Asked by Lord Bird To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they
have to address the root causes of child poverty across the United
Kingdom. Lord Evans of Rainow (Con) My Lords, as dinner break
business is now the last business of the day, the allocation of
time is now 90 minutes. Therefore, the Back-Bench speaking time has
increased from four minutes to eight minutes. Lord Bird (CB) I
welcome the chance to sort out the problems of poverty in an
hour...Request free trial
Asked by
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to address
the root causes of child poverty across the United Kingdom.
(Con)
My Lords, as dinner break business is now the last business of
the day, the allocation of time is now 90 minutes. Therefore, the
Back-Bench speaking time has increased from four minutes to eight
minutes.
(CB)
I welcome the chance to sort out the problems of poverty in an
hour and a half. I welcome the idea that, in such a short amount
of time, we can sort out the problem that a third of all our
children are in or around poverty—that is 4 million children in
the United Kingdom.
I alert people to my belief that, in the seven or eight years I
have been in the House of Lords, I have never come to a debate or
discussion where the root causes of things are dealt with. I
believe strongly that one of the main problems we have is that
Governments, Oppositions and people who have worked for many
years in and around poverty are always dealing with the effects
of poverty; they do not deal with the root causes of poverty. So
when I proposed this small debate, I was actually trying to be
revolutionary. I was trying to move the House of Lords—and, I
hope, the House of Commons—towards the idea that instead of
continuously dealing with the effects of poverty, we move the
argument towards the root causes of poverty.
Throughout the world—it is not just the United Kingdom—in the
region of about 80% of all money spent on social intervention is
spent on dealing with the emergency and problems of coping with
poverty. There is very little money spent on prevention or
cure—the two opposites. Since the time I came into the House, I
have been like a scratched record; I have gone on, again and
again, asking when we are going to spend our time on eradicating
poverty rather than ameliorating it and trying to accommodate it.
That has been my real argument.
I think that His Majesty's Government and His Majesty's
Opposition, and the previous Governments and Oppositions, have
always dealt with the terrible reality poverty throws up.
Tonight, I want to be a revolutionary and ask why we do not all
look at something quite real. Why is it that, for all our efforts
over decades—my decades go back to the end of the Second World
War—we have always tried to deal with the obnoxiousness that is
thrown up by poverty but we have never done a scientific analysis
of the root causes of poverty? We have never had a Government or
an Opposition, or an argument within our universities and
charities, or among those who get involved in the struggles of
the poorest among us, ask when we are going to do something about
eradicating poverty.
I am sorry if I sound a bit Joan of Arc. I came into the House of
Lords with one strict instruction from the people who encouraged
me to come here, which was to help to dismantle and get rid of
poverty, not to shift the deckchairs on the Atlantic. My
instruction was not to make the poor more comfortable but to
actually get rid of the concept of poor people.
I come from poverty, and maybe that is what drives me on. I come
from people who came from poverty, who came from poverty and who
came from poverty. The interesting thing is that when I grew up,
I realised that they were surrounded by poverty; they could not
get away from it. The mind-forged manacles that go with poverty
meant that they perpetuated it. I have done my best within the
lives of my own children to get rid of poverty in their futures,
but the larger part of my family is still perpetuating poverty.
Why? Because the root causes of poverty were never dealt with in
the course of their lives.
To me, the big problem with poverty is the inheritance of
poverty. In the United Kingdom, about 4 million children—a third
of our children—are in poverty. It is interesting that a third of
our children are in and around the problems of poverty, and in
spite of all our efforts they remain so. What are we, the Church,
the charities or the political parties going to do about it? Will
they wake up one day and say, “Actually, we're getting no
nearer”? We know that in the last year, 100,000 more children
have arrived in poverty.
We need an enormous mind shift, but I do not see it happening. I
do not see anybody building the intellectual appliances or the
university courses to find out why we are always trying to
address the problems of poverty as if a bit more to the poor will
actually change anything.
I came into the House of Lords and was astonished at the number
of people who wanted me to get involved in agitating to give poor
people more. I was determined, however much it would damage my
reputation, not to do that. If the only thing you inherit is
poverty, how do we break that situation so that you do not
inherit it?
Can I just check: if we have more time, does this mean I can
speak for another five minutes?
(Con)
Speak for ever, as long as you let me speak for ever too.
(CB)
God bless you, because I was running out of time.
(Con)
My Lords, I announced at the beginning of the debate that rather
than an hour, we have an hour and a half. That extends Back-Bench
speeches, but the noble Lord may have a few more moments above
the 10 minutes for which he has spoken now. He can carry on.
(CB)
I love democracy.
I was born in the London Irish slums of Notting Hill, but we
moved to Fulham. On my road, I fell into being a friend of a guy
whose family, like mine, came from Ireland. His father had
accumulated a number of jobs. He was a very clever guy, even
though, like my family, he was ill educated. He became very
wealthy and bought his house, so he had a house in Fulham
Broadway at a time when my family were living around the corner
in social housing—what was called council housing. He became very
prosperous and employed 20, 30, then 50 Irish people to make
money for him, so that he could buy a house, then a bigger one.
There were two kinds of poverty. That guy did not inherit
poverty, but my family inherited it and made damn sure that we
and other members of my family inherited poverty and the
mind-forged manacles that go with it.
What do we actually do to break that situation so that people in
poverty are given something—a “je ne sais quoi”, a little
thing—that will mean they do not imitate the inherited poverty of
their own family? To me, that is the big issue: Patrick Crowell
and his mum and dad built a business, made money and became
middle class and prosperous, but my family remained in poverty.
Their children and their children's children are still in poverty
and stuck in social housing, having all sorts of problems.
I want to know how the House of Lords and the House of Commons,
with all their great brains, can help us dismantle the
mind-forged manacles that come with poverty and its inheritance.
That is my passion. Over the next few months, as we move towards
a general election, I will be campaigning through my work in the
Big Issue, and in Parliament in general, for a reinvention of
social housing.
Do noble Lords know that there are so many people in this world
who are defenders of social housing? These people absolutely love
it and think it is absolutely brilliant. But do noble Lords know
that the children of people who live in social housing rarely
finish school, get their qualifications, get skilled and move out
of poverty? Do noble Lords know that a fraction, an infinitesimal
number of people in social housing, ever get to university or
college so that they can then start living a fuller life away
from poverty? Do noble Lords know that in housing associations,
on average 70% of people are unemployed? I do not want to be
interpreted as rude or insensitive, but if you really wanted to
condemn somebody to poverty for the next 100 years, you would
give them social housing.
