John
Penrose: I will not try to try to top my hon.
Friend’s penchant for reminiscing, and I certainly cannot come
up with anything that wonderful. However, does he agree that the danger
in the clause, and the objections to it, as laid out by my hon. Friend
the Member for Forest of Dean, relate not so much to a Henry VIII
clause problem as to a King Canute clause problem? The Government are
trying to stand in front of the advancing waves of inequality and order
them to retreat. If they are to deal with inequality via disadvantage,
they need to build some sea walls or a dam to hold them back, rather
than just standing there ordering the waves to go back. That is the
problem with the
Bill.
Mr.
Boswell: That was a helpful intervention although I would
go further. What might be termed hard defences against
inequality—I have some experience; I do not make much of it, but
I used to be the Minister with responsibility for sea
defences—are not always better than what might be called soft
defences, which try to change culture and explain that certain things
are not acceptable. Nevertheless, the intervention was
helpful.
Emily
Thornberry: I am getting confused and I wonder whether the
hon. Gentleman will enlighten us. If Opposition members of the
Committee think that this is a King Canute clause, with my hon. and
learned Friend the Solicitor-General standing before the sea and
ordering it to go back, what alternatives do they suggest? What are the
hard defences that we are not using?
Mr.
Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She reminds me of
the anecdote about a gentleman went to a conference, which a friend had
advised him to attend, because he was confused. On his return, his
friend asked how he was. The man replied, “Still confused, but
at a somewhat higher
level.”
Mr.
Harper: Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. I alluded to a
specific issue. One of the clear disadvantages that many people from
poorer backgrounds face is the lack of availability of excellent
schools. They cannot offset the disadvantage of their parental income
by going to a good school that enables them to reach their full
potential. The solution is for central Government and local authorities
to implement policies that ensure that there are more good schools and
that those children have access to them. That is the solution, but it
will be achieved not by putting this measure into law, but by political
action and the necessary steps being taken. That is how we tackle
socio-economic
disadvantage.
Mr.
Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He prompts me to
make one point, but I promise to reply in substance to the hon.
Lady’s question in a minute. In my constituency, I have a
continued, strong concern that in pursuing what might be
called—perhaps unfairly—an urban agenda, the Government
tend to overlook the fact that there are areas and pockets of rural
deprivation that can be just as intense, and are often aggravated by
relative affluence alongside them.
In rural areas
such as my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, there are issues
such as whether or not young people have access to wheels and can get
about and get a job or further education. It is incumbent on us all,
whatever our politics, to take those matters seriously, and I hope that
that is not a matter that divides us.
Prompted by
the hon. Lady—I would have said this anyway—there is some
analysis to be done on the clause. The Bill is about equality and
dealing with discrimination, and it reflects and consolidates a body of
law that aims to protect the individual from discrimination. However, I
am concerned that the clause sits ill with that, as it is an injunction
to public authorities at a strategic level. The essence of
discrimination is that it is at a tactical level—there is one
exception, which I will perhaps come on to—and not at a
strategic level. The exception might be institutional
deprivation—not racism—in some local authorities that
prevents them from dealing with issues for their less disadvantaged
persons. If the Government are arguing that, I would like the
Solicitor-General to say so. My view is that if that is happening, the
ballot box is the answer, not a Government intervention or a clunky
legal process. Unless that is the case, however, it is better for local
authorities to make decisions.
I apologise
for not having spotted this earlier and put down an amendment, but
clause 1(1) refers
to “making
decisions of a strategic
nature”. I
am not clear whether those are intermediate decisions. I could
understand it if the clause mentioned drawing up a strategy, as that
would be similar to having ministerial guidance about a strategy for a
local or public authority, but this is somewhere between high strategy
and a tactical decision, which I suggest is the main focus of
discrimination in practice. Somewhere along the line, every time people
make a decision, there is a difficult evidential problem of how to
decide as a local or public authority whether that is a strategic
decision. If it is not a strategic plan and something appears to come
out of that, then they have to decide whether it deals with
socio-economic inequalities.
It needs to
be recorded that there are other considerations for public authorities,
which may need to balance other factors, including the welfare of the
majority of their inhabitants, for example, and overall economic
development, if that is not consistent with dealing with socio-economic
inequalities. Those are fundamentally political decisions. Unless there
is some equivalent of institutional racism—I am interested to
know whether there is any evidence for that; I do not think that there
is—those decisions are better left for local and public
authorities and our other administrative mechanisms, such as
inspection. Inequality
has to be dealt with locally. There is a national issue of concern,
which is why we are here trying to get this right. But delivery will be
at local level and that means making, as I have suggested, a tactical
decision, perhaps when siting a school or a clinic, or something like
that, or the involvement of a non-governmental organisation to try to
extend the efficiency of the public sector. Again, it is appropriate
that such decisions are made
locally. I
understand the motives behind the clause and it is just conceivable
that it might do some good as a kind-bully pulpit, but that is the only
argument for this clause, which is not well articulated. The remedies
and sanctions under it—
Mr.
