Helen
Goodman: Let me first address the remarks made by the hon.
Member for Henley, who suggested removing the reference to the relative
low income target from clause 24(3). The clause sets out the definition
of child poverty that covers the needs assessment and local strategy.
Subsection (2) states:
“A
child is to be taken to be living in poverty if the child experiences
socio-economic disadvantage”.
Subsection (3) provides
that households experiencing socio-economic disadvantage include those
experiencing relative or absolute low income and material deprivation.
However, the definition in the clause is not limited to those
measurements, and local authorities may choose to use additional
measurements to determine levels of socio-economic disadvantage in
their area. It is not immediately clear what the hon. Gentleman intends
by his amendment, as it would not lessen the breadth of socio-economic
disadvantage. I understand that he is interested in the flexibility
that the definition in clause 24 affords to local partners
in assessing child poverty and taking action to address it,
particularly in relation to raising family income.
Local
authorities and their partners understand their communities and are in
a position to reach them in a way that central Government cannot. They
have a clear role in raising family income and tackling child poverty,
by driving economic regeneration and neighbourhood renewal, providing
high-quality education in early years services, administering financial
help such as housing and council tax benefits for families on low
incomes, encouraging families to take up financial support, and joining
up national and local partners to provide personalised skills and
employment support.
This morning
we discussed the measurements to be used at local level, so I do not
need to delay the Committee significantly on that. I made it clear that
there were a range of measures, such as NI 116, the relative low income
child poverty indicator, the national indicator set, and the index of
multiple deprivation. Those measures cover child poverty and the range
of risk factors associated with it. Persistent poverty is not a narrow
definition, and I believe that we are consistent in the two parts of
the Bill.
During the
evidence session, the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire
mentioned the relative income measure, and said that he thought that it
was not relevant at a local level. I do not understand how something
can be relevant at a national level if it is not relevant at the
aggregation of a lot of local levels.
Mr.
Gauke: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as she
referred to a point that I raised during the evidence session. The
evidence that we received suggested that local authorities could play a
role, but that it would be difficult for them to focus on the 60 per
cent. target—the relative low income target—as they do
not have the levers to do that. They have the levers to focus on severe
poverty and more general issues, which could be swept up in some of the
other targets. I asked that question because that was where the
evidence was taking us.
Helen
Goodman: I think that that pulls me back to my first
point, which is that national performance is an aggregation of the
local performances.
Mr.
Gauke: I will try to make this clearer. The difference
between national Government and local government is that local
government has some levers, to use Councillor Kemp’s word, while
the national Government have other levers. The evidence of Councillor
Kemp suggested that the levers available to local government did not
lend themselves to the 60 per cent. target, but rather to other
targets.
Helen
Goodman: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not quite
right. All the levers that are pulled—to use the Heath Robinson
metaphor—will, we hope, have an impact on the income measures.
Those could be actions taken at local authority level, such as job
creation, or things done at national level, such as on child tax credit
take-up. All those measures will have an impact. It could be that the
levers in the hands of central Government are more finely attuned, but
it is not true to say that things done by local government will not
have just as much impact on income levels. If they did not, there would
be no point to part 2 of the
Bill.
Mr.
Gauke: Will the Minister explain, therefore, why clause 24
provides a separate definition of child poverty? Why not just refer to
clauses 2 to
5?
Helen
Goodman: I will come back to that, if the hon. Gentleman
will let
me. The
hon. Gentleman referred to subsection (2), which
states: “A
child is taken to be living in poverty if the child experiences
socially economic
disadvantage”, and
asked why we should include that in the Bill. By doing so, we can
promote activity with local authorities that goes beyond the targets,
which is something that he has promoted on many occasions—both
for children in the looked-after sector, who are often perceived to be
at the bottom of the pile, and for families who might not fall under a
financial limit, but whose level of material well-being we are trying
to
improve. 4.45
pm
Mr.
Gauke: I am grateful to the Minister for giving
way—she is being generous. I agree that there is an opportunity
in the Bill to go further with regard to local authorities, because
they have the levers to address specific matters such as looked-after
children. The problem is that the evidence we received from the local
authorities was that they did not really have levers for the relative
poverty target. In that case, if we are to tailor our targets for
particular authorities and make them as relevant as possible, why do we
not tailor clause 24 a little more and take out the relative low income
target? We are trying to get an answer to that
question.
Helen
Goodman: Although it is enjoyable to debate with the hon.
Gentleman, the proposal was only a probing amendment, and I am not
entirely convinced that this debate is taking us anywhere. My argument
is simple: we need to be consistent between what we do at local level
and what we do at national level. I really do not think that I can
helpfully add any more to what I have
said.
John
Howell: We have heard the most relevant question of the
day: why have part 2 at all? From the answer that we have received, we
know that there is no point to part 2 in its current form.
There is clearly a lack of understanding of how things work out on the
ground. The lack of levers and data on the ground will make
things particularly difficult for local government. However, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
25General
interpretation
Steve
Webb: I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 25,
page 14, line 21, leave out
‘16’ and insert
‘18’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 31, in clause 25, page 14, leave
out lines 22 to
25.
