Child Poverty Bill

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Morris and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for these amendments, which give us the opportunity to discuss an important area of the Bill. I am delighted that the noble Baroness is resisting temptation today. I am not sure that my noble friend would see this as an opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Freud, to have another go at the targets and seek to undermine them, leading inexorably to his conclusion that he does not feel bound by any of them. However, we will see where that debate heads at the end of the Bill. I say to my noble friend Lord Morris that it is not the case that there is a narrow definition of "households" for the purposes of the Bill. Something like 98 per cent of households are within the definitions in the surveys we are studying and cover the vast majority of children. Neither does that approach assume that all families are alike. The definition covers, for example, children on local authority Traveller sites, asylum seekers in families who have been placed in social housing and children in care with foster families, although clearly it does not cover all children. Amendment 16 seeks to add a further regulating power to Clause 6 which would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the circumstances in which a child living in communal accommodation may be regarded as living in a qualifying household. While this is not quite its effect, it is clear that the purpose behind the amendment is to ensure that the survey used to measure progress against the child poverty targets in Clauses 2 to 5 covers as many children in communal accommodation as possible. Let me make it clear that our goal is to eradicate poverty for all children and that the framework that the Bill establishes for achieving this goal, using national child poverty strategies and imposing duties on local government to tackle child poverty, applies to all children in the UK. To ensure accountability for and progress towards this goal, Clauses 2 to 5 define targets for a range of poverty indicators. As I am sure noble Lords appreciate, these targets will be effective only if progress towards them is measurable. That is why they do not apply to children who are not covered by the surveys that we use to measure poverty. Targeting for these children would not be measurable and, therefore, would be an ineffective way to ensure that experiences of poverty are tackled. The Bill therefore sets out that targets apply only to children living in qualifying households. These will be defined in regulations in terms of the households covered by the surveys used to measure poverty. When this amendment was debated in another place, there was considerable sympathy with what it was seeking to achieve. However, it was also recognised by Members on all sides of the other place that, for the reasons I have explained, it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to work out how poverty for these groups should be measured given that the targets in the Bill are based on household income data. Given these difficulties, it was suggested that these children should be addressed by the clauses referring to socio-economic disadvantage. The surveys which will be used to measure progress are the best instruments available for measuring the household income of children across the UK, but they do not cover children who reside in communal establishments. That definition is assumed to be equivalent to the communal establishments set out in the draft regulations which have been made available to noble Lords in the Peers’ information pack. There are a number of different circumstances under which a child may be living in a communal establishment—an issue touched upon by many noble Lords—and I shall try to address each of them in turn. For many children living in communal establishments, the concept of household income is simply inapplicable. There would be no way of allocating a household income for children living in residential care homes, young offender institutions, asylum centres and other similar communal settings, and so the concept of income poverty could not apply. However, in many of these cases, statutory minimum standards apply to ensure reasonable standards of living. For example, in residential care homes, minimum requirements include healthy meals, clothes of an individual’s choosing and sufficient financial resources to fund leisure activities and trips. For children living in households in communal establishments such as women’s refuges, there are obvious ethical reasons why it is not appropriate for interviewers to enter the premises and ask individual families about their circumstances. Households with children which reside in communal establishments such as bed-and-breakfast hotels are not covered by the surveys because the cost and difficulty of including such households in them is considered to be disproportionate to the additional information that would be gained. Even if such establishments were covered by the surveys, they comprise such a small proportion of the population that it is almost certain that the change would have no impact on the child poverty statistics used to measure progress against the target. The number of such households continues to fall. The Government have set a national target to halve the number of households in temporary accommodation by 2010, as part of their aim to increase long-term housing supply and affordability. The number of such households with children has fallen from 5,240 in the first quarter of 2003 to 510 in the second quarter of 2009. The Family Resources Survey is subject to comprehensive methodological reviews, which include assessment of the coverage of the survey and whether it can be improved. The Office for National Statistics is reviewing the feasibility of extending coverage of some surveys to include communal establishments such as bed-and-breakfast accommodation. If this is considered feasible and is adopted by the surveys used to measure poverty for the Bill, the Bill is designed so that the coverage of the targets can be amended to match the new coverage of the survey. Clause 6(4) requires the Secretary of State to ensure that the targets have as wide an application as is reasonably practicable. However, it is recognised in that provision that the targets