Harper: My hon. Friend says that the clause is a bully
pulpit, which means that there is a danger of passing laws to send
messages, which we discussed earlier. If a clause is going to be used
to send a message, the message needs to be clear. There is a fleck of
clarity in the first part of the clause. I talked earlier about
disadvantage and the need to increase equality of opportunity, but the
clause mentions inequalities of outcome. There is a significant
difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. If
a piece of legislation is going to be passed to send messages, there
needs to be clarity about the message that is
sent.
Mr.
Boswell: That is an honourable and proper stricture. If
one is looking for ways of dealing with redressing the inequality of
outcome, I suggest a measure of redistribution within the tax system.
[ Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I
thought I would get some results with that. At least then we could have
a discussion about it. There is the slight danger that the message
being sent by the clause is, “Oh dear. We’ve got an
unequal society and we’re going to legislate to stop
it.”
The
Solicitor-General: Do it take it from what the hon.
Gentleman has said that he is on board for the 50p tax rate and off
board for inheritance
tax?
Mr.
Boswell: I hope that the Solicitor-General will not go too
far down that line, because it might distress you to know,
Mr. Benton, as she well knows, that the 50p rate is likely
to have a negative real yield and that measures to ameliorate
inheritance tax have been encouraged by the Government themselves in
response to Conservative initiatives. But we will leave the issue of
redistributive
taxation. We
would feel happier with a society where people had opportunity and were
not frustrated, discriminated against or humiliated. Whether the
clause, with its high-sounding rubric and poor, questionable and
indirect delivery, will achieve that is a matter that we may wish to
test later
on. John
Howell (Henley) (Con): I, too, welcome you to the Chair,
Mr.
Benton. I
want to follow a couple of comments made by my hon. Friend the Member
for Daventry and mention my recent experience as a county
councillor—I was in that role until last week—during
which time I held the portfolio on equalities for three years. With
that portfolio, I was keen to move away from the output-based duties
and tick-box exercises that had led to the exercise of the duties in
question becoming discredited, and towards a more outcome-based series
of plans, on which action could be
taken. Mr.
Boswell: I do not want to interrupt my hon.
Friend’s argument, but perhaps I can tell him something that
will be some consolation to him: he may not know that the leader of his
excellent county council lives a mere whisker across the constituency
boundary, about a mile from me. So near am I to that constituency
boundary that I regularly receive missives from Oxfordshire county
council through the postal system, telling me how well it is doing. I
can say that those are genuine achievements, which I welcome and
encourage people in Northamptonshire to
emulate.
10
am
John
Howell: I thank my hon. Friend. I have learned in my year
here that flattery comes rarely in one’s parliamentary life, so
it is always nice to have it unprompted from an hon. Friend.
In changing
to outcome-based plans, one of the most crucial things to understand is
that the choices are political. Whether they are called strategic,
tactical or tactically-strategic is neither here nor there; they are
political choices in relation to what outcomes are wanted. It is
impossible to achieve a large number of outcomes, so there is a need to
be selective about them.
In reality
there was a significant overlap between the socio-economic
disadvantages in the county and the groups covered by the existing
equalities duties. Paragraph 42 of the explanatory notes
gives an example from the health sector about targeting specific groups
where health inequalities existed and the messages might not have got
home for a variety of reasons. That was already being done as a
political priority, and there was no better example of it than the
joint appointment of a director of public health between the county
council and the primary care trust, precisely so that there could be a
focus on such disadvantages across the area, and so that the equality
duties that already existed could be used as a significant lever for
achievement. My question, therefore, is what additionality the measure
brings to that system, which is already working.
My second
question arises from experience of unintended consequences. I am
thinking of the Building Schools for the Future programme in my
constituency, where there are pockets of deprivation, despite its
description by The Guardian as “opulent”. There
are enormous areas of deprivation, some of which are semi-urban but
some of which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry mentioned
earlier, are places of obvious rural deprivation.
The Building
Schools for the Future programme places a clear emphasis on building
schools where there is socio-economic deprivation—I do not have
a problem with that. However, the orientation and limits that have been
set have produced results that do not match need, meaning that although
one can visit a school and, on leaning accidentally against the wall,
come away with bits of wood in one’s hand, because it is so
rotten, one can still be told that the school deserves nothing because
it is not in a socio-economically deprived area.
That is an
unintended consequence, and we need to be careful when we include the
type of duty in question with much harder—stronger, rather than
more difficult—duties which, in my experience, are being
exercised with great fairness and awareness, including political
awareness, of what is happening in a council
area.
Dr.
Harris: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for
Henley, who is my neighbour. He has made a fine contribution to the
House in his short time here and I remember his maiden speech. My
feelings about him are somewhat strengthened by the fact that I spent
weeks, ultimately fruitlessly, wandering around villages in the north
of his constituency during the by-election seeking to prevent his
election—I still have the blisters.
