Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New Clause 14—Commission for Equality and Human Rights—Independence from Government—

‘Schedule [Commission for Equality and Human Rights—Independence from Government] has effect in order to improve the effectiveness of the Commission in exercising its functions under Part 1 of the Equality Act 2006.’.

New Schedule 2—Commission for Equality and Human Rights—Independence from Government—

‘1 Schedule 1 to the Equality Act 2006 is amended as follows.

2 Replace all reference to “Secretary of State” with “both Houses of Parliament”.’

On the basis of what clause 51 plans to do with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Opposition think that the new clause and the new schedule are needed. Suffice it to say at this stage that the Government are, with a combination of legislative changes in the Bill and budgetary and staffing reductions elsewhere, emasculating the EHRC.

Will the shadow Minister give us his perspective on the current finances and budgets of the organisation, and comment on any recent reports he has read about the mismanagement of the commission’s finances?

I am on my first paragraph, so let me come on to that later. I have plenty of time and opportunity to do so.

I think that everyone was shocked when they saw this clause. An Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which is apparently charged with boosting this country’s competitiveness and supposedly enables businesses to be freed from burdensome and unnecessary regulation, should not contain such a clause. What a clause the purpose of which is to water down and weaken the body tasked with protecting and promoting equalities and human rights is doing in the Bill, is quite beyond me. I want to stress to the Minister—I think he agrees with me—that the promotion and protection of equality and human rights is not, and should not be seen as, regulation. The Opposition therefore no longer have confidence that the Government will be a strong supporter of the commission charged with tackling inequality and human rights, and on that basis we tabled the new clause. The issue would be better served by having the commission independent of Government and accountable to us in Parliament.

John Wadham, legal director of the EHRC, stated to us in evidence that the Bill was a missed opportunity to make the commission accountable to the House rather than to Government. He said that

“this is a missed opportunity by the Government to bring in some provisions that we would like to see. These are the harmonisation between our equality and our human rights remit; and perhaps most importantly, a process whereby we are accountable to you,  Parliament, rather than to the Government. We are a non-departmental public body, which means that we have a sponsor Department, currently the Government Equalities Office, which is part of the Home Office. Although that is a traditional approach that Government take to such bodies where they have to have some kind of arm’s length independence, we believe that a better and proper independence, preferred by the United Nations when it set out the Paris principles for bodies like ourselves, is the case of the Parliamentary Ombudsman and Electoral Commission. It is easier to demonstrate our independence.––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2012; c. 76, Q168.]

Mr Wadham referred to the Paris principles—

Did the Labour party consider such a change when it was in government for 13 years?

That is an important consideration, which we thought long and hard about. I will come on to that at length as I expand my argument, but we concluded that there was such cross-party support for the concept of a commission for equality and human rights that it could stay within government and not be tampered with—for want of a better term. Given what is going on in clause 51 and the budgetary concerns and cuts of up to about 60%, however, we now think that it needs to stand alone, which brings me back to the Paris principles.

Those principles are a set of core minimum recommendations adopted by the United Nations General Assembly relating to the status and functioning of national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights. Paragraph 2 of article 33 of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities requires countries to take the principles into account when designating or establishing

“mechanisms…to promote, protect and monitor implementation of the…Convention.”

According to the Paris principles, such mechanisms must: be independent of the Government, with such independence guaranteed by statutory law or constitutional provision; be pluralistic in role and membership; have as broad a mandate as possible, capable in the context of the convention of collectively promoting, protecting and monitoring the implementation of all aspects of the convention through various means, including the ability to make recommendations and proposals concerning existing and proposed laws and policies; have adequate powers of investigation, with the capacity to hear complaints and to transmit them to the competent authorities; be characterised by regular and effective functioning; be adequately funded and not subject to financial control, which might affect their independence; and be accessible to the general public and, in the context of the convention, in particular to persons with disabilities, including women and children with disabilities and their representative organisations.

Those principles are, frankly, under threat given what the Government are planning for the EHRC, in particular in terms of that broad mandate to promote, protect and monitor, the need for adequate powers of investigation and the adequacy of funding. Thus, at this stage, the commission would be best served if the first Paris principle was more explicit on independence from government. That is our argument for the new clause.

I spent the weekend looking at Hansard, on Second Reading in the House in November 2005.

I thought you were listening to the Stone Roses.

