Clause
13Reports
by Secretary of State
Amendments
made: 40, in
clause 13, page 8, line 3, leave
out from beginning to ‘lay’ and insert
‘The Secretary of State must, on or before
each report date relating to a UK
strategy’. This
amendment (with amendments 41, 42, 43 and 45) clarifies the wording of
clause 13. The laying of each UK strategy triggers an obligation to lay
annual reports on the implementation of that strategy, until either the
next strategy is laid or the end of the target year is
reached. 41,
in
clause 13, page 8, line 7, leave
out
‘current’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
40. 42,
in clause 13, page 8, line 8, leave out subsection (2) and
insert— ‘(2) The report
dates relating to a UK strategy are each anniversary of the day on
which it was laid before Parliament, other than an anniversary which
falls—
(a) on or after the date on which a subsequent UK
strategy is so laid, or (b)
after the end of the target
year.’ See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
40. 43,
in
clause 13, page 8, line 15, leave
out ‘most recent’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
40. 44,
in
clause 13, page 8, line 17, leave
out ‘relevant Northern Ireland department’ and insert
‘Northern Ireland
departments’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
34. 45,
in
clause 13, page 8, line 23, leave
out ‘most recent’. —(Helen
Goodman.) See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 40.
Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Gauke: I have two questions for the Minister. The clause
requires the Secretary of State to present reports to Parliament on
progress towards meeting the targets and in implementing the UK
strategy. Subsection (2)
states: “The
report dates are each anniversary of the day on which the most recent
UK strategy was laid before
Parliament.” Subsection
(3)
states: “The
Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the
end of the target year, lay before Parliament a report on the progress
made in implementing the most recent UK
strategy.” My
first question is slightly complicated and I hope that the Minister
will bear with me.
First, we
have an annual report ending with the target year, which is laid before
Parliament on the anniversary of the most recent UK strategy. So, we
will presumably receive an annual report at some point in the target
year: the year after 1 April 2020. That is the last of such reports. We
then have the report mentioned in subsection (3), which
should be delivered as soon as is reasonably practicable after the end
of the target year. That may not be the final assessment, but it is the
big assessment of whether the 2020 target is met.
On the basis
of precedent, that report on 2020 will take some time after the
completion of the relevant year. Therefore, it may be 2022 when it
comes out. I mainly ask for clarification, but it seems that we will
have a gap in reports. There will potentially be annual reports running
up to 2 April 2020. We will then have a period of two
years—perhaps two and a half years—before we have another
report, if I have understood correctly, because the requirement is on
an anniversary basis. Could the Minister confirm whether that is the
case and explain whether there is a need for an interim progress report
some time in
2021? My
second question concerns the evidence provided by Ministers during the
evidence sessions. The Financial Secretary, in response to questions
from the hon. Member for Northavon, explained why he thought that by
2016-17 we will not be in a position in
which “we
are surprised to find that we are not on track. By that
stage”— stating
the
reason— “we
will have had a number of iterations—two I think—of the
strategy. We will have had regular annual
reports”.——[Official Report, Child
Poverty Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2009; c. 10,
Q23.]
The
Government clearly see the annual report as a significant driver in
meeting the 2020 target. In the run-up to the 2010 target, how have the
Government reported progress on child poverty? Can the Minister explain
why that process was
deficient?
Helen
Goodman: The hon. Gentleman asks a series of complex
questions, but not the same series of complex questions that I asked
when I read the
clause. Hitherto,
obviously, the assessment as to whether we are on track has been
produced when the national statistics for the most recent year are
available. That is why, for example, our most recent full set of
statistics relate, unfortunately, to as far back as 2007-08. That is
one of the reasons why we have debates about the effectiveness of
Government measures since then. As the hon. Gentleman is fully aware,
we do not have the statistics for the level of child poverty, and we
shall not know if we have hit the targets until the first
quarter of
2012. As
we move forward, the situation will be different in a number of
respects: we will have a wider range of targets than hitherto; we are
putting duties on to the local authorities as well as formalising the
responsibilities of the Secretary of State; and we are producing
forward-looking strategies. Saying something about the forward-looking
strategies might help to answer the hon. Gentleman’s second
question, as well as to inform an answer to his first
question. The
first strategy must be produced within a year of Royal
Assent—probably 2011, possibly 2012. Thereafter, a revised
strategy must be produced within three years. It could be produced
earlier, but the latest possible date that it could be produced is in
2014. If the whole process was stretched out, the next latest possible
date would be in 2017, then in 2020. Meanwhile, we would be getting the
data back on progress and producing annual reports, which we would, in
effect, map against what we had set out in the
strategies. The
hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire asked, reasonably enough, if
there is a gap at 2021. On the basis of what is laid out here, my
immediate response is that he has a good point. However, we shall still
be producing all the annual statistics. It is possible that by that
period we will have changed how we produce the statistics—we
might have speeded up, because there are improvements all the time. I
suggest that the hon. Gentleman has alighted on a small and technical
point, but I do not think it impacts significantly on the
accountability arrangements because the most important one is a
requirement to produce reports up until the end of the target year. The
amendments were intended to clarify the situation for the Committee. I
hope that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire now understands
our
intention.
