Child Poverty Bill

My Lords, I am delighted to move this amendment and to speak to government Amendments 30 and 43. In Committee, noble Lords on all sides of the House expressed concern that parents were omitted from the formal consultation requirement. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who is not in his place, in particular argued powerfully that the Bill must treat parents as partners and that their views will be vital in the development of successful and effective child poverty strategies. We listened with interest to the debate and I am happy to propose these government amendments in response. These amendments will require consultation on the UK, devolved, and local child poverty strategies to take place directly with parents, as well as with the organisations working with or representing parents. This requirement directly mirrors the requirement to consult children and organisations representing children. By directly consulting parents, children and those organisations working with both groups, we are confident that the most informed and effective child poverty strategies will be developed. Government Amendments 39 and 40, and government Amendments 45 and 46 extend the definition of "parent" in the Bill from just those who have parental responsibility for the child, as defined by the Children Act 1989, to also cover those who do not have parental responsibility but are caring for children who reside with them. In Committee, noble Lords from all parties spoke about the needs of family and friends/carers, and why it is important to ensure that they are adequately provided for in the Bill. Following that debate, my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton met my noble friend Lady Massey and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, as well as representatives from the Family Rights Group and Grandparents Plus. They discussed the range of activity being undertaken to better identify how this group could be supported, linked to the Families and Relationships Green Paper. These amendments follow on from that discussion. The previous definition of "parent" in the Bill went further than just natural or birth parents and included any individual who has parental responsibility for a child under the Children Act 1989. This includes step-parents and persons with a legal order conferring parental responsibility, such as a residence order, a special guardianship order or an adoption order. Following the meeting with the noble Baronesses, we decided to extend the definition to include those who do not have parental responsibility but who care for a child full-time. The definition used here is similar to that in Section 576 of the Education Act 1996. The amendment will ensure that in preparing a UK child poverty strategy, the Secretary of State must consider measures aimed at family and friends/carers. This applies in respect of financial support, the promotion and facilitation of employment, the development of skills and the provision of advice, information and assistance. The intention is that these individuals should benefit from measures in the strategy in the same way as natural parents or others with parental responsibility for a child. I hope that the House will appreciate that our intention in moving the amendment is to recognise more explicitly in the Bill the needs of family and friends/carers, and to ensure that the UK strategy takes this group into account when considering measures to alleviate child poverty. Finally, I apologise for the short notice, but I must take the opportunity to speak also to the two minor technical amendments, Amendments 37A and 37B, which were tabled a few hours ago. They are consequential on Amendments 22 and 30 and ensure that the duty to consult parents continues after 2020 if necessary. Copies of the new amendments are available on the tables on either side of the doors of the Prince’s Chamber for the convenience of noble Lords. I beg to move.