Clause 24
Child Poverty Bill
4:30 pm
David Gauke (Shadow Minister, Treasury; South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. Key. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley for bringing the Committee’s attention to this point. In part 2, the definition of child poverty is different from the one that applies in part 1, which includes the duties on the Government. The definition in part 2 is slightly narrower to exclude the persistent poverty target, but it includes the relative low income target, which uses the figure of 60 per cent. of median income.
As we heard from the experts in the evidence session on 20 October, that target is one in which the key method of achievement tends to be through the tax and benefits system. The evidence given by Richard Kemp from the Local Government Association is helpful. He argued that local authorities might have a role in safeguarding communities and preparing for new industries and new opportunities. However, he said that
“there are other areas—which might rightly be in the Bill—where you think that you have given us a duty to do something, but I will not be able to have any effect on it because those levers are outside my control. That is why we concentrate on the areas where we do have control.”——[Official Report, Child Poverty Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2009; c. 71-72, Q152.]
As we discussed in this morning’s debate about duties and what local authorities can do, the 60 per cent. target—I am not suggesting that it is not valuable or that it is not important for the Government—poses practical difficulties for local authorities. To put it another way, Councillor Kemp referred to the levers outside his control. Given that the Bill sets an absolute low income target and a combined low income and material deprivation target in clause 24—those targets apply to local authorities—what levers do local authorities have that apply to the relative low income target, but do not apply to the absolute low income target or the combined low income and material deprivation targets? What does the clause 2 target in clause 24 add to the Bill that cannot otherwise be achieved, given what local authorities can practically do? We all recognise that local authorities have a big role to play, but it is not clear how local authorities, as opposed to central Government, can deliver that target.