The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen: † Mr. Martin Caton, Robert Key

† Baron, Mr. John (Billericay) (Con)

† Barrett, John (Edinburgh, West) (LD)

† Blackman, Liz (Erewash) (Lab)

† Buck, Ms Karen (Regent's Park and Kensington, North) (Lab)

† Gauke, Mr. David (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con)

† Goodman, Helen (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions)

† Howell, John (Henley) (Con)

† Keeble, Ms Sally (Northampton, North) (Lab)

† Mallaber, Judy (Amber Valley) (Lab)

Morgan, Julie (Cardiff, North) (Lab)

† Mudie, Mr. George (Leeds, East) (Lab)

† Reed, Mr. Jamie (Copeland) (Lab)

† Selous, Andrew (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con)

† Stuart, Mr. Graham (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)

† Timms, Mr. Stephen (Financial Secretary to the Treasury)

† Webb, Steve (Northavon) (LD)

Chris Stanton, Sarah Davies, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Witnesses

Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, HM Treasury

Helen Goodman, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions

Dawn Primarolo, Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families, Department for Children, Schools and Families

Column number: 1

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 20 October 2009

(Morning)

[Mr. Martin Caton in the Chair]

Child Poverty Bill

10.30 am

The Chairman: I have a few preliminary announcements to make. Hon. Members may remove their jackets during Committee sittings. Will all members of the Committee ensure that mobile phones, pagers and so on are turned off or switched to silent mode during sittings? Copies of the money resolution in connection with the Bill are available in the room. I remind members of the Committee that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I and my fellow Chair do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that might be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.

The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion, on which debate is limited to half an hour. We will then proceed to a motion to report written evidence and a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of oral evidence sessions, both of which I hope we can take formally. Assuming that the second motion is agreed, the Committee will then move into private session. Once it has deliberated, witnesses and members of the public will be invited back into the room and our oral evidence session will begin.

Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Caton. Two members of the Committee do not have seats, and I do not think that that is satisfactory.

The Chairman: There are seats available in another part of the room. I apologise to hon. Members. We would usually be sitting in the Boothroyd Room, but that has been taken over by the Speaker’s Conference.

As I was saying, if the Committee agrees to the programme motion, it will hear oral evidence this morning and this afternoon, and on Thursday morning and afternoon. Next week, we shall move to the Committee corridor and revert to the traditional clause by clause scrutiny of the Bill. I call the Minister to move the programme motion.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 20 October) meet—

(a) at 4.00 pm on Tuesday 20 October;

(b) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 22 October;

(c) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 27 October;

(d) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 29 October;

(e) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 3 November;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:

Column number: 2

TABLE

Date	Time	Witness
Tuesday 20 October	Until no later than 12.30 pm	Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Children, Schools and Families and Her Majesty’s Treasury
Tuesday 20 October	Until no later than 5.30 pm	Kate Green (Child Poverty Action Group), Neera Sharma (Barnardo’s), Fergus Drake (Save the Children) and Kate Bell (Gingerbread)
Tuesday 20 October	Until no later than 7.00 pm	Catherine Fitt (National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services), Colin Green (Association of Directors of Children’s Services), Kevan Collins (London Borough of Tower Hamlets), Richard Kemp (Local Government Association) and Paul Carter (Kent County Council)
Thursday 22 October	Until no later than 10.25 am	Charlotte Pickles (Centre for Social Justice), Edna Speed (Save the Family) and Reverend Paul Nicolson (Zacchaeus 2000 Trust)
Thursday 22 October	Until no later than 2.30 pm	Dr Tess Ridge (University of Bath), Donald Hirsch (Loughborough University), Mike Brewer (The Institute for Fiscal Studies) and Neil O’Brien (Policy Exchange)

(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 7; Schedule 1; Clauses 8 to 16; Schedule 2; Clauses 17 to 30; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 pm on Tuesday 3 November.