(Con)
You have had 15 minutes.
(CB)
Forgive me—I am now going to stop—but I wanted to move on to say
that this is why I am campaigning to change the way we deal with
poverty. We have a situation in which eight government
departments are dealing with poverty, but we do not have a
convergence to dismantle it. Some 40% of government expenditure
is spent on poverty; we really need to change it. I am calling
for the creation of a ministry of poverty prevention. I thank
noble Lords very much for their time.
8.09pm
The (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, , for securing this important
debate.
As we have heard, by the Government's own estimate there are 4.3
million children—or to put it another way, 30% of all children in
the UK—living in relative low-income housing, after housing
costs. That is clearly a most alarming statistic. I truly believe
that by addressing child and parental ill health, in addition to
child and parental qualifications, we have the ability to solve
long-term worklessness and low earnings.
The key to solving child poverty is to get people into work, and
the data backs this up. Children living in workless households
are more than six times more likely to be in absolute poverty,
after housing costs, than those in households in which adults
work.
Step one would be to empower children and parents to make the
right food choices, which is the building block to eradicating
child poverty. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the
phrases “gut instinct” and “you are what you eat”. What we put
into our bodies is what drives us. If we put unhealthy food that
is high in calories and saturated fat into our system, it is
highly likely that we will be overweight, feel ill and lack
motivation, positivity and the will to succeed. We have to find a
way to educate both children and their parents on healthy eating.
Fortunately, there are charities such as Chefs in Schools, whose
mission is to help
“schools serve up generation-powering, mind-opening,
society-changing food and food education that fuels the
future—all within school budgets”.
We can go much further. Feeling good is roughly 70% diet and 30%
exercise. We have to encourage both parents and children to take
exercise. Physical exercise and sport make a hugely positive
contribution to society, to the extent that for every £1 spent on
sport and physical activity, around £4 is generated in return
across health and well-being, strengthening communities and the
economy. “PE With Joe”—Joe Wicks—transmitted during the pandemic,
proved that you do not need to go to the local sports centre to
stay fit and healthy. It can be done in your flat or in the local
park, and it costs no more than a pair of trainers and shorts,
and a t-shirt. It is essential to get the message out about the
importance of physical exercise.
To drill down on the point made by the noble Lord, , about inherited poverty, my
third area of focus is that we can eradicate child poverty,
particularly generational poverty, through financial education.
Assuming that families can find success with food education and
physical education, they will be back in work, feeling good and
able to save even just small amounts of money. Financial
education is now crucial, because it is possible to grow those
small amounts into life-changing sums. Using tax-free allowances,
it is feasible to turn £10 per week into £160,000, using a medium
rate of return over a 50-year timeframe. That £160,000 could be
enough to take the next generation of a family out of poverty and
into home ownership, mortgage free. Saving £20 per week at a
slightly higher rate of return can produce £645,000.
My Lords, four minutes was a narrow window; I could speak in much
more detail, but please let me finish by asking the Minister what
the Government will do to address food education, physical
education and financial education for both children and parents
currently living in poverty.
8.14pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, , for securing this debate.
While individual circumstances and actions may represent
proximate contributary causes, the root causes of child poverty
are systemic and as such are amenable to government action.
Unfortunately, for the most part, over the past decade or so,
government actions, particularly with regard to social security,
have served not to prevent or alleviate child poverty but to
worsen and even deepen it.
No doubt the Minister will refer to this month's benefits
uprating to defend his Government's record; we hear about it
constantly from Ministers. While it is welcome that, this year,
the Government are doing the right thing, it has to be understood
in the context of the significant cut in the real value of
working-age and children's benefits since 2010. The recent Work
and Pensions Committee report on benefit levels referred to the
wide range of evidence received which suggests they are “too
low”, and called for the development of a framework of
principles, following consultation with stakeholders—and here I
would include social security recipients themselves—to inform
proper consideration of the adequacy of benefits.
The impact of overall cuts in real value has been aggravated by
the imposition of what the Resolution Foundation described as the
“catastrophic caps” of the two-child limit and benefit cap, which
have been identified as key drivers of child poverty today. As
such, any child poverty strategy will be strangled at birth so
long as they continue.
While I welcome the six-month reprieve for the household support
fund, could we not use that time to design a longer-term
statutory programme that combined the fund with the existing
discretionary local welfare assistance scheme—which, at the last
count, 37 local authorities no longer run—so as to ensure a
proper safety net at local authority level?
In the last poverty debate, led so successfully by the noble
Lord, , the Minister reminded us that
the Government's approach is based on the importance of the role
of paid work in lifting people out of poverty, which was echoed
today by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. While there is general
agreement that access to paid work is important, it has to be
good work and have proper regard to caring responsibilities, and
it should not be imposed through the use of punitive mechanisms.
Unfortunately, none of those conditions applies at present.
Moreover, when two-thirds of children in poverty are in families
with at least one parent in paid work, it can only be a partial
solution. In response to a recent Oral Question, the Minister
responded to my call for a comprehensive cross-government child
poverty strategy with the rather tired argument that it could
drive action that simply moves the incomes of those “just in
poverty” across the poverty line,
“while doing nothing to help those on the very lowest incomes or
to improve children's future prospects[”.—[Official Report,
26/3/24; col.
576.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=&ColumnNumber=576&House=2&ExternalId=D560E907-6894-4071-B14D-4129FC815CB4)
Yet incomes are important and have been shown to make a real
difference to children's life chances. Depth of poverty
indicators could, and indeed should, be included in any future
targets, but the point of a comprehensive cross-government
strategy—local as well as central— is that it would address the
many facets of poverty that blight both childhood and children's
life chances. It would include all children, including those of
asylum seekers, refugees and migrants, whose poverty is the focus
of a joint report to be published tomorrow by the APPG on Poverty
and the APPG on Migration.
In conclusion, last week we lost a valiant crusader against child
poverty, . It is shameful
that the situation is worse today than it was when he and I
worked at the Child Poverty Action Group in the 1970s.
