Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2011.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Good morning everyone. As I understand from my colleague who was chairing the proceedings earlier this week, there has been a full debate on schedule 1.

Clause 2 - Power to merge

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

Thank you, Mr Amess. I welcome you here on this beautiful, sunny morning. It is very good of you to join us again; we always look forward to your being in the Chair. Your presence makes us all feel more secure and safe, and that we will not blunder into areas where we ought not to go. I have to say that the porridge was slightly stodgy in the Members’ Tea Room this morning, but I know you will rule me out of order if we discuss porridge. From time to time the Bill feels slightly stodgy, too, but it does raise matters of profound importance.

Mr Amess, you said that there should not be a stand part debate on clause 1, no doubt because I ranged quite widely across the piece during my contribution to that discussion. However, I want to use this opportunity to mention our worries about the first five clauses, which are not exclusive to the Opposition: they have been expressed in another place, and outside the Houses of Parliament by constitutional experts and others. Constitutional experts and others are not necessarily always the people one ought to listen to on such matters, but they have raised grave concerns about the Bill. I will try to address them as briefly as possible and to ensure that they are on the record.

The Bill proposes to change the character of a series of institutions and, in some cases, abolish them. In many other cases, it gives the Minister wide-ranging powers in relation to their future. I imagine—I do not know if this is a fact—that every single one of those institutions has been created by primary legislation. Certainly, all the most important ones have been created by primary legislation, and no doubt we will talk about one or two of them today. Primary legislation is subject to the most detailed scrutiny, and there is careful engagement with the wider public. Although I cannot say that such legislation is, as a result, always perfect—no one would imagine that that is so—the parliamentary process is robust and searching. Ministers who come to the House and into Committee know they have to be sharp and clear in their arguments, and that the legislation needs to be at least reasonably robust.

The Bill’s first five clauses allow the Minister or the Executive to abolish or amend all the bodies named in the various schedules by order—by secondary legislation. The problem with secondary legislation is that, even in the form in which it has emerged from the other place, it is not as rigorous or as searching, and does not hold the Executive to account as robustly, as the process of primary legislation. One has to worry that what the Minister might present as mere administrative changes to save money—perhaps by merging personnel functions, as I mentioned the other day—are in fact giving the Executive far more powers. In some cases we are talking about institutions that deal with our liberty. We talked the other day about the Youth Justice Board, and there are other examples. For instance, today we will discuss under schedule 2 the certification officer dealing with trade unions. One has to worry that the process of secondary legislation is simply weighted slightly in favour of the Executive and, I would argue, substantially less in favour of the legislature. We know there always has to be a balance between the two. When we talk about institutions such as those that guarantee human rights to individual citizens—as we shall do in some detail—almost all experts agree that it is not right for such measures to be made through secondary legislation.

When we tested the arguments regarding the bodies being included the schedules, the two Ministers, who are decent people, frequently said that they were not yet in a position to give the Committee the details. I imagine that will be the case with clause 2 and schedule 2, and I understand that, because the process of government is complex and obviously, life moves on. The details cannot be finally resolved because the legislation is not yet in place. The problem is, therefore, that the detail of what will happen to the various institutions in schedule 2 and the other schedules will not be properly scrutinised by the legislature until the orders are laid.

The Bill is better now: the orders referred to in clause 2 are better than the Government originally envisaged, and to be fair to them, they acknowledged that in the debates in the other place. However, given that we are talking about constitutional arrangements rather than administrative functions, surely it would be better not to deal with this issue through the process envisaged in the orders in the schedules and clause 2.

As I said, I do not want to delay the Committee as there is a lot of business to deal with and we want to see the Bill complete its passage in Committee. However, it would be wholly wrong to allow the Committee to proceed without raising these questions. I put it to the Minister that some of the institutions we are empowering him to deal with in the way he envisages are central to the way the British constitution works, others less so. We have not sought to oppose the detail of these measures; we have accepted those, but asked questions. Can it be right that some of those major institutions, created after months of detailed debate of highly contested issues, in Committee in both Houses, should be subjected to the secondary legislation process? As we know, that process is simply not as rigorous as the one we are currently undertaking.

With those thoughts, which I hope will cause us all to reflect, I wait to hear what Ministers have to say. We will reflect on the orders when we reach the precise details later in the Bill.

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

Good morning, Mr Amess. The hon. Member for Hemsworth was listening when you said previously that you were susceptible to flattery. It flowed over you like the honey that I trickled over my porridge—which was indeed very stodgy—this morning. I will start with a few opening remarks about the purpose of clause 2, and why we consider it to be so important. I will subsequently address the hon. Gentleman’s important concerns.

Clause 2 gives a Minister the power to make provision by order to merge any group of bodies or offices listed in schedule 2. Such provision might involve the establishment of a new body or office—including provision for constitutional arrangements—to replace the bodies being merged, or the abolition of all but one body or office in a group, which would be the recipient of the remaining functions that were previously undertaken by the group. An order under this clause may also include a transfer of functions to an “eligible person”, as defined in clause 1(3), who is not included in the group of bodies or offices involved in the merger. As with all the principal order-making powers in the Bill, the use of clause 2 is restricted by the safeguards described in clause 7 and elsewhere, and it is subject to the requirement to consult in accordance with clause 10 and the parliamentary procedure set out in clause 11.

Perhaps I can take this opportunity to address the hon. Gentleman’s central concern: the constitutional propriety of the Bill and the opportunity it affords this place to scrutinise substantial reforms to several public bodies. He and the Committee will be aware that that issue was of great concern to the other place, and it was the subject of extensive debate and an extremely constructive Government response. A very material change was made to the Bill by dropping the original clause 7 and introducing other safeguards into the scrutiny process. We feel that the debate has been fully aired in the other place and that the Government responded in a way that satisfied the other place.

It is also worth noting a practical point, which the hon. Gentleman did not refer to, although I do not blame him for that. This is an enabling Bill that creates a framework for reforming a large number of bodies, and there is simply not enough parliamentary time or suitable legislative vehicles available to make all these changes in primary legislation. Doing so would frustrate Government priority and trigger a process that would be disproportionate, given some of the changes being proposed. That is why we have created an enabling Bill, but one that triggers a clear and transparent process that must flow for the vast majority of these reforms to be actioned.

The hon. Gentleman perhaps under-weights the debate that is allowed in Committee. We have had good debates already on some of the most contentious reforms. I suspect there will be a vigorous debate later today when we discuss the Welsh question, which will be extremely well attended by members of the public who take a great concern in that matter. I do not think the Government are hiding anywhere in terms of our need to debate these reforms and to respond to some of the understandable concerns raised by the Opposition.

As the hon. Gentleman suggested, the Bill triggers a process whereby Ministers are required, once they are clear about what they want to do, to consult properly on their proposals. He did not mention, and he should have done, that in that process the parliamentary Select Committees are entirely free and encouraged to scrutinise those proposals, hold Ministers to account and publish their own conclusions. Suitable orders have to be laid and debated. Where changes are more substantial or contentious, Parliament can opt for the enhanced affirmative procedure, which builds in greater parliamentary scrutiny to the order-making process. Given the complexity and scale of what the Government are trying to achieve and the practical difficulties of seeking opportunities through primary legislation to take through every single reform, this enabling Bill—innovative as it is, with the appropriate safeguards that have been put in place and what we believe is a robust secondary process—taken in the round, is certainly a constitutionally proper and sensible way of proceeding.

The Government envisage that the power to merge bodies in clause 2 will be used to simplify the public bodies landscape in the UK, improving efficiency and effectiveness by combining the assets and expertise of bodies with complementary functions. For example, the proposal to merge the pensions ombudsman and the Pension Protection Fund ombudsman would combine in statute two bodies that already work together to provide a coherent service. Our intent is underpinned by clause 8, which provides that a Minister can bring forward an order only if he or she considers it will serve the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions.

By removing clause 2, the types of change I have discussed would be reliant on primary legislation. As I have argued before, that would slow the much-needed and widely supported reform of public bodies to which the Government are committed, and would impose costs on the public purse by delaying the efficiencies that will result from some of the mergers. Accordingly, I contend that the power in clause 2 is both required and subject to appropriate restrictions, and I ask that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 - Power to merge: bodies and offices

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment 6, in schedule 2, page 20, leave out lines 18 to 20.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments 7, 9 and 12.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Thank you, Mr Amess. I welcome you to the Committee this morning and apply any flattery required to proceed.

Before we debate the group, it might be helpful to the Committee to make it absolutely clear what the Government’s intentions are. We intend to abolish the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council outright because its functions are either no longer required or are more properly performed by Government. The other side of the coin in the context of the schedule, which is about mergers, is to restate that the Government seek to remove the Civil Justice Council from the Bill because I do not believe that there is a genuine desire in this House or in the other place to reform it using the powers in the Bill. It was added solely as a stratagem to make the Government rethink their proposal to abolish the AJTC and I know that its removal, which we propose through the amendments, has the support of the senior judiciary.

It might be helpful to first set out the issues on amendment 6, the effect of which would be to remove the AJTC and the CJC from schedule 2. Hon. Members will recall that clause 2 enables Ministers, by order, to merge any of the bodies listed in schedule 2. Both bodies were added to the schedule by a non-Government amendment in the other place. The Government have no intention of using the powers, which would either replace both bodies with a single new entity or abolish one with the remaining one taking some of the other’s functions.

In jurisdictional terms, the CJC’s remit is confined to England and Wales, while the AJTC has functions in Scotland. The remits of both bodies are wide-ranging, and any merged body would be unwieldy, despite a small overlap in their work. Their focus is also fundamentally different: the administrative justice system includes not only appellate courts, but complaints handlers, mediators, ombudsman and tribunals, which are distinctive in character from the courts. The remit and workload of a merged body would therefore not be manageable.

There are also constitutional differences between the two bodies. AJTC members are paid, but Civil Justice Council members are not. Further, the secretariat that supports the CJC is not in a position to take on more work without an increase in resources, which cannot be done without jeopardising other areas of work in the Department. As I have said, the senior judiciary would not support a merger, which is a particularly important point, given that the Master of the Rolls is the chair of the CJC and that there are judicial members in that body.

Before setting out the Government’s rationale for abolishing the AJTC outright and retaining the CJC, I want to be clear that the AJTC is not a tribunal, nor is it any other form of judicial body. Its abolition would therefore have no direct impact on judicial independence or judicial decision making.

In reviewing all arm’s length bodies, we considered their costs and relative value for money, as well as changes that have taken place since they were set up. Our concern, which I hope is shared by all Committee members, was to establish which functions were no longer vital and where we could avoid duplication of activity.

In terms of cost, the AJTC’s budget for the 2010-11 financial year was £1.3 million. Such a sum could buy approximately 2,900 social security and child support tribunal sessions, or 11,650 cases. The Civil Justice Council’s budget for 2010-11 was relatively modest at £312,000. It has unpaid members and little in the way of secretariat support, compared with the AJTC. With that and taking into account the technical emphasis of its work, we concluded that the CJC should remain.

Although I accept that the Civil Justice Council’s functions are similar to those of the AJTC, in practical terms the CJC is still of value to the civil justice system because it directly supports the courts by providing advice on the technical aspects of civil costs and policy, as well as on pre-action protocols. The AJTC does not have a similar direct impact on the operation of tribunals.

The proposed abolition also takes into account what changes have taken place since the AJTC was set up, the most significant being the establishment of the unified tribunals service, which is now part of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. That service provides a coherent system of tribunals administration and judiciary for the tribunals within it, rendering obsolete the AJTC’s tribunals oversight function.

I acknowledge concerns that in the absence of the AJTC, the responsibility for administrative justice policy might be spread across several Departments, but the Ministry of Justice is committed to maintaining an overview of the end-to-end administrative justice system and not just tribunals. As part of that, the MOJ is working with other Departments that have an interest in this area, and it has built close links with the Cabinet Office, which leads on ombudsmen policy.

I now turn to amendments 7, 9 and 12, which would remove the Civil Justice Council from schedules 3 to 5. The proposals would take away the following: the CJC’s powers to modify its constitutional arrangements under clause 3; its powers to modify its funding arrangements under clause 4; or its powers to modify or transfer its functions under clause 5. The Government see no compelling case to utilise any such powers in relation to the Civil Justice Council.

The Civil Justice Council is sponsored by the Judicial Office, giving it a degree of independence from the Executive. The Government would not consider altering that arrangement, for example, by modifying the extent to which it is accountable to Ministers under clause 3. Additionally, the CJC’s constitution is one that represents extremely good value for the taxpayer. It has unpaid members drawn from the senior judiciary and the legal profession, as well as from commercial organisations and academia. It has only two full-time staff, and there is one other staff member, who is shared with the Family Justice Council. I therefore see no good reason to modify its funding arrangements using the powers in clause 4.

For similar reasons of efficiency, economy and effectiveness, the Government do not now seek to modify or transfer the CJC’s functions using the powers in clause 5. There is no other public body that could easily take on those functions, and we would not wish to abolish any of them without a replacement.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

The clause that we are debating is very serious, because an important judicial body is being toyed with. Will the Minister enlighten the Committee about why the body was included in the schedule in the first place?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I presume that the hon. Lady refers to the Civil Justice Council. The answer is that it was put in by a non-Government amendment in another place. It was a ruse. The theory was to protect the AJTC by putting the two together, knowing that the Government had no intention of abolishing the Civil Justice Council. It was felt that, by some strange osmotic effect, the clearly valuable, useful and continuing body would protect the other. It is not for me to second-guess the motives of others, but it was almost explicitly clear that that was the case. That is why the amendment will separate the two bodies. I assure the hon. Lady that it is not through the Government’s agency that we seek to meddle with the Civil Justice Council, which we think is a valuable body. The hon. Lady clearly shares that view.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

What impact will abolishing the AJTC have on the Civil Justice Council, particularly if it will add to the Civil Justice Council’s work load without additional resources?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The abolition will have no impact on the Civil Justice Council. The two are separate. The AJTC’s functions will be absorbed into the Department, partly as a result of the changes to the structure of the Courts and Tribunals Service effected by the previous Government, of which the hon. Lady was a member. There is no impact. If the Committee is minded to accept the amendments, the Civil Justice Council will remain exactly as it is. It will not take on additional functions because it does not have the resources to do so, even if it were desirable. In the present economic situation, I honestly do not think it is likely that new resources will become available. The Government’s view is that we should let this valuable body carry on doing its work in the way that it is doing it and that we should not try to interfere. That is a widely held view within the judiciary and the legal profession.