I was probably listening to the Stone Roses while reading Hansard.

I am leading up to the point made by the hon. Member for Solihull. I was a Member at that time, and I was particularly struck by the contribution from the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who is a leading figure in the Conservative party and is now the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. She said:

“In the debate in the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor pointed out that one of the basic foundations of the Bill is ensuring that everyone can participate in this country's economy. We have to do all that we can to enhance the competitiveness of our country”—

I agree with her. She continued:

“Streamlining the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission into one commission for equality and human rights will, I hope, provide a framework for a simpler, more easily accessible and consistent approach. Indeed, many businesses have welcomed the Bill”.—[Official Report, 21 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 1318.]

So why in a little over five years has there been such a change in the Conservative party’s position? Why are the Government doing what they are doing with the drastic reduction in funding and, via the clause, severely restricting the commission’s remit? Why have we had such a change when the official Conservative party position was not to divide the House on Second Reading in November 2005? I know I am asking the wrong Minister here, but are we seeing the return of the nasty party? I hope not and that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree and vote against this clause. I could not possibly say that the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is an example of the nasty party, but I am happy to give way to him.

What does the shadow Minister think about the fact that the National Audit Office under his Government refused to pass the accounts of the commission for three years running? Does he think that is an example of a well run organisation?

I do not know whether I have pointed this out, Mr Brady, but I am an accountant by profession. It is almost as bad as being a chartered surveyor or even, heaven forbid, an employment lawyer. I can be called a lot of things. A politician is one of the worst insults in modern-day society and an accountant not much better, but at least I am not an employment lawyer.

Have you talked to your boss about that?

I will not be in my current position for very long if I keep talking like that. But I digress. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am the first to state that having rigorous budgetary provisions and rigorous internal financial control mechanisms is vital for a well run organisation. But that does not mean that the remit of the organisation should be slashed so that it cannot promote equality and human rights. The  two things are quite separate in this regard. I would join with the hon. Gentleman in asking the auditors to make sure that this is a well run organisation with a good and comprehensive system of internal financial control, allowing it to carry out its objectives but not to use that as an excuse to do what is happening under the clause.

The hon. Gentleman said that he was reading Hansard at the weekend. He must have been reading and drinking at the same time because John Wadham’s evidence to this Committee was that this change was not an issue that he was very concerned about. Why is the hon. Gentleman creating this big hullabaloo about nothing?

Is the hon. Gentleman in order to say that I was drinking while reading Hansard, Mr Brady? I have to seek your guidance before I answer him.

I am happy to give my guidance. I have not taken any advice myself but my interpretation would be that to accuse you of being drunk during a sitting of the Committee would be entirely out of order but what your weekend pursuits may be is another matter.

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Brady. To be fair, as the Committee has seen, being drunk while in the Committee is something that I seem to have been doing on a regular basis, given my contributions. The hon. Gentleman makes a serious and important point. He is right that Mr Wadham said that the commission could live with this. What I will say in the next few moments relates to the consultation that took place. Stakeholders have been vehemently opposed to some of the Bill, and I will come on to that.

Let us summarise what is happening in clause 51. It makes significant amendments to part 1 of the Equality Act 2006, which, as hon. Members know, was the legislative vehicle that set up the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The clause repeals section 3, which sets out the general duty of the commission. It repeals section 10, which imposes a duty on the commission to promote good relations between members of different groups. It amends section 12, which requires the commission to monitor and report every three years in society to the general duty as set out in section 3. As I have already said, section 3 is also set to be repealed. In addition to the specific changes in the Bill, the budget of the EHRC will be reduced by approximately 60%, and its staff complement reduced from 371 to about 150 in the next 12 months.

Let me come on to some of the provisions contained in clause 51 one by one. On the repeal of section 3, the commission’s general duty, the Government have argued, in their consultation, “Building a fairer Britain: Reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission”, that section 3

“has no specific legal purpose and does not help to clarify the precise functions EHRC is required to carry out”.

