Helen
Goodman: This collection of amendments relates to clause
19, which sets out the partners that must work with local authorities
to tackle child poverty at a local level. As child poverty is complex
and multifaceted, it is clear that a range of partners must be engaged
in local action on this issue. I remind the Committee that the clear
message when we consulted on the content of the Bill was that measures
to promote local action would succeed only if they covered action by
all relevant partners in a local strategic partnership. We heard that
again from the local partners who gave evidence to the Committee on 20
October. This is one reason why we have included police authorities and
chief officers of police in the list of partners in the clause.
Amendment 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for South-West
Bedfordshire, would remove them from that list.
Everyone in
the room will agree that crime blights the lives of many families
living in the most deprived areas. For example, in 2008-09, the
burglary rate for households in the most deprived areas was more than
double that in the least deprived areas. Crime must therefore be
tackled if we are to improve children’s life chances. The vast
majority of poor families are hard working and law abiding. However,
when parents do engage in crime, it increases the likelihood that their
children will suffer from poverty and deprivation. I emphasise to the
hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire that we are asking the police
to be involved in the needs assessment and the strategy formulation. I
am sure that he can see that the police are a centrally important
partner in assessing what is going on in a local area and deciding what
actions should be
taken.
Andrew
Selous: I do not dispute for one moment that crime is a
blight on every community in this country and that it often impacts
disproportionately on the poorest—the Minister is absolutely
right to say that. However, coming back to the Bill and the targets in
clause 2 to 5, the only one she can hang this on is material
deprivation because all the others relate to specific levels of income.
Looking again at the list of questions to adults and children about
material deprivation, I cannot see one that relates to crime. How will
we tie in the police if they are not on the Minister’s list in
the area that she claims is
important? 11.15
am
Helen
Goodman: Let me give another example, which is connected
to something that one of my hon. Friends said. It is well known that
children whose parents have been found guilty of criminal activity are
themselves far more likely to be found guilty of such activities. That
clearly impacts on their capacity to find work, better themselves and
move out of poverty. Over the last three weeks, the hon. Member for
South-West Bedfordshire has repeatedly emphasised the importance of
getting to the root of the problem. I would have thought that he would
acknowledge this to be one area where we are doing just that.
As the hon.
Gentleman knows, police forces play an active role in LSPs and the
delivery of local area agreements across the country. That partnership
working is a key element of the Bill. We expect local child poverty
strategies to be developed and delivered through the existing
structures, and will make that clear in the guidance. The Bill requires
partners to strengthen their partnership
working in order to offer families in poverty the most effective service
possible. The police are an important part of existing partnership
structures, so such arrangements should not place undue burdens on
them. I hope that hon. Members will recognise the crucial role played
by the police in supporting our communities and delivering effective
local child poverty strategies, and I hope that the Committee will
agree that we should not remove the requirement on police authorities
and chief officers of police to co-operate with local authorities, and
their partners, to tackle child poverty. Amendment 62
has been tabled by the hon. Member for Beverley and
Holderness.
Ms
Keeble: Does my hon. Friend envisage prisons being
involved either under this clause or clause
20?
Helen
Goodman: Any other body can be involved under
clause 20(1)(c), if that is believed to be helpful to the delivery of
the strategy. I have not considered the case of prisons before now, so
I will not make any commitments to my hon. Friend on that
point.
Let me
return to the issue of mental health trusts. Nobody doubts the
significant link between mental health issues and the causes and
consequences of child poverty. In preparing the Bill, we considered
including mental health trusts in the list of named partner
authorities. However, after discussions with stakeholders, we concluded
that it was important to commit those bodies with strategic influence,
including those with responsibility for commissioning services, to the
requirements in part 2 of the Bill. Strategic health
authorities and primary care trusts are listed as partner
authorities.
Mr.
Stuart: I put it to the Minister that mental health trusts
do effectively commission services from organisations other than
themselves. They drive the delivery of mental health services in a
local area. They are not primarily driven by PCTs, let alone strategic
health authorities.
Helen
Goodman: I am sorry, but I do not accept the hon.
Gentleman’s description of the institutional architecture.
Mental health trusts may provide good services and be imaginative and
creative, but the commissioning body is the
PCT.
Steve
Webb: I am doing my best to be helpful this morning, but I
cannot keep it up. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness makes an
important point. The Minister refers to “institutional
architecture”. Presumably, when every trust is a foundation
trust, it will be even more the case that such bodies are free-standing
and able to set their own agenda and priorities. If there is a problem
with a constituent regarding mental health issues, one does not on the
whole go to the PCT, but to the mental health trust. Given that the
Government thought about doing that in the first place—it is not
an off-the-wall suggestion—will the Minister think about it
again and perhaps return to the matter
later?
Helen
Goodman: No. Although foundation trusts can raise money
from other sources, they may use that only for the purpose of providing
the goods and services agreed on with PCTs. It would, in any event,
constitute
only a minor proportion of a foundation trust’s income and would
not deflect from the PCT’s requirements under the
Bill.
Ms
Keeble: Does my hon. Friend agree that the role of the PCT
in mapping out mental health needs for communities is particularly
important? She has pointed out, as I think others have, that people
move in and out of mental illness. Therefore, the role of the body with
a wider remit for mapping out the commissioning is particularly
important, because it will be much more accurate in picking up the real
needs and impact of mental health on the community and on child
poverty. It is therefore right to have the PCT as a partner
authority.
