§ Mr. David Drew (Stroud)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the production and implementation of a comprehensive, participatory strategy for co-ordinated Government action to reduce and eliminate poverty and social exclusion in the United Kingdom.In his Sheffield speech at the launch of the new deal, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the scale of the challenge that the Labour Government face to tackle poverty and social exclusion. He said:we now face a task of reconstruction as intense as the one that faced the post-war Labour Government and that's why we need an anti-poverty strategy of the same ambition and breadth.I am proud to say that much has been achieved already the new deals for the young, lone parents and disabled people are already helping to get people back into jobs; the statutory national minimum wage will help to end the scandal of poverty pay; increased spending on education will help to prevent poverty; and the new deal for communities will help to regenerate not only bricks and mortar, but the life chances and opportunities of people living in some of the country's most deprived neighbourhoods.In addition to all that, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has established the social exclusion unit, whose job is to focus on the multi-dimensional nature of poverty and to co-ordinate action across Government. That is an impressive record of achievement from which I do not want for one moment to detract. Indeed, many of us entered politics in the first place to tackle poverty and all its consequences.
Why, then, is there a need for the Bill? Primarily, it provides a framework in which the excellent start that the Government have made can be developed. It is not a framework that I have dreamt up, but one that was agreed at the 1995 world summit for social development in Copenhagen. One of the summit's towering achievements was to bring together Governments from the developing and the developed world to consider the issue of poverty globally. For the first time, the absolute poverty experienced in many developing countries and the relative poverty experienced in countries such as the United Kingdom were considered together. The poverty here may be less extreme than that in some other countries, but it is no less unacceptable or offensive.
At Copenhagen, the then Tory Government signed up to a programme of action that required the development of national strategies to combat poverty and social exclusion; unfortunately, they failed to produce such a strategy. If adopted, the approach agreed in Copenhagen and taken in the Bill would develop the Government's anti-poverty strategy in two key ways. First, the development of policies designed to combat poverty and social exclusion would be participatory. Participatory policy development means that all those with something to contribute to the process are included in it, and implies new forms of democracy to encourage active engagement and empower communities, which is something that the Government are already promoting in their proposals for improving local democracy. In this context, it means that people with direct experience of poverty and social exclusion are at the head of policy making.
325 Participation does not mean consultation with or involving organisations and individuals who speak on behalf of those living with poverty and social exclusion. That may well be necessary, but real participation means taking seriously the proposition that the real experts are those who live daily with poverty and social exclusion. The barriers created by the complexities of the benefit system, the struggle to make ends meet on an extremely low income, the reality of exploitation in the workplace, the burden of crime or, indeed, the additional problems for those suffering from mental illness all go hand in hand with poverty in the United Kingdom.
The social exclusion unit has found to its cost how difficult real participation can be. Although it has made some attempt to include people experiencing poverty and social exclusion in its work, this has not really been a success. Tight deadlines, very short periods of consultation and a lack of resources have all acted against participation. What is needed is a national strategy to combat poverty and social exclusion, which includes participation from the outset. Participation should be not an add-on to discussion but a central force in that discussion. The Bill would require that, and it provides a framework in which it could take place.
Some hon. Members may argue that such participation is not possible. To them I would say that it may be difficult, but participatory policy work is already taking place. Every month, members of the UK Coalition Against Poverty encourage men and women who are experiencing poverty and social exclusion to take part in the meetings of the all-party parliamentary group on poverty. The ideas and knowledge that these experts bring is invaluable. They are resources that should not be pushed to the margin, but brought into the centre. With sufficient time and support, this small start could be extended to other aspects of policy making. The Bill would require that to happen.
The second key element of the Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion included in the Bill is the requirement to set time-bound and measurable targets. We live in an age of targets, and we know how effective they can be in galvanising action towards a particular goal. If we are serious about first reducing and then eliminating poverty and social exclusion in the UK—I believe that the Government are—why should we be afraid of targets? Let us demonstrate our commitment to this goal by saying openly, "This is what we want to achieve, and this is how we intend to achieve it."
