Child Poverty Bill

I have looked carefully at new clause 4 and read the relevant comments in the Joint Committee's report on the Bill, and I am not enamoured of the new clause. It should be up to the Government to decide how to achieve their objectives. As the Minister said in Committee, the Bill includes clear targets. The Government will be held to account in the House, by way of the annual statement to Parliament, and I expect that occasion to be well attended and one on which the relevant Minister will be pressed very hard if sufficient progress has not been made. The press and media, the lobby groups that take an interest in these matters, the charities and many people in the voluntary sector will ensure that a good amount of pressure and focus is put on the targets. It is a worrying development to bring judges into the Bill to the extent that new clause 4 would do, so I am afraid that I am not with the hon. Gentleman on the new clause. However, I am more inclined to support amendments 35 and 36. It is right that the Government should speak to children. I find it hard to conceive that local or central Government could have any set of policies or provide any service without speaking to the people for whom those services are provided or for whom those policies are designed to assist. My hon. Friends the Members for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) and I tabled amendments 27 and 28, which I think are superior to the hon. Gentleman's amendments, because they would require the Government to speak not only to children, as his amendment would, but to the families. I absolutely understand the focus on children and child poverty, but it would be strange to go to a poor family—the Government measure poverty by considering the poverty of parents or guardians as well as that of their children—and speak to the children but not to their parents. That would not be the right approach, and amendment 27 and 28 would remedy that omission. Government amendment 21 will ensure that child care is included in the Bill. That very welcome concession is one of the few that the Government have made as a result of the debates in Committee, and it is good to know that all our labours were not wholly in vain in Committee. It is worth noting in passing that under the Welfare Reform Act 2009, the Government sought to impose sanctions on lone parents when their children were only three years old and that the Conservative party made sure that the age was raised to five, when children go to school, as that is quite young enough to start imposing sanctions on parents. However, the point about child care is important. If we are to require lone parents—separated parents—to seek work when their children reach the age of 5, we must absolutely ensure that child care is in place. It has to be in place before school, on occasions, if there is a journey to work, after work, and, particularly importantly, in the holidays. Part-time and flexible work is incredibly important for that group of parents, many of whom seek to enter the labour market for the first time and are unable to make the step to full-time work, although they may aspire to it. It is worth noting that there has not been universal success on child care as far as the Government are concerned. In fact, in 2008, more child care places closed down than were created. The child minder work force is in steep decline, and many private sector child care providers are having great difficulties. Although I welcome the inclusion of child care, I think that the Government need to address some significant issues to ensure that child care is adequate and that separated parents in particular can get into work.