Helen
Goodman: My hon. Friend has expressed the position
beautifully; I wish I had been as clear
myself. I
also want to pray in aid the wonderful clause 20(1)(c). It
states that in a local area, if it is decided that there is a
particular problem, it will be possible to co-opt a mental health
trust. We seek, as I have said, to reproduce the arrangements, which we
have, in the local strategic partnership for the sustainable
communities strategy. We are not trying to set up a whole new
bureaucratic system, or a whole new set of burdens on local
authorities, and I would have thought that Opposition Members
appreciated that
point.
Mr.
Stuart: The Minister is being very generous in giving way.
I understand her logic, but, speaking to local authorities and other
agencies, one of the hardest groups to deal with is health. It is very
hard to get health to work in such partnerships as it tends to bounce
off. Mental health is so critical to child poverty that I ask her to
think again. We can say that health “may” get involved,
but it is difficult to get it to come to the table if it is not under a
duty to do so.
Helen
Goodman: I have explained that the Bill adequately covers
the planning and delivery of mental health services. We will publish
statutory guidance on part 2 and consult on the preparation of that
guidance. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will take the
opportunity to look at the guidance. We can then take account of his
views. With that reassurance, I hope that he will not press his
amendment to a Division.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North tabled
amendment 73, which would add regional development agencies and
learning and skills councils to the list of partner authorities. As she
pointed out, RDAs have an important role to play in driving regional
economic activity, increasing employment opportunities and supporting
businesses through the current economic climate. Regional activity is
important and sets a framework for local action.
However,
following the recommendations of the review of sub-national economic
development and regeneration, we are actively seeking to strengthen the
role of local authorities in promoting economic regeneration, including
the introduction of a new duty to conduct an assessment of local
economic conditions. Local action on economic development has greater
potential to have a direct impact
on child poverty by focusing the efforts of partners on employment for
parents, as part of economic and community regeneration in
disadvantaged areas. As responsibility for economic development and
funding is being actively devolved to local authorities, including RDAs
as statutory partners, it would detract from that enhanced role to add
an additional layer of bureaucracy, which would not necessarily add
value to local decision making. I know that
my hon. Friend’s amendment is supported by London Councils. Of
course, arrangements can vary in different parts of the country,
depending on circumstances, and we have set up the arrangements to
achieve that. I hope that the flexibility we are offering in clause 20,
which would enable London local authorities to go down a slightly
different route from others, is sufficient to enable her to withdraw
her amendment relating to the
RDAs. In
respect of learning and skills councils, we recognise that addressing
the skills agenda is crucial to tackling poverty in a sustainable way.
Indeed, the Bill refers to that. The LSC has not been included in the
list of partners as under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and
Learning Bill, which is currently going through the House, it is
proposed that the LSC will be disbanded in 2010, with responsibility
for the planning, funding and commissioning of skills provision for 16
to 19-year-olds shifting to local authorities. It is therefore not
necessary to engage an additional
partner. Responsibility
for funding adult skills provision will move to the new national body,
the Skills Funding Agency. As the arrangements for co-ordinating adult
skills provision locally emerge, local authorities may choose to use
clause 20(1) to engage additional local partners such as local
employment and skills boards. Consultation on the Bill demonstrated
that it is important that local partners are able to deliver its
requirements through existing partnership arrangements. We were
therefore concerned to avoid compiling and prescribing an excessively
lengthy list of partner authorities. Child poverty is a pervasive and
significant issue of interest to a wide range of individuals and
organisations, but the list could have become unworkable. That is why
we have focused on the key influencers in local strategic partnerships,
which allowed the flexibility to co-opt further partners in clause
20.
I hope that
hon. Members are satisfied that, for the reasons I have set out, the
current list of statutory partners is appropriate. Police forces should
not be removed from the list as they are already a key partner within
local strategic partnerships, but the local commissioning role of PCTs
means that it is not necessary to add specific health providers such as
mental health trusts. Finally, the enhanced role for local authorities
in managing the skills and economic development agenda means that
adding RDAs and the LSC would introduce an additional layer of
bureaucracy to partnership working. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman
to withdraw the
amendment.
Andrew
Selous: The Minister did not mention this, but the first
thing I said was that amendment 3 was a probing amendment to tease out
the Government’s thinking about the inclusion of police
authorities and chief officers of police. Should the Government
continue to ask the LSP to undertake a further range of different
functions, we may have to revisit the question whether the LSP, as
currently constituted, is always the correct body of organisations to
confront every issue that the Government throw at it. I will say no
more than that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
The
Chairman: Would you like to move your amendment formally,
Mr.
Stuart? 11.30
am
Mr.
Stuart: I will speak quickly and then do so. I am grateful
for the Minister’s comments about statutory guidance. If the
Government persist in their current line that mental health trusts
should not be included in the list of partner authorities, I hope that
the guidance will provide added traction to make it likely that they
will participate in a local strategy. However, I do not accept the
point that the PCTs are the effective local commissioners of mental
health services. I have a local mental health trust in my area that
goes across more than one PCT. It is a powerful institution in its own
right. It is going for foundation status. It is an effective
commissioner of services and is critical to child poverty issues.
Therefore, I wish to press my amendment to a
vote. Amendment
proposed: 62, in
clause 19, page 11, line 3, at
end add— ‘(i) a Mental
Health Trust.’.—(Mr.
Stuart.) Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
8.
Division
No.
8]
| 
