The
Solicitor-General: That is what scrutiny is all
about.
May I make one
or two general remarks in response to points made in the debate this
morning? Both Opposition parties were as one that we should not
legislate to send out messages. They seemed to suggest that as a
criticism, but it is only they who have conjured up that this is
sending out a message. It is not. It is legislating for a purpose. It
is vital that public authorities prioritise tackling persistent
inequalities, carry on doing it and do it every time that they consider
strategic routes forward.
Many parts of the public sector do it—of course they do
now—but there is no legal duty to do it. The measure fills that
gap and, in the opinion of pretty much everybody who has been asked
about it in the course of this Committee, can be guaranteed to drive
the agenda forward by imposing the statutory duty. It is integrally
linked, as the hon. Members for Henley and for Daventry both said, with
the discrimination elements of the Bill in that, of course, poverty and
powerlessness make it much harder to battle with discrimination
and discrimination itself can undoubtedly generate poverty and
powerlessness. If people are
discriminated against, they cannot get a decent job and they will
remain poor and powerless. There is a key engagement with the
discrimination aspect in clause 1. That, I suspect, is why many
organisations, such as the Runnymede Trust, Race on the Agenda and all
who work in single-sector areas, have spoken in favour of it. A huge
body of people working in the individual strands see the measure as an
addition to their work and welcome
it. Socio-economic
disadvantage may not be a racy phrase, but it does capture what we want
to deal with. The hon. Member for Henley is not in his place, but he
talked effectively about the need for outcomes to be a key focus,
rather than outputs. We completely agree and that is why the clause is
couched in these terms, but in order to get better equality in outputs,
one has to look at lack of opportunity. The hon. Member for Forest of
Dean talked about lack of opportunity. One also has to look at lack of
aspiration. I used to live in a mining village in County Durham and an
older miner there, some years ago, told me that people thought, two
generations ago now, that when they got a public library in that
village, that would empower everyone to go out and find a strong life.
Poverty leads to poverty of aspiration, poor education leads to a lack
of appreciation of what one can do with a library, so we have to look
not only at the opportunities that libraries can give, but at
aspiration. There is a complex interplay of
factors.
Mr.
Boswell: I promise that I will not rise to speak all the
time. I think it is an extremely important clause and I do not wish to
dissent at all from what the hon. and learned Lady just said about
poverty of aspiration. One word troubles me; I think it was implicit in
my earlier remarks, but perhaps she would like to say a word or two
about whether it is possible to tie down what is a
“strategic” consideration, or a “strategic”
decision. The last thing she or I would want is to have lots of
litigation saying that this was purely a tactical thing or an
administrative issue—the kind of thing we get on the Floor of
the House when people are arguing about Ministers’
responsibilities. Is she reasonably satisfied that this is precedented
and will either be coherently self-certified by the authority or be
something that would, if necessary, stand up in
court?
The
Solicitor-General: I will come to the issue of
“strategic” shortly, but you have to listen to the
advertisement first. We have done an enormous amount to tackle
inequality. We can be proud of our record in reducing inequality. We
introduced the national minimum wage, helping about a million low-paid
employees. We have lifted 900,000 pensioners and 500,000 children out
of poverty and put in place measures to help another
500,000 children escape it. We have increased our spending on early
learning and child care to over £5 billion—four times the
amount that was being spent in 1997—and we have increased higher
education spending by nearly 50 per cent. and created about
300,000 more student places to give more pupils from all backgrounds
the chance to benefit from enhanced
education. The
argument advanced this morning by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean
that the statutory duty to try to end fuel poverty had had no impact is
not correct. We made very good progress. We saw four million households
lifted out of fuel poverty and that duty drove that agenda over a very
considerable time. Of course, gas and oil prices then went rocketing
and we had to start again. It is not right to suggest that that more
complex picture is evidence that the fuel poverty duty did not
work—it did. It is actually potent evidence that this will work
as
well. We
have made good progress. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development study, which covered the period 1985 to 2005, shows that
inequality and poverty, which had both risen in the 15 years to 2000,
fell dramatically in the final five years of the study—faster in
the UK than in any other OECD country. Despite our efforts, we know
that there are still pockets of entrenched poverty in some parts of
this country. We do not think that this is the entire solution, but we
think that it is part of
it. We
think we have struck the right balance with the organisations that the
duty will cover. There are essentially five kinds: central Government
Departments, regional development agencies, local authorities, police
authorities and key health bodies—primary care trusts and
strategic health authorities. The hon. Member for Glasgow, East talked
about Jobcentre Plus—I think he was talking about executive
agencies—which will be covered because the Department for Work
and Pensions itself is covered, so its agencies are too. The only other
bodies covered will be local public service partners that help local
authorities when they draw up their sustainable community strategy. We
think that is
important. We
were also asked who we consulted, now that I have said who is involved.
