Child Poverty Bill

My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with both amendments. It would be a matter of dismay to support, as we do, a Bill to eradicate poverty, albeit on a necessarily new-speak definition of "eradicate", and then learn that such eradication would still leave children with an unhealthy diet, unsafe and lacking other necessities such as warmth or clothes. At the heart of the two amendments is the question whether the 60 per cent median is the best measure of poverty. We debated this matter last Tuesday and the Minister assured us that there is, ""a wealth of evidence that poverty measured by the 60 per cent threshold is strongly related to poor outcomes".—[Official Report, 19/1/10; col. GC161.]" That is a fairly weak response to the issue. The Liberal Democrat team did not show much interest in the amendment in question, perhaps because I raised it. However, Amendment 127 may show why they were aiming to keep their powder dry. Its proposers seem to be dubious about whether the 60 per cent median will do the trick and to be calling for what is effectively a minimum income standard based on what it costs to live in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, put particular emphasis on what it might cost to live in Glasgow. I should like to take the opportunity presented by the amendment to explore the relationship between three sets of figures: the 60 per cent median figure; minimum income standards; and benefit and tax credit transfers. I revert first to the Rowntree study which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, raised, A minimum income standard for Britain in 2009—I managed to find a slightly updated version; it is one year on from the version that he cited. The study found that the minimum income standard in that year for a couple with two children—I shall use that as the benchmark—was £438 per week before housing costs. The cost after those costs is £361, but I shall use the first figure. The income transfer payments are considerably below that. The figure for 2007-08 comes out at £306 before housing costs, and £218 after housing costs, for the same family. The HBAI study suggests that the same couple would need to receive a net disposable income, in 2007-08, of £361 before housing costs to be on or above the 60 per cent median figure, which is our definition here of escaping poverty. Just for reference, the figure is £323 after housing costs. I am conscious that I have been unable to assemble exactly the same years in these three bits of data for the comparable figures. That is because I do not have a team of such excellent civil servants sitting behind me as does the Minister. I think that that he has five—and another three is it?—so eight brilliant civil servants. I have done my best without them, but I am sure that they will be able to get the precise figures. But the direction of those figures, even though I have not got exactly same year for the Rowntree 2009 figure, is clear enough. The income transfers are currently well below the 60 per cent median figure, which in turn is well below the minimum income standard that people like Rowntree in York come up with. My question is a very simple one. Can the Minister let us know whether the Government feel that the 60 per cent median figure gives families enough to live on?