Schedule 3 - Power to modify constitutional arrangements: bodies and offices
Public Bodies Bill [Lords]
2:30 pm

Jon Trickett (Hemsworth, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 49, in schedule 3, page 20, line 27, leave out ‘Commission for Equality and Human Rights’.

John Robertson (Glasgow North West, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 50, in schedule 4, page 21, line 10, leave out ‘Commission for Equality and Human Rights’.

Amendment 51, in schedule 5, page 21, line 24, leave out ‘Commission for Equality and Human Rights’.

Jon Trickett (Hemsworth, Labour)

Valerie Vaz (Walsall South, Labour)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mr Robertson, and to see how well you are looking. I completely associate myself with the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth has made so eloquently. This important issue is about the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, which I shall refer to as the commission. Hon. Members will remember how that body came into being. If I may paraphrase a famous phrase, there were three people in this marriage: the Disability Rights Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. Those bodies existed to protect people and did an excellent job.

As far as the Human Rights Act is concerned, those bodies merely reflected the situation that was going on in Europe; we were simply bringing rights home. Hon. Members will recall that the European convention on human rights was set out after the second world war, when there were great atrocities done to the Jewish people and Gypsies—Travellers. That is why people in the international community said, “This is enough. We mustn’t carry on like this. Governments—people in power—cannot do things in the people’s name against their own people.” That is the background; those are the rights we are protecting under this body.

The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976, which were introduced by a Labour Government and show that we did do some good things at that time, were groundbreaking pieces of legislation that changed the face of society. We take lots of things for granted now, but I and hon. Members will recall a time when curry was seen as something very unusual, something that foreigners had. However, it has now become the nation’s favourite food. As a councillor in the late ’80s, I remember sitting there reading section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which stated that we could not promote gay and lesbian rights. We could not teach them; we could not publish them. That legislation has now been repealed. Such a situation was an atrocity that we would not consider now, but that was the climate at the time.

Even now, women apparently do not do work of equal quality to men, and we are paid less. There is still a pay gap for women. We cannot even contemplate what the situation is like for disabled people, but there was a time when they could not even get into a building. That has all changed now, and I put it down to the Human Rights Act, which led to a general feeling that equality must be promoted. That is what the commission does.

There should be a commission free from political interference. I will come on to how the commission could be set up, and I would like the Minister to consider the possibility of an independent commission. However, even in 2011, the case of Gibson and others v. Sheffield City Council shows that women carers are not paid the same as their male counterparts. Male carers were given a productivity bonus, even though they were doing the same work. That is happening in 2011—we are talking about now. Women make up 51% of the population and we should be paid equally, just as we are here.

As I said, three bodies were merged, and since 2006 the commission has effectively been allowed to get on with difficult work. It also deals with religious tolerance. That issue is rearing its head, and we have to look at it and become more accepting. The Government should consider having an arm’s-length body that is transparent and reports directly to and is accountable to Parliament. There should be no interference at all in that body, which should be allowed to get on with its work.

So far, each successive Minister for Women and Equalities has been based in a different Department, and the commission has followed them around to each Department. There should be a stand-alone Department. The Government talk about costs, but actually, the figures show that this provision costs only £1 for each person living in Britain. That is a small price to pay for equality, and I am sure that people would realise that how we have changed as a society shows that it is a price worth paying; £1 is nothing.

There has been much talk about the Human Rights Act. That legislation is about more than whether a prisoner wants to read a magazine from the top shelf. That is just an exaggerated example of what the Human Rights Act does. Most of the rights in the Act are qualified rights. There is a margin of appreciation that allows for a range of discretion, through which the convention can be interpreted differently in different member states to take account of cultural, historical and philosophical differences between Europe and the nation in question, so people do not have to fear anything from the Human Rights Act.

Charlie Elphicke (Dover, Conservative)

The hon. Lady talks about the margin of appreciation. She will recall that the House of Commons recently debated the potential margin of appreciation relating to the voting rights of prisoners, and it was explained to the House that that margin may not exist and this country will have to give voting rights to prisoners. Does she think that that is the right way forward?

Valerie Vaz (Walsall South, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head when he said that the margin of appreciation “may not exist”. That is a matter for the lawyers and it is something that we can debate later. But Europe has never said that a nation state should not debate issues as important as that one.

It has never been more necessary than it is now to show that human rights are important. The Foreign Office should not be hampered in the good work that it is doing in promoting Britain throughout the world. What do we say to those people involved in the Arab spring? We say, “You must have human rights.” At the same time, however, there is a possibility—as my hon.  Friend the Member for Hemsworth has said—that we could be downgraded by the United Nations. That is an important point. What message are we sending out to people? The Paralympics was invented by Britain. That is how important this country has been as a beacon of hope in terms of rights.

We have a great tradition in this country of the rule of law. One of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law is that it should not be arbitrary or uncertain. I am concerned that aspects of this Bill are arbitrary or uncertain, and that should be changed. The commission should continue its work unhindered, so that we continue to be the kind of country where tolerance and equality exist.

Lisa Nandy (Wigan, Labour)

I want to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by my hon. Friends today. It is not my intention to repeat those remarks, and nor is it my intention to repeat the points about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny when such wide-ranging powers as these are given or changed.

It is inherent in the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission that it must not only have the necessary independence from the Government but that it must be seen to have that independence, given that its role—indeed, its entire purpose—is to hold the Government to account and to challenge them. The commission must hold itself not only to some arbitrary standards, but to the standards that it has set for itself. Sometimes, however, by design or by accident, it fails to meet those standards.

For more than a decade now, I have worked with children and young people in a variety of settings and for a variety of reasons those children and young people have been badly treated, not only by the state but by society as a whole. I have worked with refugee and migrant children, Traveller and Gypsy children, homeless young people and those with disabilities. I will depart from the argument made my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South slightly by saying that, although I welcome the progress that has been made, as a society we are far too complacent about the way that we treat people with disabilities. We fail to recognise that it is our mindset that must change rather than expecting people with disabilities to adapt to the sort of exclusive society that we have created.

I have also worked on many occasions with young people who find themselves, either by accident or as a result of their own actions, in institutions that too often receive little scrutiny or that are lacking in transparency; the spotlight cast on those institutions is too small. Children in those situations can be subjected to some of the most appalling treatment and the work of organisations such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission is crucial. In relation to this debate, the independence of such organisations, in areas such as custody, immigration detention and the care system, is also absolutely essential.

One thing that I have learned through working with children in all of these different situations in the past 12 years is that it is absolutely no use having rights and protections enshrined in law if there are no means of enforcing them. Although we have a host of protections for children in those situations—particularly the UN convention on the rights of the child—if we cannot ensure that they are applied to an individual or to the group that they belong to, they matter not one jot.

I am extremely concerned about some of the changes that are happening elsewhere, particularly in relation to legal aid, and about the removal of grants from some of the major advice agencies. They will have a detrimental impact on the ability of individuals to seek redress and to hold the state and society to account for how they are treated. One of the great things about the Equality and Human Rights Commission and its role as an independent agency that challenges Government is that it can raise an issue on behalf of particular groups. I have seen it do that many times over many years.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South that there is a major case for the reform of the EHRC as our major national institution, but I would argue in favour of strengthening rather than weakening its independence from Government and its ability to challenge different Departments to live up to the standards that they have set for themselves. In particular, I would like to see the EHRC have a chair who stands absolutely independent of Government. Having worked with the former chief inspector of prisons, whom I admired enormously, I have seen how individuals can drive forward whole agendas and improvements just by virtue of their energy and past experience. The independence of those individuals is essential.

I would also like to see the EHRC have the ability to take on test cases on behalf of particular groups. I have seen for myself, in many ways, how that can be the most effective vehicle, not just to highlight issues but to promote redress.