8.19pm
(LD)
My Lords, the share of children living in absolute poverty has
risen by its highest rate in 30 years. DWP figures show that that
increase was the largest since records began in 1994-95. As the
Library briefing tells us, UN findings show that the UK is an
outlier compared to other countries, but it is clear from those
reports that, with political will, child poverty can be
significantly reduced. For example, Poland, Slovenia, Latvia and
Lithuania have reduced poverty by more than 30%. In contrast,
five countries—France, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the
United Kingdom—saw increases in poverty of at least 10%; for the
United Kingdom, the increase was actually 20%. Perhaps we need to
look more closely at what others do as part of our strategy for
eradicating poverty.
In the UK, we see disadvantaged groups becoming even more
disadvantaged and deprived. Some 40% of children in Asian and
British Asian families were in poverty as well as 51% of children
in Black/African/Caribbean and Black British families, and 24% of
children in white families. Some 44% of children in lone-parent
families were in poverty—they are doubly disadvantaged, having
only one parent—and 34% of children living in families where
someone has a disability were in poverty.
The noble Lord, , said that he knows what the
experience of poverty is, so he wants to look more at the causes.
As far as I am concerned, the urgency of the situation needs to
be appreciated, including how difficult it is for so many. As a
former teacher, I have seen the situation for parents, for whom
anxiety about how to feed their families, choices about paying
for heating or food, and depending on free school meals and food
banks to feed their families all contribute to intense stress.
Yet 69% of children in poverty are in working families. This is
not just about unemployment and what we hear about universal
credit being about making people work; those in work are also
suffering intense poverty.
Benefit rates take no account of the cost of a healthy diet for
children who are growing and developing. A poor-quality diet
based on cheapness often results in obesity, poor health and
future lifelong health problems. The Government guide to a
healthy diet would cost a family on benefit around 70% of its
non-housing income.
Children may be directly disadvantaged in their development
through a lack of equipment, such as IT to do schoolwork and
homework, and by not attending educational visits and trips. Many
experience a lack of confidence through social isolation, which
can continue through life, affecting levels of ambition. Not
surprisingly, areas of high poverty are also the areas with
lowest attainment and educational outcomes.
Hunger is debilitating: insufficient food on a continual basis
affects mental and physical health, as well as the capacity to
learn. The economic cost of poverty is also high, as poor
children become poor adults, needing more support from public
services. The Child Poverty Action Group puts the cost of that at
£39 billion a year.
Many of the root causes of poverty, as the noble Baroness, Lady
Lister, said, lie with the benefits system, which, as she said,
actually worsens the situation for many families. The notorious
two-child limit has been the subject of much research, most
recently carried out by Nesta. It shows that, by 2035, 750,000
families will be affected by this policy. The two-child limit has
hugely increased pressure on and mental health problems for
parents and has a detrimental effect on children's development.
Ending the two-child limit would take 500,000 children out of
poverty.
A long-term strategy to tackle child poverty must address this as
well as the inadequately financed benefit system. Public spending
on families is only 60% of what it was in 2010. The strategy must
also address low-paid work with zero-hours contracts, no sick pay
and the lack of affordable childcare. Parents with children as
young as three, even lone parents, are required to look for work.
I support the aspirations of the noble Lord, , and thank him for his
campaigning work on poverty and for securing today's debate.
Sadly, there are lots of questions and although his passion is
very clear, we are still seeking the solutions. I do not think
that any of us has a magic cure, but we would all be willing to
join him in his campaign.
8.25pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, , for facilitating this
much-needed debate. In a country boasting a record number of
billionaires and where the top 1% has more wealth than 70% of the
population combined, condemning 4.3 million children to poverty
is really a political choice. There is no economic necessity for
it whatever. Governments have bailed out banks and energy
companies and handed billions in subsidies to rail, oil, gas,
auto, steel and internet companies. They can eradicate child
poverty too, if there is appropriate political will. Rescuing
people from poverty will also stimulate the economy because poor
people tend to spend more in the local economy, which has a
considerable multiplier effect.
This Government have accelerated poverty by cutting real wages.
The average real wage is now lower than in 2008. Austerity,
unchecked profiteering, and the two-child benefit cap,
accompanied by regressive tax policies, have deepened poverty.
The poorest pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than
the richest. The richest fifth of households pay 31% of gross
household income in direct taxes, compared with 14% by the
poorest fifth. The richest fifth pay 9% of their disposable
income in indirect taxes, compared with 28% by the poorest fifth.
Can the Minister explain why the Government have not reduced
indirect taxes, which would help the poorest households?
The Government actually have numerous policy options. They can
reform corporate governance. For example, evidence shows that
having worker-elected directors on the boards of large companies
helps to secure equitable distribution of income and to lift
families and children out of poverty. Since 2010, the Government
have handed £695 billion of quantitative easing to capital market
speculators. Will the Minister also support a call for QE to
alleviate poverty? Why not?
The Government can also remove the two-child benefit cap and
inflation-proof benefits by eliminating anomalies and the tax
perks of the rich. For example, they can cap tax relief on
charitable donations for donors at 20%. At the moment, the rich
get tax relief at 40% and 45%. By capping this tax relief, the
Government could generate £740 million a year extra, which could
easily fund free school meals for children. By taxing capital
gains at the same rates as wages, another £12 billion a year of
extra revenue could be raised. Similarly, by taxing dividends at
the same rate as wages, another £4 billion to £5 billion a year
could be raised in revenue. By capping tax relief on pension
contributions to 20% for all, the Government could generate an
additional £14.5 billion a year of revenues. These are just some
examples of how the Government could generate resources to
alleviate child poverty, and, of course, I could offer up further
options, if the Minister so wishes, either in this House or even
privately. I hope the Minister will consider these things.
Finally, will the Minister acknowledge that child poverty is a
political choice by the Government and not an economic
necessity?
8.29pm
The Lord
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, , for securing this debate and
for his passion and his challenge. Like the noble Lord, I come
from a poor London Irish family, but from south of the river, if
that is allowed. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady
Lister, about the causes of child poverty and that they are
systemic, and about the potential for changing them—not by
exceptionalism, as may have applied in our cases.
As the , I am very conscious that
in greater Lincolnshire I see vibrant resilient communities but,
in the midst of a commendable spirit, there are considerable
challenges. The effects of deep poverty feel widespread and
tangible in a way that I have not seen since I began as a priest
in the mid-1980s. Damp, low-quality accommodation, particularly
in the private rented sector, has an impact felt particularly by
children at crucial stages of their development. In response to
this, the Archbishops' Commission on Housing, Church and
Community set out five values for good housing: it should be
safe, sociable, sustainable, satisfying and secure. Failure to
deliver this only serves to entrench child poverty.