As far as I can see, the main purpose of that general duty was to provide clarity on how the courts or tribunals interpret the legislation or provide guidance to other bodies. The repeal of this section will have the opposite effect to that which the Government claim. It will fail to clarify and will, in all likelihood, have the opposite effect. It will probably result in more uncertainty and more litigation. The commission will become a body largely limited to enforcing anti-discrimination legislation. Coupled with the plans to review the public sector equality duty, the Government must recognise the risk for the commission. It will be reverting to a failed and discredited model of compensation for individual victims of past discrimination, rather than being more positive and addressing the structural causes of inequality.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that that will cause great legal uncertainty. However, it was John Wadham, the general counsel for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who said:

“This Bill reduces our powers and our remit, but not in a way that we are overly concerned about.”—––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2012; c. 79, Q176.]

Surely that completely contradicts the case that the hon. Gentleman is making.

But let me retort by saying that the Government’s own summary of consultation responses states:

“A minority of those who responded to this proposal, supported its repeal”.

Indeed, for those who responded yes or no on this specific issue, only 14% of respondents agreed to the repeal of section 3. In contrast, the Government summary also states:

“The majority of respondents were opposed to repeal and were concerned about losing the guiding principles and values set out in the general duty, which had been debated in Parliament during the passage of the Equality Act 2006.”

Norman Lamb rose—

I am happy for the Minister to intervene; in doing so, will he respond to that point? If that is the case, and if there is such a marked wish among stakeholders and respondents to the Government consultation, why are the Government continuing to insist on a repeal of this nature?

It is clear that the responses to individual questions were rather limited. There were large numbers of responses to the consultation and they included more than half of individual respondents calling for the body to be abolished. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we should follow the view of more than half of the individual responses? Following his logic, that is what we should be doing.

Touché. That is a good point. May I move on? [ Laughter. ] That is not a bad victory for the Minister this afternoon, I have to say.

On a similar point, clause 51 also repeals section 10 of the 2006 Act, which deals with repealing the duty to promote good relations. Again, the Government state that they believe that that duty is no longer necessary:

“The EHRC’s most valuable work in this area, for example, its inquiry into disability harassment, or its ‘Map of Gaps’ which mapped services for women who have experienced violence, could  be done as part of its core equality or human rights work, complemented in Scotland by the work of the Scottish Human Rights Commission…We believe that scrapping these unnecessary duties will help the EHRC to develop a more integrated, and coherent work programme overall—enhancing its capacity to discharge its equality and human rights duties effectively.”

In the commission’s response to the consultation, however, it argued strongly for the retention of the duty:

“We agree that the current formulation of the good relations duty, which owes much to an outdated conception of how to improve race relations, is no longer as useful as it was to our predecessors. However we consider that removing the Commission’s ability to use methods other than legal enforcement is a serious error, particularly in view of the government’s own desire to tackle identity based inequality with ‘soft law’ measures.”

I thank my hon. Friend, the former accountant, for giving way. Does he agree that, at a time of tension in many communities around issues of culture, race and faith, the Government are sending out the wrong message?

I do. The proposal sends out the wrong message and it weakens what the commission can do and its status within society.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has given way, because I, too, read Hansard—how exciting it is. [ Interruption. ] I have even read it sober, indeed, but I wish I had not. However, the part of Hansard that I think is important is the Second Reading debate, when the Secretary of State was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on whether any jobs will be created and on what the proposal was doing in an enterprise Bill for jobs and growth. The Secretary of State replied that it will probably not do anything for jobs and growth, but that “the detailed implications” can be pursued later. What would my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool say in response to that?

I will say two things to my hon. Friend, and I am glad that he has been reading Hansard. First, my strong view is that this clause should not be included in an Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, as it is beyond this ragbag Bill’s scope. Secondly, my hon. Friend was on the Front Bench on Second Reading, and he will remember that in response to interventions from the Opposition the Secretary of State called the clause a “tidying up” exercise. I do not agree with that at all, and I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government’s intention. The clause is not a tidying up exercise; it is a deliberate attempt to try to reduce the scope of what the Equality and Human Rights Commission actually does. I would be happy to hear whether the Minister should apologise on the behalf of the Secretary of State for that “tidying up” remark.

I would like to pursue this point a little, because my hon. Friend mentioned the questioning of the Secretary of State on Second Reading and the actual quote from my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) in Hansard reads:

“How will the provisions of clause 51 on repealing some of the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to the general duty and the good relations duty have any impact on business whatsoever?”

The Secretary of State replied:

“I was going to mention that measure at the end of my speech. We see it essentially as a bit of legislative tidying up; we are not going to argue that it has significant impacts on business. However, we can pursue the detailed implications.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 75.]