Because of the EHRC’s particular role, it is entirely inappropriate for Government to be able to interfere with its composition and especially its functions to the extent that clause 3 allows. I say that for two reasons. First, on credibility, the groups with which the EHRC is required to work are not just sometimes suspicious of authority, but they have often had enough of well meaning people coming in and trying to do good when they cannot see any particular reason for that participation. In short, some of the so-called disadvantaged groups have been researched to death. When organisations turn up and say that they want to conduct inquiries, which is one of the major tools that the EHRC has at its disposal, it is essential that the groups trust not just the expertise and the remit, but the independence and credibility of the agency, so that they can participate and so that the EHRC can do its work.

Secondly, the issue is important because, having challenged Government on many occasions, often through the courts—with the help of a number of independent bodies and agencies, including the EHRC, the chief inspector of prisons and the Children’s Commissioner—I know that the relationship between those agencies and Government is incredibly uneasy, uncomfortable and often embarrassing. Ultimately, however, it is an important relationship for both sides and for people in general. It is crucial. To a large extent, when senior staff who work at those agencies decide to take on a democratically elected Government, they stick their necks out. They feel incredibly vulnerable in doing so and I assure the Committee that, when they do that, they do not do it lightly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth has said, it is an essential safeguard in a democracy that they are able to do that on behalf of people who, because of the way we decide to treat them, often remain voiceless in society.

If Ministers can simply remove a function that they do not like with one stroke of the pen, or, worse, remove a function that proves particularly effective as a safeguard for some of those groups, that safeguard will then disappear. It will disappear for some of the most vulnerable in our society and it will have a particular impact on them, but I firmly believe that, as a result, we will all suffer and that this is absolutely the wrong approach. I say to Ministers that, in reality, the knowledge that the Government could, at any time, make such changes will act as a brake on the actions of the EHRC and similar institutions. It will make the commission more cautious, less brave and less able to act as a voice for some of the most voiceless people in this country. It is right that the EHRC should be subject to scrutiny and to challenge and, I firmly believe, that it should be the subject of reform, but it is absolutely wrong that it should have its independence compromised to the extent that the powers in clause 3 allow.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham, Labour)

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Robertson. My hon. Friends are making a powerful case, but I want to highlight a couple of issues.

First, I emphasise the possible loss of funding as a result of the Government ‘s proposals. By reducing the budget of the EHRC, cuts will be passed on to voluntary bodies and advice agencies that provide important, essential advice. It is not at all clear how the funding gap will be plugged, especially because more responsibilities, as we have seen elsewhere in the Bill, are being given to citizens advice bureaux, and there are huge cuts to legal aid. I am concerned, as are a number of agencies that give advice about a whole range of discrimination issues, how people will get advice in future. Will the Minister address that point in his remarks?

Secondly, we are concerned that the wide-ranging powers that relate to schedules 3 to 5, taken together, could mean that the EHRC is changed so substantially that it is nothing more than a body in name only, with most of its enforcement functions gone. The Minister must address those real and important concerns this afternoon.

We know that the EHRC is not against change and reform, and Opposition Members are happy to see that, too. However, it is the way in which reform is being undertaken that worries us. If the Government want to change the EHRC, they should do so through primary legislation, so that the reform could be clear and transparent, and there would be effective parliamentary scrutiny. Everyone would then know what the Government wish to achieve.

That is an essential point because, as we are all aware, it is not as though the EHRC’s work is done and dusted, and we can now abolish it and move on. Previously in the Committee, we discussed ways in which women still do not have parity with men on boards of companies. A similar point about equal pay was raised just yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions. There is the issue of women’s representation in politics at a whole range of levels, and many areas are still not compliant with the Disability Discrimination Acts. A huge body of work has yet to be done, and there are many individuals who need advice about their specific situation.

Valerie Vaz (Walsall South, Labour)

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is aware that two important inquiries are going on at the commission. One is on Fiona Pilkington, the poor woman who was disabled and was harassed, and the other is on the human rights of elderly people in care.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham, Labour)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important point, which reminds me that one thing the commission wishes to do is extend the legal advice that it can give beyond these test cases, so that it will be able to give individual legal advice. We would very much like the Government to look at that matter.

