Child Poverty Bill

My Lords, the concern that has generated this amendment is based on how best to help the poor, and poor children in particular. The targets that the Government are seeking to establish with this Bill are all effectively financial measurements, and the Government will be held to account on how well they do in reaching them. A significant number of benefits in this country are benefits in kind and they are often passported based on the receipt of the primary benefits. These are not included in the financial measure as it stands. I refer to benefits such as free school meals, maternity grants, health costs, support in education and so on. This naturally raises the question of why we have selected 60 per cent of median line as a comparator and a target, when other countries may not include benefits in kind at all. This is an important point in its own right, as one reason that we have selected 60 per cent of median line is that it is possible to make a comparison with other OECD countries that use it. I am aware that on Tuesday the Minister said that it was used for other reasons as well, although I think he acknowledged that that was one of them. However, that is not the point that I wish to make here, and we have already had a debate about it. My point is that, if we exclude these benefits from measurement, they will inevitably start to be eroded as more emphasis is placed on the financial measures which are part of the target. The source of the concern is based on the findings of the 2009 OECD report, Doing Better for Children, which points out: ""Ill-thought out targets may arguably create less than appropriate policy responses"." In this case, the example that it gave was how the state might push children just below the line to just over it. But one of the most important issues that it discusses is the cash versus kind policy choice. It is worth quoting that report in this area in full. It says: ""The relative efficacy of cash-v-kind may vary with the age of the child, with cash transfers superior for younger children and in-kind provision (e.g. via universal education) for older children. Certainly this is the revealed preference of many OECD countries. The relative efficacy of cash-v-kind can also vary across the risk or outcome distribution of children of a certain age. Children at greater risk may benefit more from in-kind services, because their parents may not be capable of functioning as agents acting in the best interests of their children with income transfers"." Here is the problem. According to this evidence, the children most at risk may be helped most by services in kind, because their parents are not up to making the right choices for them. It may make sense to move between cash and in-kind services at different stages of a child’s development or household circumstances. As this Bill stands, however, this sort of flexibility could be gravely discouraged, because a move from cash to in-kind support could throw the child into apparent poverty on the income basis. I beg to move.