Helen
Goodman: The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire asked
whether we have adequate statistics at a local level to enable local
authorities to take forward
the needs assessment and strategies. I would like to embark on a paean
of praise for the British civil service, which has enabled me to
provide the hon. Gentleman with information on the data set that is
totally consistent with the parliamentary answer that I gave him a few
weeks ago. I will explain the point for the benefit of other members of
the Committee who might not have been following the detail of the
debate. The
current data set for children in families that are in receipt of
out-of-work benefits is used as a proxy to measure child poverty at
local level. The fact that it is a proxy does not mean that it is not a
helpful measure for local authorities, or that they cannot make an
effective contribution to tackling child poverty. The targets that we
set are national, not local. It is important that local authorities
have the data set to inform their needs assessment and the work that
they do at local level.
Steve
Webb: The national target on material deprivation is
children having a bedroom to themselves once they are 11 if they are of
different sex. If the local authority is being measured on a proxy that
has nothing to do with any of that, where is the impetus on the local
authority to deliver the national targets? Where is the connecting rod?
It is not in the
figures.
Helen
Goodman: I was going on to say that the current data set
is the basis for indicator 116, which is used by local government. A
revised indicator is currently being developed to measure child poverty
at local level, and that will include those children who live in
low-income, working families, as well as those in workless families.
The revised indicator will be the proportion of children living in
families that are in receipt of out-of-work benefits, or working
families whose income is below 60 per cent. of median
income. That will provide information on both in-work and out-of-work
poverty in the local area. I anticipate that the data will be available
at both local authority and, significantly, ward level, and that they
will be produced annually. Data will shortly be available for
2006-07.
Work is
under way at the moment with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
on revising that indicator. When it is finalised, it will be put on the
Department for Communities and Local Government website. I have not got
an exact date, but I assure members of the Committee that it will be
before Royal Assent. Therefore, before the duties on local authorities
come into effect, we will have the data.
Steve
Webb: With the greatest respect, I simply do not believe
what the Minister has said. The data in the Bill are based on household
income. That is not the unit that claims benefit, but everybody under
the same roof. The data available to HMRC are on the income of the
benefit unit—the narrower definition of income. The Minister
said that the data would be available at ward level. The sample used by
the family resources survey is one household in 1,000, so a ward of
3,000 households would have three or four people in a sample. How can
it possibly be true that data on 60 per cent. of median household
income will be available, when data on household income are not
collected for benefit purposes? Will the samples be big enough to have
ward-level data relative to the national targets, which are on
household data based on sample surveys?
Helen
Goodman: For relative low income, the local measure
is NI 116. It is available at local authority and lower super output
area level. On material deprivation, the local measure is the index of
multiple deprivation and the income deprivation affecting children
index. As for absolute low income, local partners can consider that as
part of their needs assessment. The hon. Gentleman is taking us into an
extremely technical area, and that is not good use of the
Committee’s
time. 12.45
pm
Andrew
Selous: I hear what the Minister says. We have some
sympathy for the hon. Lady because we are putting her on the spot with
some technical issues, perhaps at an unexpected point in the Bill.
However, the issues are vital. Part 2 is an important part of the Bill,
one that I very much welcome in general. Local authorities bring
something important to the table but, if we are not clear about the
measurement criteria, if they are not fair, are not accurate and not
reasonably all-embracing, we will get into a muddle. Will the hon. Lady
write a further note to the Committee on the matter? We need a little
more clarity and perhaps even more work on top of the excellent work to
which she alluded, so that we know the basis on which local authorities
will have to be
judged.
Helen
Goodman: Of course the hon. Gentleman can ask for that.
When I said that our discussion was technical, I was not arguing that
it was not important. However, such matters are better handled in
writing, and I shall be happy to write to the Committee about
them. The
hon. Member for Henley talked about the duties being placed on local
authorities. The purpose of the Bill is to reduce and mitigate the
effects of child poverty. That means that the partnership must tackle
the causes of child poverty and mitigate the effects of child poverty.
No one could object to that. It is the correct approach. Of course, the
hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that local government is already
doing a lot, but the important thing is that the Bill provides a
framework to ensure that action is taken in all
areas. I
remind the hon. Gentleman that such issues form only part of central
Government’s relationship with local government, not the whole
of it. He might not be satisfied by my assurances, but I remind him of
the evidence that we heard from the local authorities on 20
October. Catherine Fitt said
that “the
reason for having the Bill is to ensure consistency across the
country...We are very aware that it is no good solving the problem
in just one part of the country, because whether a child’s needs
are met should not be dependent on where they
live.” Richard
Kemp said
that “enhancing
the duty of our partners to co-operate with us around a specific thing
would” help
us. Kevin
Collins
said: “What
I find exciting is the idea that we are looking towards a collective
effort on the issue...It must be a collective effort. It must be
about how well people are doing to create the conditions that will
reduce levels of child poverty...It is not about passing the buck
to local government; it is about collective
effort.”——[Official Report, Child
Poverty Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2009; c. 50-51,
Q121-134.]
Mr.
Stuart: May I take the Minister back to the regional
issue? If we looked at child poverty on a regional basis as opposed to
a national basis, there would be a very different picture in London,
which must impact on quite a few members of the Committee. Will the
hon. Lady comment on the rationale for looking at the national picture
as opposed to the regional picture? For example, local government in
London will be dealing with child poverty figures based on a national
assessment when, in fact, if it were assessed on a London-only basis, a
much greater percentage would be seen to be in relative poverty. Is
there a risk that a national picture would do less as a
result?
