Child Poverty Bill

Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2009.

Clause 8

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 8, page 4, line 21, at end insert

‘and the promotion of economic enterprise’.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 50, in clause 8, page 4, line 23, after ‘education’, insert ‘childcare’.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

Good morning, Mr. Key. On behalf of the Committee, I welcome you back to the Chair on the penultimate day of our proceedings.

Clause 8 is the meat of the Bill. In many ways, it is the most significant clause, and the fact that a large number of amendments have been tabled to it shows that there is a lot of interest in it among Committee members. I shall go through the different issues raised by the first group of amendments, and I hope that the Committee will bear with me because that will take a little time.

Amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friends and me, would add

“and the promotion of economic enterprise”

to the end of subsection (5)(a). When discussing eradicating poverty, it is important philosophically to mention, albeit briefly, the creation of wealth. I recognise that the state has an important role in alleviating poverty, but it cannot perform it alone. It is the wealth creators—the entrepreneurs and the business men and women throughout the country—who create jobs and set up businesses, and they will be at the heart of eradicating child poverty, which is the solution we all want from the Bill.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the best ways of contributing to tackling child poverty is to encourage enterprise to pay above-poverty wages?

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

That is an interesting debate. I remember Robin Cook criticising the predecessors of the tax credits introduced by the Conservative Government to subsidise poverty pay. I think that those were the words he used at the time. Of course, the policy of the previous Conservative Government has been continued and taken further by this Government, but the hon. Lady makes an absolutely fair point: a balance must be struck between the contribution of the state and businesses.

A significant feature of the evidence sessions at the start of our proceedings was that when local authority leaders were pressed on what it would take to eradicate child poverty they first mentioned getting more jobs and businesses going. On 20 October, Paul Carter talked about the need to bring more “wealth and prosperity” into his area of Kent. Richard Kemp, speaking on behalf of Liverpool on 20 October said,

“The thing that will still take more people out of poverty in my city is more and better-quality employment”.

He talked about the 4,500 jobs that were created in Liverpool last year, but made the fair point that not all of them had gone to the group that we are discussing.

Lastly, but certainly not least, Colin Green, speaking from his experience of Coventry said first, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire, that

“the most important things in this area are those that Richard pointed to, about creating a dynamic local economy.” ——[Official Report, Child Poverty Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2009; c. 62-63, Q136-139.]

That is the perspective of the council leaders who will have an important job on the ground in working with the Government to eradicate child poverty in their areas.

There are further interesting perspectives. Just as Tip O’Neill said that all politics is local, I would say that poverty is very much a peculiarly and distinctively local phenomenon in many parts of the country. The Department has produced some shocking figures on—to introduce a bit of jargon early in the morning—the lower-layer super-output areas. Those figures look at sub-ward levels of economic inactivity. In the Falinge and Central area of Rochdale, 76 per cent. of the working-age population claims out-of-work benefits, and in a further 60 areas across the country, many of them close to the constituencies of some members of the Committee, more than half of the working-age population is not in work. I sometimes refer to those areas as job deserts. We will have to address that distinctive problem to make real progress towards reaching the targets by 2020.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely interesting point. However, before we go too far down a path with those figures, which might be slightly misleading, does he agree that one reason for those intense concentrations of workless parents is the nature of social housing distribution and allocations? The fact that there is much less social housing now than there was 30 years ago means that by definition one concentrates people with disadvantage in small geographical areas, rather than the geographical areas in some way explaining why people are in poverty? We need to look at people rather than at areas, which appears to what the hon. Gentleman implied.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I think that the two issues are linked. The hon. Lady makes a fair and sensible point. Housing does play a role, and that is one reason why I have some sympathy with the Liberal Democrat amendment 30 on transport. If there are large concentrations of people with high worklessness in one area, and jobs are created on the other side of town but there are no decent bus routes or it is incredibly complicated to get there, that is where transport comes in.

Let me point to a possible solution to the issue that the hon. Lady rightly highlighted. In the Marsh Farm estate in Luton, close to my constituency, there was just such a set of circumstances. The estate has high levels of worklessness and child poverty, and it was discovered that the people living there spent just under £2 million a year on a range of takeaway foods, all from businesses outside the estate. There was no garage on the estate either, and people had to go some way—to St. Albans, for example—to get their cars serviced. Partly through, I think, some money from the new deal for communities programme, a fast food business and a garage were set up on the estate. I understand that those businesses are now thriving and sustainable, and not in receipt of ongoing taxpayer support. That is a good example of the promotion of economic enterprise within a job desert. Transport could, or would have to, be the solution in some cases, but not everyone can travel long distances to work, so it is important to have a supply of jobs in areas with high concentrations of worklessness.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for small-scale statistics, and about the importance of initiatives such as the new deal for communities and estate-based work. I would like some assurances that not only the hon. Gentleman but the rest of his party are signed up to the focus on local poverty indicators. Those of us who were tackling unemployment and poverty in inner London in the 1990s found that the then Conservative Government would look only at the macro-statistics and not at the small-scale area statistics. That was one of the reasons we could never really crack some of the problems. Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that everyone on his Front Bench has changed their mind and is now aligned with what he said?

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

As I read the political tea leaves, localism has had a long overdue renaissance in all the political parties, not least in the Conservative party—perhaps even principally in the Conservative party. That is absolutely right. Local authorities, with the total place concept that is being developed in local government, are getting much more switched on to such an approach. I am happy to be on the record as saying that all poverty is local. The hon. Lady makes a fair point: we shall need a balance of national and local solutions to deal with the important issues.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I strongly support the idea of localism and looking at things in small local areas, but it is important to link that with wider economic strategies. I think in particular of south Wales, where areas are blighted by worklessness, in a large degree due to the end of the mining industry—a catastrophe that we are still trying to get over.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

The hon. Lady is right. There are many such areas of the country. My own area, for instance, used to make trucks and had a big motor component industry, but all that is gone now. My area, like hers, is having to think how to earn its living in a new and changing world. That is always part and parcel of economic life. However, the hon. Lady makes a fair point and I am sure that such issues are rightly occupying the minds of her local authority leaders and of the Welsh Assembly.

Amendment 50 mentions child care—to which the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North will no doubt refer shortly. She is right to try to put the issue in the Bill. The whole area of flexible working needs to go in alongside that—the National Children’s Bureau was keen to see it in the Bill. The NCB has drawn attention to the fact that we are clearly not going to get many families—single parent families in particular—into the labour market without making absolutely sure that we have adequate child care.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

We are debating an issue on which there has been a change of focus in Conservative policy. Flexible working is another such issue—perhaps in the past it was seen as imposing too much of a requirement on companies, and that to allow flexibility in working would be against business interests. On the contrary, it has opened up the work force and allowed more people to access work and has been a positive measure that the Government have taken forward and that the next Conservative Government will be able to build on.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I am grateful, as always, to my hon. Friend for putting that on the record. I have always thought it slightly bizarre that, as an employee, one is given such an all or nothing option: to sell either all of one’s time to an employer or none of it. We need to get away from that general concept, because that is not how many people’s lives operate. We are all agreed, across the Committee, that work is the best way of getting people—including children—out of poverty. We have to do further thinking on that area.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

May I pay tribute to the Government for some other progress they have made? The use of tax credits has made work—typically for around 16 hours a week—easier, for lone parents in particular. However, there are disincentives to work more hours than that and for those for whom 10 hours might be more appropriate than 16. We have a rather fixed system that dictates how millions of people live. Does my hon. Friend think that progress can be made to create a smoother and more graduated system to ensure that people are able to work the hours that are most appropriate to them and best suit their circumstances, including child care?

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I agree with my hon. Friend. If memory serves me correctly, that point was made by Kevan Collins in our evidence session, when he called for more flexibility within the benefits system and for the system to be prepared to take risks sometimes over individuals, with benefit holidays and the ability to get back on benefits.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has costed the options that he is talking about.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I am not sure that we have talked about general options; we are talking about a general philosophical approach of providing more flexibility within the welfare system. I do not necessarily agree with the Minister that a flexible system is necessarily more expensive than a rigid system. There are costs inherent in a rigid system, if it keeps people out of the labour market, because the Minister’s Department has to go on paying benefits. It is a complicated area. I recognise what she is saying and she is right to make that point, but this is not by any means the end of the debate. It will be the subject of further study by her party and mine for many years to come. I shall move on because there are many amendments to speak to.

Amendment 58 deals with the well-being of children, which we have touched on throughout the Bill. This is specifically a child poverty Bill; it looks at the income levels available to families in which children live. It is not a Bill about children’s well-being specifically, but we would all agree that poverty and well-being are intimately linked. If nothing else, fostering children’s well-being is likely to be beneficial to the outcomes of those children when they in turn become parents. The National Children’s Bureau, among others, has said that adding a reference to well-being would ensure that the Government consider the breadth of services that can impact on the quality of a child’s life.

Amendment 2 covers three different areas, all of which I will speak to. The reference to families with disabilities covers a distinct group in which there is a particular concentration of child poverty, as every study on child poverty shows again and again. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, among others, has called for and will welcome amending the Bill to refer to disability. We referred to it in our earlier discussions on the disability living allowance. I commend the amendment to Ministers for their consideration. The Secretary of State will have to consider the issue specifically when she formulates her strategy.

I make the same point about ethnic minorities. I am conscious that we need to be careful of the language we use, but, for example, there are phenomenally high rates of child poverty in the Bangladeshi community in London, perhaps for long-standing cultural reasons or due to language or attitudes towards all family members going out to work. We must recognise that a general UK-wide strategy may leave certain communities untouched. Again, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has welcomed that focus.

I want to talk about proposed new subsection (5)(e) in amendment 2, which refers to “reducing family breakdown”. I hope we can debate this in as consensual a way as possible, and I long for the day when this area of family policy is more or less agreed across the House. I am always troubled that it is an area of contention, as it is one on which I seek consensus. I was genuinely pleased when I picked up “Ending child poverty: making it happen”, which was brought out earlier this year by the Department for Work and Pensions from the child poverty unit, which has done tremendous work on bringing the Bill forward. All three references to strengthening families pleased me.

Page 12 of the document says:

“Family breakdown and crisis can make searching for work very difficult and also increase the risk of dropping out of the labour market.”

That is absolutely right; I was pleased to see that. Page 15, which addresses supporting parents, talks about strengthening the capabilities of parents. That is just the right the language and something I would back completely. Page 16 sets out the famous building blocks to try to eradicate child poverty, with the diagram that has been produced at all sorts of conferences. I was again pleased to see family rightly mentioned as one of those eight building blocks. I have referred before to the impact assessment, paragraph 2.6 of which says:

“Family breakdown may have caused the family to fall into poverty.”

Those statement are all from Government documents, so I was surprised when I looked at clause 8(5), and noticed that all the building blocks were there and named expect one: family. Curiously, family seems to have slipped through the net, and I do not know why. I was disappointed because I had thought that what the Government had been saying and their direction of travel had been encouraging.

I was also slightly discouraged during the evidence sessions when the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said:

“The Government are not wholly convinced that family breakdown is a cause of poverty”.

That worried me, so I came back with:

“Is it not the case that if your parents separate you are twice as likely to grow up in poverty as a child?”

The Minister replied:

“The data that we have show that there is a small downward blip at the point of a family breakdown”.——[Official Report, Child Poverty Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2009; c. 15-16, Q44-45.]

I said that we needed to look further into the data.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I found that the most peculiar piece of evidence that we heard in all the Committee sittings was a Government Minister saying that family breakdown was not a major contributor to poverty. It might make one think that the couple’s penalty within the benefits system is almost deliberate, if the Government put such little regard on supporting and keeping families together, and do not regard them breaking apart as something major.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I hear what my hon. Friend says, although I take a slightly more charitable view. I do not think that it is deliberate; it is probably an oversight or an unintentional policy error. I completely and utterly accept that poverty drives families apart. There is a saying that when money goes out of the window, love goes out of the door—or vice versa. I wholly accept that, but I think that the relationship works the other way as well.

Let us look at some detailed figures. The hon. Member for Northavon is a great believer in dipping carefully into the households below average incomes series—no doubt he has the pack with him. I also have a copy from the Library.

I got the House of Commons Library to carry out some analysis of the figures. It sent me a note in July—that is the one to which I referred in Committee. The note splits children in low-income households—those below the 60 per cent. median income—into those whose parents are married, in a civil partnership, cohabiting, single, widowed, and separated or divorced. The figure for all children in poverty across the UK is 23 per cent. The likelihood of a child being in poverty if their parents are married, in a civil partnership or cohabiting is 18 per cent.—1.8 million out of 9.8 million children. In households headed by a parent who is single, widowed, separated or divorced, or whose civil partnership has been dissolved, the figure is 1.1 million out of 3 million children, or 36.6 per cent—slightly more than double the figure for other households. When I said that the figure was double, I was being cautious and had understated the figures.

Those are the Government’s own figures for households below average income—they are just the facts of the case. We can forget any political baggage on the left or the right of the issue—these are just the facts. It is staggering that we cannot get some political consensus on the issue on doing something to strengthen and support families and give them the best chance of keeping their children out of poverty.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that there is such a thing as “just a fact”—his facts were laden with inference, and that is where there is some difference between us. The point was made in the evidence session that many countries have comparable rates of lone parenthood to the UK, but that that does not manifest itself in child poverty. From the point of view of the Bill, is not the most important question why being a lone parent in Britain associates very strongly with poverty, when it does not have to in many other comparable countries?

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I would want to look further into the particular details that he mentions. However, as I look at the statistics across Europe, I see that this country is off the curve. We are right at the top of the table for countries in which there is a significant degree of separation, and we also have a very high level of child poverty. I believe that there is a correlation between the two. Of course, if we give more and more financial support to single parents, there will be less child poverty in certain areas. None the less, 1.8 million children in two-parent families are in poverty, while 1.1 million children in single-parent families—those where the parent is widowed, separated or divorced, or where the civil partnership has been dissolved—are in poverty.

The hon. Gentleman is clearly correct in the sense that if we give lots of state benefit to single parents, we can do something about the issue, and I do not think that anyone would dispute that. However, I am making the more general point that as part of their strategy—not the whole and perhaps not even the most significant part—the Government must be conscious of the need to do something to strengthen and support family life, the fragility of which leads far too many of our children into poverty.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that any difference between the parties relates to a question of means, rather than a question of principle. However, given that the Conservative party is keen to introduce a premium in the tax system to support marriage, what calculations have been done on the amount that would act as an incentive to couples to marry and stay together?

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I have not actually mentioned marriage so far, although I am happy that the hon. Lady has done so. I do not know what my party will do on that issue, and we have not announced that yet. However, we have announced plans to end the couple penalty as far as the working tax credit is concerned, and that would apply to married and cohabiting couples. There is a separate debate to be had on marriage, and I am more than happy to enter into one with the hon. Lady or anyone else on another occasion, but that was not the central thrust of my argument—I was just talking about strengthening families in any shape or form.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Does my hon. Friend, like me, wonder whether any Labour Member will stand up and defend the couple penalty and say that this is a desirable state of affairs? Alternatively, will they welcome the fact that we would seek to get rid of it? The Minister is always quick to point out that there are costs to all these things, but surely we can all agree that we should seek to end the couple’s penalty.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

Order. Interesting though that might be, it might be more productive if we tackled the Bill.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

As always, Mr. Key, I shall follow your guidance in these matters. My hon. Friend’s comments are on the record for Labour Members to respond to as they wish later in the debate.

Finally, amendments 67 and 68 were tabled by the hon. Member for Northampton, North. She wants to include the provision of services for looked-after children and for those in the asylum and immigration system, which was the subject of earlier deliberations. There are distinct issues there, so I think that it is fair for her to raise that point.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Good morning, Mr. Key. I have been musing this morning as to what sin you might have committed in a previous life to have to endure another of our sittings. It is nevertheless good to see you in the Chair.

Clause 8 has a slight feeling of a Christmas tree about it; we have all come along with our baubles. A bit of me almost wants to strip the tree down and perhaps even take out subsection (5), on which we are hanging those baubles. Either we have a strategy that is about child poverty and we let the Secretary of State get on with it, or we have a complete shopping list of everything that matters to do with the welfare of children—and in the spirit of the debate we have added a couple of our own. However, what we have is neither fish nor fowl—we have some things that matter to children but not others.

We have tabled amendment 30, which is about transport, and amendment 47 on child care. We note that the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North wanted to add a provision on child care in a different place in the Bill. We can have a high-tempered debate about where it should go, but we would be happy if amendment 50 were accepted. I shall explain why, if we are going to have a Christmas tree, we would like to hang the baubles of transport and child care on it, but I wonder whether the Ministers will reflect on whether picking some things and not others might create the wrong outcome.

It is like our discussion about targets when we started our consideration. Once we start saying that something matters because it is in legislation, is there not a risk that, when drawing up the strategy, we look at the things that are listed, but ignore disability, ethnicity, asylum-seeking children and all the other things that we would like to add? I hope that the Financial Secretary will give us a flavour of why some things and not others are included and reflect on whether specifying particular things makes sense. If we are going to do that, transport is clearly an important issue and it links to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness on rurality, because transport and rurality are closely linked.

