Mr.
Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point when he says
that the solutions to socio-economic disadvantage are quite different
from those required to stamp out discrimination. Indeed, one reason why
we tabled a reasoned amendment on Second Reading was that although we
were happy with the bulk of the Bill—indeed, the simplification
and codification in it are welcome—we did not think that this
part fitted well with the rest. Indeed, it looks like it has been
squeezed in at the beginning or tagged on, albeit not as an
afterthought, but not elegantly.
Lynne
Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): The
Bill’s title is the Equality Bill, and given that socio-economic
disadvantage is the greatest inequality there is, it would have been
negligent of the Government not to include it. My criticism is that
their proposals are a weak way of including it. Does the hon.
Gentleman
agree?
Mr.
Harper: No, I do not. As my hon. Friend the Member for
Weston-super-Mare said, the remedies and powers in the rest of the Bill
to prevent discrimination are quite different from the solutions to
socio-economic disadvantage.
For the
avoidance of doubt, I should say at this point that we are in no way
saying that there are no issues with socio-economic disadvantage.
Indeed, on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for
Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made it clear in her opening speech,
as I did in my winding-up speech, that there are issues with
socio-economic disadvantage. Ministers and former Ministers have been
frank about that. Indeed, the Home Secretary, when he had
responsibility for education, said:
“It is
actually getting harder for people to escape poverty and leave the
income group, professional banding or social circle of their parents.
In fact, it’s harder to escape the shackles of a poor upbringing
in Britain than anywhere else in Europe, and about the same as in
America.” There
clearly is a problem with lack of social mobility and people being
trapped in disadvantage, but we do not think that the solution is to
include these measures in the Bill. Clearly, the Government, of
whichever party, will have a big job dealing with the reasons for
disadvantage, whether by improving families’ ability to stay
together or looking at the educational opportunities available to
people to give everybody an equal opportunity to succeed. However, the
proposals are a profoundly mistaken way to deal with the
issue. I
mentioned fuel poverty legislation, and the Government also plan to
introduce a Bill to eliminate child poverty. To be fair, the Government
had some success in dealing with the issue, but child poverty figures
are now going in the opposite direction. We cannot solve such problems
by passing a law; we solve them by tackling the root causes. A number
of those who appeared before us in our evidence sessions were fairly
relaxed about the proposals and supportive of them, but most did not
think that they would make a huge difference. That is the flaw and why
this is not the way to tackle socio-economic
disadvantage. 9.15
am
The
Solicitor-General (Vera Baird): In fact, almost everybody
who was asked about the provision—they were repeatedly probed by
members of the hon.
Gentleman’s party—was immensely supportive. The hon.
Gentleman makes the point that it is not the solution; of course it is
not, because the problem is entrenched and difficult. However, what is
the harm of it? It will help. EDF has 50 members, each with a large
membership, and they all think that this will help. ROTA, which also
gave evidence in favour of the proposal, has 1,500 member
organisations, each with many hundreds of members, and therefore with
many discrimination strands, and they think that it will help. What
does the hon. Gentleman say is wrong with the
proposal?
Mr.
Harper: I do not think that it will make much difference,
if any. Bills are not about sending messages; they are about changing
the law. If one is going to put a duty on public sector authorities,
and if that duty is not meaningful and will not make a significant
difference, it sets expectations that simply will not be delivered. It
also puts a burden on authorities. There will be lots of compliance
that authorities will have to tackle. There will be lots of words in
annual reports and people doing reports about how they are complying.
If the reality is that it will not make any difference, an awful lot of
money will be spent with an awful lack of
outcome. Dr.
Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): Will the
hon. Gentleman confirm that he said he does not believe—I think
he is right, actually—that legislation should be solely for the
purpose of sending out a message? It must be shown to fulfil another
need or be effective in itself, and arguing that it sends a message is
not a good basis for legislation, whether in this area or any other
area, such as criminal
justice.
Mr.
Harper: Yes, I agree. Legislation ought to be effective.
