Andrew
Selous: I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman as a
fellow localist. My party does not have a preserve of interest in
localism. I understand what he is saying but there is a different way
to achieve what we both seek: partly through the ballot box and partly
through measurement by results that are made public. We will come on to
data sets and measuring when we
reach our stand part debate. However, I would say to the hon. Gentleman
that the way in which to achieve the outcome that he wants is not to be
over-prescriptive, but to judge by published results. Any council that
was doing badly could then experience an element of shame, and there
would also be local elections and the local ballot
box.
Mr.
Reed: The method that the hon. Gentleman is
outlining is helpful to us, and it would be helpful to the local
authorities in question. However, I cannot help but think that it would
not be helpful to the people and the children whom we are trying to
help, and helping them is the purpose of the
Bill.
Andrew
Selous: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming
from, but to be honest I think that there is a straightforward
disagreement about the best approach. I believe in accountability and
people being judged by results. I believe that the approach that I have
outlined is preferable, so I commend amendments 4 and 5 to the
Committee.
Helen
Goodman: I shall speak to amendments 4 and 5 at the same
time as they are so clearly linked. I point out to the hon. Member for
South-West Bedfordshire that, on its own, amendment 5 is ambiguous, as
it proposes that authorities should be
replaced “as
the authority thinks fit”.
That would mean that
the amended line of the clause—line 45—would
read “each of its partner authorities, as the authority thinks
fit”. That has no clear meaning.
Taken in
conjunction with amendment 4, however, the effect of amendment 5 would
be to change line 45 from stating “each of its partner
authorities, as the authority thinks fit” to “those of
its partner authorities, as the authority thinks fit”. That
would mean that responsible authorities would not have to promote
co-operation with all the named partner authorities, which would
certainly weaken the impact of these partnership
arrangements.
The
consultations that we undertook while preparing the Bill made it clear
that local partners thought that tackling child poverty must be a
shared responsibility of all key partners, rather than there being an
opt-in system. It is clear that the local authority has a lead role,
but other local partners must also play their part. The importance of
partnership working was clearly demonstrated by the evidence that we
heard from witnesses on 20 October.
Mr.
David Gauke (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con): Amendment 5
is not saying that there should be no partner working at all. It
proposes that the local authority should decide which of the potential
partner authorities it should work with. Why is the local authority not
in a position to make that judgment?
Helen
Goodman: As we discussed earlier in the sitting, we are
trying to reproduce the arrangements for the local strategic
partnership, because we believe that that will be a less bureaucratic
approach. Consequently, we are giving local authorities the flexibility
to co-opt further partners, should they wish to do
so.
The Bill
specifically states that partnership arrangements involve all partners
but it is not prescriptive, as the hon. Member for South-West
Bedfordshire seemed to believe, about the form that those arrangements
should take. For example, the Bill does not specify attendance at a
particular number of meetings. I believe that we have got the balance
right in the Bill.
Only by
requiring local authorities to make arrangements that will make
co-operation between the authority and “each” of its
named partner authorities can we be confident that the full range of
individuals, organisations and bodies that can make a real and lasting
difference to the lives of children in this country will be fully
engaged in the task. That is why the clause is worded as it
is.
Amendment 5
proposes that it would be up to the local authority to determine which
local partners should be involved. Although I appreciate the need for
flexibility to suit local needs, the amendment would raise questions
about who should be involved. Therefore, it would weaken the local
authority’s ability to involve all the necessary
partners.
As it
stands, the duty proposed in the clause will ensure that all local
authorities and their named partners can share their knowledge and
understanding, their interests and influence, and the resources that
they have available to tackle the issues that affect child poverty in
their local areas. That process is not about imposing new systems and
structures that will divert attention and resource away from action, as
the hon. Gentleman suggested—quite the opposite. The requirement
is to create an impetus across the country that those who are already
collaborating can take further and so that those who could do more will
have the stimulus to do so.
Mr.
Stuart: The Minister is makes some interesting points. Let
us say that a local authority sets up a child poverty group and decides
not to have a partner authority on that group. Would she consider that
appropriate? It might be useful if local authorities do not start out
thinking that each time they meet under the child poverty banner, they
must have all the partner authorities around the table or they will in
some way be failing to deliver under the
Bill. 12
noon
Helen
Goodman: When the Bill is passed into statute, the local
authorities and partner authorities should fulfil their duties and
responsibilities. It is for the leader authority to take the initiative
and for all the partners to co-operate in the needs assessment and the
strategy. If subsets of institutions want to concentrate on particular
aspects, that seems to be perfectly sensible. However, it would not
obviate the need for all the named partners under the Bill to fulfil
their statutory
responsibilities.
Mr.
Stuart: I imagine that there would be a local area child
poverty steering group. Is the hon. Lady saying, on the basis that we
are considering not a subset but the overall position, that the police
would need to send a representative each time, regardless of whether
what was on the agenda seemed directly
relevant?
Helen
Goodman: No. That was precisely what I was not saying. All
those identified under clause 19 have a part to
play—individually and collectively. We will work with them to
ensure that their respective contributions are properly articulated,
acted on and maximised.
Having had an
opportunity to reflect further, I hope that the hon. Member for
South-West Bedfordshire will withdraw amendments 4 and
5.
Andrew
Selous: I listened carefully to the Minister.