Does my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool think that a 60% cut in anyone’s budget is just a “legislative tidying up”?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some of the provisions in the Bill are somewhat paradoxical and contradictory. My hon. Friend has, with a great deal of skill and precision, spent a huge amount of time challenging the Minister, a former employment lawyer, on employment legislation. There was cross-party support for the belief that it is wrong to reach the stage of a formal legal tribunal case and that some degree of consultation and conciliation before that event is wise. The clause, however, pushes the commission towards a court-led approach when fulfilling its duties as opposed to pre-court conciliation, and that seems at odds with what is being proposed elsewhere in the Bill.

Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 enables the EHRC to provide conciliation services. The Government propose to repeal that, including closing the complaints service for disabled air travellers and asking the Civil Aviation Authority to provide the service instead. The Government argue that the service provided by the EHRC to date has not been cost-effective and duplicates services available elsewhere. The commission’s contract with its present conciliation provider came to an end on 31 March 2012 and has not been replaced.

The Government state that

“the new Equality Advisory and Support Service”,

which I understand will be commissioned by the Government Equalities Office from the private sector or civil society,

“will provide an opportunity to encourage greater take up of mediation and conciliation by victims of discrimination and by those against whom allegations of such discrimination have been made.”

They argue that

“leaving the”

Civil Aviation Authority

“to provide a complete service could help to further incentivize the industry to improve compliance, minimizing the costs to industry and delivering a better outcome for disabled air travellers.”

Again, citing the Government’s own consultation, only 28% of respondents agreed with the notion that the CAA should deal with disabled air passengers’ complaints. Does the Minister think that the transfer of disabled air passengers’ complaints to a body managed by the airlines injects a necessary level of independence and impartiality into the complaints procedure? The commission strongly opposed that proposal during the consultation, saying:

“The Commission considers that this proposal, which will involve legislative reform, would undermine the direction of ministerial policy. In any event, it is wholly unnecessary, given that should ministers wish to discourage this approach, they are able to reduce funding to the Commission for this purpose, as is proposed in relation to advice and guidance. The proposed removal of the Commission's mediation and conciliation powers could lead to an increase in lengthy and expensive litigation by forcing private and public sector organisations down the more costly compliance rather than conciliation route.”

I reiterate the point that I made in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South. The proposal is inconsistent with the Government’s trying, in part 2 of the Bill, to emphasise conciliation over expensive compliance and litigation. Does not that demonstrate that this is a ragbag Bill? Frankly, one arm of Government, or even one arm of the Department, does not know what the other arm is doing.

We Opposition Committee members have used the words “ragtag Bill” on occasions, but does my hon. Friend agree that “omnishambles” might be closer to the point?

It is an omnishambolic ragbag. I could go on at length—[Interruption.] And I know that Committee members are keen for me to do so. However, it comes down to a single point. Clause 51 has no part to play in this or any other Bill. Given the previous cross-party support and what the Minister secretly thinks about this matter, I am surprised that it was included. It is a nasty clause and should not be in the Bill. I urge Committee members to vote against the clause standing part of the Bill, but if they do not, I hope that they will agree to the new clause that we tabled.

I join the shadow Minister in saying that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady.

Before I get on to the proposed new clause, I pay tribute to the unsung heroes of Hansard. We talk a lot about the work of Hansard and it has been mentioned many times in contributions by Opposition Committee members this afternoon. Its reputation for accuracy is impressive. On Tuesday, it accurately recorded an important exchange between myself and the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd. I was addressing an important competition issue and the hon. Gentleman is reported as intervening with “Atishoo!” I do not think that I have ever seen that in writing before. My response was,

“Bless you. That was quite a shock.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 10 July 2012; c. 501.]

That is recorded for posterity.

On that point, given that it is now recorded twice in Hansard, and given that we are trying to promote efficiencies as much as possible, does the Minister think that there is duplication of effort here?

I think that we would need a Monopolies and Mergers Commission to consider that.

Let me consider the clause. I have a high regard for the shadow Minister, but he indulged in mock outrage, which I guess I had anticipated. The contrast between his assertions this afternoon and what the general counsel for the commission told the Committee are telling.

I listened very carefully to the evidence and to the debate on the clause, and it seems that we have a streamlined EHRC that is playing a much more  strategic role. As a Liberal Democrat member of the coalition Government, I recognise the great importance of the EHRC, but will the Minister confirm for the record how important this coalition Government believe the role of the EHRC is?