From the conversations that I have had and the evidence that I have
seen, I do not think that this is the way to go about it. The issue is
serious, and there is a real problem. One could argue that setting out
ways in which every member of our society has an equal opportunity to
succeed—it does not mean that we will have equal outcomes, but
everyone will have a fair chance—is probably one of the most
important parts of public policy. But this is not how one goes about
doing it. I do not think that it fits well within the Bill—it
detracts from the Bill rather than adding to it—which is why we
oppose
it. On
amendment 2, will the Minister comment on the approach, because we do
not think that giving Ministers the power to amend primary legislation
is welcome? It would be better to set it out differently, but I
recognise that that is a technical point, which we can discuss.
Amendment 4 is an opportunity to discuss where the appropriate level
for the decisions sits and the appropriate forums. We do not think that
this particular approach is a sound
one.
Lynne
Featherstone: May I say what a pleasure it is to sit on a
Committee where you are the Chair, Mr. Benton? I look
forward to working on the Bill and probing and improving the
legislation, where
possible. I
rise to discuss our amendments 108, 109 and 181, amendments 2 and 4
tabled by the Tories and amendment 107 tabled by the SNP. It is quite
clear that partner organisations, regulators and a whole range of
authorities
and agencies could have the duty, and I want to find out which of them
might be included in the lists. Amendment 108 relates to the partner
agencies as part of the Greater London authority. Transport for London,
the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the London
Development Agency and the Metropolitan Police Authority are clearly
strategic authorities and partners involved in pursuing, delivering and
implementing
policy. The
clause does not make it clear whether those GLA family members are
covered by the socio-economic duty. Schedule 19 lists them individually
for the general public duty, but that is not so in the clause. My
purpose is to get the Minister to elucidate whether they should be
named as individual partner bodies. Their roles are extremely strategic
and they act independently of the Mayor, although in the matter of
political direction, the Mayor of London is at the top. The bodies in
question cover some of the areas of highest inequality in the
country.
The list in
clause 1 includes police authorities, but fire and rescue authorities
constituted by a relevant scheme are not included in the same way, and
amendment 109 would provide for those to be included in the
socio-economic duty. Those are single-function authorities, but a
socio-economic duty would ensure the consideration that the Government
have deemed it important for all bodies to have regard to. Social
inequality in the question of where and how to give fire cover is very
important. The authorities cover huge areas—West Midlands fire
service, for example. The situation is anomalous in relation to police
authorities, and we cannot see why police authorities but not fire
authorities should be
included. Amendment
181 is supported by Citizens Advice. We think that the provision should
require bodies with inspection or regulatory duties also to have regard
to socio-economic inequalities. Regulators play a huge part in the
provision of public services that matter, and they sit in judgment, so
it is right that they should consider the socio-economic duty. The
example given by Citizens Advice is Ofgem. It argues that if Ofgem had
had such a socio-economic duty, it would have acted much sooner to deal
with the issue of poorer customers being charged more for metered
electricity, which is obviously an important
point. I
forgot to say in beginning, Mr. Benton, that I want to deal
with the wider issues on clause stand part.
I want to
discuss the Conservative amendments 2 and 4. We agree with amendment 2
to the extent that the list in the clause is imperfect, as I hope that
I have shown. However, the Liberal Democrats would much prefer a
prescriptive list to the delegation to Ministers or a future Government
of the power to list authorities. Delegation of the power would make
the application of socio-economic duty subject to the whims of
Ministers or the Government of the day, which would mean uncertainty in
the Bill. As to amendment 4, there are many examples of partner
authorities that should be covered, because of their strategic nature
and their potential impact in reducing socio-economic
disadvantage.
The
Chairman: Order. I interrupt the hon. Lady because I have
been thinking about what she has said about not discussing the broader
issues at this stage. On reflection, and bearing in mind my earlier
ruling, we may not have a stand part debate, and it would be
helpful—I do not say that it must happen—if she were to
address the broader issues. That is a suggestion, not a
ruling.
Lynne
Featherstone: Thank you for your guidance, Mr.
Benton.
The
Solicitor-General: I hope to assist the hon. Member for
Forest of Dean. We do not wish to have a clause stand part debate, but
the ball is entirely in the hon. Lady’s
court.
