Peter Black and South Wales West Liberal Democrats

Statement on Child Poverty

Peter Black: Two things struck me during your statement. You stated that the rate of progress of child poverty is slowing down, and, throughout your statement and in answers to questions, you constantly referred to the fact that we need to have the Westminster Government working closely with us if we are to deliver on the targets that your party, and the Government, has set for halving child poverty by 2010, and eradicating it by 2020.

First, the rate of progress slowing down is not sufficient to meet those targets, which we should all recognise. We will have to do much better if we are to meet those targets. You also get a sense that, as with school buildings, where your Government blames local councils for not meeting your targets, you are already setting the scene to blame Westminster for not meeting this particular target. I hope that that is not the case, because it is clearly a target that your Government has set, which we all expect your government to meet. If you fail to meet that target we all expect a much better explanation than it being Westminster's fault. There are many things that you can do, but, ultimately, the Westminster Government is a Labour Government and this is a Labour-led Government, albeit with Plaid Cymru in tow.

Therefore, if those two Governments cannot work together to achieve this target, I do not know who can. It would be a sad day for Britain if two Labour-led Governments were unable to achieve a joint endeavour of this magnitude simply because they were not able to agree on what needed to be done.

In terms of dealing with this issue, it seems that there are huge challenges ahead. You talked about the 120,000 children who were still in poverty. It is also noteworthy that, although you said that work is the best route out of poverty, half of those children are in working families. There is, therefore, clearly an issue in terms of the quality of wages and jobs available to them and how we raise the level of pay for those particular families to help them out of poverty, as well as those whom we need to help in finding work.

As Shelter Cymru has pointed out, 35,000 children live in poor housing in Wales, and 43,000 children live in overcrowded conditions and housing that has a major impact on their health and educational attainment. Some 300,000 households are experiencing fuel poverty, and yet the resources that your Government has put into the home energy efficiency scheme are not only flatlining, but are inadequate and badly targeted, as evidenced by your own report on the scheme. The majority of families being helped by that scheme are not in fuel poverty. That needs to be addressed if you are to tackle that issue.

The RAISE programme, which you mentioned in your speech, is well received throughout Wales. In my discussions with education chiefs and professionals, they acknowledge that the programme's objectives are right and that it is starting to make a difference. However, those same local government professionals are concerned that the programme will not continue after its third year. It is important that you give us some assurances that you will continue to target deprived children in this way by putting extra resources at schools' disposal to deal with the issue in the way that the RAISE programme does at present.

As Huw Lewis mentioned, the Dignity programme is not in the budget. That is also a shame, because it was a programme that was clearly designed to help children in particular need. We need better of you, Minister, than the answer that you have given so far as to why a Labour programme designed specifically to tackle child poverty is not beingf unded by your Government; you have simply referred to the vast amounts of money in other budgets. It is not just a question of throwing money at a problem; it is about targeting money to deliver specific results. Surely that is how we must go forward on this.

We all accept that Communities First is important, and that it is having an impact, to an extent. Obviously, Communities Next is the next step. It is important that we have better targeting of that programme, that we have clear objectives and that we monitor how those objectives are being delivered if we are to ensure that money is being spent properly. Nevertheless, there has been an overall cut in the amount of money available for Communities Next in next year's budget, and a further £1 million has been taken out of that budget for the post office development fund. Although we welcome money for that fund, it leaves us concerned that it is at the expense of deprived communities. I would welcome some reassurance from you on that issue.

Transport is also important. One third of people in Wales do not have access to a car, and public transport is costly and does not always connect with places of training and employment. If we are to get people back to work, we must ensure that they will be able to get to work or training. We need a much closer and better joined-up approach between the various departments in the Government if we are to achieve that. I hope that you can give me assurances that you are working very closely with the Minister for transport to ensure that the money that he is putting into transport is being targeted particularly at deprived communities and at transport links-and particularly public transport links-in those communities. I am not convinced that the extra money going into north-south links will do this. I would much rather see investment in public transport in those deprived communities, because that would have an impact on helping people to get back to work.

If you can convince us that there is a joined up approach in your Government and with Westminster we will all feel much more comfortable. However, I would like some assurances with regard to the reception that you are getting in Westminster in addressing the reforms that must be carried out to the benefits system, and particularly with regard to helping people to get back to work. That is necessary in order to deliver on this agenda. Often, people going back to work find themselves unable to continue in work because they are losing out following their loss of benefits. A proper tapering system is required if that is to be avoided. I would be interested to hear what replies you are getting from Westminster with regard to pushing that agenda.