Helen
Goodman: I do not believe so. We have introduced the Bill
to tackle child poverty throughout the whole country, and we make it
clear in part 2 that we do not believe that central Government have all
the answers. We want a partnership with local authorities, where they
can do best. We have made it clear in clause 20 that in specific cases
local authorities can co-opt further partners, such as those suggested
by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that, with those reassurances, hon.
Members will agree to the
clause. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
21Local
child poverty needs
assessment
Andrew
Selous: I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 21,
page 12, line 26, after
‘assessment’, insert ‘including an assessment
of— (i) job creation,
and (ii) family
resilience’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 72, in
clause 21, page 12, line 26, at
end insert ‘including the levels
of benefit and tax credit take up among the eligible
populations’.
Andrew
Selous: Clause 21 is an important clause; it deals with
the local child poverty needs assessment. I shall speak first to
amendment 7, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friends the
Members for South-West Hertfordshire and for Billericay, and then touch
on amendment 72, which was tabled by the hon. Member for
Regent’s Park and Kensington, North.
I want to
focus, in relation to amendment 7, on the issues of job creation and
family resilience. I shall not repeat what I said when I tabled an
amendment to clause 8 along the same lines, with respect to economic
enterprise, which my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness
has drawn attention to. When local authority leaders and chief
executives spoke in our witness sessions about dealing with child
poverty, the first thing on which they all alighted was an increase in
economic activity in their areas. If I were to sum up what we need to
do above all to beat child poverty, I would put it in four
words—more and better jobs. In other words, more people in work,
and more people in higher-paid work.
I understand,
of course, issues such as barriers to work, child care, flexible and
part-time working, and acquiring the skills to get into jobs, but when
we boil things down, those issue bring us to the heart of the
Bill—the balance between what we think the benefits system will
do through out-of-work benefits, and so on, and the part that we expect
enterprise and wealth creation to play in defeating child poverty. This
is my second attempt to have that aspect of the matter included in the
Bill. I make no apologies for
that. In
my experience, local economic regeneration does not get the attention
that it deserves in local authorities—even in local authorities
that recognise its importance and take it seriously—because it
is not regarded as a core or key public service, in the way that
education, social care, housing or transport are. Everyone is very
clear that those are the things that the council does. It provides
housing, mends potholes in the roads, looks after your granny when she
gets ill, and educates your children. We all know that, but what is the
role of the council in attracting new businesses to the area or helping
the businesses already there to expand and
grow? I
consider regeneration to be incredibly important. It will be vital in
helping to drag the country out of the terrible, horrible recession
that we are going through. The Government, of course, have a role to
play in that, but local authorities have an important role. I have for
months been vocal as unemployment in my area has, sadly, risen, and
have said that local economic regeneration should be at the top of the
council’s priorities.
The
sustainable communities plan that has been imposed on certain parts of
the country in relation to the need for extra housing growth includes
targets for the creation of extra dwellings and jobs, but the
emphasis—the drive from the Government offices—seems to
be on housing targets. I hear relatively little about what is being
done to create the jobs needed for a genuinely sustainable community,
so that the people in the new houses also have work. That is an
incredibly important area that needs the help and focus of a mention in
the Bill. The Government should make it clear to local authorities that
the Bill is not just about public services, vital as they are in
getting people out of poverty and helping parents to do better, but
about good old-fashioned wealth creation, building bigger businesses,
providing more and better jobs and enabling people to get into
them.
I am aware
that the challenge of getting into work from being out of work is huge.
The move from not working and being on benefits into full-time work is
an
enormous step—sometimes almost a step too far that many people
are not able to make in one leap. In relation to the creation of jobs,
I was struck by some of the proposals discussed at a reception
yesterday about the community allowance. I do not know whether other
Committee members were able to attend. When the Minister responds to
this part of the debate she will refer to the proposal—it is to
be trialled by the Government in north-east Lincolnshire, Tameside near
Manchester and the Isle of Wight—to extend the disregard for
people on benefit, so that they can work up to 15 hours a week on the
minimum wage without having benefit withdrawn. From April next year
people on incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance will
be able to earn £92 a week without having benefit withdrawn. The
Government have committed to that and to the three pilots we learned of
yesterday evening. I welcome that initiative which is on the right
lines, although there is further to travel and more to be
done. When getting
people off a life on benefits—if they remain on benefits, we
know that their children will live in poverty—these mini-jobs
are an important way to help people into work. They may be very local
with little need to travel and may be provided by community
organisations, as proposed in the excellent community allowance
document. One
other matter that is relevant to amendment 7 in the interaction of the
benefits system with people in work is the informal economy. People may
be in work but are not captured by data and do not have any involvement
with the benefits system. The Financial Secretary will be familiar with
an organisation called Community Links, and its national arm Links UK,
which is actively involved in his constituency. I was struck when I met
its representatives recently and they told me of a meeting they had in
Salford with 30 young people aged between 15 and 25, who were not in
education, employment or training. Some 23 out of 30 were involved in
the informal economy and not receiving any benefits. We need to look at
the community allowance proposals, mini-jobs and what is happening
outside the benefits system, working tax credit, child tax credit and
so on. Why are so many of our young people—23 out of those 30
young people in Salford—working in the informal
economy? 1
pm The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