I have a few
points to make in respect of clause 1, and I wish to ask the Minister
to reconsider a couple of things in respect of the amendments that deal
with regulators, one of which was tabled by my hon. Friend
the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and I, and the other, which is
more detailed, by the hon. Member for Glasgow,
East. The
Minister said that although she thought that there might be merit in
imposing a duty, such as it is, on inspectors and regulators, it would
not be consistent or rational to do so because one could not impose the
same duty on the bodies they regulate. She might therefore consider
that such a measure might be fruitless in some way. I question that,
because the duty in clause 1 is that the bodies to which it applies
must, when carrying out their
functions, “have
due regard to the desirability of exercising them in a way that is
designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from
socio-economic
disadvantage.” The
Minister explained on Second Reading that that was as far as she could
go.
We are not
talking about any sort of guarantee on socio-economic disadvantage, so
it is not right to say that simply because the duty to bear
socio-economic inequalities in mind cannot be imposed on the private
sector, one should not impose a duty on the inspectors of the private
sector. It would not do any harm if the inspectors of utilities, for
example, concentrated on the duty or were to make a point of it by
giving advice or making representations, in a non-binding way, to those
they inspect. The fact that someone is not bound to follow advice, that
there is no legal duty for them to do so, or that there is no duty to
implement advice—or even to have regard to it—does not
mean that that advice should not be given. Advice can be a steer for
those who are regulated, and regulators could set out their priorities
and focus. Will the Minister reconsider her opposition to the thrust of
the proposals, if it is based only on the fact that the duty does not
apply to all those regulated by the inspector? It does not need to do
so to obtain the benefit set out by the hon. Member for Glasgow,
East. Sometimes
public and private sector bodies are subject to regulation and
inspection by regulators and inspectorates. Health service
inspectorates, for example, cover private and public sector
organisations. The same defence of the Minister’s opposition
does not apply in those circumstances. Indeed, given that organisations
in the health service are subject to so many demands, including,
rightly, those in the clause, it would be helpful if health service
inspectorates had to have regard to socio-economic inequalities in
their inspections of organisations. Otherwise, there will be a
concentration purely on other matters, such as quality and efficiency.
They are important, but we might lose an opportunity to deal with
equity, which is a big issue for primary care trusts, which are rightly
listed. It should also be an issue for providers, because their
policies on the cost of car parking, for example, can have serious
equity
implications. Rather
than list all the providers, as the Minister has chosen not to do in
the Bill, we could deal with the problem by ensuring that the health
service inspectorates have regard to socio-economic inequality in the
advice they give to, or in the metrics they develop for judging, health
service providers. They would be able to point to the Bill and give a
clearer steer. I hope the Minister deals with that in her
response.
I also wanted
to make a point on the need to send a message. I agree with the hon.
Member for Forest of Dean that we should not legislate solely for the
purpose
of sending a message, especially when such messages are usually not
received and understood by the recipients, so that becomes a waste of
legislative time. I do not even think that it is a good supplementary
reason. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and I
support the clause—with reservations, because we think that it
is not the best way to do things and that it does not go far
enough—not because it sends a message, but because it might have
an impact. I asked the hon. Member for Forest of Dean to confirm his
view because many of us are sick and tired of hearing politicians in
this House say in the criminal justice field, for example in relation
to the criminalisation and classification of drugs, that the point of a
provision is to send a message, when even the Government’s
advisers are clear that there is not a shred of evidence that that
message is received or understood. I will take the opportunity, if I
have one, to quote his view to his colleagues on his party’s
home affairs team who do not share it, at least on that
issue. Finally,
there is the question of whether this is the best way to achieve the
Government’s genuine intention of dealing with socio-economic
inequalities. I do not believe that it is simply a way to provoke the
Conservative party into arguing that there is some form of class war,
and I was glad that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean did not rise to
that bait in the tone and tenor of his remarks. I do not believe that
that is the Government’s intention; the Government’s
intention is to tackle the problem.
However, I do
not think that there is a choice between the clause and, for example,
dealing with taxation. My party is untainted by what the hon. Member
for Daventry called the Government’s collusion in the
inheritance tax arms war that took place 18 months ago. We think that
that was a regressive step. It would be a regressive tax change, and it
is far better to make progressive tax
changes. To
return to our fundamental point, there must be alternative and better
ways of dealing with the problem. The Government should at least have
considered that through formal consultation, rather than leaping
straight for such provisions at the last minute. That was why my hon.
Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green asked whether the
Government had consulted on the question of whether socio-economic
disadvantage should be a protected characteristic. Why not argue that
that might be a way forward, whether or not we deal with it at a later
stage, as we might well do? It would be interesting to know whether the
Government considered a range of options before arriving at the present
one. This
is very much a clause stand part debate. In relation to my earlier
point of order, most of the clauses in the Bill are restatements of
existing laws that we all support on race and disability
discrimination, and clause stand part debates are unlikely to be sought
on any of them. On brand new legislation, where a principle is
involved, it is likely that a clause stand part debate will be sought,
certainly by Liberal Democrat Members. We will seek to engage with the
Government behind the scenes. I ask the Minister and the Conservatives
to consider engaging us in conversation about what debates they wish to
have on clause stand part. There will be isolated areas where we,
separately from the Conservative party, will want to agree with the
Government, or to
disagree because we do not think that they have gone far enough. It is
slightly easier to make such points in a separate stand part debate, if
they are made briefly. | 