In summary, the Government remain committed to abolishing the AJTC, because its essential functions should be performed by Government, and to removing the Civil Justice Council from the Bill because there is no good reason to subject that body to reform using the Bill’s powers.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

The Minister is correct on how the grouping was put together in the other place. Their lordships had no intention, as far as I can determine from their debate, to impair, impede or in some way damage the work of the Civil Justice Council. Their debate was on the AJTC, and the grouping may have been a rearguard action to protect the AJTC’s future. I reread those debates, and a case was made, although it was perhaps not the most powerful case, for continuing some of the AJTC’s functions in a relatively autonomous body. I did not find those arguments overwhelmingly convincing.

We have heard that the Minister will protect the complete independence and integrity of the Civil Justice Council, but we will reserve our position.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s response. One of the features of the debates on the Bill in another place is that there was a ready supply of noble peers who either had served or were serving as chair of bodies, or were responsible for setting them up. There were strong arguments in favour of all sorts of public bodies. Those arguments perhaps had an excess of partisan zeal, but the hon. Gentleman is taking a level-headed approach to our amendments, for which I am grateful.

I hope that the Committee will now support the amendment.

Jon Ashworth (Labour, Leicester South)

I am absolutely delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. As a new Member elected four months ago and serving on my first Bill Committee, I hope the Committee will forgive and indulge me if my mastery of parliamentary etiquette has not reached the right level yet. I am sure you will guide me. Incidentally, as a 13-year-old interested in politics, I remember watching the general election of 1992 and I can still remember my disappointment at seeing your grin when the Basildon result was declared. [ Laughter. ]

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. That certainly does not come into my definition of flattery.

Jon Ashworth (Labour, Leicester South)

Little did I know that my disappointment would change to sheer delight at serving under your chairmanship.

I do not intend to take up too much of the Committee’s time, but I want to press the Minister a little further on the proposed merger of the Central Arbitration Committee and the Certification Officer. I understand why merging these two bodies is attractive to the Minister. They both operate in similar fields: industrial relations. They are both relatively small bodies. They share the same building. They are both serviced by staff from ACAS. Given all that, I suspect that the cost savings of the merger do not amount to very much, although I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says. However, their roles are very different.

The Certification Officer is a regulatory body. It regulates trade unions and employee societies. It regulates political fund ballots. Crucially, it determines whether a trade union is independent; a trade union needs a certificate of independence in order to operate and the Certification Officer decides that. So it regulates the internal affairs of trade unions and employee associations.

The Central Arbitration Committee arbitrates between unions and employees. In effect it adjudicates on applications relating to statutory recognition and de-recognition of trade unions for collective bargaining purposes. There are occasions when proceedings taking place in front of the Central Arbitration Committee cannot continue until the Certification Officer has ruled that the union or employee association has a certificate of independence. To be fair, the Central Arbitration Committee is generally seen as successful and impartial, which is very important. It has dealt with around 45 cases in the last year.

The two functions are very distinct. One is a regulator. The other is an arbitrator. I am not a lawyer, but I believe there are legitimate concerns that merging bodies with two different types of function could create conflicts of interest. It would not be desirable to have the same members of staff dealing with an internal dispute in a trade union, between a member of a union and the union leadership perhaps, and also dealing with that union and an employer. There are probably ways in which those differences could be ironed out.

Does the Minister accept that the bodies have two distinct functions? What safeguards are in place to ensure that these conflicts of interests do not arise? I understand that Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers have been in consultation with both the CBI and the TUC. Are they satisfied with the arrangements and that these conflicts of interests would not arise? Can he also confirm that because these bodies are so small, the savings would be negligible? Indeed, perhaps there could even be costs involved, because presumably there would be a new name, new stationery, new branding and so on. At least during the start-up phase, there would probably be costs involved, not savings. I would be keen to hear the Minister’s response to those few questions.

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

I am sure that Government Members are very grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South for taking us back to that glorious moment in 1992. I can assure you, Mr Amess, that the Hurd household, at least, was letting out a mighty cheer at that moment when your face first graced our screens.

I shall briefly respond to the hon. Gentleman, who raised some specific concerns about what he considers potential conflicts of interest, and about necessary safeguards. I undertake to ensure that the relevant Minister is aware of those concerns, and to respond to the hon. Gentleman directly in writing. I will obviously share that letter with the Committee once I have had a response from the relevant Department. We will place the letter in the Library to reassure the Committee.

Schedule 2 is an important element of the Government’s proposed reforms to public bodies and it exists to give certainty to Parliament about the intended scope and application of the Bill’s powers, specifically in relation to mergers. Clause 2, which gives Ministers the power to make provision by order to merge a group of bodies or offices, applies only to those bodies listed in schedule 2. I remind the Committee that, as is the case for each of the Bill’s schedules, a group of bodies can appear in schedule 2 only following the approval of Parliament through the primary legislative process. When a group of bodies has been listed in schedule 2, it is subject to the power in clause 2 for a period of five years. If Departments do not bring forward an order under clause 2 in that period, the listing of a group of bodies ceases to have effect, in accordance with the sunset provision created by clause 12.

I hope the Committee will be reassured by that important limitation on the scope and duration of the powers that the Bill will provide to Ministers. The use of those powers is further limited, as I have described in previous debates, by the requirements to meet the safeguards and procedures set out in the Bill’s later clauses. The powers are thus subject to the requirement for consultation under clause 10 and the parliamentary procedure set out in clause 11.

On mergers, I hope the Committee will be particularly reassured by the application of clause 8, which makes it clear that a Minister cannot bring forward an order to merge bodies unless they believe that the merger will serve the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions. The Government do not believe in reform for reform’s sake, but are seeking to create a more effective, accountable and efficient system for the delivery of public functions. The removal of schedule 2 from the Bill would, in effect, amount to a blanket removal of the power to merge, regardless of the policy intent behind it, denying the opportunity for the Government to remove duplication and increase efficiency.

David Wright (Labour, Telford)

Can the Minister give us some assurance? He has talked about a five-year sunset period, but clearly the Government will want to introduce orders. My experience as a Whip, both Government and Opposition, is that orders appear quickly and are considered quickly. Can he confirm that he will ensure that Parliament gets good notice of when orders will be laid? These are important matters, and the people involved will want to have some notice of what is happening in relation to this schedule and the rest of the Bill.

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

I certainly can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. As we have shown, the Bill sets out a process that requires consultation, and in that process adequate notice should be given of procedure. I certainly take on board the point about advance notice of orders. I ask him to bear in mind that, for the more substantive and controversial reforms, the legislation also enables Parliament to insist on an enhanced procedure.

Finally, removing the schedule would not be a proportionate response, particularly in light of the safeguards attached to use of the power and the duration of listings within the schedule. I therefore ask that schedule 2 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Power to modify constitutional arrangements

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 3, page 2, line 34, at end insert—

‘(4) No order shall be made under this section which will or may compromise the editorial or operational independence of Sianel Pedwar Cymru.’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 38, in schedule 3, page 21, line 11, leave out ‘Sianel Pedwar Cymru (“S4C”)’.

Amendment 54, in clause 4, page 2, line 42, at end insert—

‘(3) In determining or prescribing any amount to be paid to Sianel Pedwar Cymru under section 61 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 the Secretary of State shall ensure that the amount is sufficient to enable the Authority to fulfil its public service remit in respect of S4C Digital under section 204(3) of, and paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 12 to, the Communications Act 2003 throughout the period to which the amount relates.’.

Government amendment 10.

Amendment 57, in clause 9, page 5, line 3, at end insert ‘or would relate to Sianel Pedwar Cymru.’.

Amendment 56, in clause 10, page 5, line 31, at end insert—

‘(ea) the National Assembly of Wales, if the proposal relates to Sianel Pedwar Cymru,’.

Government new clause 2—Sianel Pedwar Cymru.

New clause 5—Welsh Authority—

‘For section 61 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (funding of Sianel Pedwar Cymru) there is substituted—

“61 Funding of Welsh Authority

(1) In 2012 and thereafter at intervals of five years the Secretary of State shall pay, or shall secure the payment to the Welsh Authority of, such amount as may be agreed between them to cover the cost to the Authority during the five year period of—

(a) providing the Authority’s public services (within the meaning of section 207 of the Communications Act 2003), and

(b) arranging for the broadcasting or distribution of those services.

(2) If the Secretary of State and the Welsh Authority cannot reach agreement for the purposes of subsection (1) by the end of August in the year preceding that in respect of which a payment to the Authority must be made, the Secretary of State shall by order prescribe an amount which is sufficient to cover the cost of the Authority referred to in subsection (1).

(3) In determining or prescribing an amount for the purpose of this section the Secretary of State shall ensure that the amount is sufficient to enable the Welsh Authority to fulfil the public service remit in respect of S4C Digital under section 204(5) of, and paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 12 to, the Communications Act 2003 throughout the period to which the amount relates.

(4) The Secretary of State shall not prescribe an amount less than the amount paid to the Welsh Authority in the preceding year or preceding three year period, as the case may be.

(5) An order shall not be made under subsection (2) unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(6) If a resolution required under subsection (5) is not approved, the Secretary of State shall secure that the Welsh Authority is paid an amount which is not less than the amount paid to the Authority in the preceding year or preceding period, as the case may be.

(7) The Secretary of State may discharge the duty in subsection (1) by making payments himself or entering into an agreement with another person for that person to do so (or both).

(8) In discharging his duties under this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the Welsh Authority’s operational and editorial independence.

(9) Any sums required by the Secretary of State under this section shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.’.

Government amendment 23.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

It gives me great pleasure to move the amendments tabled in my name and that of the hon. Member for Arfon. Let me say at the outset that I do not intend to divide the Committee on them, in the expectation—hope, perhaps—that the hon. Member for Clwyd South will request a Division on amendment 38. At this stage, mine are probing amendments on fundamental issues that have perplexed and worried many people in Wales over the past few months.

I am sure that members of the Committee who do not represent Wales did not expect the volume of correspondence that they have received on S4C and, if they were not familiar with the arguments, they will at least be aware of the strength of feeling provoked by Welsh language broadcasting. Should they scroll through the Welsh to the English translation at the bottom, they will be educated about many issues of concern. Many of the e-mails look remarkably similar, perhaps reflecting a well-orchestrated campaign to hoist the flag of S4C in the Committee. At times, attempts are made to denigrate well-organised campaigns in the House, but I assure the Committee about the great strength of feeling on this issue, and the fact that the e-mails are similar does not undermine the importance of this debate to Wales and to civic society in Wales.

The issue has been buttressed by the report on S4C by the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I and the hon. Member for Clwyd South are members. There was a robust debate in the other place, and I commend House of Lords Hansard to hon. Members. The former Chancellor, Lord Howe of Aberavon stated:

“I seriously urge my noble friend and the Government to refrain from including S4C in any part of this legislation. It is manifest from the quality and nature of this debate that S4C is something more significant than a mere instrument.”

He went on to suggest that the late Lord Whitelaw

“created S4C and would be turning and revolving in his grave, whether speaking Latin or English, in his denunciation of this proposal.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 March 2011; Vol. 725, c. 1634.]

We must be confident that the Welsh language television channel has the resources to provide a unique service for the community, the editorial and operational independence required to provide plurality, and the ability to take bold decisions to provide interesting and diverse programming for the future and meet the challenges of the multi-media age. My concern is that we have no plans before us that provide confidence in a strong future for S4C, which is why we should remove it from the provisions in the Bill.

We have few guarantees. The Government have acknowledged through an amendment that sufficient resources will be provided, but there are no criteria to define “sufficient”. There are many sentiments about the preservation of editorial independence but no guarantees, and therefore amendment 55 seeks to ensure the operational, as well as editorial, independence of S4C, which is crucial if we are to maintain a focus on the provision of Welsh-language television.

We cannot be content with S4C providing a bare minimum of Welsh-language content to satisfy statutory remits. It must continue as a quality broadcaster. In the Welsh Affairs Committee, we heard much about quality, particularly that of children’s programming and drama. Of course, S4C is not only a broadcaster but a vital tool for furthering the Welsh Government’s policies on the Welsh language.

For many Welsh learners—myself included—S4C is an invaluable tool for learning the language. It plays an integral part in a truly bilingual Wales, to which all four parties in Wales subscribe, and the holistic approach adopted by three Assembly Governments of different political persuasions. This is not a peripheral side issue about a broadcaster; it is increasingly relevant to anglicised Wales as it is to y fro Gymraeg—the Welsh heartland. While broadcasting is not devolved—although some of us may look forward to a move in that direction—and while Westminster exerts a huge influence on Wales through broadcasting policy, it is wholly reasonable to anticipate a meaningful dialogue with the Welsh Assembly Government.

Amendments 57 and 56 refer to the need to consult Welsh Ministers about any changes to S4C. The Bill sets out a statutory duty to consult Welsh Ministers in the making of an order under clauses 1 to 5 where they have competence or exercise functions. That leaves a significant gap, however, in areas where they have a significant interest but no legislative competence, and S4C is obviously in that category. Although I hope that the Government would consult Welsh Ministers on any changes, there is no statutory obligation, and any assurances that the Minister could provide would be extremely useful. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome shows a great interest in such matters. He was telling me the other day that he can pick up “Pobol y Cwm” in Somerset. I do not mean to be demeaning with that anecdote, because I know that my hon. Friend does care. [Interruption.] There seems to be some concern; “Pobol y Cwm” is a major programme in Welsh broadcasting.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

If I may just inform the Committee, I think “Pobol y Cwm” is the longest-running daily soap in the universe.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I will say some more about “Pobol y Cwm” in a minute.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that I used to watch “Pobol y Cwm” occasionally. I hope I will not be tested on current storylines, because I last watched it when Ioan Gruffudd—before he became a universal superstar—was still in it. It was some time ago that I would regularly watch “Pobol y Cwm”.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. “Pobol y Cwm” came up in the Welsh Affairs Committee discussions because in some quarters there has been an attempt to denigrate some of S4C’s viewing figures. When a comparison was made, for example, between the viewing figures of a soap opera in Wales and one viewed in England, it was clear that the figures were proportionally much higher in Wales than those enjoyed by English programmes in the English media.

The Government’s proposed new governance arrangements raise fundamental concerns. BBC Cymru and S4C are currently the only national Welsh language broadcasters, and they are competitors, albeit with some degree of co-operation—the BBC provides some significant hours of television for S4C. It is hard to see the Government proposing that the BBC should have seats on the board of Channel 4, but that is where we are in the debate about S4C. There is a case for looking at how S4C is run and funded, but it is hard to escape the conclusion of both the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that the process has been rushed.