In the Republic of Ireland, where a national anti-poverty strategy has been in place since 1997, targets have been set in a range of areas, including unemployment, income adequacy and educational disadvantage. The Bill would require the national strategy to combat poverty and social exclusion to include similar targets relevant to the UK.
A Government such as that now in office, for whom social justice is a primary political objective, have nothing to fear and everything to gain from publicly seeking ambitious targets. Indeed, the Government have already set themselves ambitious targets in various ways, whether in the reduction of class sizes or getting unemployed young people into work. In one of the first 326 White Papers of this Parliament, the Government also set themselves ambitious targets for tackling poverty. In her White Paper entitled "Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century", my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development set out the following target: a reduction by one half of the proportion of people living in absolute poverty by 2015. It is a noble and important goal, but if we can set a target for tackling the poverty that blights the lives of our brothers and sisters overseas, surely we owe it to our brothers and sisters at home to do the same.
The setting of targets is, of course, a difficult matter. At worst, targets can be set so low that achieving them is meaningless; at best, they can be a powerful tool for change. Work on establishing common agreed indicators of poverty and social exclusion, such as that recently undertaken by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, can be built on to provide targets against which performance can be measured.
It is essential, however, that targets for the reduction of poverty and social exclusion reflect the concerns and priorities of those directly affected. That is why the Bill includes the opportunity for people with direct experience of poverty and social exclusion to be involved in the setting of targets and then in monitoring and evaluating the progress made towards achieving them.
The Republic of Ireland is not the only EU country to have followed up the commitments made in Copenhagen. Last year, a law against exclusion was passed in France. That legislation is designed to help everyone to access and exercise their rights. For people experiencing poverty and social exclusion, the denial of rights that others take for granted is a daily fact of life.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health has made clear, the right to a decent standard of health is a good starting point. The poorest members of society are ill more often and die sooner than their wealthier neighbours, so the national strategy to combat poverty and social exclusion required by the Bill would bring forward measures designed to ensure that the rights that poverty and social exclusion too often deny to many citizens are restored to them.
My own experience is based on 12 years as a councillor in the county of Gloucestershire. During that time, I discovered for myself the reality and the pernicious nature of poverty across the spectrum from rural to urban areas. With other councillors, I helped to devise the county's anti-poverty strategy in 1997. Our council joined the growing number of other local authorities adopting such strategies: Suffolk, for example, has done innovative work in rural areas.
Establishing our strategy in Gloucestershire has resulted in some pioneering work to help map rural poverty, right down to enumeration areas. A national strategy would help to provide a real boost to local policies, practices and partnerships, above all because such a strategy would be effective in co-ordinating policy across a range of Government Departments.
The national strategy to combat poverty and social exclusion required by the Bill would have that scope. Indeed, it would provide a framework for what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister called for at Sheffield—an anti-poverty strategy of the same breadth and vision as that adopted by the Labour Government of 1945.
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)In this House, we have to decide whether the legislation that we propose and consider is serious, or whether it has become a series of gestures. Having listened to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I fear that his Bill falls into the latter category.
The hon. Gentleman seems to think that stringing together enough buzz words will achieve the desired result. Even in the short passage that appears on the Order Paper, he has managed to squeeze in words such as "comprehensive", "participatory", "strategy" and "co-ordinated action" in quick succession, presumably in the hope that that will go some way towards producing the desired result.
I hope that the House will not be fooled by that. The simple repetition of words that sound positive and encouraging is not necessarily the way to achieve what is wanted. That is a real problem, but there is also a methodological problem with the proposals.
More often than not, the concept of poverty is defined in relative rather than absolute terms. It is often claimed that a quarter or a third of the population is in poverty, which is defined by reference to averages, overall incomes, medians or some other measure. The conclusion is that a person in the bottom third of a range of incomes is in poverty.
However, using that definition means that, although the lot of those defined as being in poverty can be improved, poverty itself can never be eliminated. The elimination of poverty might be possible if one were to use an absolute definition, but I do not think most people—and certainly not most Labour Members—define poverty in that way. If they did, we might be able to make some progress.
Then we come to our new friend, social exclusion. That is another term that has appeared in the language and which is supposed to have positive and warm connotations—at least for those who want to eliminate it. However, the hon. Member for Stroud admitted that the Government have already set up a social exclusion unit. Moreover, the Labour rhetoric claims that the problem of social exclusion, so recently identified, is now being tackled thoroughly and comprehensively by the Government.
