John
Mason: Theoretically at least, if the power applied
throughout Scotland, what difference would it make? Perhaps I should be
asking what difference it will make to Manchester or
Birmingham.
Mr.
Harper: Perhaps the Solicitor-General was being a bit
roundabout. I suspect she was really wondering—given that the
hon. Gentleman said that he and the Scottish Government support the
power, and given that his answer focused particularly on the difference
it might make to his constituents in Glasgow—why the Scottish
Government do not want it to apply in
Scotland.
John
Mason: I will answer both those points eventually, as I
have a letter here from the Minister for Housing and Communities, Alec
Neil MSP. The basic position of our party and the Scottish Government
is that we are totally committed to challenging socio-economic
inequality. It is a question of the best way to go about it and whether
the Bill goes far enough, as has been
mentioned. The
letter
says: “The
Scottish Government has supported the principle of the Equality Bill
from the outset and continues to support it. A number of provisions in
the Bill require the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament,
and the Scottish Government introduced a Legislative Consent
Memorandum... on 7
May.” I
believe that is working its way through the
process. The
Minister for Housing and Communities goes on to mention the
socio-economic duty,
saying “it
is correct that the socio-economic duty... will not extend to
Scotland. Scottish Government officials have only had limited contact
with the Government Equalities Office (GEO) on the proposals for a
socio-economic
duty”. The
suggestion seems to be that the Government in Westminster have not been
doing a lot of talking to the Scottish Government to explain the duty
and whether we should take it
through.
The
Solicitor-General: I have no idea where that suggestion
comes from. I have been to Scotland several times and given evidence to
the Scottish Parliament, and officials have been in pretty constant
contact. We would be pleased if we persuaded the hon.
Gentleman’s party to take on the duty, and we have done our
level best to do so. Compare and contrast Wales, where we have had far
less trouble persuading the Government that it will be helpful to their
people.
I assure the
hon. Gentleman that we have had an enormous amount of contact. He is in
a funny position—I acknowledge that straightaway—in that
he seems to support the measures, although he does not think they go
far enough, but his own Government will not have anything to do with
them.
John
Mason: I would be happy to act as go-between if the two
Governments would like to use my
services. Emily
Thornberry (Islington, South and Finsbury) (Lab): Does the
hon. Gentleman not agree that his constituents would be somewhat
alarmed by this situation? Surely they sent him to Parliament to deal
with precisely this sort of problem, if it really is a
problem.
John
Mason: In one word, yes. Let me read the next paragraph of
the letter, because it might clarify things
further: “Within
our devolved powers we are able to carefully consider how we can direct
our efforts to tackle poverty, reduce inequality, and promote social
mobility in a way that is most appropriate to Scotland. As it is, we
are completely committed to reducing
socio-economic inequality in Scottish society. Our Solidarity and
Cohesion targets commit us to taking serious action to reduce the gap
between the rich and the poor, both at an individual and an area level.
Achievement of these targets will be supported by a wide range of
measures already in
place.” I
take that to mean that the Scottish Government remain to be convinced
that the proposed power has
teeth.
Mr.
Harper: I confess to being confused. If we take my view,
the hon. Gentleman’s comments make perfect sense. He has set out
his view that the Scottish Government have wide-ranging targets and
measures to deal with socio-economic disadvantage. In that case, they
are getting on with it, and presumably the electorate are happy with
that, because the Scottish National party did well in the last
elections. It seems, therefore, that he should be supporting my view
too. However,
if the hon. Gentleman accepts the view that he has already
expressed—this power is appropriate and the only thing wrong
with it is that it does not go far enough—it seems strange that
he does not want the Scottish Government to adopt the proposed power.
Most of his remarks appear to agree with what I am saying, but coming
from him, they do not seem consistent or
logical.
John
Mason: I am sorry if I am not explaining myself well
enough. Let me try again: I, the Scottish Government and our party are
totally committed to challenging socio-economic disadvantage, and I
believe that we are more committed to that than the Westminster
Government— Jim
Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab): Will the
hon. Gentleman give
way?
