may laugh, but the next time she is looking for the Government to spend money on something other than what will effectively be the funding of legal aid—when she next looks for spending on schools or hospitals in her constituency, or more doctors or a kidney machine—she should remember how much money she proposes being spent in pursuance of the amendment.

Sandra Gidley (Women & Older People, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Lady seems to be under the great misapprehension that spending on equality will somehow mean problems with hospitals or educational institutions. Does she not accept that if we can spend small sums of money to ensure that case law is right, there will be less discrimination and that older people in particular may have greater access to health services?

Eleanor Laing (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Scotland; Epping Forest, Conservative)

Yes, I accept that. However, the hon. Lady said small amounts of money. I accept that spending small amounts of money in the right place is strategically correct. I emphasise again, lest there be any misunderstanding, that I am not against the large amount of money being spent in furtherance of the Bill’s aims. I am in favour of that, but I am absolutely and resolutely against a charter that would encourage more funding of more cases. We are already a sufficiently litigious society—far more so that we used to be. People talk about rights, but they do not consider duties. If someone trips over a paving stone, they do not say, “Oh, goodness, I should have looked where I was going.” They immediately try to find legal aid in order to sue whoever they think has the most money among those responsible for the paving. I used to work in that area, and I understand it well.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

Will the hon. Lady say whether she is opposed to people being able to bring cases under the Human Rights Act 1998 for abuse or loss of their human rights, or whether she feels that it should be privately funded and available only to those who are able to afford it? Is she opposed to litigation under human rights legislation, or does she think that it should not be publicly funded and that only those with the resources should be able to do so?

Eleanor Laing (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Scotland; Epping Forest, Conservative)

Of course not; that would be a ludicrous position to take. I understand why the hon. Gentleman asks the question; he wants me to say that I believe that only those who have enough money to fund litigation

I understand why the hon. Gentleman asked the question; he wants me to say that I believe that only people who have enough money to fund litigation should ever be able to bring a case. I emphatically do not believe that. I do not, however, want money, which should be used positively to further the commission’s work in addressing the six strands of potential discrimination, to be used in the way that the Liberal Democrats have suggested, which is to obtain more public funding to pursue a particular case. The floodgates will open if it becomes too easy for taxpayers’ money to be used for such litigation.

Sandra Gidley (Women & Older People, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Lady has deliberately misinterpreted what I said. The amendment seeks greater clarification of what the new commission could do and what the Legal Services Commission could fund. I gather that the LSC will take up some of the responsibilities. There needs to be clear understanding of, and agreement about, who will pick up what. Surely the hon. Lady accepts that, in a small number of cases, people will not qualify for legal aid but that it is in the greater public interest that the case be brought.

Eleanor Laing (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Scotland; Epping Forest, Conservative)

In that case, it would be quite proper for the commission to bring a case and to fund it if it identifies it as a test case that explores new legal territory and that should be tested in the courts. That is the only way in which to make progress in establishing the law, and I am completely in favour of it. I am not, however, in favour of more public money being spent not necessarily on spurious cases, because of course the LSC would not grant the money to fight spurious cases, but on cases that do not need to be brought to court, on cases in which an awful lot of money is spent on legal bills, and on going to court instead of spending the money properly in the exercise of the commission’s positive duties.

I am very concerned that the Liberal Democrats are pushing at the boundaries of how much public money is to be spent in this area. I reiterate my concern that the costs of this whole enterprise will rise and rise, and that the commission will be discredited in a few years if it turns out that it is spending too much public money for very little return.

If, on the other hand, members of the Committee, who are the legislators of this legislation, draw very careful lines now, thus ensuring that the taxpayers’ money that will be spent furthering the aims of the Bill is carefully and tactically spent in the right way so that it produces the right results for a minimum amount of money, the new commission will garner more and more respect. If the commission and its work garner more and more respect, so will the aims of the Bill. My concern is that the whole purpose of the commission and its standing in our society will be undermined if that does not happen, and if we allow a vague duty or right to spend taxpayers’ money to further these very good and very worthy aims so that money is spent unnecessarily and can be criticised, as it will in certain parts of the media.

I do not want that to happen. I want the commission to work. It will work only if it has respect, and it will have respect only if it spends public money—taxpayers’ money—wisely and accountably.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I was not going to speak to this amendment because the case for it has been put appropriately and effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), but I wanted to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Lady, personally and regarding her work in scrutiny, but it is important to examine the wording of the amendment.

