The
Solicitor-General: Mr. Benton, I do not know
whether you are now in a position to decide whether we will have a
clause stand part debate. It seems to me that everybody has fed into
our debate on the amendments all that they want to say about the
general principle. However, I assume that we will not overlook the
presence of amendment 110, which will follow separately—thanks
for that
indication. I
welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton, and look forward to
your wisdom, which has already been helpful, on how to run the
Committee sensibly and fluidly and, with a bit of luck, with a touch of
fun occasionally. I have been groping for a historical story to tell
back, but have failed
miserably. Amendment
2 proposes to replace the list of organisations to which the duty
applies with a power to list the public authorities in regulations. I
just cannot see the point, really. It is a new duty covering only a
limited number of organisations, so it is important that they are
listed as early and clearly as possible. We think that we have them
more or less right, and it is not a long list because it is intended to
apply only to high-level strategic bodies taking key
decisions.
10.15
am
We think that
we should make it clear to the public and to everyone else to whom this
will apply that we do not intend to add significantly to that list, but
of course one cannot future-proof the clause, so it is necessary to
have an element of flexibility, which is what we have sought in the
drafting. We respectfully suggest that there is not much point in
amendment 2, although it has helpfully probed the way our minds have
worked on the matter. In a sense, oddly enough, and in contrast with
most of the other amendments, the proposed subsection would extend the
clause’s scope, so I am pleased to assume that most Members see
the value of the duty, because they want to broaden its
ambit. I
will now deal with the other amendments in what I think is the most
appropriate order. Amendment 107 was tabled by the hon. Member for
Glasgow, East, who impressed me with his commitment to ending
socio-economic equality and whom I invite to try to persuade his
colleagues on the matter, as he offered to be a go-between and speak to
us and the currently intransigent Scottish Government. We would welcome
his mediation and anything he could do to encourage his colleagues to
see what we think is
sense. The
hon. Gentleman said that he supports the clause as far as it goes,
which I am glad to hear. If the Scottish Government want to go further,
that is fine, but the amendment prompts us to ask why they do not also
support the clause as far as it goes and make a clear statement that
they seriously intend to tackle socio-economic
inequality. I
know that the hon. Gentleman did not vote on Second Reading. I do not
know whether that indicates that he was confused about the position
then, but that would be entirely
understandable.
John
Mason: To clarify for the Minister, I was in fact at a
conference that day and unable to attend the
debate.
The
Solicitor-General: Well, we missed the hon. Gentleman. I
know that the amendment is well-intentioned. It would apply the duty
set out in clause 1 to certain inspectorates and regulators that he has
pinpointed, including those covering financial services, communities
and utilities, which are essential to people’s lives and lack of
fair access to which is likely to influence socio-economic
outcomes. The
difficulty is the one I put to the hon. Gentleman to reflect on while
he advocated his case: extending the duty to the regulators would have
no effect on those bodies, which cannot have the duty extended to them
as it applies to strategic public authorities, so that is where it
would stop. If a body has no duty to abide by clause 1,
giving the inspectorate the duty to abide by that clause cannot drive
the statutory obligation into the recipient of the inspection. It
simply
cannot.
Sandra
Osborne: The Minister makes a good point in logical terms,
but many people would be sympathetic to the intention of the amendment,
because we all know that many of our poorer constituents are adversely
affected by, for example, fuel prices and pre-payment meters. Has she
had discussions with Citizens Advice about that and what does she think
made it feel that the amendment was
viable?
The
Solicitor-General: I assume that it is the line of
reasoning the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon put forward,
but I think that it is defective in exactly the way I have said: if one
puts a duty on someone, an inspectorate can drive it, but if they have
no duty, putting the duty on the inspectorate cannot drive that duty
through. We have to do it in different ways, which of course we are
doing. Again,
I do not know what the Scottish Government are doing about this, but we
are trying to get rid of the penalty on pre-payment meters. We have a
consistent, strong and immediately applicable plan to replace all
pre-payment meters with smart meters so that the penalty will, as soon
as is practical, be driven out of our poorest sections. Many things are
being done broadly to assist action against fuel poverty, as the hon.