I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Having an effective and highly regarded commission is incredibly important. The case for promoting equality of opportunity, regardless of gender, race and disability, is very important for a successful, competitive economy. That is why it is absolutely appropriate for the clause to be in the Bill.

Let me quote from the evidence given to the Committee by the general counsel for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and let us compare what he said with the shadow Minister’s claims—assertions—about the horror of what is proposed in this clause. The general counsel said:

“The proposals that change the remit of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in clause 51 will not make a significant difference to the work of the commission.”–[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2012; c. 76, Q168.]

Compare that with the shadow Minister’s claims that the provision is a dreadful attack, initiated by a nasty party seeking to undermine the commission’s work. On the basis of what the general counsel for the Commission said to this Committee, that is rubbish.

Does the Minister agree that if the commission is better run, its accounts are firmly operated, and it has a tighter remit, there is more chance that it will help with the issues that its mandate covers?

I completely agree. Vague motherhood and apple-pie duties do nothing for anyone. They flatter to deceive, and give people a view that the commission can achieve great things, which it cannot. Let us focus on the practical things that it is there to do. It might then be able to do them well and effectively, promoting equality of opportunity.

Surely the Minister is not telling the Committee, and agreeing with the Secretary of State, that a 60% cut in a budget is merely legislative tidying up that will have no effect whatever on the operation of the body.

If one looks at the way in which the money is being spent, one recognises that there is enormous scope for achieving real efficiencies in the organisation. The Opposition are congenitally incapable of considering the concept of cutting public expenditure. I remember well the former Prime Minister who could not allow himself to use the word “cut”. We went through weeks of anguish waiting to see whether he was capable of saying the word. The Opposition are still in a parallel universe where it is not necessary to bring a £150 billion a year deficit under control. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

There is a distinct contradiction in the Minister’s view. On one hand, the Government are saying that the Opposition are allergic to cuts, and on  the other the Chancellor says in the House that our cuts were as bad as those he is proposing. There is a distinct contradiction on whether we have cuts.

Before the Minister responds, I remind him that we are discussing not the Budget, but the structural implications of the Bill.

I am grateful to you, Mr Brady. I was addressing the Budget in response to the intervention, but let me get back to the important views of John Wadham, general counsel to the commission:

“We would want to keep some of the provisions that are being taken away, but they are not as significant as they might perhaps seem looking at the legislation.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2012; c. 76, Q168.]

He also said:

“This Bill reduces our powers and our remit, but not in a way that we are overly concerned about.”

Will the Opposition get real on this? Will they recognise that we are talking about streamlining, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon rightly said, will make the commission more effective in its important job:

“it is not a significant attack on our remit”— contrary to the shadow Minister’s claim—

“…but we will carry on doing our job and doing it well, I hope.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2012; c. 79, Q176-177.]

On the cuts,

“Certainly, we are using this opportunity to become leaner and more effective.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2012; c. 74, Q162.]

That is a welcome recognition from the commission. If only that recognition were shared by the Labour party, we might start to get somewhere.

I am grateful, none the less, to Opposition Members for their suggested amendments—[Laughter.]—or so says the script. I will first address the clause, and then I will address the points raised by the amendments.

Equality is fundamental for a strong economic recovery. We have to deploy the abilities and capabilities of every member of our society. I had a discussion with a Conservative Minister who put that remarkably well: as well as the interests of individuals and ensuring that every individual is treated fairly in our society, by discriminating against some in our society, we massively underachieve economically in a competitive global economy. Ensuring that all of our citizens can contribute to economic growth is of fundamental importance. We have to make the best use of all the talent that we have. That is why a strong and effective equality and human rights body is a priority, which is what our reforms are intended to achieve.

We want the EHRC to become a valued and respect national institution. To do so, we believe the commission must focus on the areas where it can add value as an independent equality body and A-rated national human rights institution. Incidentally, the EHRC’s international A-rating is confirmation that it accords completely with the Paris principles that the shadow Minister referred to. The EHRC must be able to show that it uses taxpayers’ money wisely, which is a rather important responsibility, and I suspect, on reflection, the shadow Minister would  recognise that. To be fair to him, he conceded, as a former accountant, that that is important, but it is important that his party acts in accordance with that principle.

