Helen
Goodman: I hope that I am more successful in persuading
Opposition Members that amendment 6 is unnecessary. Subsection (4)
requires local and partner authorities, in co-operating to reduce child
poverty in local areas, to have regard to the guidance given for that
purpose by the Secretary of State. That means that if the authorities
can demonstrate that different arrangements are effective, they may use
those. Opposition
Members said that they were concerned that the requirement may be an
unwarranted burden, but the exact opposite is the case. The publication
of guidance by the Secretary of State will ensure that existing and
emerging good practice will be captured and acted on across the
country, thus helping local authorities and partners and removing a
burden. In other words, each local authority will not have to reinvent
the wheel as it carries out its duties under the Bill. There is already
a great deal of good practice.
John
Howell: I am sure the Minister is aware that good practice
is already being spread among local authorities. They talk to each
other, and they also have the Local Government Association, which
occasionally manages to spread good practice in a positive
way.
Helen
Goodman: Of course. However, the Bill is designed to
address child poverty across the whole country, so it is important that
we put in place an approach that is likely to work across the whole
country.
Ms
Buck: If the picture in local government is as
consistently innovative and rosy as Conservative Members would have us
believe, will the Minister cast light on how many local authorities of
different political persuasions had developed a strategy for
investigating and tackling child poverty before the performance
indicators were introduced and before the Bill was produced? I suspect
that the answer is
none.
Helen
Goodman: I do not have the answer to hand, but I hope to
be inspired before I conclude.
As I was
saying, there is good practice. We have three child poverty beacon
councils, from which we heard in our evidence sessions, which
demonstrate that local collaboration can work extremely well. There is
also, as I mentioned in a previous debate, a range of child poverty
pilots through which local authorities and partners are exploring,
developing and delivering new and better ways of helping children to
escape the corrosive effects of poverty. Guidance based on that good
practice should go some way to enabling authorities and their partners
to respond positively to the duties placed on them by the
Bill. As
we have emphasised, it is important that there is a consistent and
coherent approach across the country to tackling child poverty. We do
not want to see some areas performing significantly better than others.
Guidance will help to ensure consistency and coherence, by setting out
what has worked hitherto and how continuing progress can best be
made.
Mr.
Stuart: Consistency and coherence sound attractive, but
uniformity and lack of innovation are the B-sides of those words. Can
the Minister reassure the Committee that guidance will not be so
overwhelming and prescriptive that there is a loss of a sense of
ownership by local authorities and that, although we achieve
uniformity, we do so at a high
price?
Helen
Goodman: Of course we do not want that. The situation in
my constituency in County Durham is different from that in the
Financial Secretary’s constituency in Newham, which is again
different from that in the constituency of the hon. Member for
South-West Bedfordshire. There must be flexibility for local
authorities to address different needs. If the hon. Member for Beverley
and Holderness can be a little patient, I will explain what I am
driving
at. We
are issuing guidance on the needs assessment, which we have circulated.
It is based on the risk factors, which we know exist thanks to firm
evidence about the risks of child poverty. I hope that the hon.
Gentleman does not feel that we are over-prescriptive: our guidance on
the needs assessment is evidence-based. I point out to my hon. Friend
the Member for Northampton, North that the draft that we have
circulated says that matters considered in the needs assessment must
include the ethnic composition of the population, because obviously, as
she says, that is a factor.
When the
authority and partners go on to establish the strategy, it must relate
to the needs assessment—there is no point having a strategy that
does not tackle the problem with which we are all trying to
deal—but that is the point at which there is scope for local
authorities and partners to behave in a more innovative and flexible
way that relates to the differences between, for example, County Durham
and South-West Bedfordshire. Our aim is not that the guidance should be
a solution to all problems but that it should help to make the
intentions of the legislation clear. We will work with local delivery
partners in drafting the guidance to ensure that it meets the needs of
both those that have made progress in the area and those that have been
left behind.
Andrew
Selous: I apologise for intervening on the Minister again.