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument and I am having similar difficulty about what should and should not be included. Would he not agree, however, that there is a difference between what is included and some of the other items that are being suggested, which are subject areas and services, and a separate category that would not fit into the existing structure relating to individuals’ characteristics and groups, such as ethnicity? A clear distinction can be drawn between those two sectors. I think that it is right to concentrate on the services and subject areas rather than the groups, which would be a separate argument.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

That is a fair point. We are talking about different categories of things today. I am not absolutely convinced that all those on the list are of a kind. One might argue that some of them are slightly different sorts of things, but I take the general point. If that is the criterion for being on the list, transport services would be an obvious example. There are three obvious links between transport and child poverty: access to services, access to jobs and access to leisure.

The material deprivation standard is things like having a hobby and going swimming—that kind of stuff. If there is no bus and the child’s parents do not have a car, going swimming is going to be a bit tricky. Clearly, if we are to deliver on the targets, I cannot see why transport would not be on the list. Health matters, education matters, social services matters and transport matters, so why not include transport, which has a particular impact on poverty in rural areas?

One of the problems with the Government’s anti-poverty strategy—it is an inevitable problem—is that it is much easier to do things in towns and cities, as everyone is in the same place. There might be public transport, and things could be done cost-effectively, but that is hard if there is one deprived child living down a country lane with no bus. Transport is central.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. By way of example, I would cite the Humber bridge toll, which is one of the highest and most expensive tolls in the country to use a piece of infrastructure completed nearly 30 years ago. Anyone with a part-time job or who is working for minimum wage is unable to use the bridge, and thus employment in an area of lower than average income is constrained. Transport absolutely needs to be understood within the poverty context.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

The cost of transport is important, even for those who have a car—there are issues such as the cost of petrol—but I am thinking particularly of those who do not have access to private transport. Many of us know that public transport is little short of a joke in many parts of the country. It either does not exist at all or, if it does, it is expensive. If someone uses public transport to get to work, they can have a season ticket and get relatively cheap fares—that is one thing—but if someone needs an occasional bus to a Sure Start centre, a leisure activity or whatever, they pay the full fare—they do not get a discounted fare. There is a risk of being ever so slightly London-centric about this. Those of us who represent constituencies outside London are sometimes astonished by the comparison between cheap bulk public transport in central London and the kind of fares that our constituents experience.

There is a particular issue about housing allocations—I believe that the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North has mentioned this—that links to transport. For example, the DWP local housing allowance scheme can result in particular areas of a local authority being inaccessible to people on housing benefit because there is, in essence, a cap on the rent that will be covered, so people tend to cluster in the low-rent parts of a housing market area where transport might not be good. That is partly why the rent is so low—it is cheap to rent there because no one wants to live there because there is no transport. There is a danger that the policies will interact. Putting a provision on transport in the Bill would encourage the Secretary of State to think broadly about one of the barriers to improving child welfare and dealing with child poverty.

Another issue is child care, which is covered in our amendment 47 and also in amendment 50—I hope that the hon. Lady will make some further observations on child care. This partly comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire about the link between lone parenthood and poverty. One of the reasons why there is a much stronger correlation between lone parenthood and child poverty in Britain than in many other countries is that, despite the progress that has been made, there is still a lack of affordable, accessible, flexible, quality child care.

We know that in-work poverty is significant—a job is not enough on its own to get someone out of poverty—and, interestingly, the poverty measures that are used in the Bill do not net off child care costs. Again, we are probably understating child poverty in working households because many parents, particularly lone parents who work but do not receive working tax credit or child care tax credit and all the rest of it, pay a significant part of their after-tax income in child care costs, so their real living standards are much lower.

We must think about the accessibility of affordable, quality child care—and flexible child care. Those who have regular, predictable working patterns and pre-school age children might face one set of issues relating to child care, but if the kids are off at primary school, and perhaps there is an in-service day in the middle of the week, or cover is needed for half term, or one of them is ill—all those kinds of things—people’s ability to hold down a regular job may be undermined. Fill-in child care can be very expensive and can affect living standards. We need to have child care on the list as well, if we are to have a list at all.

I shall not go through the rest of the amendments, but I would like to make an observation about family breakdown, because it is obviously important. It is clearly the case that the children of lone parents are at a higher risk of child poverty than the children of two-parent families. Interestingly, the policy response of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, as I understand it, is within a fixed pot of money to put extra money into two-parent families. Is not that what getting rid of the couple premium would actually mean?

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

It would provide a level playing field, as elsewhere in the benefit system there is not the discrimination against two-parent families that currently exists with working tax credit. It would be a levelling up, not a levelling down. It would not take money away from any single parents at all. There is also the whole area of trying to strengthen and support families to give them a chance of staying together in the first place, rather than dealing with the consequences when they split up.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

But as with all spending commitments, there is no such thing as a free lunch. The hon. Gentleman has told us with some passion, which I believe is sincere, that he is concerned about the high rates of child poverty in lone-parent families but wants some additional support to be available to two-parent families in priority over lone-parent families. That would presumably give him less bang for his buck on child poverty.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

Yes, but we are not talking about fixed states. There is the whole phenomenon of LATs—those who are living apart together. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that many people who are an item, to use the popular vernacular, are forced to live apart because of the way in which the benefit system acts against them. People are taking decisions in their personal lives because the benefit system would be stacked against them if they moved in with each other.

Steve Webbrose—

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I will be interested to hear the hon. Lady’s views on that point.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I am interested in the point that the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire just made because it seemed to be based on the assumption that the benefit system effectively does not disincentivise a couple from separating because the two people will not have additional costs as a result. In my experience, the housing costs of two people separating would heavily outweigh any possible advantage within the tax credit and benefit system of them separating, so I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has thought that point through.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Were the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire to respond to that point, I am sure that he would cite some recently published research about those relative costs, but I am with the hon. Lady on that. One of the things that people do not value adequately enough in such calculations is the value, in the case of couples, of what might be called free child care. Couples can live together and save certain costs by doing so, leaving aside the psychic or emotional benefits—whatever they are called—of being together, which are rather difficult to include in a cost-benefit calculation. If one parent works, however, the other can provide free child care, whereas a lone parent does not have that option.

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that levels of financial support should be determined by need and based on the number of children and the amount of finance available to that unit, rather than on whether the family arrangement is that of two parents or of a lone parent? As I understand it, the current arrangements seek to put financial need as the criterion.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Yes, the focus clearly must be on need. I do not want the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire to think that any of us in the Committee do not think that fostering an environment that enables people who want to stay together as a couple to do so is a good thing. We all believe that, so the point of difference is between the causality of what he talks about inevitably leading to poverty, and the ability of the state to do as much as it can about it. He is involved in voluntary sector projects in his constituency that are very effective in that area and that could be better resourced. This is not a council of despair, and I am not saying that we cannot do anything. This is a question of whether a national child poverty strategy with local implementation should make the causal link that he assumes.

A further point relates to marriage, which the hon. Gentleman did not mention, and I appreciate that that was because he did not want to be pigeonholed. The evidence that financial incentives keep people together specifically in marriage is staggeringly weak. He will know that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), when Chancellor, like other Conservative Chancellors, cut the married couple’s tax allowance repeatedly—the current lot finished it off, but they started it, as it were. There is no correlation between the point at which the married couple’s tax allowance was degraded, and marriage and divorce. We must be careful about the assumption that relatively small financial incentives will affect big life choices in a simplistic, causal way.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

It is extraordinary that both left-wing parties on the Committee are so determined to deny that disincentives for couples to stay together exist or have any import. The further up the income levels someone is, the freer they are to make decisions. It is the poor and vulnerable whose decisions are particularly driven by financial incentive, because of the immediacy of finances in their daily lives. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that, despite the evidence provided by work such as “Dynamic benefits”, there is no financial disincentive for people on low incomes and benefits to be a couple?

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I certainly take one of the hon. Gentleman’s points: lower down the income scale, these incentives matter more. The “Dynamic Benefits” report is packed full of assertions, but there is relatively little substance behind a lot of it. Some of those assertions may be true, but in my view they are not substantiated. They underestimate the benefits of being a couple and what it is that prompts many people to remain as a couple, notwithstanding, as the hon. Gentleman says, some financial issues in doing so. We risk relying too much on anecdote in this area. There is not a lot of hard evidence of people [Interruption.] It is asserted that this goes on a lot. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire says, “We all know people who—”

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

I don’t.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I am not sure that I do either. This is a marginal rather than a central feature of the system, and that is perhaps where we disagree.

I think I should wrap up my point. If we are going to have a Christmas tree, our baubles are nice, so we would like to see child care and transport on the list. However, I ask the Minister to consider whether a Christmas tree is the best idea.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

I want to add another bauble to the Christmas tree. I have tabled an amendment on asylum-seeking, Traveller and looked-after children, but we have discussed those issues previously. I do not want to say much more, except to point out that looked-after children need services particularly when they come out of care, to help them enter economic activity.

I want to speak to amendment 20, which is about the criminal justice system. I agree with the hon. Member for Northavon that things can be added on for ever, and that all kinds of issues would be suitable. However, I am not sure that the criminal justice system is referred to anywhere in the Bill. I am not thinking about children who are in the criminal justice system because, as I have said, children in institutions might be vulnerable and have multiple difficulties, but I am not sure that poverty is the biggest issue for them. I do not think that we can measure poverty if such children are in an institution that is properly resourced.

I am thinking about the involvement of parents in the criminal justice system, and the impact that that has on family income and on levels of child poverty in particular. That applies to both men and women. However, in the Corston report on women offenders and the sentencing of women, there are particular issues regarding women who are put into prison, their experiences in prison and difficulties with resettlement. Often, women are more likely to face custodial sentences for non-violent crimes, despite their family responsibilities. There are major issues around that, and maintaining relationships with the children. May I just give a practical example, as it always helps to focus attention a bit?

The mother of one of the families I have spoken about previously was sent to prison for stabbing her partner. When she came out, her benefits had been disrupted because she had been in prison and it took about three or four months to get them sorted out, because the benefits system is not the fastest thing that has ever happened. Worse than that, while she was in prison, her housing benefit lapsed and she built up rent arrears. So when she came out, she had no income and she had to go back to sharing a cramped flat with the partner she had stabbed. She was pregnant and was being pursued by the council for rent arrears. By any standards, a local authority that is looking at how to tackle child poverty must consider what happens with this group of parents, which will not be huge.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

Does the hon. Lady know how long the prison sentence was, because it is my understanding that housing benefit is supposed to stay in place and is not supposed to be disrupted if the sentence is less than 13 weeks?

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

She received a longer sentence than that. It also seemed that the courts had not made a proper assessment of how many children she had. She did not have proper legal representation and I think the courts thought—it was not absolutely clear—that she had only one child, but she had three and she was pregnant. She got quite a long custodial sentence—longer than 13 weeks—and it was only by starting to get proper legal representation and unpicking things that it was possible to resolve her situation a bit.

I suspect—I do not have all the data—that although this group of parents might not be huge, 100 per cent. of their children would be found to be living in poverty and suffering compound material deprivation. I understand that the Minister does not want to have a wish list that goes on and on, but will he consider giving some assurances about how the assessments locally and the strategy nationally can take into account the criminal justice system? That is particularly necessary because of the pressures on families in which the parents are involved with the criminal justice system, with a devastating impact on the family’s income. Will he make sure that he looks at not just the issues surrounding fathers but those relating to mothers?

I shall give an example of the particular impact on lone parents. One of my more instructive mornings was spent in a youth court, where all the young men were being done for nicking and driving cars, and they were getting community sentences. There were only a couple of women who were up in the youth court, one of whom was a very poor young mother. She was a teenager and had a couple of children. She was done for committing credit card fraud to get money to support her children. There are real issues about focusing on this difficult group and making sure that they are properly included. If my right hon. Friend the Minister cannot include them in the Bill, will he say exactly where the criminal justice system will come into play in looking at strategies to deal with child poverty?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Northampton, North, whose personal experience of case work benefits the Committee as it seeks to understand the many triggers of child poverty. The hon. Member for Northavon rightly pointed out that clause 8 is a Christmas tree. Perhaps if I had had the insight to speak to the hon. Gentleman before I drafted my amendments, I might have sought to alter the clause altogether, so that subsection (5) might read, “Must consider what if any measures ought to be taken to improve the well-being of children.” Given the variety of policies and services that affect the welfare of the children, any effort to list them all is fundamentally absurd.

Ministers have heard what has been said, and I am about to move on and promote my own baubles, but I invite them to think again whether the approach is the right one. It has been a pleasure to listen to the three outstanding contributions that have been made today, and I am struck with the thought of other relevant services—to refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Northampton, North, who sought a rationale for the Christmas tree in relation to services.

All hon. Members will have daily familiarity with the misery caused to the families of lone mothers or fathers, or new families, by the administration of the Child Support Agency. It is an impossible mess in which lots of good people appear to be trying to do their best, but all too often things end in misery for families, with stress in the home and child poverty.

There is nothing on the list about the administration of benefits. What goes more to the heart of services on which children in poverty depend than the administration of benefits? If the hon. Member for Northampton, North is right, and someone coming out of prison can wait four months to get her benefits sorted out, that goes to show how important the administration of benefits should be in the clause, if we are to go for a Christmas tree effect.

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is some rationale for not including absolutely everything? The provision of financial support for children and parents so clearly has the Child Support Agency and the administration of the benefit system at its core that I cannot see that anything would be added by listing those items. I think that the baubles can be limited, even if a few extra might conceivably be added with a little more logic than the hon. Gentleman’s two examples, important though they are in our daily lives and case work.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

The hon. Lady is probably right, but the point allowed me to bring up both those subjects.

I shall try not to detain the Committee too long by talking about other amendments that I have not tabled, but I hope that the Government will take on board the need to emphasise enterprise and the creation of wealth, as well as its distribution, which is the reason for amendment 1.

I have commented already on well-being. It would be peculiar if we did not try to bring the concept of well-being into the matter. The Bill is primarily about incomes, and I shall come to the issue of rurality in a moment. However, it is possible to imagine that even while children are, technically, in poverty, there can be excellent access to transport, libraries, swimming pools and a choice of decent schools, so that a material difference can be made to the lives of children who are still, technically, in relative poverty. Therefore, a wider sense of well-being needs to be captured in the strategies.

I shall not rehearse the point about family breakdown too much more, but to the bizarre combination of Labour and Liberal Democrats who seem not to care about, or—I must stop overstating my case—who fail to give sufficient weight to the importance of family breakdown, I would recommend the report “Dynamic Benefits”, which was recently published by the Centre for Social Justice:

“Economies of scale mean that two single claimants will always need (and hence deserve) more than a couple. However, the Government reduces benefit payments to couples by far more than is saved through cohabiting: so, among families facing the greatest disadvantage, where strong, stable family units are needed most, they are most penalised.”

The hon. Member for Northavon may say that that is an assertion not backed by evidence, but it is followed immediately by a case study, which is about the best that can be done in such a context, I think. It deals with a couple, who are

“both workless and living separately from each other. They are each entitled to a single person’s JSA of £64.30 per week and a HB/CTB award that would depend on where they lived.”

It says:

“If they choose to live together, then the Government recognises their joint income required to keep the same standard of living would be 75 per cent. of their combined separate incomes as singles. However, as a couple they would be entitled to just the same HB as a single person, and between them would receive a joint JSA award of only £100.95 per week. This would typically leave them with approximately 66 per cent. of their previous income, less than the 75 per cent. required to make it equivalent for couples.”

If the case study in the report is incorrect, I would be interested to hear that from the Minister, but on the face of it, it shows that a couple on benefits living together would be penalised more than is necessary to reflect the fact that they were living together. That, simply, is the point being made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire and the Conservative party. I do not think that it is an extreme one, and it certainly does not seek to penalise lone parents. It is an attempt to lay out what a fair and reasonable benefit system and a level playing field look like.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

The hon. Gentleman has helpfully raised a specific case, which aids the debate. Clearly, there is a set of bills that two people running separate households must pay twice. An example is water rates. There is no benefit for paying water rates, so people running two households have two lots of water rates, household insurance, fuel bills and so on. There must be some adjustment. The question is whether it is the right adjustment.

The hon. Gentleman read out the line:

“the Government recognises their joint income required...would be 75 per cent. of their combined separate incomes as singles.”

Does he know where that figure comes from? Where do the Government recognise that it is 75 per cent.?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I have to confess that I have not the faintest idea. Perhaps the Minister will be able to help us later; I merely throw it out. Apart from casework, my greatest and deepest involvement in understanding the benefit system comes from reading that report and others. I do not have the hon. Gentleman’s statistical background.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I am honestly not trying to be a smart Alec. What I was getting at is that I assume—I am guessing, because it is not made clear—that the issue is about the equivalence scales. I am guessing that the report is saying that the Government adjust for household size on one basis, but pay benefits on another. It is perfectly sensible to discuss whether the equivalence scales match the benefit relativities, and if not, whether they should be adjusted. It does not seem to be a great theological point; it is a somewhat technical one. I wonder whether people make judgments on such a huge issue as whether to live together based on 6 or 7 per cent. here or there. If 9 per cent. is the margin, is that enough to make the hon. Gentleman decide whether to live with somebody?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I must say that yet again, the hon. Gentleman has shown his credentials for the post of first chairman of the child poverty commission. I hope that he will give serious consideration to such a move in due course.