Since the EHRC’s establishment in 2007, it has struggled to deliver across its remit and demonstrate value for taxpayers’ money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to in his intervention on the shadow Minister, the EHRC’s first three sets of accounts failed to receive a clear audit opinion from the National Audit Office, attracting criticism from the Public Accounts Committee. In my view, this is depressing: the EHRC employed 140 interim members of staff at a cost of nearly £9 million in 2009-10, at a moment when one would have thought that our economy needed a bit of help from efficiencies in the public sector. That is almost half as much again as it cost to employ the remaining 440 permanent staff for that year and write off losses of £866,000 on a website that was never launched. The Labour party has talked a lot about the legacy of the previous Labour Government. Is the Labour party proud of that legacy?

The Minister quotes some compelling cost numbers. Will he concede, however, that as the accounts were not signed off for the past three years, those numbers must only be estimates?

I take that point. Interestingly, in the last year the accounts were approved, a period under this coalition Government, the EHRC struggled to deliver against its policy remit. For instance, the commission attracted criticism from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Not only has the EHRC struggled with its finances, but it has also been criticised by that Committee on its failure to integrate human rights into its work.

If that is the case, how has the EHRC still got the international A-rating that the Minister lauded earlier?

The EHRC was designed and structured by the Labour party in government to be a strong independent body. I am trying to say that the coalition Government want it to be very successful. That is not in any way to say that its work has not been worth while—it does very important work. We want it to be more effective, and to ensure that the legislative framework allows it to focus its mind on the really important challenges that it has to face.

We recognise that the failures in how the EHRC was set up, led and managed have contributed to its underperformance—there is no doubt about that—but we believe that some of its difficulties stem from a lack of precision in its legislative mandate, which is why the clause seeks to clarify its legislative remit. We consider that focusing the EHRC on its core duties will enhance its capacity to develop and deliver a coherent programme of work.

The repeals will not impact on the EHRC’s equality and human rights powers and duties under the Equality Act 2006. The EHRC will therefore retain its duty to promote understanding of the importance of human rights and the awareness of human rights, and to encourage good practice in relation to human rights. It will also  retain its duties to promote understanding of the importance of equality of opportunity and diversity and awareness of individuals’ rights under equality legislation, and to enforce the Equality Act 2010 and work towards eliminating unlawful discrimination and harassment. The clause will, however, remove vague duties that are not enforceable by an individual pursuing a claim in a court or tribunal, and that, according to John Wadham’s evidence, are of little value in terms of how the commission is charged with undertaking its core responsibilities.

On new clause 14 and new schedule 2, I should say how much we value the independence of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is assured by the 2006 Act that created it, and by it having been made clear that the EHRC is already accountable to Parliament through the Home Secretary—a framework that was designed by the Labour party in government. That is the standard approach in the UK: independence in law, coupled with financial supervision by a Department. It is consistent with the reforms that, following John Dunford’s independent review, have been proposed for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, another structure established by the previous Government, and the shadow Minister should accept that such a model is appropriate.

It is not therefore clear why a different approach is considered necessary for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In particular, we do not agree that the new clause and new schedule would in any way improve the commission’s effectiveness in carrying out its equality and human rights functions. Very few public bodies are set up or funded directly by Parliament, and those that are, such as the parliamentary ombudsman, have a parliamentary or regulatory function that is not comparable to the role of the EHRC. Parliament grants funds to the Executive, and it is for the Executive to account to Parliament through Ministers for the use of those funds and for value for money, which is why the vast majority of public bodies are set up in a similar way to the EHRC.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is held to account by Parliament in several ways. Its accounts are audited by the National Audit Office, which of course reports to the Public Accounts Committee. The EHRC’s annual report and accounts are laid before Parliament. Its activities are subject to scrutiny by the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In the past, both Committees have sought evidence from the EHRC, and whether they choose to do so in future is a matter for them. The EHRC’s reports on progress in society are laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 12 of the 2006 Act. The Home Office, as the sponsor Department, is committed to supporting the EHRC in managing a challenging programme of reform.

We have also taken steps to underline the independence of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. As the Committee may be aware, we are in the process of appointing a new chair of the commission, and under this Government, for the first time, that appointment will be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by a parliamentary Select Committee. Additionally, the board of the EHRC and the Home Office have agreed a  framework document that explicitly recognises that the commission must be free to exercise its statutory functions without interference from Ministers. We believe that the safeguards of the 2006 Act and the framework document are sufficient to ensure that the commission is able to fulfil its functions independently of Government. However, if the commission believes that the Government have acted unreasonably, or encroached on its independence, it has the ultimate safeguard of the courts, and may seek a judicial review of any such action.

