Poverty and Social Exclusion

HC Deb 30 November 2000 vol 357 cc281-326WH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Clelland.]

2.30 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley)

We are here to discuss an important issue and I am glad to see so many hon. Members present—from all parties, although largely from the Government side—for this important debate. I am particularly impressed because it may be the last day of the Session.

For most of the 20th century, poverty in the United Kingdom was in retreat, especially after the second world war, when the Labour Government under Clement Attlee introduced the welfare state. The change in the first half of the century was well documented in my constituency by a prominent Liberal social reformer, Seebohm Rowntree, who produced three reports chronicling a section of the population in York who were living in poverty. The first report was published in 1901, the second, "Poverty and Progress" in 1941 and the third, "Poverty and the Welfare State" in 1951. They broadly documented the fact that Victorian-style poverty had disappeared—forever, it was assumed.

In the 1960s and 1970s further progress was made under Macmillan, Wilson and Callaghan, but in the last two decades of the 20th century, poverty re-emerged with a vengeance. Between 1979 and 1997, the proportion of households on low incomes doubled, as did the proportion of households with people of working age in which nobody worked—with severe consequences for child poverty. In 1979 one child in 10 born in the UK was born into poverty. By 1997 that figure had increased to one child in three. The gap between rich and poor also widened. The income of the richest 20 per cent. of pensioners over that period increased twice as fast as the income of the poorest 20 per cent. of pensioners.

Over that 20-year period poverty cut a new and tragic scar across the nation, dividing communities. That was not a temporary problem, linked to the cycles of boom and bust under the Conservative Government; when the country went into recession, hundreds of thousands of people were forced out of work, and not just for one or two years until things improved—for most of them, it was for ever. People were written off not just for a year or two, but for a generation. As we know, poverty is inherited, generation after generation. Children growing up in households that live on benefits learn to expect to live on benefits themselves. That is the cycle of deprivation that the Government are determined to break.

The key to breaking that cycle is creating the conditions for a strong and stable economy, which provides opportunities for all. We need to back up that basic economic policy with action to train, support and encourage young people, lone parents and disabled people to make use of the opportunities that a successful economy provides. We also need to reform the benefits system to remove the poverty traps that prevent people from escaping poverty and dependency—to offer people a hand-up rather than a hand-out.

Poverty is a complex issue. It is obviously about money, but also about education, housing, health care, crime, and the community in which people grow up. Tackling poverty has led to the development of policies that link up across government. In February 1999 the Secretary of State for Social Security announced that the Government would produce an annual report on poverty, and in March the Prime Minister put child poverty at the heart of the Government strategy when he announced the intention to halve the proportion of children in Britain living in poverty over 10 years and to eliminate child poverty over 20 years. That will not be easy; it certainly cannot happen overnight. Current measures, such as improving children's educational attainment at school, will not bear fruit for many years to come. But, we must take action now in order to reduce poverty in the future.

In our first annual report on poverty, published in September 1999, we set out a range of indicators—32 in all—to illustrate the progress, or lack of it, made by the Government in tackling poverty in a wide variety of dimensions. We use those indicators to judge ourselves, as others will use them to judge us. The indicators have several dimensions and we know that we shall not always make progress in every one. We hope over time to be able increasingly to discern a trend in the right direction.

The second annual report, published this year, recorded progress in terms of the measures adopted to tackle poverty and their effect. It is, of course, too early to reach definitive judgments about the result of our policies. Some elements of the report were based on statistics that were gathered before our measures to tackle poverty were introduced. The figures on pensioner poverty, for example, take no account of the introduction of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. We shall use the same measures each year to ensure consistency; that will enable people to assess what progress has been made.

I want to say a few words about the Government's actions to tackle child poverty. We are investing £540 million in Sure Start programmes to provide additional help to children in their early years. So far 194 Sure Start schemes have been established, providing local services tailored to local needs. In Barrow, a health visitor out-of-hours help line is widely used and greatly valued. In Sheffield, Sure Start was used to create story sacks of books and equipment to help parents and care workers looking after children. In Hastings, three Sure Start centres were established. They provided a baby clinic, a health clinic, a music group, a get-cooking group to encourage more nutritious meals, and play-link home visitors, which, backed up by the new deal for lone parents, currently supports 90 families. Some 200 additional child care places are planned to allow more women to benefit from the new deal.

Measures in the previous four Budgets will lift more than a million children out of poverty. Child benefit has been increased this year to £15 for the first child and £10 for subsequent children—a 26 per cent. increase in real terms. This year, the working families tax credit, together with the minimum wage, guarantee a minimum income of £208 a week, when one person in the family is in full-time work. That will increase to £214 a week from April. All families with children are better off—on average, by more than £15 a week—as a result of the Government's changes. A couple on income support with two children aged under 11 years are nearly £30 better off compared with the position in 1997. On average, families in receipt of the working families tax credit are receiving £30 more than they did when in receipt of the predecessor benefit, family credit. More than half a million lone parents are in receipt of the working families tax credit.

Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar)

Does the Under-Secretary concede that the figures to which he is referring do not show the increase in the tax burden that has fallen particularly heavily on people on lower incomes? They now have to pay more because of the Government's stealth taxes.

Mr. Bayley

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Government have reduced taxes, especially in respect of those on low incomes. Income tax has been reduced and a new lower 10p starting rate of tax has been introduced for families on low incomes. We want to ensure that work pays. We introduced tax credits to ensure that people in work, even on a low income, are better off employed on the mix of wages, tax and in-work benefits, such as tax credit, than they are out of work with out-of-work benefits. That is crucial to the Government's strategy and why so many more people are in work. As a result of the macroeconomic policies of the Government, there are a million more jobs in the economy than when they came to power 1997. Without such policies, the opportunities for people to escape from a life of dependency on benefits would not exist.

People of working age form a crucial group. People at work create the resources that support children and, to a large extent, the resources that support older people in retirement. Under the welfare system that we inherited, too much was spent on the cost of economic failure and paying people not to work. Too little was invested in creating opportunities for people to work, which is why the Government embarked on a far-reaching programme of welfare reform to change the system so that it deals with modern society. We have made a good start. Unemployment is now at its lowest level for 20 years. Nearly half a million fewer people are in receipt of unemployment benefits than was the case just over three years ago when the Labour Government came to power. Furthermore, 100,000 fewer lone parents are on benefits.

The Prime Minister announced today that we had met our manifesto commitment to help 250,000 young people into work. Youth unemployment has come down by 70 per cent. since May 1997. The percentage of working age people in workless households is down from 13.2 per cent. in 1997 to 11.9 per cent. this year. People are better off in work as a result of our welfare reform policy. About 1.5 million people are better off because of the introduction of the minimum wage.

I refer now to what the Government are doing for older people. After we were elected, our first priority was to do more to help the poorest pensioners. When we came to power, the basic state pension for a single pensioner was £62.45 a week. In April last year, we introduced the minimum income guarantee to boost the income of the poorest pensioners. This year, the rate of the minimum income guarantee is £78.45, which is £16 more than the basic state pension was when we were elected. From April next year, it will rise to £92.15 for a single pensioner and to £140.55 for couples. As I said, those changes have not fed into in this year's poverty report.

Nearly 2 million pensioners are better off as a result of the minimum income guarantee. We are also taking action to help all pensioners, not only the poorest, with the winter fuel allowance. We introduced it at £20 per household and this winter it will be £200. We have introduced free television licences for pensioners aged over 75 and we have announced a substantial increase in the basic state pension next year of £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 a week for couples.

We are doing more to help pensioners across the board. As shown in the proposals published in the pension credit paper, we intend to do more to help those prudent pensioners who have put money aside for their retirement, to ensure that people with modest savings can benefit from the minimum income guarantee. We are taking steps to improve opportunities for people now at work—first, by reforming the state earnings-related pension scheme so that people on lower incomes will get a better return through the state second pension and, secondly, by creating stakeholder pensions, which will be available from next year.

Poverty exists everywhere. It exists in the inner city, in suburbs, market towns and rural areas. The Conservative Government ignored rural poverty. They hid it behind images of lengthening shadows, village cricket greens and old maids bicycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist. Yesterday, this Government published a White Paper to help tackle the causes of poverty and social exclusion in the countryside.

We propose a mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief for village shops, public houses and garages. We are putting £100 million into primary health care centres and mobile clinics in rural areas. We are supporting village post offices with a £270 million investment programme. Each year, 3,000 affordable homes will be built in small settlements. Over the next three years, we shall invest an extra £240 million in rural transport.

Towns and cities need a community response to poverty. We are taking that forward with 26 health action zones, 73 education action zones and 15 employment zones, and through such measures as the new deal for communities, in which we are investing £1.6 billion over 10 years. In Nottingham, for instance, a new deal for communities is providing pre-school learning. It will draw banks and supermarkets back into deprived areas and create healthy living centres. In Newport in Wales, Duffryn high school is opening in the evening to increase the uptake of adult education and life-long learning.

We know that tackling poverty will not be easy. There is no quick fix. Action needs to be taken by local communities and local authorities, at national level and even at European level. Indeed, at the Lisbon special Council meeting in March, the need for a European poverty strategy was put on the agenda by the Government and other European Governments. To be successful, co-operation between Departments is essential.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West)

On the question of co-operation, I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises the potential of credit unions to help those in poverty gain access to affordable credit. I am sure that he is also aware of the recommendations of the Treasury task force on the need for a new central services organisation to widen access to credit unions. I realise that it is not my hon. Friend's immediate responsibility, but when he starts stalking the corridors of Whitehall again, I hope that he will prod his officials, particularly those who speak to Treasury officials and Treasury Ministers, to ensure that the central services organisation is up and running as quickly as possible.

Mr. Bayley

I most certainly will. My hon. Friend's question illustrates well why tackling poverty must be a matter for joined-up government. The debt problems are real. The access to credit for the poor is appalling. Some poor people are strung out into a life of misery by loan sharks. Affordable and appropriate access to credit is therefore extremely important and must form part of the strategy.

Mr. Pickles

I should be grateful for the Minister's views on another problem. Some are trapped by loan sharks but what about those who are trapped into poverty when they buy white goods? They are given interest-free credit for a year or two, but enormous penalty points come later, with 30 or 40 per cent. rates of interest. I am sure that he has had a number of such cases in his constituency, as I have. People who are trapped in poverty can encounter usurious rates. The rates seem reasonable initially but ultimately trap them.

Mr. Bayley

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. My constituents have not come to me with that problem, but we should consider it. We need transparency so that people understand what they are letting themselves in for when they take on loans. They need advice. It is difficult for people on low incomes to deal with their debts. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that score. I hope that he will look at his party's proposals to reduce the amount of money in the social fund by some £90 million. That will have a devastating effect on poor families and will push a lot of poor people towards loan sharks and the sort of short-termism that he rightly criticises.