Amendment No. 70 does not call for more spending on litigation by the commission but asks that

“In promoting the awareness, understanding and protection of human rights, the Commission shall assess”—

I assume that that means doing research and writing a report, which will not cost millions of pounds—

“whether, and to what extent, adequate advice and assistance is available to individuals who are or may become party to proceedings”

in human rights litigation. That is not an unreasonable thing for a commission on equality and human rights to do because it is a question of access to human rights and whether certain people, such as the poor or disabled, have equality of opportunity in accessing their rights in the courts.

If we have a Human Rights Act, it is only right as a consequence that people should be able to take action under it; those should not be ridiculous actions, but actions where there is a reasonable case. As far as I know, the hon. Lady’s party did not object to what I, despite having voted against legislation to ban hunting, considered to be a ridiculous action brought by the Countryside Alliance under the Human Rights Act to seek to overturn that ban. As I say, I voted against the ban, but once Parliament had made a decision I did not think that such an action was a worthwhile use of anyone’s money, even though it did not rely on public funding.

Eleanor Laing (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Scotland; Epping Forest, Conservative)

For the sake of clarification, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion on the issue, but that is not a parallel because the Countryside Alliance did not spend taxpayers’ money.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

But it has resources, which is the point I am keen to put across to the hon. Lady. She said in response to an earlier intervention that we cannot deny people access to justice simply because they are poor. However, every time she says she does not want public money spent, or would like less of it spent, on securing publicly funded litigation where there is an option for it—even if that point applies to those with resources as well—she is effectively supporting the denial of justice to the less well-off.

One of the big issues in relation to the Human Rights Act is whether people have enough access to have recourse to its provisions. We know from analyses and research—I commend to the hon. Lady the work of academics in Cardiff in this respect—that the majority of actions under the Act have been taken by middle-class people concerned about, for example, light pollution and planning matters. That is their entitlement, but researchers say that the people whose human rights are not respected regularly are often the socially isolated and the poor, which is why the issue of public funding and adequate access to advice and assistance is critical if our human rights framework is to work.

The amendment would give the commission a power or duty to report on whether it thinks that people are getting fair access to whatever funding is available. It may be that the hon. Lady wants a smaller cake made available for that than I want, which is a reasonable argument to have, but it is a question of fair access and whether the funding available is not going to the people who need it.

I urge the Minister to consider the amendment in the spirit in which we tabled it. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey quoted the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I have the privilege of serving during this Session; I was not party to the views it expressed before. I shall not repeat her quote, but the Committee expressed concern that since   the commission would not be allowed to help people to proceed with human rights cases, the least it could do was ensure that those people got help from somewhere on a fair basis. I hope that the Minister will take the amendment, so well spoken to by my hon. Friend, in the spirit in which it is meant and not be distracted by the funding issues, which are important but not directly relevant to the amendment.

Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)

I agree that access to justice is very important, particularly in human rights cases. That is why the Lord Chancellor’s direction to the Legal Services Commission on funding priorities includes human rights proceedings as a category of case that should be given higher priority.

We decided at the outset that it would be unwise to create a separate source of funding for such cases in the Commission for Equality and Human Rights; if we did, it would not only cause confusion and duplication, but risk overwhelming the commission with the task of sifting through the vast range of cases to which human rights might relate. In its 16th report of the previous Session, the Joint Committee on Human Rights recognised the wisdom of that approach. It said that the provision of legal assistance in human rights cases would be a fruitful topic for an inquiry by the commission once it had been established.

It is already within the commission’s powers to conduct such an inquiry. If the commission agrees with the JCHR’s recommendation and conducts such an inquiry, we would certainly be interested to consider its recommendations; but it is quite something else to require the commission to undertake such work as part of its duties. The commission’s strategic planning process needs to take account of the competing priorities for its resources—a point well made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest—and it would not be right for us to impose such work on the commission before it has even been established. As hon. Members may know, we amended the Bill in another place to increase the commission’s freedom of movement. To constrain it again in such a way would be a retrograde step.

A memorandum of understanding between the CEHR and the Legal Services Commission would be a matter for the two bodies. As I said, we have established the CEHR’s funding remit so that it does not create unnecessary overlap with the Legal Services Commission, but it may nevertheless be useful for the two organisations to discuss—and, if necessary, align—their strategic priorities. However, that is not something that we wish to force on the CEHR.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister raised the issue of a memorandum of understanding between the CEHR and the Legal Services Commission. That, she will be aware, was a recommendation of the JCHR in its 11th report of 2003-04 on the plans for a new commission. Does she think that such a memorandum would, at least, be a welcome development? Or is she simply saying that it is not even a matter for the Government to give an opinion on, and that it is a subject only for the bodies themselves? Without a memorandum—so   says the JCHR—it is hard to see how we can be certain that there will be alignment between the CEHR’s strategic approach and the Legal Services Commission’s approach to funding.

Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)

I am indeed saying that the matter is up to the two bodies. Members of Parliament want to ensure that the new commission is independent, but also that it does what we want it to do. There has always been that tension. I am indeed saying that the issue is a matter for the two bodies, but I have already suggested that it could be useful for them to look at their strategic priorities and perhaps align them. However, I do not wish to say that we would specify what they should do.

Obviously, there are restrictions on the availability of legal aid, and I am sure that hon. Members will recognise the need to concentrate resources on cases in which the need is greatest. For that reason, the Legal Services Commission assesses each case individually, on the means of the applicant and the merits of the case, against its standard criteria.

This has been a useful discussion, because it is on a subject of concern and interest. I hope that the hon. Member for Romsey is content with the response to her inquiries, and that she will withdraw the amendment.

Sandra Gidley (Women & Older People, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)

I still think that there is probably a lack of clarity about how the system will work in the long term. In fact, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said that

“the matter may need to be revisited if the Commission’s experience in practice shows that individuals with bona fide claims under the Human Rights Act are discriminated against in relation to their ability to access the courts in comparison with individuals bringing claims under equality legislation. We would expect the Commission to keep this matter under review.”

Clearly, it would be helpful if there was a ministerial commitment on that, but as there seems to be little support for the amendment in other quarters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I want to raise something that will come as no surprise to the Minister: the absence of a provision for a role for the commission to deal with the UK’s obligations under international human rights treaties. I should think she was expecting that.

It is worth while mentioning a recommendation in paragraph 15 of the JCHR’s 16th report of the 2004-05 Session. It was reporting on the previous Bill, but the current Bill has not changed in that respect. The Joint Committee regrets:

“No express duty or power to participate in the UK’s reporting processes in relation to international human rights treaties is conferred on the Commission by the Bill. The Commission is to have a general duty to monitor progress towards the achievement of the clause 3 aim”

but, the Committee goes on:

“We think that a role for the Commission in the treaty reporting processes should be an important part of its activities, and would have the benefit for the Commission itself in integrating its human rights and equalities agendas. It would also be in accordance with the UN’s Paris Principles relating to the status of national human rights institutions.”

The relevant part of the Paris principles is probably, although not exclusively, 3(b), which states that the principles should serve

“To promote and ensure the harmonization of national legislation, regulations and practices with the international human rights instruments to which the State is a party, and their effective implementation”.

It continues, in paragraph (c), saying that they are

“To encourage ratification of the above-mentioned instruments or accession to those instruments, and to ensure their implementation”.

It goes further than that, as well.

That is an important part of the role of a national institution. No doubt, this country argues for institutions to have adequate independence and powers to protect human rights and promote them in other countries that we do not think do as good a job. Although I accept that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the commission from doing that, particularly since it is in a different shape from last time, it is regrettable that it is not specifically mentioned.

The Minister may respond with the same argument that she used before—that she does not want to tie things down to expenditure, but in relation to what she said on the previous amendment that is an argument of last resort, because if we as a Parliament think that something should be done, we should ensure that it is do-able and, if necessary, done. To argue that doing so might use up funding that should be used for something else is the Government essentially saying that there is not a high enough priority for it to be specified. That may be a difference of opinion between two politicians, but I would be grateful if the Minister said how far she expects the role to be taken in the Bill and whether she believes that enough is being done in this respect.

We have a convention on trafficking, which the UK has still not ratified, or indeed signed, despite that being a priority for its EU presidency. There is, therefore, a need for pressure to be put on politicians and both Houses to ensure that we meet our international obligations, especially when we require or request other countries to do so. We could set up our commission and our human rights institutions as a model for other countries to look at, particularly if we get right the role of institutions in respect of our conduct under international treaty obligations.

I urge the Minister to respond to that concern.

Eleanor Laing (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Scotland; Epping Forest, Conservative)

It is becoming clear that, although I do not vehemently disagree with the Minister about much in the Bill—there is the odd point here and there—I disagree vehemently with the Liberal Democrats on a great many issues. I am worried about clause 9.

Sandra Gidleyindicated dissent.