On amendments 67 and 68, as I said, if we accept the Christmas tree idea, looked-after children are always missed. The Children, Schools and Families Committee wrote a report recently pointing out just how much we, as corporate parents to looked-after children, fail them. Asylum seekers’ children are all too easily missed as well, so I support the amendments.

I did want to make a main contribution—I will try not to make it too long, Mr. Key—on my amendment, which concerns the need for policies to deal with rural child poverty. Some 22 per cent. of rural children and their families live in financial poverty, according to the Commission for Rural Communities “State of the Countryside 2008” report. It is a serious issue. According to the same report, child poverty is growing more quickly in rural than in urban areas. During the period 2004 to 2007, it rose by 3 per cent. in rural areas, compared to 2 per cent. in the rest of the nation. That is a reminder that during some periods in the past 10 years, child poverty has moved in the wrong direction.

Poverty in rural Britain is hidden, as the media and an urban-based and perhaps occasionally urban-focused Government—I do not mean that overly pejoratively—typically focus more on urban blight. As can sometimes be seen in contributions from Opposition Members, there is a tendency to believe that rural living is essentially a comfortable and middle-class preoccupation.

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I will in a moment, having done my normal trick of provoking her. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research North’s 2006 paper, “A New Rural Agenda”, that view obscures issues such as small settlement structures, limited provision of welfare services and the arrival of ex-urban groups.

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that many of us represent rural and semi-rural constituencies, but I thought it necessary to put it on the record. My constituency—an ex-mining community—is largely rural, with market towns. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, has just told me that her constituency is 800 sq km, which can hardly be described as a compact urban area. Indeed, I drove past it when I was going on holiday in Northumberland recently, and can vouch for it being rural.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The rare signs of commitment to, and understanding of, rurality by Labour Members are always welcome. Although the causes of rural poverty are similar to the causes of the urban experience of poverty, there are often—

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I will make a little more progress, with Mr. Key’s permission. I shall seek to be less provocative of Labour Members. I will happily give way to the hon. Lady once I have made my point.

There are often deeper challenges because of rural constraints, such as low rates of pay and the predominance of seasonal work in coastal towns and villages. Those issues are pertinent in my constituency of Beverley and Holderness. Seasonal work is linked not only to tourism, but to agriculture. Access to education and services is difficult for those without private transport, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Northavon. There are also higher living costs, particularly in tourist areas and places that are remote and isolated from centres of main activity. Pockets of deprivation in rural areas are harder to discern than in urban areas, where they are more concentrated.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

This is a major policy point in the Bill. One of the reasons why the hon. Gentleman’s party criticised the Bill was the responsibility it put on local authorities. One reason why I and other Labour Members support that approach is that local authorities can deal with issues of poverty, including rural poverty, in their areas as it is. That is why it is so important that we follow the approach in the Bill. It will enable the targeting of poverty in precisely the way he wants.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Asserting something does not necessarily make it so. I hope that the hon. Lady is right. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley, who is far more expert in the workings of local government than I, suggests that the Bill is over-prescriptive. In his opinion, it does not allow the flexibility of approach that the hon. Lady wishes for. Perhaps we will focus on that later in our deliberations. I agree that if the Bill provided that flexibility, it would be right to support it.

Access poverty features largely in the lives of rural children and young people. It is particularly important in the lives of teenagers. Over time, there has been a centralisation of services such as health, housing, education and leisure services. The financial and physical barriers to services, such as distance or a lack of transport, affect families and children on low incomes disproportionately, particularly those in remote areas. That is why amendment 60 was tabled.

On benefits, which are the responsibility of the Financial Secretary, there is a lack of rural jobcentres. Before the sudden spike in unemployment, the Government were busily shutting jobcentres as fast as they could. According to the CRC report, “State of the Countryside 2008”, there are only 31 jobcentres in sparse and rural areas. In rural areas, 40 per cent. of 15 to 16-year-olds said that the availability of transport played a part in their decision whether to enter post-16 education. I know people in Withernsea and the surrounding areas who have tried to access education in Hull, but have given up on their courses because of the difficulty and expense involved in accessing public transport. That affects the drop-out rate.

I put it to the Minister that there are extra costs to living in rural areas. Households in rural settlements typically spend £74.50 on transport each week; that compares with a figure of £57 in urban areas. Therefore amendment 60 is necessary to ensure that the UK strategies cover the specific rural challenges and that progress on child poverty is made fairly and proportionately across different areas, so that no areas are left behind in the drive for improvement.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I shall aim to be brief and will concentrate on my amendments, but we have had interesting exchanges about the couples penalty, family breakdown and other important contextual drivers of child poverty, and it occurred to me that there is potentially a couples penalty for pensioners as well. If that is the case, I wonder why we do not see a spate of pensioner break-ups when people reach retirement age. As the hon. Member for Northavon rightly said, the factors that drive relationships are much more complex than that, and relationships are much less amenable change as a result of relatively minor impacts of the tax and benefits system.

Admittedly, Conservative Members are making some very good points; the last speech that we heard contained some important points about rural poverty. However, in making representations, it is critical that the Conservative party tries to understand that given public spending pressures, and the demands that constantly come from Opposition Front Benchers for faster and deeper cuts to public expenditure, adding ever more demands for investment in benefits and other services is unrealistic. Those demands would need to be met by taking resources from other elements of the tax and benefits system. That understanding has been sadly missing.

I want to make a couple of comments on amendments 64 and 66, which are probing amendments. I do not intend to use the word “bauble”, because it would be inappropriate in the context of a very important group of people, but I am clearly not seeking to add the provisions to the Bill, for the reasons that other hon. Members have outlined. We should not look to the Bill to include a list of different categories of people at risk of poverty, or a list of their characteristics. That is an important point.

When I and other hon. Members were asked to table an amendment about children who live with families that do not include their parents, but who are not in the care system, there was a quite dramatic unintended consequence for me, which is that I learned something. I learned that there is a huge policy implication arising from a situation that is brought up in my advice surgery every two weeks. Families in my constituency are constantly coming to me with a number of complex problems—often financial but sometimes not—and they include one or more children who are not the children of the people in front of me. They are nephews and nieces—a sister’s child—or grandchildren, and almost invariably the circumstances—

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

Order. May I gently point out to the hon. Lady that the amendments that she is speaking to are not in this group of amendments? They are in the next group. Perhaps she would like to intervene when we discuss the next group.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I apologise, Mr. Key. I thought that we were covering all the amendments to the clause. I have obviously made a mistake and I shall return to my amendments later. To address the issue of child care specifically, and to continue the Christmas analogy, if we added child care to the building blocks, it would be the non-gender-specific fairy at the top of the Christmas tree, rather than a bauble. Given that the Bill has specified a number of services, and a number of different approaches to, and preconditions for, a strategy for tackling poverty, not to include child care would be quite a significant error.

Clause 8(5)(a) talks about

“the promotion and facilitation of the employment of parents”

And subsection (5)(c) talks about

“health, education and social services”.

I expect the Minister, in responding to the amendment, to point out that child care will be covered under those categories. Of course, an element of that argument is right. However, it is possible for a Government strategy to promote and facilitate employment, health, education and social services without necessarily looking at the delivery of child care services. It is possible to leave out an analysis of the impact of child care and its delivery, quality and affordability, and that inclines us to make a case for its inclusion.

I am clear that the Government have transformed the landscape of child care in the past decade. The national child care strategy and the Childcare Act 2006 provide for the extension of child care, with the addition of places for three and four-year-olds. In the near future, we will be rolling out free places for two-year-olds; that will be funded by the nursery education grant. There is also the provision through Sure Start, children’s centres, and additional support through the child care affordability programme and the child care tax credit. That is all true. However, in practice a number of inherent flaws in the system show the downside of localism. If we do not specify child care in the Bill, it is possible that those flaws might expand in future.

A review of the early years funding formula is taking place. That formula, which is in principle entirely sound, aims to put nurseries maintained by a local authority on the same footing as those in the private and voluntary sectors, to create a level playing field. However, the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea is using that formula to create the opportunity to close four maintained nursery schools; it is one of a number of authorities across the country acting in such a way. That was not an intended consequence of the funding formula. In practice, that local authority is not looking at the delivery of child care against the benchmark of child poverty, and is not considering how its child care services would best deliver a service to the people who need it most.

I should like to provide a separate example relating to the funding that is pouring into local government through the nursery education grant and the Sure Start programme, which is funding the expansion of early years provision. Some local authorities have decided that they will seek to recoup large amounts of Government money through back-door means, for example by charging rent to those nurseries, which immediately pass on the cost to parents. One nursery is being charged £64,000 a year in rent by Westminster city council, which is my local authority. That money, which was delivered into the hands of the nurseries, is immediately recycled out, back into the general fund.

I am concerned that if we do not strengthen the Bill and ensure that local authorities and other partner providers look at the implications for child poverty when considering aspects of child care delivery, the issue will slip off the radar.

Sally Keeble (Labour, Northampton North)

Just to underline my hon. Friend’s point, to refer back to the family whom I mentioned, that young girl who came out of prison was only given a half-day session in the local Sure Start, and was charged for sessions there.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. We know that there has been a significant expansion in core funding for free places, which we should be proud of. However, the complexity of delivery, particularly given that we rely on a market model for a lot of child care—we use the private and voluntary sector for so much of it—invariably means that charging becomes a factor and that we cannot rely, without further strengthening the requirement on local authorities, on the people who are most in need being able to access the services that they require.

My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is well aware of my concern about how the child care tax credit works. The Government are right to say that that tax credit is a more generous means of funding families on low incomes, so that they can afford child care in the marketplace. Sadly, the number of people who claim child care tax credit is small. For example, in my local authority area, only about 100 or so families actually receive it. It is, and has been, possible for local authorities to say that they will introduce extra charges for child care, on the assumption that the child care tax credit will take up the slack. It will not do so, because it is structurally difficult to claim. It effectively militates against certain areas of the country where costs are high and working tax credit take-up is relatively low. We end up losing the provision. That has been the case in the past, and I fear that it will be so in the future if we cannot guarantee delivery.

So far, I have concentrated mostly on under-fives, because that is where the greatest expense lies for parents, but an even bigger concern, not covered fully in the Childcare Act 2006, is child care for older children. We know that the extended school service exists, and that a huge amount of money has gone into it; that is something of which I am very proud. It is also true that the level of prescription relating to extended schools is such that it is perfectly possible for a school to say that it is providing a full extended school service, but not actually provide a single service on its site. That is how the classification of extended schools operates. Looking at service delivery throughout the country, I am not at all sure that there are not very real variations in the quality and provision of service.

We seek to migrate lone parents on to the employment and support allowance, jobseeker’s allowance and income support, on the basis that the extended school services exist and on the basis that there is the ability to pay for them, but we lack the robust information that would let us know whether that actually happens.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

I point out to my hon. Friend that we published a written ministerial statement on Monday, which made it absolutely clear that, as lone parents migrate from income support to JSA, their obligations to work will be tied to school hours, rather than the extended schools hours to which she refers, and about which she is particularly concerned.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I am grateful for that welcome clarification. I expect that, in practice, most Jobcentre Plus staff would be sensitive to such issues, but it is important that the point be specified. The broader point remains: extended school provision and early years services are critical, not just to enable parents to work, although that is significant, but because they are enriching and valuable experiences for children. Investment in early years services provides more value for money than investment in education at any other stage in a child’s life. If we can close the attainment gap by the age of five, it will be far more valuable to us than money that is dedicated to secondary, further and higher education; a lot of that investment is spent chasing up on what we were not able to do in the early years.

My amendment 50 is in no way critical of the progress made over the past decade, but I worry that underneath the general average of improvement, there are significant levels of variation, even within local authorities. I am not convinced that the target of tackling child poverty and improving social mobility will be attained simply by looking at local authority averages, as the Childcare Act does. If the Government are to keep a clause that specifies a number of different services and elements that are needed for a comprehensive strategy, but not all of them, I would strongly argue that they should include child care provision as a vital building block.

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

I support everything that my hon. Friend has just said. She made a complex speech—

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: amendment 50, in clause 8, page 4, line 23, after ‘education’, insert ‘childcare’.

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

I am delighted to have discovered just now, Mr. Key, that your daughter is one of my constituents, which is a very nice thing to say. I am sure that you had impeccable child care for her when she was being brought up, which brings me back to the subject that I was talking about before the Committee adjourned. I will not be long.

I was supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North in saying that we should include child care as a specific point in the Bill. I oppose putting in a load of amendments that cover specific categories of people or geographic areas, but child care, as a specific service, deserves to be put explicitly in the Bill. I was of that mind before I heard my hon. Friend’s speech, but after she went through some of the many complexities that need dealing with, I was even more convinced that child care should stand as a separate aspect of the Bill and a separate building block.

The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, intervened just before the Committee adjourned, to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North on her concerns about the migration of lone parents between income support and jobseeker’s allowance and the difficulty in relation to child care issues. That made me realise even more one of the many complexities involved, how all the various issues that we are talking about, including a number of the building blocks in subsection (5), interrelate and why it is therefore important that child care should stand as a separate item. Child care is fundamental to dealing with the issues of child poverty and the family relationships that we talked about earlier, and to how we deal with the issues in the Bill and meet our objectives.

I will not rehearse all the arguments, because my hon. Friend covered many of them. I shall refer just to two other issues that make me concerned that child care should be highlighted separately. The county of Derbyshire, which is my county and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, has been at the forefront of promoting and taking up the Government’s initiatives on child care in recent years and of promoting Sure Start schemes. I am deeply concerned that if child care does not have the prominence that it needs, that could—even though there will be good intentions and good statements from other political parties—be under threat. That will be very damaging to the cause of trying to eliminate child poverty.

Unfortunately, we have just lost the elections in our county and I do not trust the current regime. Specific ideological issues are raised about how we proceed. I know that the Opposition say that they, too, support Sure Start, but that would be in a very different way, because they plan to cut money from that programme. They say that they will deal with it by increasing vastly the number of health visitors, but by removing other outreach workers; they will also cut that scheme.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I may have missed this, despite being a member of the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families, but the Government have not stated that the parlous level of cuts as a result of their financial mismanagement will not necessarily come down on Sure Start centres.

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that we do not think that the recession should be dealt with through cuts. The recession should be dealt with through increased growth and, although obviously there will be very tight financial regimes, it is clear if one looks at the record of last week’s debate in Westminster Hall on Sure Start that we have a continuing and very strong commitment to it.

However, my point is about not the level of funding for that area as much as the different views on how we make progress and what type of services should be provided with regard to child care, Sure Start and the whole provision for the under-fives and children over that age. That has been highlighted in debates that we have had and will continue to have. It is very important that we highlight child care as a specific area to which attention needs to be paid. I shall raise one other—

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Will the hon. Lady give way again?

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

We do not have much time in this debate, but I will give way.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

The hon. Lady is raising important points, so I am grateful to her for giving way again. One difference in approach that she rightly identifies between the parties relates to health visitors. The Labour Government have dismantled the universal health visitor system, but the Conservatives are committed to restoring universal health visiting—not a token health visitor in each Sure Start centre, but universal health visiting. Does the hon. Lady support that Conservative initiative?

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

I completely contest that that is the situation. Families do have health visitors. The question is what kind of workers they have, for how many visits and for what ages. When I was canvassing in a recent election, I put that point to one parent, who said, “We as a family do not need a health visitor for a long time; we need some other provision for my older child, who’s not an under-five.” This is a complex area, and that is precisely my point. I am sure that we will continue to have these debates. I contest that taking away all the other outreach work is of any benefit whatever. That highlights the importance of including child care as a separate building block.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

My hon. Friend will have heard the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness say that he wanted to stop overstating his case. Does she, like me, look forward to this new era commencing?

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

I do indeed, but I did feel that I should allow him to intervene—he was very good at provoking me into wishing to intervene on him, so it was only fair.

The other example of the complex way in which all these building blocks fit together is equal pay. Earlier this week, I was a bit astounded to hear on the radio a Conservative Front-Bench spokeswoman who was discussing equal pay with the Solicitor-General fall into the trap of implying that the equal pay gap, which we all deplore—I have tabled an early-day motion on the issue, and I hope that everybody will sign it, if they have not already done so—was caused principally by direct discrimination. The equal pay gap is important because it relates to whether women, especially those who live by themselves, have enough money to bring up their families. It has three main causes. One is discrimination. Another, huge reason is occupational segregation. Then, there are all the issues relating to child care, family and living relationships, which also affect occupational segregation. All those issues lead to an equal pay gap, which makes it difficult for women to earn an income for their families. That is another area of complexity, which ties into child care provision. It is one of the key reasons why women go into particular jobs and why they have particular types of pay.

Those are just a couple of examples. One is Sure Start, which has already provoked some debate about what we should be doing. The other is equal pay, and my hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North spoke cogently of the complexities earlier. We should therefore highlight child care as an important issue, and it should have its own specific place in the Bill.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I welcome you back as Chairman of our Committee, Mr. Key. This is the first opportunity that I have had to do that today.

