Child Poverty Bill

I am sure that in practice it works both ways because a child whose nutrition is poor is likely to have a worse outcome than one whose nutrition is good. I think that we can afford to have an all-encompassing definition. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, fits in closely with several of the amendments that we have tabled. The proposals on supporting and monitoring the relationships of parents chime closely with the non-financial targets amendment that I withdrew earlier. It ties in closely with the intention behind my amendment last week of renaming the Child Poverty Commission in a way that stressed the importance of families and parents. It also chimes with the amendment on adding parenting skills to the mix of the important things required. It is clear that parents are and should be the central pillar to ensure child well-being. We rely on parents to do the job yet many find it difficult to fall naturally into the role and need support. That support has been pretty skimpy although some excellent services are now being developed. It is, however, far from being a universal service. It is worth stressing the central importance of stable and committed relationships. They produce the best outcomes for adults and children. As the Centre for Social Justice stated in its excellent Green Paper last week: ""Children do best when living with both biological parents"." It continues: ""If you have experienced family breakdown as a child you are more likely to experience family breakdown as an adult"." The shape of families is of immense import to the state. The cost of break-up of relationships is enormous at many different levels and most importantly in the damage done to children. So the state has a very material interest in supporting parents in their commitment to each other. This is of course why my party is committed to recognising marriage—the highest form of commitment—in the tax system and getting rid of the material couple penalty in the tax credits system. According to the Centre for Social Justice: ""The Government’s Working Tax Credit actually undermines stable families by disincentivising two-parent family formation. As a result of the ‘couple penalty’ approximately 1.8m low-earning couples are materially worse off than their single parent counterparts, losing an average of £1,336 a year because they live together. Just three of the 26 OECD countries have larger couple penalties than the UK"." I remind noble Lords that family breakdown is concentrated disproportionately in deprived areas. We have heard a lot about social engineering. It is, of course, impossible to draw simple lines of causation in this area where various factors such as poverty, joblessness and family breakdown form a toxic brew. But the introduction of such a large incentive to stay apart or break up is likely to have a real impact. It is heartening to see that the Government have at last realised the central importance of families and, just before an election, have published their own Green Paper—the first for 11 years. I was amused to read Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, justifying the long silence in an article in the Sunday Times. He said: ""Because we knew it was complicated we ended up not talking about families and talking about children instead. One of the ""things that we lost a little bit is that actually, while supporting children is very important, adult relationships are very important, too"." I like the "a little bit". I would call a material couple penalty of £1,336 a year more than a little bit. I would call it a built-in snub to family relationships in the state support system and a signal of how little this Government have cared for stable, committed, two-parent families.