Child Poverty Bill

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for their amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her contribution to our deliberations thereon. The amendments are grouped together as they relate to families or parents in one way or another. Amendment 17 seeks to alter the title of the Child Poverty Commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Freud, will be aware, the Bill we are debating is the Child Poverty Bill, which is about helping children out of poverty. Noble Lords will be aware that the title of the Bill was discussed in the other place, where honourable Members from the opposition Benches sought to change the name of the Bill to include family poverty. This was rightly resisted as the focus of the Bill must be on the child, not the child’s family. The lobby agrees with us. In its response to the Bill consultation, CPAG stated: ""The child poverty legislation is an opportunity to ensure policy clearly puts children’s needs first"." The Bill will create the Child Poverty Commission, which will play a huge part in helping the Government formulate the most effective policies to tackle child poverty. The existing title, "Child Poverty Commission", is important as it sets out clearly what the commission is being set up to address. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked me to explain where the functions of the commission are set down. They are in Clause 9 and, in particular, at paragraph 17 of Schedule 1. They are focused on providing advice on the child poverty strategy and the targets to the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations. It is important to ensure that the work of the commission is focused on looking at what works best for tackling child poverty. While family poverty is important and, in practice, a large part of helping children in poverty involves engaging with their families, there will also be some areas that focus solely on the child—for example, narrowing the attainment gap in education. The Bill provides the best opportunity yet for the focus to be on the child and remain on the child, which will enable society as a whole to tackle child poverty on the way to its elimination. Altering the name of the commission would dilute this focus and be misleading about its role. I hope noble Lords will accept my reassurance on that point. Amendments 46, 75, 48 and 77 all relate to consultation with families or parents. Amendment 46 would require the Secretary of State, in preparing the UK strategy required by Clause 9, to consult directly with families or organisations representing children. Amendment 75 would require responsible local authorities, in preparing or modifying a joint child poverty strategy required by Clause 22, to consult directly with families or organisations representing children. Amendment 48 would require the Secretary of State, in preparing the UK strategy required by Clause 9, to consult such parents or organisations representing parents as the Secretary of State thinks fit. Similarly, Amendment 77 would require responsible local authorities, in preparing or modifying a joint child poverty strategy required by Clause 22, to consult such parents or organisations representing parents as the Secretary of State thinks fit. These amendments are similar to those tabled in the other place on Report. As I have said, the Government’s intention has always been that the child poverty strategy should be informed by the views of children and their families, particularly those with direct experience of poverty. It is for that reason that we will accept the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which explicitly put the requirement to consult directly with children into the Bill. Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child confers rights for children to express their views on matters affecting them and for those views to be given due consideration. We are adhering to the convention and, accordingly, the Bill requires consultation with children. Since we accept that we will be consulting children directly, I do not consider that these further amendments would benefit the Bill. Having said that, I assure noble Lords that in practice we are likely to consult the children’s parents or wider families, but I do not see that an explicit reference to either families or parents is necessary. I draw noble Lords’ attention to Clause 9(4)(d), which includes a provision for the Secretary of State to consult such other persons as he or she thinks fit. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, anticipated that that provision might be referred to. I have little doubt that the needs of parents and families will be considered through the process of consulting organisations representing children, as the needs of both groups are not mutually exclusive. There is also the requirement in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 for members of the commission to have experience or knowledge of work with children and families experiencing poverty. On a more practical note, Amendments 46 and 75 pose some drafting difficulties. It is not entirely clear what is meant by "families", a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and, for another reason, by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Does this refer to all parents? If so, would that definition include parents of grown-up children? The word "family" also applies to families that have no children, and there seems to be no benefit in requiring the Secretary of State to consult with that group of people—this is, after all, a child poverty Bill. A duty to consult families is effectively a duty to consult the general public at large. I understand and appreciate the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, raised at Second Reading, that the Bill does not have enough regard for parents. I reassure him and other noble Lords that the views of children and their families are of the utmost importance to us, and indeed steer us in formulating our policy. The Bill is unashamedly focused on children. They are our focus and our priority, and it seems neither helpful nor appropriate to have in the Bill a requirement to consult parents as well as children. I turn specifically to Amendment 77. It is not clear whether this is intended to make reference to the Secretary of State or whether it should instead say "the authority", as do paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 22(6). Part 2 of the Bill places responsibility with local partners, as we believe that they are best placed to tackle local child poverty. It therefore makes sense for the local authority to decide which organisations to consult and not the Secretary of State, as proposed in the amendment. This may just be a matter of drafting. Even so, I am concerned that accepting these amendments would not help us to focus on the concerns and needs of the children that the Bill is about. It is consultation with children and organisations representing them that will help us to make our strategy more effective. I strongly believe that the Bill already goes a long way to ensuring that the views of children and their families are properly taken into account. This will be strengthened by the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which we will support. I hope that noble Lords will be able to withdraw their amendments on the basis of that reassurance.