We want the Equality and Human Rights Commission to become a valued and respected national institution. We have therefore worked hard to develop a reform package that we believe will, across the board, increase its transparency and accountability to Government, Parliament, and the public whom it serves. That is key to raising standards while ensuring its independence and safeguarding its A-rated status as a national human rights institution. I therefore ask the Committee to accept that the EHRC remains accountable to Parliament through the Home Secretary. John Wadham gave this Committee clear evidence about the very limited impact of the reforms on the way in which the commission can go about its important work under its core duties. I ask the shadow Minister to reflect on that, and to withdraw the new clause and new schedule. I commend the clause to the Committee.

I am grateful to the Minister, but I am afraid that he has not convinced me. From his body language, I do not think he has convinced himself. However, I do agree with him that every public sector organisation—indeed, any organisation—and not just the commission should ensure that it is lean, effective and provides value for money, especially when its resources come from the taxpayer. I thoroughly agree with that; that is not the issue. The concern is whether a 60% cut in its budget will be too much to allow it to fulfil its duties. We fear that repealing certain sections and removing some of the EHRC’s powers under the 2006 Act is counter-productive, and will make it difficult for it to fulfil its role.

May I ask the shadow Minister whether he accepts John Wadham’s evidence?

Mr Wadham is an important person—

Does the hon. Gentleman accept what he says?

Let me answer the question. Mr Wadham has raised important points. He is an experienced and knowledgeable member of the commission, so we obviously have to take some of his concerns into account. Given what is going on under clause 51, and given the budgetary cuts elsewhere, we fear that the commission will not be able to fulfil its duties. In normal circumstances, the current situation, as set up by the previous Government, would provide sufficient accountability to Parliament and sufficient independence. Given what is going on, we are concerned about the future stability of the organisation. It needs greater independence from Government, and greater accountability to the House. That is why we have tabled the new clause.

The shadow Minister acknowledged that the Opposition had to take seriously the concerns expressed by John Wadham, who specifically said that the reforms were

“not a significant attack on our remit.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2012; c. 79, Q177.]

Does the shadow Minister agree?

I looked closely at what Mr Wadham said to us in Committee, and at several other aspects of the consultation, and, on balance, we think that there is a threat to the commission, such that we tabled the new clause and new schedule. We still think that clause 51 has no part to play in the Bill, and that is why, with your indulgence, Mr Brady, I would like to test the Committee’s opinion. I appeal to the Minister, who, I think, shares some of our concerns, to accept that we need to strike the clause from the Bill.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that he should not read anything into my body language. As an ex-lawyer, I hate vague legal duties that achieve nothing. I call them motherhood-and-apple-pie duties—the sort that do nothing for anyone, and potentially flatter to deceive. I think that both he and I would sign up to the absolute importance of doing all we can to secure equality of opportunity; there should be no discrimination on grounds of gender, race, orientation, disability, age or anything else. People should be treated on the basis of their abilities. We agree with that. We want an effective organisation that spends its money properly and focuses on its core objectives.

I cannot remember whether I am intervening on the Minister, or have taken an intervention from him. He is a formidable employment lawyer; when he becomes a former Minister, going back to the legal field will be a lucrative business for him. As an author, he will have to revise the book. He spoke about motherhood and apple-pie, but if that is what he thinks, did he raise his concerns during the passage of the 2006 Act? Why did he not table amendments to the effect that the clauses in question were irrelevant, would not help the commission with its duties, and needed to be tightened up?

I absolutely supported the Act, which was important and which consolidated and brought together different strands that had grown organically over many years. It was right to pass it. I am simply saying that the duties that we want to remove achieve nothing. It is right to focus on core responsibilities and take the advice of the commission’s general counsel, who said in evidence to the Committee that there is no impact on its important work.

I thank the Minister for that response, but I reiterate what I said before. I would like to test the opinion of the Committee, as we think it important that the clause be struck from the Bill.

It may be helpful to the Committee if I explain that, although we have debated new clause 14 and new schedule 2, any Division on those would come later in the Committee’s deliberations.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.