Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to introduce this debate on the first UK-wide child poverty strategy, and strategy for England, since 2010, during which time child poverty, particularly deep child poverty, has worsened. I am grateful to the noble Lords taking part, and I hope that the debate will provide an opportunity to highlight some of the strategy’s strengths and to suggest where it might go further in tackling child poverty effectively. One of the strategy’s great strengths has been the taskforce’s wide engagement with stakeholders, including, in particular, parents and children with experience of poverty. Four of those parents, who were involved in the Changing Realities participatory project, said in the foreword: “We have experienced genuine listening and collaboration, and it has been encouraging to feel that our lived experience can and should influence policy solutions”. There is a commitment to continuing this engagement as part of the strategy’s evaluation and development, which I will return to. Although the strategy document itself did not mention children’s rights, a subsequent child rights impact assessment, published alongside a child-friendly version of the strategy, emphasises: “From the outset, development of the strategy has been guided by a children’s rights approach”, and that this will continue by “involving children in monitoring its impact”, which is very welcome. Another very positive aspect of the strategy document is its language and tone. It makes a very strong case for action on child poverty, starting with the Prime Minister’s foreword, setting out both the moral case and its importance as an economic and social investment in our future. Child poverty costs us, as a society. Moreover, the document recognises the key role played by social security and, indeed, uses that term rather than what has become the pejorative language of “welfare”. The tone is a far cry from the dominant false narrative of a “ballooning” welfare budget. A companion evidence pack spells out how previous cuts mean that basic benefit levels are worth “significantly less” than in 2010-11, and how this has contributed to the worsening of child poverty. This lays the ground for the most important and welcome policy shift: the total abolition of the heinous two-child limit, which I will not dwell on because we have already debated it, other than to remind noble Lords that its abolition represents the single most effective means of reducing child poverty at a stroke, supported by modest real increases in the universal credit standard allowance for the rest of this Parliament. According to the latest published official estimate, abolition of the limit will reduce the number of children in poverty by 550,000 by 2030, and as many as 7.1 million children will be in gaining households, of whom 1.4 million are in deep material poverty. Nevertheless, official projections suggest that there will still be around 4 million children—29% of all children—in poverty at the end of this Parliament, and Barnardo’s warns that the depth and severity of poverty could worsen further. The challenge facing the Government is a measure of the dire situation inherited from the previous Government. As the Resolution Foundation warns, the strategy is still working against economic forces and other policy choices that could weaken its impact. One such policy choice is the retention of the benefit cap, which is a key driver of deep poverty, especially among single-parent families. I know that removal of the cap is not government policy, even though evidence suggests its impact on employment has been pretty minimal, while the hardship caused is considerable. However, at the very least, I ask, yet again, for them to consider ways of mitigating its impact, including annual uprating of the threshold limits. According to CPAG, of which I am honorary president, if they had been uprated in line with inflation since 2016, they would be 26% higher now. The other main social security omission is the failure to end the freeze on housing allowance, which aggravates poverty among families living in the private rented sector. More generally, there is no hint of the further investment in social security that is needed if it is to provide for a decent life, genuine security and a healthy diet, as argued by the Food Foundation. Yet analysis suggests that, as the record of the last Labour Government shows: “We can only get significant and lasting reductions in child poverty by investing in our social security system”. The same analysis, published by CASE at the LSE, also shows that “changes in parental employment, whilst important, will never deliver change to child poverty rates on the scale we need to see”. We should remember that nearly three-quarters of children in poverty live in working households. Certainly, there are reforms that could ensure that paid work is more effective in tackling child poverty, as recent analysis by Action for Children and the IPPR demonstrates. However, it will never be the silver bullet that some politicians suggest. One such reform that the Government are very aware of is childcare, which is again of particular importance to single-parent families. The IPPR and Action for Children research underlined just how important childcare is to both finding and progressing in paid work, especially for mothers, whose poverty is still inextricably linked to that of their children. Childcare is an important element in the holistic approach taken by the strategy. Other important elements include action on homelessness and the use of bed and breakfast accommodation; reduction in some of the costs of education—which is crucial if every child is to achieve and thrive at school—including the very welcome extension of free school meals; improved maintenance provisions; and strengthened local services, especially those prioritising prevention. These are aimed as much at reducing the impact of child poverty as its incidence but are nevertheless welcome. Here, I wish attention could have been paid to how services are delivered, as the experience of poverty is worsened when service users feel they are not treated with dignity and respect, thereby worsening the stigma which continues to hurt people living in poverty. This is something that a human rights approach to poverty would address, as recognised in Scotland and Wales. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, in warmly welcoming the strategy, argues that its “implementation would be significantly strengthened by taking a human rights based approach”. The strategy recognises the important role played by local authorities, but in the words of Resolve Poverty: “It will need to give greater consideration to how localities in England will be supported to develop and embed strong strategic responses to poverty and in ensuring that all localities are properly resourced and supported to deliver strategic anti-poverty activity”. It would like to see “the introduction of a requirement on localities to develop anti-poverty strategies”. Another hole in the strategy concerns migrant children in families with no recourse to public funds, which includes child benefit, the key bedrock of support for children. While its explicit recognition of this group of children and commitment to ensuring “they receive the support they require, regardless of their immigration status” are very welcome, it has ignored calls for easing the application of the NRPF rule, which can spell abject poverty for much of a child’s childhood. Moreover, proposed reforms to the asylum and settlement rules are likely to worsen poverty among migrant children, already at disproportionate risk of poverty. Sarah, a refugee parent, in a recent blog warns that any further limit on support for refugees “would be devastating for my family”. I look forward to the promised baseline report, which will give more detail about implementation and monitoring, elaborating on what looks like a well thought out monitoring and evaluation framework. I do not know how much my noble friend can say about that today, but could we perhaps have a few hints? I was very encouraged by the written evidence from the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions to the select committee inquiry, which stated the Government have “committed to maintain a core, central child poverty team, with cross-government oversight by Ministers”. That was not my original understanding, and I and others were a bit worried about whether future responsibility lay just with the DWP, so I wonder whether my noble friend could say more about this. I hope the baseline report will say something about targets, or at least milestones, in the name of accountability and transparency, as called for by a wide range of organisations. That would be a way of demonstrating to the electorate the Government’s intent and their belief in the strategy, a point that I had hoped the noble Lord, Lord Bird, would be able to expand on—but he has unfortunately not got to his place, so he will not be able to. With regard to monitoring, there was an exchange between the chair of the Social Mobility Commission and the Work and Pensions and Education Select Committees in an oral evidence session which reminded me that the Social Mobility Commission started life as the Child Poverty Commission. This made me think that perhaps the resurrection of the latter, with input from those with lived experience, would be the ideal independent body to monitor the strategy, with its reports published and debated annually in Parliament. I would welcome my noble friend’s thoughts on that. The strategy document describes it as just “the first step on our road to ending child poverty”, emphasised by the Education Secretary, who presented it to the Commons as “a strong start”. This debate provides an opportunity to think about further steps—how we best build on that strong start. There is a lot of talk in politics at present about the need for hope, which we heard more of in the first debate today, particularly when so many are struggling with the cost of living crisis. When I hear senior Ministers talking about tackling child poverty as this Government’s moral mission, it gives me hope. More importantly, it offers hope to the millions of children and parents who remain in poverty, despite the measures already taken by the Government. I will finish with more words from the foreword from the parents involved in Changing Realities: “This strategy begins the work of lifting the weight of poverty off the shoulders of millions of families. With some of the changes, families like ours may start to breathe again. Not just survive but live with dignity. We’d all like to feel secure knowing that if something breaks, or a bill goes up, we won’t be pushed into crisis. More than anything, we want our children to have opportunities without us constantly having to say ‘no, not this time’ … But we must not get complacent and stop there. All of us owe it to the children who are relying on decision makers to put them first … and ensure we are doing everything we can to propel our children into a future filled with hope and not despair”. I beg to move.