I worry particularly about the impact of intergenerational
poverty. In many of our communities, the lack of employment and
social opportunities is apparent. The industries that used to
sustain towns such as Grimsby have changed. We have a fishing
plant but no longer a resident fishing fleet. That affects
employment prospects and a sense of pride in place. Children are
profoundly affected by that context as they grow up.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies recently published a report to
mark the 25th anniversary of the introduction of Sure Start
centres, highlighting the extraordinary difference that these
made to the educational outcomes of children who engaged with
them or even those who lived near them. This second aspect
explains why children living in poverty in rural areas in other
parts of Lincolnshire and elsewhere did not benefit as much as
those in urban areas. It is simply because those living in the
countryside did not have the same access.
Partly this is a question of infrastructure—the transport links
to ensure that services can be accessed. However, I wonder
whether it is also a question of priorities of government and
others. The recent Hidden Hardship report noted that
disadvantaged young people in remote rural areas are 50% less
likely to gain two or more A-levels or enter university than
those living in major cities. A similarly ambitious approach to
child poverty 25 years on from Sure Start must always keep in
mind the rural context. What assessment is being made of the
particular needs of rural communities as the Government assess
the root causes of child poverty?
The noble Lord, , issued a challenge to the
Church in relation to doing away with poverty, particularly child
poverty. There is a crisis of capacity in the voluntary sector.
Churches will continue to run toddler groups and open warm spaces
where they are needed. Yet churches do not have an endless supply
of volunteers. The real challenge for all of us is to think about
what facilities we can make not just for children's physical and
food education, not only for their access to services and
schools, but to think about what access they have to
relationship-building and hope. A generation of hope is one of
the most important things in this—giving children the possibility
of confidence. One of the hidden areas of poverty in terms of
relationships is the number of children who are child carers,
looking after their single and sick parent. This is not being
acknowledged much at all publicly. Often, one child is
responsible for all their younger siblings.
One of the most impressive places which I visited recently,
having done so several times, is the St John St Stephen &
Shalom youth centre in Grimsby, in East Marsh, which has been
celebrating its 50th anniversary. I never witnessed this before,
but there is a plaque on the wall outside commemorating those
former members of the centre who have been murdered or have died
through drug-related incidents. This is the place where, over 50
years, 5,000-plus children and young people have been offered
hope and the chance to build successful relationships with safe
adults outside of their immediate family. I applaud this and hope
that examples such as St John St Stephen & Shalom youth
centre give us an incentive and hope not to give up on these
children but to work with them and for them, in that way to
transform our whole society.
8.34pm
of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, , for securing this debate and
for introducing it in his typically powerful, inimitable style.
However, I am afraid that I have to disagree with him that
poverty is a characteristic of individuals, families or
communities. It is a condition imposed on individuals,
communities, families, cities and countries by an economic system
that directs large amounts of resources to the few and denies
them to the many. People are robbed of the shared resources that
have been created by past generations and maintained by the
labour of the current generation, many of whom are now living in
poverty.
If we think back to the Covid pandemic, there was a focus on
essential workers such as delivery drivers, supermarket shelf
stackers, and care workers, and many of their children are those
who are living in poverty. I also have to disagree with the noble
Lord about social housing. Decent housing is a human right. It
should be an essential service provided by our society. We have
almost forgotten that back in 1979 almost half the British
population lived in social housing. Back then, the rate of
poverty was 13.7%; in 2023, the figure was 22%. The destruction
of social housing is a significant factor in that.
I want to address the term “child poverty”. We have become used
to “poverty” coming with a qualifier. We often talk about food
poverty, energy poverty, period poverty and hygiene poverty.
There is a risk with those qualifiers that we lose sight of the
essential situation. We have a society that is riven with
poverty, with lives right across the age groups blighted by the
inability to access the basics of a decent life.
The State of Ageingreport released last November showed that 20%
of retired people do not have enough income to meet their basic
needs and 25% of people aged 60 to 64 are living in poverty. That
pretty well matches the figures that have already been cited for
children. One in five—2.6 million in total—are living in absolute
poverty before housing costs, with one in four—3.6 million—in
poverty after housing costs.
Many in this House if asked to define a successful economy would
use that hoary old chestnut, gross domestic product, and point to
the growth from 2010 when the current governing party came to
power. In 2010, the GDP was £1.87 trillion; in 2023, it was £2.27
trillion. Apparently, that is a sign of progress and success.
Yet, I and the Green Party say that the job of our economy and
our society is to meet everybody's basic needs, while caring for
the environment on which all our lives and “the economy” depend.
If we use that as a judgment, what a failure that growth has
been.
Why is that the case? The noble Lord, , challenged us with the “why”. I
am going to use the “D” word—distribution. We have a society that
profoundly misdistributes our resources, not to mention destroys
our environment. Growth over decades has benefited the few, while
the lives of the many have gone backwards. The root cause of
child poverty—and poverty—is our failure to distribute fairly the
goods and services of which our society has plenty. Our current
economic system and our benefits system have failed. We have
failed to maintain and support the basic physical and social
infrastructure of our communities.
There are, however, many reasons why child poverty is a
particular tragedy. Anyone now under the age of 18—a child—has
had no part in creating the system they have to live in. Anyone
under the age of 22 has had no say in our Westminster politics,
yet they live every day with the consequences. They suffer not
just from poverty and a lack of access to resources but from a
lack of access to power.
That poverty is defining the shape of those children's bodies and
of their lives. As the head of an education trust in east
Yorkshire, Jonny Uttley of the Education Alliance, reported, what
does child poverty mean? It means regularly going to school
hungry. It means not having the money for lunch. It means not
being able to wash your sports kit. It means being unable to
sleep at night because of cold, and how do you study the next day
if you have not been able to sleep?
It is important to draw on the work of the Centre for Cities,
acknowledging how this maldistribution is regional as well as by
household. It found that the cities where the child poverty
figures are the worst are overwhelmingly concentrated in the
north of England and the Midlands. A child in Burnley is four
times as likely to be in absolute poverty as a child in
Cambridge, and a child in Manchester is twice as likely to be in
absolute poverty as a child in London—yet we have had lots of
growth.
We need a plan to tackle child poverty. We need first to
acknowledge a failure of our economy, the failure of our society
and, at its base, the failure of our politics, not just over the
last 14 years but over decades. Power and resources are
concentrated here in Westminster; Westminster has failed. The
politics and the ideology since the Second World War have failed.
We need a new kind of politics and a new political system.
Given I have a minute more, I will focus on one issue that a
number of noble Lords have already raised, which is the two-child
benefit cap. Six out of 10 families affected by that have at
least one member in work. Almost half are single parents. If we
continue with the current plan, half of families with three or
more children will be in poverty by 2028-29. That is up from a
third in 2013-14, when the policy was introduced. I give as a
case study Frances, who lives in London. Her third child was a
baby when her relationship broke down. She now has children aged
11, six and three. She had to leave her job because she could not
afford childcare. She was a business administrator. She was not
in any way a classic person in poverty, yet the two-child benefit
limit is putting her in poverty. The Minister has already been
challenged on this and I am afraid I am going to challenge the
Labour Front Bench: surely Labour will have to abolish the
two-child benefit cap in government.
8.42pm
(Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to be able to speak in the gap, because,
like the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Meacher, and many
others, I worked for for four years. I was paid a
poverty wage—£12 a week. I was not born in poverty, but I spent
10 years of my life immersing myself in the issues of poverty at
the CPAG, encouraging families below the poverty level to keep
expenditure diaries. That revealed that if you do not know where
the next penny is coming from then you cannot possibly spend
economically. Of course, you can budget carefully if you have a
stable income, but if you have no idea when you are going to be
in work or out of work, in your house, with your partner or
without your partner, and maybe you have not had the best
education, it is really difficult.
Interestingly, I will remember for ever a West Indian woman
working below the poverty level who budgeted and fed her children
nutritiously, but she had been brought up understanding about
poverty in the West Indies. She came from a culture of poverty
that could cope, unlike so many others. It is an interesting
point about how you can give people the equipment to manage and
to cope.
This was a time of working poor. Keith Joseph, later Lord Joseph,
who basically made me a Tory, introduced family income support.
It was a time when the trade unions were not at all keen on
family benefit. I went to the T&G with the noble Baroness,
Lady Meacher, to try to persuade that union to support child
benefit going to the woman—a stable income. It was very reluctant
because it liked supporting income for the man, and all the trade
unions then were really male dominated. The world has
changed.
There were three people in my life who really cared about
poverty. Lord Keith Joseph was the first to talk about the cycle
of deprivation. I was at the Pre-school Playgroups Association
AGM in Church House when he made his speech about the cycle of
deprivation—leaving school early, having no qualifications,
having your first child early, and a vicious cycle of poverty. He
was criticised for it, but I think few would doubt it now.
The next person who cared about poverty was the late Lord . He did not talk only about
benefits. My noble friend—sorry, the noble Baroness; she is my
friend, but I should not refer to her like that—knows all there
is to know about benefits; she has a forensic knowledge. But Lord
Field had a wider view. He used to talk about being a five-star
parent. He felt strongly about parenting and about families.
The third person is the noble Lord, . Now, I do not agree with a word
he says, but I absolutely agree with his passion. To say there
are no university departments that take poverty seriously is
daft—go to Hull, to LSE, to Essex. To say that the Resolution
Foundation, the Child Poverty Action Group and the Joseph
Rowntree Foundation do not know all about poverty—they do, and
they are very knowledgeable. But what the noble Lord is so right
about is that he is passionate, and he is not going to give
up.
Now, remember the maiden speech of the noble Lord, . He talked about his probation
officer, who basically told him to get a grip and get a job. He
talked about Baroness Wootton, a great heroine of mine and
juvenile court chairman. My concern is that we can be very
patronising and dismissive about poverty, but why do some people
get through? Last week, I was with , who certainly ought to be
; why has the Labour Party not
put in the House of Lords? Please
do so, urgently. He is now the Chancellor of the University of
Hull, where I was for 17 years. His upbringing was appalling: he
was brought up by his mother, who died very young, and then by
his sister. How has he become such a success? Some of this
relates to the individual, and the ability of people to get
through.
I will ask the Minister two questions, because I know I have gone
on for too long. A lot of this is about parental conflict, and he
leads the department's Reducing Parental Conflict programme. What
can the Minister tell us about reducing parental conflict? I want
him to tell us about child maintenance developments, and the
childcare programme.
I congratulate the noble Lord, , and when he grows up, I hope he
will become as good as Lord Field.
8.47pm
(LD)
My Lords, we should all congratulate the noble Lord, , on enabling us to have this
debate, because it is timely, in view of the fact that within a
few months, we will have had a general election and there will be
a new Government. In my view, that Government must see that
reducing child poverty should be a very high priority. As the
noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, said, the root causes
of child poverty are systemic. She is right.
The debate has been extremely interesting, in that it has thrown
out a range of ideas that we might look at. The noble Earl, Lord
Effingham, for example, said a number of things about school,
diet and finance that could be explored further.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone, talked about
Lord Joseph, who knew that we had to do something about the cycle
of deprivation. The problem, as the noble Lord, , said, is that we still have
that, in that we have the inheritance of poverty. We have the
inheritance of wealth on the one hand, but the inheritance of
poverty on the other. How do we break out of that? Given that 10%
of our young people aged 16 to 24 are not in education,
employment or training, you have to intervene at an individual
level to assist those who want to be in work, education or
training, but who cannot be, for a variety of reasons. I would
like to think that one might have individual work coaches for
those not participating in the opportunities available to
them.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, , about social housing. I
understand the point he is making, but children need a secure,
decent home, and for many that will only be—
(CB)
I agree with the noble Lord. Children do need a secure home, but
the real problem is that all the conditions that lead you to need
social housing mean that you never have a full life. I say to
anybody in this House: try living in social housing, and then try
to get to university or into a skilled job. That very rarely
happens; that is the only problem. For me, the problem is not
that social housing is not one of the most beautiful things in
creation. The question is: what are we going to do to make social
housing the foundation for a growth away from poverty and
need?
(LD)
I take the noble Lord's point, and I understand. Perhaps that is
why we need a broader, longer discussion. From my perspective,
housing waiting lists are so long, and the quality of so many
homes in the private rented sector is so poor, that the need to
build decent homes within the sector for social rent seems
imperative. Without that we will never solve the housing
crisis.
Social housing providers can have a responsibility for providing
wider support services, particularly for getting people into work
and for giving help and advice to those who suffer from ill
health. Estate officers can often do things to assist families or
individuals that they would not be able to do if it were not for
social housing. Maybe we need to have that longer debate.