It is not as though the job is done. An important function must still be carried out in terms of enforcing equalities legislation, in addition to the human rights legislation that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth described so effectively earlier. Unlike some issues that we have discussed, we have an idea about the changes that the Government want to introduce, and that is why we are so concerned. The Government propose to repeal the commission’s general duty under section 3 of the Equality Act 2006, to remodel section 8 to restrict the commission’s enforcement action to the Equality Act 2010, to remove the commission’s good relations function, to repeal the commission’s power to make provision for conciliation services, and it goes on. We know that the Government still intend to carry out those changes—like my hon. Friend, I am learning that appendices should always be looked at. In the back of the consultation paper “Building a Fairer Britain”, which is part of the consultation on the changes to the EHRC, we have a list of questions. Question 1 is:

“Do you agree that Section 3 should be repealed?”

Question 3 begins:

“Do you agree with our proposal to amend the section 12 duty so that it”—

and continues by describing the restrictions on what the commission will be able to do. Question 4 reads:

“Do you agree that the proposals to focus the Commission on its core functions, as well as the measures set out in Chapter 3 to increase the Commission’s accountability”—

and so it carries on. I will return to the question of accountability in a moment.

The Government are therefore consulting on the powers and functions that they want to change. Why not wait until we have the outcome of the consultation exercise? If the Government intend to listen to what comes out of the consultation, they could then bring forward primary legislation, rather than expect us to give such wide-ranging powers, to keep the body in the schedule and to run the risk of the powers of the commission being so reduced that it is rendered completely ineffective.

Jon Trickett (Hemsworth, Labour)

I must admit that the appendix escaped my attention, but those questions all seem to have a particular character. They all seem to lead people to develop a critique of the EHRC, which is fine, but only if there questions in there such as, “If you were faced with arbitrary power, would you welcome somebody independent of the Government to defend you?” Are the sort of questions that might reinforce the need for an agency, albeit a reformed one, in there as well?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham, Labour)

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Alas, the Government seem to have forgotten to include those questions on the list.

Nick Hurd (Parliamentary Secretary (Civil Society), Cabinet Office; Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Conservative)

The hon. Lady has kindly read out a list of questions under a general title of “Do you agree with what the Government are proposing?” Does she acknowledge that it is possible to answer that question with the word “no”?

Jon Trickett (Hemsworth, Labour)

Yes.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham, Labour)

My hon. Friend has answered for me. However, we need to discover whether the Minister will take notice of people who disagree.

Returning to the issue of accountability, there is some consensus across the Committee that we would agree to a strengthening of parliamentary scrutiny of this body, rather than to control by the Executive. In taking note of the outcome of the consultation and then bringing forward primary legislation, the Government will be able to respond positively to the points made during the consultation exercise.

David Wright (Telford, Labour)

Is this not symptomatic of what we have been told throughout the entire Committee stage: “We are going to take sweeping powers—but we are consulting at the same time”? Speech after speech from Ministers has said, “We want these powers.” They are sweeping powers, and I am sure that some Government Members would oppose such powers tooth and nail if they were in our position today. This is symptomatic of the way that Ministers are asking us to approve the Bill’s plans in this Committee and in the House more generally, while they are being consulted on. Is that not the worst type of politics? Does that not cause loss of public confidence in the whole style of government we have in this country?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham, Labour)

Yes, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. These actions add to the cynicism we know is out there. It would be helpful to have a statement from the Minister this afternoon about exactly how the outcome of the consultation will be disseminated and how the Government will act on it.

A number of us, particularly in the Opposition, have fought long and hard for the equality legislation we have. When it went through Parliament we looked very carefully at bringing all the various bodies together to ensure that there would be a very strong enforcement function. We do not want anything to diminish that function.