On Tuesday, we debated the clear focus in the Bill on tackling income poverty and material deprivation, because of the evidence of the impact of poverty on children’s lives—their experiences now and their chances for the future. A strategy to tackle child poverty will need to be wide-ranging and will certainly need to cover many, and perhaps all, of the issues that Members have raised in their amendments. However, my concern is that we should not lose the clear focus on income poverty and material deprivation by, as my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley has suggested, adding lots of extra things. Were we to go down the road of putting lots of baubles on the tree, we would necessarily end up with a strategy that tackled each of the issues, but which perhaps did not tackle other things that, as might become clear, were also important.

The strategy required by the Bill will need to consider measures in a number of broad policy areas, encompassing the main drivers of child poverty, including parental skills and employment; financial support for families with children; promoting outcomes for children in health, education and social services; improving the quality of housing; and promoting social inclusion. Those issues are set out in the clause, and they were chosen as a result of lots of detailed analysis of the barriers to eradicating child poverty through extended discussion and consultation with organisations and people both inside and outside Government.

The Bill deliberately avoids being too prescriptive about the content of the strategy. Each three-year strategy will need to respond to circumstances that change between now and 2020, building on evidence about what works in tackling child poverty. More specific measures will need to be considered, as appropriate, for each three-year phase.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I am struggling to follow the Minister’s case. He seems to be saying that the focus of the Bill is on income deprivation, and subsection 5(a) and (b) are about improving the skills and employability of parents and the provision of financial support, which go to the heart of what he is saying. However, what I do not understand, and he has not really explained it, is why health, education, social services, housing, environment and social inclusion are there but not transport and other things. If the Minister’s point was intellectually correct, surely he should drop paragraphs (c) and (d) because inevitably and rightly Members across the Committee will put forward other things that they think are just as relevant and important.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

No, and the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire referred to that earlier on. Those broad areas have been widely discussed in the specific context of this legislation and tackling child poverty. Our view is that the broad areas set out in that part of clause 8 cover the principal drivers.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I think that the Minister will agree that subsection (5) really relates to the original building blocks in the document, “Ending child poverty: everybody’s business”, which his Department signed up to earlier this year. Why has family, which was in that document, been dropped from subsection (5)?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that the document that he showed to the Committee earlier set out the building blocks. There was a lot of consultation around them, and the consequence of that is what we can see in the Bill. I will come to the topic that he has raised when I get to his amendment.

Amendment 1, which the hon. Gentleman moved, suggests that promoting economic enterprise should be added to the list of areas that need to be considered. Taking steps to promote enterprise, particularly among low-income families, will certainly have a role to play in reducing levels of child poverty. A strategy will need to address job creation. The flexibility associated with self-employment could, in a number of cases, help lone parents back into work. We are working to ensure that as many people as possible can get back to work in the economic downturn, and the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that in the six-month self-employment offer, introduced nationally from April this year, specific support for self-employment among jobseekers is being offered. Self-employment was a major strand in the early new deal. For some time, I have felt that we could make more of the potential of self-employment, and I am pleased that that is now being done.

As clause 8 already requires a Secretary of State to consider measures in relation to promoting and facilitating parental employment and skills, it would be superfluous to add the specific point that amendment 1 includes. I would make similar points about a number of other amendments in the group.

Amendment 2 is on family breakdown, and I will come to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised and spoke about this morning. I applaud his efforts to seek a consensus on the issue of family breakdown. He was very careful in the language that he used, and he is right to say that that consensus would be a desirable state of affairs. However, the relationship between family breakdown is not a straightforward one. That point was made in other speeches this morning, but let me go a bit further.

Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark all have relatively high rates of family breakdown, but relatively low levels of child poverty. That is because they have relatively high levels of lone parent employment: in Scandinavian countries, it is about 70 per cent., or in the 70s, whereas in the UK it is 56 per cent. The UK figure is a great deal higher than it used to be, but is still lower than that in Scandinavia.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire for acknowledging that poverty has a negative impact on relationships and can often be the cause of family breakdown. I agree that that does not mean that the Government should not care about family breakdown. There is certainly a link between parental separation and a raised risk of poverty, and we are committed to supporting families who are experiencing relationship problems. In the next two years, we will provide more than £7 million to third-sector organisations that work with such families—the kinds of organisations that he has praised this morning.

We have promoted measures to support parents in maintaining strong relationships and to support those who are experiencing family breakdown. Last December, the Department for Children, Schools and Families announced a series of measures, including local pilots. The hon. Gentleman might be particularly encouraged to hear that we will soon publish a families Green Paper that will set out further proposals on how the Government can support families. That document will give him and other Members, on both sides of the House, the opportunity to explore these important points further. We have also commissioned independent, qualitative research to help us to understand what relationship support adults, particularly parents, need. We expect the results of that research to be available by the end of this year, and they will be used to inform the development of future policy.

Other issues have been raised in the debate on this sub-group of amendments, including support for families, families who have a disabled member and ethnic minority groups. Those are just three of many factors that we will need to consider when preparing our child poverty strategy. We anticipate that the strategy will outline the specific action required to meet the needs of the most vulnerable groups of children and parents.

Amendment 20 highlights the role of the criminal justice system. Again, there is a good deal of work going on in this area. We are prioritising action to support families who are at risk, including the families of offenders, through the national roll-out of the “Think Family” initiative. A multi-agency approach to supporting children, families and offenders will be launched at the national “Think Family” conference next week. The National Offender Management Service and the DCSF have a joint programme that includes the “Hidden Sentence” awareness training programme for people who work with families in custody, as well as the use of family support workers in three prison pilot sites.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, who was unable to attend this afternoon’s sitting, will be interested to learn that an estimated 160,000 young people are affected each year by parental imprisonment; the problem is not a small one. Those young people often suffer hardships such as poverty, bullying, stress, educational disadvantage and other forms of exclusion. The children of offenders are three times more likely than their peers to have mental health problems or to take part in some kind of antisocial behaviour. Nearly two thirds—65 per cent.—of boys who have a parent in prison will go on to commit some kind of crime.

My hon. Friend raised important points on this issue, particularly about the delay between someone leaving custody and being able to get into the benefit system and access housing and job support. She is absolutely right about how much of a problem that can be, and that is the reason for the fresh start programme, which focuses directly on accelerating the progress of offenders into job searching, through Jobcentre Plus, and into the benefit system, through my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary’s Department. For people leaving prison, getting a job is the best possible thing that can happen.

Amendment 30 raises the issue of transport. I certainly agree that good, accessible, affordable transport can help to tackle child poverty, for example, by enabling access to services and employment. However, as with the other issues, it would not be a good idea simply to add transport to the list. The clause already captures the need to ensure the provision of good local services, including transport, under the topic of the built and natural environment and the promotion of social inclusion.

The subject of transport is also reflected in the duties on local authorities and other bodies in England to co-operate to reduce and mitigate the effects of child poverty. Indeed, integrated transport authorities are listed in clause 19 as partner authorities, with which the responsible local authority must co-operate to reduce child poverty in the local area. We have also specifically listed Transport for London in clause 19.

Amendment 47, which was moved by the hon. Member for Northavon, and amendment 50, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, makes some telling and important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North highlighted how much progress there has been on child care. We have invested well over £25 billion in child care and early years services since 1997 because it is absolutely the case that affordable child care can remove one of the key barriers to employment for parents. Good quality child care and pre-schooling also has important beneficial effects for children’s development, particularly for those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.

I could make a compelling case in saying that if one looked—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary anticipated this point—at clause 8(5)(a), on the promotion and facilitation of the employment of parents, and at subsection (5)(c), on education, one would see that it would be difficult to compile an effective strategy without giving a good deal of attention to the topic of child care. Nevertheless, I have heard clearly what has been said and, having had the opportunity of a leisurely lunch break, over a sandwich, I have reflected on the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North has made. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley and the hon. Member for Northavon will feel able to withdraw their amendments on the basis that I will come back to the House on Report with a Government proposal on how we can explicitly ensure that child care is included in the Bill. I hope that that will address the concerns of my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment 58 suggests that improving the well-being of children should be added to the list. Of course, we have underlined our commitment to promoting child well-being in Every Child Matters. I hope that Opposition Members would accept that the main policy area in clause 8 will positively improve the well-being of children. Clause 8(2)(b) requires the national strategies to ensure

“as far as possible that children in the United Kingdom do not experience socio-economic disadvantage.”

The strategy will, by necessity, include measures to promote child well-being. I do not think that the amendment would take that further.

Amendment 60, tabled by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, addresses the issue of rural poverty. As I indicated in my intervention, I was particularly pleased to hear his rather unexpected announcement to the Committee that he plans to cease over-stating his case. I hope that he will let us know what date this new era in his rhetorical career will commence, because I think we are all looking forward to it.

Of course, the hon. Gentleman has raised some important issues. The Government take the problem of rural poverty very seriously. Children growing up in low-income families in rural areas may well face additional difficulties—in accessing services or employment, for example—because of their location. However, it is not necessary to explicitly specify rural poverty in the Bill.

The Bill ensures that the local environment of every child will be taken into account during the development of local and national strategies. Clause 8 requires the Secretary of State to consider what action is needed to promote social inclusion, and to promote and improve the built and natural environment. The local authority will be required to prepare and publish an assessment of the needs of children living in poverty in the area. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels reassured that his legitimate concern will be addressed.

Amendments 67 and 68, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, relate to the provision of services for looked-after children and children of asylum seekers. As she indicated, we have debated that subject already, and I pointed out that clause 8(2)(b) requires us to ensure that as far as possible, children in the UK do not experience socio-economic disadvantage. That provision has been deliberately included to ensure that the Bill covers all children, and does not neglect the needs of any vulnerable group—including the small but significant number of children who would not be covered in the survey, for the reasons that we have explained.

We have set out the main policy areas in clause 8(5), to allow the strategy to respond to changing circumstances between now and 2020. We are carrying out a thorough review of the evidence base, to help us understand causal pathways and identify how different sets of policies can contribute to the 2020 target. The strategy will tackle the root causes as well as the symptoms of child poverty, and help ensure that poverty is reduced and that the targets in the Bill are achieved.

I am grateful to hon. Members for putting on the record a number of important considerations that the strategy needs to address. I will come back on Report with a Government amendment picking up on the point made by amendment 50. I hope that those who have tabled other amendments in the group will feel reassured by what I have said, and that their concerns will be addressed by the Bill as it stands.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

We have had a full, interesting and useful debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his customary courteous, full and, in some cases, placatory reply. I intend to press amendment 1 to a vote, because I think that it is significant. It touches on the balance between public and private sector activity to reduce child poverty. All we are asking is for the Secretary of State to consider the promotion of economic enterprise. That point is fundamental and goes to the heart of how we believe we can best get children out of poverty, the roles played by the state and taxpayer and what private industry can do.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 8, page 4, line 22, at end insert

‘and family and friends carers who take on the care of a child for more than 28 days per year in the following circumstances:

‘(i) where the child comes to live with the carer as a result of plans made within a section 47 Children Act 1989 child protection enquiry; or

(ii) where a child comes to live with the carer following a section 37 Children Act 1989 investigation;

(iii) where a carer has secured a Residence Order or Special Guardianship Order to avoid a child being looked after, and there is professional evidence of the impairment of the parents’ ability to care for the child; and/or

(iv) where the carer has a Residence Order or Special Guardianship Order arising out of care proceedings; or

(v) where the carer has a Residence Order or Special Guardianship Order following the accommodation of a child,’.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 64, in clause 8, page 4, line 22, at end insert

‘and family and friends carers who take on the care of a child for more than 28 days in the following circumstances:

(a) where the child comes to live with the carer as a result of plans made within a section 47 Children Act 1989 child protection enquiry; or

(b) where a child comes to live with the carer following a section 37 Children Act 1989 investigation;

(c) where a carer has secured a Residence Order or Special Guardianship Order to avoid a child being looked after, and there is professional evidence of the impairment of the parents’ ability to care for the child; and/or

(d) where the carer has a Residence Order or Special Guardianship Order arising out of care proceedings; or

(e) where the carer has a Residence Order or Special Guardianship Order following the accommodation of a child.’.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

All these amendments relate to one specific set of issues: the needs of children who are cared for by friends and family but not their parents. Observant members of the Committee will have noticed that amendments 52 and 64 have a certain similarity. Initially, we thought that the only difference was that one used Roman numbering and the other used letters (a) to (e). The very perceptive will notice that we added the words “per year” after “28 days”, which we thought was tidying up but we now think might not have helped at all. Essentially, amendments 52 and 64 are the same. We and the hon. Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North seek to highlight a group of children and families who perhaps have not had the attention that they deserve.

It will not astonish the Committee to know that we did not write the amendment. It was drafted for us by Grandparents Plus, which is a very effective charity. Its profile has been raised considerably recently, including at an event yesterday in the House chaired by the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee. The concerns were also raised at Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday. The set of families we are talking about are those where for a variety of reasons a child is not with the natural or step-parents but is being brought up by grandparents, other family members or friends. The campaign is trying to highlight the fact that there is a gap in the system. The arrangements under which a child may be placed with a grandparent, or a carer who is of the family or a friend, can be diverse, and not all such arrangements bring money with them.

Amendment 52 specifically focuses on the need to assess the financial needs of carers who are friends or family. Research evidence from a sample survey shows that whereas 15 per cent. of foster carers—the closest analogue—said that they were in financial hardship, 75 per cent. of friends and family carers did so. We are looking at a group of children who may fall through the net unless an amendment of this sort is accepted. The financial mechanisms of support for such families are varied and complex. Although there are specific forms of support such as guardianship allowances, they often apply only in very specific cases. Certainly the mechanisms for financial support are leaving many in financial hardship.

Very often the friend or family carer will make sacrifices for the sake of the children. One grandparent carer wrote on the discussion board of the Family Rights Group:

“Like most we have had a dramatic change of life style. All ‘retirement’ plans gone. I had to give up work and if I try and return later I will have lost all seniority therefore will be on minimum wage”.

So the carers are making sacrifices for the children. When we assess child poverty we do so in terms of the household’s income, so obviously the living standards and needs of the whole household are relevant when we are looking at the well-being of a child. So if there is a set of children whose family arrangements leave the adults in hardship, its needs have to be properly identified and responded to. One way would be to put them in the Bill under amendment 52.

Amendment 53 would define the group that we are talking about. Amendment 54 would find out from the Secretary of State the number of children involved so that we can assess the scale of the issue and know more systematically than we currently do how many children are being brought up by grandparents, relatives and so on.

We must consider the well-being of children. The alternative may be local authority care; we want to avoid situations in which although friends and family are available to provide a more loving, secure and familiar home environment than foster care or that of an institution, they cannot do so because of the lack of financial support. To reduce child poverty, we must track down the causes and, if one is that friends and family cannot afford to have the child with them, the well-being of the child will suffer, which I am sure the Government would not want. Amendment 55 would require that, when the local authority is doing its needs assessment, the needs of that particular group should be taken account of.

As ever, we could have come up with a lot of groups that needed their own bit of the Bill so, in a sense, our proposals are probing amendments to see how much, for example, the Government already know about such groups, what assessments they have already made of the scale of the problem and what policies are either in place to tackle the needs of the groups or would be in place under the Child Poverty Bill. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I commend the hon. Members for Northavon and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North for introducing the amendments. They are useful, probing amendments and I shall listen with great interest to the Minister’s response. My briefing on the subject is from the Family Rights Group, and other groups including Grandparents Plus, Family Action, the National Children’s Bureau, the Fostering Network, the Frank Buttle Trust and the Grandparents Association—a wide range of organisations that have interest in such issues. We are discussing about 200,000 to 300,000 children throughout the United Kingdom, so it is not a small group. It is interesting that, of those children, only 6,900 are looked-after children as defined under the Bill, their local authorities having a specific and statutory interest in them.

Some 25 local authorities have admitted paying friends and family carers, even when they had been approved as foster carers, at a lower rate than other foster carers. That seems odd, to say the least. It is particularly unfair that grandparent carers are discriminated against. In many ways, it is a false economy not to do something about that, given that outcomes as a result of placement stability are much better when the family are involved.

We must bear in mind what life is actually like for the child. When friends and family are involved as carers, it often enables the children to stay on at their school, and to keep up with their local group of friends, which will have significant outcomes for the children and their earning ability when they, too, become parents. The amendments are useful. The Department for Work and Pensions does not know how many friends and family carers are in receipt of income support. The fact that it is not aware of that supports the point made by the hon. Member for Northavon when he said that the group is slightly invisible in the statistics, so I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say on the subject.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I inadvertently got a few sentences into my speech on this very topic earlier, so I shall not strain the Committee’s patience by repeating myself. The hon. Member for Northavon set out the basics of the case extremely well. I will repeat the fact that shocked me—reading the Family Rights Group briefing brought home to me something that I confront every week or two in my advice surgery and that has massive policy implications. I feel ashamed that I had not realised what the policy implications were. Clearly, a huge number of people are providing care for the children of other adults, often temporarily but sometimes permanently—the Family Rights Group put a figure of 200,000 or so on the table. That is almost always as the result of crisis, which has massive implications for the family and significant implications for their finances.