The last two interventions demonstrate clearly why it is important for the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Social Security and other Departments to work together to get consistency of policy. There is no point in tackling the slum housing that prevents people from creating for themselves a pathway out of poverty, if one does not also tackle poor education, poor health or the high rate of crime. Someone who starts up a business may be put out of business by criminals. One needs joined-up action to tie together the initiatives that different parts of Government, nationally and locally, are taking.

Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon)

On the issue of the relationship between the DSS and the rest of the Government, the DSS, like other Departments, signs a public service agreement which is referred to in this document. Some of the goals are public service agreement targets. I am not clear whether these have any teeth. What is the sanction if a Department fails to hit such a target? Who cares?

Mr. Bayley

The Treasury cares. The income stream that Departments get is tied to performance. Each time a Department negotiates with the Treasury it receives funding in return for delivering on certain policies. If a Department fails to deliver it will find it difficult to convince the Treasury that it will deliver policy effectively in future. That is the basic sanction. It is an important point. There is no point in being tied to particular goals unless one is held to account for their attainment. Government Departments and Ministers will be held to account by Parliament in forums like this. It is also important to have clear accountability within Government.

Some of our initiatives will take years to bear fruit. However, if we do not take action now, we simply defer even further the time when we will see the substantial progress that we in our party, at least, want to see. We are making significant progress even though there is still an extremely long way to go. The Government's commitment to tackling poverty and social exclusion is clear. We give it a high priority because tackling poverty is morally right and economically good, common sense. So long as there is a Labour Government our commitment to tackling poverty and social exclusion will remain high.

2.45 pm

Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar)

I welcome the Under-Secretary's support for a common-sense approach to welfare reform. The consensus on that matter will greatly interest my leader.

Uneven credit rates are a problem. If this year is similar to last year, immediately after Christmas I will be contacted by constituents who opted 12 months ago for 10 months or a year's interest-free credit on white goods such as refrigerators or washing machines. The initial payments required are relatively modest—perhaps £500 deposit, or payments of £10 a month. However, if the purchasers fail to pay in full on the date specified at the end of the interest-free period, they face much higher interest rates. I have to offer debt counselling in conjunction with my local citizens advice bureau because people on modest earnings find themselves trapped by those high interest rates. The position is explained, but only in very small print, which is not immediately obvious to the purchaser, and that is a problem that should be tackled.

The Under-Secretary seemed genuinely surprised when I talked about joined-up Government and suggested that increasing indirect taxation adds to the burden on the poor. It is no longer fashionable for Labour politicians to refer to the tax burden, and I believe that they have a sentence of about 20 words to describe it. However, I understand from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the tax burden on those in the bottom fifth of the income scale has increased from 37 per cent. to 40 per cent. Whatever the Minister may have to say about targeting benefits, the result of that is that what his party attempts to give with one hand, it takes away with the other.

The Minister made a thoughtful speech in which he recited the Government's perceived achievements, but it was not very passionate. We should all be committed to tackling social exclusion and poverty, and should advocate that commitment on a moral level. The hon. Gentleman is usually a robust speaker, but passion is lacking from the Government's approach to poverty because of the way in which they look at the problem.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pickles

I shall give way when I have finished my point, because I would like to know the h Lady's views on what I am about to say.

The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends refer to the problem as social exclusion, but we should be talking about social inclusion. That is not just a matter of semantics: one phrase ghettoises the other. People should be released and given opportunities, and I believe that the Government are thinking about that.

Mrs. Gilroy

The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that under the Labour-run Plymouth council, the department that dealt with such matters was called the social inclusion unit.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that actions speak much louder than words? Will he offer an apology to my constituents for the legacy left by my Conservative predecessor in 1997 of the poorest ward in England?

Mr. Pickles

Part of the problem facing us is that people attempt to make cheap political points. I live in a prosperous area now, but for most of my adult life I lived in a poor area, and I am very much aware of what the previous Conservative Government did. I saw estates transformed with money from central Government. Schemes, housing associations, local authorities, local businesses, schools, and the then training and enterprise councils worked together to transform people's lives in poor areas.

Ms Hazel Blears (Salford)

The hon. Gentleman says that estates were transformed during the years of Conservative Government and paints a wonderful picture of social inclusion and a happy world for everyone. If that is so, could he explain why unemployment went up to 3 million, crime doubled and the number of children in workless households doubled during those Conservative years?

Mr. Pickles

The hon. Lady should not talk about crime, given what the Labour Government have done with the police, but I will deal with the matters that she has raised. I can see that my poor attempt to reach consensus in the Chamber is failing, so I will have to make several other points.

The social exclusion unit could be more successful if it adopted a more inclusive approach. An interesting article in The Guardian this week said that the Government were thinking of creating a Ministry for the poor. They are particularly keen to avoid the word "exclusion" and move towards a statement of inclusion, like the unit mentioned by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy). According to The Guardian—I am sure it must be accurate—the Government's intention to establish the Department would be seen as an acknowledgement that the social exclusion unit has not been as successful as the prime minister envisaged. We are all sorry about that. That article also says: A string of studies and initiatives, including an £800m neighbourhood renewal scheme, have been produced but the unit has been the victim of "turf wars" with departments. That is a familiar picture from comedies such as "Yes, Minister", but it is a sad one when we are dealing with reality. One reason why the social exclusion unit has failed is that it has not managed to keep its momentum going on poverty issues, despite all the good intentions.

A leading accountancy firm published a report saying that one problem was cynicism inside Departments about the unit's effectiveness. It calls the policy action teams a mixed bag and describes the people attracted to it as young Turks—people who are keen but have little authority. I was once described as a young Turk, but I have moved on since then. The report also says that the unit has not built a relationship with the voluntary sector and has not managed to tap into good government and local networks. It says that there was less enthusiasm inside the Government for the unit than outside, and that it tended to work against the grain of Departments and needed to gain consensus. If it moved towards a greater feeling of inclusion, it might be able to achieve that.

There is no sharper reminder of the need to deal with poverty and social exclusion on the cross-disciplinary basis mentioned by the Under-Secretary—involving the police, housing, and health and benefit reform—than the tragic death of the young man this week. All of us who saw pictures in the newspapers of the estate where that young boy bled to death and listened to interviews on this morning's "Today" programme find the matter deeply shocking and depressing. We heard that people turn a blind eye to crime and assaults on that estate. This morning, I heard a young lady saying, "You are just grateful if it's not you."

The assault coincided with a speech by the Home Secretary, in which he tried to spell out the nature of citizenship. He said that we all had a duty to report minor crimes and criminal damage, although he did not want to encourage a have-a-go society. Hon. Members know that, in many parts of Britain today, that is not realistic advice. If one reports such matters to the police—if one is lucky enough to get through on the phone—it is unlikely that one will see flashing blue lights or the Bill suddenly arriving. It is unlikely that anything will happen, as the police have retreated from many estates and rural parts of the United Kingdom. That is not because they do not want to be there; it is because of rising crime and the substantial drop in police numbers and resources. Police numbers have dropped by more than 2 per cent., and the increase in resources announced by the Home Secretary this week is less than a third of 1 per cent. Additional cuts will be made, and the police are being forced to prioritise.

Ms Karen Buck (Regents Park and Kensington, North)

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that whatever happens to police resources, it is unlikely that police can be at the scene of a crime when it occurs? That is a well known fact. The Government's strategy has rightly been focused on prevention. That is the purpose of programmes such as the new deal for communities, which is under way in Southwark. The reorientation of single regeneration budgets is about tackling design issues, working with young people and prevention.

Mr. Pickles

I do not disagree, but people need the protection of the police. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas)—who has distinguished us with his presence today—and I were on a talk show earlier this week. The presenter told us that a lone woman in a car had rung up to say that she had witnessed several thefts from motor vehicles in front of her. She had telephoned the local police and told them about the crimes and that she was in the car by herself. However, 45 minutes later, a policeman had not arrived. That is a common occurrence. I have the honour to hold a police parliamentary fellowship, and have been out on patrol with the police. I have seen the strain that they are under. It is simply not possible to offer any kind of response to such minor crimes.

As a result of changes introduced by the Government—most notably, the Human Rights Act 1998—the audit trail has to be followed for the simplest crimes. The concept of proportionality means that police officers simply do not do it, not because they do not want to, but because they are under-resourced. In London, the Metropolitan police is slightly less than 1,000 officers understaffed. It is not surprising that police are not able to respond. It is not good enough for the Home Secretary to advocate a policy that will not be a success and will further undermine the public's confidence in the police. That is an example of the Government becoming out of touch with reality on the streets.

The Under-Secretary said that today was a national day of celebration because the Government have achieved one of their election pledges—no doubt Labour Members have in their wallets or handbags a pledge card on which they can put a tick, which says that 250,000 young people have been through some scheme. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] The Under-Secretary should take note of the ease with which I can excite his colleagues. However, the matter is related to an election pledge, not to reality. The Financial Times said that 80 per cent. of the 250,000 would have got jobs without an intervention from the new deal. It is likely that the jobs would have been created anyway.

Mr. Jeff Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pickles

I will in a second. I want to finish making my point, because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to comment on it. The Economist pointed out that only 113,000 young people, not 250,000, were on the long-term list. It was easy to achieve the election pledge because of the natural reduction that was occurring before the Labour party came into power. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) could have had such a card—I could have had a card. I congratulate the Labour party for producing a card that states the blindingly obvious.

Mr. Ennis

During 18 years of Tory misrule, more than one third of a million young people were out of work for more than 12 months. That figure has sunk to 6,000. Does that not suggest that the new deal programme has been successful?

Mr. Pickles

The hon. Gentleman has been reading too much from his own cards. Under the Conservatives, roughly 5,000 young people a month dropped out of long-term unemployment; under this Government, the number is a smidgeon over 4,000. That information comes from my memory, and I will check it later in case I am wrong.

Caroline Flint (Don Valley)

We may concede that some of the young people going through the new deal programme would have got jobs anyway. However, the same commentators, in the reports that I read, added that those young people were better trained, had more confidence and were more equipped for sustainable prospects, having gone through the programme, than they would otherwise have been.

Mr. Pickles

Commentators are saying exactly the opposite. They say that training needs are not met by the courses and that a significant number of people do not take up jobs that last more than 13 weeks. In reality, when the scheme is removed from the election pledge, it has not proved terribly effective. I cannot think of a better way of describing that achievement. No doubt, Mr. Stevenson—or should I call you Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair)

I am told that I am a Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Pickles

Great. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that you are a well read man, so you will probably recall the American novelist—[Interruption.]

Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair)

Order. I've been demoted. I am not a Deputy Speaker, so the hon. Gentleman was right first time.

Mr. Pickles: I am grief stricken to hear of your demotion.

Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair)

So am I.

Mr. Pickles

Your time will come, sir. Of that I am confident.

You will remember that Thomas Berger, the American novelist, created a character called Jack Crabb, who was once asked by a sentimental interviewer whether it was possible for a lamb to lie down with a lion. He replied that it was perfectly possible, providing that one had an ample supply of lambs. That is similar to the way in which the Labour party has achieved its pledge.

I hope that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) does not mind, but I prefer the analysis made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). He said: Our present training scheme is not delivering, and that young people were being trained in redundant skills for jobs that were not there. I regret to tell the hon. Lady that, but someone who was very much involved in those initiatives seems to regard them as something of a failure.

The Prime Minister has been keen to claim victory, but on examination, the figures turn out to be lower than he has said. Only a year ago he claimed that 170,00 young people had found jobs through the new deal. That turned out to be only 148,000, and the figure was later revised down to 126,000. I hope that the celebration of the figure of 250,000 will not turn out to be premature.

Only 27 per cent. of jobs obtained through the new deal last more than 13 weeks. That was the reference that I was making in my exchange with the hon. Member for Don Valley. We should think about what the Government defined as social exclusion. Only one of the 11 new deal areas has so far received a good grade for education options, and four were judged unsatisfactory. Typical criticisms included poor attendance, insufficient workplace experience and clients being put through inappropriate programmes. As The Times Educational Supplement put it in March, Unless it is tackled, the New Deal will…fail to help many of the most socially excluded. That is quite a problem.

The relative position of young people who have turned their backs on education is also worrying. I am sure that hon. Members saw an article in The Economist in July, containing startling figures showing that more teenagers appear to be neither in school, nor in training or work. Ten years ago, about 100,000 were in this category: today there are some 173,000…of the population between 16 and 18. The article continued: Around 15 per cent. of people between 16 and 24 were not seeking work in 1998, as against 10 per cent. a decade ago. In short, the relative position of young people who have turned their back on education has worsened. The article also states that the risk of ending up…without either a full-time job or a place in government-supported training has increased from one in ten a decade ago to one in three. That represents a considerable worry to the Government.

If the Government are to succeed in tackling poverty—and I hope that they do—they will have to take a dose of their own medicine. They will have to adopt what they describe as joined-up government. They will have to recognise people's right to the protection of the law and their need for co-operation with the agencies that provide good quality housing, particularly in urban areas. They will have to recognise too that their taxation policies—their stealth taxes and other ways of increasing the burden on poor people—have put more people into poverty. Those people have less money with which to survive under the present Government.

If the Government manage to achieve all their aims I shall cheer them to the rafters, but they should not feel smug, or produce phoney statistics, and they should get on with the job of eradicating poverty.

3.18 pm

Ms Karen Buck (Regents Park and Kensington, North)

The commitment to the eradication of child poverty and the establishment of targets on child poverty and other issues, as set out in the document "The Changing Welfare State", are the bravest and most radical actions of the Government. I am not alone in that view. Last week, Martin Barnes, director of the Child Poverty Action Group, said in evidence to the Social Security Committee that the pledge to end child poverty was positive and exciting, and that the Chancellor had a genuine political commitment to ending child poverty and is setting a radical agenda. As we know, that has already set the framework for lifting 1.2 million children out of poverty during this Parliament.

The document "Opportunity for all—Tackling poverty and social exclusion" recognises that poverty is multi-dimensional, as does my hon. Friend the Minister. Most obviously, it is a matter of pounds and pence, but it is also a relative issue defined at least in part by people's ability to participate meaningfully in modern society. Poverty also has a social and cultural dimension, hence the four strands of the Government's approach set out in the document. They are income, education, intervention and community development, four parts of an inseparable whole.

I applaud the action that has been taken—the working families tax credit, the child benefit increases, the new children's tax credit that comes into effect in April and, looking into the future, the integrated child credit—under those four headings to tackle the many components of poverty. The reform of child support was also long overdue. I especially welcome the £10 disregard in the child maintenance premium and the maintenance disregard in the working families tax credit. That has done a great deal to underpin work incentives for single parents.

In my constituency, I am pleased by the Government's progress in tackling underlying causes of poverty and problems such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who referred to urban estates. We have been fortunate enough to secure three new single regeneration budgets, which have been used to direct resources to a new neighbourhood warden scheme in a high-crime area, among other projects.

The budgets are also being significantly invested in youth projects to divert young people from crime. Two sure start programmes are under way, which are examples of the most imaginative and exciting schemes that the Government have launched. An education action zone is providing resources to underpin additional investment in schools, and is working with disaffected pupils and many children for whom English is an additional language. I saw the evidence with my own eyes while serving for many years as a local councillor, so I know that that progress is in stark contrast to the record of the previous Government, under whose stewardship inequality and poverty rocketed, as we have heard.

We all accept that there is much more to do. I want to concentrate on some issues that I would like the next Labour Government, who we believe will be essential to this country, to tackle. There are clusters of issues that cause me most concern, and I shall continue to press the Government to deal with them.

The Government inherited a decision from the previous Government to restrict council tax benefit to people in households in higher council tax bands. That is deeply unfair and punitive. Many families in London—I know that the same is true of other areas—are allocated new-build accommodation, especially homes built by housing associations, which is inevitably located in higher council tax bands because London property prices are so high. People taking new tenancies in housing association property are disproportionately likely to be on income support. Out of their already low income, they have to make a contribution towards their council tax. I feel that that cuts across a social inclusion agenda. If we are serious about wanting mixed communities in which people on lower incomes live in more prosperous areas—ironically, that includes less prosperous areas in London—we must make the necessary investment. I very much hope that the Government will review this particular issue, in the interests of social inclusion, and I shall continue to press them to do so.

The Government should now move swiftly on to more fundamental reform of housing benefit. Housing benefit continues to be a major block to work incentives, and there are aspects of the current housing benefit system—again, inherited from the previous Government—that unfairly penalise families who are already on low incomes. In particular I am thinking of the single-room restrictions for the under-25s, which have caused a great deal of hardship. In high-cost areas, the housing benefit restrictions are causing dreadful distress and hardship to vulnerable families, especially if the restrictions are not offset by emergency payments through the housing benefit system. I know that positive thinking is being done about how to deal with some aspects of that, but we need to tackle it.

Another problem with housing benefit was set out in some detail in the report by the Select Committee on Social Security on housing benefit. Higher rates of non-dependant deductions are especially harsh for families with adult, working children, whose incomes are heavily offset against their parents' housing benefit. That can cause disharmony in families. In areas outside London, I understand that the higher rate of non-dependant deductions can exceed the total housing benefit paid. That issue urgently needs to be addressed by the Government. I know that the issues are being examined, but if we are going to proceed further with work incentives, to match up with the forthcoming integrated children's tax credit, we need to examine them more urgently.

The document "Opportunity for all—Tackling poverty and social exclusion" introduces—newly, I think—an indicator of housing need. It rightly recognises that children who grow up in substandard housing face serious disadvantages. I applaud the Government for what they have already done on that. Housing investment will soon have doubled under this Government. The release of capital receipts for improvements in housing stock was most welcome, and great progress has been made in renovating some of our worst estates. However, housing need, as opposed to the quality of accommodation of those who are already housed, has now become a critical issue.

London and the south-east are especially badly hit. The London boroughs have 46,000 families in temporary accommodation. That number has rocketed in recent years. Ironically, it has done so because the capital is a victim of its own success. Although there is a slight increase in total demand for housing, in some cases due to the number of refugees and asylum seekers, that is only a small element of the problem. The core of the problem is that in a normal property market, there is a steady outflow of people from social rented accommodation into the private sector. That has stopped in the south-east. House prices are now so out of reach for people on average incomes, let alone those on lower incomes, that people are not leaving social housing. New lettings have virtually ceased. Even people in properties that are statutorily defined as overcrowded, and people in category A medical priority, cannot be rehoused. In some boroughs, 90 per cent. of lettings go to homeless families, meaning that families in situ experiencing desperate levels of overcrowding have no prospect of being rehoused.

Dr. Howard Stoate (Dartford)

My hon. Friend mentioned medical need for rehousing. The life expectancy of a child born in social class V is now nine years less than that of a child born in social class I. Much of that is due to substandard housing, overcrowding and all the other problems of social exclusion, which is unacceptable. Obviously, I am pleased that my hon. Friend is calling on the Government to narrow the unacceptable gap in inequalities and social disadvantage.

Ms Buck

My hon. Friend has a great deal of professional expertise in this field, and he is absolutely right. The unmet housing need, the overcrowding and the need to house families in temporary accommodation, damages children's health and educational achievement. Those housing problems are linked to high levels of school mobility and damage to the continuity of children's education. At home, such children do not have an opportunity to play or a quiet space in which to do their homework. Tragically, the consequences of that will stay with them throughout their lives. To indicate the type of problems that we are experiencing, I shall give a few examples from my surgery in the past two or three weeks. Last week, one of my constituents, who is a doctor, wrote to me from his bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Hackney. He told me: The hotel is unsuitable for disabled people such as my wife and myself…my longstanding hypertension causes repeated loss of consciousness, with one episode occurring when I was on the narrow entrance steps…my children are suffering due to the lack of space and the valuable time travelling to and from school (on the other side of London). There have been permanent implications caused to my son and daughter's future as they both failed their exams as a direct consequence of the chain of events triggered by our state of housing. The Onojobe family have four children, one of whom has profound mental and physical disabilities. They live in a tiny two-bedroom flat, which is extremely overcrowded. There is no room for the specialist equipment that the disabled child needs to help his condition, and that hinders his development.

A Mrs. Saunders wrote to me, stating: I have been living with my sister for the last three years after being evicted from my home. Myself and my three children are confined in my sister's living room, where we sleep on the floor. My sister has three children of her own. We are constantly cold and my daughter is wetting herself because of the conditions. My children have no place to do their homework and my position at work is being affected by this. That family would not be counted among the 46,000 families in temporary accommodation.

Nor would the Charles family. Five children and their mother share a two-bedroom flat. The six-year-old has sickle cell anaemia and nocturnal enuresis, but he has no space for private rest or recovery. His mother said: All the pressure is causing my asthma and migraine to occur regularly. All the stress, arguing and fighting can literally drive you to suicidal thoughts. I love my children dearly, especially Michael. He has been through a lot in his six years—more than some adults. On Tuesday, I met a woman attending a project providing media skills for socially excluded people. She told me that she attended the project to try to save her mental health. She shares her room with two children, and has been told that she cannot expect to receive a housing offer for at least two years.