I am not trying to interrupt her flow; I just want to get one thing
clear. If I understand correctly, she is saying that the guidance will
relate to the needs assessment, but that it relates much less, or
perhaps not at all, to how a local authority will then try to meet the
needs identified in that assessment and tackle child poverty in its
area. Am I right to understand that the local authority will not get in
trouble in respect of the guidance in terms of how it tackles those
significant issues in its local area?
Helen
Goodman: In my opening remarks, I pointed out that local
authorities must have regard to guidance, but if they can demonstrate
different effective arrangements, they may use those. We are getting
the balance right.
Mr.
Reed: In my constituency, I have established an anti-child
poverty coalition involving the county council, the district councils,
Sure Start, churches, businesses, police and so on. Our ambition is to
beat child poverty in my constituency before 2020. I am disappointed
that no one at any stage of this debate has mentioned the role of a
constituency Member of Parliament in tackling the issue head-on. Does
my hon. Friend share my view on that? Secondly, is there anything in
the Bill—I cannot see it—to prevent me from pulling
together a group of interested people to beat child poverty in my
constituency before
2020?
Helen
Goodman: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. He
demonstrates the great effectiveness of a dynamic, concerned and
committed Member of Parliament, as I know he is, who thinks at all
times of the concerns of his constituents. Nothing in the Bill would
inhibit that sort of worthwhile activity. I hope, therefore, that the
hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire will accept that in the
interest of having effective action, we cannot put all the detail in
the Bill, as that would be extremely unhelpful. We are consulting on
the guidance, and I would be pleased to hear his views. I hope that he
feels that we are getting the balance right and will withdraw amendment
6.
Andrew
Selous: I have listened to what the Minister said. Perhaps
because we are nearing lunch time, I am inclined to be a bit more
charitable about this amendment than I was about the other. There is an
ongoing debate to be had about the issue—I will reserve our
right to revisit the matter at another stage—but I welcome her
offer to consult us. It is always nice to be consulted by the hon. Lady.
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Andrew
Selous: It is as good a time as any for me to refer to the
question raised by the hon. Member for Northavon about how we will know
whether a local authority and its partners are successfully tackling
child poverty in their area. I said earlier that I want local
authorities to be judged on results—whether they are reducing
the number of children in poverty in their area. The hon. Member for
Northavon is correct in saying that, at the moment, we have only
partial information on that.
If Members
cast their minds back to the evidence sessions, they may remember the
leader of Kent county council being asked—by the hon. Member for
Regent's Park and Kensington, North, I think —how many children
there were in poverty in Kent. He replied straight away,
“48,000”. When asked how he knew that number, he said
that he had asked his officers, which is a perfectly reasonable thing
for the leader of an upper-tier local authority to have done. No doubt
that was the correct answer, but it is only a partial one, because in
an answer to my written parliamentary question, the Under-Secretary of
State for Work and Pensions
replied: “The
dataset ‘Children in Families in Receipt of Out-of-work
Benefits’ is currently used as a proxy to measure child poverty
at the local
level.” My
understanding, therefore—the Under-Secretary may wish to
intervene now or respond later—is that the 48,000 figure was
based on the current dataset for children in Kent and related only to
children in poverty in out-of-work families. As we all know, there is
an enormous amount—far too great—of in-work poverty, so
the number of children in poverty in Kent is probably 100,000 or so. I
do not know what the exact split is between in-work and out-of-work
poverty—the hon. Member for Northavon will probably tell us
shortly. The
hon. Lady went on to say in her helpful answer, for which I am
grateful, that a “revised indicator” was “being
developed” and that
“This
will provide information on both in-work and out-of-work poverty in the
local
area.” She
mentioned the Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in Children and Young
People’s Services—C4EO—which is an excellent
organisation. The Financial Secretary and I attended a conference in
Manchester on child poverty, which was run by C4EO. It is doing
fantastic work in this area and I pay tribute to it. The hon. Lady went
on to say that it was developing a tool
“to help local
delivery partners analyse local data relating to child poverty. This
tool will be available from the end of the
year.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2009; Vol.