Member for Glasgow, East knows, and it is slightly odd that he seeks to
drive in that indirect way bodies that cannot be driven in such fashion
while saying, “Well, actually, my Government do not think that
the clause is worthwhile.”
Mr.
Boswell: Is the Minister saying—I think she is, but
it would be useful to have confirmation—that if there is a
disturbing practice or outcome in private sector delivery, the
regulator of that private sector is at least not precluded from making
comments to encourage improvements in the practice, even if it is
outside the statutory duty, just because the delivery is entirely
within the private
sector?
The
Solicitor-General: That is done, as the hon. Gentleman
knows, and there is an agenda, which everyone has talked about, to try
to use those powers to minimise
socio-economic inequality, among other things that regulators try to do.
My point is reasonably clear. It is about statutory
duty.
Lynne
Featherstone: Will the Minister give
way?
The
Solicitor-General: Of course, but the hon. Lady’s
amendment is slightly different and I will come to it in a
moment.
Lynne
Featherstone: There is a disconnect or illogicality about
saying, as the Minister did to Conservative Members, that something
does no harm, so what is the objection? I ask her the same question:
what is the harm in giving the duty to a regulator when it can only do
good if its advice is to “have regard to”, even if it
cannot compel? The clause is not one that
compels.
The
Solicitor-General: It does no harm to include a provision
such as clause 1. Even under the Tory position that it does not go far
enough and will not be effective there is no harm in it. We believe
that it is quite a strong measure, but from the Tory position there is
no harm in it because it is bound to push things in the right
direction. The
point is simple, and I have made it three times. If there is no
statutory duty, people cannot be compelled to comply with it by putting
a statutory duty on inspectorates. The matter is straightforward, and I
do not understand why the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is
shaking his head. Otherwise, we simply could not reach the electricity
suppliers and so on. The argument, with which I am hugely sympathetic
because the intention is obviously to drive the agenda, just does not
work.
Dr.
Harris: I do not understand why the Minister believes that
it would not be worth ensuring that regulators of, for example, the
utilities—the case in respect of health workers is separate, but
even stronger—could pass comment on the performance of the
people they regulate, whether or not they have a statutory power to
enforce that or whether or not there is a duty on those who are
regulated to take
note. It
would still be useful, not least for transparency and understanding,
that the public authority concerned—inspectorates are public
authorities—could judge utilities’ performance in that
way. Utilities are not prevented from taking heed of what the
inspectorate says, even if there is no statutory duty to do
so.
The
Solicitor-General: They can, they do and they will carry
on doing so. That specific statutory duty cannot be driven by the
regulators, but they may make whatever comment they want about how
suppliers deliver. The health service is very different, and I will
turn to
that.
Mr.
Harper: Before the Minister does so, I want to pick her up
on how she characterises our approach. We are not saying that the
provision does not go far enough. It is the wrong approach for solving
these significant problems. Other hon. Members have said that they
agree with the approach but that it does not go far enough; we believe
that it is simply the wrong way to approach some of the issues. I want
to clarify that for
her.
The
Solicitor-General: I was trying to deal with the separate
point that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green raised, and I am
sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman. He is right, and he did
not say that the measure does not go far enough. He said that there are
better things to do, but we will do this, because we believe that it is
a compelling way forward and that it will help immensely in driving
socio-economic inequality from our public
services. On
the whole, regulators do not take pre-strategic decisions about service
planning or commissioning, nor do they expect to do so, but those are
the decisions that we want to influence.
Mr.
Harper: May I pick the Minister up on that, because I am
not sure that it is true? Ofwat, the regulator for the water industry,
is not mentioned in the provision, but it certainly takes key decisions
because it is responsible for considering the capital programmes
suggested by the water companies and weighing up against a range of
objectives the implications of those plans for water prices. Those are
significant and strategic for the industry. Clearly, the regulator
receives guidance from the Government on what it is supposed to
achieve, but it makes significant decisions about the price of
water. 10.25
am The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