We spoke to representatives of all the bodies in clause 1(3)(a) to (k)
and representatives from the third sector and the private sector. We
have a list that I am ready to write out and deliver to all members of
the Committee—I could read it out if the Committee wants me to
be tiresome. It is clear that we looked at, for instance, the Homes and
Communities Agency, the Planning Inspectorate, the child poverty unit,
community transport, better regulation, local and regional bodies, the
Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, the human rights
officials, the TUC, Unison, the Audit Commission, Her Majesty’s
inspectorate of constabulary and the Equality and Diversity Forum. All
manner of people were consulted about clause 1.
“What
did they say?” was probably a good second question; the
contention, I suppose, was that by not consulting we did not hear any
views on the clause. There was general agreement across those bodies
and the others we consulted—who I will include on the
list—that the duty would usefully support the extensive existing
work across the country to tackle socio-economic inequality and to
ensure a more consistent, concerted
approach across organisations. It will pick up areas that are being
missed and improve the co-ordination of
work. The
public sector likes the flexible, non-prescriptive approach. Some third
sector bodies wanted us to be more prescriptive. We sense that we might
have got it right. All the consultees said that the duty should be
strongly applied to central Government Departments. That is a clear
message, which we have taken to heart. There was agreement that
guidance needs to be carefully drafted. Not only did we consult, but we
received a positive first response saying, across the piece, that this
will help, even if it is not the only
answer. By
“strategic decisions” we mean the points where key
policy-making decisions are being made—setting overall
priorities and targets, allocating funds and commissioning services.
These seem to be the key points where those organisations now have to
consider what they can do to tackle socio-economic disadvantage. For a
Government Department that probably means its three-year funding
settlement negotiations with the Treasury. A major policy decision for
a local authority would be when it draws up its local area
agreement—that is quite likely. For an RDA it would be when it
re-evaluates its key programmes, which they do systematically, and sets
priorities for the year ahead. It is less about needing extra
resources, although some would be required, than about organising
resources with this as a high priority. I hope that we have hit the
right people at the right point by referring to strategic authorities.
We have had a fair amount of discussion on targeting and monitoring. We
have resisted the pressure to be very prescriptive, but we have engaged
with all the monitoring, inspecting and regulatory organisations to
ensure that the duty will be looked at as part of the matrix of
things that they look
for.
Mr.
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): With regard to guidance and
conversations that the Minister has had with those inspectorates, does
she think that the monitoring will be by way of a matrix or by way of a
narrative of considering the decision-making? I ask because
inequalities and outcome are referred to. Will there be measuring of
movement of specific indicators or, rather than looking at outcomes,
will the concern be more about how organisations go about taking
strategic decisions? I do not know what sort of conversations
happened.
The
Solicitor-General: I think that they are still ongoing. We
are not trying to prescribe particular processes, and different
inspectors will probably need a different approach. We are, though,
quite satisfied that it will come within the matrix of inspections, so
there will be publication of the extent to which objectives required
under clause 1 have been attained, however they be measured in each
case. What will follow will not be some heavy enforcement mechanism.
Inevitably, though, the political people involved in the local
authority—or the practitioners—who press for child
poverty relief, will see the outcome and will press the authority to do
more. That is how we intend it to work.
In summary, we
need to do more. Central Government cannot succeed on their own, so we
must drive the agenda through all the authorities. The duty will put
all the good work that we, and others in the public sector, are doing,
on to a statutory footing. It will help us drive
progress and promote better outcomes for people who need the most help,
with minimum bureaucracy and maximum flexibility. It is a core function
of public services clearly to tackle all inequalities whether they
arise from a characteristic, life, age or race, or whether they are due
to poverty more generally. This is, overwhelmingly, the right thing to
do. I have
indicated which amendments we seek to have withdrawn, and which we will
consider but for whose withdrawal we would be obliged. We will
return to those.
Mr.