I want to look to the future, which is what the debate is about, but I have to say that the consultation and dialogue at the start of the process were lamentable. The interim chief executive, Arwel Ellis Owen, told the Welsh Affairs Committee that, despite discussion with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in the weeks leading up to the announcement,

“come the day, I am”—

this is the interim chief executive of a major broadcaster in our country—

“travelling in a car to Swansea along the M4. I turn on Radio 4 and listen to the news that S4C is to have a 24.4% cut. That was the first I heard and I know that it was the first that S4C knew about it, despite the fact that we had been having, daily, weekly contact with the civil servants.”

That was completely unacceptable and, sadly, I think it reflects a lot of the so-called dialogue that has taken place with S4C.

Glyn Davies (Conservative, Montgomeryshire)

I thank my hon. Friend—colleague, or ally, I am not sure what the proper term is—for allowing me to intervene. He has made an important point about the 24% reduction. Does he agree that every other body funded by DCMS had a similar cut and that it would have been incredibly strange for that not to have happened? Because of the debate and discussion that had taken place, nearly everyone would have been anticipating and contemplating that that was the sort of thing to expect. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it cannot have been a great shock to anybody that that announcement was made?

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made a valid point. I shall turn to funding in a moment, but I think that that recognition existed. Certainly, in my discussions with S4C management over that period and in the discussions we had and the evidence we took in the Welsh Affairs Committee, there was acknowledgment that serious funding issues had to be addressed.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has made the point about funding and recognises that it is an important issue. It is, however, totally misrepresentative of the situation to suggest that we are discussing comparable cuts. On BBC funding, for example, the proposed cut to the World Service was 16%, but suddenly it finds itself with an extra £2.2 million, so it is a cut of 15.1%. The situation becomes even more serious when one realises that, while S4C’s total funding of £90 million for 2011-12 will come from DCMS—this is according to the Department’s own figures, which many of us contest—by 2014-15, the total funding will be 83%, 7% of which will come from DCMS and 76% from the BBC, although there is no sense in which it will be directly allocated to S4C. The BBC’s own funding is being cut by 16%, but it is claimed that, suddenly and miraculously, it will be able to fund S4C to the tune of 76%. Does that not cause great concern to the hon. Gentleman? Far from facing a comparative cut, S4C faces a disproportionate cut and one that could be further affected by the cuts to the BBC.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I know that people feel strongly about this debate, but I appeal to the Committee that interventions should be short.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

I apologise.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

There is plenty of time for speeches to be made.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

I concur with many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Lady. I look forward to an extended analysis of those figures in her speech after she has caught your eye, Mr Amess.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

The pertinent point for this debate is the one that the hon. Gentleman made earlier about the cuts being rushed through. The scale of the cuts is alarming to say the least, but the point is that they are being rushed through. The reason why we want S4C taken out of the Bill is that there has not been full and proper consultation.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts a comment that I will make a little later. Funding is clearly a major issue. The Broadcasting Act 1996 introduced an increase to S4C’s budget in line with inflation, a link that the Culture Secretary has indicated hastily that he wanted to break early in the life of the Government. Given the financial circumstances facing the Government, it was inevitable—this relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire—that questions would be asked of S4C. Indeed Alun Ffred Jones, the then Assembly Government Heritage Minister, said when he gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee that S4C should not be treated as a

“sacred cow that couldn’t be touched”.

The funding tail in this case seems to have wagged the governance dog. The governance arrangements of the BBC were a quid pro quo for taking on the funding. We have heard about the haste with which the agreement was reached, astonishingly without the knowledge of S4C. It was completely unacceptable that an agreement was reached in that way and that agreement should not form the basis of discussions about the future of S4C.

We now have a new proposal on funding from the Government. I have added my own proposal in the form of new clause 5, which I hope the Government will consider before the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. However, we are still talking about a largely undefined system of governance in which the BBC could assume a dominant position. The Welsh Affairs Committee’s report expressed our concern that

“The BBC…will not necessarily have the particular interests of Welsh language programming as its primary focus.”

That focus is the very rationale for S4C. And that is the key message—it is about ensuring that S4C retains its focus and expertise. Given that the Government are tackling the issue of funding separately, I do not see why we need to be wedded to the arrangement with the BBC.

The Government’s new clause may well be an improvement on the lack of any protection in statute, but it still leaves S4C funding in the gift of the Secretary of State. Any broadcaster needs significant notice about how much funding it will receive and what the arrangements will be, and that is what lies behind my new clause. It seeks to provide a floor, so that funding for S4C could not crash into oblivion. It provides what is lacking from the Government’s new clause; it provides the certainty and stability that S4C needs so that it can operate effectively and independently.

During the passage of the 1996 Act, the then Minister, Lord Inglewood, said something very interesting, which gets to the meat of this argument:

“The change in the funding formula”—

That is, the introduction of the funding formula, which the Government are now seeking to remove—

“makes S4C’s income more predictable and reliable and so will facilitate planning on a much firmer basis than is possible at present.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 1996; Vol. 568, c. 563.]

Later in 1996, he said:

“The funding mechanism proposed in the Bill takes as its starting point the payment to be made to S4C at the beginning of 1997 under the current formula, and it will be uprated annually thereafter by the RPI. That will put S4C’s funding on a similar basis to that of the BBC.”

That was the point that the hon. Member for Clwyd South made in her intervention—there is a disparity of funding between the BBC and S4C. Lord Inglewood continued:

“This funding will be guaranteed. It will be free from political interference.”

He went on:

“The order-making power in the Bill simply repeats the position in the current funding arrangements in the 1990 Act which enable the Secretary of State to take into account the costs of transmitting S4C. The order-making power is extended to digital. It is not intended to allow the Government to change S4C funding for any other reasons, nor does it in any way compromise S4C’s independence.”

He concluded:

“Our intention is to provide a steady and predictable income stream for S4C to enable both the broadcaster and the Government to plan properly for the future.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 1996; Vol. 569, c. 601-3.]

That is the key—S4C needs that certainty so that it can plan “for the future”. But Lord Inglewood also made the point that security is needed to guarantee independence and we should not understate the impact that the changes proposed in the Bill could have on S4C.

As I have said, I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, who is speaking for the Government on these matters, understands the importance of S4C to Wales. However, he needs to take back to the Government the message that the unintended consequences of the new arrangements could have a chilling effect on the independence of S4C. A long lead-in time is required for the production of programmes and so the decisions that S4C makes today about commissioning and production will be reflected in broadcasts possibly a year or two down the line.

The independent production sector has been a great success for Wales. The hon. Member for Arfon will remember that he highlighted that issue during the last Parliament in the Welsh Affairs Committee’s report on globalisation. It is absolutely critical that S4C’s editorial independence is guaranteed. I know that the Government talk in those terms, but it is far from clear that the negotiations as they stand provide for that. It would be helpful if the Minister could update us on the latest talks, because at this stage it is difficult to see a positive conclusion that is acceptable to both parties. That is why I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Clwyd South.

The Secretary of State set S4C and the BBC the challenge of working out the detail of the agreement. He outlined a number of features that he expects to see in the final model. Regrettably, those are not robust enough to guarantee independence. There are talks about S4C retaining its brand identity and editorial distinctiveness, but I am not convinced that that is the same as independence. There are talks about there being a BBC and S4C partnership along similar lines to MG ALBA, the Gaelic broadcaster, to begin by 2013-14, with S4C coming under a BBC Trust service licence or other operating agreement. The Select Committee and I went to Stornoway and met the operatives of MG ALBA. I praise much of the commendable work it has undertaken there, but the scenario is completely different. When I asked ALBA executives about editorial and operational independence, the answer was that it did not apply. There are also talks about there being a combined board of the authority and trust, a joint management board. The extent to which the BBC will sit on these bodies causes concern and brings into question the achievable goal of independence.

We are due to have a communications Bill next year, including possible changes to broadcasting. This would be an opportune moment for us to look at what we want from S4C as the national Welsh language television station, and how we can best provide that service rather than putting all our eggs in the proverbial basket at this stage.

In conclusion, I will once again refer to the Select Committee report, which called for a wide-ranging, independent review of S4C, encompassing its purpose, funding, services and governance. That was also the position of the four party leaders in our National Assembly in Wales: Liberal, Labour, Plaid Cymru and Conservative. That is what we need. These amendments give the Government the opportunity to take that course of action.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

My hon. Friend is making a powerful and stirring argument. Is part of his case that S4C is something that should be treasured? Localism and decentralisation are important principles when it comes to Wales and its future.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I look forward to the day when the devolution settlement extends to broadcasting. The undercurrent of his remarks is just how important this issue is to Wales. I have the privilege of representing a constituency where the language spoken on the streets is predominantly Welsh, and other members of the Committee are in the same position. The Welsh language has been a huge success story in the anglicised parts of Wales as much as the Welsh speaking ones. It is in that spirit that I have moved my amendment and supported others. This issue is of critical importance to people right across the country.

To conclude, these proposals have been rushed and we need that review.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

I have been looking forward to this debate, as have other hon. Members. We have had a large e-mail bag on this, to which the hon. Member for Ceredigion referred. He also referred to Lord Whitelaw, who famously complained that people were going around the country stirring up apathy. There was no reason for people to do that for this particular issue. It has quickly become a hugely important issue in Wales. Much of the content of my speech will replicate what happened in the ‘70s and ‘80s when S4C was first established. Although I do not want to indulge in any major or tedious repetition of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion made, I will, as the Plaid Cymru speaker on this matter, make a few points myself.

I support the amendments in my name and those that are proposed by the hon. Member for Clwyd South. S4C is not just another television channel. Its importance to the Welsh language can scarcely be over-estimated. S4C is the only TV channel in Welsh and that cannot be said often enough. These changes should not be made without fuller and proper consideration and consultation.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion told us about how the temporary head of S4C heard about his funding formula on the radio. Clearly, in their rush towards change, the Government were blinded to the effects of their behaviour.

There should be primary legislation on this matter. Forgive me, Mr Amess, but when I mention S4C I will sometimes use the Welsh pronunciation. When S4C was first established, there was a long-running campaign and a huge public debate about the matter, which is in contrast to what is happening now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South said, the Government intend to bring forward a broadcasting Bill, which is the appropriate way in which to address the future of S4C. Everyone accepts that the future of the channel needs to be reviewed, which is why I support amendment 38.

Some Members might think that my contribution is too wide-ranging. I hope that you will agree, Mr Amess, that it is contextualising. To understand the issues, it is important for hon. Members to have a background knowledge of S4C’s history. If I overstep the mark, Mr Amess, I will accept your reprimand and try to temper my enthusiasm.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

The Welsh language goes deep into the psyche of the Welsh people. I do not know whether hon. Members remember but some Welsh people used to have to wear the Welsh knot when they spoke the Welsh language.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

I thank the hon. Lady for that. I will refer very briefly to the history of the language as I go along. S4C is not just another TV channel but a unique social space for Welsh speakers, Welsh learners and even for those who do not speak Welsh because some programmes are subtitled. On Sunday, there is an omnibus edition of “Pobol y Cwm”, which is widely watched by people who do not speak Welsh. “Dechrau Canu, Dechrau Canmol” is “Songs of Praise” in Welsh and is watched by very many people, including myself. Some of us enthusiastically join in with the singing.

The point that I am making is that speakers of English take for granted these sorts of electronic social spaces. There is a huge output in English, from America, the United Kingdom and other countries. A huge amount of television material, be it films or whatever, is produced in English because there is such a huge audience. Those sorts of productions are taken for granted. We cannot do that in respect of Welsh because we have only this one particular channel. People commonly say that there are so many channels and absolutely nothing to watch. In respect of Wales, there is one channel and quite a lot to watch and we do not want to lose that. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion earlier on. It has also been made by many pillars of the Welsh community, including the four political parties, the Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan and many others.

There has been broadcasting in Welsh since the 1920s, but until the establishment of S4C, broadcasting in Welsh on both BBC and ITV was somewhat haphazard. That was unsatisfactory for English-speaking Welsh people and for Welsh speakers alike. The English schedule was different for Wales from that in England, and there was no consistent Welsh language schedule. Programmes that were important for democratic accountability, specifically news and current affairs, were broadcast late at night, and one had to make a point of staying up to watch news about what was going on down the road whereas one could access news about what was happening on the other side of the world at prime time.

With the prospect of a fourth channel being established in the 1970s, there was a determined and intense campaign for a Welsh language channel in Wales. I remind the Committee about that because it is easy to forget the tumult in Wales at the time, and I sincerely want to avoid going back in that direction. Consensus was eventually reached that the fourth channel in Wales would indeed be primarily in Welsh. Prime time broadcasting would be in Welsh but, as some hon. Members know, until recently some programmes would be in English as well. After a lot of campaigning, Channel 4 is now available throughout Wales.

Consensus has been reached in 1979, but the newly elected Conservative Government under Mrs Thatcher decided, in their first enthusiastic charge, that there would not be a Welsh-language fourth channel. There was an avalanche of protest. I remember it well. Indeed, I was part of it. Gwynfor Evans, then president of my party, threatened to fast on his tour of Wales to raise the profile of the issue. Mrs Thatcher eventually performed her first U-turn, despite not being for turning, and S4C was eventually established.

With your permission, Mr Amess, I want to step back briefly and speak about the new mass campaign in favour of S4C. The e-mails that you have received are a symptom of that. The campaign of the 1970s and 1980s eventually led to a consensus that cut across class, geography, language and political allegiances. It led to nearly 30 years of successful Welsh language broadcasting with scarcely a hiccup. That was the net effect, despite worries beforehand that there would not be enough material to fill the channel, that we did not have the talent and that we did not have this or that. Importantly, but tragically for some, the politics was taken out of these Welsh language concerns. I believe that it has an intensely political aspect, but although it was once hugely contentious, after 30 years of relative calm people now see it as being uncontentious.

Some Members will remember the campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s, led by Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, the Welsh Language Society. Again, I preface my remarks by saying that I am a dedicated parliamentarian. By their actions, the Government risk a return to those earlier days, but I ardently wish to avoid that. One young man has unfortunately already spent time in jail as part of the campaign, but I do not want to see that happen again.

I refer the Committee to the excellent autobiography by Lord Roberts, then Sir Wyn Roberts, called “Right from the Start”. In it, he recounts the events of that time. It is instructive, especially for new Ministers. Crucially, it was Lord Roberts’s advice that led to Mrs Thatcher changing her mind. I played a part in that campaign, as did many of my contemporaries—I was in my 20s then—but many of us are now highly respectable and prominent people in Wales. Circumstances led them to take part in the campaign, but it was not only young people who participated. We might face that again.