Mr.
Gauke: It is a question of alighting on a small, technical
point but what are Committee stages for, if not that? If we are going
to be pedantic, may I correct the Minister? The requirement is not to
report up until the end of the target year, but for a report ending
with the target year. If the date of the last strategy is, for
argument’s sake, 2 April, as I read it the last anniversary
ending with the target year would be 2 April 2020. There would be no
requirement to make another report until we got to the report under
subsection (3), which
could be some time later. The Minister is right that the matter could be
processed more quickly or more slowly. She sets out the reasons,
including dealing with local authorities and so on. I do not pretend
that this is a major point but, as I read the Bill, we might miss a
year of annual
reports.
Helen
Goodman: The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in reading
the Bill, but not in reading the amendments. The purpose of the
amendment is precisely to fill the gap he alighted
upon. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
13, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
14Statement
required in relation to target
year Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Steve
Webb: I have one question about the intriguing subsection
(4) of clause 14. Subsection (1) says that the “report under
section 13(3)”—which is the report at the end asking how
we did—must give the four figures for targets in the Bill.
Subsection (2) means that they must be kosher, and 14(3) asks whether
the number is bigger or smaller than the target. That is not
unreasonable. However, 14(4) is rather fun, as it says that if we have
failed, we must say why. The whole point of the exercise is to place a
statutory duty on the Secretary of State to achieve the targets. It is
intriguing that in the middle we find a clause saying that if we fail
we will have to explain ourselves.
I am
intrigued to know the explanations that might be prompted by 14(4).
Could one say, “We changed our minds and decided that child
poverty was not all that important.”? Or could one say,
“We would have liked to have done more but the economy was in
such a mess we did not have the money.”? I am not sure what the
point is. If we try to abolish child poverty over a 10-year period,
fail to do so and breach a statutory obligation, what is the value
added of an excuse clause? Presumably, we are hoping that someone will
take legal action to enforce the provision.
The relevant
point is that it is not clear whether legal enforcement of the
Bill’s duties comes before or after 2020. Could one say, in
2018, “We are miles away from this.”? Could one take the
Government to court to make sure? In a sense, there is no point taking
the Government to court after 2020 because they will have failed. They
will have breached the statutory duty and it cannot be un-breached. The
only valid legal action would have to be pre 2020, in which case, what
is the point of 14(4) asking why we failed? It seems odd. It might make
an interesting article, I suppose, but it is not clear what it is
for.
Will the
Under-Secretary clarify the matter? What excuse could be given for
failure? Is it her understanding that the statutory duty to reach
targets must be susceptible to legal action prior to 2020? Subsection
(4) concerns a
post 2020 excuse, which one hopes we would never get, since there would
be no point in having the Bill in the first
place. 3
pm
Mr.
Stuart: I am struck by the hon. Gentleman’s
naivety. Does he really believe that, under the Bill, a court would
enforce such targets, that it would intervene and imprison the
Secretary of State for successive failures? The only thing that
has ever happened when a statutory target has been missed is that the
court makes a declaration. There has been no suggestion by anyone
involved in the law that there could be another response unless we
brought in specific provision to allow a court to intervene and
overrule the democratically elected
Government.
Steve
Webb: A democratically elected Government are passing this
law; it is not undemocratic to enforce something that an elected
Parliament has introduced. I am intrigued by the thought that the
responsible Secretary of State, whom I now understand to be
“probably the Chancellor”, could be locked up.
