![]() House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Equality Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall, Eliot Wilson,
Committee Clerks attended
the Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 11 June 2009(Afternoon)[Ann Winterton in the Chair]Equality BillClause 1Public
sector duty regarding socio-economic
inequalities Amendment
proposed (this day): 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 29,
leave out subsection (3) and
insert (3) A Minister of
the Crown may by regulations list public authorities to which this
section applies..(Mr.
Harper.)
1
pm Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing the following: amendment 107, in
clause 1, page 2, line 17, after
England,
insert (l) the Financial
Services Authority; (m) the
Office of Communications; (n)
the Office of Fair Trading; (o)
the Office of Gas and Electricity
Markets; (p) the Security
Industry
Authority.. Amendment
108, in
clause 1, page 2, line 17, at
end insert (l) Transport
for London; (m) London Fire and
Emergency Planning
Authority; (n) London
Development Agency; (o)
Metropolitan Police
Authority.. An
amendment to include members of the GLA family in the socio-economic
duty. Amendment
109, in
clause 1, page 2, line 17, at
end insert (l) a fire and
rescue authority constituted by a scheme under section 2 of the Fire
and Rescue Service Act 2004, or a scheme to which section 4
of that Act applies, for an area in
England.. An
amendment to include Fire Authorities in the socio-economic
duty. Amendment
181, in
clause 1, page 2, line 17, at
end insert (3A) This
section also applies to those bodies responsible for inspecting or
regulating public sector
bodies.. An
amendment to ensure that the socio-economic duty applies to
inspectorates of public sector
bodies. Amendment
4, in
clause 1, page 2, line 18, leave
out subsection
(4).
The
Solicitor-General (Vera Baird): It is good to be
under your chairpersonship on this Bill, Lady Winterton. I understand
that we are going to be less peripatetic than before, which might help
logistics. We did wonder
whether we ought to introduce an extra strand in the Bill for wandering
MPs: we had have three rooms. We shall proceed more easily now that we
are not wandering about so
much. I
was still talkingnot wishing to sound as if I have been
long-windedabout amendment 107. Many people have chosen to have
a piece of the amendment 107 pie. I draw the Committees
attention to a new document that has appeared. Members know well that
there is a new single equality duty on public authorities, and that
will be supported by specific duties. We have undertaken to consult on
how the specific duties should be put together. That document is now
available on the Table at the back of the room if Members would like to
take a
copy. The
hon. Member for Forest of Dean said that sometimes regulators of the
kind referred to in amendment 107 did indeed have some
strategic input. I accept the point that he made, although they are
better characterised as reactive. However, even where they take or
influence such decisions, they implement them through the bodies that
they regulate, and the duty will not fall upon the bodies that are
regulated. There is no lack of sympathy among Ministers with the
intention behind amendment 107. It has been argued with
great strength, and has garnered support, and we will look again to
make sure that we are not wrong, but we think it misses the target at
which it is
aimed. I
turn to amendment 181, which, again, would extend the duty to all
public sector inspectorates, with the purpose of driving it through the
public sector more broadly. Again, I sympathise totally, but similar
arguments apply. Those inspectorates do not, by and large, take the
long-term decisions that we want the duty to hit, and if they do, they
implement them through the bodies they inspect. Unless we are prepared
to extend the duty to the whole public sectorwe have limited it
to the groups that we regard as the strategic onesthere is no
real point in extending it to the
inspectorates.
Mr.
Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): Is the Minister
sayingthis again is genuinely for informationthat she
considered the possibility of extending the duty to the public sector
at large, and having derogations from that where it clearly was not
appropriate or necessary? Is that a model that we should have
realistically pursued, rather than this slightly odd system of
specifying part of it and adding in bits of it that we have
forgotten?
The
Solicitor-General: I do not think we are doing quite the
latter. We think that we have got into this part of the clause all the
relevant strategic authorities, but we cannot be sure we have, so we
kept a residual power to add to it. There has been a deliberate process
of looking at those authorities to ensure that the duty bites on the
right decisions, rather than thinking that it should be applied more
widely and allowing everyone else in
later. As
for the inspectorates that inspect the public authorities that are
covered by the measure, it would be redundant to put a duty on them.
The duty has been placed on the public authorities listed in clause
1(3)(a) to (k). They all have the duty. The inspectorates will have to
inspect them to make sure that they carry out their statutory duties,
because that is part of the matrix of their inspection. We are having
detailed discussions with the Audit
Commission and the other inspectorates to ensure
that there are worked-out ways in which that will be done, because it
is key that they should be appropriately monitored. Therefore, there is
no need, where the measure bites on the public authority itself, to
make it bite on the inspectorate that will inspect it. We have already
heard the arguments earlier today that, if the duty is not placed on
the body, it should not be put on the
inspectorate. Dr.
Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): In relation
to the health service, I want to probe the Minister. First, what is
said by some inspectorates has a strategic impact. What a health
service inspectorate says can significantly affect the way in which the
body that it is inspecting delivers its service. There is therefore an
argument to say that the inspectorate, when giving its rulings, must
have regard to the impact that its ruling will have on socio-economic
disadvantage, otherwise inadvertently it might say that the body must
do more of something, even if that has primary care trusts, for
example, choosing not to provide some of the services that we
need. Secondly,
what about organisations such as the National Institute for Health and
Clinical Excellence? Its recommendations are hugely strategic and have
a huge impact on what the health service delivers as well as equity in
the health service. Will the hon. and learned Lady give further thought
to whether that should be included in the
list?