Steve
Webb: Albeit late in our proceedings, I wish to speak to
an amendment that would have a fundamental impact on the scope of the
Bill. Clause
25 gives a definition of a child, which is necessary for a child
poverty Bill. The definition used is familiar, as it refers to a person
under the age of 16 or those aged 16 to 18 years and eligible for the
receipt of child benefit. That definition is usually used in the
official
figures. Amendment
32 would take the age in the Bill to 18 years, meaning that it would
cover all those under 18. If it were not accepted, surely we would be
doing a disservice to the purpose of the Bill, which is to tackle child
poverty. We are not using the definition of a child that is used in the
UN convention on the rights of the child. That is not a clincher, in
the sense that we can use whatever definition we want, but we are a
signatory to that UN convention and, under it, anyone under the age of
18 years—regardless of whether they are studying or receiving
child benefit—has the
right “to
a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental,
spiritual, moral and social
development.” I
cannot understand why we want the Bill to distinguish between some
17-year-olds and others. We will be including under the Bill
17-year-olds who, on average, are more prosperous. Staying on at school
is correlated with the affluence of parents, as the Government
acknowledge, hence the existence of means-tested education maintenance
allowance. On average, those 17-year-olds who stay on at school come
from better-off households, yet those who drop out of the school system
at the age of 16, for example, will be excluded under the Bill. The
Bill thus excludes a series of vulnerable young
people. The
first group who are not included is those famous NEETs—16 and
17-year-olds not in education, employment or training—of whom
there are an estimated 124,000. Surely, if we are concerned about child
poverty, a 16-year-old who is not being educated or trained, nor doing
a job, has to be pretty high up on our list of teenagers whom we are
bothered about. However, unless the Minister accepts amendment 32, the
Bill will exclude them. It will also exclude 16 and 17-year-olds living
independently, who do not count as children under the definition. It
will also exclude care levers, because they leave the care system at 16
and live independently. We know that that group has a very high risk of
poor outcomes, yet they are being
excluded.
Mr.
Stuart: I wanted to mention exactly that group. Many young
people come out of care and are dumped into bedsits by local
authorities that are, it seems, relieved to lose responsibility for
them. We are excluding that most vulnerable of groups—they are
vulnerable to prostitution and all sorts of exploitation—from
the
scope of a child poverty Bill. I hope that Ministers will listen to the
powerful point that the hon. Gentleman is
making.
Steve
Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he puts the
point very well.
There is an
issue surrounding defining a child by whatever the benefit regulations
of the day happen to be. We know what the child benefit rules are now,
but they could shift. A future Government could abolish child benefit
for the post-16 group, which, in turn, would exclude those people from
the scope of the Bill altogether. Alternatively, a Government could
means-test the benefit, so better-off 17-year-olds would be out and
poorer 17-year-olds in. The definition of a child could vary from year
to year, but not according to anything “real”, as it
were. From one year to the next, someone could cease to be a child, not
because they got a year older, but because the benefit rules had
changed, and that seems odd.
Mr.
Gauke: The deputy leader of the hon. Gentleman’s
party advocates means-testing child benefit. Is there a prospect that
the policy will come
in?
Steve
Webb: Not if we have anything to do with
it. The
key point is that we need to define a child in common-sense terms that
accord with the spirit of the Bill. Why have just a child poverty Bill?
One could argue that we should have an adult poverty Bill or a
pensioner poverty Bill. We have a child poverty Bill because we are
talking about people who are growing up, dependent on others and at a
formative stage of life. That implies that the definition of a child
should not be linked to a particular set of benefits or to something
that might change over time. It certainly implies that vulnerable young
people should not be excluded. There could be a pair of twins—it
must be a pair, I suppose—one of whom was a child while the
other was not. That would be ludicrous, would it not? Under the Bill,
if one 17-year-old twin was at school and the other had dropped out,
one would be a child and one would not. Surely the Minister accepts
that that is absurd.
The
Financial Secretary might say, “Ah yes, that is all very well.
We really care about unemployed 17-year-olds and we have all these
programmes to deal with them, but we need standard international
definitions,” as he has argued in the past. There is nothing
stopping us having standard international definitions if all we want to
do is compare our statistics with other countries but, to return to an
earlier point, the Bill should be about the welfare of children and
young people in this country and we should have a definition that works
for that purpose. There is nothing stopping us collecting the figures
on other bases for international comparisons—we are doing it
anyway and it is not a problem—but let us have a definition that
goes up to 18. We have signed up to that definition under the
international convention. It would cover a lot of vulnerable young
people whose welfare is surely just as important—if not in some
senses more important, in that it gives greater grounds for
worry—as the welfare of the 17-year-olds who are within the
scope of the Bill who, on average, come from backgrounds that are more
affluent. We are including some young people whom we are less worried
about
because they are doing well, while arbitrarily and artificially
excluding some whom we have been more worried about. I commend the
amendment to the Committee. The
Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen
Timms): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship
again, Mr. Key, in our final Committee
sitting. The
hon. Member for Northavon has explained the effect that amendments 31
and 32 would have, but I must say to him that our aim is to end child
poverty. We want, through the Bill, to meet the targets that are
applied to dependent children. My principal response to his case is
that we want the targets to relate to dependent children. He
acknowledged that in his remarks. When we talk about children in
ordinary parlance, we are talking about young people who are dependent
on others, and that is the group that the definition in the Bill
describes.
Steve
Webb: When I heard myself talking about that, I thought,
“Ooh, ’eck, have I just undermined my arguments?”
However, a 17-year-old NEET is financially dependent on his or her
parents, so why preclude them from the
Bill?
Mr.
Timms: The Bill addresses the issue of improving
children’s living standards. It is right that the definition of
a child in the Bill should relate directly to the financial support
that the Government provide for families in respect of
children—that is the effect of the clause. Under the definition,
a child is financially dependent on their parents. Many young people
over the age of 16 who are not in full-time education might well be
earning in their own right. They are not necessarily dependent, so they
are not covered by the measurement of child poverty. That sets the
boundary in the right place. The definition follows the approach that
is taken in the survey of family resources, which has been the main
survey used to measure child poverty since it began in 1993-94. The
definition was also used in earlier child poverty statistics. One
benefit of using that definition is that it gives us a continuous data
series that runs back to, I think,
1961.
| 