Nick Hurd (Parliamentary Secretary (Civil Society), Cabinet Office; Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Conservative)

I have learnt a great deal this afternoon. Thanks to the hon. Member for Arfon I learnt something about the Welsh origins of the word “Dover”. I learnt that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover spends time watching a TV channel the broadcasts of which he does not understand a single word, which was an interesting insight. It is a sign of his fatigue after slaving so hard on behalf of the people of Dover. I also learnt that I have something in common with the hon. Member for Hemsworth, which is that neither of us is an institutional  conservative. I am pleased that he did not make a case for the status quo of the EHRC. It would be hard to do that on behalf of an organisation that has not produced a clean set of accounts since 2007. There is an issue with the governance of the organisation.

The Opposition amendments would prevent the Government from making changes to the commission’s constitution and funding arrangements and from modifying or transferring the functions it currently carries out, so we will resist them. There is clearly a difference of opinion, or perhaps a misunderstanding of intent. I can entirely understand and have a huge amount of sympathy with the position of the hon. Members for Walsall South and for City of Durham. They pointed out that we have made considerable progress with the equality agenda, in a way that is increasingly embedded in how we think, live and work. That is the way of sustainable change. I understand any concern that that might in some way be jeopardised by a Government intending to reform public bodies set up to regulate and enforce equality.

The whole purpose of our reform is to try to make the body more effective. There may be a difference of opinion here—a different starting point—but our whole intention is to make the EHRC a more valued and respected national institution. Our view is that the way to do that is by encouraging it to focus on the areas where it alone can add value as an independent equality regulator and as a UN-accredited national human rights institution. In doing so, it must be able to demonstrate value for taxpayers’ money and be accountable. Our view, which is to be debated by those who know what they are talking about, is that in part it is the sheer breadth of the commission’s statutory duties that has contributed to what we see as underperformance to date, hampering its ability to articulate clearly its role and present a coherent programme of work. That is why we are embarking on reform.

Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton, Conservative)

The Minister is embarking on a cogent explanation of why the status quo is unsustainable. Does he agree that the issue is not only financial or a question of refocusing the commission on its core agenda, although I agree with him on that? In my view and that of my colleagues, its agenda should be anti-discrimination, rather than positive discrimination or the wider social agenda. A more important point cuts across the whole quango agenda: the same body should not be performing a lobbying function, a review function, a policy making function and then an enforcement function. It goes against the grain of accountability to allow the same body simultaneously to perform all those roles at one and the same time.

Nick Hurd (Parliamentary Secretary (Civil Society), Cabinet Office; Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Conservative)

I thank my hon. Friend for his opening contribution to the Committee, which is extremely welcome and comes from a great deal of experience. I entirely agree. To some degree, he validates the point I was trying to express: it is the breadth of what the commission takes upon itself that has the potential to undermine its effective role and what it alone can and should do.

On 14 October, the Government announced that they intend to retain—that somehow got missed, I think—but substantially reform the commission, focusing on its  core function of regulating equality and anti-discrimination law in Great Britain, of fulfilling EU equality requirements, and of being a national human rights institution. We also want it to demonstrate that it is providing value for taxpayers’ money, which it has struggled to do. Our consultation document, published in March, set out in more detail how we intend to do those things by both legislative and non-legislative means.

Opposition Members came back to the point about the public perhaps not being sufficiently involved or allowed to express their voice in this process. However, the consultation appears to have been genuine. The Government have received in excess of 1,000 responses. There will be a response to the consultation in the autumn. Experience has taught me that autumn can be quite a long season in Government terms, but my sense is that we want to get on with this, and so the response to the consultation will be forthcoming soon.

We propose three key areas for reform. The first is to clarify the EHRC’s remit, amending the Equality Act 2006 to clarify the commission’s core functions of regulating equality and anti-discrimination law in Great Britain, fulfilling EU equality requirements and being a national human rights institution. Listing in schedule 5 is necessary to effect those changes. The second key area of reform is to stop non-core activities and, where appropriate, make alternative provision by Government, or by other voluntary or private sector providers. Again, listing in schedule 5 is necessary to effect some of those changes. The third key area is to clarify the EHRC’s relationship to Government and strengthen further its governance and systems to provide greater transparency—a word that came up—and value for money. Listing in schedules 3 and 4 is necessary to effect those changes.