131, c.
213-14W.] From
that answer, it is not clear to me when we are to get the new combined
dataset for local authorities that will measure both in-work and
out-of-work poverty in an area, which is a crucial
issue. I
said a few moments ago that I want local authorities to be judged by
results, but we must have accurate data. We have to know what our start
point is and then we can measure progress against that in local areas,
so it is
not just a technical issue for us policy wonks in Committee. It goes to
the heart of whether the child poverty needs assessments and the local
strategies will be effective. There is nothing more effective than for
a local authority to say, “We’ve got x thousand children
in poverty”, then to see the reduction that is achieved and be
able to measure progress. I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary
enlightened the Committee on those important questions. Steve
Webb: I cannot resist a challenge. I think the hon.
Gentleman has raised an important point. When the leader of Kent county
council gave his figure, I spoke to him afterwards and said,
“Can you tell me where it came from? Here is my e-mail
address.” I am still waiting, perhaps because it was the answer
to a different question.
The hon.
Gentleman has made the very important point that, based on the latest
figures on households below average income, roughly half the children
in poverty—[Interruption.] It is a very
good guess. Roughly half of such children are classified as either
“lone parent not working” or “both members of the
couple not working”. There would probably be even more children
in poverty if we accounted for one parent working part-time and the
other not working and so on.
That raises
the fundamental point that we are setting national targets based on
some very specific definitions and then asking local authorities to be
partners in delivering targets based on definitions that they cannot
access or measure. We cannot know how many children in Kent live in
households with a score of 25 on the material deprivation list, and I
cannot envisage that we ever will, even with souped up sample
sizes.
12.30
pm If
we take the big survey of 40,000 or so households, split it and
sub-divide it into quintiles or whatever, we will never get the figures
for a small unitary local authority such as mine, South
Gloucestershire. It is a real challenge to hold local authorities to
account for targets when they cannot tell whether they are achieving
them. The hint that we have heard in the discussion is that we will use
proxies. We say, “We don’t really know how they are doing
on the measures that we have set them, but here are some other measures
that aren’t very different.” I have a nasty feeling that
that is probably the answer, but it is a strange situation that we are
in.
As for the
paragon in the corner, the thrusting and dynamic Member for
Copeland—I forget what the expression was, but it was something
of that sort—it is tremendous to have a local initiative, as he
says, but in terms of a national target, it is very difficult to know
whether one is succeeding. However, it is possible to overstate the
point. Clearly, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North, said, some
things fit so terribly well that they do not do too badly as proxies. I
do not want to keep on rambling, but there is a serious issue. If
someone has a specific target but cannot measure it, they will go for
the thing that they can measure. That is the worry.
In the Bill,
we quite rightly say that what matters is not just cash, but material
deprivation and all the rest of it. However, all that the local
authorities will see is
benefit receipts and cash, and that could lead them to focus on what
they can see and measure in their area, and what they will probably be
held to account for. They might then miss things that are equally
tangible, and that we are measuring, but cannot measure so well
locally. I do not know whether the Minister can elaborate on the
written answer that she gave to the hon. Member for South-West
Bedfordshire, but that exchange was very helpful. There is a genuine
worry. It is essential to consider the facets of child poverty that we
are discussing, and it is good that they are covered in the Bill, but
the link between the national targets and local delivery is still
unclear to
me. The
Chairman: I call John Howell.
John
Howell: That was rather a surprise, Mr. Caton.