Harper: Given what the Minister said and given that I
explained that amendment 2 was a probing amendment, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Lynne
Featherstone: I beg to move amendment 110, in
clause 1, page 2, line 35, leave
out subsection (7).
An amendment to
remove the exemption from the socio-economic duty in relation to people
who are immigrants or
asylum-seekers. The
amendment seeks to probe the Minister because I have concerns about
creating a two-tier system that might make second-class citizens of
foreigners who live within our shores—be they immigrants, asylum
seekers, foreign students, or husbands and wives of British citizens.
That might happen because subsection (7) would allow public authorities
to disregard their socio-economic status. The duty would help to
address chronic socio-economic inequality among
immigrants—particularly asylum seekers—and make strategic
bodies comply.
I come from
Haringey where there is a large, vibrant population of immigrants and
asylum seekers. As a result there are, obviously, a lot of children who
need to attend our local schools. This is not only about the needs of
asylum seekers, immigrants and their children, but about the impact
that that has on schools in the area. I am surprised that the duty does
not extend in that way. Surely a body such as Haringey council has a
duty to consider socio-economic inequalities and the situation faced by
the children of asylum seekers, and that of children already at school
in Haringey. I am surprised by the Minister’s thinking and I
want to probe how far it could go. This is an all-encompassing
exemption, and I am not sure whether there are meant to be variants
within it.
1.30
pm Another
issue is that of asylum seekers not being able to work while they wait
for a decision from the Home Office, which, with the best will in the
world, can mean waiting for a long time, even if the National Asylum
Support Service gives some support. When the Home Secretary considers
legislation concerning people who have come to our shores, surely he or
she must look at the situation regarding whether such people can work,
whether they are banned from work or, until recently, whether they are
given vouchers. The person in authority must make that strategic
decision as policy, which I cannot imagine should be exempt from that
duty. If the Home Secretary is going to decide or propose such
important measures, surely regard should be given to how the person
affected will survive that policy.
Dr.
Harris: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but even if the
Government wanted to preserve their ability to have policies such as
the ban on work or the imposition of vouchers for asylum seekers, this
measure would not preclude them from doing so as it merely suggests
that they should have due regard to the issue. Asylum seekers currently
face many hurdles and handicaps due to policies that may or may not be
justified, and they should not be overlooked in other areas because of
that disadvantage.
Lynne
Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying my
point. Another issue is whether the Secretary of State for Health
could, or should, consider the socio-economic impact on asylum seekers
of a refusal to give treatment for HIV/AIDS while they wait for a
decision about their status in this country. Although asylum seekers
can have emergency treatment, they cannot have non-emergency treatment
and that might force them into illegal routes in order to buy
antiretroviral drugs. Such things should be considered if we are
thinking of these matters in terms of all our people, even those
waiting to obtain the rights that people get once they have indefinite
leave to remain.
Do the
Government seek this exemption because they are fearful of a judicial
review on policies such as refusing asylum seekers the right to work or
treatment for HIV? In Haringey I see the consequence of such decisions.
They are very long term and affect a vulnerable group of people,
instilling hardship into their lives. The problem is that due to the
way that decisions are taken, that can last for years on end.
Another
example would be the Border and Immigration Agency, as this provision
would allow it to ignore the negative impact of the charges given to
people who are applying for status in this country, or passports, when
those people have no means of support other than help from NASS, if
they are entitled to it.
I want to
invite the Minister to elaborate further on the amendment and on
subsection (7), and give us some idea of how the issues that I have
raised might be addressed if that subsection is not
removed.
Mr.
Boswell: I am sure the hon. Lady has her heart in the
right place; I have a lot of sympathy with her argument and think that
the Solicitor-General has a case to respond to. However, there are two
things that have rather taken down my approbation. First, she let out
the revealing phrase “second-class citizens” but it is
precisely because those persons are not citizens and are
subject to immigration control that the issue might
arise. We
might have much wider concerns about the operation of the border and
immigration system, but I do not think that the Committee wishes to
hear them this afternoon, nor am I seeking to covertly change the law
in this area. However, the hon. Lady’s point, which it is right
that the Committee should address, is whether persons who are asylum
seekers, or whose status is not determined, have human rights. We need
to remember throughout the process that although people are in a
position where they may be disadvantaged by administrative action, they
are not removed from the map. Many of us have considerable
concerns—I had a very eloquent letter from a constituent this
week—on precisely the issue of the treatment of people before
their condition is determined. We should consider that in a different
context.
| 