John
Mason: Let me finish my sentence. I believe that we are
more committed to that than the Westminster Government, so we want to
find something better than this socio-economic duty. As has been said
by the Conservative party, it seems to have been tagged on a bit, even
though it is at the beginning of the Bill. We want to find the best
solution. We can use this measure, for now, but we should try to find
something
better.
Jim
Sheridan: I remind the hon. Gentleman that his Government
have been in power for two years. Will he tell me one measure that they
have introduced to address socio-economic
disadvantage?
John
Mason: I think we are probably straying from the subject.
However, I would suggest that reducing prescription charges is one. I
know that the Welsh are ahead of us on that—they have free
prescriptions—but we are reducing charges, while in England they
are
increasing. I
am not as familiar with the situation in England as I am with that in
Scotland; perhaps Scotland is simply slightly further ahead on some of
these issues. Another slightly different factor in Scotland is the
concordat between central Government and local government—I
assume from the comments of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean that the
Conservative leader would agree with this kind of measure. Instead of
central
Government imposing lots of new duties on local government, they very
much work in agreement. That has certainly been welcomed by the Labour
party in
Scotland. Sandra
Osborne: To put it very mildly, the concordat is on a
shaky peg and might well break down, although I accept that it did
happen. In my area, the Tory and Scottish National party council is
shutting things down and making cuts left, right and centre. The
concordat means little to the people I represent. However, does the
hon. Gentleman agree that this is a missed opportunity? The Scottish
Government simply want to plough their own furrow. They do not want to
co-operate with Westminster. As usual, they want to pick a fight with
it, instead of being
constructive.
The
Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, I
suggest to the Committee that we have discussed the intentions of the
Scottish Parliament at inordinate length. Can we please return to the
amendment?
John
Mason: I apologise for everybody else’s
interventions.
I am grateful
to Citizens Advice for its help on amendment 107. Clause 2 provides for
the list of authorities in clause 1 to be added to through regulations.
I believe that it is important for the duty to apply clearly to key
regulators, Executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies,
particularly those with an economic impact. Would it not be better to
include those in the Bill now to ensure fairness as we come out of the
recession, rather than waiting for a Government to include the bodies
at a later date? That would mean regulators taking the duty into
account when setting regulatory policies and
strategies. The
amendment suggests five additional authorities, although there could be
more—this is just for starters. The Liberal Democrats have
mentioned a few other bodies and similar arguments apply to each of
those. Often, there is already a duty on them that might include
socio-economic issues, but extending the duty specifically to cover
them should strengthen their
resolve. I
want to consider specifically the Office of Gas and Electricity
Markets. Ofgem’s principal objective is to protect the interests
of existing and future consumers, promoting effective competition
wherever appropriate. In addition, when carrying out those functions
Ofgem must have regard to the interests of individuals who are
disabled, chronically sick, of pensionable age, on low incomes or
residing in rural
areas. That
is of particular concern to me, as a number of poorer people in my
constituency are struggling with fuel bills, paying more for
electricity and paying in advance through a pre-payment meter. That is
a real problem. Extending the socio-economic duty to Ofgem would
reinforce its ability to deal with that issue and justify the regulator
prioritising its work on socio-economic inequalities ahead of other
matters, such as certain competition issues. The amendment could bring
about a slight difference in emphasis.
Dr.
Harris: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon.
Gentleman is saying. Particularly because so much of the direction of
public services has been delegated to regulators such as these, away
from elected Governments, it is important that we use every opportunity
to give them a steer when there are certain public policy outcomes,
such as the elimination of disadvantage, that we would like to be
delivered through utilities or public services, without putting too
much of a burden on industry. That is why his amendment and the Liberal
Democrat amendment, which says much the same thing in respect of
regulators, are so
important.
John
Mason: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s
intervention and agree with his
point.
The
Solicitor-General: I am being as sympathetic as I can, but
our concern is that there is no point putting a duty on regulators if a
duty cannot be put on the people they regulate. It cannot, because we
are talking about the private sector, so what is the
point?
John
Mason: One suggestion is that the regulator must
prioritise the work that it does. Specifically giving the regulator the
socio-economic duty as well would, we hope, push that up its agenda. I
know that in many cases the regulator is struggling with a wide agenda,
but I believe that the point of the Bill is in some cases to
double-underline duties that may or may not apply to other authorities.