I understand totally what the noble Lord was saying about a
ministry of poverty prevention. Of course, all Whitehall
departments are supposed to be doing things to reduce poverty,
but the main one is the Treasury. It is about persuading the
Treasury to invest more in things such as social housing that
might help to reduce poverty.
There is an issue around income disparity. The first thing that
has to be done to reduce poverty is reducing income disparity.
That is why we have to deal with low pay, and make every effort
to increase the minimum wage and the living wage above the rate
of inflation so that those in lower pay brackets have more.
Mention has been made of absolute poverty and relative poverty.
The truth is that too many children are being brought up in
households with very low incomes. That is always poverty, whether
it is absolute, relative or deep. We have heard the figures of
4.3 million children living in relatively low-income households
and 2.9 million children in deep poverty—a household where income
after housing costs is below 50% of median income.
All those tests are based on income, whereas child poverty
derives from long-term unemployment, low qualifications, ill
health, poverty of aspiration and poverty of opportunity. All
those need tackling by the different Whitehall departments that
the noble Lord, , talked about.
If levelling up is to be a success for the Government, child
poverty needs to be addressed. The point is that levelling up is
about people, not places. It is about individual children, and
hence the two-child limit seems wrong. It was introduced in 2017,
seven years ago. The Resolution Foundation has told us that it
increased poverty, particularly for families with three or more
children. It should cease, as it is increasing poverty in poor
households. All the organisations that one can think of—the
National Association of Head Teachers, the Church of England,
Save the Children, the Child Poverty Action Group and
Barnardo's—say that it should cease.
As the right reverend Prelate the reminded us, Sure Start
was a success. It was introduced in 1999 to improve child
development. Some 250 projects were created, concentrated in
places where high numbers of children under five were living in
poverty. Those centres helped with play, learning, health and
childcare. I recall that, when I was leader of Newcastle City
Council, we had a major success with our Sure Start centres. It
is about aspiration and addressing some of the issues that the
noble Earl, Lord Effingham, reminded us of.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies said in a recent report that the
programme of Sure Start paid for itself with better GCSE results,
improved skills in literacy and numeracy, personal development,
and fewer interactions with the police and criminal justice
system. It is a means of achieving what the noble Lord, , set out asking us to do, which
is to spend more money on prevention rather than on solving the
problems that poverty has created. There was too short a judgment
in 2010, when there was a change of Government and an end to Sure
Start. Too many people thought that it had not proved itself but,
if a longer timescale had been taken, they would have known that
it had.
Something needs to be created in a new Government. It may be
called Sure Start or something else, but we need something like
that, which intervenes with those who live in poor
households.
8.57pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, , for securing this debate and
all noble Lords who have spoken. Before I say anything more, I
add my reflection to those of my noble friend Lady Lister and the
noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, in memory of Lord Field. He was
an example to all of us of what it means to take a whole lifetime
and yet, at the end, never cease to be outraged by the level of
child poverty in a rich country. We all owe him a debt.
Tonight's debate has highlighted the multifaceted nature of
poverty. Whenever we have debates on poverty, there is always a
temptation for some people to say that it is not about money and
other people to say that it is only about money. Manifestly
neither is correct. It is not just about money but it is not not
about money either. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, the right
reverend Prelate the and other noble Lords
made a very clear point of explaining what happens when you
simply do not have enough money. If that is the case, all the
strategies and all the preventive work in the world does not help
you feed your kids that night; you simply cannot afford to do
it.
On the basic level of access to resources, Britain is not in a
good place. Over a fifth of our population lives in relative
poverty. I know that the Government prefer absolute poverty as a
measure, probably because it normally falls as real incomes rise,
but, in the latest statistics in the document Households Below
Average Income, we learned that the share of people living in
absolute poverty is going up again, as the noble Baroness, Lady
Janke, pointed out. There are 600,000 more people, half of them
children, living in absolute poverty, in what is still one of the
richest countries in the world by global standards. We should not
be in this space.
Look at how this cashes out. The IFS has been pointing out that
the number in material deprivation rose by 3 million in the three
years to last year. In that same time, the proportion of those
who could not adequately heat their homes jumped from just 4% to
11%. I must say to the Minister that, although the Government
chose to give people cost of living support, they gave the same
amount of money to everybody, whether a single person living in a
studio flat or somebody with a family living in a larger house.
As a result, the official statistics said:
“Incomes for those with children reduced the most. This reflects
the flat nature of the cost of living and additional support
payments, meaning for larger households they are split between
more household members”.
Have the Government reflected on the best way to support people
in these circumstances?
I fully accept that it is about not just incomes but support and
opportunity. But child poverty has combined with the impact of 14
years of public service neglect, frankly, and the differential
impacts of the pandemic to produce an attainment gap between
children who experienced deprivation and their peers, with a
lifelong impact on their life chances.
What should happen now? The last Labour Government lifted 2
million children and pensioners out of poverty. I know the noble
Lord, , said at the start that he
thinks, essentially, “A plague on all your houses. None of you
has done anything”, but I am proud that the last Labour
Government introduced Sure Start. As the noble Lord, , pointed out, not only did it
have an effect at the time but children had better GCSEs later as
a result of having been part of Sure Start back then. I had a
privilege of being part of the Treasury team working with on questions of poverty when
Sure Start was being introduced.
(CB)
I just want to say that I used Sure Start. In spite of
appearances, I was a very young father, and it was the most
wonderful thing. I lived on the largest housing estate in south
London and Sure Start was absolutely brilliant, so I am 100%
behind it.
(Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that. One of the
most depressing points of my career, frankly, was coming into the
Lords in 2010 and having to sit on the Opposition Benches
watching everything that I had worked on introducing being
dismantled stage by stage in the name of austerity. However, we
are where we are.
What should happen now? If the British people were to trust
Labour again in an election—and obviously I hope they will—then
we would want to introduce a mission-driven Government, and one
of our five key missions would be to break down the barriers to
opportunity for every child at every stage, with a strategy to
tackle child poverty. It would be the responsibility of all
government departments to tackle the fundamental drivers of
poverty. We would address that by having cross-departmental
mission boards looking at exactly how that was being driven
across departments.
We would focus on increasing the number of young people in
education, employment or training. We would look to reform
childcare and early years support, introduce free breakfast
clubs, and improve school standards. I agree with the noble Earl,
Lord Effingham, about the importance of the nutritional content
of school food and of access to sports.
