Child Poverty Bill

My Lords, by agreement with the Minister, and I have checked it with the Clerk, I am entitled to move the amendment and to speak to it—not that I wish to be a bore or to do so for long. I need to apologise to the Committee for making a mistake when the amendment was called earlier in the Committee and I spoke briefly to it when I should not have done so. This amendment balances and complements Clause 9(4)(c) as printed in the Bill, which requires the Secretary of State to consult children or—that has been amended to be ““and””—organisations working with and representing children before he publishes his first UK strategy. The whole of Clause 9 gives the Secretary of State instructions designed to ensure, so far as possible, that he makes a well informed and balanced strategy under Clause 8(1). Clause 9(4) ensures that he does not omit to consult certain relevant groups, including local authorities, Scottish and Welsh Ministers and, "““children, or organisations working with or representing children””." There is no mention of parents. The noble Lord has indicated that the Government may be softening in their attitude to that omission, but I will finish what I was going to say. The noble Lord made the point earlier that, under Clause 9(4)(d), the Secretary of State can choose to consult parents. That is perfectly true but it does not address the point that I wanted to make this afternoon. To include children and their representatives as designated consultees in the Bill is a policy that I fully support. However, to do so without mentioning parents is, frankly, a slap in the face for parents. It is an insult to that majority of parents who struggle and scrape, work long hours and make sacrifices on behalf of their children, trying to protect them from the effects of poverty. Parents are, I admit, unlikely to read the Bill, but the press will and parents will find out. The effect that this will have on parents is important but it is not the only reason why it is foolish to ignore their knowledge and concerns. I have four points. First, in this country parents have the primary responsibility for the care and nurture of their child. Secondly, parental decisions can influence both the amount of household income and what part of it is spent on the children. Thirdly, parental experience of poverty at first hand must be valuable in drawing up the strategy. Fourthly, parents who are struggling to keep their child out of poverty can often contribute to an understanding of what will help them most. Finally, in case I have not adequately made my point about the effect on parents of the decision to include children but not parents among the mandatory consultees in the Bill, I ask noble Lords to imagine for a moment that they are a struggling lone mother, whose 12 year-old daughter has just arrived home from school one afternoon. ““How was school today?”” said the mother. ““Well, Mum, this lady from the Child Poverty Unit came to ask us a lot of questions””. ““What sort of questions, darling?””. ““Things like, ‘What would you like the Government to give your parents to make you less poor?’ and ‘What do you need that your parents can’t afford?’””. ““And””, the mother would say, ““Is this lady going to come and ask me what I think we need?””. ““No, Mum, she said it was too difficult to ask parents and, by law, she doesn’t have to””. We need to engage parents with us in this fight against child poverty. To say to them in the Bill, by implication, that we are not really interested in their opinion is neither wise nor clever. Amendment 48 would avoid that mistake. I beg to move.