If you will allow me, Mr Amess, I shall tell a very brief story. One night, the television signal disappeared in the Aberystwyth area. When the police investigated the mast at Bleanplwyf, they arrested three middle-aged men, Ned Thomas, Pennar Davies and Meredydd Evans, respectively the editor of the premier English-language literary language magazine in Wales, the principal of a theological college and the former head of light entertainment for BBC Wales. Such people were persuaded to break the law, and I would not like to see that returning.

There were sit-ins, rallies, disruption of TV programmes, climbing of TV masts and interruption of parliamentary proceedings—the other day I asked a visiting constituent whether she had ever been here before, and she sort of coughed and spluttered and said, “Well, the last time I was here was in the early 1980s and I spent time in the cell”—which we have below Big Ben, I understand, for people who cause a disruption. There were court cases, refusals to pay fines and jailings. There was a clear danger at that time of the law being seen to be unjust and, I am afraid, held in contempt. I have a real fear that we will go back in that direction.

The Welsh Language Society is a careful organisation, and the principle that it employs is that of “dull di-drais”, the non-violent form of action. We are fortunate in Wales that that is how we were led at that time. Looking, carefully, over the water, we can see where less principled ways of action led the tragic island of Ireland. The method employed by activists was to break the law and immediately give themselves up to the police, admit their responsibility, plead not guilty in court, refuse to pay fines and, often, face prison. Some hon. Members will remember the magistrates who refused to find against people who were clearly guilty and who paid the fines of people they had just fined. We do not want that state of affairs coming back—the contemporary danger is obvious.

Glyn Davies (Conservative, Montgomeryshire)

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech with great interest, as with other contributions. I want to express agreement with a lot of what hon. Members are saying, but to compare the Bill with those times and to refer to the sort of actions then inflames things beyond reason and is certainly not appropriate in any way to the position we are in now. There is an element of irresponsibility in referring to the riots or illegal action in the past—that is not how the debate on the subject should be proceeding.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

I have not referred to the riots, in fact, but it is important that we remember what things were like last time we were in such a position. I make no apology for doing so. I certainly have no intention of inflaming the situation. As the record will show, my intention in drawing the attention of the Committee to such matters is to avoid a situation in which pillars of the Welsh community describe law-breakers as the finest of their generation, which is the situation we were in—the law was drawn into that dispute, rightly or wrongly, and that is the situation we are now in.

I will make some brief points about public policy on the Welsh language in general, which are contextual to our debate on S4C. Public policy for many years has been in favour of the Welsh language. People, including myself, argue that the proposed move on S4C is contrary to that longstanding public policy. I will not go through the entire history, you will be glad to hear, Mr Amess, but the situation we had over many centuries was that of Welsh being kept under hatches, including the penalising clauses in the Act of Union:

“no Person or Persons that use the Welsh Speech or Language shall have or enjoy any Manner Office or Fees within…the King’s dominions”—

that is, someone who spoke Welsh could not get a job. The language was not banned, but there was an impediment to people getting on in the world.

A long history of Welsh being under the hatches lasted until the Welsh Courts Act 1942, which allowed the use of Welsh in courts, and the Welsh Language Act 1967, which stated that Welsh had a certain, if not full, equality. The Welsh Language Act 1993, passed under the Conservative Government, announced the important principle that Welsh should be promoted and enabled by the Welsh Language Board. Then the Welsh Assembly passed legislation proposed in 2009, I think, setting up a language commissioner among other things.

The point that I am making is that public policy for many years has been in the direction of supporting and enabling the Welsh language. Now we have this proposal, which many would argue—rightly, in my opinion—is contrary to that statement of public policy. Many problems remain in respect of the Welsh language, which I will not go into now, particularly in education and employment rights. Crucially, however, television is not one of them. For 30 years, television has been excluded from that hot debate in Wales. During that time, television has engendered the prestige for the Welsh language that has been hugely useful in what is little other than its renaissance.

The Welsh language has been in decline for a very long time. During the 20th century, it declined from being spoken by around 50% of people at its high point to around 18.6% of people at its low point. S4C has been instrumental in raising that percentage. When the census results are announced later this year, we will hopefully see the classic hockey stick effect. There will be a reversal—I might term it a Lazarus effect—and the language will be rising from the dead.

The location of those Welsh speakers is even more important and interesting for S4C than the numbers and the percentage. About 40% of Welsh speakers now live in the east and in the cities, where Welsh is not spoken outside the home. It is not socially prominent. In those sorts of circumstances, particularly for young people who are going through Welsh-medium education, seeing Welsh on TV is incredibly important. That is the social space that they inhabit. Welsh also inhabits, by the way, social spaces on the web. We even have dating sites in Welsh, and Twitter and Wikipedia—my daughter would be very proud of me for remembering all those things—so it is all there, except when one looks at the possibilities for S4C with these enormous cuts. That social space, which is important for the 40% of Welsh speakers who live in the south and east, will disappear.

My other point about demography is that the age profile of Welsh speakers has changed markedly. When I first looked at the matter in the early 1970s, Welsh speakers were largely older people. Out of 100 people in the street, if one wanted a Welsh speaker, one chose the older people. By now, the profile has been entirely reversed. It is young people who speak Welsh, and young people who use television and the other electronic means to live their lives. S4C is doubly, trebly, quadruply important given the nature of our population.

I have detained the Committee long on the history and the context, but I thought that it would be useful. I reiterate that I am in no way advocating a return to the ’70s and ’80s, but that was the mess that we were in at the time. I appeal to the Government to change their mind on the issue and to take S4C out of the Bill, so that we can have a proper consideration over a year or more to ensure that S4C’s function in providing that social space for Welsh people and contributing to language planning is safeguarded.

Glyn Davies (Conservative, Montgomeryshire)

There is a convention that when Members speak under someone’s chairmanship for the first time, they make very flattering remarks about the Chair. I will restrict myself to saying how pleased I was in 1992 when I saw the results coming through. I hope that that meets the convention.

For me, thinking about and dealing with this issue has been hugely difficult, and I intend to support the Government position. That is difficult, because the words of the two hon. Members who have spoken so far could so easily have been part of my own speech. I will not repeat everything that they have said.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: amendment 38, page 21, line 11 [Schedule 3], leave out ‘Sianel Pedwar Cymru (“S4C”)’.

Amendment 54, in clause 4, page 2, line 42, at end insert—

‘(3) In determining or prescribing any amount to be paid to Sianel Pedwar Cymru under section 61 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 the Secretary of State shall ensure that the amount is sufficient to enable the Authority to fulfil its public service remit in respect of S4C Digital under section 204(3) of, and paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 12 to, the Communications Act 2003 throughout the period to which the amount relates.’.

Government amendment 10.

Amendment 57, in clause 9, page 5, line 3, at end insert ‘or would relate to Sianel Pedwar Cymru.’.

Amendment 56, in clause 10, page 5, line 31, at end insert—

‘(ea) the National Assembly of Wales, if the proposal relates to Sianel Pedwar Cymru,’.

Government new clause 2—Sianel Pedwar Cymru.

New clause 5—Welsh Authority—

‘For section 61 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (funding of Sianel Pedwar Cymru) there is substituted—

“61 Funding of Welsh Authority

(1) In 2012 and thereafter at intervals of five years the Secretary of State shall pay, or shall secure the payment to the Welsh Authority of, such amount as may be agreed between them to cover the cost to the Authority during the five year period of—

(a) providing the Authority’s public services (within the meaning of section 207 of the Communications Act 2003), and

(b) arranging for the broadcasting or distribution of those services.

(2) If the Secretary of State and the Welsh Authority cannot reach agreement for the purposes of subsection (1) by the end of August in the year preceding that in respect of which a payment to the Authority must be made, the Secretary of State shall by order prescribe an amount which is sufficient to cover the cost of the Authority referred to in subsection (1).

(3) In determining or prescribing an amount for the purpose of this section the Secretary of State shall ensure that the amount is sufficient to enable the Welsh Authority to fulfil the public service remit in respect of S4C Digital under section 204(5) of, and paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 12 to, the Communications Act 2003 throughout the period to which the amount relates.

(4) The Secretary of State shall not prescribe an amount less than the amount paid to the Welsh Authority in the preceding year or preceding three year period, as the case may be.

(5) An order shall not be made under subsection (2) unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(6) If a resolution required under subsection (5) is not approved, the Secretary of State shall secure that the Welsh Authority is paid an amount which is not less than the amount paid to the Authority in the preceding year or preceding period, as the case may be.

(7) The Secretary of State may discharge the duty in subsection (1) by making payments himself or entering into an agreement with another person for that person to do so (or both).

(8) In discharging his duties under this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the Welsh Authority’s operational and editorial independence.

(9) Any sums required by the Secretary of State under this section shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.’.

Government amendment 23.

Glyn Davies (Conservative, Montgomeryshire)

The only part of my speech that I managed to complete before the Adjournment referred to my pleasure at serving under the chairmanship of Mr Amess. One of my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, who is not here at present, said that I had previously gone through the same convention and that I had got it out of the way, but I was not just getting it out of the way. It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, too, Mr Robertson.

We are addressing a complex and difficult issue, which I will explain, and I will set out my reasons for supporting the Government’s position. The issue has attracted a huge amount of interest, and not only judging by the many hundreds of e-mails that we have all received. Because of my history of support for the language and for S4C, I have received many telephone calls and Facebook messages. I have been inundated as never before since becoming a Member of Parliament or at any point in my public life. The campaign has been incredibly impressive and the effort has been huge.

At an early stage I should admit that I understand the previous comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and by the hon. Member for Arfon, who is not in his place at the moment. I agree with a lot of what they said. I will not repeat their points, which I might have made had I spoken first, but I will address the issues that they did not. I will conclude by expressing my concerns and by seeking reassurances from the Front Bench.

It is not just today. We will be making a decision today, but we then have to go forward. There will be issues for future discussion, so reassurance on the record today will be helpful. From a statutory point of view, the issues relate to S4C, but the issue is not S4C, it is the Welsh language and S4C’s role in reversing the language’s remorseless, seemingly inevitable decline and in promoting the language for the future.

As an aside, I fancied being a writer, rather than a politician, when I was younger. I once wrote an essay on the future of the Welsh language at an eisteddfod that took English entries. I won a bardic chair—I have two bardic chairs. In that essay I concluded, and it was not an unusual opinion in the early 1970s, that the Welsh language would cease to be used as a spoken language and that it would become an academic language. Nobody would think that today. We have seen a complete reversal. The language is prospering today, and there is a real chance that it will be increasingly used. It is a real success, and S4C has played a significant part in that success.

I can reasonably say that Wales is a cultural nation, and the language is key to that. The language is what makes Wales different, and when people learn to speak it, it changes their entire attitude and approach. The language and S4C are crucial.

I refer to my personal history, because it is typical of the information and background about which the hon. Member for Arfon talked earlier. I come from a family in which every ancestor spoke Welsh as a first language—they are all from Montgomeryshire—but none of us did. I never heard my parents, who both spoke Welsh as a first language, speak Welsh to each other or in front of the children. At that time Welsh was the language of failure. To be successful, people had to be English and dominated by English. That has changed hugely. When I led a development agency, the economic benefit of the language became apparent to me, but it was only when I became a Member of the National Assembly for Wales that I really wanted to learn, and I did learn. Over the past 10 years, I have become quite fluent in the language and S4C played a big part in that.

I still remember my first interview with Rhuanedd Richards, who now has a position in Plaid Cymru, the party of the hon. Member for Arfon. Four words were written on a card, and it was hugely difficult to speak them. However, I can now do Welsh language on S4C’s “Question Time”. A lot of that was due to the support and the opportunities that S4C has given me and hundreds of others. Without it, I would not have learned. I am pretty certain that without it we would not be able to say that the future for the Welsh language was bright.

What I am saying might cause some nervousness for the Whip and Ministers, which is why I made it clear at the start that I support the Government amendments. However, there will be disagreement between me and the members of other parties who have tabled amendments. I have two reasons for supporting the Bill. First, maintaining the link in funding as it stood would not have been sustainable. The fact that the deficit had to be tackled meant that there would be public spending reductions. The funding for S4C would have increased at the rate of inflation when every other body was suffering cuts. It was inevitable that the link had to be broken. One could argue that it should not be broken, and say that consequences would arise from breaking the link, but it was inevitable. However, we do need reassurances from the Front Bench about those consequences.

The second question is about what underlies the purpose of the Bill, which is accountability. If public money is being spent—it is taxpayers’ money—there must be accountability to Parliament. In theory, it could be devolved to another institution, but there still has to be accountability to those who represent the public. That is what the Bill does. Questions of independence clearly arise from that, and it is that aspect that I wish to question in the last part of my speech.

I seek assurances from the Minister. The first has to be on future funding. We know that for the next five years the level of funding has been clarified. That takes us to 2015, but we do not know what will happen after then. However, Ministers have stated that sufficient funds will be made available. What I want—I suspect that many of those who have written to us want it—is for the Minister to go as far as he can in ensuring an adequate level of funding for the Welsh television channel as we know it, so that it will continue to deliver the kind of services that have made such a difference to the future of the language. That is crucial.

The second issue is the channel’s independence. There is huge concern that the BBC is a dominant body in the broadcasting world. Many find it difficult to understand how that domination can be controlled or managed to ensure that S4C remains genuinely independent. I hope that the Minister will tell us how that independence is to be retained. There is still work to be done; agreement between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, S4C and the BBC has not yet been reached, so reassurance on that point will be incredibly helpful to many.

Another aspect is editorial and programming independence, under whatever framework is agreed. It would have been helpful if we had seen that framework before today’s debate, but that was not to be. Agreement has not yet been reached, so there is an element of uncertainty. That is why this discussion must go forward, but the independence of S4C is crucial. Unless that is guaranteed as far as possible, the people of Wales will not trust the arrangement.

The governance structure is not in front of us today, which is a pity. The transparency of that new structure is important, because we have to understand exactly how it will work. We must know what is happening and there has to be some genuine accountability, so hon. Members, who represent the taxpayer, can see the exact agreement.

Finally, I want to ask about independent production companies in Wales, because the creative industries there have been an engine for growth. It is a cultural nation and those companies are hugely important for Wales’s future. A concern is that the BBC, which is a programme maker, will want to make programmes for S4C, when, as part of the existing arrangement, the BBC already makes £20 million worth of programmes a year. There must be absolute certainty and a cast-iron guarantee that the remaining funding—near the £80 million mark, or whatever it may be—is for independent companies. We do not want the arrangement to mean that some of the spending goes to the BBC.

There are many other points that I would have liked to make. This may sound strange, because even though the hon. Member for Arfon and my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion will vote differently from me, I agree with much of what they said in their speeches. They were reflecting serious concerns across the nation, from all parties on both sides of the House, and we are looking for as much reassurance on those issues as we can get today.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Robertson.