The issue of independence came up in a number of speeches from Opposition Members. The Government recognise the importance of the commission’s being able to exercise, independently of Ministers, its core regulatory functions, as well as those founded on international and EU obligations. The consultation proposals for a combination of legislative and non-legislative reform would ensure that the Government, the commission and Parliament have a clear and shared view about the nature and extent of the commission’s role—the “what”—which will leave the commission the necessary discretion on the “how”, while increasing accountability on its performance. The consultation closed in June and we are in the process of considering the responses received.

My main point on independence, which the hon. Member for Hemsworth did not pick up on, is that in the process of debating the Bill in the other place, the Government accepted an amendment which became clause 7. It requires that the modification or transfer of a function by an order under the legislation must not prevent it from being exercised independently of Ministers where it is a judicial function, whether exercised by a court or tribunal; where its exercise involves enforcement activities in relation to obligations imposed on a Minister; or where its exercise otherwise constitutes the exercise of oversight or scrutiny of the actions of a Minister. Lord Lester was cited, reasonably, as a gadfly in this process—great man—and he was quite right to press that point. Following discussions with Lord Lester,  including on his concerns about the EHRC proposals, clause 7 was included in the Bill to protect the necessary independence of functions by placing a requirement on Ministers that any provision must be proportionate to the reasons for it. That is largely why clause 7 is in the Bill. We believe that it is an important safeguard for the independence of bodies such as the EHRC.

The hon. Member for Hemsworth mentioned the letter from the ICC. I can confirm, although he knows this anyway, that the ICC wrote to us over the summer, and we have responded to the points that were raised. I am assured that officials from the Government Equalities Office will work closely with the ICC to develop the reform proposals in light of the consultation responses. I stress that we are not proposing any change to the commission’s human rights remit or its independence in holding the Government to account on their compliance with equality and human rights law. Our reforms seek to focus the commission on those core functions. We want the EHRC to become a valued and respected national institution that is more effective in its core role.

Lisa Nandy (Wigan, Labour)

I take on board the Minister’s points, but will he respond to my particular concern that an organisation that knows its functions may be changed or removed if it takes a particularly brave or challenging stance is much less likely to do so?

Nick Hurd (Parliamentary Secretary (Civil Society), Cabinet Office; Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Conservative)

I am not entirely sure that I buy that argument, or see its relevance, because any transfer of functions is subject to the processes of this enabling legislation. What emerges, therefore, will be black and white, agreed, understood and out there. I am not sure that continued uncertainty in the case of the EHRC will in any way undermine its purpose. Their lordships in the other place have nudged us to underpin that independence, which is the purpose of clause 7. In short, we want to maintain the commission’s independence as an equality regulator and as a level A national human rights institution—we do not take issue with that—while improving its performance, transparency, accountability and ability to perform its core functions. That is the underlying aim of the reform. I ask the Committee, therefore, to accept that the inclusion of the EHRC in each of the schedules is necessary, and I ask the hon. Member for Hemsworth to withdraw his amendment.

Jon Trickett (Hemsworth, Labour)

I am grateful to the Minister for the genial way in which he responded and attempted to address the issues that we raised. I am also grateful for his acknowledgement that we have not made a case for the defence of the status quo. His point interests me, and he makes a strong case that the structures, as they are or have been, are in need of review.

That is not the difference between us, nor is that where the Minister says he wants to be at the end of the process. There will be a national discussion, because many people in our country will be affected by the legislation in one way or another. Women make up the majority of our population, and other parts of the community rely on the legislation to some extent, too. It is also true that the changes embraced by the Minister require cultural change, rather than simply being imposed by statutory bodies such as the EHRC.

There has been a cultural shift in our country. We only have to look at the battle to introduce civil ceremonies. They were resisted, and there were concerns about whether we could reach a consensus on them, but there is a total consensus now and the ceremonies have become a matter of some satisfaction for almost everyone in the country. Much of that is cultural and so it should be.

