Child Poverty Bill

I understand that point; perhaps I can come back to it in a moment. I was going to go on to say that the definition of "parent" in the Bill goes further than just parent, and includes any individual who has parental responsibility for a child under the Children Act 1989. This includes many of the persons described in paragraphs (i) to (v) of this amendment: they are already included as parents under the definition in the Bill. It specifically includes parents, step-parents, persons appointed as guardians, persons with residence orders and persons with special guardianship orders. Therefore, we are not convinced that it is necessary or appropriate to extend the Bill provisions to people who do not have parental responsibility within the meaning of the Children Act 1989. Using the definitions in the amendments tabled would encompass private foster carers and very distant relatives, although I acknowledge that it would also encompass godparents. However, that does not mean that their circumstances do not have to be taken into account. Noble Lords will also wish to note that family and friends carers are already able to access a range of support under existing legislation. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 places a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need in their area through the provision of a range and level of services appropriate to fulfilling those children’s needs. This includes providing services to any member of the child’s family, which includes persons with whom the child has been living even if they do not have parental responsibility. The services provided can include financial support. The Children and Young Persons Act 2008 amended Section 17 of the 1989 Act to make it easier for local authorities to provide regular and long-term financial payments to families caring for children where they assess this to be appropriate. As with any other family, family and friends carers will be entitled to a range of financial support, such as child benefit and child tax credit, both of which are unaffected by any payments made under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. They may qualify for other benefits on broadly the same terms as parents, and if they are bringing up a child on their own and are unable to work they may claim income support on the same basis as other lone parents. In addition to the range of support available under existing legislation for family and friends carers, we recognise also the need to ensure that adequate support is provided for all children through the child poverty strategy. The Bill sets out the main policy areas that the strategy will address in broad terms: promoting the employment and skills of parents and carers; providing financial support for households with children; improving family services; and achieving a good local environment. I reassure noble Lords that although family and friends carers are not specifically mentioned in the building blocks, except to the extent that they are covered by the definition of "parent", the measures in the strategy will have to address their needs in order to meet the 2020 income targets. One of the main objectives of the strategy, as stated in Clause 8(2)(b)—we had an interesting debate on this earlier in the week—is to ensure that, as far as possible, children in the UK do not experience socio-economic disadvantage. In developing a strategy to meet this objective, the needs of vulnerable groups, and the specific measures required to meet these needs, will be cross-cutting issues across all the main policy areas. The Bill avoids being too prescriptive about the strategy, both as regards the content of specific policy measures and the specific groups that need to be targeted, because it needs to respond to changing circumstances between now and 2020. However, we envisage that the analysis will consider the evidence on which groups are most at risk of poverty on all the measures. The strategy will then consider whether specific measures are needed to meet the needs of the most vulnerable groups of children, as well as of their parents and carers. I turn now to Amendment 63. Our view is that this should be resisted because of practical difficulties in measuring the number of children who are cared for by family and friends and who are experiencing the different types of poverty defined in Clauses 2 to 5. The practical difficulties arise both because the survey used to measure child poverty does not distinguish between children who are living with family or friends carers and those who are living with parents; and because the relatively small numbers of these children—although I accept that there is some disagreement about how small is small—would mean that it would not be possible to produce reliable estimates of the numbers involved. However, discussions are under way with stakeholders to consider how current data collections might provide information on the number of children living with relatives. To include reporting requirements based on households below average income surveys, which drive other targets, would not be possible because the surveys do not produce that data. Even if they did, the survey sample might produce some difficulties. However, that is not to say that there is no recognition of the need for more data. Work is under way to try to get the data, but not specifically by those means and for that purpose. Finally, I turn to Amendment 71. We similarly appreciate the intention behind it, which is to ensure that the needs of children living with family and friends carers are properly taken into account by local authorities when conducting needs assessments in preparation for producing their local child poverty strategies. The purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to include the number and needs of children living with family and friends carers in the matters that must be considered by local authorities. There is currently nothing to prevent the Secretary of State making provision in the local child poverty needs assessment regulations on how the needs of children living with family and friends should be considered. The intention is that the regulations will set out those matters which a responsible local authority must consider in its child poverty needs assessment, while giving the authority flexibility to consider other matters that are appropriate. The amendment therefore adds little to the Bill as local authorities can include these considerations in their local needs assessments under Clause 21 as currently drafted. Noble Lords will be aware that we have circulated draft regulations on the needs assessment and I commit to looking at those again to see whether something more specific might be included to beef up the necessity and desirability of engaging local authorities in focusing on this. It is enabled by the Bill as it currently stands. In addition, because the definition of family and friends carers in these amendments is very wide, it is unclear exactly which children would be included in the requirement. I say this with some trepidation but I hope that my comments illustrate the value that the Government place on the role of family and friends carers and the support that is already in place to enable them to fulfil that role. I reassure noble Lords that the Government will continue to work closely with the organisations representing family and friends carers to address their concerns about the support available to this important group. The recent grandparents’ summit and grandparents’ reception provided a valuable opportunity for the Government to meet and hear the views of grandparents, a number of whom are caring full time for their grandchildren. In addition, Ministers recently met groups representing family and friends carers, including the Family Rights Group, the Grandparents’ Association and Grandparents Plus, to discuss their concerns, which the Government are carefully considering. In particular, concerns have been expressed about the difficulties experienced by some family and friends carers if they have to go to court to secure their care of a child and the complexity of the support available to them. We heard that graphically this afternoon. We are concerned that some grandparent families in particular are not getting the support to which they are entitled and we want to understand more about the barriers to this. The Government will explore with stakeholders how best to identify these families and help them to access the support that they need. The views of family and friends carers have informed the Government’s families and relationships Green Paper, which was launched on 20 January. It sets out a broad cross-government strategy on supporting families and relationships, including where children are living with relatives or friends. It addresses the need for local authorities to have an effective framework for supporting family and friends carers and for fostering services to be clear about the support that they should provide where a child is cared for by a relative or friend within the care system. The Green Paper also announces a support pack for relatives who are caring for children because of a parent’s drug or alcohol misuse and to ensure that future developments in family and friends care are informed by best practice. It also announces that the Government are commissioning an updated study of the evidence on family and friends care, which will build on work undertaken by Professor Joan Hunt in 2003. I am reminded that I did not deal specifically with godparents. Notwithstanding that godparents may not be included in the definition of parents for the purposes of this Bill, it does not preclude a focus on their work as kinship carers in the broader analysis of tackling socio-economic disadvantage. Part of that may be a focus on the monetary support that is available to them.