Notwithstanding her remarks, there is a danger that the partner
authorities, knowing that they have legal responsibilities under the
Bill, will feel an onus to go along to meetings when perhaps their
input would not be relevant on that occasion. There is a basic
difference between us, in that Conservative Members trust local
authorities to achieve the results that we all want to see in the way
in which they think is best and that fits in with the particular
circumstances of their local area. All that we are asking for is that
degree of flexibility and discretion for local authorities, so I shall
press the amendment to a
Division. Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
8.
Division
No.
9] Question
accordingly
negatived.
Andrew
Selous: I beg to move amendment 6, in
clause 20, page 12, line 5, leave
out subsection (4).
The
amendment would delete subsection (4), which refers to the Secretary of
State giving guidance and requires local authorities to “have
regard to” any such guidance. That phrase might appear entirely
innocuous, but from my experience as a local school governor, guidance
often assumes almost the status of holy writ and is virtually
indistinguishable from statutory obligation. In the spirit of my
previous remarks, therefore, I would like to give local authorities
greater flexibility to pursue their local child poverty agendas and
strategies in their own
way. As
I said earlier, there is a good case for saying that all poverty is
local. Depending on where in the country it occurs, different sets of
circumstances trap families and communities in poverty. I have
difficulty seeing how guidance given by the Secretary of State can
usefully be applied in the same way from Cornwall to Dundee and from
Cumbria down to Kent. I call only for local discretion and local
flexibility. Local authorities will be judged on the basis of their
results. They will be judged, as they should be, on how successful they
are in reducing the number of children living in poverty in their area.
That should be the accountability framework. We should judge by results
and use comparative tables to see which councils have made progress and
which have not. There is always the ballot
box.
Steve
Webb: This might pre-empt discussion on the next clause
slightly, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is impossible to
measure which local authorities are making progress on any of the
targets in the Bill, as none of them is measured at local authority
level?
Andrew
Selous: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When we
come to a stand part debate on clause 21, I would love to
engage on that subject, as I tabled a written question to the Minister
a couple of days ago that he very helpfully answered and that is
entirely relevant to that point. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me,
I will park that issue for one moment. As so often, he is absolutely
right to raise it, but the appropriate time to debate it, as I think
you would agree, Mr. Caton, is later. The thrust of my
remarks is similar to that of the points that I made on amendments 4
and 5. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to
say.
Ms
Keeble: I do not agree with the amendment. Guidance is
important. Will my hon. Friend the Minister set out what the guidance
would say? Some factors that are particularly relevant to child poverty
might not always be immediately evident locally, although that might
sound like a contradiction in terms. I understand the hon.
Gentleman’s point, but if, for example, one sits the national
statistics on poverty or low birth weight in babies—a high risk
factor resulting partly from poverty—over the national profile
of ethnicity, one finds a near-perfect fit. That might not always be
immediately evident from local statistics.
Unfortunately,
black and minority ethnic communities are not always engaged fully in
either political parties or the democratic process. One need only look
around the Committee to see evidence of that. Although black and
minority ethnic communities are disproportionately affected by poverty,
we do not have MPs from any of those communities in the Committee.
Guidance from the Government to local authorities to point out what the
national statistics show, and to suggest that they find ways to look at
the matter, might be relevant. Of course some local authorities are
particularly good at engaging with diverse communities and many can
teach the Government a great deal on that. There is also flux in such
communities: different communities are affected in different ways and
therefore guidance can act as an important prompt—I put it no
stronger—to ensure that lessons are learned.
The guidance
might also raise issues about the involvement of faith communities,
bearing in mind that a wide variety can engage with the issue. That
might be a good way of dealing with some of the local black and
minority ethnic communities. In the Bangladeshi community in
Northampton, child poverty is a major issue, and there is a real need
to engage. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tell us whether the
guidance will touch on those factors, or is there some other way in
which black and minority ethnic communities and diverse faith
communities might need to be involved in tackling child
poverty?
John
Howell: It is difficult to see what guidance central
Government can provide when, as we heard in the evidence sessions,
local government is already actively participating in this area and is
doing so in a diverse way. One of the impressive things we heard, which
is
mirrored, I hope, by our own experiences in our constituencies, is that
local councils are tackling child poverty in a very diverse way. I hope
that Ministers heard and read the comments of Kevan Collins, one of our
witnesses who represented local government, who said in response to
question 124 that guidance could easily be unhelpful.
That is a
crucial issue. Will guidance be helpful or unhelpful? There is a huge
potential for it to be unhelpful in that it runs the risk of harming
and distracting from what is already being done. A good example of that
is the distinction that is made between approaching child poverty on
the basis of child poverty or family poverty. There is a completely
different approach on the ground, and the guidance might distract from
that. I
disagree with guidance as an automatic part of the Bill. There are
three references to guidance in this Bill, as well as to additional
regulations. It is typical of the master-servant relationship that has
characterised this Government’s attitude towards local
government. Will the Minister clarify what she means by guidance?
Earlier in the debate she referred to statutory guidance. In my book
there is no such thing as statutory guidance. It is an obligation. That
is what the statutory part of it means. We need to know, as the hon.
Member for Northampton, North said, what the guidance will cover. I
believe that the term “light touch” has been thrown about
in relation to the guidance. That is a nice term of art, but we need to
bring that down to something more
specific. Finally,
I refer the Committee to the evidence of Colin Green, whose words sum
up many of my feelings for this clause:
“The
Bill is an enabler: we do not need more
micro-management.”——[Official Report,
Child Poverty Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2009; c. 53,
Q124.] The
Government have to show why this is not
micro-management. 12.15
pm
| 