Lynne
Featherstone: I
understand.
Dr.
Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. The
hon. Member for Forest of Dean, who speaks for the Conservatives,
raised a number of general points, but my understanding is that the
points that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green wishes
to raise are wholly different from and unrelated to the issues relating
to public bodies in this group of amendments. Because they are
specific, finite points relating to the question whether there is
alternative way of doing what the clause seeks to do, they would fit
best in a separate debate. Will you, Mr. Benton, reflect on
your current advice—it is obviously your ruling to
make—to see whether separating things out would aid
debate?
The
Chairman: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has mentioned
“advice” as opposed to “ruling”. It will
depend precisely on how proceedings go during the discussion of the
amendments. I was merely pointing out that it would be helpful. It is
not a ruling and you can leave the advice. It does not necessarily mean
that there will not be a clause stand part debate, but if the hon.
Member for Hornsey and Wood Green is so disposed to talk in general
terms, it might be helpful. It is entirely a matter for her, and it is
not a
ruling.
Lynne
Featherstone: I thank you, Mr. Benton, and I am
happy to be helpful on this
occasion. Moving
on to some wider issues associated with amendment 4, the Liberal
Democrats think that the socio-economic duty is generally a good and
important thing. There may not be enough similar measures in the Bill.
Because the measure came in at such a late stage, there was not
adequate time to consult all the relevant bodies. There is no greater
inequality than the socio-economic divide, and I regret that the duty
in the Bill is so weak. We fully support its aims, but we feel that the
measure is more about sending a message than imposing an actual duty.
In reality, most authorities and agencies have some regard to the issue
already, certainly at local council and government
level. How
much consultation were the Government able to do on the socio-economic
duty? The measure was introduced very late, but it is one of the most
important elements of the Bill. It is in clause 1, so the Government
have given it some import, but I would have liked that to have been
reflected in the depth of the consultation. Had that happened, there
would have been ramifications. The measure might not simply have been
an attempt to deal with the symptoms rather than the
cause.
John
Mason (Glasgow, East) (SNP): As this is the first time
that I have spoken in Committee, may I say that I appreciate your
chairmanship, Mr. Benton? I want to make some general points
to begin with before specifically discussing amendment 107, which is
similar to the proposals that we have heard about this
morning. The
Scottish National party and the Government of Scotland very much
support the Bill and welcome the fact that different strands of
inequality are being brought together. A lot of good has been done in
recent years, but much remains to be done, for example, on equal pay
for women. Also, are the reasonable adjustments for disabled people
moving forward fast enough? That I and others will table amendments to
the Bill does not take away from the fact that we very much support
it.
I am very
supportive of the socio-economic duty. One reason why I am in politics
is to try to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. I asked
about that last week in what was my first question to the Prime
Minister in the House. My first question on this specific duty is this:
are we going far enough? There is little power of redress. Will the
Minister explain exactly what will be different under the legislation?
For example, the city that I am most familiar with is Glasgow. My
experience of Glasgow is that both the local authority and health
services take poverty into account when allocating resources. For
instance, in the east end of Glasgow, there is a lack of breastfeeding
and a particular problem with smoking, and the NHS and the council have
targeted that
together. 9.30
am
Sandra
Osborne: I do not disagree with anything that the hon.
Gentleman has said. In Scotland, extensive measures are taken to tackle
disadvantage, but before 1997, the link between poverty and ill health,
for example, was not recognised by the Government and support did not
filter down to that level as it does today. If he supports the power,
will he urge his party to put sectional interests aside and adopt a
socio-economic duty in the Scottish
Government?
John
Mason: The hon. Lady is jumping slightly ahead to my next
paragraph, so I will move on as I think it will address her
question.
Will the
Minister explain how things will be different in practice in a city
such as Glasgow as a result of the power? What can happen now that will
not be able to happen in the
future?
The
Solicitor-General: Obviously, the power will not make the
slightest difference to Glasgow, as the Scottish Government have not
accepted
it.
John
Mason: It will affect bodies such as the Department for
Work and Pensions, I
think. Stephen
Hesford (Wirral, West) (Lab):
Theoretically.
| 