That is a sprinkling of examples from the past couple of weeks. From my case-work, I could replicate them 500 times. I stress that the Government's record on housing has been very positive. During the 18 years of the previous Conservative Administration, investment was slashed in housing renovations, improvements to the housing stock and new building. Progress has been made, but it has been slow, and we have not yet addressed the full regional implications of housing stress in the south. A different type of housing stress occurs in the north—caused, ironically, by under-occupation—and that deserves to be addressed equally seriously.

In the excellent "Opportunity for all" document, we are rightly tackling the problem of children growing up in substandard accommodation. We must set a target to end the placing of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for more than a few weeks. We must end the disgrace of children growing up in bed-and-breakfasts, and set ambitious targets to end the chronic overcrowding that is destroying the lives of thousands of my constituents.

I am pleased that last week the Home Office issued a document on the integration of refugees, which begins to address the serious issue of the significant numbers of asylum seekers and refugees who have been living in Britain for, in many cases, up to 10 years. In my experience—my constituency contains a large population of refugees—they are skilled people with high aspirations. When I attend my migrant and refugee forum to talk to people and hand out awards to those on courses, I am amazed to discover that I am addressing lawyers, doctors, engineers and others with professional qualifications. The concentration of skill among our asylum-seeking community is astounding, and we have not made use of that. Under the previous Government, such people were dismissed and abandoned, and I am proud that we are beginning to address that problem.

All that the Government have done and all that we have still to do is based on our successful management of the economy. As was said, that management has reduced unemployment to a 20-year low, brought record low inflation and low interest rates, and made possible the beginnings of investment in our public services. I applaud the Government for that, but there is still a long way to go to raise all Britain's communities to the level that we should expect in a civilised and relatively prosperous country.

I have outlined my specific concerns about gaps in the programme that have yet to be addressed, but I know that Labour is delivering, can deliver and will deliver. It is essential that we secure another term in office to make further progress on meeting those targets.

3.36 pm

Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon)

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), who brings great knowledge to the subject. In among her inevitable words of party loyalty and the statistics that have been bandied to and fro, she tells the truth as it is on the ground and conveys the human side of this subject. I welcome her contribution, which has, I hope, set the pattern for the rest of the debate, and I shall try to strike a similar tone. If Thursday afternoons in Westminster Hall are to consist merely of three hours of political knockabout, we might as well go home.

I welcome the debate, and I am glad that the Government are not afraid to use the p-word—to talk about poverty. That is an entirely positive development. As hon. Members know, I have many reservations about the Government's overly complex strategy, but I do not want to dwell on that. I want to talk about the way in which we assess this—or any—Government's poverty strategy. Is it being conducted in the right way? Can it be conducted in a way that will help the constituents to whom the hon. Lady referred? Because the various targets are disparate, it is almost impossible to hold the Government to account.

I raised the issue of public service agreements, and the Under-Secretary said that the Treasury does care whether the Department of Social Security fulfils them. If Departments such as the Department for Education and Employment or the Department of Health were to fail to deliver on a particular project, one could readily imagine that the Treasury might penalise them by holding back funds. However, it is much harder to see how that would work for a demand-led Department, such as the Department of Social Security. I find it hard to believe that the Treasury would say, "You can't have the money for pensions this week because you've missed your public service agreement." That is not how the system works, and I doubt whether there is any sanction to speak of on the Department of Social Security. For example, if the Government wanted to increase the pension, I find it hard to believe that the Treasury would tell the Department of Social Security that it could not implement a popular policy simply because it missed its target. I therefore wonder just how forceful the targets are.

I worry about any Government being judge and jury on their own performance. The Government's annual report is widely derided and no one takes it seriously, but the publication that we are discussing today, "Opportunity for all", is much more serious. However, it runs the risk of being rather more partisan than one would wish, and I shall give one example concerning statistics on drugs. On page 224, the publication states: The percentage of young people reporting the use of any illegal drug last month. That is, the last month before the survey. It goes on to say that 17 per cent. used a drug in 1994, 18 per cent. did so in 1996, 19 per cent. did so in 1998. One might conclude that that does not look too good in terms of getting the figures down. However, a tiny footnote states: Note: increase from 17 per cent. to 19 per cent. is not statistically significant. In other words, we are supposed to regard those figures as meaningless. Drug use may have gone up or down—who knows? I suspect, however, that if drug use had decreased from 19 per cent. to 17 per cent., there would have been no footnote.

The tenor of this document is defensive. When the statistics go the right way, it is all glory, glory; when they go the wrong way, we are told that we should be looking at different ones. That is the problem with the Government judging their own performance.

I have a number of practical suggestions for the Minister—

3.40 pm

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

3.55 pm

On resuming—

Mr. Webb

On "Just a minute", Mr. Stevenson, participants receive a bonus for speaking when the bell goes.

I am worried about the Government being judge and jury. I have made the general point that it does not advance debate if the Government proclaim themselves successful in their own, internally audited objectives. I am sure that my former colleagues at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the university of Bath and many other institutions would be only too glad to take on the task of assessing independently and objectively how well the Department of Social Security is doing in achieving its objectives and commenting on whether those objectives were right. If the Government would state their objectives, independent commentators would be reassured that there would be no changes in the indicators, delays in publication and other such things that Governments of all parties do when things are going wrong. I hope that the Government will consider adding confidence to a worthwhile exercise by contracting out assessment of their progress along the lines of a public-private partnership.

Holding the Government to account for their progress on poverty is difficult with so many disparate indicators and there should be a composite indicator of progress against poverty. It is tempting to go through the report and say, "There are 22 wins, seven losses and 15 draws", but that would be facile because the comparison might be between the percentage of people putting money into occupational pension schemes and the number of children who die before the age of five. Such statistics cannot be compared to each other.

So, how can we hold the Government to account and see whether progress is being made? The hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) referred to the rise in inequality under the Conservatives. The Office for National Statistics today produced the family expenditure survey, which records income as well as expenditure. I have been given the figures for the poorest fifth and the richest fifth of the population for 1999–2000. In each of the first three years of the present Government, the proportionate gap between rich and poor widened. That is not a surprise, because it is part of a 20-year trend, but the hon. Lady was under the impression that such matters were different now. If there are many indicators, it is difficult to see the big picture.

I have a positive suggestion for bringing all the indicators together in a single yardstick. It is modelled on what used to be called the breadline Britain approach. The first stage of the exercise is to ask members of the community what is important to their quality of life. I am sure, given his background, that the Minister will be familiar with such an approach. It is not a top-down approach but a bottom-up approach and the answer will be different in different communities, different parts of the country, different ethnic groups, rural and urban areas, and so on. Poverty might be rising in one community and falling in another because different factors are important to them. National aggregate methods pick up the priorities of the Government, not of the communities.

If people are asked what is good for their quality of life, some will mention tangibles, such as cash, public transport and access to services, and others will mention intangibles, such as fear of crime. Intangibles can be used because people's attitudes can be tracked to see whether they feel more or less secure. A measuring rod is not necessary because what is measured is the way that people feel about their circumstances. The next step is to audit the extent to which people in each community reach their goals and how many of them have the things that their community believes are important—for example, how many people are living without fear of crime, have access to good public transport and so on. One can then measure the number of people, which will be down to just one figure, who lack the necessities that make for the good life. Different poverty lines can be drawn to define people who lack a few and people who lack a lot.

The beauty of the system is twofold. First, one can track it over time to spot whether the number of people who have multiple deprivation and are lacking in many respects is going up or down. Secondly, it is tremendously intuitive. When the Government say—as did the hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North—that they have taken 1 million children out of poverty, that statistic must be derived from the number of children with household-equivalent disposable weekly income below 50 per cent. of the mean before housing costs. That is meaningless to most people, and just 50p above or below the threshold can, in effect, put 1 million people into or out of poverty at a stroke. As that does not accord with people's understanding of poverty, it gives no credibility to the idea that a Government will ever abolish child poverty. It is a tremendously noble idea, but I wonder what the world will look like when a Prime Minister finally stands up and announces to the House that today no child in the country is living in poverty.

The central point is that we must have a single definition, not 32 indicators, although I accept that poverty is multi-faceted. We will never know if the Government have got rid of child poverty unless they define exactly what they are going to get rid of.

Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. My borough, Camden, has already engaged in the process that he describes. It has undertaken a comprehensive survey of its residents to find out what is most important to them, which makes interesting reading.

However, no such surveys, however detailed and however hard the work of putting them through the doors, help to clarify one of the problems to which the Government are committed and which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North said, will take time to resolve—that is, the sense of being excluded from society. Socially excluded people look at such surveys and say, "It doesn't affect me, because nobody ever listens to me." That is why we need far more of the kinds of schemes in which the Government are engaged.

Mr. Webb

I am not necessarily out of sympathy with the hon. Lady. The conduct of the exercise requires a lot of effort to ensure that it is not only the literate middle classes who return the forms, and it is important to ensure that community workers target certain groups and isolated individuals to obtain a broad cross-section.

The hon. Lady said that when people are asked what is important to them, they often feel that the exercise is nothing to do with them, that it is not worth doing or that nothing will change as a result. We should use the yardstick that I have described to judge the Government, because all Governments should have an interest in targeting the things that people say matter to them, rather than the indicators that the Government have themselves chosen, to bring the figures down.

Ms Buck

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's interesting points.. What worries me about the subjective kind of analysis that he proposes is how to reconcile the breadth and depth issue. The minority of people who lack a proper home feel that lack overpoweringly strongly, and their feelings cannot be compared with those of people who are well housed and have adequate incomes but fear crime in their neighbourhood. I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman's subjective analysis would help us deal with those comparators.

Mr. Webb

That is a fair point. Someone who was living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation would show up on the indicators as being multiply deprived, because they would have to put a cross against half the indicators on the list, whereas someone living relatively comfortably but with a fear of crime would perhaps fail only one of the tests. No method is perfect. Trying to sum up many disparate experiences to arrive at a number is fraught with all kinds of problems. However, it has to be done, because otherwise we cannot hold the Government—or any Government—to account, and we will not be able to judge whether we are winning the battle against poverty.

Some sort of composite indicator is needed. The statistics most regularly published on poverty are of households with below average income. I once put a question to Ministers that was batted straight back. I ask it again, hoping for a more constructive response. One problem is that all the figures are out of date. The family resources survey finishes its field work at the end of the financial year, but it takes several months for the analysis to be completed before the figures are crunched. It takes months, if not years, to get from the data to the actuality—as it has during the present Parliament. By the time of the next election—assuming that it will be in April or May next year—the information on households with below average income reflected in "Opportunity for all" will show that pensioner poverty has increased. The Minister agreed, but said that things are now different. Perhaps they are, but we do not know. We do not have the objective facts on which to judge the matter.