Eleanor Laing (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Scotland; Epping Forest, Conservative)

The hon. Lady may raise her eyebrows, but that is what we are here for. If we all agreed, people would not elect us. The purpose of a Parliament is to set out different points of view. The point of scrutinising a Bill is that different arguments can be expressed so that the best legislation can result from that exercise or at least the legislation for which the majority in the country has voted. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon was right to say sotto voce that the majority of people in this country did not vote for the party that is in government. However, now is not an appropriate time to discuss that as I shall be called to order. Having called myself to order, I shall stop talking about such matters.

I am not worried about the true aim of clause 9, which is to promote human rights. It is correct to

“promote understanding of the importance of human rights”.

That is motherhood and apple pie; it is the whole point of the Bill. I have never understood what is so good about apple pie, but motherhood is okay—as, of course, are human rights. The clause will increase litigation and, thus, its cost. I do not mean only in terms of legal aid. I am talking not only about the budget of the Legal Services Commission or any other public body that grants funds to bring a case to court, but about the administrative costs of the courts and the backlog of cases. The court system is becoming overloaded because we are more litigious. I am worried about all of those issues, not just the public funding of cases brought by people who cannot afford to bring a case to court on their own.

I am also worried that the current law can be distorted by arguments about human rights. For the sake of time, I shall not go into that now. Although it is correct to

“promote understanding of the importance of human rights”

and to

“encourage good practice in relation to human rights”,

it is not right to encourage and promote more cases under human rights law or, indeed, under the law that will be created by the Bill. The courts will become more clogged with unnecessary litigation. As I said in relation to the previous matter, if the commission believes that it is necessary to bring a particular case to court to test the law, of course that is right. I am not objecting to such action. However, if we let things go too far, the commission and its work will be undermined. It will not command the respect that it ought to deserve.

Under subsection (2), human rights means

“the Convention rights within the meaning given by section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998”.

That is understandable. Under the clause, human rights also means “other human rights”. What other human rights does the Minister envisage? I can tell by her expression that she has an answer to that, and I look forward to hearing it.

It seems to me that the Human Rights Act 1998 was drafted very broadly and that the range of human rights referred to under that Act is very wide. Once again, I am thinking about costs—not only the costs of funding cases, but the costs of the courts. I am also   concerned about the great burden that encouraging more litigation puts on the court system—it will delay the system and bring the administration of the law into disrepute. I do not want to see that happen.

I said on clause 8, and I say again on clause 9, that I want to see the commission succeed and I want to see the Bill succeed in its aims. To do that, the legislation must command respect, and to command respect it must not be seen to be going too far. I will use the phrase that I was criticised for using on Second Reading—I have not yet used it in Committee. If clause 9 is seen to be a charter to promote political correctness, it will undermine the whole purpose of the commission and the Bill, and I do not want to see that happen.

James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)

I want to raise a small point in relation to subsection (2)(b), which my hon. Friend has just highlighted with reference to other human rights. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has emphasised the need for greater clarity in the provisions, by indicating that he would take the commission in all sorts of different directions, which people might or might not agree with. It is interesting to contrast the approach that is taken to defining human rights in this context with the very precise definition that has been adopted in relation to the equality enactments, in legislation defined as the equality enactments is specifically listed, and the Secretary of State is given the flexibility to add to, vary or change that list by means of an order.

I therefore ask the Minister to consider whether that would be an appropriate way to proceed on this clause, given that there is a need for certainty. Given that the commission will have an overarching responsibility for so many different things, there is a risk that it may be taken in the various directions that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon might like, but it might thereby lose the focus that it rightly needs. Will the Minister consider adopting the approach taken in clause 33, by being quite specific as to the human rights legislation that is intended to be covered by this clause, and by providing for it to be updated, changed or varied, if necessary, by means of an order?

Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)

Since there has been such a wide-ranging discussion, I hope that hon. Members will permit me to set out the general position on the clause before I deal with the specific questions asked by Opposition Members.

The Human Rights Act 1998 is among the most important constitutional legislation that any Government have introduced since the achievement of universal suffrage. The notion that all human beings should be treated with respect, equality and fairness is now enshrined in our law. That framework of fundamental rights not only protects vulnerable members of our society, but promotes a new culture of public service delivery based on respect for the rights of individuals.

The Act was, however, only the start of the process, and clause 9 is the next stage. Through its duties based on promotion and encouragement, the new commission will, for the first time, provide   independent institutional support for human rights. Moreover, as we mentioned earlier today, not only will the commission have specific duties in relation to human rights, but its wider work will be underpinned by the human rights principles.