The
Solicitor-General: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman
is missing the point. No one will stop inspectorates sayingas
he has put itwhat they want and expect, or going through their
usual matrix, added to the ordinary matrix of inspections. On every
public authority to which the measure applies will be the duty to
ensure that it has been complied with. It is really not that
complicated. Amendment
4 relates to subsections (4) and (5). They are important because, when
the long-term vision for an area set out in its sustainable community
strategy is being put together, all the parties involved are to give
due consideration to the desirability of addressing socio-economic
inequalities. The long-term strategic planning in which they are
engaged is where the duty should be biting, yet amendment 4 proposes
that we remove the provision, which will leave the local authority that
needs to be planning strategically with its partner organisations the
only one that has the duty at the time. It is vital that, when all the
public service partners come together to make strategic decisions about
their long-term vision, they all have the duty then, not at another
time.
Mr.
Boswell: To be clear, is it the intention that, when a
public authority enters into a strategic partnership with another
public authority, the duty under clause 1 would bind them in the act of
going in, as well as the body that was the successor, which was the
outcome of the partnership? I assume that it
is.
The
Solicitor-General: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about
machinery of government changes binding successor
authorities?
Mr.
Boswell: More or less, yes. It may be that a local
authority is conscious that it is not doing very well on poverty and
could do better in association with another
authority. One of the factors that might underlie
its decision to seek a partnership could be its need to discharge its
duty under the clause. If that is the case, can I be clear that the act
of it concluding a partnership is itself a clause 1 activity, as well
as whatever comes out of the partnership if it is agreed
to?
The
Solicitor-General: As far as I follow that, I think that
the answer is yes. Let us look back at subsection (4), which is always
a good place to start. It says that the clause also applies to an
authority that
is a partner
authority in relation to a...local
authority it
deals with specific partner authorities for local governmentand
that
does not fall
within subsection (3)
The measure only
applies, however, so far as the authority is involved in preparing or
modifying the sustainable community strategy. Going back to the core
words makes it clear what the impact is. As for successor authorities
post-local government organisation, I doubt that this
applies.
We ask that
Members do not press amendments 2, 107, 181 and 4. We shall look again
to make sure that there is not anything in the points that have been
made about the power of the
inspectorates.
Dr.
Harris: I was about to say something else before the hon.
and learned Lady said what she just said. When I pressed her, she said
that it was simple and therefore implied that I do not understand. What
has happened is that I have failed to get across my point accurately
enough. If she is willing to look at the matter again, it will be
better if I put my point in writing rather than take up time now
because we have had a long debate on the clause. I am grateful that she
is willing to hear anything more that we have to say on that subject
because I have not put across some of the points. We have not had an
answer on NICE as an example of a strategic body that is not listed,
which has huge implications for the approach that applies in the health
service. She does not need to reply to that now if she is willing to
hear further representations.
The
Solicitor-General: I am not remotely convinced that NICE
is a body to which one would want the duty to apply. It is not
appropriate always to put that up. The Financial Services Authority was
another bad example where the duty would conflict with some of the
other targets that it has by statute. I do not think for one minute
that we have absolutely hit the spot. I did not intend to suggest that
the hon. Gentleman was not understanding by saying that it is a
straightforward point but it is a straightforward point and I have made
it three or four times. If he writes to me, I will read his comments
with great care, but I do not doubt that he has in his usual way
adequately made his point.
Amendment 108
proposes to extend the scope of the duty in clause 1 to a number of
London-specific bodies. The London Development Agency is already
covered under paragraph (j) in clause 1(3), because it has been set up
under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. The LDA
is, therefore, already in the clause. We agree that the Metropolitan
Police Authority has strategic responsibilities that are relevant to
tackling socio-economic duties and is to a sizeable extent analogous to
other police authorities. We will definitely look at that.
Transport for
London is a bit more complicated because the Greater London Authority
Act 1999 puts the relevant strategic responsibility for transport in
terms of an integrated policy on to the Mayor. We thought therefore
that we had covered it. We will, however, consider the detail and the
division of that responsibility. If we think that Transport for London
should be brought in, we will come back with such a proposal. The same
can be said for the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, which
is also the subject of this amendment. We will consider that one
alongside the other fire and rescue authorities that amendment 109
suggests should be included. About half of the 46 fire and rescue
authorities in England are already covered, as they are local
authorities, but about half would not be.
My experience
reflects that of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. Fire
authorities do a good deal of work in deprived areas. They have their
tenders out in deprived areas rather than in the fire station; they are
doing a lot of work about fire prevention and smoke alarms; and they
engage with the public in deprived areas where most fires start. They
do a good deal of good work. My own Cleveland fire service, under
strategic decisions taken by the authority, is excellent at engaging
youngsters who, through its tentacles, it finds are about to go off the
rails or are not gainfully occupied. It brings them in to do what is
called the life course, which is to train them as mini-fire people for
a week. Somebodyusually methen presents them with a
certificate.
It makes a
huge impact on a young person who would otherwise be leaning against a
wall in some fairly run-down estate to be taught discipline and have a
wonderful time on a fire engine with these wonderful he-men who are
good role models in a way the police cannot be. That does them enormous
good, as it does when one gives them a certificate to say that they
have achieved something, often for the first time. I agree therefore
that the fire authorities have a strong role in tackling socio-economic
underprivileged people and we will look again at
that.
1.15
pm
Lynne
Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): I thank the
Minister for taking on board the amendments and having another look at
them. To reiterate what she said, I sat on the London fire authority
and the Metropolitan Police Authority when I was a member of the GLA.
There is far-reaching work that could be done and it is important that
that duty is placed on those
authorities.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 12 June 2009 |