We are all looking forward to serving under your chairmanship, Mr. Caton, and that of your co-Chair, Mr. Key. This will be the first time that I give evidence as a Minister to a Public Bill Committee, and I am looking forward to doing so with my colleagues. I take this opportunity to welcome all members of the Committee to our important task over the coming days. We had a pretty consensual debate on Second Reading and there was broad support from both sides of the House for the general principles of the Bill. I look forward to hearing evidence from members of the public about our proposals and then participating in the Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill.

The programme motion was tabled following the resolution agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee, which met on Wednesday 14 October. It is printed on the amendment paper, and I commend it to the Committee.

Mr. David Gauke (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con): We look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Mr. Caton. We also look forward to hearing evidence from Ministers and outside experts. We are satisfied with the programme motion and it has our support.

Question put and agreed to.

Column number: 3

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Mr. Timms.)

The Chairman: Copies of the memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the room.

Resolved,

That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Mr. Timms.)

10.34 am

The Committee deliberated in private.

10.41 am

On resuming—

The Chairman: We shall now hear evidence from the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Children, Schools and Families and Her Majesty’s Treasury. I understand that Dawn Primarolo is delayed. Although she is on her way, we have to proceed.

Welcome to this morning’s sitting. Will the two witnesses that we have so far introduce themselves to the Committee?

Mr. Timms: I am Stephen Timms, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

Helen Goodman: I am Helen Goodman, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

The Chairman: Thank you. Before I call the first Member to ask a question, I remind the Committee that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill.

Q 1Mr. Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): According to the “Oxford English Dictionary”, in modern English “eradicate” means to remove or destroy completely. Do you accept that describing the targets in the Bill as relating to the “eradication” of child poverty represents an inappropriate use of the word? Would the term “substantial reduction” be more appropriate?

Mr. Timms: No, I would not. Eradication is the appropriate term, because poverty needs to be measured other than by relative income. If we are reducing the proportion of children growing up in households with incomes of less than 60 per cent. of median to 10 per cent. or less, we are not eradicating the phenomenon. However, the Bill carefully includes other measures because, as most people would accept, that one measure does not capture the totality of poverty. We could say that if we have achieved all the targets in the Bill, we have met our goal. That is not to say that there will never be children in households with income of less than 60 per cent. of median income. Nevertheless, the phenomenon of child poverty, which all of us see and which grew rapidly for a while but has been reduced in recent years, would have been eradicated.

Q 2Mr. Stuart: So are the Government announcing today that they are rejecting relative poverty as the fundamental measure of poverty?

Column number: 4

Mr. Timms: The Bill includes four measures. From the outset, our intention, which has been widely accepted, was to recognise that attempting to measure poverty with a single measure would not work.

Q 3Mr. Stuart: The Government set out that they were going to seek to put Britain among the best countries in Europe in terms of child poverty. However, while other countries in Europe have fewer than 5 per cent. in relative poverty today, the Government are defining fewer than 10 per cent. as “eradication”. Surely that is an insult to the children who will continue to suffer relative poverty, even if the measures are successful.

Mr. Timms: No, they do not. Denmark has the lowest proportion of any EU country, which is 10 per cent. on the most recent 2007 data. Every other EU country has a proportion higher than 10 per cent.

Q 4Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington, North) (Lab): A past criticism of child poverty progress has been that while some low-hanging fruit has been dealt with, the problem of severe and persistent poverty has not been tackled as rigorously as we would have liked. In the Bill, tackling persistent poverty will be dealt with retrospectively through the new Understanding Society survey. Is there not a danger that that will effectively postpone rigorous action on dealing with severe and persistent poverty? How will that be overcome?

Mr. Timms: I do not think that it will have that effect. It is true that, because of the break in the data, it will be a while before we have the numbers to enable us to set the right level of the target for persistent poverty, but I do not think that that needs to delay action to address the problem—I certainly hope that it will not. For me, this is a particularly important measure. We can all see that while being in a household with a relatively low income for a short period is one thing, all the evidence shows that being in that situation for a long period can be seriously damaging to a child’s prospects. We are lumbered with the break in the data, but I do not think that that needs to delay action on tackling the problem.

---

Prepared 21 October 2009