I make a constructive suggestion. We should concentrate on those statistics that make an impact. The unemployment and inflation figures make an impact because we get them all the time. They obviously affect mortgage payments and so on, so they are often in the news. However, the poverty figures are published only once a year. Why cannot the figures of houses below average income be issued in summary form every quarter? The answer that I normally receive to that question is that the samples are too small. However, the 1979 figures were based on the family expenditure survey of about 7,000 households. The current figures are based on the family resources survey of more than 25,000 households. A quarter of that is comparable to the number of households in the 1979 survey that Ministers are always citing. The annual disaggregated analysis obviously could not be done with a small sample, but a summary analysis certainly could.

If we knew once a quarter what progress was being made against poverty, the figures would not always be out of date and would not seem so useless. We would know much more, quarter by quarter, about what is going on. Publishing the figures once a quarter would keep poverty in the political debate. Just as we all watch out for the inflation figure, so people would look out for the poverty figures. That would be constructive.

Ms Jackson

The hon. Gentleman is arguing against his own point. Missing from his equation is the question of whether people regard themselves as being in poverty. The survey undertaken in the United States of America by the Democratic party before the recent presidential election made it clear that families who were making ends meet, however narrow those ends may have been, did not regard themselves as being economically unempowered. We should be considering a definition of poverty that shows it to be unacceptable to society.

I crave your indulgence, Mr. Stevenson, to be allowed to give a precise example. During the time of the previous Administration, I visited several schools with classrooms that were too dangerous for the children to be taught in; the children were being taught in the cloakroom. That would have been totally unacceptable to our society 10 years beforehand, but because many of the parents of those children believed that no one listened to them, their horizons and aspirations were continually shrinking. It is up to us to define poverty, and the problem is not exclusively to do with money.

Mr. George Stevenson (In the Chair)

Order. I indulged the hon. Lady, but that is not a precedent. Interventions should be short.

Ms Jackson

I thank you for it, Mr. Stevenson.

Mr. Webb

The hon. Lady makes some important points. Clearly, poverty of aspiration is a danger; if the exercise that I suggest is carried out, some people will not expect or demand a lot. Such an exercise should include some swapping, with people from deprived areas being sent to the more comfortable areas of the country to give them a taste of what others experience and to raise their expectations. That would give people a chance to demand more. Indeed, they should have the right to demand it.

We certainly should not ask people whether they feel poor. Clearly, those whom we might think are living in poverty—those, as the hon. Lady said, who are just about making ends meet—would not want to be labelled as poor. One should conduct that sort of exercise for the benefit of the whole community. One should not ask "the poor" what they think. One should ask society. To avoid the poor being put on the spot, everyone should be asked for their views.

I shall draw my remarks to a close in a moment, because hon. Members want a chance to speak. The key point is that it is good that we are talking about poverty, and that there are goals. However, the Government vacillate between focusing on a single figure that has no intuitive resonance, such as the million people being taken out of poverty by the budget—the budget has probably taken a million from one side of the line to slightly on the other side of the line—and a plethora of targets against which it is hard to hold them to account. A lot of effort is needed. We must make sure that the data on which the surveys are based are more up to date, and we must consolidate all those things into an independently assessed view of poverty. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) said that we should define poverty, but I do not think so. We should ask the community what they think quality of life is, and when we as Parliament fail to deliver that, we should be held to account. We should not tell them that they are not poor—they should tell us.

4.10 pm

Caroline Flint (Don Valley)

My starting point in the debate is to welcome and endorse the analysis described in the social exclusion unit report, "A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal" and the Department of Social Security report "Opportunity For All". Both reveal key aspects of poverty and social exclusion, such as the centrality of work, not simply to the individual family but to the whole community. The social exclusion unit report states: The main driver of neighbourhood decay has, in most areas, been economic…Mass unemployment and the closure of particular industries has devastated communities. Crucially, it states: New industries required higher skills and there has not been enough help for people to adjust to the changing job market. At last we have a Government who have begun to pinpoint some of the causes of deprivation. Unfortunately, the only Conservative Member who was present earlier, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), is no longer here. I would say to him that if one remembers the previous Tory Administrations, who were in power for 18 years, it is not hard to find and identify the Government who were responsible for that chronic failure.

I represent a former coalfield constituency. We have one working pit left which employs 300 miners. It used to employ thousands. Certain wards, and pockets within more prosperous areas, were devastated by the destruction of the coal industry. As "Opportunity For All" states: One of the most powerful manifestations of poverty and social exclusion occurs when whole communities find themselves trapped outside mainstream society, suffering a range of interrelated problems like high rates of worklessness, high crime rates, low educational achievement and poor health. Those problems beset large parts of my constituency. The problem is not that a few thousand people made a cultural decision to opt out of work and live a good life on benefits, but that that choice was forced on them. The official Opposition may believe that there is no alternative to pit closures, but the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on the energy policies of Independent Energy Agency countries, especially the France 1996 Review, refers to the actions of the state-owned subsidiary Charbonnage de France, which owned the French coalmines. It stated that the French Government: agreed in principle in 1986 to close uneconomic coal mines gradually over 20 years. However, A major social and regional programme was set up by CdF to help miners to find employment elsewhere and encourage the development of new industries in the affected areas. It concludes: The French Government is handling the closure of uneconomic mines in a pragmatic and sensible manner… and tries to mitigate the social upheavals associated with mine closures in areas that depend heavily on the industry for employment. It is to the eternal shame of the Thatcherites that they turned a blind eye to lessons from across the channel—a French lesson that my constituents would have welcomed 15 years ago. There was an alternative. Without such a strategy, the outcome was low employment, depressed incomes and neighbourhood decline. That is the Thatcher legacy for too many communities and why today's debate is so necessary.

The Government's strategy is a breath of fresh air in my area, as colleagues from south Yorkshire will discuss later. We have a task force for coalfield areas, objective 1 funding, health action zones to attack chronic poor health, a package of support for the coal industry and major investment in neighbourhood renewal. However, I caution the Government about regeneration efforts. We have learned from the Conservative years that tree planting and cosmetic makeovers have limited effect if the economic prospects of the community remain unaffected. However, large regeneration funds are being administered by local partnerships, in some cases amounting to £50 million or more, and targeted at only 4,000 households. That is some £12,500 per household. We have the right to expect dramatic results.

Some local authorities have traditionally taken a top-down, paternalistic approach to institutions providing services for, not with, the community. A balance must be struck between the voices of the community and its need to see some short-term wins, while recognising that some other problems will take much longer to solve.

Several different partnerships are in operation, all of which are well intentioned. Often the same people are in every partnership. Sometimes community organisations may be represented, but the tactic is to take them back into the community to hear the voice of people who are not signed up to a political party or in a tenants association.We have no strategies for going out from those boards or resources to make those people first among equals. No level playing field is involved in making that community voice heard. It is easier for people who are employed full time by the health service or the local authority or, indeed, for political representatives to take time out and be heard.

We need to make those partnerships effective. I understand how important they are. We must have strategies to make them real so that people understand what is going on. With the best intentions in the world, the danger is that the people who sit on the boards—I sit on a Sure Start board and include myself in this criticism—spend a lot of time talking and understand how long things take, while the people with whom we are most trying to work and help do not have a clue what is going on and see no early wins that could be a building block for future development. We must examine that.

We must also examine how we could better evaluate what is happening on the ground. There is still too much box ticking between local strategies and regional Government offices. When several regeneration projects overlay each other, we should be able to see the boundaries between one project and its aim, targets and outcomes and another project that comes in over the top. For example, in Doncaster, in year four of a six-year regeneration programme, another project was placed on top.

I do not suggest that different packages should not overlay each other. However, the wider community may not be in receipt of a package and, witnessing crime and poverty, it asks why money is being spent on programmes that are being placed on top of each other without identifying the outcomes.

It is also crucial that people have a sense of distinctive packages working. People on the ground must be held to account for their actions so that some years down the line the demarcations are not so blurred that when another project is introduced with another name no one can put up his hand to say what did and did not work, while the community has no clear idea about what is going on and asks, "What was the name of the project that started in 1997? What is the new name for it in 2003?" Those are real issues, and we may be in danger of losing the trust and faith of the people with whom we most want to work and whom we most want to help. That important aspect needs to be tackled.

I am not sure whether such matters are the responsibility of my hon. Friend, but I urge the Government to consider the evaluation and implementation of policies, and the provision of resources. I suppose that I should hold back from saying that an agency similar to the Office for Standards in Education should consider such matters. [Interruption.] There was a sharp intake of breath at that remark from those in the Chamber. Something must be put in place that is tangible and can show which systems work.

We need to experiment. Sometimes plans may not work as well as we thought they would. A sense of trust must be created between those who are trying to grapple with such problems. Sometimes a certain solution may not work, but we should be visionary and mature enough to say, "Well, that did not work, but we are flexible enough to try another system." Evaluations of problems must be meaningful, so that something that is not working is not allowed to keep on ploughing its furrow and losing support. For there to be innovation, risks have to be taken. That sometimes involves things not working as we would want them to, although other results could be fantastic and picked up in other areas.

Another part of the evaluation process is to consider how to spread good practice. That is not to say that central Government can present a blueprint to a community and simply say that a certain system can work. However, there are common issues. If people knew more about what was working in other communities, they could demand more of the same or at least say to the agencies that act on their behalf, "How about trying this?" Knowledge empowers people to know what other people have or have not, whether it be a voice in terms of community partnerships or an understanding of strategies and projects that have worked elsewhere.

I urge the Government not to be too prescriptive about the use of neighbourhood renewal funds. At present, such funds are distributed to authorities pro rata, corresponding to the number of wards that fall within the 10 per cent. most deprived wards nationwide. As my hon. Friend knows, a neighbourhood with the same deprivation characteristics as the nation's most deprived areas may be shrouded in a wider area of prosperity. Electoral wards are not homogenous. They do not necessarily equate to one natural community. More often, they contain several communities. I hope that the Government's guidance on neighbourhood renewal will ensure that the fund can be deployed to target deprivation within a ward. Only then will areas of desperate need in my constituency, such as Edlington, Dunscroft and parts of Rossington, avoid being bypassed once more because their deprivation is masked within a larger geographical area.

I commend the Government's use of a range of social indicators to measure poverty. Some have asked what poverty means and how it is measured. About 14 million people in the United Kingdom are on less than half average income. Such a measure of relative poverty places Britain higher than Slovakia or the Czech Republic where only about 2 per cent. of the population is defined as officially poor.

