Steve
Webb: 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.
Mr.
Timms: 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: 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.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 8, in
clause 30, page 15, line 25, after
‘Child’, insert ‘and
Family’.
Andrew
Selous: 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: 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: 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: 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.
Mr.
Timms: 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. 2
pm 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. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 8
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
9Provision
of advice by Commission and consultation with
others
Ms
Buck: 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.’. To
require the Government to explain to what extent it has decided to
follow any recommendations made by the Commission, and where it decides
not to take the Commission’s advice, its reasons for
this. Briefly,
the amendment seeks to probe the Government’s thinking on how
responses might be given to the recommendations of the child poverty
commission. My hope and intention is that the
commission’s recommendations will be more likely to be responded
to in a manner mirroring the responses to—I hesitate to use
these words—the Social Security Advisory Committee, than in the
production of a report such as “Opportunity for All”.
There is a lot to be said for the way in which the Government produce
such broad and comprehensive reports, which set out a great deal of
useful information and look at targets. However, it would be a missed
opportunity if the child poverty commission did not receive a more
specific, line-by-line, detailed explanation of how and why the
Government felt that any recommendations should not be taken forward.
Recommendations and advice that are accepted do not need such a
comprehensive response. However, where the Government choose to differ
from the advice and recommendations of the child poverty commission, or
need to explain a failure to implement them fully, it would be sad if
they did not set out the arguments and provide evidence for so
doing.
There
is a temptation for Governments of all colours to prefer to use such
opportunities to set out their own case and to congratulate themselves
on what is done well. I understand why that is, but it is not
necessarily the best way to progress towards meeting our objectives. I
encourage the Government to think about the kind of rigour that they
will adopt in their responses, and I hope that the Minister will
concede that
point.
Andrew
Selous: 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.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Helen
Goodman): 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.
Ms
Buck: 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. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Steve
Webb: I beg to move amendment 56, in
clause 9, page 5, line 22, leave
out ‘or’ and insert
‘and’.
| 
