Baroness D'Souza (CB)

My Lords, the debate on this vitally important topic is so far almost indistinguishable from a debate held in this Chamber in April 2024. We have had a depressing litany of figures showing how children living in poverty suffer throughout their lives from disadvantage. In effect, we continue to raise the next generation which may have less hope for the future than perhaps a couple of years ago. Today, the number of children suffering poverty is above 4 million, as we have heard—although there is a prediction that current mechanisms could reduce that figure by 500,000 by 2030. Research by the Poverty Strategy Commission suggests that £36 billion—a huge sum, but not that huge in the context of reducing poverty—efficiently invested in mechanisms to reduce child poverty could actually eliminate it altogether. Despite the welcome lifting of the two-child benefit cap, the expansion of free school meals and investment in family hubs, I fear there are cuts to come. Current national concern about defence expenditure is likely to further stymie any mechanisms to relieve poverty conditions. This is a genuine dilemma that the Government have to face—daily. What are the priorities, where is the money to come from, and, I would add, how can improvements in the allocation of budgets to the various departments be implemented? It is the latter issue that I feel is the most productive avenue at present. It is widely acknowledged by all political parties and commentators that the Government continue to operate on a silo basis. For whatever reasons, information is not efficiently shared across other government departments, there are contradictory policies which often cancel each out, and there is fierce competition on access to budgets leading to less than collaborative programming. There is also failure to implement fully programmes that focus on reducing childhood poverty due to, among other factors, change of Ministers and/or senior civil servants, overspends, adverse media comment or simply the failure to plan beyond an initial phase. We also know that any meaningful social or welfare programme works if it is treated as a public health issue; that is, with a commitment from all relevant partners to work together on a clear strategy. That is, as I understand it, why the programme to reduce knife crime in Scotland largely succeeded. It is not so much a question of budgets and funding, important though they are, as agreeing short, medium and long-term plans between, in the case of childhood poverty, the education, health, social welfare, housing and transport departments and civic society and, above all, with leadership. This approach would not cost more but would be much more likely to save considerable sums. Ideas, plans, monitoring and evaluation would not fall in between the gaps that silo departmental structures inevitably create. This is by no means an original suggestion. The problem, as always, will be to set such a system up and maintain it over a significant period. It is not impossible for many government departments to adopt this approach, but it would be a new way of working. In my consistent experience, whether talking to humanitarian agencies about the proper delivery of relief assistance or the reorganisation of management in NGOs, the standard answer is “We are already doing it”, and I guess the Minister might tell us what efforts are being made to adopt this public health approach. But so far, it does not appear to be working. I hope the Minister might commit instead to a programme of clear, co-ordinated approaches to what is after all perhaps one of the major ills of our time: children growing up in poverty.