Let us consider real or absolute poverty. We cannot ignore the comment in a recent UNICEF paper, which stated In the Czech and Slovak Republics (which had the lowest poverty rates using both relative definitions) almost all children are now counted among the poor. There is no doubt that absolute poverty rates are very high in these countries. Any person who is committed to social justice knows that we live in a material world, but poverty is not about having one television rather than three. Everyone knows the difference between people being able to feed their children and buying mobile phones. I want an attack on real child poverty, pensioner poverty and the overwhelming poverty of the workless household. That is not to say that I do not appreciate the arguments about raising people's expectations about what they should have. One could provide interesting and diverse answers for the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who talked about asking people how they defined poverty. That raises as many problems as it answers. That is why we must have a realistic attitude.

I would give a higher priority to the areas where people live, the poor housing, the food in their stomachs and health care than to other material needs, which I consider rather cosmetic. A quarter of the population is poor according to some of the current definitions, which are sometimes so broad as to be practically useless. There is also a danger that they will alienate sections of the public who would be more supportive of antipoverty campaigns. People who do not see themselves as well off and who make choices about how they spend their money and sometimes make sacrifices cannot see some of the values that we place in our definitions of poverty.

In cases of real poverty and neighbourhood decay the Government have placed a rightful emphasis on reviving local economies through a range of measures. At the micro level I particularly commend in my constituency the Conisborough town centre partnership, which is led by some small high street traders supported by the Conisborough and Denaby development trust. It is working with people in the community to renew the small town centre, to improve its appearance and to market it to complement local tourist attractions. Those local people are trying to make a difference with real vision. Their efforts should be rewarded with single remuneration fund sums to support the employment of a town centre manager to fulfil that project. It is inexpensive but crucial. Its success requires the local council and its partnership to devolve power and not to try to second guess the community's needs or to bypass them by appointing its own local development staff. Sometimes power must be passed to people to let them get on with the job.

At the other extreme we have the potential for wholesale economic restructuring in a large brownfield area around the former RAF base at Finningley. That site, with its long history of aviation, is best suited to that purpose. I am new to the area that I represent and a new MP. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) and I have been overwhelmed by the people power on this issue. I must be the first MP to have presented a petition of over 21,000 signatories against a public inquiry on an airport development. I will not go into all of that, but there has been a bottom-up campaign from people from all walks of life. They range from those with no qualifications to the highly skilled, and they argue that it is something that they can understand. Why is that? Well, it is tangible. Everyone knows what an airport looks like. A business park can be anything. It has sparked the local people's imagination. That is the same for any project that aims to combat poverty.

The report is not a one-off. It is part of a continuing debate. Our partnerships must work with people, not just for them. Most people want a decent, happy life. People expect better and they are right to demand it. The view is sometimes expressed that such schemes are not worth it and simply throw good money after bad. People who attack the new deal attack any progress that we make. It is precisely because of that sort of mindset that my constituency did not appear on the Conservative political map or the Conservative agenda. It is why I, as a democratic socialist, became involved in politics. I want to make a difference and to bring about change. I welcome today's debate.

4.30 pm

Mr. Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale, East)

It is a privilege to contribute to this afternoon's debate. There have been several powerful and thoughtful speeches. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on initiating the debate. I checked with the Library this morning, and in case my hon. Friend does not know already, I can inform him that this is the first Government-initiated debate on poverty in more than 20 years. The fact that we are now debating the issue says much for the Government and for what they are trying to do about poverty, disadvantage and social exclusion.

It is a matter of regret that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), the one Conservative Member who contributed—and a member of the party responsible for a trebling of poverty in this country—is no longer with us. He was not even supported by any of his hon. Friends earlier in the debate. It is well to remember, given that the hon. Gentleman used some slightly warmer words than we have been accustomed to—I think that he even wished the Government well—that it is only a little more than 10 years since Baroness Thatcher tried to abolish child benefit. We would do well to remember that it is not long since such matters were the subject of Conservative policy debate.

The document "Opportunity for all—Tackling poverty and social exclusion" is an exciting start on a tough journey, on which the Government are not afraid to embark. Anyone who talks about tackling poverty and social exclusion in this country must know that it is a serious challenge and not to be approached superficially. Everything that I see and hear from the Government reassures me that they do not see the challenge as superficial.

It is fair to say that it took the Government a little time to get into their stride in setting up their campaign and strategy against poverty. However, I am sure that those are now firmly established. The strategy is based on the simple strapline, "Work for those who can and security for those who can't". My hon. Friend the Minister outlined something of what has been achieved with respect to work, including the million extra jobs. In every region of the country, employment rates are above the European average. We have also heard today that the new deal pledge to take 250,000 young people off the dole and put them into work has been met.

In my constituency, 1,158 young people have begun the new deal programme since it started in April 1998. Of those, 550 are in work and 253 have had some work experience or training. Those are young people for whom it is not always easy to find work. Those people were completely discarded by the previous Government, but the present Government are giving them hope. Long-term youth unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 75 per cent. since the general election. I find it offensive that the Opposition are so churlish about what the new deal has achieved in bringing hope to a generation of young people.

Making work pay has been another important aim of the Government, and the working families tax credit has made a huge difference to more than 4,000 families in my constituency, who are on average £30 a week better off than they would have been on family credit, the previous system. There have been significant changes in the number of people claiming benefit. The number of people claiming or depending on income support has dropped by more than a million since the Government came to power in May 1997. More than a third of a million children are no longer in households that depend on income support but in households that depend on wages. That is a huge step forward in a relatively short time.

The second part of the strapline that I mentioned concerned security for people who cannot work. Clearly pensioners are in that category. I look on the minimum income guarantee introduced by the Government with great joy. Several thousand pensioners in my constituency were, at the time of the election, on incomes of less than £70 a week. Soon they will be on incomes of at least £92 a week, rising shortly after that to £100 a week. That is a massive improvement in their income and quality of life, and the winter fuel allowance and the arrangements for television licences will add to that.

I recently received a written answer from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stating that 3,900 disabled people in the north-west region now claim the disabled person's tax credit—a substantial increase on the 2,800 who claimed the disability working allowance, which it replaced. Not only is it a more effective form of financial support, but many more people are claiming it, which means that many more disabled people have gone back into work. There have been other initiatives, such as the disabled child premium, which has now risen to over £30 a week.

I single out the action that has been taken in regard to carers because I know that the Minister has taken great care to improve support for carers, by increasing the carer premium by £10. There have also been welcome changes to invalid care allowance, which has been made available to people over 65. The earnings threshold has been changed so that people are more able to stay in touch with the world of work and enjoy the benefits of the invalid care allowance.

On points raised by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), I draw hon. Members' attention to the work of the family budget unit at King's college in London, which was today brought to my attention by Save the Children. That interesting research, along the lines that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, calculated a low-cost, acceptable budget for a family. In January 1998, it estimated that the income support payable to a family consisting of a couple and two children fell £39 short of what it regarded as a low-cost, acceptable budget. That measure is today short by £10—a massive improvement of nearly £30. We are not there yet, but that is a massive stride for such a short space of time, bringing children closer to an exit from poverty.

I wish to focus on four points. The first is on means-testing. In debates about poverty, benefits and related subjects, the Opposition frequently level accusations that the Government are bent on increasing means-testing. They always imply that means-testing is a mean-spirited measure, based on a poor-law approach and the measures taken in the 1930s to combat extreme poverty. In fact, we are all means-tested, in many different ways. If our children go to university, we are means-tested. We are means-tested when we pay income tax.

We have to achieve consensus on means-testing so that it is seen not as a measure of meanness but as a way of maintaining decent minimum standards. The minimum income guarantee is a good example of that. £100 a week is not a king's ransom, but if one has £100 a week and receives the winter fuel allowance, housing benefit, council tax benefit and a free TV licence, that is not abject poverty. We have to develop a new philosophy and approach to means-testing, so that more pensioners and other people who are having a hard time understand that they have the right and entitlement to claim for means-tested support. However, means-testing on its own is not enough. As well as a more positive attitude from politicians, it is essential that we have strategies that increase self-reliance so that people contribute more to a second pension, which will ultimately take them out of the means-tested level.

My second point echoes what my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said, and is that no Government of any colour can by themselves solve the problem of poverty. A bottom-up approach is necessary to raise families who live in poor communities out of poverty. The policies developed around the neighbourhood renewal unit are right.

Benchill ward in my constituency provides a good example. When the new deprivation index was published in the summer, it had the dubious honour of being declared the most deprived ward in the country. Whether that is true remains debatable, but it is a deprived area by any measure. I was encouraged by the attitude of local people to headlines in the newspapers. They want to fight back, not just lie down and accept that they are victims of poverty.

I should like to share with hon. Members some recent developments in that ward. Family action Benchill is the main voluntary organisation at the centre of the Sure Start initiative in the community. A local housing company called Willow Park is investing £70 million in local housing and includes on its board local tenants elected by local residents. It is engaging local people in the future of investment in housing. Metrolink trams will run through the Benchill area in the not-too-distant future. We expect two new primary schools. There is a vibrant community centre and further education colleges working with the community to develop basic skills and construction skills to help with housing improvements. Credit unions are also important, and some people are working within the primary care trust and voluntary organisations to improve health in the area. They all engage local people who have had a hard time, but who want to come to grips with their communities and their lives. All that is making a real difference.

Ultimately education is the key. Only one in five children leaving schools in my constituency gain five or more A to C grades at GCSE. We all know that that is not good enough. I spoke to a nursery teacher last week. She told me that four out of five children leaving her nursery class cannot count to five, speak in simple short sentences or recognise basic colours. Sure Start will make a real difference. We need sustained investment in education to give our children hope for the future.

I welcome, of course, the million jobs and the 1.2 million children coming out of poverty, but the further we go towards driving down poverty, the harder our task will become. Unemployed people who are well motivated and possess skills will find it easier to move into the world of work, but people who are demotivated and deskilled and who come from families with generations of unemployment will be much harder to reach. We should not kid ourselves that it will not be tough. It will, and we all have a responsibility. Employers have the responsibility to take risks and offer a job to someone who has not been employed before. Employees have the responsibility to be mentors to young people and to encourage and support them. If we all accept those responsibilities, I am hopeful for the future, but it will be tough.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley about the need to consult people with direct experience of poverty—locally and nationally. We must be informed by that experience rather than by what policy experts believe may be the answer. People who know poverty from their own direct experience must have their say. We know from surgeries and constituency work how important that is. National policy must also engage with the experience of poverty. I cite the work of organisations such as ATD 4th World and Church Action on Poverty, for which I used to work. I pay great tribute to the my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) for chairing the all-party parliamentary group on poverty and bringing together in one room Cabinet and senior Ministers with people who have direct experience of poverty and can ask direct questions about it. That represents real inclusion.