In the Committee stage of a Public Bill, there are few issues that Members can honestly describe as iconic, but I have no hesitation in describing the matter before us now in those terms. It is iconic not only for people in Wales, but for many people from Wales who live outside of the country and wish their children to learn the Welsh language, so that their families do not meet the same fate as was met by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and my father, where the Welsh language was once spoken in their families, but was not passed on to their children.

S4C is also vital inside Wales for normalising the use of the language. I speak from personal experience, brought up, as I was, in a household where one parent did not speak Welsh. I was always encouraged to speak the language and my community was bilingual. However, had it not been for S4C, I would not have not been able to speak Welsh in the way that I can today, and that is true for thousands of people across Wales. For that reason, I am here to speak to amendment 38, which seeks to remove S4C from schedule 3 of the Bill, and against new clause 2.

We have heard warm and supportive words from both sides of the Committee. Although I welcome that, we have to go beyond it into serious commitments. New clause 2 aims to abolish S4C’s existing funding arrangements, which are now carefully set at levels that reflect the channel’s commitments. They are replaced with a vague and undefined commitment to “sufficient” funding, as defined by Ministers, which brings to mind a phrase used by Lewis Carroll’s Humpy Dumpty:

“‘When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’”

The word “sufficient” will not do when it comes to funding our nation’s one Welsh language channel.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

I apologise for my late arrival, but I was attending to constituency matters.

On the question of what is sufficient funding, does the hon. Lady believe, as I do, that the judgment on what is sufficient on a day-to-day basis will not lie with Ministers at all, and that S4C will be dependent on the BBC’s judgment?

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but with the best will in the world, and even if the best model proposed was that of subsuming S4C into the funding structure of the BBC, one has to recognise that the BBC will be facing its own cuts of 16% and will have greatly reduced funding anyway. That is a great problem.

We are not here to make special pleadings for Wales. All we ask for is parity. Channel 4 itself is not in the Bill, and there is no sense that a Minister should be deciding the fate of Channel 4 in the same way. All we ask for is fairness and equality for our Welsh-language fourth channel. I know lessons have been learnt—I hope so—and the all-party Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, chaired by the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), commented that the original proceedings, which were undoubtedly shambolic, were undertaken with undue haste. We saw how S4C’s future was decided the night before the comprehensive spending review—a CSR, incidentally, that by its own admission notes a 25% cut in direct funding to S4C—without any consultation with the Welsh Language Board, the Welsh Assembly Government or S4C itself. The plan was so rushed that, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, the chief executive of S4C first learnt about it via the Today programme. He heard that direct Government funding would be cut by 94%, with some of the shortfall being made up by the BBC, with which S4C would form a so-called partnership. It is extraordinary that the so-called partnership will involve BBC representation on the board of S4C—in that context, words such as “independence” ring rather hollow.

Our cross-party report stated categorically that S4C is a value-for-money project. Indeed, around this time last year, or perhaps a little earlier, many of us enjoyed certain stories in the newspapers. We were almost waiting for the next selection suggesting that four people watched S4C, all were called Jones and, possibly, all lived in Caernarfon, apart from the three I know who watch it in Rhosllannerchrugog—a bit like the BBC Parliament channel at times—but that is not so. Looking at the figures in the Ofcom submission, we note that in 2009, 17% of all people in Wales watched S4C, down from the previous year. We do not know what the next census will say, but the previous one put the proportion of Welsh speakers in Wales at 20% to 21%. The 17% figure is therefore an extraordinarily high one and—dare I say it?—probably higher than the percentage of people, excluding Members of Parliament, who enjoy watching our good selves on the Parliament channel.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

To clarify the issue of viewing figures, would the hon. Lady not praise S4C, as I will, for the increase in viewers during a typical week in 2010? The increase was 12%, representing 616,000 citizens in Wales. The summer events programme of S4C saw an increase of 47% in its viewing figures. That is a growing success story, and we do not want to jeopardise that with what is proposed.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for making those points.

Many believe that S4C is not only a value-for-money project, which it is, but has played a crucial role in supporting and increasing the use of the Welsh language. I was most interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire about an essay for which he won an award many years ago. Only this morning, I was looking at a totemic work in Welsh, “Wythnos yng Nghymru Fydd”, by Islwyn Ffowc Elis, who is sadly not alive today but had he been, he would have been a constituent of mine in Clwyd South. In 1957, he wrote an almost Orwellian vision of two kinds of Wales: one where Welshness and the Welsh language was thriving; the where the Welsh language had practically died. That was the view in those days.

I will not go greatly into the history because we are not here for that; I will keep to the terms of the Bill. In my maiden speech, I made reference to the Welsh knot, and there were many other such factors in Welsh life as well, so it is no accident that, in historical terms, the Welsh language declined. Some such forces were statutory in origin, and our duty as law-makers, in support of the Welsh language, is to put that right. S4C is not and cannot be a minor branch of the BBC, with hugely diminished independence and power.

I spoke at a debate on media regulation in Westminster Hall yesterday and the Minister made some positive comments about S4C. A part of me smiled, because when the same Minister spoke before the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs he confessed he had never watched the channel; but he did have some liking for “Fireman Sam”—so that is progress.

Glyn Davies (Conservative, Montgomeryshire)

It is completely unacceptable to make any derogatory reference to “Fireman Sam”. I have a three-year-old granddaughter and I have watched some 20 episodes about 50 times in the past month.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

There will certainly be no future derogatory references to “Fireman Sam”. I am sure if Fireman Sam were here he would not only be speaking in favour of his channel—he would be voting for it.

It is nonsense to have a debate in which our only Welsh language television channel is seen as an obscure and expensive project, and a prime candidate to fill up a cuts quota. I believe in all seriousness that as a result of the Government’s proposals the future of S4C is in danger.

The Government have no excuse for not listening and making changes. I am not the greatest fan of the Thatcher Government; however, it is fair to say that they were prepared to change their mind. Interestingly, Earl Howe, whom I see was speaking in the other place, is totally against the changes to S4C. Perhaps the lady was not for turning, but she turned on that issue, because there was some recognition of its importance to the people of Wales. That importance remains today.

The Government may claim that they have listened to people in Wales by removing S4C from schedule 7. That, scandalously, would have allowed them to abolish the channel in future. I believe it would have been possible to keep the logo, although I cannot really see the point of that. They also plan to shift it out of schedule 4, and I support that; but they plan to do the same work through new clause 2. That is not enough. S4C needs to come out of schedule 3 and out of the Bill altogether. The BBC merger, funding reductions and uncertainty must not be allowed to go ahead.

I know that the Government will try to reassure us about funding. Under new clause 2 there would each year be a grant of funding that the Secretary of State “considers sufficient”. That is not good enough. Can we imagine the uproar in the House if suddenly Members of Parliament were told “We will decide on your salary, expenses and allowances: they will be what we think is sufficient”? That is what Wales’s only Welsh-language channel will face.

I am sure that the Government think that the provision sounds reasonable, but what does it mean? Nothing, in short: the warm but meaningless words lack precision or any specifics. How on earth is S4C to plan for its future if it does not know how much money it will receive every year? How can it rely on Ministers to judge what is sufficient if they have already shown a lack of understanding of the channel? If their understanding has improved, I welcome that.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

The provision will affect not only the channel itself but private organisations—independent producers—including many in my constituency. There will be a knock-on effect on them. Like the channel, they will not be able to plan. There is a large investment in my constituency from Cwmni Da, and that investment, with 50-odd jobs, could hang in the balance.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

I agree that the Bill affects a large number of jobs in the Welsh economy and the broadcasting industry—jobs in many different parts of Wales. It is a great worry. The word “sufficient” could mean anything in the world, and that is why it has been chosen. The Government will also try to reassure us over independence. We have been told in warmly worded statements about their unerring commitment to a strong future for Welsh-language programming and to S4C as an independent service. If that is true, however, why cannot S4C be taken out of the Bill and treated in the same way as Channel 4?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am worried about the hon. Lady’s continual references to Channel 4. Channel 4 does not receive public money. She does not want S4C to be treated in the same way as Channel 4.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

I do not wish to be impolite, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands my point. Channel 4 was originally included in the Bill, but it was taken out by the Lords. The hon. Gentleman should read the debate that took place in the Lords.

The Government, through schedule 3, want to take S4C’s independence away. The schedule looks innocent, but it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing that will allow the Government far-reaching powers over the way in which S4C is run. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has talked about the governance structure. The powers of modification to constitutional arrangements allow Ministers to change S4C’s key personnel in the future, block appointments to the board, or otherwise control the management structure. Ministers could therefore block the appointment of a person they do not like, or fill the board with people they do. How exactly is that supposed to guarantee editorial independence? It seriously undermines the channel’s ability to hold the Government to account.

If S4C stays in schedule 3, the Government have the ability, incredibly, to prevent it from employing any staff at all. Removing that power would be a sure-fire way of killing off the channel should any Government wish to do so. I know the Government will tell us that they do not wish to do so and they would never use the powers, but that prompts the question: if they do not need the powers and think they are wrong, why on earth is S4C in the schedule? It is welcome to hear that the powers will not be used, but I want to see it before I believe it. That is why S4C must be removed from schedule 3 and from the Bill. If it is not, it is Welsh-language programming that will suffer the most severely.

The Government claim that they are committed to Welsh-language broadcasting, but those assurances ring hollow from a Government who have not considered the full effect on one of their key institutions. They do not seem to realise that the current success of that industry has been built up over many years and will be irreparably damaged if S4C is chopped up according to their plan. I welcome all speeches, including that of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire earlier, about the importance of the Welsh language. We must not forget that this language has been classified as vulnerable by no less a body than UNESCO, and that S4C is the only television channel in the world that broadcasts in Welsh.

In 1901, there were five counties in Wales where 70% of the population could speak Welsh. Over the past 20 years, that has not been the case in any Welsh county. For all the success stories, Welsh has declined as a community language. However, thanks to initiatives such as S4C, we have seen a rise in Welsh speakers, although we should bear in mind where we have come from: at the start of the 20th century, 60% of the people of Wales spoke Welsh. It is anticipated that the figure will be 20% or 21%—more, I hope—in the census results, thanks to initiatives such as S4C. If we want to protect the language, we must take it seriously and support the institutions that use and promote it successfully, which is what S4C has done.

The Welsh Affairs Committee inquiry into S4C found that it played a key part in supporting the use of Welsh in homes and communities, and that it has brought Welsh into many homes where it would not have been heard otherwise. Crucially, we found that it provides value for money in doing so. S4C is doing well for Welsh and nothing else is going to step into that breach if S4C fails as a result of the Government’s current plans. A suite of rooms at the BBC controlled by Ministers and funded according to their assessment of what “sufficient” happens to be is not good enough.

I have said previously that I am not against having a debate on the future of S4C. Indeed, the leaders of the four main parties in Wales, including the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, have jointly called for a review into and an independent inquiry on S4C’s running. I support that, but the Bill will kill off the possibility of meaningful future debate. It aims to allow widespread, far-reaching and irreversible changes to S4C’s management and structure without further debate or scrutiny in Parliament. That is why we must take S4C out of schedule 3, through amendment 38, and reject new clause 2, which would cut off its funding. That is also why I want to press for a Division on amendment 38 at the appropriate time.

Earlier, the hon. Member for Dover spoke eloquently about localism and decentralisation. At another point in the Bill, he will raise issues pertinent to his community, and I am looking forward to that debate and our discussions. When hon. Members make this decision today, all I ask is that they will consider those of us for whom the issue is deeply pertinent and iconic. Those communities that have seen a decline in the Welsh language are now watching that change. The future of the channel and the Welsh language is in Members’ hands today. If S4C is removed from the Bill altogether, we will be able to have a proper discussion over what is best for its future. Otherwise, I am pretty sure that S4C as we know it will not survive. I urge hon. Members to put the vagaries of the party Whip and machine aside for once and to vote with their consciences, to vote in support of Britain’s only Welsh-language channel and to vote to take S4C out of the Bill.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

I rise briefly to support the speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Montgomeryshire, and for Ceredigion, which I have probably mispronounced entirely. One may ask why this issue would affect or interest the constituency and people of Dover. Like Wales, we are far from London, and we often feel forgotten about and neglected in—dare I say—a London-centric world. Inevitably, there is strong sympathy towards localism and decentralisation, but they must be effective.

It is no secret that not all Government Members are fully fans of the BBC, and some of us have had concerns about it at times. If the reform happens, one wants to ensure that S4C and Welsh TV are successful over the longer term. Increasing viewing share is particularly important. It has come down in recent years from, I think, 3.4% to something more like 3.1%, and one wants to see that increase. One wants more of a sense of a renaissance in the culture of Wales and for the Welsh language to be preserved, which my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire spoke about eloquently and passionately. I think I am right in saying that S4C was the creation of a Conservative Government under Margaret Thatcher, and it is in many ways a Conservative triumph and success story. It has been much loved and cherished by the Welsh Language Society and Welsh speakers across the board.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

The hon. Gentleman is closer to Wales than he thinks, because Dover is actually “dyfr” which means “the big water” in Welsh and that is where it comes from. I just thought that I would enlighten the Committee.

Following the praising of the decision to set up S4C, I want to emphasise the cross-party consensus in Wales on the matter. As the hon. Member for Clwyd South said, the Conservative party along with Plaid Cymru, the Liberals and Labour have taken an evenly fine view, and that is reflected across Welsh society in general.

Charlie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I believe that Ministers have at heart the cultural renaissance of Wales and the future success of Welsh language television. Sometimes, people in England, like me, do watch S4C. Those who subscribe to Sky, as I do, can actually watch S4C, as I have. I regret to tell the Committee that I cannot understand a word of it, but I have seen from time to time what seem to be some good soap operas. I am sure that other Members will be able to tell the Committee more about that, including my hon. Friend the Minister, who seems to be able to watch it and understand it from Somerset.

My only question relates to the Welsh Affairs Committee report on S4C. Paragraph 138 on page 35 states:

“We welcome the commitment made by the DCMS and the BBC that S4C’s editorial and operational independence will be maintained under any new partnership arrangement between the organisations. However, we have concerns about how this will work in practice. We call on the Government to spell out exactly how this independence will be guaranteed under the new arrangements.”

Wherever one stands on the movement across and the future funding of S4C, the key concern across the board for the Government is to ensure that S4C and Welsh TV is really successful, that it maintains its independence and cultural identity and that that is not squashed out of it by the dead hand of the BBC. Some of us in the Conservative party have our suspicions about that. How will that independence be preserved so that Wales can have the cultural renaissance about which my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and the hon. Member for Arfon so eloquently and beautifully spoke?