Colleagues of all parties have recognised the merit in that approach. In its report of March 2003, the JCHR emphasised the need for more active promotion of the Human Rights Act for the benefit of integrated promotion of human rights and equality. As the Committee further wrote in its 16th report at the end of the last Parliament,

“the intention to create the CEHR represents the most important milestone reached so far in establishing the institutional support which is needed to achieve wider implementation of the Human Rights Act and respect for human rights, particularly within public authorities.”

The commission will not generally undertake independent enforcement of human rights. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Member for Epping Forest that the human rights functions are largely promotional—except for the strategic power to seek judicial review, which is reflected in the duties—so we do not imagine that clause 9 will increase litigation. The Human Rights Act already allows the convention rights to be enforced through the courts. However, the commission will be able to rely on the convention rights in legal proceedings for judicial review that it institutes or in which it intervenes.

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I am not sure why the Minister should seek particularly to reassure the hon. Member for Epping Forest, but I am happy to remain ignorant of that. However, she asserts that clause 9 should not increase litigation, because it is intended only to

“promote awareness, understanding and protection of human rights”.

If she is counting on that, she is probably wrong, whether we like it or not. If more people know what their rights are under the Human Rights Act, and if there are good cases that need to be brought to secure those rights, then promoting awareness and understanding of them and their protection might well involve dealing with injustice and overturning the denial of human rights. Even the hon. Member for Epping Forest would probably agree that that was a good thing. I hope that she will not live in expectation of the figures showing that that sort of promotion is unsuccessful.

Meg Munn (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Sheffield, Heeley, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman should consider both sides of the coin. By promoting greater awareness of human rights, we hope to experience fewer infringements of human rights. I made it clear that the functions are largely, not solely, promotional.

The commission will be able to rely on the convention rights in the proceedings for judicial review. That will allow it to bring cases to clarify the law, perhaps as the result of an inquiry or to challenge systemic infringements of human rights. As there will still have to be a victim or potential victim of any alleged unlawful act that the commission challenges, that will not create new opportunities for litigation,   but will allow litigation to be conducted more efficiently. The notion of human rights extends beyond the convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act. The United Kingdom is party to a number of international treaties and conventions that give rise to human rights, such as those concerning children and discrimination against women. [Interruption.] When we speak of human rights and “other human rights”, we include other international conventions to which the UK is party, including the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, the universal declaration of human rights, the international covenant on civil and political rights and the convention on the rights of the child.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question about why we have set it out in this way in the Bill, I have to return to the problem of lists, and the need to continually update them or add things that have been missed out. The commission might wish to take into account many treaties, of varying scope and importance, and it would be very hard—as well as undesirable—to list them.

Many countries in all parts of the world have already established commissions to support human rights. The United Nations recognises a lot of those bodies as national human rights institutions. The Government believe that the Commission for Equality and Human Rights will meet the requirements of the Paris principles so that it, too, will receive that accreditation. That is not a meaningless label. The status will place the commission within the international human rights regime and will underline the UK’s commitment to human rights.

On the hon. Gentleman’s aside on human trafficking, only eight of 25 European countries have so far signed the European convention, which the UK Government hope to sign shortly. There is no deadline for signing it. Indeed, human trafficking has been a priority of the UK presidency, and a great deal has already been done in this country.

The CEHR will have a real effect in promoting a culture of respect for the rights of individuals and will use human rights as the fundamental underpinning of its work on equality and diversity. I hope that by briefly running through the provisions of the clause, I will clarify issues that hon. Members have raised.

Subsection (1) lays out the duties of the commission in respect of human rights. They include duties to promote the awareness, understanding and protection of human rights, to encourage good practice and to encourage public authorities’ compliance with their duty under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Subsection (2) defines human rights as the convention rights within the meaning of the 1998 Act and other human rights, which I have already listed. Subsection (3) requires the commission to give priority to convention rights.

I referred earlier to the need for human rights principles to underpin all the commission’s work. Subsections (4) and (5) say that in fulfilling its other duties under clauses 8 and 10, the commission is   required to take into account relevant human rights, whether convention rights or otherwise. Furthermore, a matter may be included within the meaning of “human rights”, even if it is a matter to which the other duties may also relate. For example, even though equality and diversity are covered by the clause 8 duties, the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women may be included in the commission’s human rights work as well.

We will come on to clause 18 later, so I refer to it now only in its relationship to this clause. Clause 18 allows the commission to co-operate with other bodies, either in the UK or elsewhere, in carrying out its human rights duties under clause 9.

I hope that that reassures hon. Members on how the clause will operate. It is an important clause and is essential to building through the commission a greater understanding and awareness of human rights in this country.