The Government have made a tremendous start; there is achievement and aspiration in the document. If we run the economy as sensibly as we have done so far and mix that with commitment to and compassion for those who have had a hard time in recent years, we can solve the problem of poverty. I am confident that we will.

4.44 pm

Ms Hazel Blears (Salford)

I am delighted to take part in the debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) that there have been some powerful speeches today. I appreciate the opportunity to learn from other Members about the problems in their constituencies.

When we talk about social exclusion and grand plans to tackle poverty, we assume that the problems are the same wherever people live, but that is not so. Different communities have different problems. The debate can draw out the issues that are so pressing to us, as representatives of the public.

I am saddened and disappointed that no Conservative Members are present. That is a matter of great regret if, as we have been told, this is the first debate on poverty and related issues initiated by the Government in 20 years. I am not making a party political point. The issues affect all hon. Members and their constituents. I hoped that all parties would be represented and would contribute their ideas to the debate.

Be that as it may, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on an excellent report. At long last, it brings together work being done in different Departments. Departmentalism is one of the most difficult issues to tackle; it has gone on for years in Whitehall and, to some extent, in local government. Departments concentrate on service delivery in health, education, social services and crime and disorder without drawing them together.

I was impressed that the report put people at the centre. It talks about children and young people, about older people, people of working age and communities. That is how our people see themselves, not as in need of health care or education or as the victims of crime, but as people living in a community. That is why the report is so incredibly refreshing.

It is good that we are beginning to join up not only talk about these issues but action. As a Government, we could be accused of having lots of strategies, glossy documents and grand plans, but whether they are translated into real, tangible action on the ground is a matter on which we still have some distance to go. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said that people want to see and touch and feel the experience of the improvements. We have plans and we are beginning to take action, but it is a long, slow process to translate those ideas and proposals into action. In our second term as a Labour Government, which I trust that we will attain, I want faster, more radical action and real commitment to translating ideas into things that make a difference to local people.

Like many hon. Members who are present in this debate, I represent one of the poorest communities in Britain and my constituency has huge health problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) talked about health inequality. Anyone born in Salford today is likely to die five years earlier than someone born in Berkshire, Hertfordshire or Surrey, and there is no clearer indication of health inequality, but everyone has an equal right to life. Tackling that inequality must be a top political priority.

My region has seen massive unemployment and two recessions. Engineering and other traditional industries there have been decimated. I strongly believe that we are now picking up the legacy of that economic collapse, which has led to social problems such as family breakdown and the disempowerment of local communities.

I am happy that last year Salford had the largest fall in unemployment anywhere in the north-west region. That is a marvellous result. People are beginning to get back into work, but many of the new jobs are fragile, low-paid and not sustainable over a long period. We must not be complacent about the 1 million new jobs, as many are very shaky. We must reinforce and sustain that employment so that people can look to the future and plan their lives for years to come, rather than living a hand-to-mouth existence for three or six months. We have much to do to strengthen the new jobs in our economy.

The report is an excellent recognition of the interrelated nature of the problems that we face. At long last we can say publicly that poor health is linked to poverty and unemployment. For 18 years, those words were taboo in the Department of Health, and people were not allowed to say that the link existed. The view was that the poor health of poor people was their own fault, because they did not eat the right foods or exercise and they were irresponsible and feckless. At long last we can recognise the truth: there is a real link between poverty and poor health.

The report's emphasis on bringing together financial support, education and training, and economic development is key to tackling poverty. It is all very well to give as much extra money as we can to poor areas and poor families, but we must ensure that people on low incomes and in poverty have the means to improve their lives themselves. I have found time and again that the way to sustain change and improvement is to allow people to be in control of shaping their own lives and influencing their own destinies. Giving them the skills, training and confidence to be able to do that is fundamental. We have talked about giving people a hand up, not a handout. Our strategy is based on empowering people to change their own lives.

I shall concentrate on chapter 5 of the report, which refers to narrowing the gap between deprived areas and the rest of the country. It says that outcomes will be dramatically improved and there will be more jobs, better educational attainment, higher skill levels, less crime and better health in the most deprived areas. That sounds like utopia, and I have no doubt that a long and arduous journey will be required to get there, but it is the most worthwhile aim that I have seen expressed in a Government document for a long time.

I have a great deal of experience in trying to help to regenerate communities. I chair a regeneration partnership in Seedley and Langworthy in Salford, one of the most depressed areas in my community. The area has about 3,000 families and about 400 empty homes. Until recently, one family a week simply walked away from the area because of dereliction, crime, family breakdown and all the other problems with which we are unfortunately too familiar.

One problem in the area is that most of the property is private sector owner-occupied. It is much easier to regenerate council estates, where the local authority owns the land and the property and can draw in partners to make a difference. In areas of small terraced properties, particularly across the north of England, people may have invested £25,000 or £30,000 in their property. I recognise that that is not a great deal in London, but it is a substantial amount for many people in our communities. Houses in the area are changing hands, if people are lucky, for £3,000 or £4,000. They are in massive negative equity, so seeking to regenerate such communities is incredibly difficult.

One innovative scheme that we have proposed is the home swap scheme. I hope that the Government will support it. With our limited single regeneration budget moneys, we cannot afford to compensate all the people affected by giving them £30,000 and allowing them to walk away. Unfortunately, that is what many of them would like, but we want them to stay in the community. We are setting up what I believe is a unique scheme whereby people can transfer from their current home—which will be demolished—to an improved house in the same community, taking their negative equity with them. They can continue to pay only the mortgage that they were paying on the house that will be demolished. They have a considerable increase in equity, and we will place that on the property as a land charge, which will taper out over a period of years. The scheme will secure people in the community, and they will not have an extra mortgage to pay. It will also deter speculators from moving into the increased-equity houses and selling them off straight away. We will encourage people to stay for perhaps five years, and the liability will taper over that period.

We have had to gain the support of building societies. In a way, it is in their interest to support the home swap scheme, because if house values in the area do not increase through regeneration, they will never recoup the equity and payments owed to them. We are drawing in commercial stakeholders to support this innovative scheme.

I am told that legislation allows us to operate the scheme, but in pushing forward the boundaries, we will be right at the cutting edge, and I would welcome the Government's support. Where we have creativity and imagination, we will also have flexibility of implementation. If we succeed in the home swap scheme, we will be able to use it right across areas of small, owner-occupied housing, where there is massive negative equity, and people will stay in the community. There will no longer be massive slum clearance, breaking up communities and dispersing them to the four winds. Instead, we will keep people with skills, talent and local connections in the community, by providing them with a better home at the same price that they have been paying for a derelict house for years and years. That will give people trust and confidence in staying in our community.

The second innovative scheme that we are developing relates to page 158 of the report, where we talk about tackling financial exclusion. To be honest, most poor communities want cash. I recognise the tremendous contribution of credit unions in allowing people access to finance. I also feel strongly that, just because he or she is poor, a person should not have to go to a mutual support organisation, however good it is. Why cannot that person go into a bank like anybody else and obtain access to credit and things that he or she needs?

Tomorrow, in Salford, we are launching Salford moneyline. Again, I think that the initiative is unique in the country, with the possible exception of a similar scheme that is being developed in Plymouth. It will be a kind of people's bank, similar to the scheme that the Government have been trying to introduce through the Post Office, although we are still awaiting the outcome of those proposals. Salford moneyline is funded through single regeneration budget money, European money and with money from the local university. A senior executive has been seconded from Barclays bank to work on the project. Many stakeholders are involved.

The initiative will provide a lending institution for local people. It will tackle the moneylenders and loan sharks, and hopefully it will put them out of business. Seven innovative financial products have been developed, including a home improvement loan and a family loan to deal with the issues raised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) relating to the purchase of white goods and other large family expenditure. There is a getting to work loan, which will provide people with tools and perhaps enable them to buy a bicycle or some minimal form of transportation and clothes for a new job. Those are big expenses that can put a family budget out.

There will be a fresh start loan to consolidate debts, and a bridging loan that is to be repaid from money that is expected in the future. There will be an enterprise loan to help to set up small businesses, and a community loan to assist not-for-profit, community-based organisations in establishing commercial ventures. Salford moneyline is an innovative idea, and I hope that the Government may learn from the examples that it provides.

A spin-off of that project is the recent establishment of training schemes to train people to work in the financial services sector. They will be trained in basic book-keeping and accounting to enable them to get a job at Salford moneyline or to become a volunteer director of the company. We should be learning from such creative ideas all the time.

The idea of sharing best practice has been mentioned. Why are we constantly reinventing the wheel? There are projects like those in my city going on throughout the country. Why can we not have a website or directory that we could all use, to find out what financial exclusion projects exist to meet needs such as the need for child care? In these days of 21st-century technology it should not be beyond us to set up such a network.

Duplication is a tremendous problem in regeneration. Like those of other hon. Members, my constituency has a health action zone, an education action zone, as well as single regeneration budget and sure start programmes and a new deal for communities. I am grateful that my community has all those initiatives, but it takes a huge amount of time to administer them—to tick the boxes and examine the performance indicators. We need a set of performance indicators that combine those schemes. They are all about improving the quality of life for ordinary people, and it should not be beyond us to come up with indicators that apply across the board, to avoid duplication.

We should consider how all our initiatives relate to local government. If we are not careful, the social exclusion initiatives, many of which require match funding from local authority budgets, will run at a time when our revenue support grant settlement is difficult, to say the least. In many local authority areas, councils are having to take hard decisions on closing facilities at the same time as we have huge social exclusion initiatives.

The political message from the Government may become confused, which I do not want to happen. All the good things that the Government are doing should be recognised at local level, but if local people are then faced with the closure of residential homes or nurseries, the message will become incredibly confused. We must see more interaction with local government. The initiatives must also shape the provision of mainstream services. There cannot be separate, parallel universes. We must have communication and change together.

We must also have multi-skilled workers who can cover a range of services for poor families. Families under pressure can receive visits from education welfare officers, housing officers, health visitors, debt counsellors and welfare rights officers. Those who have recently had babies might see a midwife as well. Families can be visited by about a dozen local authority people. For goodness' sake, we need one multi-skilled worker to perform health, benefit and housing checks. Families could establish a relationship with a named worker, in whom they could have confidence as their advocate. We are wasting resources in multiple interventions with poor families, and we do not achieve the needed outcomes. It is about breaking professional barriers, as professions are sometimes precious about workers' status. We should state that those workers' status would be enhanced rather than their skills being diluted, as they would become multi-skilled workers in deprived communities. We need to be radical about that.