The result of the review must be an independent organisation with teeth. That is not to say that it should not be accountable. Accountability for how the money is spent, whether value for money is obtained and whether the organisation is streamlined ought to be achieved through transparency, so that the public can see how money is being spent, and ultimately through parliamentary processes. What would be wrong—it is the problem with the Bill—would be for accountability to be through the Minister and through the Executive.

I have already spoken about human rights. I will not go into detail about the Paris Principles, on which decisions are made about accreditation, although I could. They make it quite clear that however an institution of this kind is structured, it must not be subordinate to or subject to the decisions of the Executive, but the Bill will produce entirely that situation. However the judgment finally emerges from the ICC, it has said that, whatever happens in the conversations, the proposed changes are so substantial that the UK would be required “to re-apply for re-accreditation.” Our peers are clearly worried about how we are proceeding in relation to human rights legislation. The same arguments apply to the equalities aspects of the EHRC. I will not reproduce them, because it is quite apparent what they are.

I want to finish with a couple of points that relate to clause 3. The Minister may have in mind a particular institutional form that will guarantee independence. He has shared part of what is in his mind—or in the minds of his colleagues who are directly responsible for the EHRC’s functions—but we have to deal with what is in the Bill. The Bill confers overwhelming powers to contain, change and effectively subject the EHRC to ministerial decisions, albeit that that will have to go through secondary legislation. That is disturbing.

Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton, Conservative)

I am not sure I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, and I want to rewind 30 seconds. Is he seriously suggesting that Britain’s membership of the International Criminal Court is being cast into doubt by these changes? Is that what he meant by the ICC? If I have heard it wrong, I apologise.

Jon Trickett (Hemsworth, Labour)

No, it is an organisation with the same initials. Am I mistaken? Is it the ICC?

Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton, Conservative)

Which is it?

Jon Trickett (Hemsworth, Labour)

I know that one of my colleagues will come back to me and intervene in a second with its precise title. I am referring to the organisation that sent the letter from which I quoted earlier.

Charlie Elphicke (Dover, Conservative)

Is it worth having the accreditation of an organisation that no one knows the name of, and that no one can recall beyond an acronym?

Jon Trickett (Hemsworth, Labour)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment, which gave me time to ensure that I had the initials right. It is the ICC, but it is the International Coordinating Committee. I read out the full title earlier, and I will not reproduce it again. It demonstrates that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton was listening to the second part of my speech but probably was not quite listening to the first part. There is a lesson there for both of us. Next time I will commit such things to memory so that I have no doubts in my mind, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman should listen to the whole debate rather than just part of it.

The point I was just making was that the powers in clause 3 are enormous. I accept the Minister’s stated intentions, but we are asked to vote on the Bill, not on what the Minister has said. The powers are too great to give. The EHRC needs to be reformed, and it has accepted that. However, it should be reformed outwith the process we are engaged in today.

I note that the Minister did not give us comfort that the conversations with the ICC are going to enable us to retain our accreditation. He said that conversations are still going on. The Government’s actions do not give us confidence that the independence of the body will be preserved. We have seen deep cuts in financial provision, which have already resulted in major disruption in the institution. Ministers have clearly flexed their muscles on the EHRC; I think because they disapprove of some of its actions. I do not believe it is simply about value for money. I believe there is a philosophical difference, which remains hidden. Cuts in funding are being made in order to bring it to heel. That is not an appropriate relationship between a Minister and an independent body. It is for those reasons we suspect the Government’s intentions.

Nick Hurd (Parliamentary Secretary (Civil Society), Cabinet Office; Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Conservative)

There is a difference of view on that. We genuinely see ourselves as encouraging the organisation to become more effective, by doing less but doing it better. The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the ICC, and he is entirely right that the changes proposed will require re-accreditation of the EHRC as a national human rights institution. I am not directly involved in those conversations, therefore I cannot give him the total reassurance that he seeks. However, I am sure there is nothing in our correspondence with the International Coordinating Committee—which I am happy to send to the hon. Gentleman—that indicates the risk he talks about. That is another undertaking for him—to see some of the correspondence, which I am sure will reassure him.

