Child Poverty Bill

My Lords, I will be brief about these amendments and thank the noble Baroness for moving them. As she is aware, we are in agreement and happy to accept those amendments. In relation to Amendment 18, however, I am afraid that we are not quite in the same place. It would require the commission to consult directly with children and have regard to their wishes and feelings "in formulating its advice". I reiterate that we are committed to listening to the views of children and young people when formulating policy. We always seek to consider their wishes and feelings. As I said, it will always be our intention that the child poverty strategy should be informed by the views of children, particularly those with direct experience of poverty. For that reason, we have accepted the amendments that I just identified. However, as there is already a duty on the Secretary of State to consult directly with children, I do not see the benefit of imposing a similar duty on the commission. It is not necessary for the commission to undertake wide-scale consultation with children, as that would duplicate the consultation already being carried out by the Secretary of State, the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and local authorities. Indeed, one might argue that it would not necessarily be good value for money. Having said that, it is worth mentioning that the commission can make fact-finding visits and meet individuals and organisations for the purposes of carrying out its functions as an advisory body. In practice this may well include talking to individuals, such as vulnerable children and families in poverty. The Government place a high value on expert and independent advice to inform the development of the child poverty strategies. Therefore, the commission will be a body of experts. Its members will have a wide range of knowledge, expertise and experience in tackling child poverty and of working with families in poverty, as specified in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1. I should now like to move on to the second component of Amendment 18—namely, that the commission must have regard to children’s wishes and feelings. I understand that in tabling this amendment the noble Baroness is probably picking up on references in the Children Act 1989. Section 22 of Part 3 of this Act places a duty on local authorities to ascertain the wishes and feelings of a child before making any decisions concerning him or her and to give due consideration to those wishes—and rightly so. However, I suggest that this is not directly applicable to the child poverty strategies and that it would be inappropriate to include such a duty in the Bill. With children in care, the local authority fulfils some, if not all, of the traditional parenting role. It is therefore vital that it is responsive and receptive to the child’s wishes and feelings. The independent reviewing officer needs to formulate an effective and personal childcare plan and can do this only through a thorough understanding of the individual child. The child poverty strategy, on the other hand, is more about public service allocation, rather than taking actions attuned to the individual child’s wishes and feelings, important though they are. I think that that is the distinction here and why that provision would not be particularly appropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, asked how we envisage consulting children in practice. It is likely that organisations representing children will carry out the consultation with children on our behalf. The Child Poverty Unit commissioned Save the Children to conduct consultation events with children and young people from across England to gather their views on the proposals and on the UK Government’s consultation paper, Ending Child Poverty: Making it Happen. Drawing on its existing networks and relationships, Save the Children conducted some 10 consultation events. Children and young people were asked for their views on each of the building blocks and for their overall views on poverty, and they were also asked whether they thought anything was missing from the proposed strategy. Other means of consulting will doubtless also be developed. I think that a children’s board is in existence. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked whether the commission’s terms of reference will state that it will consult children. This matter is more appropriate for the terms of reference than for the Bill, but we will obviously take the matter away and consider whether it should be included. Having said that, I am happy to support the earlier amendments and I ask the noble Baroness not to press the others.