15 Dec 2005 : Column 1357
House of Lords
Thursday, 15 December 2005.
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Commission for Equality and Human Rights
Baroness Falkner of Margravine asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the Government announced their decision on the location of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights via a Written Statement in the other place on 24 November. The commission will locate the majority of its staff in Manchester with a significant presence in London. The commission will also have offices in Glasgow and Cardiff as well as a strong regional presence across Great Britain. Further work will be undertaken as to the way in which the functions of the CEHR will be divided between the various sites.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that 52 per cent of London's population is female, that 17 per cent of disabled people work in London, that 10 per cent of the country's lesbian and gay community lives here and that one-third of London's population is non-white? Was any consideration given to the commission's stakeholders when the decision was made to locate the bulk of its work in Manchester, or was effectiveness compromised in favour of cost in order to get something on the cheap?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, each of those factors was recognised in the decision. The decision was ultimately subject to a race and equality impact assessment. The result of the assessments was that the proposals do not impair either equality or race issues. On the issue of Manchester vis-à-vis London, there will clearly be a strong presence in London as I outlined, and of course there will be a regional network for London and the south-east.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I was a founder member of the Equal Opportunities Commission in 1975. My noble friend will recall that it was set up in Manchester. I recall that there was quite a lot of difficulty in getting good commissioners—apart from myself, of course, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and others—and staff. I wonder whether it is not just an apathetic and
15 Dec 2005 : Column 1358
conservative proposal that this new commission is to be established in the same city. Are not similar difficulties likely to arise?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I think not. I should emphasise that the decision was taken after an independent study was commissioned. That study explored various options. The criteria against which options were assessed included its business needs, workforce issues including availability of staff, as well as ODPM guidelines following the Lyons review. So I believe that there has been a thorough analysis. Stakeholders have been involved in this throughout the process.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who was born and bred in Manchester. I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on choosing such an excellent location. Manchester now is a booming city. There will be plenty of people who are fit for the jobs and the location will provide marvellous accommodation both in the centre and around it. I give my hearty congratulations to the Government.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to receive the congratulations of my noble friends.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to reassure me about the numbers of the "significant presence" in London? I have absolutely no objection to Manchester; indeed, we enjoyed an extremely good presence there initially. I visited Manchester only recently, and it has boomed considerably since the early days of the EOC presence. But can he reassure me about the London presence? We had to fight quite hard to have Manchester chosen, because initially we were going to be put in a far less significant place. Above all, however, we need a presence—and so will the equality commission—in London so that we are in touch with policy-making.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the fact that the commission needs a presence in London has been recognised. That is why it is part of the proposals. Final decisions on which tasks—and therefore which personnel—will be allocated to which site have not yet been taken. There will be ongoing consultation, but it is recognised that there will be a significant presence in London particularly to deal with the matter of influence in the issues, a key part of the commission's work.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I do not want to get in to the argument of whether Manchester is better than London, but surely a decision of this nature would best be left until the new commission comes into being, rather than the Government deciding where it should be set up. The commission will be in the best position to understand where its functions can most appropriately be carried out—whether London, Manchester or any other place in England.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I stress again that there has been a good deal of consultation and
15 Dec 2005 : Column 1359
engagement. A steering committee was set up and each of the existing commissions has been involved in it, setting the criteria and deliberating on the outcome of the independent report. The decision was taken now because we know that staff were unsettled; it was a key issue in their minds. It is right that the issue should be addressed early so that they are aware of what is proposed.
Non-departmental Public Bodies
11.06 am
Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many new commissions and other government bodies they have appointed in the past eight years with the task of implementing their policies.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Cabinet Office publishes annually information about non-departmental public bodies. On 21 November 2005, I announced the availability of the latest database information as of 31 March this year. Copies are available in the Library of the House.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I can well understand why the Minister is a bit coy about giving any numbers, because Big Brother has been a particularly prolific breeder. There are three reasons why Ministers should favour those bodies: first, that Ministers and their departments are not competent; secondly, that Ministers need to veil the increase in the numbers of the Civil Service; and, thirdly, that they badly need—every day the need increases—a layer of armour between them and the public.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not sure that I recognise that description of government at work. When the noble Lord was a Minister in the Department of Transport in the 1970s, I am sure that he would not have recognised it either.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the growth of those bodies is disturbing in so far as it erodes parliamentary accountability, due to the failure to provide any objective distinction between what is policy—and thus retained by the Minister—and what is administration and is passed to those bodies? Will the Government consider the possibility of giving some objective guidelines on the matter, so that Ministers do not hide when they ought to be answering to Parliament?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the truth is that non-departmental public bodies are accountable to Parliament through the sponsoring Minister. That system works well. There are also the various House committees to which they are accountable and they have to make regular reports to Parliament. It is not a case of Ministers hiding behind arm's-length bodies—
15 Dec 2005 : Column 1360
far from it. Bodies as wide-ranging as Channel 4, the BBC, the Milk Marketing Board, the Potato Council and a whole range of others are accountable to Parliament through the sponsoring Ministers.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is infinitely preferable for government to have assistance from bodies such as those referred to in the Question than for governments to pretend that they are the repository of all wisdom and pursue their policies single-handedly, even if they ultimately result in 15 per cent bank rates and expulsion from the exchange rate mechanism?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |