---

Fundamental Rights Agency (EUC Report)

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, for introducing this debate in his maiden speech. I extend my thanks also to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, who so ably chairs our Sub-Committee G. Like her, I wish to concentrate on the European Union institute for gender equality. Perhaps I, too, may say how much we value the work of Gordon Baker, our estimable amanuensis, who is so helpful in preparing the reports which are presented to your Lordships’ House. We did, perhaps, start off sceptically in viewing the gender institute, but I for one became convinced of its aims and purpose. I think there is merit in collating information and data across the European Union on the different approaches to gender matters and, of course, in seeking to interpret what is gathered together. When I think of our own country and the pioneering Acts that a former Member of the House—Baroness Castle of Blackburn—brought about in the 1970s in regard to equal wages, I realise that we still have a long way to go. I am sure that is very true elsewhere in the European Union and it is worth trying to seek out the reasons for that and whether we might take actions in common together. Let us take, for instance, the question of access to promotion for women in jobs. There are glass ceilings throughout Europe; they are just set at different levels. Again, I think it would be worth exploring why that is the case. The same applies to access to training and education. Having a gender institute will give us an opportunity to spread best practice. By comparing and contrasting practices throughout the 25, soon to be 27, countries of the European Union, we can see where we do well and where others do better. We could then, perhaps, incorporate their ideas into our practice and our ideas into theirs. Indeed, I would describe it as a spur for action. Not only that—it would save duplication. Rather than 25 countries reinventing the wheel—or, indeed, inventing the wheel—we can compare and contrast and perhaps learn from each other. A third role could be in the commissioning of new studies and areas of investigation. I have recently taken up an interest in a matter which is the subject of an all-party group in these Houses of Parliament, led by a woman MP—that is, the construction industry. One of the items it is exploring is the role of women in the construction industry. We want to make sure that in such an important industry we use all the opportunities we can to enable people to come through to offer their skills for the benefit of each and every one of us, but I have no idea what the situation is like in the construction industry in other parts of the European Union. We are told that such an institute will not be policy-making, but what is the point if it does not provide the data and information to inform us better about these subjects and help to promote sensible and practical policies which might then be adopted by the European Union? Duplication is a theme of the debate and, in our committee, we wondered whether the work to which the gender institute is committed could be done by the United Nations or by other international bodies. Indeed, our report states, somewhat grudgingly, that yes, there may sometimes be a requirement for a specifically European focus which the UN and other international bodies could not be expected to give. I think that is absolutely true; the European Union is a different institution in many ways. To realise that, one has only to think of the single market and the freedom of workers to move across borders, which is important, and the sharing of childcare and opportunities for those families who do so to pursue work and jobs. Despite the differences of practice within it, the European Union is perhaps much more developed in its understanding and promotion of gender issues than other parts of the world. Therefore, it is worthy of a focus of its own. However, it is imperative that the European Union does not look inward as a result. I hope that it would be an exemplar for the rest of the world, which may later tread the same road. I return to the vexed question of duplication. Are there EU gender equality groups and institutions existing in Brussels which could do the same job; for instance, the EOC and its European Union equivalents? I think ultimately not. Were we to commission through them some of the tasks that we would require of a gender institute, their independence might then be undermined, which would be a bad thing. As the noble Lord, Lord Brown, pointed out, the duplication of the role of the fundamental rights agency is an issue: that is perhaps the nub of the debate today. I want to make clear the attitude, as I understand it, of Sub-Committee G. Paragraph 46 of our report states:"““We conclude that the case for a separate European Institute for Gender Equality has not been demonstrated””." It goes on to state that we should think of incorporating it in the European fundamental rights agency and so pass it on to Sub-Committee E. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, clarified that we believe that the institute is worth while. The question then becomes whether it is better placed under the FRA. That needs to be discussed. I agree with the Government that a separate agency is worth while—perhaps mine is a lone voice today. While I would encourage the Minister to explain why we appear to be doing something at European Union level which is different from what we are doing in our own country, I argue strongly that there is a coherence about the United Kingdom which would validate the idea of bringing such rights and ideas together under one agency, while the multitude of practice elsewhere in the European Union would suggest that a separate gender institute was preferable. I therefore agree with the Government’s keeping the two agencies separate, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, pointed out, it is imperative that they work closely together. While I welcome the institute, I too have serious concerns about its administration. We are entertaining the idea of there being 25—it may be 27 next year—representatives from the European Union on the management board. I know that there is to be an executive board and so on. That is over-larding things. It would be a mark of the European Union’s maturity if we were able to sort out this business; it is time. The highest need should be the effectiveness and efficiency of such agencies operating on its behalf, and we should not overload them with the principle that there must be a seat for each individual country. Indeed, with some imaginative thinking we can make sure there is parity of treatment for all nations within the European Union by taking and looking at the representation on such management boards for a number of agencies together. That would be the logical way of ensuring we could make some sense of this. We insisted the budget must be adequate. I harbour concerns that there is some sleight of hand going on here. We are told this has to be budget-neutral, but if the gender institute is to be properly financed, it will take away money from other possible areas. It is no good covering that up by saying it will be budget-neutral. It is not. It spoils other opportunities. On the legal base, I understand people’s concerns, but I am content that ““Incentive Measures”” is satisfied. Such an institute would be a spur to action by comparing and contrasting practice across the European Union. I think it is highly desirable. I also enter this caveat: I sometimes think that the legal base is very important, but we are talking about political realities. Sometimes we become semi-detached in our political commitment to the EU by hiding behind the cover of querying the legal base. Others carry on making progress in the EU, and we are still at the back arguing about that. I put my final concerns to the Minister, but they have already been broadly exorcised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. Will the Minister update us on some of the things mentioned in the Government’s reply to our own report? What happened in the social affairs committee on the common position? I am pleased to say that my former colleague Lissy Gröner has been promoting the common position in the European Parliament, and I am pleased to see her name attached to it. What is the budget position? Finally, what has been done and said in the April and May meetings of the working groups, which were trying to look at the vexed question I alluded to earlier of the representation on the management and advisory boards? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.