The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments 34 to
46.
Helen
Goodman: 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: 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: 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. 2.30
pm
Julie
Morgan: 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: 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. Amendment
33 agreed
to. Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill. Mr.
David Gauke (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con): 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: 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.
Mr.
Gauke: 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: 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.
Mr.
Gauke: 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.
Mr.
Stuart: 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?
Mr.
Gauke: 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.
Mr.
Stuart: 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.
Mr.
Gauke: My hon. Friend tempts me to go in a direction that
would not help the Committee, but I note his
comments.
Steve
Webb: 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.
Mr.
Gauke: 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: 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.
Mr.
Gauke: 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: 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.
Mr.
Stuart: I think that I am speaking, Mr. Key,
with your permission. Unfortunately, in that case, I can no longer
question the Minister.
The
Chairman: Yes, you
can.
Mr.
Stuart: 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. 2.45
pm
Helen
Goodman: 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. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
10, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
11Northern
Ireland
strategies Amendments
made: 34, in
clause 11, page 6, line 32, leave
out ‘relevant Northern Ireland department proposes’ and
insert ‘Northern Ireland departments
propose’. This
amendment replaces the reference to the relevant Northern Ireland
department with a reference to the Northern Ireland departments. The
intention is to recognise that departments other than the Office of the
First Minister and Deputy First Minister will take measures in
accordance with the Northern Ireland strategy.
Amendment 35,
in
clause 11, page 6, line 44, leave
out
‘relevant
Northern Ireland department intends’
and insert
‘Northern Ireland departments
intend’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
34. Amendment
36, in
clause 11, page 7, line 3, leave
out
‘relevant
Northern Ireland department intends’
and insert
‘Northern Ireland departments
intend’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
34. Amendment
37, in
clause 11, page 7, line 7, leave
out
‘relevant
Northern Ireland department intends’
and insert
‘Northern Ireland departments
intend’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
34. Amendment
38, in
clause 11, page 7, line 12, leave
out ‘relevant Northern Ireland department’ and insert
‘Northern Ireland
departments’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
34. Amendment
39, in
clause 11, page 7, line 19, at
end insert— ‘( ) The
relevant Northern Ireland department must, on or before each report
date relating to a Northern Ireland strategy, lay before the Northern
Ireland Assembly a report
which— (a) describes the
measures taken by the Northern Ireland departments in accordance with
the Northern Ireland
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 Northern Ireland strategy are each anniversary of the day
on which it was laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly, other than
an anniversary which
falls— (a) on or after
the date on which a subsequent Northern Ireland strategy is so laid,
or (b) after the end of the
target year.’. —(Helen
Goodman.) This
amendment requires the relevant Northern Ireland department to lay
before the Northern Ireland Assembly an annual report describing how
measures taken in accordance with the current Northern Ireland strategy
have contributed to meeting the targets and to ensuring that children
in Northern Ireland do not experience socio-economic
disadvantage.
Clause
11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
12 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
