Child Poverty Bill

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for these amendments and I hope to be able to convince him genuinely to withdraw them when I have finished. They relate to Clause 20, which sets a duty on local authorities to make arrangements to promote co-operation between the authority, its partner authorities as set out in Clause 19, and other persons or bodies as the local authority sees fit. We recognise that local authorities and their partners are best placed to support their communities, to reach out to families and individuals and to tailor services to their needs. The Bill therefore requires local authorities and delivery partners to work together to tackle child poverty and set out the contributions that they will make in their local areas. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, voiced his concern that this duty will impose inflexible requirements on local authorities, and indeed he has reiterated that he wants local authorities to be given the freedom to co-operate with whomever they so wish. While I appreciate the need for flexibility to suit local needs, this amendment will raise questions as to who should be involved and will therefore weaken the local authorities’ ability to involve all the necessary partners. Only by requiring local authorities to make arrangements to promote co-operation between the authority and each of its named partner authorities can we be confident that the full range of individuals, organisations and bodies which can make a real and lasting difference to the lives of children in the UK are fully engaged in that task. In fact, the consultation on the Bill illustrated that local partners thought that tackling child poverty must be a shared responsibility among all key partners; it should not be optional. The noble Lord has also expressed his concern that the duty to promote co-operation will duplicate existing legislation that requires consultation between organisations working with vulnerable children. This is not the case. The consultation made it clear that the arrangements in Part 2 should be delivered through existing structures. It is not a question of new arrangements and having to duplicate existing arrangements. The Bill reflects this and the list of partners set out in Clause 19 is, in fact, based on the existing local strategic partnerships. These organisations are in place and we do not need to create them again for the purposes of this Bill. Many local authorities and their partners already work together to ensure a comprehensive approach to tackling child poverty. The requirement to promote co-operation will help embed their good work. However, progress varies across the country and best practice is not universally shared. This requirement, therefore, gives those who could do more the stimulus to do so. Amendments 41 and 42 weaken the duty to co-operate, essentially giving local authorities a choice as to which partners they choose to co-operate with. By failing to collaborate with all those listed in Clause 19, there is a risk that the impact they can have on child poverty will be reduced. I hope the noble Lord will accept my reassurances on this point, and that he will feel able to accept the provision as it stands in the Bill and withdraw his amendment.