can apply only to households which can be surveyed, ""having regard to the statistical surveys that are being or can be reasonably expected to be undertaken"." If there is evidence that wider coverage has become practicable, the Secretary of State is required to ensure that the targets match this coverage. I hope that my noble friend Lord Morris is assured that where children reside in communal establishments either it is not appropriate for them to be covered by the targets or continuing review processes are in place to ensure that if and when it becomes practicable for surveys to cover them it will be reflected in the Bill. I also reassure my noble friend that the well-being of many of the children not covered by the targets is monitored or assured in other ways. For example, we monitor a range of outcome and well-being measures for looked-after children who live in accommodation not covered by the surveys; we have minimum statutory standards for looked-after children in residential care; and the Government have a target to reduce the number of households living in temporary accommodation, including bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Amendment 16 would require the Secretary of State to ask for advice from the commission regarding appropriate levels of survey coverage before regulations are made defining qualifying households. Survey coverage is relevant to the regulations because qualifying households will be defined based on which households are covered by the surveys used to measure the child poverty targets. The role of the commission is to provide advice on the child poverty strategy and the child poverty targets. However, it is not appropriate for the commission to have a role in defining terms which appear in the Bill, which is what the amendment would involve. There is no guarantee that any member of the commission would be appropriately qualified to advise on the technical issue of what statistical surveys can reasonably be expected to be undertaken with regard to coverage of households. Paragraph 1(4)(b) of Schedule 1 requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of securing that the commission has experience of child poverty research, but there is no requirement to ensure that the commission has in-depth knowledge of the coverage of the surveys which are used by government to measure it. I assure noble Lords that there are already sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that the definition of "qualifying households" set out in regulations reflects the widest survey coverage that is reasonably practicable. First, the surveys which gather the statistics used to measure progress against the targets in the Bill must meet National Statistics quality standards. The coverage of these surveys is regularly reviewed, and wherever coverage can be improved without excessive cost or detriment to the survey, changes are made. Secondly, Clause 6(4) requires the Secretary of State to have regard to what statistical surveys can reasonably be expected to be undertaken. Finally, any regulations made under subsections (1)(a) and the proposed new subsection (1)(ba)—if this amendment was made to the Bill—are subject to affirmative procedures, and so Members of both Houses will have the opportunity to debate them. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling Amendment 26, since it provides another useful opportunity to explain to noble Lords the meaning of the duty in Clause 8(2)(b) and the reasons for its inclusion in the Bill. Clause 8(2)(b) states the second purpose of the child poverty strategy, which is to ensure, as far as possible, that children in the UK, ""do not experience socio-economic disadvantage"." The noble Baroness referred to "as far as possible". That is included because it would be impossible to have, and legislate for, an absolute. I hope she would acknowledge that point. This complements the other requirement for the strategy, as stated in subsection (2)(a): to comply with the duty in Clause 1 to meet the targets by 2020. The duty to tackle the experience of socio-economic disadvantage among children was included for two reasons. First, as noble Lords are aware, it is not possible to measure a small number of children, as we have just discussed. It is regrettable but unavoidable for reasons that have already been explained. However, we fully recognise that these children may be among the most vulnerable and that any strategy to tackle child poverty must address their needs. The duty in Clause 8(2)(b) therefore extends the application of the strategy to all children in the UK. In its recent report on the Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights welcomed the inclusion of this duty. Page 20 of the report says that the committee, ""accept that this part of the Bill will benefit all children living in poverty and not just those who are caught by the targets"." To set out the Government’s commitment to alleviate child poverty in legislation, it is necessary to set measurable targets and these can relate only to measurable children. Including a duty to prepare and publish a strategy in relation to all children demonstrates that the intention of the Bill is to address poverty experienced by all children, and not to discriminate against any groups. I hope noble Lords are reassured by that. The second purpose of including the duty to tackle socio-economic disadvantage is to broaden the focus of the Bill beyond tackling income poverty alone. Socio-economic disadvantage is difficult to define precisely, as was discussed earlier today. I am aware that noble Lords debated its meaning at some length in the first Equality Bill Committee debate last week. For the purpose of this Bill, we may consider that it broadly relates to a child’s access to material and social resources, and their ability to participate in society. A person who is affected by socio-economic disadvantage will be in an unfavourable economic and/or social position, relative to someone else. Over the long term, lack of access to stimulating and enriching experiences and opportunities may adversely affect children’s development and well-being. As they grow up this is likely to impact on their outcomes in such key areas as education, health, employment and income. Some noble Lords have argued that the Bill looks in the wrong direction by tackling the symptoms rather than