One of the cases that I am dealing with now is that of an 82-year-old grandmother whose daughter, sadly, is a crack addict who has been in and out of prison and rehab fairly consistently over a number of years. The grandmother has brought up three of her grandchildren in those very challenging circumstances. I am dealing with a specific issue for the family at the moment. I was speaking to the grandmother a few days ago, before having read the briefing for the Bill, and she was talking about everything that she looks for to help the 13-year-old grandchild materially, such as having a computer in his house. He has a statement—special educational needs—and has been excluded from school once. He has no computer because she has to go to the social services department to ask if they would make provision for him out of the social services budget as an exceptional case. She said, for example, “They are always promising me things, and then they never deliver”, or, “They promised him a bicycle.”

A 13-year-old kid is growing up on an estate that is a super output area and the most deprived estate in the whole of England; he does not have a bicycle or a computer at home because the family does not have the level of financial input that one would expect for someone who is looking after the children of another adult. Almost all the cases of people who come to me are as a result of a parent in prison, a parent who has drug or severe alcohol problems, a parent with a severe illness or disability—cancer or a major injury—or something of that kind. That puts extreme pressure on a family, almost always including the fact that the child or children being cared for overcrowd the house. We talked about overcrowding and poverty earlier on an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North. Bringing in the children of another adult will almost invariably lead to overcrowding and physical pressure on a house. The family income will rarely stretch to providing holidays, outings or extra-curricular activities for a child, often because the arrangement is not permanent.

John Barrett (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I listened to what the hon. Lady was saying, and she is making some important points. She referred to an 82-year-old grandmother, but would she accept that there is another group that is badly affected—the many grandmothers who are still of working age? Dealing with a crisis immediately puts a stop to their income and has a knock-on effect.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

That is a good point. The Family Rights Group briefing talks about one of the major drivers of the financial pressure of looking after another person’s children being that it will frequently—again, often because it is born out of crisis—require people to give up their earning capacity.

The case has been well made and we understand that the group concerned is very important and very overlooked. In connection with the amendment, I urge the Minister to take the matter away and think about how, cross-departmentally and within the Department, there could be some proper analysis of needs and numbers, looking at some of the particular points that have come up in the briefing, such as, for example, what proportion of people looking after a child for more than three or six months would be entitled to trigger foster care payments and to raise their family income in that way.

The amendment is very important, raising some very important issues, which are not necessarily appropriate for inclusion in the Bill. However, the Family Rights Group has done a service—certainly to me—by making us think about a challenging and often tragic group of people for whom we do not have an adequate policy response.

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

I spoke to Ministers about these proposals last week. I draw attention to the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and a similar one stimulated by Grandparents Plus, which has attracted considerable support across the House. Hon. Members outside this room think that this issue is important.

Last week, I explained to the chief executive of the Family Rights Group that it would not be appropriate to put the detail of the amendment in the Bill even though I consider this to be an important issue, for the reasons set out by hon. Members. I have asked Ministers whether they or their appropriate colleagues can respond to those organisations about these issues. The chief executive referred specifically to the lack of data. One of the big problems is that we do not know exactly what is involved. It can involve people with a long-term caring relationship with family or a short-term relationship.

The most recent example I heard about was when I was out canvassing. A woman opened the door and said, “I’m glad you’re here. We were about to try to get hold of your office.” Her sister had been sent to prison unexpectedly for benefit fraud, against the advice of the probation service, and she had taken in the children. One of the children was at school and so needed to be collected and brought home and the other was older and a bit school-phobic. She had no problem with taking them in, but was concerned that nobody from social services had been to ensure that they were being looked after properly while their mother was in prison temporarily. That is another eccentric example that demonstrates the range of circumstances in which this issue can come about. It is hardly surprising that there is a lack of data and that it is so difficult to get the appropriate cross-agency action that is needed to deal with these problems.

I hope that Ministers will ask colleagues to look at this issue and to give some thought to the groups that are taking up these issues. It has generated a lot of interest this week, as is reflected in the early-day motions and the lobbying. Although it is not appropriate to put this issue in the Bill, I hope it will be looked at.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We have had another interesting and thoughtful debate. I am sure that all hon. Members sympathise with the points that have been raised. I am grateful for the way in which they have been raised.

It is clear from the evidence that care by family and friends is the best approach for many children who cannot be looked after by their birth parents, for whatever reason. We want to recognise fully the additional support needs of that group and the contribution that family and friend carers make to the life chances of vulnerable children. We are taking steps to encourage families to bring up children and to ensure that family and friend carers receive the appropriate financial and practical support.

We recognise that grandparents play an ever-increasing role in family life by supporting parents and caring for children, as has been emphasised in this debate. They are an important provider of full-time kinship care for children whose parents are unable to care for them. Many grandparents provide flexible and affordable child care, particularly in the gap between school and formal child care. I remind the Committee that it was announced in the Budget that grandparents and other family members with significant child-care responsibilities will be eligible for national insurance credits. We have heard of a number of examples of grandparents giving up work to care for their children’s children. Under that measure, they will at least continue to receive national insurance credits for state pension purposes. It is estimated that 135,000 grandparents, and other adults under state pension age, are caring for family members aged 12 or under for 20 or more hours a week, of those, an estimated 45,000 could gain basic state pension under the Budget announcement.

It may be helpful to clarify that in the Bill “parent” means more than “parent” in the normal sense. It includes any individual who has parental responsibility for a child under the terms of the Children Act 1989, which, under sections 3 to 5 and 14C, includes many of the persons described in paragraphs (i) to (v) of the amendment, specifically, parents, step-parents, persons appointed as guardians and persons with residence orders or special guardianship orders. Section 17 of the 1989 Act places a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need in their areas through a range and level of services appropriate to fulfilling those children’s needs. That includes providing services, including financial support, to any member of the child’s family, which includes persons with whom the child has been living even if they do not have parental responsibility. The Children and Young Persons Act 2008 amended section 17 of the 1989 Act to make it easier for local authorities to provide regular and long-term financial payments to families caring for children, where they assess that to be appropriate.

The way that hon. Members have spoken about the amendments reflects that there will be more to do. I take the point of the speeches urging me and other Ministers to reflect on the issues and see what further action can be taken. Perhaps it would be helpful if I undertake, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, myself and other Ministers, to write to the organisations mentioned to set out the steps that we are taking to address the perfectly proper and right concerns raised in this relatively short but important debate.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I am sure that a letter would be nice but a meeting would be better. Could he spare a little time with those groups to explore, perhaps on the basis of his letter, how the issues can be taken forward? I am sure that that is happening informally anyway.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland would be at the meeting, but we will ensure that it takes place.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

It has been a very constructive debate. There is a desire in the Committee to recognise the needs of this group, perhaps not through these amendments specifically but through the sort of mechanisms discussed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 8, in clause 30, page 15, line 25, after ‘Child’, insert ‘and Family’.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I do not think that the debate on this will take long because we have had very full debate on clause 8. The amendment adds “family” to the Bill’s title, so it would be the Child and Family Poverty Bill. I pray in aid the brief from the Association of Directors of Children’s Services that Committee members were given before the witness session:

“The terminology...of “child poverty” is unhelpful and does not encourage local authorities corporately nor local communities collectively to see tackling the impact of poverty as “everybody’s business”.

Colin Green from the association made the point in the evidence session that the children we are talking about live in families and in communities:

“It is not a children’s issue; it is a consequence to children.”——[Official Report, Child Poverty Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2009; c. 60, Q135.]

I do not want to go on at greater length as we are talking about a word in the Bill’s title, but I think that that change would be helpful for the purposes of emphasis and will return to that point at an appropriate time.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I have a couple of brief points on what has just been said and on clause 8 itself. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s point that children live in families, not in isolation, but I have two concerns about putting the word “family” in the title of the Bill so that we focus on family poverty. My first concern, and it is not an entirely pedantic point, is that many people would say that they are part of a family even if they do not have dependant children. As soon as we call it is a family and child poverty Bill, we broaden the scope. Poverty matters, of course, whomever it affects, but the Bill is specifically about children, even though we understand that they live in a context, so I wonder whether such a change in the title would slightly dull the focus.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

We have had many references throughout our deliberations to comparisons with Europe on the measures we are using, and quite rightly so. In the last Parliament the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and I travelled across various European countries, and many of the people we spoke with were slightly puzzled by the UK’s focus on the term child poverty. Poverty was very much recognised as a serious issue for them, but child poverty was not a worldwide term.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I am sure that that is right, but we measure the economic well-being of a child by looking at the income and material circumstances of the entire household. For example, half of the material deprivation indicators used relate to the child and the other half relate to the adults in the household, so the family context is included, although it is perhaps not as explicit as the hon. Gentleman would like, but I do not feel terribly strongly about it.

My second concern, which the Equality and Human Rights Commission has also commented on, is that on average larger families are more likely to be poor than smaller families, so if we target 10 per cent. of families, rather than 10 per cent. of children, unless we are careful we risk missing out that dimension and not getting to those most in need. I think that that is a slightly marginal point.

Another concern is that the clause begins:

“The Secretary of State must...”.

Generally in legislation it is obvious who the Secretary of State is, but I am slightly unclear in that case. When we had an evidence session we heard from three Departments, and I entirely welcome them talking together, but given that the clause deals with health, social services, employment, housing and the built environment, it will involve nearly half a dozen Departments, so is there a lead Secretary of State? I am aware that technically and legislatively “Secretary of State” refers to all Secretaries of State, but someone has to take the lead, take the rap and be held accountable—[Interruption.]

I am not entirely reassured to see the Minister shaking his head. There is a serious point behind all of this. Who will take the lead, because we all know, as we have seen with efforts to tackle climate change, that it is difficult for an individual Department to have clout across Government. Sorting out the climate is not the job of just the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, so child poverty is not the responsibility of just the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Treasury. A little insight on what duty the clause will put on whom would be helpful.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The Bill has its origins in the commitment made by the Government in 1999 to eradicate child poverty within a generation, and that is reflected in the title. It is right that tackling child poverty will require us to tackle the poverty of the families in which the children live, but it is important to keep the focus that the current title gives. I notice, for example, that the Child Poverty Action Group, in its response to the Bill’s consultation, stated:

“The child poverty legislation is an opportunity to ensure policy clearly puts children’s needs first.”

That view was widely reflected in the points made by those who commented on the Bill. That priority would be lost if the amendment were made. The Bill gives a good opportunity to make sure that the child becomes the focus for policy and that will enable us to tackle child poverty effectively. The focus on children in the title of the Bill will be an important driver for action. This is not about poverty in a vague sense but about the particular circumstances of children, about which people rightly feel strongly. I accept that the amendment would not change any of the provisions of the Bill, which makes it clear that eradicating child poverty would require support for children, parents and families. It would be a mistake to weaken the focus on children as the animating preoccupation of the Bill. I hope that when we get to clause 30, Opposition Members will not wish to press the amendment.

On the question of which Secretary of State we are talking about, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The term can apply to any Secretary of State. It depends on how government is structured at a particular point. Who knows, there might be some changes between now and 2020. In the current arrangement, my Department leads on the public service agreement, the PSA target, but it is a joint responsibility. I work closely with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and with the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. At the moment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would fulfil that responsibility but it may shift over the coming decade.

Clause 9

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 9, page 5, line 16, at end insert—

‘(3A) If after receiving advice from the Commission the Secretary of State lays before Parliament a strategy or a revised strategy, he shall lay with the strategy or the revised strategy a copy of the advice from the Commission and a statement showing:

(a) the extent to which he has, in framing the strategy, given effect to the advice of the Commission; and

(b) in so far as effect has not been given to the advice of the Commission, his reasons why not.’.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

The hon. Lady has explained her amendment well. It is a perfectly sensible amendment, which seeks clarity and transparency. I have no problem with the fact that advisers advise and Ministers decide. That is the prerogative of power, which the two Ministers in Committee enjoy. If Ministers come to a contrary view, which they are perfectly entitled to do, following any advice that they are given, it is reasonable for them to justify why they have taken a different decision and to put that in the public domain. Time may prove them right. The amendment is about public openness and transparency, and it is sensible.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

It is a pleasure, Mr. Key, to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon.

My hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North, has tabled an amendment that would require the Government, when laying before Parliament a strategy or revised strategy, to provide a copy of the commission’s advice, and a statement showing the extent to which the Government gave effect to that advice in framing the strategy. If effect has not been given to the advice of the commission, the Government would have to give reasons why not.

Obviously, the Government place a high value on expert and independent advice to inform the development of strategies to tackle child poverty. It is clear that the child poverty commission is central to the development of effective child poverty strategies that focus on sustainable long-term solutions, rather than short-term fixes. Those views were made clear in the consultation on the Bill. Following the consultation, we have made it clear that the Bill will ensure, first, that the Secretary of State must ask the commission for advice in preparing or revising the strategy, as set out in subsection (1). Secondly, that advice must be made public, so that it is clear what steps the commission thought were necessary in the development of the strategy. That is set out in schedule 1, paragraph 16(3). Thirdly, the Secretary of State must have regard to the advice provided by the commission. That is set out in clause 9(3).

To ensure that the advice of the child poverty commission is of high quality and informed by the best evidence and expertise, paragraph 1(4) of schedule 1 states that in making appointments to the commission

“The Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of securing that the Commission (taken as a whole) has experience in or knowledge of...the formulation, implementation and evaluation of policy”,

research and

“work with children and families experiencing poverty.”

All such measures will ensure a strong role for the child poverty commission. In practice, the child poverty strategies will demonstrate the extent to which the commission’s advice has shaped the Government’s thinking. By requiring the commission to publish its advice, it will be clear whether the Government have followed the commission’s advice. It is intended that the initial and revised strategies that the Government will be required to publish will make reference to the commission’s advice to demonstrate that the Secretary of State has had regard to that advice. That point covers advice accepted and not accepted.

Once enshrined in law, the Bill will ensure that the commission provides quality advice to the Secretary of State, and it will give Parliament and the public powerful tools to exercise the appropriate accountability. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to provide for an effective child poverty commission. I hope that she will agree that the existing provisions of the Bill meet the aims of her amendment. I am afraid that I did not have quite as good a lunch as my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary; I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North, will withdraw her amendment.

Karen Buck (Labour, Regent's Park and Kensington North)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister. I will not push my luck on this issue. Allowing for parliamentary scrutiny and what she has said, I am prepared to be persuaded. In the unfortunate event of an alternative Government, it may be necessary to return to the matter. As with all such things, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If a Government are truly committed to responding to the child poverty commission, I am sure that the Minister’s words will suffice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 9, page 5, line 22, leave out ‘or’ and insert ‘and’.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 57, in clause 22, page 13, line 14, leave out ‘or’ and insert ‘and’.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Clause 9 is headed “Provision of advice by Commission and consultation with others”, and subsection (4)(c) states that the Secretary of State

“must consult such children, or organisations working with or representing children, as the Secretary of State thinks fit”.

The amendment would modify that to read, “consult such children and organisations working with” children. As the wording currently stands, it appears to be possible to draw up a strategy without consulting children; that is where we are coming from. One will be able to satisfy the condition in subsection (4)(c) by consulting only organisations that work with children, and not children themselves. All that we are trying to do—it is clearly good practice to do this—is to make consulting children a requirement. I do not need to labour the point, as I am sure that the Committee knows where I am coming from.

There are two issues here. The first is about consulting children, and the second, a sub-issue, is about consulting children in poverty. It is important that actions on child poverty are not things done to people, but are things done with them and for them, and are shaped by those who are meant to be influenced. To quote from the UN Development Programme, people living in poverty

“must be considered as the principal actors of development; they can no longer be seen as passive recipients; they are strategic partners rather than target groups.”

In other words, this should not be a patronising, top-down, we-know-what-is-best-for-you measure. With children, that is a particular risk. However, parts of the Bill already ask children what they think. For example, for the child material deprivation indicators, children will be asked about their hobbies, such as swimming, from their perspective. That is entirely welcome, but we would like to see the Bill strengthened so that there is consultation not just with representative groups, but with the children themselves.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I will not speak on the amendment, but I fully support what the hon. Gentleman says, and I hope that Ministers will take that on board immediately.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I am sure that the Ministers will take the hon. Gentleman’s support on board immediately; I am grateful for his support.

Save the Children endorses the amendment, and I think the Equality and Human Rights Commission might even have written it—although even I can draft “delete ‘or’ and insert ‘and’” on a good day. An important point is being made: consultation with organisations is supplementary to, not a substitute for, consultation with children and families. One only has to run through some of the frameworks for consulting children and young people—the UN convention on the rights of the child, the Children Act 1989, the Every Child Matters programme, the national service framework for children—to see that all of them stress the importance of seeking and taking into account children’s views. Indeed, the UN convention on the rights of the child states that

“parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”

Obviously, the views of younger children will differ from those of older children.