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

We welcome you back this afternoon, Mr Robertson. We have had an interesting debate and all the speeches have been powerful in their own way. They referred to the importance and interconnectedness of culture, language and identity. I have great sympathy for the points that have been made. I try to speak more clearly and to enunciate my words carefully when I come here because if I spoke in my normal Yorkshire dialect some people might find me difficult to understand. Parts of the Yorkshire dialect have died, and that which was retained was spoken in the mining communities by the men who worked underground so it was a male dialect more than a generic one. It is sad to see the death of a dialect, let alone a language.

Culture, language, a sense of identity and a sense of place all come together. When they are coterminous with a nation, it is clear how powerful the language is. It is at the core of identity. Of course, we know the language expired in a variety of different ways but, as was mentioned in several contributions, the British state played a role in seeking to eliminate the language. That is the truth and we may as well speak it out. That is partly how it happened. If that is the case, as it is, and what I have just said about identity is the case, which it is too, it is incumbent on Parliament, not to do any social engineering, but to create institutions that help to right a wrong that was done by previous generations of people in this place and elsewhere.

S4C is a partial attempt to assist in remedying that process. It is right that it was established. There has been much talk of the way the channel came into existence. There was a struggle for identity and that continues in Wales. There was a huge debate in the country and in the House about whether the channel should come into existence. The Government were in one mind and then another. In the end, justice prevailed. I say all that because we are about to change the way in which S4C operates in quite a fundamental way. I want to dwell on that for a few seconds, although I shall not speak for long because the contributions that have been made were so powerful.

The process by which the channel came into existence and the parliamentary debates and scrutiny that took place at that time will not take place this time for the reasons I gave earlier when I spoke on clause 2. The Government have decided to proceed with fundamentally changing the constitutional character of S4C by secondary legislation. I will not refer to the financial issues, although they are relevant. It cannot possibly be right to tinker with a television channel that is about identity and news production—the Government should not interfere in any way with news production—by changing the constitutional structures without a proper debate. Questions remain in my mind about how clause 3 will work.

Glyn Davies (Conservative, Montgomeryshire)

I just want to ask the hon. Gentleman for clarity on his position. Two controversial steps are being taken; one is to break the link in terms of funding, which is a particularly important issue, and the other is to secure some funding from the BBC licence fee for S4C. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would make it clear whether the Opposition disagree with either or both of those steps.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

We would prefer this debate to take place through primary legislation so that we can have proper accountability, rather than spending half an hour in the morning and an hour in the afternoon on an order that has not yet been laid before us. It is wholly inappropriate to tinker with a television channel. As everybody knows, how the funding operates can affect the independence of the channel, and I would argue that the way it is funded is only one aspect of the wider constitutional problems raised by clause 3 and schedule 2.

Let me briefly remind the Committee of the Minister’s powers under clause 3, which will potentially impact on S4C. The Minister has the power to change:

“the name of the body; the chair of the body…members of the body…employees of the body exercising functions on its behalf…the body’s powers to employ staff; governing procedures and arrangements…reports and accounts; the extent to which the body is accountable to Ministers; the extent to which the body exercises functions on behalf of the Crown.”

All those powers have to be exercised in a particular way, and we will come to that later. It cannot be right, however, to make such a change through secondary legislation. It cannot be right that a Minister should have such sweeping powers over an institution that is about culture, the reproduction of language and the production of local, national and international news. No doubt the Minister will say that he intends to exercise those powers carefully and through an intermediary institution such as the BBC, but the truth is that those powers are in the Bill. They will be implemented in future years not by primary legislation, which can be properly scrutinised, but by secondary legislation.

I listened carefully to the points that the hon. Member for Ceredigion made. He made an eloquent speech, but it felt to me as though he was having a huge internal debate over exactly how he feels about these actions. He said that he would not vote for the amendment because he believed—this was the only point he really made, on which he rested his case—that everybody has to be accountable. The problem is that we are not dealing with a normal clerical or administrative function; we are dealing with a TV channel. TV channels require independence, and I do not need to spell out why that should be the case. In the case of an institution created to help to reinforce a culture, which to some extent was oppressed by the British state, it is even more important that independence is guaranteed. Is not there a tension between the need for independence on the one hand, which is absolutely essential for a TV channel, and the case he makes for accountability on the other?

I believe that every institution, including TV channels, if they are funded publicly, should be accountable. That is obviously the case. However, the way that we choose to make certain institutions accountable should not jeopardise their independence, and that is true for an institution such as S4C. There is a tension. The hon. Member for Ceredigion rested his case on accountability, but this is not accountability, this is subordination. It is the subordination of S4C to orders laid in council—not proper legislation—subject to perhaps an hour or hour and a half’s debate probably in a Committee somewhere, but perhaps on the Floor of the House, and to a Minister in Westminster rather than Wales. It is a retrograde step and we cannot support it. [Interruption.] The Minister looks curious, so let us hear his argument. It is my job to ask questions. I suggest to him that the hon. Gentleman’s point does not stand up. There is clearly tension between independence and accountability.

I shall bring my brief comments to a close. There is an amendment, which adds a subsection to the clause, which says that we want independence to be guaranteed. I put it to the hon. Member for Ceredigion, who tabled the amendment, that it is difficult to see how, even if that subsection is added, independence can be genuinely guaranteed given the extraordinary, sweeping powers—I will not say, “dictatorial”—that the Minister is taking for himself this afternoon, if he gets his way, over a TV channel. It simply cannot be right that that should happen. We will certainly vote against the proposal unless the Minister pulls some kind of rabbit out of a hat, though I cannot imagine he will.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I shall open the debate by saying something that Ministers do not often say when standing to suggest to a Committee that they will not accept an amendment: I have a great deal of sympathy with all hon. Members, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Hemsworth, who was a little out of his depth on Welsh matters. They spoke with enormous conviction and feeling for S4C. I understand entirely where they are coming from, the concerns they have and why they want to express them in the Committee today. Under different circumstances, I might well be expressing the same concerns, which is why it is very important to me that I answer them as best I can, and that is not because I am directly affected by S4C.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion mentioned that I used to watch S4C, and, yes, I did. I used to dip into “Pobol y Cwm” every now and again to catch up with what was going on. [Interruption.] I am also extremely familiar with “Fireman Sam” and the events in Pontypandy. I do not remember there being a huge Welsh speaking population there I fear, but I hope that is improving. I remember Italian being spoken rather more often than Welsh in Pontypandy. Somerset is not a million miles away and it is a county with a Welsh name—Gwlad-yr-haf—where we used to get Welsh programming on our TV sets. I grew up with Television Wales and the West, which some people may remember. It became Harlech Television after that.

As a child, I watched Welsh programmes, although not often. There was not much of it and it was not enough, but it was there. I wondered what language they were speaking and wanted to know more about it. That engendered a personal interest in the Welsh language, which has persisted. A reason I used to watch Sianel Pedwar was an attempt to learn a bit of Welsh. I failed because I could not get round the mutations. If I could only look up things sensibly in a dictionary I, as an Englishman, would get on better with my learning of Welsh. At least I tried. I also remember going to a national eisteddfod to increase my education, so I do have some fellow feeling. That will cut no ice, I appreciate, with native Welsh speakers, but I want the Committee to be aware that I have a personal interest.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

The point the Minister made about “Fireman Sam” exemplifies the generic nature of the channel. As some hon. Members will know, “Fireman Sam” is actually “Sam Tân”. It was produced in Welsh first and then dubbed, as were “SuperTed” and a host of other programmes, especially ones for children, and those programmes are sold overseas.

The point about S4C is that in some ways it mimics the generic output of other channels that are much better resourced, such as the BBC or ITV channels, on a fairly modest budget in broadcasting terms, and sells them overseas in Italian or whatever. That is part of the problem of having the budget cut so severely.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I honestly did not know that “Fireman Sam” was originally Welsh and then English, rather than the other way round. I knew “SuperTed” was. The Italian reference was to Bella; I hope she is still Bella in Welsh. That is enough of that; we will get into childhood reminiscence if we are not careful.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

We are exhausting ourselves.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Let us get back to the case in point.

I know the huge importance of Sianel Pedwar in the renaissance of the Welsh language. That was desperately needed and it has fulfilled the role admirably. The Government recognise that. It is precisely because we want a sustainable future for S4C that we want to ensure that the arrangements for funding and governance are in place to enable that future to be a bright one.

If I take issue, it is with the more apocalyptic tone that some members have taken, suggesting that in a few years there will be no S4C. No, that is not the case. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire raised a number of issues and I enjoyed listening to his speech, as he clearly spoke from the heart. He asked for a number of assurances. I start by giving some of those assurances. Those who do not want to believe in assurances from Ministers will not. However, they are real and are the intentions of the Government, and will be demonstrated as we conclude the ongoing negotiations about the future governance of S4C, so that everyone can see. The start of that is the agreement with the BBC that has been laid in Parliament this afternoon. Everybody will be able to see that, and it guarantees the funding arrangements for S4C during the comprehensive spending review period to 2015. There is a clear statement of intent that shows that the fear of the apocalypse is misplaced.

It is incumbent on everybody involved in the debate not to use hyperbole to suggest something is happening when it is not. That will unnecessarily alarm people and produce the reaction of which the hon. Member for Arfon warned. I do not want that to happen in any case, but certainly not on the basis of a false prospectus, which would be sad. There is more agreement on the subject than one might detect from the tenor of some of the debate both inside and out. There are some basic principles where there is not a huge disagreement.

Several times the position of the political leaders in the Welsh Assembly has been mentioned. I do not want to misrepresent their views, because that would be entirely improper and I take careful note of the points that they have made. I have the letter here, which is signed by Carwyn Jones, Ieuan Wyn Jones, Nick Bourne and Kirsty Williams, and in which they raised their concerns directly with the Prime Minister. Their concerns are largely about ensuring that there is a proper consultative process, so that we have an agreed future for Sianel Pedwar. In their letter two things leap out of the page at me. The first is that it states:

“We recognise the difficult financial climate and that no body that is in receipt of public money can be exempt from funding cuts.”

The changes in the current legislative position, which does not allow for those funding cuts, are already a matter of agreement from those people who represent civil society in Wales.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

I am not arguing for Welsh exceptionalism. Any normal person would agree that we are facing those problems. I will also briefly quote from the letter. They call for a

“a comprehensive examination of all aspects relating to the governance and regulatory oversight of S4C, including where political responsibility should lie, on the basis of ensuring a secure and sustainable funding stream for the channel.”

Does the Minister have any sympathy with that view?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

That is why I did not want to misrepresent what the political leaders in Wales said. I made it plain that part of what they are saying is that we need to reach a consensus on future funding. It is not my intention to misrepresent that. On a key issue, which is whether we should retain the existing legislative position of the straitjacketed increases in funding for S4C, there is a readiness to accept that every single broadcasting organisation is facing a cut in revenue at the moment. S4C, inevitably, cannot be entirely protected from that, which is why the change in the Bill, in primary legislation, is required.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

Is the Minister suggesting that the cut facing S4C is equivalent to that facing the BBC in general, or the BBC World Service? Why will he not admit that it is disproportionate?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It is not possible to compare the funding of S4C and the funding of the BBC as a whole. As the hon. Lady knows, the BBC has been asked to take on substantial extra responsibilities. That is not the case for S4C. There is not a direct read-across. I picked the hon. Lady up on Channel 4 in my intervention, because she said that Channel 4 had not had the same cuts. Too right, Channel 4 has not had the same cuts, because Channel 4 does not get any money from the public purse.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

I did not say that.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Lady can look back at the record.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

I know exactly what I said.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

In any case, it is important to recognise that the annual total available to S4C—some £90 million in 2011-12, which will go down to £83 million in 2012-13 and stay there until 2015—will be cut, but it is not a massive cut compared with what is happening in the rest of the world and this country. If I was trying to make a partisan point, I would say that it is rather less than the cuts in public funding proposed by the previous Government. To describe it as catastrophic is to over-egg the case.

The second point in the letter from the four political leaders in Wales was on recognising partnership arrangements between the BBC and S4C. Again, we are not talking about something far outwith what is reasonable. The BBC and S4C have acted in partnership for ages. The hon. Member for Hemsworth talked about the devastating attack on news collection and delivery caused by the Government’s interfering with S4C, but the BBC does that for S4C. That is how it operates at the moment, so it was perhaps not his best point. The letter states:

“We agree that there may be potential for increased efficiency and effectiveness in delivering Welsh language media services through improved partnership between the BBC and S4C. This partnership has been a feature of S4C’s many successes in the last 30 years.”

Exactly so.

It is a question of developing the future structure in a way that satisfies the very real concerns expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Ceredigion and for Montgomeryshire and by the hon. Member for Arfon. That needs to be reconciled with a secure future for the service. The most important thing that we can do is give some assurances.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s arguments, but the problem with his case is that it is not in the Bill. We have not had a chance to explore the evidence he has presented, or his references to ongoing conversations and to a document that is to be tabled in the House this afternoon; nor is it our duty to do so, because we are considering the Bill as presented to the Committee. Does the Minister accept that this is not the appropriate way to deal with such complex issues?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I do not really accept that point. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but Government new clause 2 will make the funding arrangements and the protection of those arrangements explicit in primary legislation. I have told him that the agreement with the BBC making that explicit has been tabled before the House and is available to Members. Everyone will have a chance to look at the agreement in detail and absorb it before the Bill reaches the statute book. The details of the governance arrangements are the one missing bit, and I am about to give the Committee some clear assurances on that. The reason we cannot put that before the Committee today—and I believe the hon. Gentleman knows this—is that the negotiations between the BBC, S4C and the Government are ongoing. I can tell him what we intend the outcome to be, and, obviously, we will not accept something that falls short of that intended outcome.

The Government are not going to accept an agreement between the broadcasters that falls short of the assurances I am giving to the Committee. The House will perhaps have two opportunities to address the issue. There will be an opportunity on Report, by which time I hope the negotiations will have been completed. Even if they are not, the House will have another opportunity because there will be proper consultation on the changes—all of this is set out in the Bill. Not only will others have a say, including the Welsh Government, the Welsh Assembly and other bodies in Wales, but the House will have a chance to say yes or no to the changes in due course, in the light of whether my assurances are met. I do not think it justified to say that this is some hole-in-the-corner arrangement, when we are putting something in primary legislation.

The secondary issue will be well considered inside and outside the House. When the Bill was first published, the Opposition said that they had intended to pursue a similar process—we were told that we had, in fact, stolen their Bill—so it is not such an exceptional way of going about our business.

