Child Poverty Bill

My Lords, the Government concessions today have done much to reassure me that the strategy produced under Clause 8 will indeed be capable of focusing on many of the causes of poverty. It is unfortunate, however, that we have not made a similar amount of headway on the first five clauses of this Bill and that four crude, largely financial, targets remain as the only mechanism of assessing the success of any Government. The Government consider that the differences between the four targets—which should, we hope, ensure that all households are counted where a child is at risk of suffering from low income—is sufficient to give full picture of the situation. I am afraid I do not agree. Although the targets may cover a broad enough group, they do not distinguish between the distinct types of household within that group. By ensuring that the numbers of households falling into each band are reported on, any appreciation of the Government’s success or failure can be informed by knowing where progress has been made. I appreciate that there are significant difficulties with reporting on households falling under 40 per cent of the median, as we have discussed, given that the IFS stated that children in these families are frequently better off in material terms than in households that are nominally richer. That surely makes it a very useful statistic. If the government strategy is proving extremely effective at addressing poverty in the 50 per cent and 60 per cent bands but is having absolutely no impact on those reporting, possibly incorrectly, almost no income, such information is useful. Whatever the Government say about the flaws of our additional non-financial measures for the vulnerable, the fact remains that these four targets are very blunt measures. I continue to think that this amendment would improve the Bill and hope that the Minister has reconsidered his earlier opposition to it. I beg to move.