---

Equality Bill

My Lords, these amendments revisit the debate on the need for the socio-economic duty. Since we have discussed the duty at some length at each stage of the Bill, I will be as brief as possible. The duty will create an overarching legal requirement on central government departments, local authorities and key public bodies to take account of the need to reduce socio-economic inequalities. This measure is necessary because without it we will never fully tackle the underlying causes of many of the inequalities addressed elsewhere in the Bill. Inequality and disadvantage are not only associated with issues to do with age, gender, disability or ethnicity; at the root of many of those inequalities is a much broader one; namely, persistent poverty. This is not a matter of press releases or gesture politics. It is a reality for too many people in our country. As the noble Baroness says, I know that the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats share our desire to address this issue. At the Hugo Young lecture in November, David Cameron said that, ""we should focus on the causes of poverty … we should focus on closing the gap between the bottom and the middle … focusing on those who do not have the chance of a good life is the most important thing to do"." That is exactly what we are trying to do. The comprehensive report from the National Equality Panel, published in January, showed how inequality rose very significantly during the 1980s. It also showed that the Government have successfully managed to stop that rise. In some areas, we have made good progress in reversing it. It is equally clear that real challenges remain. The report shows how inequalities of outcome related to socio-economic background embed themselves even before children enter school, and then are reinforced and accumulate throughout the life cycle, through the school years and entry into the labour market, right through to retirement. Public bodies must tackle these inequalities in a concerted and sustained way. That is what this duty will require. They will need to think strategically about what more they can do to address socio-economic disadvantage individually and with their partner organisations when they decide their key priorities, set their targets and plan and commission their services. That goes directly to the heart of the matter. There was much debate in Committee about whether the Government should be tackling the outcomes or causes of socio-economic disadvantage. To be clear, we are trying to break the cycle of deprivation, where the effects—the outcomes of past disadvantage such as childhood poverty, poor educational achievement, poor housing and health et cetera—become the causes of future disadvantage and inequality. This duty will help us to break that cycle. We have made clear in the wording of the duty that we want to see real change with tangible, measurable outcomes. The Scottish and Welsh Governments want this too. Clause 2 will enable the duty to be extended to cover public bodies in Wales and Scotland. It is noticeable that the Scottish Government, having been initially sceptical about the duty, held a public consultation that overwhelmingly backed it and then asked to be included. Clause 3 is necessary to ensure that the duty has its intended effect, influencing the key strategic decisions that public bodies make without giving rise to private rights which would divert resources away from benefitting the public as a whole. The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, again made reference to the comment of my right honourable friend Vera Baird that there is no harm in this. As I made clear in Committee, the noble Baroness quotes the Solicitor-General selectively. She also said it is a strong measure and that, ""It will help us drive progress and promote better outcomes for people who need the most help".—[Official Report, Commons, Equality Bill Committee, 11/6/09; col. 159.]" This is overwhelmingly the right thing to do. The duty is an essential part of the Bill. It underpins all the excellent work that we and others in the public sector are doing to tackle inequality and disadvantage. It will have a significant positive effect on the way that public services are planned and delivered. With minimum bureaucracy and maximum flexibility, the duty will make clear that tackling all inequalities—whether they arise from characteristics such as age, ethnicity or disability or are due to poverty more generally—is a core function of public services. It is the right thing to do. It is extremely important that we all demonstrate our commitment to tackling poverty and disadvantage. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.