Clause 14
Child Poverty Bill
2:45 pm
Steve Webb (Northavon, Liberal Democrat)
I have one question about the intriguing subsection (4) of clause 14. Subsection (1) says that the “report under section 13(3)”—which is the report at the end asking how we did—must give the four figures for targets in the Bill. Subsection (2) means that they must be kosher, and 14(3) asks whether the number is bigger or smaller than the target. That is not unreasonable. However, 14(4) is rather fun, as it says that if we have failed, we must say why. The whole point of the exercise is to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to achieve the targets. It is intriguing that in the middle we find a clause saying that if we fail we will have to explain ourselves.
I am intrigued to know the explanations that might be prompted by 14(4). Could one say, “We changed our minds and decided that child poverty was not all that important.”? Or could one say, “We would have liked to have done more but the economy was in such a mess we did not have the money.”? I am not sure what the point is. If we try to abolish child poverty over a 10-year period, fail to do so and breach a statutory obligation, what is the value added of an excuse clause? Presumably, we are hoping that someone will take legal action to enforce the provision.
The relevant point is that it is not clear whether legal enforcement of the Bill’s duties comes before or after 2020. Could one say, in 2018, “We are miles away from this.”? Could one take the Government to court to make sure? In a sense, there is no point taking the Government to court after 2020 because they will have failed. They will have breached the statutory duty and it cannot be un-breached. The only valid legal action would have to be pre 2020, in which case, what is the point of 14(4) asking why we failed? It seems odd. It might make an interesting article, I suppose, but it is not clear what it is for.
Will the Under-Secretary clarify the matter? What excuse could be given for failure? Is it her understanding that the statutory duty to reach targets must be susceptible to legal action prior to 2020? Subsection (4) concerns a post 2020 excuse, which one hopes we would never get, since there would be no point in having the Bill in the first place.