On financial education, I am split. I agree with the noble Earl
about the importance of financial education. However, recently I
have met people who work for charities that traditionally have
given debt advice. They told me in the past they would bring
people in, sit them down, look at all the sources of income and
all their outgoings, and help them to manage their budgets. They
are now saying that more and more—sometimes most—of the people
they come across literally do not have enough money to do it.
Their budgets cannot be balanced; even the charity workers cannot
balance them, with all their skills in financial education and
management. So we have something of a crisis here. We need people
who can manage to be taught how to manage well, while those who
simply cannot manage it, however good they are, need to be helped
to find a way through that. We would therefore want to support
our social security system, strengthen rights to representation
at work, improve social security and extend sick pay. We would
boost wages by removing the minimum wage bands and expanding the
remit of the Low Pay Commission.
We would want to tackle the housing crisis by retrofitting homes,
strengthening renters' rights and building more social and
affordable housing. I take the underlying point that the noble
Lord, , is making: decent, affordable
and safe housing is a necessary but not sufficient condition to
enable people to move out of poverty. It is both of those things.
It is necessary because many of the people who would not be in
social housing would otherwise be in bed and breakfasts,
insecurely housed or, even worse, out on the streets.
We need nothing short of national renewal in this country. It
will not happen overnight and will not be easy, but it should
surely be the priority of any Government to guarantee opportunity
to all our children. That is something I think we can all get
behind.
9.03pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work
and Pensions () (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to close this important debate on
addressing the root causes of child poverty. It will be
interesting to check with Hansard on whether this is indeed a
first, as the noble Lord, , said, in focusing on root
causes as a subject.
I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions and the
noble Lord, , in particular, for securing
this debate, as well as the debate on a similar topic in
February. Once again, his s=-peech was a tour de force, reminding
us why the noble Lord is in this House. I also pay tribute to my
noble friend Lady Bottomley for giving us a historical
perspective on this subject, with a few namechecks that went
back, I think it is fair to say, several decades.
I echo the words of several Peers about . The first line of
the statement given out by his family, which was issued by his
parliamentary office, was interesting:
“Frank was an extraordinary individual who spent his life
fighting poverty, injustice and environmental destruction”—
that is rather telling. As Sir said in his statement, he was an
“independent thinker”, and we must applaud that. I would like to
say that he was a thoroughly decent man and, crucially, one of
our country's great influencers. That is an important point to
make.
As I said earlier, this is an important topic, and I believe we
all recognise that child poverty is a complex issue that can be
associated with a range of factors, including worklessness, poor
educational attainment, inadequate housing, parental conflict and
poor mental health. Many people who experience poverty face a
range of barriers, which can make it difficult for them to manage
and move on with their lives. I will say more about this later in
my speech, and I acknowledge the different reasons for poverty
that have been spoken to.
I will mention the annual statistics published last month. On the
remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I doubt we will
ever agree, but I took note of what she said. None of us wants to
see child poverty increasing, and I share the concern expressed
about this. The latest statistics cover 2022-23—please note that
period—when global supply chain pressures, partly linked to the
war in Ukraine, led to high rates of inflation, averaging 10%
over the year, and food price inflation that reached a high of
19.1% in March 2023, which is not so long ago. These factors are
reflected in the latest statistics.
In response, the Government provided unprecedented cost of living
support worth £96 billion over the period 2022-23 and 2023-24,
including £20 billion for two rounds of cost of living payments.
This additional support prevented 1.3 million people, including
300,000 children, falling into absolute poverty—our measure—after
housing costs in 2022-23. Since then, we have taken further
action to support those on low incomes, including uprating
benefits and pensions by 10.1% last year. The noble Baroness,
Lady Lister, may not like the fact that I am reminding her of
this, as she said. The latest statistics show that 1.1 million
fewer people were in absolute poverty after housing costs in
2022-23 than in 2009-10, including 100,000 fewer children. I will
stick with those statistics.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Janke, and the noble
Lord, , who is not in his place, asked
about the two-child policy. We believe that those on benefits
should face the same financial choices when deciding to grow
their families as those supporting themselves solely through
work. On 9 July 2021 the Supreme Court handed down the judicial
review judgment on the two-child policy, finding that it was
lawful and not in breach of the European Convention on Human
Rights.
of Manor Castle (GP)
I question the point about making a choice about having a child.
People fall into poverty and need benefits after they have had a
child. What do they do then?
(Con)
Of course, and the noble Baroness will know that I have spoken at
length on this matter and that there are a number of exceptions
to this particular policy. But I stick to our view that there is
a balance to be struck between helping those people in the way
that we do, not having the two-child policy and, equally, being
fair to the taxpayer. I know that the noble Baroness will never
agree to that.
(Lab)
Does the Minister accept that many of these families are
taxpayers and in paid work?
(Con)
Absolutely. As I have said before, I do not think that we will
agree at all on this—but, as I say, we are not minded to move on
this policy. Both noble Baronesses will be well aware of our
position on this.
There are encouraging signs that the economy has now turned a
corner. Inflation has more than halved from its peak, delivering
on the Prime Minister's pledge, and is forecast to fall below 2%
in 2024-25. Food price inflation is at its lowest since January
2022, at 4%, and wages are rising in real terms. We remain
committed to a strong welfare system for those families who need
it, and have uprated working-age benefits by a further 6.7% from
this month and raised the local housing allowance to the 30th
percentile of local rents, benefiting 1.6 million private renters
in 2024-25.
Some questions were raised by the right reverend Prelate the
and also alluded to by
the noble Lord, , about social housing, which
is an important subject. Their questions were linked to items of
damp and mould; they asked what the Government were going to do
about this. The Government have now introduced Awaab's law
through the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, which gives the
Secretary of State powers to set out new requirements for social
landlords to address hazards such as damp and mould in social
homes within fixed time periods. We are now analysing the
responses to the consultation, and then we will publish a
response setting out findings and bringing for secondary
legislation as soon as possible.
What I should say, which think was alluded to by the noble
Baroness, Lady Bennett, is that everyone has a right to a safe
and decent home. Since 2001, the decent homes standard, the
so-called DHS, has played a key role in providing a minimum
quality standard that social homes should meet. We are currently
reviewing the DHS to ensure that it sets the right requirements
for decency, and we will publish a consultation on a proposed new
standard soon.