I cannot help but feel that listening to the voice of a variety of children with disabilities will be particularly important. I suspect that all of us have attended fringe meetings at our party conferences that were organised by the Every Disabled Child Matters coalition. It produced a DVD that disabled youngsters had made. A parliamentary colleague and I were on a panel with disabled teenagers, who were able to hold up a card that said “Jargon” if we used jargon. I recall that meeting more than most; I hope that no one on the Committee has such a card. It was different to hear things from the horse’s mouth, rather than just from an organisation acting on people’s behalf.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point: it is important to communicate directly with children. However, does he agree that communicating directly with them is not easy, and has to be done in a way that allows one to find out what they truly mean? In those situations, organisations that work with children can sometimes help facilitate the coming forward of children’s views. It is important to bear that in mind.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Absolutely. I do not underestimate the difficulty of communicating with children, nor do I underestimate the contribution that children’s organisations can make. We do not do that, in any sense, by converting “or” to “and”. By putting in “and”, we will require consultation with children’s organisations. However, we have to ensure that the voice of the child is heard clearly. I think that the point has been made, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I support the amendment, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. The amendment is important. We should not underestimate the fact that adults are not always good proxies for children’s views. As the hon. Member for Northavon said, the task may not be easy, and we need to talk to organisations that work with, for and on behalf of children. At my party’s conference I saw a film produced by Save the Children called “Wee Shots”—both Ministers may have seen it at a showing in Portcullis House—and met children who live in poverty in Bradford, London and elsewhere in the UK. The amendment brings an extra dimension, and I echo the reference that the hon. Member for Northavon made to the United Nation’s words about doing things with and for people, rather than to them. The amendment is therefore sensible, and we will support him if he chooses to press it to a vote.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

Subsection (4)(c) requires the Secretary of State to

“consult such children, or organisations working with or representing children, as the Secretary of State thinks fit”

in preparing a UK strategy. Similarly, clause 22(6) requires the responsible local authority to

“consult such children, or organisations working with or representing children, as the authority thinks fit”

in preparing or modifying a joint child poverty strategy. The hon. Member for Northavon proposes to change the word “or” in those subsections to “and” to require consultation on national and local child poverty strategies to take place directly with children, as well as with organisations working with or representing children.

The Government fully appreciate the spirit in which the amendment has been tabled. Ensuring that children’s views underpin Government policies to improve outcomes for all children has been and remains at the heart of our approach. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the participation of the child is one of the three key principles in the UN convention on the rights of the child and has been incorporated into English law since the Scarman judgment on the Gillick case. We have a long history of doing that where we believe it to be appropriate. Article 12 of the UN convention urges state parties to allow children who are capable of forming their own views to have a say on issues that affect them.

Taking into account the views of children and families living in poverty is central to the development of our strategies for tackling child poverty. During the development of the Bill, we commissioned Save the Children to carry out a series of consultation events with children and young people aged five to 19, seeking their views on the Bill, as well as on the Government’s vision for meeting the 2020 targets. We have also commissioned Dr. Tess Ridge from Bath university, who gave evidence to the Committee last week, to research the experience of children and families living in poverty. Her report was published in July and will help to inform the development of the child poverty strategy.

We do not believe, however, that it will always be appropriate for the Secretary of State to consult children directly, as well as those organisations whose role is to identify and represent children’s views and interests. While we want to ensure that both the local and national strategies are informed by the views of children and young people, we acknowledge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North implied in her intervention, that Government may not always be best placed to achieve this goal. In reaching the most disaffected children or those with complex needs, we want to work with those organisations that represent groups that do not usually take part in Government consultations, and that have the necessary specialist skills.

The hon. Member for Northavon suggested that the Government were failing in their obligations to take the views of children and young people seriously. I do not accept that. We have made the participation of children and young people a priority. The Children’s Commissioner and the DCSF’s children and youth board play a crucial role in ensuring that the views of children and young people inform the development of policies. I have taken the trouble to check the obligations of the Children’s Commissioner for England, and they include the “and”—rather than the “or”—approach that the hon. Gentleman would like us to take. However, the Children’s Commissioner differs significantly from the child poverty commission, because he has the function of promoting awareness of the views and interests of children, whereas the role of the child poverty commission is to advise on strategies to tackle child poverty.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

The Minister refers to the child poverty commission, but clause 9(4) imposes a duty on the Secretary of State, not on the child poverty commission.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

I understand that, but in implementing strategies and seeking to meet targets, the Secretary of State tries to implement a policy that will be effective in another objective. That is different from being effective in representing the views of children to the world, which is the role of the Children’s Commissioner, and that is why we have handled their role differently.

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

I am still a little confused as to what difference changing the wording, as proposed by the amendment, would make. The tenor of the amendment is not clear. Would the Minister explain further what she understands would happen as a result of the amendment?

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

My understanding is that in preparing a UK strategy, the Secretary of State—or the local authorities, as set out in clause 22—would have to consult children and organisations working with or representing children in every single case. As the provision is currently drafted, the Secretary of State has a choice about how best to secure the views of children and young people on the issues being considered—namely, drawing up a strategy to tackle child poverty.

I hope that hon. Members will accept my reassurances that we intend that the development of the national and local strategies should benefit from the views of children who have direct experience of living in poverty. In our view, clause 9(4)(c) and clause 22(6) make that intention clear, and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Northavon is unnecessary. The important point is how we put those requirements into practice and ensure that the views of children and their families are properly taken into account. On that basis, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I feel that that was the answer to a different question. The Minister said that it is important to listen to children and that test groups have been commissioned to do research, which has informed policy. She said that Save the Children had undertaken a consultation in which it talked to children, which was good and worthwhile, but she did not want to make it a duty on the Government to do that again. If this is all so worthwhile, why would the Secretary of State want to retain the option of not consulting with children under the Bill as currently drafted?

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

The Secretary of State retains the option of doing it, but is not required to do it in every instance. I think there is a difference.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I think it is the same thing. I cannot conceive of a Secretary of State wanting to draw up a child poverty strategy where he or she did not consult children directly, so I do not see why we need to leave that option in the Bill and I seek to test the view of the Committee on the amendment.

Clause 10

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 10, page 6, line 19, at end insert—

‘( ) The Scottish Ministers must, on or before each report date relating to a Scottish strategy, lay before the Scottish Parliament a report which—

(a) describes the measures taken by the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the Scottish strategy,

(b) describes the effect of those measures in contributing to the meeting of the targets in sections 2 to 5, and

(c) describes other effects of those measures that contribute to the achievement of the purpose mentioned in subsection (2)(b).

( ) The report dates relating to a Scottish strategy are each anniversary of the day on which it was laid before the Scottish Parliament, other than an anniversary which falls—

(a) on or after the date on which a subsequent Scottish strategy is so laid, or

(b) after the end of the target year.’.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 34 to 46.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

Amendments 33 to 39 and 46 relate to the clauses that place duties on the Scottish and Northern Irish Governments, and they have been tabled at their request. This set of amendments has two purposes. First, the amendments will add a requirement on Scottish Ministers and the offices of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to report annually to the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively. The report must detail progress made in implementing their child poverty strategies, including how measures they have taken have contributed to the UK-wide child poverty targets in clauses 2 to 5. That is broadly similar to the requirement on the Secretary of State in clause 13 to report annually to this Parliament. The amendments will increase accountability to the devolved assemblies, and will ensure that there is an annual progress check of steps towards meeting the 2020 goals.

The second purpose of this group of amendments is to ensure that the Bill is technically correct by removing a number of references to “Northern Ireland department” and replacing them with “Northern Ireland departments”. The amendments will ensure that the Bill recognises the role and responsibilities that central Northern Ireland Departments, other than the offices of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, have in relation to the Northern Ireland strategy.

Although the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister have overall policy responsibility for poverty and social inclusion matters, the goals of the child poverty strategy can be achieved only if all Northern Ireland Departments take steps to tackle child poverty. References to the duties of Northern Ireland Departments are, in that respect, similar to references already in the Bill to the duties of the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers that signal collective responsibility.

Amendments 40 to 45 clarify the wording of the UK annual report clause—clause 13. They are minor, technical amendments that will make the precise timetable for laying annual reports before Parliament clear and they will make those references consistent with the references to the timetable for Northern Ireland or Scottish annual reports. I am sure the Committee will agree that the amendments further strengthen the UK-wide framework for tackling child poverty that the Bill will establish.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I support the Government amendments. In developing a UK-wide child poverty strategy, it is important that what happens in the devolved bodies is fully involved and integrated. It is therefore good that the amendments have been tabled. I note that there is nothing about Wales in the amendments, but I assume that is because Wales has not asked for an amendment to be made. I know that Wales already has a child poverty strategy—I believe that it has had one for some time—and is about the launch another one. I certainly welcome the proposals for the other two devolved bodies and, as I say, the key to the success of a child poverty strategy in the sort of UK we have at the moment is making sure that what is happening in all the devolved bodies is tied in with what is happening in the UK as a whole.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

The Welsh are, as my hon. Friend says, ahead of the other three nations on this issue at the moment. On 2 March 2009, the Welsh Assembly Government introduced the Children and Families (Wales) Measure, which effectively places the same duties on Welsh Ministers as the Bill places on the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Northern Irish Ministers. The Assembly measure places on Welsh Ministers a duty to prepare a child poverty strategy that should be updated every three years. It also requires them to publish a report containing an assessment of the extent to which the objectives in the strategy have been met. Clause 9(5) of the Bill provides that the UK Government must have regard to the Welsh strategy when preparing a UK child poverty strategy. The Bill also requires Welsh Ministers to appoint a member of the child poverty commission. We intend that the two pieces of legislation should complement each other and provide a joint framework to ensure that the four nations work together towards the 2020 target.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I want to ask the Minister about the differences between the age in the Welsh measure, which concerns children up to 18, and the age in the child poverty strategy, which is up to 16. Has there been any progress on that issue, which I know concerns the Assembly?

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

I know exactly what my hon. Friend is talking about, and it is something that I have considered very recently. The definition of the child in the Bill is consistent with the definition used by the family resources survey, which has been the main survey used to measure child poverty since it began in 1993-94. To change that definition now would smack of moving the goalposts, and would mean that we were not consistently measuring progress over time. That issue does not arise for the Welsh measure, which does not set a child poverty target in the same way, so we feel that it is acceptable to progress with those slightly different measures.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr. Key. I have not had the opportunity to say that before now.

I would like the Minister to clarify a point that arises as a consequence of Mike Brewer’s evidence in one of our evidence sessions. Clause 10 relates to Scottish strategies, and is therefore relevant to this point. Mike Brewer was asked what the distribution of child poverty would be like if we had a figure based on the regions, rather than having a national figure. He replied:

“poverty in London goes up and poverty elsewhere goes down, particular in Scotland, which ends up with the lowest level of child poverty of all the nations and regions of Great Britain, once you account for the lower costs of living there.”——[Official Report, Child Poverty Public Bill Committee, 22 October 2009; c. 108, Q210.]

The Scottish strategies relate to the targets set out in clauses 2 to 5. The Bill does not state that they are UK targets, but I assume that that is the case. Will the Minister clarify whether the Scottish strategies will be required to meet UK targets rather than specifically Scottish targets? Clearly, it would be easier to meet a Scottish-only target, as the median income and cost of living are lower there, than a national target. The Bill is not absolutely explicit on this, but I think it concerns national targets.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The targets in clauses 2 to 5 are UK-wide, so they apply to children across the whole UK, no matter where they live. The levers for tackling child poverty include a mixture of devolved and reserved measures. Obviously, Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh Ministers cannot be held responsible for delivering on the reserved matters in the strategy. They cannot be legally accountable for child poverty targets that cover the whole of the UK because they do not have influence over all the necessary levers. The Bill requires the Scottish and Northern Ireland Governments to set out how their child poverty strategies will contribute to the targets in clauses 2 to 5. I hope that that clarifies the matter for the hon. Gentleman.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, but it raises questions about legal accountability. Can I confirm that Scottish Ministers have a responsibility to contribute to the targets, but not necessarily to meet them so, in other words, they must do their bit? Presumably, it could be a defence for the Secretary of State to say that the targets would have been met, but for the Scottish Government—[Interruption.] I do not know whether I am intervening or making a speech, but I would be delighted to give way.

John Barrett (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. This issue becomes quite complicated because it is within the power of Scottish Ministers to devise a strategy that requires UK benefits to be raised to a certain level to wipe out poverty in Scotland.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point; I am sure that the Minister will respond to it. There is the distinct possibility of buck passing. This problem is easier to identify than to solve. There is a tension in a UK-wide target that must be met partly through reserved powers and partly through devolved powers.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

To go back to an earlier point in my hon. Friend’s speech, the evidence was that Scotland had the lowest level of child poverty in the UK on a regional scale because of lower living costs. Does he think it is due entirely to that, or are lower median incomes in Scotland also a key contributor?

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

The quote from Mr. Brewer refers to lower costs. We have touched on this matter briefly and I assume that lower median incomes would be a large factor. The nature of a relative income measure is that lower median incomes can reduce child poverty, as happens in a recession.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I wanted to find out whether that was the case because it reminds me of the dictum of Winston Churchill that the vice of capitalism is its unequal sharing of blessings, whereas the virtue of socialism is its equal sharing of misery. There is an irony that the more socialist and economically failing an area of the UK, the lower its child poverty appears to be, in regional terms.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

My hon. Friend tempts me to go in a direction that would not help the Committee, but I note his comments.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

However, is the Bill not about the UK poverty threshold? Therefore, under the clause, Scottish Ministers must enable Scottish children to get above 60 per cent. of not just the Scottish median—which may or may not be measured—but the UK median. That means that it is even harder for Scottish Ministers to achieve the goal, because they are further behind to begin with.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

That is right. I raised the query to get some clarity on record about what the obligation is. I am grateful to the Minister for providing that clarity.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

The UK strategy will incorporate the devolved strategies, for which the devolved administrations will be responsible to their Parliaments and Assemblies. It will also cover the measures taken under the reserve powers. Together, they must consult and produce an overall strategy that hits the overall target. The UK Secretary of State has an absolute duty to meet the UK targets, whereas the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh have a duty to contribute to meeting them. That seems reasonable as the Secretary of State, obviously, has control over a wider range of levers than those in the devolved administrations.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

Does the Minister think that there is a concern about the Secretary of State having an absolute responsibility when there is also a need, as I think we would all agree, for a contribution from the devolved Executives, over which the Secretary of State does not have control and which he cannot order to perform in a particular way? Fulfilling the absolute requirement with regard to child poverty might prove more problematic for the Secretary of State at a practical level in Scotland than in England or Wales.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

It is reasonable. If we did not operate in that way, it would be too easy to have a get-out clause. At some level, we must rely on the fact that all the Administrations are interested in tackling child poverty. As we move forward, we will work to ensure that the consultations are effective. Obviously, in the event that a target was missed and the Secretary of State was taken to judicial review, if the devolved administrations had failed to fulfil their duties to contribute effectively, that would form part of the UK Secretary of State’s defence. However, as we embark on the programme, our objective should be to have an open, transparent process that facilitates all parties to make a reasonable contribution to the overall objective.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I think that I am speaking, Mr. Key, with your permission. Unfortunately, in that case, I can no longer question the Minister.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

Yes, you can.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Excellent. Is the Minister satisfied, following the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire, that having a UK-wide child poverty figure and target is appropriate for each area of the United Kingdom? I ask because, as has been said, if it were done on a regional basis, Scotland would be shown to have the least. The Ministers and all of us have said that the reason why we think that relative poverty is the right fundamental measure involves comparators with other children and how things operate within a school or village. If one is considering making the relative figure correct, it should reflect the surroundings and communities in which one finds oneself.

Is the Minister sure that having a UK-wide number is right and has no distortions? In particular, there might be an area of the United Kingdom—one might want to call it Scotland—with a greater dependency culture than some other parts, where a higher percentage of people are dependent on the state for employment benefit and other benefits. If the rules were UK-wide and if levers were pulled and benefits were increased specifically to deal with the problem, that could further remove economic incentives in the area to go to work. While seeming to have helped eradicate child poverty, I put it to the Minister that the Government could actually be helping, counter-productively, to ensure a lack of dynamic economic activity in a whole region or, indeed, nation of the United Kingdom.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

The hon. Gentleman has once again demonstrated the Conservative party’s grasp of politics and the cultural situation north of the border extremely well for us. What we have here is an objective that is widely shared. There are different policy levers in different places. We have had a great deal of co-operation from all the devolved Administrations in working together on the Bill, as was demonstrated by the fact that the Scottish and the Northern Irish were promoting tougher responsibilities and duties on themselves. We should move forward and take that as an earnest of their good intentions and everybody’s good intentions to hit the 2020 target.

Clause 11

Clause 13

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I have two questions for the Minister. The clause requires the Secretary of State to present reports to Parliament on progress towards meeting the targets and in implementing the UK strategy. Subsection (2) states:

“The report dates are each anniversary of the day on which the most recent UK strategy was laid before Parliament.”

Subsection (3) states:

“The Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the target year, lay before Parliament a report on the progress made in implementing the most recent UK strategy.”

My first question is slightly complicated and I hope that the Minister will bear with me.

First, we have an annual report ending with the target year, which is laid before Parliament on the anniversary of the most recent UK strategy. So, we will presumably receive an annual report at some point in the target year: the year after 1 April 2020. That is the last of such reports. We then have the report mentioned in subsection (3), which should be delivered as soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of the target year. That may not be the final assessment, but it is the big assessment of whether the 2020 target is met.