I do not know whom to believe. Should I believe the Ministers who say that the problem is being dealt with and that the institutional mechanisms are in place? Or should I believe the hon. Member for Stroud, who thinks that an additional Bill—with additional buzz words attached—is needed, the better to deal with the problem of social exclusion? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have a word with Ministers in a quiet corner somewhere to work out whether anything is really being done about the problem and whether the Bill is necessary.
Then we come to the word "participatory". I suppose that some people might think that the more syllables a word has, the more effective it will be, but that depends on their view of English. However, the hon. Member for Stroud tells us that better and more effective policy will be produced if all those with something to contribute are allowed to take part in the process. I wonder. How on earth would the people who have something to contribute be chosen, so that they might be allowed to make their contribution? That is a real problem: if many people have the direct experience that the hon. Member for Stroud 328 described, there must be some way to choose from their number—unless the hon. Gentleman thinks that all of them should be gathered together, according to some ancient Greek method. He would be faced, as we all would, with the problem of selecting who, of all those with a contribution to make, is best able to contribute in order better to promote policy. What he said was not very convincing in that regard.
The hon. Member for Stroud mentioned measurable targets, which may or may not be a good thing. He was honest enough to say that, if set too low, they can be too easily achieved, and if set too high, they might disappoint. Supposing, however, that we set meaningful targets, but they are not met. What would happen if all other mechanisms in the Bill, such as the new comprehensive strategy, co-ordinated action and social exclusion activity, were working splendidly as the hon. Gentleman intended, but the targets were still not met? What would be different, in trying to achieve his purposes, from what happens anyway?
I would certainly not in any way question the motives of the hon. Member for Stroud, which I am sure are the highest, but the House must learn to resist the temptation to give such measures a smile and a nod, to say that it sounds good and that it is the kind of thing that we all feel better at the end of the day's business for having agreed, because we have moved forward by a small step and the world is bound to be a better place. We must take ourselves more seriously. In order to do so, I cannot accept this measure, however well intentioned it is. It demeans the processes of the House and the meaning of legislation.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
§ The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 16.
330| Division No. 62] | [3.51 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Douglas | Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife) |
| Allan, Richard | Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Campbell-Savours, Dale |
| Ashton, Joe | Canavan, Dennis |
| Baker, Norman | Caton, Martin |
| Ballard, Jackie | Cawsey, Ian |
| Barnes, Harry | Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) |
| Beard, Nigel | Clapham, Michael |
| Begg, Miss Anne | Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) |
| Beith, Rt Hon A J | Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) |
| Bell, Martin (Tatton) | Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) |
| Bennett, Andrew F | Clwyd, Ann |
| Best, Harold | Cohen, Harry |
| Blears, Ms Hazel | Connarty, Michael |
| Blizzard, Bob | Cook, Frank (Stockton N) |
| Borrow, David | Cooper, Yvette |
| Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) | Corbett, Robin |
| Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Corston, Ms Jean |
| Bradshaw, Ben | Cotter, Brian |
| Brake, Tom | Cousins, Jim |
| Brinton, Mrs Helen | Crausby, David |
| Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Cryer, John (Hornchurch) |
| Burnett, John | Cunliffe, Lawrence |
| Burstow, Paul | Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) |
| Butler, Mrs Christine | Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire |
| Cable, Dr Vincent | Dafis, Cynog |
| Davey, Edward (Kingston) | Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) |
| Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) | Keetch, Paul |
| Davidson, Ian | Kemp, Fraser |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye) |
| Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | Khabra, Piara S |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H) | Kidney, David |