I was not quite ready. I will, however, make good. The clause imposes a
duty on local government. I want to question why the Government have
pursued the idea of a duty, rather than other means of achieving their
objectives for local government. The duty relates
to “reducing,
and mitigating the effects of, child
poverty”. The
use of the word “effects” is interesting. We are talking
about not reducing and mitigating the causes of child poverty, but
reducing and mitigating the effects. For me, “effects” in
that context is synonymous with symptoms. The measure therefore lacks
ambition and does not move us on to doing what the Bill seeks to
achieve. For
reasons that I alluded to in earlier speeches and interventions, there
is a considerable mismatch between parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. In part
1, an income-based strategy is set out and in part 2, a broader role is
outlined for tackling what local government does in relation to it, and
the duty does not seem to fit very easily in that. It would have made
sense to include in part 1 a clause on tackling and measuring the
causes, or the proxy for measuring the causes of poverty. Sadly,
however, that was not accepted. The question still remains: what is the
value of giving local government a duty, as this clause does, rather
than doing things in a different way? I admit that there is some
symbolism in giving local government a duty, but it is clear from the
evidence from witnesses that the duty is rather meaningless, and was
seen by them as a rather heavily bureaucratic approach. For example,
Catherine Fitt
said: “over
the last few years...local government and its partners are
engaging very
positively.” We
have heard the question of what local government did before that. The
answer is that it did a lot. Paul Carter’s evidence alluded to
that, in respect of the results from the first round of public service
agreement targets and the achievements arising from them. Richard
Kemp’s evidence was even more
explicit: “Giving
local government a duty would not help
us”. That
is very clear, and there are two reasons for that. First, the notion
that all one has to do is to create a duty and the problem is solved is
not only wrong, but reflects what I call the master-servant
relationship that has grown up between central and local government. I
thought that Richard Kemp’s evidence was very
instructive: “You
are making an assumption that a duty is necessarily a good thing but I
am not convinced that it is. You can give me a
duty and I can perform it well because I want to—but I would
probably have done it anyway—or I can perform it to meet the
minimum requirements”. In other words it is,
at best, a blunt tool, and not the rapier or stiletto that we need to
tackle child poverty on the
ground. Secondly,
local government is already doing much on the issue; we have heard a
lot of examples of that. Paul Carter said that local government is
already taking a long-term view of underlying problems, and had been
taking such a view before the Bill was introduced. Kent is not alone in
doing that; we can pray in aid plenty of other authorities as
illustrations. The
way in which the clause imposes the duty is not dissimilar, in its
high-level approach, to how the national indicator set asks and
encourages councils to sign up to national indicator 116, which is the
general indicator on child poverty. Most councils have not done so for
very good reasons. They clearly did not think that it was a meaningful
target, because it did not deliver any positive outcomes on the ground.
They were much more focused on the causes of poverty and there were
better indicators, with real outcomes, in the indicator set. For
example, Richard Kemp
said: “In
crude terms, only 45 out of about 140 local authorities have signed up
to NI 116... However, 118 local authorities are doing work on
NEETs, 101 on obesity in teenage schools and 107 on under-18
conceptions.” The
question remains: why impose a duty, given the existence of a national
indicator set that has not been in its current form for very long? Why
did the Government not use it as an alternative method? That would have
been far less bureaucratic and would have still allowed for
considerable flexibility.
During the
summer, in preparation for the Committee, I did some research and spent
some time asking my county council about the issue. Its attitude was
that the Bill was largely meaningless and potentially dangerous for the
reasons that we have mentioned—the Bill cuts across a lot of
what it does. That was summed up in the question—I think that I
asked it—to Richard Kemp on whether the duty would make a
difference. He
replied: “So
my response to your earlier question about what we would do differently
as a result of the Bill is, ‘Not necessarily anything at
all’”.——[Official Report, Child
Poverty Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2009; c. 50-59,
Q121-32.] What
does the clause deliver? What does the duty deliver? Where is the
additionality? Why not stick with a tried and tested method that has
proved to have an impact on local authorities, particularly in holding
them to
account? Subsections
(5) and (6) use the creation of pooled funds as the way to approach the
issue. I am extremely glad to see that the measures are permissive. I
hope that Ministers know people’s feelings about how pooled
funds operate. The fact that many local authorities have moved on from
the pooled fund method to the aligned fund method says an awful lot
about the rather old-fashioned and clunky way in which the clause
introduces the duty, and about how this part of the Bill tackles the
whole issue of local government involvement in child
poverty.
| 
