Equality Bill [Lords]

I have no doubt that the staff who serve the existing commissions will seek to serve the new one with the same commitment and dedication that have made the existing ones so successful. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, however. We need to reassure those members of staff who are transferring across that they are secure in their employment, and that they will have the opportunity to continue what for many of them is a vocation, as a result of the dedication that they have demonstrated over the years. The last thing that we should be doing is undermining their morale or their commitment to their work. I would therefore welcome an assurance on the record from the Minister that TUPE will apply at each stage of the transfers from the different bodies, no matter when they occur. I mentioned that the TUPE regulations were not effective in guaranteeing full protection in regard to a whole range of issues. They allow flexibility for the employer, but they do not apply to fundamental issues such as pensions. I hope that the guidance that has been issued for past civil service transfers to new organisations—and even to organisations outside the public sector—on issues such as the protection of pensions and ensuring that alternative proposals are put to staff in full consultation to give them that protection, will apply in this instance as well, so that we can offer security to those members of staff. Amendment No. 20 is about representation. The three existing commissions have secured representation from both sides of industry, including the trade union movement. There have been trade union nominations—usually two per board—to each of the existing organisations. The reason for that is that the bulk of the casework of those organisations has arisen as a result of discrimination in employment. It was therefore natural to ask the organisations with experience in employment relations—both employers and trade unions—to nominate people to sit on the commissions’ boards. It is interesting that the nominations from the trade unions have largely involved women and representatives of the black and ethnic minority groups. I am worried that there is no commitment in the Bill to seek trade union representation on the new body, and I ask the Minister to assure us—in any form of words that she can give us this evening—that at least some direction will be given to the new body to consult and involve the trade unions and, if possible, seek nominations from them, and not just for commissioners. An alternative might be to ensure that there is adequate trade union representation on the advisory bodies that will be established to advise the commission on individual inquiries and on the overall direction of policy. In that way, we would achieve a representative body that would be effective in building on existing experience, which has largely been focused on issues relating to employment rights. We welcome the Bill, but it is on these points of detail that the new body will fail or succeed. I hope that the Minister will respond flexibly so that we can genuinely take into account the issues raised in this debate. In that way, we would demonstrate that the House of Commons has a value, even at this late stage of the Bill, in ensuring that the legislation will be effective.