I will now deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and others have said. Let me be absolutely explicit. My first assurance, in response to one of the points made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, is that future funding levels are sufficient for S4C to meet its statutory duties. We set out the funding levels for the period of the spending review subject to the passage of this Bill. Government new clause 2 will ensure that S4C receives sufficient funding in the post-review period. That will be enshrined in legislation and will ultimately remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

The hon. Member for Clwyd South did not like the word “sufficient”. I am not sure what word she would use instead, but for most Government functions that safeguard is not there; it is simply expected as the normal duty of the Secretary of State. The fact that that term is in the legislation is a considerable advance, and it is not uncommon in legislation where there is such a commitment. To apply more detailed criteria is simply to invite judicial review. The previous Labour Government and Governments before them were always careful not to do that, and we are in the same position. I assure the hon. Lady that the term provides a protection for future funding. We have been clear that at the end of the funding period, which is set out plainly, the review will ensure that that funding goes on at an appropriate level.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

It was not my purpose to debate with the Minister which adjectives we like best. My concern was over specifics about funding agreements, recognising the substantial cut that the Welsh fourth channel will face, and we ask that the Government be specific. It is not about the word “sufficient” per se, but the fact that it is totally meaningless.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I do not honestly know what the hon. Lady wants. If she does not want the primary legislation to provide a safeguard ensuring that Ministers provide sufficient funding for the future, she surely does not want the primary legislation to set out future funding for eternity. That would be an absurdity. Both sides of the Committee have accepted that we have to move away from the previous formula. I do not know what the hon. Lady wants, other than perhaps simply to make a point.

The second assurance I can give, which is important for the understanding of governance, is that the board of S4C will not have a majority of people from the BBC on it. The Government have made it clear that the BBC will not have a majority on either the S4C board or the S4C executive. The next assurance, which I think is critical—I have heard hon. Members’ suggestions—is that S4C will have total editorial and programming independence. The Government have made it clear that S4C will be and must be editorially independent within the framework of the partnership. It will be for Ministers to judge the extent to which that is enshrined in the agreement, but we are confident that we will secure an agreement in which that is made absolutely clear.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Arfon)

Having a majority of people not from the BBC is interesting, but does the Minister have any views about the requirement for super-majorities for some decisions that might be taken? That would essentially give the BBC a block on such decisions.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

No, the Government are not entertaining that sort of suggestion for the editorial programming independence of S4C. If the hon. Gentleman has fears about that—I understand why he would be suspicious; that is perfectly proper; it is his job—the new governance structure will be enshrined in a dedicated and transparent agreement and laid before Parliament. He will have the opportunity to look at it. He has the opportunity today to look at the funding agreement, the new BBC agreement. He will have the opportunity to look at the governance arrangements in due course once they have been concluded. He will then be in a position to judge whether they meet the needs of the service.

It is crucial to understand that, in exactly the form that was suggested in the letter from the political leadership in Wales, the relationship between S4C and the BBC will be a partnership. There is no question of S4C becoming a subsidiary of the BBC. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion pointed out, it has a different structure from Alba. Alba is to a certain extent a partnership with MG Alba; nevertheless, it is still a BBC channel. This is not and will not be a BBC channel. It will be Sianel Pedwar Cymru and will remain that, but it will have that enhanced partnership with the BBC while maintaining its editorial independence.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

Will the Minister give way?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

May I just make one last point and then I will give way? There is an important assurance to give to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, but the issue was also raised by other members of the Committee. The current use of independent production companies will be retained. The Government have made it clear that 100% of S4C’s commissioning budget will be spent in the independent sector, as now. That is an important assurance in the context of the Welsh language, and for the enhancement of the creative industries and the wider creative community in Wales. I know how well it has done. This is not simply a transfer of all functions to departments of the BBC. That is not the intention.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

The Minister is helping us to understand better the Government’s intentions. That does not necessarily mean that we agree with them. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made his case on a single point: to bring S4C into an accountable relationship to the Government. The Minister is resting his case on independence. In what way will S4C be accountable to the Minister, an idea which his hon. Friend found so persuasive?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The level of accountability is simply in terms of the funding arrangements which will be set. The accountability is almost in reverse. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will have accountability through the terms of the Bill to ensure that sufficient funding goes to S4C to meet its needs. I mentioned the prospects of judicial review earlier and I said how all sensible Governments avoid the prospect of justiciability on a triviality. The basic decision would be subject to judicial review of whether a sufficiency had been provided.

I found it interesting that the hon. Member for Hemsworth appeared to be arguing for a complete reversal of his Government’s policy during their entire period in office. He said that he now favours devolution of responsibility for broadcasting to the Welsh Government and Welsh Assembly. [Interruption.] That is clearly what he said. If he did not mean to say it, I would be happy for him to correct it.

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

It is important that we all listen carefully to what is said. There will always be disagreement on Committees and perhaps we all seek to misrepresent each other to a degree in order to strengthen our own arguments. I did not make such a case. I simply asked why the Minister is giving the powers, which are so sweeping, to other Ministers to apply to the channel. I said that it struck me that there was a tension between the argument for accountability, which he now denies will happen, and the argument for independence. That was my central point. Those are the questions that I asked.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman must have asked them in a slightly odd way, because he gave the impression that he thought that a Minister in the Welsh Government should have responsibility for these matters, which, as I have said, is not his party’s position. Some would argue that that is exactly what should happen—one member on the Committee’s Opposition Benches and another on the Government Back Benches seem to think that that should be the case—but that is not the Government’s position at the moment.

The hon. Gentleman has said that we are giving ourselves sweeping powers, but we are not. As far as S4C is concerned, the Bill is putting into primary legislation a change in the funding arrangements. It also includes a provision for future changes in governance, which will not be determined by a Minister alone. The Bill does not give those powers to the Minister. It just gives powers to the Minister to introduce proposals on the basis of what is agreed between S4C and the BBC. That is a crucial distinction. Listening to the hon. Gentleman, one would think that the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport will be sitting in Cardiff directing what will happen next in Cwmderi. That is not how it will work.

I hope that my assurances have helped the Committee. They are genuine assurances and can be checked against delivery. This will not happen in a vacuum or behind closed doors. Things will be laid out and clearly put forward.

Susan Elan Jones (Labour, Clwyd South)

The Minister may have misheard some mutations in what my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth said and in what I said earlier about Channel 4 and its presence or, indeed, non-presence in the Bill. One never knows when the odd soft mutation might get in the way. On the powers in schedule 3, which my hon. Friend has addressed, does the Minister honestly believe that it is the job of the Government to prevent a television channel from employing staff? Would he say that these are not appropriate powers and that he does not think that they will be used? Can the Minister tell us, hand on heart, that he considers it right that the Government should be able to utilise those powers?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Of course it is not. The schedule applies to a wide range of public bodies. [ Interruption. ] Yes, I understand the structure of the Bill. Obviously, the hon. Member for Telford has not read about how these things work. Clause 3 gives the power to modify constitutional arrangements. Would a Minister have the power to actually put before the House the new agreement between S4C and the BBC without clause 3? The answer is no. That is why S4C is included in the schedule—without it, there would be no power for a Minister to introduce that proposal without a new Bill and a new Act. That does not seem to be a terribly sensible thing to do when negotiations are now at a late stage. We will have a proposal. Does that mean that Ministers will manage the staff of S4C? No, of course it does not. I ask the Committee to use sense when reading the Bill, rather than going off on flights of fancy.

As I hope I have indicated, the Government are committed to a strong and independent Welsh language TV service, supported by sustainable funding. We have explained why, in order to do that, the existing legislative arrangements must be changed. The hon. Member for Arfon was kind enough to say that he did not expect a Welsh exception to the rule, given the difficulties currently facing all public bodies, but at the moment, there is a Welsh exception, because S4C has a statutory link between its funding and the retail prices index.

The Government amendments put the decision into legislation and, for the first time, set in statute a requirement that S4C receives sufficient funding to fulfil its statutory and vitally important role as an independent Welsh language broadcaster. As I hope the Committee agrees, guaranteed, inflation-proof funding from the Government is not tenable in the existing financial climate. The decision to change S4C’s funding arrangements is part of the cross-government drive to reduce the cost of public bodies and improve their accountability. Public broadcasters, like every organisation in receipt of public money, must reflect the financial context in which we now work.

It is important to note that the funding changes to S4C have been implemented from this year, with S4C’s agreement. Because the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been making payments to S4C in line with the reduced levels that were announced at the time of the spending review, the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has concluded that consultation under clause 10 of the Bill would not be appropriate.

I am acutely aware of the passionate interest in S4C—and even if I were not, I would be now, after listening to today’s debate and receiving one or two e-mails on the subject. Not only is that apparent in the Committee, but across Wales and elsewhere, which is an important point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover has said, we inhabit a digital world in which S4C can be accessed anywhere that can pick up a cable or satellite broadcast, and a large number of people who do not live in Wales have an interest in the Welsh language and in watching S4C. I am aware of the channel’s importance, its iconic status, and the contribution it makes to the cultural and economic life in Wales.

I reiterate, therefore, that the Government’s proposals do not alter the policy announced last year on the funding of S4C. They simply represent a change to the legislative mechanism by which alterations will be made. The proposals do not, in any way, undermine the Government’s commitments to a strong future for Welsh language programming, to S4C as an independent service, and to a review of S4C’s strategy and finance before the end of the comprehensive spending review period, in order to inform future funding levels for S4C.

In fact, the amendments reinforce the Government’s commitment to S4C. The new clause will set in statute a requirement that S4C receives sufficient funding to be able to fulfil its statutory role as an independent Welsh language broadcaster. The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport wrote to the chair of the S4C authority in October 2010, setting out the funding for S4C for the spending review period up to March 2015. The Secretary of State considers those funding levels to be sufficient for S4C to provide its public service. As I have mentioned, however, he has made it clear that there will be a review of S4C’s strategy and finances before the end of the spending review period to inform decisions about S4C’s future level of funding.

It is also worth noting that constructive discussions are under way between S4C and the BBC about the new governance structure that will underpin the new funding arrangements from 2013. It will be subject to consultation with absolutely everybody who has a legitimate interest in it, and I happy to reiterate that that will include the Welsh Government. I believe that the Government’s amendments are a clear signal that our plans to reduce the fiscal deficit by cutting the cost of public bodies in no way undermine our continuing commitment to a strong, independent and sustainably funded Welsh language broadcaster.

I have listened to the arguments for the amendments proposed by the hon. Members for Clwyd South, for Arfon and for Ceredigion. I do not believe that removing S4C from schedule 3 is in the long-term interests of S4C. Without it, we cannot establish the long-term partnership between S4C and the BBC that was set out in the spending review. That partnership will allow S4C and the BBC to benefit from efficiencies and shared expertise, which will support a strong and sustainable future for the channel. The partnership is also necessary to allow the BBC Trust to retain accountability for the licence fee funding it provides to S4C, which the Trust has a duty to do under the terms of its charter.

A number of other amendments have been put before the Committee today, with good intentions. However, I believe they will undermine rather than secure the aim of a sustainably funded, independent Welsh language broadcaster. Therefore, I cannot recommend that the Committee supports them.

Amendment 55 proposes that S4C’s operational and financial independence will be written into statute by the reforms. The Government have made clear their commitment to S4C as an independent service, but our proposals will achieve this within the partnership arrangements. That wider context is crucial. Defining what independence means within the partnership arrangement is a substantive part of the discussions between S4C, the BBC and DCMS, and securing S4C’s editorial independence is a shared objective of all those involved in the discussions.

The Government have made it clear that S4C must be satisfied with the partnership arrangements before they are implemented and, therefore, a level of independence with which S4C is satisfied must be agreed. No one involved in this issue can have a greater incentive to protect S4C’s independence than S4C itself. However, attempting to protect S4C’s independence by stipulating operational independence in the Bill would undermine the essential reforms that the Government have proposed. The partnership must be meaningful and clearly defined, where S4C is editorially independent, but the arrangement must also allow for the BBC to offer expertise and support, and exercise financial accountability for the licence fee. That financial accountability by the BBC could be undermined by stipulating operational independence in the amendment, and so we are not in a position to support its inclusion in the Bill.

Amendment 54 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that S4C Digital is sufficiently funded to undertake its statutory duties. That is a worthy objective, with which the Government fully agree. Indeed, that is the aim of the Government’s amendments to which I have already referred, and I would urge hon. Members to look again at the wording of the Government’s proposed new clause, which represents a good deal for S4C as a whole, not just S4C Digital, which is referred to in the amendment.

Amendment 54 to clause 4, however, relies on S4C being included in schedule 4 of the Bill, and the Government have already made clear, in a written ministerial statement on 11 July, why S4C should not be included in schedule 4. If the Government were required to alter S4C’s funding arrangements using the powers in clause 4, there would be a requirement on the Government to consult. As I have already stated and as was outlined in the written ministerial statement, the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has concluded that it would not be appropriate to consult on that element of the reforms. That is simply a matter of the importance of ensuring that we have the funding arrangements for S4C in place this year.

Amendment 57 would have the effect of devolving an element of responsibility for broadcasting, which in the Government’s opinion is rightly an issue that remains the responsibility of UK Ministers. I know there are some on the Committee who do not take that view. However, that is the position held since the advent of the Welsh Assembly, and directly through the Broadcasting Act 1981.

Retaining broadcasting as a reserved matter is the most effective way of maintaining national standards and securing broadcasters’ independence. There is a greater benefit to the nation in having broadcasting reserved and, while the majority of S4C’s audience resides in Wales, as I have said already there is a significant and growing minority who benefit from the service in the wider UK. By placing a duty on the Government to seek the consent of the Welsh Government for their constitutional and funding reforms, the amendment would have the effect of partly devolving broadcasting. The Government have not taken that position.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

My hon. Friend’s interpretation of the amendment is right in terms of the part devolution of broadcasting responsibility, which is for good reason. Several of us alluded to the holistic approach that broadcasting has assumed in Wales in terms of Welsh Assembly education policy and other cultural matters. There is an importance that the Government need to recognise.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. S4C is qualitatively different from other broadcasters, with the possible exception of ALBA, although it is different. S4C plays an important role in the Welsh media and education in encouraging the very welcome growth of the Welsh language, both in Wales and elsewhere.

The Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly are important partners. If I stand on a narrow constitutional interpretation, I hope my hon. Friend will not misunderstand me: we cannot devolve the responsibility under present arrangements, but we can fully involve the Welsh Government and Assembly in the outcomes that emerge from discussions between S4C and the BBC. It is essential that we do that and that the consultation is meaningful and ongoing, including, in due course, the review and so on.