On the basis of precedent, that report on 2020 will take some time after the completion of the relevant year. Therefore, it may be 2022 when it comes out. I mainly ask for clarification, but it seems that we will have a gap in reports. There will potentially be annual reports running up to 2 April 2020. We will then have a period of two years—perhaps two and a half years—before we have another report, if I have understood correctly, because the requirement is on an anniversary basis. Could the Minister confirm whether that is the case and explain whether there is a need for an interim progress report some time in 2021?

My second question concerns the evidence provided by Ministers during the evidence sessions. The Financial Secretary, in response to questions from the hon. Member for Northavon, explained why he thought that by 2016-17 we will not be in a position in which

“we are surprised to find that we are not on track. By that stage”—

stating the reason—

“we will have had a number of iterations—two I think—of the strategy. We will have had regular annual reports”.——[Official Report, Child Poverty Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2009; c. 10, Q23.]

The Government clearly see the annual report as a significant driver in meeting the 2020 target. In the run-up to the 2010 target, how have the Government reported progress on child poverty? Can the Minister explain why that process was deficient?

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

The hon. Gentleman asks a series of complex questions, but not the same series of complex questions that I asked when I read the clause.

Hitherto, obviously, the assessment as to whether we are on track has been produced when the national statistics for the most recent year are available. That is why, for example, our most recent full set of statistics relate, unfortunately, to as far back as 2007-08. That is one of the reasons why we have debates about the effectiveness of Government measures since then. As the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, we do not have the statistics for the level of child poverty, and we shall not know if we have hit the targets until the first quarter of 2012.

As we move forward, the situation will be different in a number of respects: we will have a wider range of targets than hitherto; we are putting duties on to the local authorities as well as formalising the responsibilities of the Secretary of State; and we are producing forward-looking strategies. Saying something about the forward-looking strategies might help to answer the hon. Gentleman’s second question, as well as to inform an answer to his first question.

The first strategy must be produced within a year of Royal Assent—probably 2011, possibly 2012. Thereafter, a revised strategy must be produced within three years. It could be produced earlier, but the latest possible date that it could be produced is in 2014. If the whole process was stretched out, the next latest possible date would be in 2017, then in 2020. Meanwhile, we would be getting the data back on progress and producing annual reports, which we would, in effect, map against what we had set out in the strategies.

The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire asked, reasonably enough, if there is a gap at 2021. On the basis of what is laid out here, my immediate response is that he has a good point. However, we shall still be producing all the annual statistics. It is possible that by that period we will have changed how we produce the statistics—we might have speeded up, because there are improvements all the time. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has alighted on a small and technical point, but I do not think it impacts significantly on the accountability arrangements because the most important one is a requirement to produce reports up until the end of the target year. The amendments were intended to clarify the situation for the Committee. I hope that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire now understands our intention.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

It is a question of alighting on a small, technical point but what are Committee stages for, if not that? If we are going to be pedantic, may I correct the Minister? The requirement is not to report up until the end of the target year, but for a report ending with the target year. If the date of the last strategy is, for argument’s sake, 2 April, as I read it the last anniversary ending with the target year would be 2 April 2020. There would be no requirement to make another report until we got to the report under subsection (3), which could be some time later. The Minister is right that the matter could be processed more quickly or more slowly. She sets out the reasons, including dealing with local authorities and so on. I do not pretend that this is a major point but, as I read the Bill, we might miss a year of annual reports.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in reading the Bill, but not in reading the amendments. The purpose of the amendment is precisely to fill the gap he alighted upon.

Clause 14

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

I have one question about the intriguing subsection (4) of clause 14. Subsection (1) says that the “report under section 13(3)”—which is the report at the end asking how we did—must give the four figures for targets in the Bill. Subsection (2) means that they must be kosher, and 14(3) asks whether the number is bigger or smaller than the target. That is not unreasonable. However, 14(4) is rather fun, as it says that if we have failed, we must say why. The whole point of the exercise is to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to achieve the targets. It is intriguing that in the middle we find a clause saying that if we fail we will have to explain ourselves.

I am intrigued to know the explanations that might be prompted by 14(4). Could one say, “We changed our minds and decided that child poverty was not all that important.”? Or could one say, “We would have liked to have done more but the economy was in such a mess we did not have the money.”? I am not sure what the point is. If we try to abolish child poverty over a 10-year period, fail to do so and breach a statutory obligation, what is the value added of an excuse clause? Presumably, we are hoping that someone will take legal action to enforce the provision.

The relevant point is that it is not clear whether legal enforcement of the Bill’s duties comes before or after 2020. Could one say, in 2018, “We are miles away from this.”? Could one take the Government to court to make sure? In a sense, there is no point taking the Government to court after 2020 because they will have failed. They will have breached the statutory duty and it cannot be un-breached. The only valid legal action would have to be pre 2020, in which case, what is the point of 14(4) asking why we failed? It seems odd. It might make an interesting article, I suppose, but it is not clear what it is for.

Will the Under-Secretary clarify the matter? What excuse could be given for failure? Is it her understanding that the statutory duty to reach targets must be susceptible to legal action prior to 2020? Subsection (4) concerns a post 2020 excuse, which one hopes we would never get, since there would be no point in having the Bill in the first place.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I am struck by the hon. Gentleman’s naivety. Does he really believe that, under the Bill, a court would enforce such targets, that it would intervene and imprison the Secretary of State for successive failures? The only thing that has ever happened when a statutory target has been missed is that the court makes a declaration. There has been no suggestion by anyone involved in the law that there could be another response unless we brought in specific provision to allow a court to intervene and overrule the democratically elected Government.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

A democratically elected Government are passing this law; it is not undemocratic to enforce something that an elected Parliament has introduced. I am intrigued by the thought that the responsible Secretary of State, whom I now understand to be “probably the Chancellor”, could be locked up. Presumably, the effect of court action is to require the Government to take steps to meet their statutory obligations. If the court says, “You’re not going to meet your targets. You are in breach of the Child Poverty Act 2010. What are you going to do about it?”, we hope that the Government, rather than saying, “Well, you can lock us up if you don’t like it”, say, “Right, we will take the following measures.” I have made my main point, but it is a bit odd that we have an excuse clause. Being able to explain the reason for failure after the event undermines the whole point of having a statutory binding target by 2020.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

I am slightly concerned by the hon. Gentleman’s use of the word “excuse”; it is not appropriate. Producing a report that explains what has not happened is different from making an excuse. The truth is that the duty is absolute. What is being produced is an accountability mechanism for the end of the period. However, it would be possible for legal action to be taken before 2020, not, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, if forecasts suggest that the targets will be missed, but if the Government’s actions, strategy or decisions will not be sufficient to allow them to meet their duties.

The duties of the Government prior to 2020 are to produce credible strategies. If they fail to do that, they will be open to legal challenge, and the claimants would need to produce clear evidence that they have failed to do that. In that case, there would not be a Government report before 2020 stating whether or not the targets had been met. The argument would be about whether the approach being taken was reasonable and, obviously, it would be up to the Government to show that they had a credible strategy. If the hon. Gentleman takes those two things together, he should be reassured that the measure will be an effective discipline on any Government. It will maintain the pressure—that is what he is primarily concerned about—and it will strengthen the force behind our objective of achieving the targets.

Clause 15

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 15, page 9, line 21, at end insert

‘including with regard to any statutory duty to reduce public borrowing’.

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I would be delighted to hear from the hon. Gentleman, who I know is a decent and passionate member of this House. He will be able to tell us how we can, or whether we should, change the situation.

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

The feeling is mutual, I assure the hon. Gentleman. I seek clarity, but not for purposes of mischief. Does he believe that the eradication of child poverty should be a statutory obligation?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

That is a very good question. No Government prior to this have specialised in setting targets and failing to meet them, and in painting a picture of a society joined together in social justice, harmony, happiness and enterprise. Enterprise used to be allowed, in the early days at least. No Government have ever painted a picture so compelling, and yet so signally failed to deliver, despite the vast spending of resources in pursuit of that nirvana. Sadly, it looks increasingly as though that was money that the country could not afford.

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

I am afraid that I missed the answer; is that a yes or a no?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

No, for the reason that no previous Government have set targets in statute. I do not believe that it is right to do so. There are a number of reasons why, but I shall give him one, because I think that that will suffice: it had been a fundamental constitutional principle that one Parliament could not bind another. After a general election, when a democratically elected Government comes in, they will doubtless have to take some very tough decisions indeed, following the wreckage of the UK economy by the Financial Secretary and his friends; we can all imagine that.

It is impossible to imagine that a court of law would intervene and say, “This statute was passed by a previous Government when they were still spending money like it was going out of fashion, before we had our credit withdrawn by the international bond markets. So I’m afraid your ability to maintain basic public services and the armed forces, and all other duties, have to be set aside, because there happens to be a statute in place specifically for this one area of social policy.” Do pensioners’ problems have to go to the wall while we ensure that the issue of relative poverty is dealt with, because that one issue was plucked out by a Government desperately flailing around in their final months, trying to find a dividing line between them and the Opposition? Is that to be the case? I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is not.

Moving on to my amendment, my timing is probably fortuitous. A fiscal responsibility Bill proposed in the Prime Minister’s party conference speech on 29 September will

“impose a legally binding obligation on the Government to reduce public borrowing.”

Notwithstanding the fact that the Government have introduced the Climate Change Act 2008 and want to introduce this Bill, they are introducing another legally binding measure, which apparently means that public borrowing has to be reduced. My amendment seeks clarification as to whether the Secretary of State, in preparing a UK strategy, and the commission, in considering advice, will need to take into account that obligation, as it would be rather peculiar if they did not.

In addition to the proposed fiscal responsibility obligations, the Government are bound by law to meet several other statutory targets. I will quickly go through some examples. There is a legally binding target to ensure that the net UK carbon account for 2050 is at least 80 per cent. lower than the 1990 baseline, and a duty to eradicate fuel poverty in all households by 2015. The Government also propose legislating for a legal obligation to ensure that the target for expenditure on official UK development assistance amounts to 0.7 per cent. of gross national income. This Government love to take things that we all devoutly wish to see and turn them into law, and they then expect that that will make those things happen. All those targets will involve additional public spending, at a time when the Government will be compelled, either by law or by bond markets, to drastically—I should say, “drastically to”; I hate split infinitives—reduce public borrowing. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said in 2006—this has been frequently quoted in our proceedings—that an additional £4.3 billion will have to be spent on tax credits and benefits if we are to meet the 2010 target.

We need clarity on the priority of targets if the Bill is to have any credibility, notwithstanding the fact that I do not think that it has any. That need was highlighted by the judicial review brought by Friends of the Earth and Help the Aged against the Government for failing to keep their legal duty, as the hon. Member for Copeland will be aware, to eradicate fuel poverty under the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. “It is an open-and-shut case”, the hon. Member for Copeland, or even the hon. Member for Northavon, may think. The Government’s defence was that it was not

“reasonably practicable to take all of the measures that would be required to eradicate fuel poverty, as...the resources are not available to pay for them all at the present time given the money available.”

I say to any child poverty group outside the House that they should bear that in mind before they accept any promises from this failing Government.

The court agreed with the Government, and dismissed the claim that they had breached their duty under the 2000 Act on the grounds that they had taken budgetary considerations into account. The judgment continued, and said that the Government

“did not assume a statutory duty to achieve the desired results, whatever the cost...It is open to Government to have regard to its overall budget and the other calls upon its resources in deciding what steps to take in implementation of the strategy, including its requirement that efforts should be made to achieve the 2010 and 2016 targets as far as reasonably practicable.”

The purpose of my amendment is to tease out the issue and ask about the series of competing legal duties, all of which have been enacted by this Government with scant regard for legal enforceability and the need for the Government to be honest about what they can and cannot deliver, particularly for the most vulnerable in our society.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

On a point of order, Mr. Key. Are you minded to have a separate clause stand part debate? It would be possible to make the stand part points on the amendment, but if not I will shut up now and wait for the stand part debate.

Robert Key (Conservative, Salisbury)

Yes, it might well be possible to do that.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

Thank you, Mr. Key. I also thank the hon. Member for Northavon for a helpful clarification there. One or two points arise from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, which I will address in the context of the stand part debate, but I turn more specifically to amendment 61 and the background to it. I thank my hon. Friend for tabling the amendment as it enables us to probe a little deeper the Government’s thinking in this area.

Until relatively recently we have had 10 years of benign global economic conditions. The Government were running a deficit through many of those years, but until a couple of years ago we were travelling through relatively good economic weather. But we are not going to meet our 2010 targets. The explanation Ministers have given us has been that we are constrained by the financial situation. The Financial Secretary told us during the evidence session:

“in the current environment, Government spending is very tightly constrained. That, in particular, is what has limited what has been possible over the last couple of years.”——[Official Report, Child Poverty Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2009; c. 9, Q21.]

This is a time when the Government consider that large deficits are part of their economic strategy in an attempt to revise Keynesian economics and to spend our way out of a recession. We have seen deficits reaching record peacetime levels as a percentage of GDP. We suspect it will reach 14 per cent., which is twice the figure it was when Denis Healey had to go to the IMF in 1976. This has not been a time when the Government have been noticeably diligent in keeping deficits down at a low level, yet that has still been a constraint on Government policy and the ability to meet the 2010 target.

If this has been a period of highly restrained public spending, I should like to know what would constitute an unrestrained period of spending. We are about to enter into a period of severe financial constraint, despite the rhetoric that we occasionally hear now and heard more earlier in the year about the difference between Labour investment and Tory cuts.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

We do not hear quite so much of it now.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

No, we do not, although we heard a little bit of it from the hon. Member for Amber Valley earlier today. We know that the Government intend to reduce public spending significantly in the period from 2011. We have now seen Treasury documents showing reductions in departmental spending over a period of three or four years of over 9 per cent. Of course, we heard the Prime Minister’s party conference speech on 29 September, to which my hon. Friend referred. It consisted largely of unfunded spending commitments, but it also mentioned a fiscal responsibility Act that would make it legally binding to reduce the deficit. Presumably, legally binding means legally enforceable. Somebody would be able to take the Government to court in an attempt to reduce the deficits, in much the same way as somebody will be able to bring the Government to court for failing to deliver on their child poverty strategies.

It is clear that the Child Poverty Bill may result in higher public spending as a consequence of action taken pursuant to it. The Financial Secretary was clear about that when in his evidence to the Committee on 20 October he said:

“There certainly could be a judicial review that in effect required the Government to spend more on tax credits or some other element of the benefit or tax credit system.”

He also said:

“Under the Bill, a court could, in response to a judicial review, require the Government to make substantial spending commitments in order for the targets to be met.”——[Official Report, Child Poverty Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2009; c. 11, Q26-28.]

That quotation is interesting, and I hope that some of us will get the opportunity to debate the fiscal responsibility Bill. One could easily reword the Minister’s statement. Indeed, I might have the opportunity to ask the Financial Secretary whether it would be possible for the Government to be subject to judicial review to meet the deficit requirements. He might respond, “Under the Bill, a court could, in response to a judicial review, require the Government to make substantial spending cuts in order for the targets to be met.” We could face two actions simultaneously; one requiring the Government to spend more money, and the other requiring them to spend less. That is something of a mess.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

The hon. Gentleman is astute and he will appreciate that the money required to tackle child poverty is but a relatively small subset of total public spending. He will therefore fully appreciate that it is not inconsistent to do more on child poverty while simultaneously reducing overall spending or the deficit. I think that he is saying that, if he is a member of a future Conservative Government, he would not like to be bound by the child poverty obligation. He would like to be able to say at that point, “Money’s tough; we’ll put it on hold.” That is what I think he is really saying.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I am trying to get some clarity from the Government. The Government have a tendency, for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, to pass legislation that is essentially declaratory in nature. Why not extend the principle to a statement about spending on the NHS, the armed forces or a whole range of other areas? I do not want to stray into a wider critique of legislation by declaration, because I want to say something about that in the stand part debate. However, who determines the balance of priorities? Should it be a matter for politicians and for Ministers accountable to Parliament? I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Northavon, but we could find ourselves in a crisis or in a situation similar to the one we are in at the moment. The Government are saying, “We are not going to meet our child poverty targets or do more to meet them, because we have run out of money.” If we are in such a situation in 10 years, what will happen when two pieces of legislation are going in diametrically opposite directions?

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

This goes to the nub of the Bill. Presumably, the point is, as the hon. Gentleman said, that any future Government can repeal the Act or amend it. However, what we are doing today is increasing the political price of doing so. Given that we all care about the abolition of child poverty, is that not a worthwhile thing to do?

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

Again, the hon. Gentleman prompts me to say something that I was going to say a little later. The Bill has two provisions that put political pressure on Ministers. The first is the report, the publication of the strategy, and the fact that Parliament has an opportunity to review and scrutinise. Everything is in the public domain. It is clear what the targets are and the Government must be clear about what they are doing and how successful their strategies are. It would be fair to say that Kate Green’s remarks during the evidence sessions were principally about political pressure. I think that evidence reflects generally what is being said by the outside bodies.

