| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Family Poverty
9. Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): What further measures he proposes to reduce family poverty in the next decade. [107196]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We are committed to eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and we expect to make substantial further progress towards that goal over the next decade. For most families, the best way out of poverty is through work. Measures in the last two Budgets will mean that the poorest families with children will gain more than £1,000 a year.
Mr. Mackinlay: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that I share his pride in Labour's objective of eliminating child poverty in 20 years, and that I also recognise the wretched situation that the Government inherited after the growth in the disparity of incomes and the considerable growth in poverty during the Thatcher-Major years?
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge, however, that studies from the London school of economics and the Child Poverty Action Group show that the laudable objective of eliminating child poverty in 20 years will not be achieved unless there is an accelerated initiative by the Government in their existing programmes and more resources are allocated to the objective, and that if there is no change we will have eliminated only two thirds of the existing poverty? To demonstrate the scale of that situation, I point out that child poverty will be at the same level as it was when Labour left office in 1979. Will the Minister tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Labour Members want more resources allocated to achieving that important policy objective?
Mr. Bayley:
I reassure my hon. Friend that our policies are already making a difference. As a result of tax and benefits measures, the families of 800,000 children who were living in poverty have been raised above the poverty line, and that is just the start. We have set an extremely challenging objective, which is why it will take 20 years of work to achieve it, but the Government are determined to do so.
We have further measures in the pipeline, such as the new child tax credit which will be introduced next April, and the changes to disability living allowance which will increase the incomes of families with severely disabled three and four-year-olds. That is a long-term project, and we acknowledge that it will be difficult to achieve. We are putting large sums towards it--by the end of this Parliament we will have provided an additional £6 billion. The goal can be achieved if we are single-minded in our purpose, and we are.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there is real, if sometimes hidden, poverty in rural areas, as confirmed by a study last week? Contrary to the Prime Minister's rather rosy view, poorer families in rural areas face difficulties in accessing services and they have additional costs. Will the Minister make sure that his policies directly address that problem?
Mr. Bayley:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is indeed poverty in rural as well as urban areas. Hon. Friends from constituencies throughout the country, including my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) and for Castle Point(Mrs. Butler), make that point. The Government's policies to attack poverty apply equally in rural areas as in urban areas.
The key reason why poverty trebled when the Conservatives were in power was a trebling of the number of workless households with children. The key policy to attack worklessness is the working families tax credit, which applies in all constituencies, urban and rural. The problem is not confined to the inner cities; it is a nationwide problem that is the legacy of 18 years of Conservative policy, and we have the policies to tackle and reverse it with our strategy to eliminate child poverty.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead):
Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is tremendous support among Labour Members for the Government's objective of countering child poverty? Will he further confirm that, in achieving
Mr. Bayley:
We have made it clear from the start that the rate of the national minimum wage will be kept under review, and indeed it will.
Mr. David Willetts (Havant):
I welcome back the Minister from his visit to the Ceredigion by-election, where Labour went from second to fourth place. I hope that he will be paying many more such visits around the country. I have a simple question for him. Will he give the House a cast-iron promise that the working families tax credit will be delivered through the pay packet from April, as planned?
10. Mr. Ben Bradshaw (Exeter):
What measures his Department has taken to reduce barriers in the benefits system to education for lone parents. [107197]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle):
The benefits system provides support for lone parents who take up education and training. Time spent on study does not affect their benefit. Lone parents on the new deal may also get help with course fees, travel expenses and the cost of child care while attending approved work-focused training or education.
Mr. Bradshaw:
Does my hon. Friend accept that counting the student loan as income rather than money that must be paid back can pose a particular problem for mature students? If she cannot change that rule, will she describe the extra help that she and her colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment may make available to help people who want to improve themselves through education in order to get back into work?
Angela Eagle:
This year, the total budget for child care access funds in education colleges is £25 million, which is almost three times the amount made available last year. There is extra student support in higher education--£12 million in the current year--through access funds, too. The DFEE has announced that it will be introducing in due course means-tested child care grants for parents who want to study. So we realise that this is an issue, and we are tackling it.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate):
What percentage of single parents successfully getting a job following invitation for interviews under the new deal for lone parents does the Minister regard as a good return for investment in the scheme?
Angela Eagle:
There are more than 32,000 lone parents in jobs who would not have been given any help by the Conservative party. Any lone parent getting a job is a benefit. In due course, we shall be publishing an analysis of the new deal for lone parents. A report on the pilot project, which is due at the end of the month, will show that the scheme has covered 90 per cent. of its costs.
12. Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot):
If he will make a statement on his proposals for reform of the Child Support Agency. [107199]
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling):
The Bill that gives effect to our proposed reforms of the child support scheme is being discussed in Standing Committee. We are on course to start the new system in 2002.
Mr. Howarth:
The overwhelming number of CSA cases in my constituency involves men who are very happy to contribute to the maintenance of children from their first marriage, but who find it extremely difficult to meet the agency's demands. Given that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), said in October that 190,000 absent parents--in most cases, that means the fathers--are likely to face higher assessments under the Government's proposals, does the Secretary of State share my concern that such proposals will lead to much greater stress and further suicidal tendencies among some fathers, while the feckless escape into the night?
Mr. Darling:
Most assessments will in fact be lower and, as the changes that we are introducing will be phased in, both families will have some time to adjust to any vastly different settlement. I agree that difficulty arises because fathers must sometimes wait months before they find out how much they are supposed to be paying, and when they get the bill it is very often much more than they can afford, and that naturally leads to great tension. Under the new, simplified system that we are introducing, it will be possible to calculate in days, not months, how much a father--it is usually the father--will have to pay, so payments will flow far more quickly. We should not lose sight of the fact that, as a result, up to 1 million children will gain, and that must be a good thing.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
Does the Secretary of State not realise that an arbitrary, formulaic system is ineffectual and that each family's circumstances are different? To criminalise those who withhold payment will surely lead to them absconding and going into hiding. If, ultimately, the sanction of jail is invoked, how will that help their earning prospects or make it easier for them to look after their children?
Mr. Darling:
There are two points. First, the simplified formula makes it possible to calculate quickly--within days--the amount due. Anyone who has children knows that it is difficult to calculate down to the last penny how much children cost, or how much should be paid when two people are living together. We consulted widely on the new simplified formula and it has been widely welcomed. Very few people suggested that we should retain the present system. Some suggested that we should go to the courts, but most people think that the simplified formula is better.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |