Mr.
Timms: 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. 1.15
pm 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: 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.
1.30
pm Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
10.
Division
No.
6] Question
accordingly negatived.
Steve
Webb (Northavon) (LD): 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,’.
The
Chairman: 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.’. This
would require the Secretary of State to consider what measures ought to
be taken re the provision of financial support for family and friends
carers who are raising children because the parent is unable to care
for the child and there is judicial or professional evidence to verify
this. Amendment
54, in
clause 14, page 9, line 2, at
end insert— ‘(2) The report
under section 13 (3) must include a statement on the numbers and the
percentage of children living with family and friends carers in
qualifying households,
including: (a) the percentage
of these households that fell within the relevant income group for the
purpose of section 2; (b) the
percentage who for the purposes of section 3 are living in households
that fell within the relevant income group and experiencing material
deprivation; (c) the percentage
of these households that fell within the relevant income group for the
purposes of section 4; (d) the
percentage of these households during the survey years (as defined by
section 5 (2)) which relate to the target year who have lived in
households that fell within the relevant income group for the purposes
of section 5 in at least 3 of the survey
years.’. Amendment
53, in
clause 17, page 9, line 33, at
end
insert— ‘ “family
and friends carer” means a person who is raising a child (who is
not living with his or her parents) and is related to the child or
otherwise connected to
them.’. Amendment
65, in
clause 17, page 10, line 6, at
end add ‘A “family and
friends carer” means a person who is raising a child (who is not
living with his parents) and is related to the child or otherwise
connected to
them.’. Amendment
55, in
clause 21, page 12, line 26, at
end insert ‘including the number
and needs of children living with family and friends
carers;’. Amendment
66, in
clause 21, page 12, line 26, at
end insert ‘including the number
of, and needs of, children living with family and friends
carers.’. This
aims to ensure that regulations setting out what local authority child
poverty needs assessment covers includes children who are being raised
by family and friends
carers.
| 