There is also the judicial review point, which I feel a degree of uneasiness about, because it puts essentially political questions to the judiciary. There is a danger in that. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness alighted upon the point that when there are two particular measures—the targets that the Government seek to legislate for—they could well move in opposite directions. As we speak, they are dragging the Government in different directions. I think it is right to highlight that.

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is a binary equation that to reduce child poverty we must increase public spending?

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes a helpful point. Our argument on tackling child poverty—it is a point that the Government have made as well; they set it out very clearly in the explanatory notes—is that it is not simply a matter of spending more money in income transfers. That is not a sustainable way of addressing child poverty. We fully endorse that and have been arguing that point for some time. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman agrees. Nonetheless, if we want at all costs to meet the target and we have a binding obligation that we have to meet, and if, particularly towards the end of the strategy period, we want a quick fix, we can do that quickly by raising benefits and tax credits. The evidence of the IFS, for example, is that if the Government in the pre-Budget report, which is due in a few weeks’ time, decide to go down that route, they could still meet their 2010 target. We do not expect them to do that. We do not think that it is sustainable, and the public finances cannot support that. I am not criticising the decision that will be made in the PBR, but we must bear it in mind that the Bill could be used as a way of saying, “You must spend more on benefits and tax credits,” which the Minister, to be fair, acknowledged during the evidence session.

Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not a binary equation. Given that we all accept that it is not a binary equation, that we all recognised on Second Reading that it is about priorities and that there is flexibility within any democratically elected Government’s portfolio for choosing priorities, surely there can be no grounds for objecting to this being a statutory obligation?

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

In a way, the hon. Gentleman is perhaps arguing for some clarification, which is what the amendment seeks to provide. If I understand it correctly, it seeks to make it clear that meeting the targets is subject to the fiscal responsibility Bill—assuming it comes into force. What the hon. Gentleman argues for is fine—we can meet the terms of the fiscal responsibility Bill, because it is not just about money, and I do not disagree with his essential analysis. The amendment is trying to explore what would happen if we were in a similar position to our current one in 10 years’ time. When faced with an obligation, would the Government be able to say, “Hold on, getting our deficit down is very important.”? I think the amendment makes it clear which one would prevail.

If we have two separate obligations going in different directions, I am not entirely sure what the judges are supposed to do. Do they just pick the one that they like most? Do they pick the most recent one? As I understand it, subsequent legislation is seen to be superior to—overrides—previous legislation, but it does not always work like that. For example, going back a long time to when I was an undergraduate, if I remember correctly the European Communities Act 1972 is an implied term in every piece of legislation passed since the Act, so unless the legislation expressly overrides that Act, it is subject to it—that is what the Factortame line of cases established. I do not think that that applies here, but there is potential uncertainty.

I wonder whether this is an opportunity for the Minister to save some legal fees for the likes of the Child Poverty Action Group, or whoever might subject the Government to judicial review, and provide some clarity as to how the two pieces of legislation—one before us and one promised—will hang together. That clarity would be useful in understanding exactly how the Bill works.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I could not help but notice as the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness opened the debate that the new era he announced to us this morning—the one in which he will not be overstating his case—has not started yet, although I look forward to it. I found myself firmly in agreement with one point that he made—his antipathy to the use of split infinitives. I share that with him, but I am afraid not a great deal else.

The essential point is that the goals of fiscal responsibility and eradicating child poverty are not incompatible—we have to achieve both. The targets will certainly have to be achieved in a fiscally responsible way. If that was not possible, the long-term sustainability of our child poverty commitment would not be delivered. The strategy—when it is published within 12 months of Royal Assent—will need to set out how that will be achieved, and how the targets will be delivered in a fiscally responsible way. Those goals are consistent with clause 15, which requires the Secretary of State to take into account fiscal and economic circumstances. I shall argue, when we come to the stand part debate, that that obligation is a strength of the Bill because, in fulfilling it, the Secretary of State will need to take the likely impact on public borrowing into account when preparing a strategy to meet those targets. The clause requires the Secretary of State to have regard to those responsibilities when setting out his proposed action for meeting the targets.

The fiscal responsibility Bill will require the Government to reduce the budget deficit year on year to ensure that national debt remains sustainable in the medium term. That is, and must be consistent with, the Secretary of State’s obligation to take into account the impact of child poverty measures on public borrowing. The publication of annual reports will provide a transparent accountability framework to enable regular monitoring and scrutiny of progress. Those accountability arrangements will ensure that we continue to make progress in a sustainable way. That was always going to need to be an obligation and a characteristic of the strategy when it was produced. The hon. Gentleman made a perfectly fair point. The requirement is highlighted by the announcement of the fiscal responsibility Bill, but that would always have to have been a part of the strategy.

This Bill allows us to plan to meet both those obligations, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my reassurances on that point and feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

What can the Minister tell us about enforceability? I spoke a lot about it—he is humorous about the new era of me understating my case, which he and I devoutly wish to see begin, but perhaps not today. The point about the unenforceability of this and other statutory targets is not just mine—it may be a minority point of view in Parliament, but not in the legal community. The Minister needs to take the issue seriously.

I go back to Harriet Townsend, the barrister who said, in the context of the Climate Change Bill:

“Notwithstanding the potential for judicial review, both the”

duties

“to ensure compliance with the five yearly budgets would, in my opinion, be ultimately unenforceable in the courts.”

That was the legal view. I know there was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing on the topic during the Climate Change Bill, but could the Minister bring us up to date with the Government’s legal position? Have the Government taken counsel’s advice on legal enforceability? That goes to the heart of my amendment.

There are two questions: mine, about enforceability; and secondly, about how that enforceability works when we have, potentially, legislation pointing in different directions, one direction requiring a reduction in government expenditure and another an increase. Although the Minister has a capability—nay, a facility—to sound reasonable while saying things that are indefensible to my mind, while I have exactly the opposite ability at many times, I would be interested to hear from him on both those points.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Let me attempt to tackle that point. The courts can respond in a variety of ways in relation to judicial review. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a declaration, which a court can make; a court could quash an order, require a Government to set aside a particular policy decision, issue a prohibiting order forbidding an action, or issue a mandatory order requiring a particular course of action. The courts have many measures at their disposal if they seek to determine a judicial review against the Government on either of the Bills under discussion.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I take it from the Minister’s answer that he is seriously suggesting that a court would use any such powers. The main focus of the Bill is incomes. I think that Ministers have accepted and agreed that when we get towards the end of the period, the long-term issues around improving children’s centres, early intervention, lack of attainment in families at an early age and so on go out of the window, at least in terms of meeting a target that is fixed in time. Does the Minister believe that the courts—or anyone—could enforce action against Government on the child poverty target in the early years? That is my first question.

Secondly, the only time that I could conceive of a court starting to use any of the fairly strong measures that the Minister talked about—barring or insisting on certain activity by the Government—would be right at the end. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire has tried putting counterfactuals to the Minister before, with limited success in gleaning a full answer, but if the legal duty existed now, would the Minister expect a court to insist that the £4.3 billion or whatever is spent by Government in order to meet the 2010 target? Does the Minister seriously expect that sort of thing to happen in future? If he does not, that would suggest what Jeff Rooker said during consideration of the Climate Change Bill:

“It is not just about the punishment in the event of failure; it is about trying to change institutional behaviour through a change in the law.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2007; Vol. 696, c. 1209.]

That is a rather vague concept, but I have always found Jeff Rooker an honest and straightforward Minister and I think that he was effectively saying, as best he could, that the target was not enforceable. He hoped that, by putting it in statute, it might be taken a bit more seriously by the civil servants and others than it would otherwise, but it is not a legally enforceable target.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I shall be brief because the points I wanted to make in the clause stand part debate I made with regard to amendment 61. There are two key elements to the pressure placed on Ministers by the Bill. The expression, “Holding the Minister’s feet to the fire”, has been used on more than one occasion. Kate Green of the Child Poverty Action Group, for example, said in evidence to us:

“Of more importance to us is that the Bill gives public profile and a political push to the issue and ensures that there is constant progress and momentum.”——[Official Report, Child Poverty Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2009; c. 34, Q80.]

Her focus was on that, although, of course, she acknowledged the possibility of judicial review. I am nervous that Ministers, in seeking to achieve a range of objectives, are held accountable to Parliament, but decisions may be made ultimately by the judiciary. There is a difficult tension between keeping deficits down and wanting to raise benefits to meet child poverty targets. The Government, including the Financial Secretary, are wrestling with that dilemma on a daily basis, in preparation for the pre-Budget report.

There are other areas of tension. Returning to evidence provided by Kate Green, she raised concerns about a tension between welfare reform and meeting the targets. That is difficult, as there is cross-party consensus on the need for welfare reform to do more to end a culture of dependency. That involves sticks and carrots—the exact composition of the sticks and carrots is a finely balanced judgment. It is possible to imagine circumstances in which Ministers take one view of the right course of action and the judiciary another. I worry about too many powers being passed on to the judiciary rather than democratically elected politicians. It is a concern.

Perhaps most significant is the issue that we return to with clause 15: the economic and fiscal circumstances. It is reasonable for the Government to include the clause. I know it has received some criticism. In all honesty, a Government must always act in accordance with economic and fiscal circumstances. My general criticism of the Government is that they have not done enough of that over recent years with regard to the public finances.

The Minister almost implied that the constraint on the targets—if there is, in reality, much of a constraint—would always be there. Governments always have to act responsibly or should do so, and, ultimately, we do not object to the clause.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Whereas we do.

A clause stand part debate allows us to question what might happen if the clause was not part of the Bill. Presumably, clause 15(1)(a) means that the Secretary of State might be reckless. The probable Chancellor might decide to have no regard for economic or fiscal circumstances, taxation, public spending or public borrowing. The idea that, when forming policy, a future Chancellor might have no regard for public spending, taxation or public borrowing is a tad unlikely.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

This one would.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

All right. Let me put it another way: the proposition that clause 15 would make a blind bit of difference to whether a future Chancellor had regard for public borrowing or public spending is unlikely. Assuming that the Financial Secretary anticipates his colleagues and successors in that role, I am sure that he would not suggest that they would behave in such a manner. I am not clear about the restraining impact of subsection (1)(a). In a sense, such a measure is unnecessary under that subsection and it is inappropriate under subsection (1)(b), which deals with the child poverty commission.

We might say that we are talking only about a bunch of academics, but even they will presumably have regard for such matters when making a recommendation about tackling child poverty. We must assume that we have followed the personal specification under schedule 1 and that they are a body of fine people with knowledge of the formulation, implementation and evaluation of poverty, and experience of research into child poverty and work with children. The idea that they just head off to another planet without regard for the environment in which they work seems implausible, but we do not want them to self-censor. We want the child poverty commission to say something a bit uncomfortable occasionally—something that might require serious public spending or taxation—and it will then be for Ministers to decide.

We do not want the child poverty commission internalising such matters or pre-empting the political judgment of priorities—that is not its job. Its job is not to weigh up the relative merits of spending money on nuclear weapons or child poverty, but to advise on cost-effective ways of tackling child poverty. The Government can then judge between alternative strategies for that or other issues on which they want to spend money. I cannot see how clause 15 would ever be used. Will someone take the Secretary of State to court for not being fiscally responsible in his approach to child poverty? That is pretty implausible. We have already heard how difficult it is to enforce the entire Bill, let alone the clause. Will we take action in law against the child poverty commission for being a bit irresponsible? What is the clause doing? Why is it in the Bill?

In what circumstances could the clause be used? In evidence to this Committee and, indeed, to the Work and Pensions Committee, the Minister said that he would go away and think about the matter. I should be interested to know how that lunch time went. My underlying worry is that we have a binding target. The right hon. Gentleman assured us that it is not undermined by clause 15. Perhaps we ought to have a metaphorical clause 15 in all Bills requiring such things of everyone and all people. Why do we have the clause in this Bill, when such a measure could fit into any Bill? That is odd. What is it about the Bill that makes the Government want to add such a provision to it? Unless we are given a convincing reason for its inclusion, we cannot agree with it.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Let me start by confirming that clause 15 does not have an impact on the binding character of the target, which is a point that the hon. Member for Northavon rightly said that I had made before. In my view, clause 15 strengthens the Bill. The truth is that we shall achieve the targets only if we can establish an economically sustainable way to do so. The hon. Gentleman focused on subsection (1)(b) and, if we were to remove the clause, it is true that we would then liberate the commission to produce advice unrestrained by economic realities—sometimes that can be advised by his party. But what use would that be? I do not agree with him about this. I think that we want the commission to be constrained by realities. The hard bit of the job is determining how we are going to achieve these targets in a way that is consistent with the realities of what will happen over the next 10 years, and that is precisely what we want the commission to help us with. I do not think that anyone is interested in well meaning flights of fancy. What we want from the strategy and from the commission’s advice is hard-headed measures consistent with economic reality because those are what can be implemented to eradicate child poverty.

Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat, Northavon)

Will the Minister remind us who appoints these people? Do not he or his colleagues appoint them, and does he really think he will appoint people given to flights of fancy? Surely these are expert people who live in the real world. Why do they need a legal duty to do something that they will do anyway?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I think it will be very helpful for the commission to have this clear remit that it is to formulate advice that is consistent with the financial circumstances over the next 10 years. I can think of many experts who have given advice on a variety of topics that does not comply with the clause as it is set out in the Bill. We want this particular group of experts to give us advice that does comply. It is a strength of the Bill that that is made explicit so that everybody is clear what is required.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

The Minister has said something significant and I want to make sure that I understood it correctly. He rightly said that we need to find a sustainable solution to eradicating child poverty—we are all with him on that. By that I took him to mean one that was financially sustainable and did not break the bank. Is he implying that if we are not quite there in 2018 and 2019 but a significant increase in tax credits would take us there, yet that would not be sustainable for the UK economy, it would not be the right thing to do?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman puts a hypothetical situation to me. There will be a series of three-year strategies over the next decade and annual reports against each of them. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire quoted what I said on this: I do not think that when we get to the latter point of the decade what has happened will take us by surprise. As for whether clause 15 should be in the Bill, it is undoubtedly a strength of the Bill that it is here. It gives a clarity of purpose to everybody involved.

Schedule 2

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I have one or two brief questions. First, paragraph 9 gives a power to the Secretary of State to exclude or modify the absolute low income targets. The Secretary of State can either amend the percentage specified or the base year with regard to the absolute low income target, or repeal it altogether. The explanatory notes are helpful in explaining why the power exists in respect of that one target and not the others. As the hon. Member for Northavon has mentioned on more than one occasion, this is the least ambitious of the four targets. The intention is, presumably, under paragraph 9(1)(a), for there to be an opportunity to renew and update the targets in a more ambitious and meaningful way—I understand that. The alternative approach, in paragraph 9(1)(b), is to repeal clause 4 altogether, because the target has been met, and is therefore meaningless, so we can just move on to focus on the other three. However, there is nothing in paragraph 9(1)(b), as far as I can see, that says that the repeal applies only in the event of the target being met. I might be raising an unlikely hypothetical situation, but if there is no economic growth in the years ahead and, somehow, the target is not met, I understand that would still be possible for the Government to repeal the target. Is that interpretation right? Is there an argument for stating that the power to repeal should exist only in the event of the target being met in 2021?

Secondly, if I interpret the schedule correctly, if the target has not been met, the infrastructure that exists under the Bill—the strategy, the reports and so on—does not apply because it falls, under the Bill. However, there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to set out regulations that, by and large, bring them back. I should be grateful if the Minister told us how much discretion exists in respect of the nature of the reports, strategies and so on, and whether paragraph 3, in particular, gives the extent of the discretion that is available to the Secretary of State.

Thirdly, paragraph 2 says:

“If the target statement relating to the target year or a renewed target year indicates that the targets have been met in relation to that financial year, the Secretary of State must ensure that they are also met in relation to the financial year following that in which that target statement is laid before Parliament.”

Using our example of 2020, that means that we might anticipate, although we cannot be certain, that the target statement will be made in the first quarter of 2022. There is a target for 2020-21 but none for the year 2021-22, and then the target comes back again for 2022-23—that is the way I read it, but I might have missed something. I am sure that if I have, the Minister will not have done, and that he will clarify those points.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman is right. Paragraph 9(1)(a) provides the power to make regulations to amend the absolute income target and the base year. Paragraph 9(1)(b) enables clause 4—the absolute measure—to be repealed instead of a new target and base year being set, reflecting the fact that there is a slightly different status to the target. The hon. Member for Northavon has argued that that should not be a target at all, and I made the case that, in our view, in response to the consultation responses that we received, it was right to have it. However, it is conceivable that, in the decade after 2020, a different view might be taken, which explains the ability provided by the regulations. Of course, the Bill requires all four of the targets, including this one, to be hit by 2020.

David Gauke (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

Yes, the Bill does require it, but after 2020—this is the purpose of the schedule—it is possible, as I read the schedule, for the requirement to be withdrawn or abolished, even if it has not been met. I accept that it is theoretically unlikely, but it is possible.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman is right. There is not a requirement to hit it before that provision is available.

On the question of why there is not more detail about strategies and reports, the provisions are a bit different in schedule 2. We took the view that it was not appropriate to provide the same level of regulatory detail for strategies and reports after 2020 because someone else will have had another look at them by then, one would imagine.