the causes of poverty, but I do not accept that description. While it is true that the targets focus on income poverty, although I contend that the combined low-income and material deprivation target is broader than that, we have always been clear that provisions in the Bill go wider than tackling income poverty alone and that it is necessary to do so to ensure a sustainable end to child poverty. The duty to tackle socio-economic disadvantage among all children in the UK will ensure that the strategies published under the Bill describe actions needed to tackle the root causes of poverty, and Clause 8(5) lists what we have identified as those root causes. The amendment would have the effect of narrowing, in some respects, the application of the strategy to only those children under 18 who were entitled to child benefit, although I accept that that is not the intent. It would, for example, exclude from the second limb of the strategy children, as defined by Clause 25, who are aged 18 and 19 and entitled to child benefit. I understand that this is not what was intended; I believe that what it is trying to achieve—indeed, this is what the noble Baroness said—is the extension of the application of the strategy to all children under 18, irrespective of whether or not they are entitled to child benefit. Although the amendment does not achieve that, I will respond to the point that was made when it was moved. Our aim is to end child poverty. Through the Bill, we wish to ensure that the measures taken to meet the targets and to ensure that children in the UK do not experience socio-economic disadvantage are relevant for all dependent children. The Bill has a focus on providing for the improvement of children’s living standards. It is therefore right that the definition of a child used in the Bill relates directly to the financial support that the Government provide for families to support their living standards. Children under this definition are financially dependent on their parents. I contend that many young people who are over the age of 16 and are not in full-time education are capable of earning in their own right. They are therefore not necessarily dependent, and are therefore not covered by the measurement of child poverty. There are very few 16 and 17 year-olds who are not eligible to receive child benefit. Those excluded are persons who are employed or who are in receipt of certain benefits, and persons whose education or training ceased more than 20 weeks ago and who are not registered for work, education or training with a qualifying body. However, I recognise the concerns expressed by noble Lords regarding the potential exclusion of some 16 and 17 year-olds, particularly those not in education, employment or training. I therefore assure noble Lords that, in practice, work to support young people will form part of a sustainable child poverty strategy. We need to ensure that these young people do not become the poor adults and parents of the future. Work is under way in other parts of the Government to take action to help this group, so they will not be forgotten. The noble Baroness may be aware that by using the words, ""no child under the age of 18"," in the amendment, the actual effect may also arguably be to confer on every individual child in the UK a legal right to not live in socio-economic disadvantage. This is neither realistic nor necessarily desirable. The Joint Committee on Human Rights agreed when it stated in its report on the Bill that, ""economic and social rights should not be fully justiciable and legally enforceable because that would be too subversive of the constitutional relationship between the courts and the democratic branches in this country"." Instead, the Government should be, ""placed under a duty to make progress towards realising those rights"," and that is what Clause 8(2)(b) does, as well as requiring us to report annually on that. I suggest that this clearly demonstrates that the existing duty in Clause 8(2)(b) is human rights-enhancing, as indeed are the provisions in the rest of the Bill. I reiterate to noble Lords that the Government’s goal is to eradicate poverty for all children in the UK and to ensure that they do not experience socio-economic disadvantage. My noble friend Lord Morris talked about compatibility with the ECHR. I will not go through the detail of this, but I should say that we have considered that issue and do not think that the Bill is in breach of Article 15 of the ECHR. To engage Article 14 a person must show that they are within the scope of another ECHR article, and we consider that the Bill is not within the scope of any other article. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about excluded groups and in particular about what support was being given to Traveller families. I shall briefly summarise the position. In terms of the numbers excluded for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children, in total from the 2008 school census there are more than 3,800 Travellers of Irish descent and more than 8,600 Gypsy and Roma children, although anecdotal evidence suggests that that figure may be underestimating by some 20,000. The PSA 11 target aims to narrow the gap in educational achievement between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers. Children from Gypsy, Roma and Irish Traveller backgrounds are captured by that target. Local authorities are required to set local targets for raising the educational attainment of black and minority ethnic groups, including Gypsy, Roma and Irish Traveller children. DCSF initiatives to improve the outcome for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils include the National Strategies-managed GRT achievement programme and a range of other things, too. If the noble Earl is interested, I shall be happy to write to him further on that. The noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, like my noble friend Lord Morris, was concerned whether by defining the targets as we have we would exclude some of the most vulnerable groups in our society from the impact of this Bill. I hope that I have explained that that is not the case and that the two legs of those strategies are important to meet those targets, but we will ensure that all children are brought within the scope of the eradication of child poverty. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.