Child Poverty Bill

My Lords, this is a brief but interesting encounter around an amendment. We have no disagreement about the importance of work in helping people out of poverty on a sustainable basis. That has been the key focus of our employment policies for a decade or more. The noble Lord will be well aware of that; he used to be one of our advisers at one stage, so he knows full well the thrust of our effort. That applies not only to people’s economic well-being but, as Dame Carol Black’s report—Health, Work and Well-being—showed, it is good for people’s health to be in employment. Getting back into work can be part of their recovery; falling out of work can damage their health. We have no disagreement on that. I do not have the detailed figures in front of me but the noble Lord referred to some of the unemployment figures. If he compared the unemployment data now with where they were in the two previous recessions, which took place when his party was in government, he would see a dramatic difference. That is because the Government have been active in helping people into work and to sustain jobs. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Martin, that, yes, we are committed to enterprise as well, whether it is direct employment, self-employment or partnership working. People have different appetites, skills and levels of risk that they want to undertake. Turning specifically to the amendment, it would relate to additional areas that the noble Lord believes should be either covered or taken into account in the development of the UK child poverty strategy. As I have already pointed out, the list of policy areas or building blocks in Clause 8(5) was selected though detailed analysis of the main barriers to eradicating child poverty. We do not see any benefit in expanding the detail of that list. Again, I do not wish to dismiss the importance of promoting economic enterprise or to claim that it is unrelated to the goal of ending child poverty and ensuring that children do not live in socio-economic disadvantage. Like my noble friend Lady Hollis, I was intrigued by the analysis that the noble Lord seemed to make about the self-employed and the employed who were seemingly on the same household incomes but with one being better off. The conclusion was that somehow there is some magic in being self-employed that, of itself, improves people’s material well-being. As my noble friend pointed out, this is as likely to be due to under-reporting of income as anything else. Taking steps to promote economic enterprise, particularly among low-income families, will have a role to play in reducing levels of child poverty. It is vital that the child poverty strategy addresses the need for job creation. The flexibility associated with some self-employment could, for example, help lone parents back into work. We are already working to ensure that as many people as possible can get back to work in the economic downturn. To give just one example, the six-month self-employment offer was introduced nationally from 6 April 2009, focusing support on self-employed jobseekers who have been out of work for six months or more. Clause 8(5)(a) already requires the Secretary of State to consider measures in relation to promoting and facilitating parental employment and skills. Moving into work or self-employment clearly reduces the risk of being in poverty. Again, I do not deny the importance of encouraging economic enterprise. I would argue that the Bill already refers to facilitating the employment and skills of parents. What this amendment seeks is already adequately covered by the Bill’s provisions. Given the hour and where we are, I will not spell out all the detail of the Government’s efforts to encourage and promote enterprise, but they are considerable. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.