| Dawson, Hilton | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Dismore, Andrew | Kumar, Dr Ashok |
| Dobbin, Jim | Lawrence, Ms Jackie |
| Donaldson, Jeffrey | Laxton, Bob |
| Donohoe, Brian H | Levitt, Tom |
| Drew, David | Linton, Martin |
| Drown, Ms Julia | Livsey, Richard |
| Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Edwards, Huw | Love, Andrew |
| Efford, Clive | McAllion, John |
| Ellman, Mrs Louise | McCabe, Steve |
| Ennis, Jeff | McDonnell, John |
| Etherington, Bill | McKenna, Mrs Rosemary |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret | Mackinlay, Andrew |
| Feam, Ronnie | McNulty, Tony |
| Field, Rt Hon Frank | Mactaggart, Fiona |
| Fitzpatrick, Jim | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Fitzsimons, Lorna | Marek, Dr John |
| Flint, Caroline | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Flynn, Paul | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Follett, Barbara | Marshall-Andrews, Robert |
| Forsythe, Clifford | Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | Mitchell, Austin |
| Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) | Moffatt, Laura |
| Fyfe, Maria | Moran, Ms Margaret |
| Galloway, George | Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway) |
| Gardiner, Barry | Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) |
| George, Bruce (Walsall S) | Mullin, Chris |
| Gibson, Dr Ian | Naysmith, Dr Doug |
| Gilroy, Mrs Linda | Norris, Dan |
| Godman, Dr Norman A | Oaten, Mark |
| Goggins, Paul | O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) |
| Gordon, Mrs Eileen | O'Hara, Eddie |
| Hancock, Mike | Olner, Bill |
| Harris, Dr Evan | Öpik, Lembit |
| Healey, John | Organ, Mrs Diana |
| Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) | Palmer, Dr Nick |
| Heppell, John | Pendry, Tom |
| Hinchliffe, David | Perham, Ms Linda |
| Hope, Phil | Pike, Peter L |
| Hoyle, Lindsay | Plaskitt, James |
| Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) | Pollard, Kerry |
| Hughes, Simon (Southward N) | Pond, Chris |
| Humble, Mrs Joan | Pound, Stephen |
| Hurst, Alan | Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) |
| Iddon, Dr Brian | Prosser, Gwyn |
| Illsley, Eric | Rammell, Bill |
| Jones, Helen (Warrington N) | Rapson, Syd |
| Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn) | Rendel, David |
| Jones, Ms Jenny | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| (Wolverh'ton SW) | Rowlands, Ted |
| Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) | Roy, Frank |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) | Ruane, Chris |
| Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) | Russell, Bob (Colchester) |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Ryan, Ms Joan |
| Salmond, Alex | Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) |
| Salter, Martin | Todd, Mark |
| Sanders, Adrian | Tonge, Dr Jenny |
| Savidge, Malcolm | Touhig, Don |
| Sawford, Phil | Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) |
| Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Shipley, Ms Debra | Tyler, Paul |
| Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) | Vis, Dr Rudi |
| Skinner, Dennis | Wallace, James |
| Smith, Angela (Basildon) | Wareing, Robert N |
| Smith, Miss Geraldine | Watts, David |
| (Morecambe & Lunesdale) | Webb, Steve |
| Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) | White, Brian |
| Soley, Clive | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Southworth, Ms Helen | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Squire, Ms Rachel | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| Starkey, Dr Phyllis | (Swansea W) |
| Stewart, David (Inverness E) | Willis, Phil |
| Stewart, Ian (Eccles) | Winnick, David |
| Stinchcombe, Paul | Wise, Audrey |
| Stoate, Dr Howard | Wood, Mike |
| Stringer, Graham | Woolas, Phil |
| Stuart, Ms Gisela | Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Stunell, Andrew | Wyatt, Derek |
| Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Taylor, David (NW Leics) | Judy Mallaber and |
| Taylor, Matthew (Truro) | Mr. Ivan Henderson. |
| NOES | |
| Beggs, Roy | Ross, William (E Lond'y) |
| Fallon, Michael | Rowe, Andrew (Faversham) |
| Forth, Rt Hon Eric | Thompson, William |
| Hawkins, Nick | Townend, John |
| Hayes, John | Viggers, Peter |
| Johnson Smith, | Wilkinson, John |
| Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Wilshire, David |
| Laing, Mrs Eleanor | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Malins, Humfrey | Mr. Desmond Swayne and |
| Pickles, Eric | Mr. John Bercow. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Drew, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Ms Julia Drown, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Chris Pond, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Ms Dari Taylor, Mr. Steve Webb and Mr. Andrew Welsh.