My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me just remind the Committee that children of separated parents are twice as likely to be in poverty as those of parents who remain together. Therefore, when I raise the issue in this debate, it is for no other purpose than wanting to reduce child poverty. As I say, the fact is that if someone is the child of separated parents, they are twice as likely to be poor than if they are fortunate enough to have parents who have stuck together.
It is interesting that, around the world, other Governments of the left seem to get this concept. Australia gets it, with Kevin Rudd's Government maintaining the focus on families that John Howard's Government introduced, with the family relationship centres. In President Clinton's welfare reform Bill, there was an explicit measure to promote marriage and the two-parent family. I also note that only last week Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for the US presidency, was talking about the fact that in America,"““children without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and…nine times more likely to drop out of schools””."
So I say to the Minister that I would love this issue not to be an area of difference between us. I can enjoy the situation politically, because I happen to think that the Government's policy is lousy and in a debate we can probably knock spots off it. However, I say to him that I genuinely do not want to go down that route. I would love it if he were to join those on the left and centre-left in Australia and America who realise the importance of family issues and the importance of strong, stable, committed families in reducing child poverty.
Again, it is not just me who is saying this. Let me quote a report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, entitled ““What are today's social evils?”” The report does not just reflect the foundation's views, but those of the people interviewed in its research. At the top of their list—this is not my preference as a Conservative that I am putting forward—was:"““The decline of the family: family breakdown and poor parenting were felt to cause many other social problems and leave young people particularly vulnerable.””"
The hon. Member for Bristol, East did the debate this afternoon a service by raising this issue. I say to her that it is definitely not an either/or situation. Reducing child poverty is not just about providing the money to help people to get out of poverty, or promoting these softer emotional commitment and family issues; it is a both/and situation, where both factors matter. I will accept that poverty leads to couples splitting up, when money is scarce, but I think that it works the other way round as well, in that, in any given set of circumstances, a more stable and committed family relationship helps children to stay out of poverty. As I say, that is reflected in the data; children whose parents separate are twice as likely to be poor.
Again, we have some proposals to improve matters within the working tax credit system. We will increase that credit by £38 a week, to try to do away with this couples penalty. That measure will help 1.8 million of the poorest couples with children, so there will be some big gainers from that.
In the family area, we have also said that we will increase the health visitor service. Under our proposals, the very youngest children will receive six hours of home support in the first two weeks; a visit every two weeks in the first six months; monthly visits in the next six months, and two visits a year between the ages of one and five. It is critical to do that work at those very early stages.
I would like to move on briefly to another area. I would just like to raise with the Minister the issue of people in poverty with mortgages as opposed to living in local authority housing. There are 2.56 million families with mortgages living in underlying poverty, as opposed to 2.75 million families in local authority housing living in underlying poverty. When I was on the Select Committee, various people who gave evidence were concerned about the former group: those with mortgages. I may have missed any reference to them in the current report—I do not know if there is any reference to them—but it is an issue that should not be off the radar screen. There is a very significant issue with this group of people, too.
Regarding the debt that people get into, the issue of affordable credit is incredibly important for families that are existing on low income, for the sorts of reasons that the hon. Member for Bristol, East quite properly gave. Someone's fridge can stop working, or the classic example is that someone's boiler stops working in winter; if they do not have insurance, that situation can send many families totally over the edge.
Again, there is a major piece of work to be done on the area of affordable credit. I will not be specific or prescriptive now. However, I am not convinced that the social fund works nearly as effectively as it could or should. There are opportunities, perhaps through working with private finance, to expand greatly what the social fund does, perhaps in collaboration, or separately, or in addition to the work of credit unions and friendly societies. Financial literacy is also something that we need to look at, given that there is evidence that people are wasting up to £700 a year by taking poor financial decisions.
Can I please encourage the Minister to do more on the issue of pre-payment meters? We had a recent pledge on this matter, but it really is scandalous that the poorest are paying most for their fuel. I raised this issue in the House on 23 March 2006; I was told then that nothing could be done. The current Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs called for action on this issue in 2000, when he was a Back Bencher, and he has been in the Cabinet since 2003. This issue has been around for a long time; many people from all parts of the House have raised it, and with fuel prices as high as they are and possibly going up by another 40 per cent. next winter, as we have heard yesterday and today in the news, something needs to be done urgently.
I was particularly shocked to see in paragraphs 381 and 382 of the Committee's report that"““up to £9.4 billion are not being claimed in means tested benefits by those who are entitled to them.””"
The report goes on to say that"““up to £4.5 billion of Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit””"
is also not claimed. As the report says, that is nearly £14 billion of unclaimed income. We have heard this afternoon calls for £3 billion to be spent and yet if everyone had claimed what they are entitled to, the Minister would be writing a cheque for £14 billion. Perhaps there is something that I do not fully understand about those figures and perhaps the Minister will explain them clearly to the Committee and me when he comes to reply, but that issue of unclaimed benefits is definitely one that jumped out at me when I read the report.
We have had good contributions to the debate on the issue of disabled families. I will only add to those contributions by saying that improvements in the take-up of disability living allowance are particularly vital to improving matters in that area.
The differentiation between different ethnic groups in terms of poverty is another issue that absolutely screams out at me, and I am pleased to say that it was addressed in the report.
I will just return to the point about pockets of deprivation, which was raised earlier. At Marsh Farm in Luton, millions and millions of pounds have been poured in through the new deal for communities programme, and yet my constituency has streets and areas that are just as poor, and that are only a mile or two away, but are not eligible for those sorts of budgets. There is a real issue of fairness here; if someone is poor, they cannot pay their bills and life is really tough. Just because they are in an area that is slightly wealthier, why should they miss out on this massive amount of regeneration funding that is going into some areas but not others?
My final point is that I completely agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on the issue of vehicle excise duty. It is another Labour proposal that will hit the poorest hardest; it will be the 10p tax rate on wheels and I urge the Minister to take action on that issue too.
Deprivation/Child Poverty
Proceeding contribution from
Andrew Selous
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 19 June 2008.
It occurred during Adjournment debate on Deprivation/Child Poverty.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
477 c341-3WH 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:45:47 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_484665
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_484665
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_484665