(CB)
I am not against social housing—I am for social housing—but I
want to break out of the situation whereby, if you get into
social housing, you tend to fall behind everybody else. On what
the Minister is saying about how they are going to change the
requirements on social landlords, social landlords should be
turning their tenants into people who can have a larger life and
can get out of poverty. For most of them, even if they get into
work, it is always in the low-wage economy, and they stay there.
What are the Government doing about breaking the low-wage economy
that many people in poverty find themselves in, who are often in
social housing?
(Con)
Indeed, I will allude to the cross-government work that is going
on. It may be that it requires a letter to write on that point,
but I shall allude to it later, if I have the time.
Altogether this year we will have spent £306 billion through the
welfare system in Great Britain, including around £138 billion on
people of working age and children. This includes additional
support to ensure the best start in life for children. For
example, we have extended free school meal eligibility several
times and to more groups of children than any other Government
over the past half century. They are now claimed by more than 2
million of the most disadvantaged pupils. In addition, healthy
food schemes provide a nutritional safety net for more than 3
million children. For those who need extra help with essentials,
as inflation continues to fall, we are providing an additional
£500 million for the extension of the household support fund in
England, for a further six months, including funding for the
devolved Administrations.
While it is right that we maintain a strong welfare safety net,
we know that having parents who work, particularly full-time,
plays a key role in reducing the risk of child poverty. My noble
friend Lord Effingham mentioned this. In 2022-23, children living
in workless households were more than six times more likely to be
in absolute poverty after housing costs than those where all
adults work. This is clear evidence of why, with more than
900,000 vacancies across the UK, our focus is firmly on ensuring
that parents get the right support to find work and succeed in
work. Our policies include: our generous universal credit
childcare offer for working parents; our in-work progression
offer; further increases to the national living wage to £11.44 an
hour; and national insurance cuts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about making the housing
support fund permanent. The HSF is not the only way we are
supporting people on lower incomes. April's benefit uprating of
6.7% will see an average increase in universal credit of £470.
Raising the national living wage will deliver an increase of over
£1,800 to the gross annual earnings of someone working full-time
on that wage. Uplifting the local housing allowance to the 30th
percentile of local rents, as mentioned earlier, will benefit 1.6
million private renters by an average of £800 per year.
The noble Lord, , and the noble Baronesses, Lady
Lister and Lady Bennett, asked whether we accepted that a
strategy was now needed. I did promise to try to answer this. We
have consistently set out a sustainable long-term approach to
tackling child poverty, based on evidence about the important
role of work in substantially reducing the risk of child poverty.
I am very aware of the interest that the noble Lord, , takes in this, and I reassure
the House that Ministers continue to work across and beyond
departmental boundaries to ensure that we take a co-ordinated
approach to supporting vulnerable and low-income households. This
includes a cross-government senior officials group on poverty, as
well as bilaterals and meetings with external anti-poverty
stakeholders. The noble Lord, , is right that Treasury input
to this is vital.
I return to the question of childcare raised by the noble
Baroness, Lady Bottomley. She asked what extra support we are
providing to parents. The Department for Work and Pensions and
the Department for Education work closely together to ensure that
there is a comprehensive childcare offer that reflects different
family circumstances, covering children over a range of ages.
Earlier, I mentioned some of the problems families in poverty
face which mean that they can struggle to move into work and
improve their financial circumstances. This Government offer a
range of programmes to help people address these complex
underlying challenges, so that they can take their first steps
towards securing better outcomes for their families.
I applaud my noble friend Lord Effingham for making a number of
interesting points. The noble Lord, , put it well when he said that
they were interesting contributions to the debate. I agree with
many of the points that he made.
The pupil premium funds schools to help improve educational
outcomes and close attainment gaps for disadvantaged children in
state-funded schools in England. Funding for this is increasing
to over £2.9 billion in the year 2024-25. That is £80 million
more than last year.
We are taking significant action to improve children's health,
which is another important point. This includes dramatically
reducing sugar in children's food, investing over £600 million to
improve the quality of sport for children, and encouraging
healthy diets for lower-income families through schemes such as
Healthy Start. We are also investing £2.3 billion a year in
mental health services.
The Money and Pensions Service's UK Strategy for Financial
Wellbeing is a 10-year framework to help everyone make the most
of their money. It has set out five goals to be achieved by 2030,
including to see 2 million more children and young people
receiving meaningful financial education.
One example of the support that we are giving is the Supporting
Families programme, which is now the responsibility of DfE. This
has funded local authorities to help almost 637,000 families
experiencing multiple disadvantages to make sustained
improvements with their problems.
A network of 300 supporting families employment advisers,
specialist DWP work coaches, work with the programme, providing
employment support that is helping almost 10,000 families,
resulting in around 200 job starts every month.
My noble friend Lady Bottomley mentioned Reducing Parental
Conflict. This is very close to my heart—I am directly
responsible for it in government—and we have £33 million-worth of
funding available from 2022 up until next year, 2025. This
programme has enabled local authorities to support couples to
address conflict in their relationship, which has helped to
deliver positive impacts for children over no less than three
major evaluations at the end of last year. We are also looking to
see how we can ingrain that in the Child Maintenance Service,
which again is my responsibility. I feel very passionate about
it, and the work we do, by the way, helps to take 160,000
children out of poverty each year, and there is always more to be
done.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Bennett, spoke about
childcare, and I want to give a quick response. The department is
aware that, for some universal credit claimants, childcare costs
present challenges to entering employment. To support people to
become financially resilient by moving into work and progressing
in work, eligible UC claimants can claim back up to 85% of their
registered childcare costs each month, regardless of the number
of hours that they work, compared to 70% in tax credits.
The right reverend Prelate the is not in his place, and
I am not sure why. I think I will write to him rather than answer
him when he is not in his place. He asked about rural
communities.
I shall conclude, given the hour, by reassuring the House again
of the importance we place on this matter. The early years, as I
am sure the noble Lord will agree, are vital to securing good
outcomes for children, and that is why we continue to work across
government to ensure the best start for all children, including
through our early years childcare provision and funding for
school breakfast clubs. We understand that many families still
face challenges, we are not shying away from that, and we will
continue to work to ensure that the welfare system supports
families who need it. To conclude, with inflation falling towards
target and the economy beginning to turn a corner—perhaps green
shoots; I do hope so—it is right that we continue to support
parents to meet their responsibilities towards their children by
seeking employment opportunities wherever that is possible.
|
