New Clause 1
Child Poverty Bill
5:15 pm
Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)
I will come to that. I agree that there has to be transparency. It is also important that we are able to measure properly what is happening and follow through the statistics. One of the most important measures in tackling child poverty—the only such measure in the Budget or the previous year’s PBR—is the change in housing benefit rules, which has come into force while the Bill has been making its way through the House. The rules were to be changed around October-November time so that more child benefits could be retained rather than double-counted and clawed back. That was worth—the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire should remember this, because he was on the Treasury Committee with me and we heard this together—either £250 million or £350 million, which was calculated to get a certain number of children out of poverty. I am sure that, as with the similar change in housing benefits for pensioners, local authorities will have problems, but I suspect that the change in housing benefit rules will ultimately lead to a change in the numbers. That will probably happen next spring.
The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire asked why it is necessary to enshrine the measure in legislation, and we have discussed part 2 of the Bill. It is important to recognise that there have been efforts to address the issue and to get all the other agencies involved without a statutory framework. That was done through the new deal for communities programme, which was introduced in 2000 or 2001. The local strategic partnerships were also set up so that all the agencies could come together, starting with the poorest 25 per cent. of local authorities, to bend their purchasing power to tackle poverty. While that had some effect, it did not work particularly well, so it is important to have legislation stating that all the agencies should work together to tackle child poverty. There should be a statutory framework, not only for the Government target, but also for local agencies and authorities to bend their purchasing power.
The next issue is why we do not tack on to the Bill a provision that requires the local agencies and authorities to say what they are doing in three months’ time. The Government have been open about the difficulties that they face in meeting next year’s target. No one is in any doubt about that: the Work and Pensions Committee has probably looked at it, the Treasury Committee has certainly looked at it and there have been questions in the House. We all know that there are difficulties.
The issue could have been dramatically avoided if, instead of taking 2.5 per cent. off VAT, we had spent the money and tacked it on to tax credits. The hon. Gentleman might recall that that was one of the things that I proposed on the Treasury Committee, but the other members were not startlingly enthusiastic about it. The cost of the VAT cut was £2.6 billion, which was the exact amount needed to deal with child poverty.