Child Poverty Bill

My Lords, I thought that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to group my Amendment 26 with those of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth, in order to expedite our progress a little—something that I am sure we are all interested in doing. I have included it in this group because I share the noble Lord’s concerns, and my amendment partly addresses the same concern as that held by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. Amendment 26 is intended to kill two birds with one stone. The definition of a "child" in Clause 25 currently excludes 16 and 17 year-olds, which means that vulnerable young people may not be covered by the scope of the UK child poverty strategy. In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, pointed out, children living in communal accommodation will not have their income measured and so may not be included. I believe that all children and young people up to the age of 18 should benefit from these strategies, so I have tabled Amendment 26 to that end. However, I have addressed a different part of the Bill from the one addressed by the noble Lord. My amendment relates to Clause 8, where the strategies appear. The effect of my amendment would be, first, that 16 and 17 year-olds who are in danger of living in poverty, such as those not in education, employment or training, care leavers and those living independently who are very poorly paid, would all benefit. Secondly, the UK’s strategy would be in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which defines a child as a person under 18 and affords all children the right to an adequate standard of living. Thirdly, it would future-proof the legislation against changes to the benefit rules, on which the current definition of which children over 16 are included depends. Fourthly, it would cover children in communal accommodation, such as asylum seekers, those in children’s homes and Gypsies or Travellers, who are not covered by the surveys on which income is measured. We cannot assume that young people not in education or training will be supported by their families, or indeed that their families will be in a position to do so. Of course, by definition, we cannot assume that about young care leavers either, as they may not have a family to support them. Young workers receive a lower national minimum wage, and in future they will have to take part in education or training for part of the week, so their earning time will be further restricted. Therefore, all these three groups are very susceptible to poverty and I need not repeat the evidence, which the Minister well knows. The Minister kindly told us in a meeting that he offered us that the strategies in Clause 8 are the means by which the Government will include these people—that is, those outside the Bill’s definition of a child and outside the household surveys. Therefore, I have chosen to make a small but significant alteration to the wording of Clause 8 in order to make it quite clear that the strategies developed under that clause must include all children as defined by the UN convention. One might think that I should also have proposed similar amendments to Clause 10 relating to Scottish children and Clause 11 relating to children from Northern Ireland. Indeed, depending on the Minister’s reply, I well may still do so. However, I believe that the Assembly for Wales has taken care of all children in Wales. I also looked at the clauses relating to local authorities in Part 2 and found the wording to be similar to the wording elsewhere in the Bill. Clauses 21 and 22 mention "child poverty needs assessments" and "child poverty strategy". I assume the same under-16-only definition applies to the meaning of "child" in those clauses. Also, Clause 24 refers to measurements of households, which concerns me because at every level the Government are failing to mention those who do not live in normal households. For the moment, I propose this neat amendment to Clause 8 and thereby give the Government the opportunity of demonstrating that they mean what they say when they tell us that "every child matters". I was tempted to delete the words "as far as possible", but I resisted the temptation because, had I done so, there would be no chance whatever of the Government accepting my amendment. I hope that the Minister will accept it because it may save him considerable embarrassment next time the Committee on the Rights of the Child inspects this country's compliance with the convention. I cannot imagine that this failure will not be picked up and criticised by the committee on that occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth, and I both want our amendments on the face of the Bill, so I hope that they will be accepted. However, if I should be unlucky and the Minister does not look kindly on my amendment, at the very least, I would like an assurance from him that the guidance to local authorities and other partners will make it clear that 16 and 17 year-olds and those in communal accommodation must be covered by their strategies.