Presumably, the effect of court action is to require the Government to
take steps to meet their statutory obligations. If the court says,
“You’re not going to meet your targets. You are in breach
of the Child Poverty Act 2010. What are you going to do about
it?”, we hope that the Government, rather than saying,
“Well, you can lock us up if you don’t like it”,
say, “Right, we will take the following measures.” I have
made my main point, but it is a bit odd that we have an excuse clause.
Being able to explain the reason for failure after the event
undermines the whole point of having a statutory binding
target by
2020.
Helen
Goodman: I am slightly concerned by the hon.
Gentleman’s use of the word “excuse”; it is not
appropriate. Producing a report that explains what has not happened is
different from making an excuse. The truth is that the duty is
absolute. What is being produced is an accountability mechanism for the
end of the period. However, it would be possible for legal action to be
taken before 2020, not, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, if forecasts
suggest that the targets will be missed, but if the Government’s
actions, strategy or decisions will not be sufficient to allow them to
meet their
duties. The
duties of the Government prior to 2020 are to produce credible
strategies. If they fail to do that, they will be open to legal
challenge, and the claimants would need to produce clear evidence that
they have failed to do that. In that case, there would not be a
Government report before 2020 stating whether or not the targets had
been met. The argument would be about whether the approach being taken
was reasonable and, obviously, it would be up to the Government to show
that they had a credible strategy. If the hon. Gentleman takes those
two things together, he should be reassured that the measure will be an
effective discipline on any Government. It will maintain the
pressure—that is what he is primarily concerned about—and
it will strengthen the force behind our objective of achieving the
targets. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
15Economic
and fiscal
circumstances
Mr.
Stuart: I beg to move amendment 61, in
clause 15, page 9, line 21, at
end insert ‘including with regard
to any statutory duty to reduce public
borrowing’. The
Fiscal Responsibility Bill proposed in the Prime Minister’s
Party Conference speech of 29 September 2009 will impose a legally
binding obligation on the Government to reduce public borrowing. The
amendment seeks clarification as to whether the Secretary of State, in
preparing a UK strategy, and the Commission, in considering advice,
will need to take into account this
obligation. As
ever, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr. Key. The amendment follows on neatly from the points
made rightly, albeit naively, by the hon. Member for Northavon; the
credence that he gave to the Government’s promises was overly
great. Before I deal with the specifics of my amendment, I want to
focus more on statutory targets. What do statutory targets mean? I
asked the Library to investigate the history of statutory targets, and
it duly produced a note on the subject. I wanted to find out whether
they had a history, because it has always seemed manifestly absurd to
put targets in statute, whether in this Bill or in the Climate Change
Act
2008. Time
and again in debate on the Climate Change Bill, Ministers boasted of a
legal duty on Government to deliver. When I looked into the history of
statutory targets, I found that no Government prior to this one had
ever put targets into statue, at least according to the House of
Commons Library. Many Back Benchers had come forward with private
Members’ Bills that suggested doing exactly that, but they
always had to change the wording to refer to a provision for setting
targets, so as to give the Government of the day the flexibility to
respond in the right way. The Library came through with a list of the
provisions that have been made. The Water Act 2003 has concentration of
fluoride targets, the Housing Act 2004 has energy efficiency of
residential accommodation targets, and there are other targets that
have been put together by the Government. It is a relatively novel
thing to do.
If one looks
for legal advice on such matters, one finds the article by Harriet
Townsend on the Climate Change Act 2008. That goes to the point of what
the hon. Member for Northavon said: what enforceability is there? As he
said, why bring genuine child poverty charities and campaigners to
Parliament and make them believe that if the agenda, which they rightly
say should be more central to Government policy making, is put in
statute, the justice that they have long sought for children in poverty
can be had? What is the point if it turns out that we are talking about
sleight of hand, or Government posturing, with no enforceability
mechanisms whatever for those who feel that they had been made a
binding promise, and who believed that it was binding by dint of being
in
statute? Harriet
Townsend’s paper on the Climate Change Act 2008, which is well
worth reading because of its relevance to the matter at hand,
effectively says that she cannot see that any duty set in statute can
be enforceable. So far, the only cases that have come before a court,
which I will come to in a moment, have resulted in a
declaration only. I feel that a fraud is being
perpetuated at the heart of the Bill. It is a fraud on all those who
campaign for and care most about child poverty, because the statutory
targets set in the Bill are not, in fact,
enforceable. Mr.
Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
| 