My hon. Friend may have noticed that Baroness Rawlings made very specific assurances that the Welsh Government would be formally consulted on the order using clause 3 and that there would be a full public consultation. Assembly Members would, as a matter of principle, be able to make representations and the Secretary of State must take all those views into account when coming forward with the final proposal. However, I do not believe that an amendment to the Bill requiring consultation with the National Assembly of Wales is necessary. We have not specified such a requirement for any other body.

Proposed new clause 5 represents a significantly altered version of Government new clause 2 to set out S4C’s long-term funding arrangements. Proposed new clause 5 would, in practice, serve only to undermine the stability and funding of the broadcaster in the long term. It is clearly not sustainable or practical to suggest that the Government can go on funding S4C with greater and greater sums each year. In 2010, the leaders of each of the four main parties in Wales acknowledged that the existing funding arrangements that stipulate S4C’s ever-increasing budget are unsustainable, as indicated in the letter. If new clause 5 were accepted, we would be in a similar position to that defined by existing statute, albeit that the funding would not be index-linked. That would not be a sensible way forward.

One undertaking that the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has given to the BBC is that he will not seek to place any new financial burdens on it in this licence fee period. Therefore, there is a risk of unpicking the agreement that it set out with S4C over the continuing funding.

I hope that I have been able to reassure hon. Members that the Government’s proposals and commitments provide the assurance they seek and which they rightly demand on behalf of viewers of S4C. Specifically, the Government’s proposals ensure that future funding levels will be sufficient for S4C to meet its statutory duties; they make it clear that the BBC will not have a majority on the S4C board or executive and that S4C will continue to be afforded editorial independence; they provide that the proposed new governance arrangements will be fully agreed with S4C and then subject to consultation; and that S4C’s commissioning budget will continue to be spent entirely in the independent sector.

I hope that on that basis we will have set a very clear benchmark for the continuing prospering of S4C in its essential role in Wales. I hope that the Committee will not accept non-Government amendments, but will be able to support the Government amendments. I look forward to the agreement on governance, because it will underline the commitments that I have given today, to which I hope members of Committee listened carefully and which will do exactly what they are seeking to do in protecting the interests of the channel, the Welsh language and their constituents.

Mark Williams (Liberal Democrat, Ceredigion)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and I do not question in any way his sincerity in putting forward the Government’s view. He used the phrase “checked against delivery” and it is sadly my contention that we are not in a position to check against delivery at present. The discussions between the BBC and S4C are still taking place, and we do not know the outcome yet. At the start of my comments this morning, I said that the amendments in my name and that of the hon. Member for Arfon were probing. That remains the case, and we reserve the freedom to return to those matters at a later stage should that be required.

I understand the Minister when he mentions Government assurances, but the proverbial proof of the pudding has to be in the eating, and he has more confidence in the discussions between S4C and the BBC than I do currently. I still question the capacity of S4C, under the arrangements, to operate in a fully independent manner when debates are still to be had on whether BBC Wales staff members should become part of the management team. It remains to be seen whether that issue can be resolved, and I believe it to be incompatible with the concept of an independent S4C. We still have the ultimate position whereby the BBC could withdraw funding from S4C in extreme circumstances if it deemed S4C not to be meeting the terms of the operating agreement. That does not strike me as a partnership, but rather as one smaller organisation being dominated by another. We also still have the question of funding post-2015, which seems uncertain.

I return to the point that I made in my initial remarks, which was that there has been a consensus not that the review would take place at the end of the spending review period, but that there should be a full review. That is what our four party leaders called for in the Cynulliad in Cardiff, and that is what I believe should still happen to give the confidence that is sadly currently eluding the people of Wales.

I share the concern of the hon. Member for Clwyd South about the word “sufficiency” and the inability to provide a definition of what “sufficient resources” means at present. The Government amendment was tabled with good intentions, but it still does not address the stability arguments that were put forward by Members of the House of Lords way back in 1996 and by Lord Howe of Aberavon more recently in the House of Lords debate. We will however return to those matters if the opportunity arises at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 3 - Power to modify constitutional arrangements: bodies and offices

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

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

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

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 (Labour, Hemsworth)

I regret that the Committee may hear some of our previous arguments again. I will do my best to breathe new life into the arguments, but they are similar to those we have already made.

The amendments address the EHRC, and a number of Members will wish to speak on that matter. It is well known on the Committee and elsewhere that the EHRC provides a number of functions. I want particularly to address the human rights issues, but the arguments I deploy would work equally well on the other matters.

I want to go back to a point I have made twice already. The relationship between the individual and the state is important, and it is important that we get it right. Over the centuries, that relationship has been redefined from time to time. The liberty of the individual against an over-mighty state was one of the great reasons for Parliament coming into existence in the first place. In recent years, Parliament has taken the view that some human rights are inherent and that we ought to provide protections against the state making incursions into those rights. That has been addressed in several ways and, from time to time, the debate has been contentious.

There have been many debates in the media, the House and elsewhere on the precise way in which those rights should be protected. I have no worries about having such a debate, but this is not the place to have it. The debate should take place elsewhere, and it might include a discussion on whether the EHRC is the correct way to protect human rights. I am happy to have such discussions. I have said before that I am not an institutional conservative, and I believe that, from time to time, organisations should be reviewed.

That is not the matter before the Committee today. Before us is something far from that debate, and I do not believe this is the appropriate place to have such a debate in any case. We have before us a suggestion that, by keeping it in the schedule, the EHRC should be subject to the powers set out in clause 3, which we have just discussed. I am extremely worried about that, and I am not alone. Distinguished people, both in this country and abroad, have taken a very dim view of the proposals on the human rights aspects of the EHRC.

Before I turn to the worries that have been expressed, Lord Lester, who is hardly a supporter of my party, made an interesting and succinct point in another place that is worth repeating. In many ways, his point encapsulates the arguments that I and other Opposition Members have been seeking to pursue:

“Legitimate ends do not justify unconstitutional or disproportionate means, especially where they erode…fundamental rights and freedoms.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 November 2010; Vol. 722, c. 99.]

I have already conceded that it is not unreasonable, as an end, to say that the EHRC and the way in which it protects human rights might be reviewed. I will not have the Minister continually saying that we are defending the existing structures, because I have made it quite clear that that is not the Opposition’s view.

Although the ends may be legitimate, the means by which the Government are setting about them are not. That is not simply my view, but one that has been expressed in written evidence to the Committee. The Government did everything that they could to prevent witnesses from appearing before us, but they could not prevent written evidence from being submitted. Yesterday, I went to my inbox and found my way through the forest of e-mails about the matter that we have just discussed, and I came to the written evidence on this matter. I am not always the most diligent person when it comes to reading annexes and appendices, but because we have a duty to attempt to raise appropriate issues I read the annex. It contains a letter from the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

Will the Minister clarify whether there has been further engagement with the ICC since the letter was written in June 2011? The ICC, which sounds like a worthy body but perhaps one to which we would not normally pay a huge amount of attention, has a power to accredit a nation or to remove accreditation from a nation according to how it handles human rights. At the moment, we have an level A accreditation. This letter is a barely coded suggestion that that accreditation may be called into question by how the Government are proceeding. This is an important document, because it raises precisely the arguments—in some cases almost word for word—that the Opposition have been making. It talks, for example, about the

“interface between accountability and independence”.

Those are precisely the words that I was using a few moments ago about S4C, which resulted in a change of humour for a few moments from the Minister, who is normally a genial person.

The letter is before the Committee, so everyone will have been able to read it, although I imagine that perhaps not everyone has done so. The letter indicates that the “Paris Principles” require independence in relation to how we protect human rights. The letter also acknowledges that that is not incompatible with being accountable. The ICC accepts that national human rights institutions should be accountable, but insists that they should also be independent.

The letter says that some of the Government’s proposals threaten our “status of ‘A’ accreditation.” In a sentence that I thought was slightly chilling, the letter states that Governments in north Africa, where, as we know, the Arab spring has been taking place, would be looking carefully at how we handled the protection of human rights. We must not in any way signal to those whom we have encouraged to take part in the Arab spring uprisings that they should follow the line that we appear to be taking, which would result in the removal of level A accreditation. I am told that such accreditation does not apply, for example, to Iran. I assume we would not want to join Iran, but that is the risk we are taking.

The ICC says publicly that there are three issues of greatest concern about the way this has been presented, and which put in jeopardy level A accreditation. Members who are listening—and I see that not everybody may be listening to every word I am saying [Interruption.] I am disappointed to say that, but I have brought them to life now. Members who were listening will recognise that the arguments made by the ICC are the same we have used time and again in relation to the Bill.

The three matters it says are of continuing concern relate to:

“The proposals that may impact adversely on the interface between accountability and independence.”

That is precisely the point we have been making. The second is:

“The proposal to financially sanction the commission ‘where taxpayers’ money is misspent’.”

The third is:

“The proposal to amend functions, powers and structure by means of secondary legislation.”

Precisely the point we have been making all day. The ICC is adamant—there is no equivocation—that it is not right to amend our national human rights institution by means of secondary legislation: no ifs, no buts. It would not be appropriate. Given the sanction which the ICC is capable of applying, we need to listen carefully to the Minister’s arguments.

I am not going to go through the whole letter, because it is available and the arguments are already familiar to the Committee. However, I will refer to a paragraph on page 3:

“Given the particular constitutional place of national human rights institutions in the architecture of the state it is critical that any amendment to their mandate, structure, powers or functions be carried out through a parliamentary process which is open, transparent and with opportunity for public submissions.”

That is precisely what is missing in the procedure we are considering. It continues:

“Secondary legislation does not meet those criteria and places undue power over the EHRC in the hands of the Executive, whose compliance with human rights standards the EHRC is required to monitor.”

Those are very serious words that we should listen to, although not necessarily because we acknowledge that the ICC is the supreme authority in the universe. However, the ICC entirely reflects the arguments we have made: we are with the Government in wanting to review the quango state; we accept that areas of the state have grown over the years that should be subject to review; and we are particularly interested in looking at administrative and other functions that could be handled more efficiently. However, some institutions are important to the constitutional “architecture”, as the letter describes it, of the state itself. We do not believe they are sacrosanct—it is possible to look at them to see whether they are working perfectly—but they are so fundamentally important to the way the state operates that they simply should not be handled through secondary legislation. More importantly, those institutions should not be subject to the draconian powers relating to human rights contained in clause 3.

Let us remind ourselves that the Minister is being given powers, subject to an order going through the House, to transform the nature of any institution, including the EHRC, in schedule 3. He is subordinating the EHRC to the Executive, but the Executive power is capable of damaging human rights—the rights of individual citizens. As I said earlier, Parliament came into existence, in part at least, to resist monarchical power: the power of the monarch against the individual citizen. That is why human rights are so important, and protecting them is one of our primary duties in the House of Commons.

Because the Executive can from time to time behave dictatorially towards individuals, human rights institutions were put at arm’s length from the state and from Executive power. That was the right thing to do. As I have said and will say again for the last time, that is not to say that everything the EHRC has done in relation to human rights has met with my approval; however, it can be reviewed. To subordinate it to ministerial power and to the Executive acting on behalf of the Crown is simply wrong.

The Minister is sure to say, “It’s not going to be like that. We are going to guarantee independence”, and so on. That will be the thrust of his argument. But that is not in the Bill. The Bill gives us no idea how this will work. The risks are too great to allow this particularly important institution to be subjected to the powers in clause 3. The second line of argument the Minister will fall back on when his first fails will be, “Don’t forget. It is going to be subject to an order.” That argument has been made time and again in Committee.

The point is that the orders that the Minister can bring in are secondary legislation. They do not allow for the scrutiny that is needed for any institution, particularly one that deals with human rights. It is clear that among the international comparators, we will be judged severely if we proceed down the track of using secondary legislation. I do not know whether the letter on which I have to some extent built my case has been superseded by further conversations and guarantees the Minister or his colleagues have made to the ICC. The Committee does not know—it is not party to the conversations or to any agreements that have been made. Therefore, it is not possible for us to agree to this measure.

The issue of the rights of individual citizens against those of the state is a very important one, and there should be a pause so that we can have a proper conversation about how we deal with it. The Opposition would have views on how the proposal might be improved in some way, and there could be a national conversation. However, the Government are trying to avoid a national conversation. The proposal is simply wrong. I said during the last debate that the Minister would have to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Frankly, on this issue I cannot see that we will follow the Government, but we will listen carefully to his arguments.

Valerie Vaz (Labour, Walsall South)

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 (Conservative, Dover)

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 (Labour, Walsall South)

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 (Labour, Wigan)

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 (Labour, City of Durham)

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 (Labour, Walsall South)

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 (Labour, City of Durham)

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 (Labour, Hemsworth)

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 (Labour, City of Durham)

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 (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

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 (Labour, Hemsworth)

Yes.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

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 (Labour, Telford)

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 (Labour, City of Durham)

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 (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

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 (Conservative, Esher and Walton)

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 (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

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 (Labour, Wigan)

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 (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

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 (Labour, Hemsworth)

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 (Conservative, Esher and Walton)

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 (Labour, Hemsworth)

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

Dominic Raab (Conservative, Esher and Walton)

Which is it?

Jon Trickett (Labour, Hemsworth)

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 (Conservative, Dover)

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 (Labour, Hemsworth)

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 (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

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 (Labour, Hemsworth)

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 (Labour, City of Durham)

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 (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

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.

Clause 4 - Power to modify funding arrangements

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 4, page 2, line 37, at end insert—

‘( ) The consent of the Treasury is required to make an order under this section.’.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow North West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 13.

Nick Hurd (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

I warn the Committee that the prose about to fall from my lips has been written by officials at Her Majesty’s Treasury. The amendments will protect existing financial scrutiny arrangements that ensure Departments consult the Treasury on the use of financial and funding powers, including those relating to proposed financial powers under clauses 4 and 6 of the Bill. As Committee members will know, the Treasury controls public expenditure of moneys voted for by Parliament to ensure that public money is used within agreed limits as Parliament intended.

Therefore legislation, both primary and secondary, with expenditure implications should be agreed by the Treasury. That approach is consistent with existing legislation and with the convention that funding and financial powers are exercised by Ministers in conjunction with Treasury consent. It is also consistent with the requirements set out in “Managing Public Money”, regarding the provision in legislation for such consent. The amendments will not add a regulatory burden to Parliament, and other public bodies are already routinely consulted with and seek Treasury consent in its role as the guardian of public expenditure. The 2010 spending review outlined tough departmental spending plans that are crucial towards reducing the country’s budget deficit. The amendments will ensure that the money for which Parliament has voted will be used appropriately by Departments.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The Opposition have no wish to incur the ire of the Treasury, so I will leave my comments at that.