Jon Trickett (Hemsworth, Labour)

I very much appreciate that, and the Minister’s confirmation that it is the ICC. I think there is a third ICC, which is something to do with cricket. The point I was making while winding up is that we agree at least that there should be some change. However, we are suspicious of the Government’s intentions, though the Minister has given us some assurance. The truth is that we watch what a person does rather than listen to what they say. Watching what the Government have done so far is not encouraging. We therefore wish to press the matter to a Division.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham, Labour)

I just want to make some brief comments and to look at an issue that the Committee has not looked at so far. It relates to a number of bodies—the Broads Authority, the internal drainage boards, the Joint Nature Conservation Council and the National Park authorities. To speed up the business of the Committee I thought I would make the same point about all of them, but there is a more general point. Are the Government looking at the cumulative impact of changing the functions of a whole range of bodies that have been set up to conserve our natural environment and protect our beautiful countryside? We have not so far heard anything about the cumulative impact of changing functions across that range of bodies.

Huge anxieties have been expressed by a whole range of organisations which want to know whether the Government are doing that and about the extent of the changes that will be brought about. The Government did not really deal with the argument put forward in the other place that if they are merely going to propose minor changes, legislation already exists to enable them to do so across this range of bodies, either in local  government legislation or through part 8 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. If the Government intend to make only minor changes, why not use the existing legislation? If they intend to make major changes, there will need to be an impact assessment that goes right across the whole range of bodies that relate to the natural environment.

Hidden within that issue is a question about whether the powers could be so extensive that they could, for example, lead to the privatisation of national parks. That key question needs to be asked. The final point that I wish to make is, again, about the Government pre-empting public consultation, because we know that a consultation is out there about a number of these bodies. There are some very substantial questions and anxieties to be addressed.

Nick Hurd (Parliamentary Secretary (Civil Society), Cabinet Office; Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Conservative)

I can address those concerns directly in the context of this stand part debate on schedule 3. The clause gives Ministers the power to make provision by order to amend the constitutional arrangements of a body or office, and those powers are rightly limited to apply only to those bodies listed in schedule 3. In drafting the Bill the Government took the decision that we should be specific about the powers that will and will not apply to individual public bodies. Those bodies named in schedule 3 are given certainty about the Government’s intentions through the Bill. I can also confirm that listings in schedule 3 are subject to the sunset provision in clause 12 of the Bill.

Schedule 3 is necessary to give effect to the power in clause 3 and to enable specific reform proposals, including increasing the independence of bodies such as the Theatres Trust by removing the role of the Secretary of State and the reforming of the board structure of Passenger Focus to deliver administrative savings. As with all the principal order-making powers in the Bill, the use of the powers in relation to functions of the bodies named in schedule 3 is restricted by the safeguards that are described in clauses 7 and 8 and elsewhere. Orders are subject to approval by Parliament following a period of statutory consultation.

Schedule 3 is required to deliver a series of proportionate reforms such as those that have already been discussed by the Committee. Those reforms are designed to increase accountability and effectiveness in the delivery of public functions and, far from reducing a body’s independence, in many cases they will in fact serve to support it.

The hon. Lady asked whether anyone is effectively looking at the cumulative impact of the reforms, but she will know that Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are responsible for that. However, I will undertake to write to the appropriate DEFRA Minister to ensure that he understands the concerns expressed in Committee.

I reassure the hon. Lady that all the proposed changes will require consultation. I am assured that some of the changes will be very minor, but that new powers will be needed in the Bill. As I say, the point of the Bill is to create an enabling framework to allow subsequent reform where no existing legislative framework opportunity exists. The provisions are listed in the schedule for a reason, but all changes will require consultation. Her points about how joined up the measure is and whether people are thinking about the cumulative impact raise serious concerns. I will make sure that the relevant  DEFRA Minister is aware of them and will ask him to respond to her directly. On that basis, I commend the schedule to the Committee.