If this duty applies to other authorities, it should apply to the
regulator as
well.
Mr.
Boswell: Let me try to help the hon. Gentleman. Does he
agree that a consideration in this respect might be whether the
regulator would require the introduction of a particular social tariff
to meet the problems of disadvantage? That at least, whatever the
merits of the clause, might be a perfectly proper steer that the
regulator could be obliged to
give.
John
Mason: That is an extremely good example and there are
probably others. I appreciate the intervention. If the duty already
applied to Ofgem, the regulator, following its conclusion that
consumers on pre-payment meters were subject to unfair price
differentials, might have been able to act more swiftly and take
decisive
action. As
well as regulators, certain Executive agencies and non-departmental
public bodies should be subject to the duty. Although it may be argued
that those public bodies will be covered by the duty applying to
Departments, it should be made clear whether that is the case. I would
appreciate the Minister clarifying that. One example would be Jobcentre
Plus, in the same way that the duty under the Disability Discrimination
Act 2005 to promote disability equality applies to certain Executive
agencies and non-departmental public
bodies. Finally,
I oppose Conservative amendments 2 and 4 and support amendments 108,
109 and
181. 9.45
am
Mr.
Boswell: May I also welcome you to the Chair,
Mr. Benton? I think that we will have a positive and
constructive Committee. I promise to speak about some of the general
aspects of the amendments and the
clause without straying on to the issue of Scotland. However, it is just
conceivable, in view of my wife’s nationality and certain
involvements that I have in Cardiff, where I come across the Welsh
Assembly Government, that I may advert to that body. That is not a
threat; it is simply that we have heard a lot about the different
implications of devolved
Administrations. I
will not indulge myself at length, but it comes as a wake-up call
telling one that it is time to go when one finds that Cabinet Ministers
were born after one had left higher education. I was shocked to
discover that the other day, but it also prompts my first general
remark. Forty-five years ago, I had the first—and probably
only—lesson in moral philosophy that I can remember, which was
to the effect that there is a distinction between saying that something
should happen and saying that there should be a law that something
should happen. That is the general issue raised by this
place. The
Solicitor-General has been very kind to me on occasion, and I hope that
there will be no argument about whether we are interested in
inequalities. There could have been that argument, and there could
still be in respect of certain members of my party and other parties,
but we need to be alert to such
factors. Among
local authorities in my county and most others, and even among
regulators, which we recently discussed in relation to an amendment,
there is a disposition to even things up and, to use a phrase that I
used on Second Reading—I am interested in the human rights side,
as well as the discrimination and equalities issue—to treat
people decently. That is really why we are in business in Parliament,
and we should not have an argument about that. The issue, however, is
how we deliver that and whether it is appropriate to have a general
duty.
When I
interrupted the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for
Forest of Dean, who was making a perfectly reasonable distinction
between inequality and discrimination, I adverted to my concern that
the proposals did not amount to much, particularly when there was no
opportunity of litigating in private to correct failures by a public
authority. There are no teeth, although that does not necessarily mean
that we should never have
legislation. During
our evidence sessions, the Solicitor-General objected to my slight
penchant for principles clauses, which we may have occasion to discuss
later. She said that such a clause would not add value and that it was
not clear how it would operate in practice. However, one could
reasonably turn her argument against her and say that if she does not
like principles clauses, she should accept that clause 1 is, in a way,
a clause of generality or principle, which may not have many teeth or
substance and which may serve a political rather than a purely
functional
purpose. I
add another general concern, which strays forward into clause 2. It
relates to the operation of so-called Henry VIII clauses. The only
other reminiscence that I will relate to the Committee is that the
first house I grew up in was a farm house. It was nothing very grand;
indeed, it had previously been used to store onions. It was called
Bull’s lodge. Bull was in fact Boleyn, as in Anne Boleyn. It was
a small hunting box that had been owned by Sir Thomas Boleyn. It was
next to New hall, which happened to be one of Henry VIII’s
palaces. Indeed, we found evidence that he and Anne had been
courting, because there was a secret passage between the two. That is
the early memory, but I was going to say that Anne Boleyn had a nasty
time at the hands of Henry VIII, and we should resist Henry VIII
clauses in
principle. | 