The initiatives will not succeed as they could unless local people feel that they own and administer them, and are confident in being connected to the political process. We must put resources into citizenship, and not only in terms of young people's curriculums, although that will help in the future. Several generations have grown up with no idea how the world works. They do not know where the leaders of power are, or what local government or the health service does. An investment in citizenship would empower local people. We have something called community champions in Salford, which takes people through a range of citizenship initiatives. They will be the advocates and ambassadors for their community. I do not want to chair my regeneration partnership in two years' time. I want local people with support, encouragement and skills to take charge of the projects.

The path that the Government have embarked on is absolutely fantastic. The task is incredibly difficult, but we have made a brilliant start. I remember the messages of the 1980s, phrases such as, "Everyone for himself," "There's no such thing as society," and, "Look after number one." I am delighted that those days are well and truly over. The report is clear evidence of the progress that we have made so far, and I look forward to many years of the Labour Government in which improvements continue in our communities.

5.3 pm

Mr. Jeff Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in what I consider to be an important debate. There is no doubt that one of the main reasons why the Labour Government were elected with such a massive majority in 1997 was their commitment to the social inclusion agenda and the alleviation of poverty in this country. In 18 years, the previous Government had become notorious for creating a so-called underclass, with employment running at up to 3 million and many caught in the poverty trap.

One has only to consider the damage that the previous Government did to my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) by closing down all the local pits virtually overnight in the early 1990s. Everyone is aware that it was done primarily for political reasons rather than economic ones. In 1997, that left my constituency with the lowest level of gross domestic product per capita in the country, at only 62 per cent. of the European average. It is no wonder that South Yorkshire has qualified for objective 1 funding from Europe.

I want to focus my remarks on the energy in the community project being undertaken in Thurnscoe, a former mining village in the heart of my constituency. Admittedly, it is more of a fuel poverty rather than a general poverty project, but I draw it to hon. Members' attention for two main reasons. First, it represents an excellent case study of what the Government are trying to achieve in the general alleviation of poverty. Secondly, this happens to be national warm homes week.

Fuel poverty is one of the more defined aspects of general poverty; it has been defined as affecting households that spend more than 10 per cent. of their income on fuel. An estimated 6 million households fall into that category, so it is a major social issue. Fuel poverty leads to cold, damp homes and exacerbates respiratory illnesses, heart attacks and strokes, all of which are prevalent in Barnsley and Doncaster. One in three households in my constituency contain at least one disabled person, which is a legacy of the mining industry.

The energy in the community project was launched in February by TXU Europe, in collaboration and partnership with Barnsley council and Groundwork Dearne Valley, in Thurnscoe. The project, in which £3 million will be invested over three years, will aim to use energy efficiency and education to reduce fuel poverty and enhance quality of life, with a focus on community regeneration and environmental issues. So far, more than 30 per cent. of the households in Thurnscoe—more than 800 properties—have registered for the project, and the village has shown considerable interest.

The project offers a variety of energy-related benefits to Thurnscoe residents, including energy-efficient light bulbs, smoke alarms, carbon monoxide alarms and cold alert devices. It also offers home safety, security and water use advice, along with simple locks and door chains. In addition, it provides an energy survey and report detailing practical measures that householders can take to reduce energy bills and improve comfort. The project also gives guidance through various grant schemes.

Householders who are believed to be eligible for free installation of insulation and/or heating measures under the Government's home energy efficiency scheme will be referred to the scheme for further assessment. If householders are ineligible for the home energy efficiency scheme but receive council tax benefits, TXU will pay for energy efficiency improvement measures, including loft and cavity wall insulation, draught-proofing and pipe and cylinder lagging, as recommended by the energy survey.

In the broader community, the first sponsorship awards to groups in Thurnscoe have been made from the TXU community energy fund, which is designed to help local groups to make energy and sustainability-related improvements to community buildings and Thurnscoe amenities. A committee of five local volunteers makes decisions on all the applications that draw down from the fund. In May, five TXU staff led a successful workshop on electricity and energy efficiency at Gooseacre school in Thurnscoe.

On Monday, I helped to open the new energy in the community pop-in centre in Thurnscoe, which is the first of its kind in the United Kingdom. The centre is a community access resource at which residents can get free advice and guidance about how to save energy and money and help to save the environment. If each of the 800 households already registered go on to have loft insulation installed, they could save, on average, £109 a year each. That would add up to a total saving of more than £87,000 in energy bills. If all the other energy-saving measures can be adopted by those households—hot water tank jackets, cavity wall insulation, draught proofing and so on—the savings per household would be approximately £231 per annum, or £184,800 for all 800 households. The total savings could be even higher, as the project partners are aiming to survey at least a further 1,200 households in Thurnscoe. Many of them will qualify for the free home insulation measures offered.

The project is also contributing significantly to the regeneration of this former mining area. It has already created three full-time jobs for local people who live in Thurnscoe, running the local pop-in centre and carrying out home energy surveys. More jobs are expected to be generated by contracts to install home insulation measures. I hope that the profile brought by the project should also draw attention to the area and assist further regeneration.

I want to thank TXU Europe for having the foresight to invest heavily in such a socially responsible and innovative project. It has fully involved not only the appropriate Department but the local council, Groundwork Dearne Valley, the three local ward councillors, the two local primary schools—Thurnscoe Gooseacre primary school and Thurnscoe The Hill primary school—and local people. In addition, it has provided local employment.

When the project has been fully evaluated, I am convinced that it will provide a best practice model of how socially responsible companies can work in partnership with the relevant agencies, to address not only fuel poverty issues but all the poverty issues that affect the lives of the many vulnerable people in our society.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair)

Order. We have until 5.45 pm for this debate. I want to give the Minister 10 minutes to wind up, and three hon. Members want to speak. Need I say more?

5.11 pm

Mrs. Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton)

It is a pleasure to follow the many hon. Members who have outlined the benefits in relation to the report. Many communities share the aim—envisaged in the report—of a fair and prosperous society, with opportunity for all, the length and breadth of the country.

I inherited from my Conservative predecessor—it is a pity that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) is no longer here to draw on the experience that many hon. Members have of that legacy—several of the poorest wards in England, including the poorest ward. Conditions in my constituency have improved as a result of many projects, such as education action zones and health action zones. Unemployment is at the national average for the first time in 20 years, having fallen from 12,000 to less than 4,000. Again, it is a pity that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar is not here to hear those figures, which represent a transformation in the lives of many families.

At the time of the general election, I calculated, using the Tory Government's figures, that a cost of £9,000 per unemployed person amounted to more than £100 million in Plymouth alone. Clearly, the figure has decreased proportionately, although our investment was criticised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, whose hon. Friends would abolish the new deal. When the history books on the first Labour Government in 20 years are written, the investment of the windfall levy on the over-high profits of privatised public utilities will be found to have been hugely wise.

My hon. Friend the Minister said that it was necessary to create the conditions in which poverty could be tackled. Employment is one of the best paths out of poverty. The joined-up thinking and action at national level represented in the report—we have discussed making work pay and the new deal programmes—has been more than matched by people working in partnership locally in Plymouth. I cannot speak too highly of the Employment Service. Chris Holland and her team—Colleen Cann, Lyn Johns and Wendy Holmes—have worked their socks off to deliver it. Our evening newspaper has given us a great deal of help by publicising role models in a highly can-do community in Plymouth that is tackling the dreadful legacy left us.

The Employment Service team could not have done it without employers such as E. Thomas Construction, Marine Projects and Matalan, and public service employers such as the national health service, Dartmoor prison and the Ministry of Defence. Small businesses have also played a role. I pay tribute to David Beardsley of the Federation of Small Businesses. He was rather sceptical at first, but since then we have had no greater champion. He shares my enthusiasm for seeing as many as possible of the 17 million small businesses in Europe being able to create a job, which would resolve the problem of unemployment overnight—and we are making good headway.

It is difficult to maintain partnerships such as the Plymouth 20-20 partnership—chaired by Bob Ball, the vice-president of Gleason Corporation—in communities that have been so badly affected by poverty. We use a phrase in Plymouth: partnership fatigue. The fact that there is only a small critical mass of businesses to support them is especially challenging.

Tomorrow, I will speak to students from Stoke Damerel community college as part of the programme of "put it to your MP" surgeries that UNICEF has encouraged Members of Parliament all over the country to run. Their advance questions reflect the challenges that we all face and are a sad reflection of the legacy of poverty bequeathed by 20 years of underinvestment in our city. I hope that they will be asking different questions in five or 10 years' time. Let me quote some of their questions: "Why do you think underage children drink alcohol and take drugs?"; "Why are some schools better off than others, with more money and more equipment?"; "Do you think Plymouth has a serious drug problem, and how can we protect children from this?"; "Why is there so little for young people to do in Plymouth that is free?"; "Why are there so many homeless people and what are we doing for them?"; and, "Why does it seem that a lot of rich people look down on others?" Those questions are an indictment of the quality of life that has resulted from the legacy that we were left.

I will tell the students about investment in our schools that is giving money directly to their governors and head teachers, and will ask them to look out for the scaffolding that is a sign of building and refurbishment work at many local primary schools, which they probably attended—Prince Rock, Mountwise and Holy Cross, to name but a few. I shall tell them that thanks to the Government's investment, the number of infants in classes of more than 30 in Plymouth is down from just over 3,000 to about 200.

I shall tell the students that everyone should receive a good start, and will explain how Sure Start is bringing that prospect to my neighbouring constituency of Plymouth, Devonport. The LARK project is bringing services to more than 300 children aged four and under and their brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers. Some of my local communities would like that kind of scheme—especially Stonehouse, where people were disappointed that the Sure Start bid by a team led by Dr. Trevor Aughey did not succeed. I am delighted that as a result of the report they might have another chance—it says that the number of such programmes will double to 500 by 2004.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) mentioned the value of warm homes to older people. Many members of Efford senior citizens club, whom I recently met at their Christmas fair, told me that they were delighted by the package that the Government are delivering, especially the

winter fuel allowance. That has been criticised, but for people who have to choose between heating and eating—as too many do—it has been a hugely important boost at the right time of year. The Government are doubling the money going into the home energy efficiency scheme. Last week, I visited the home of Mrs. Adams in Cattedown when she was having her central heating installed. By 2004, HEES is expected to have helped 800,000 households.

When, as a new Member in 1997, I became involved in the campaign for the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, I thought that 15 years was an ambitious target for the elimination of fuel poverty. I now think that it is not ambitious enough. I hope that the process can be accelerated by the Bill, which received cross-party support, and by the recognition of the interministerial group on which my hon. Friend the Minister serves with many of his colleagues from across government. If we are serious about tackling child poverty and pensioner poverty, it is essential to tackle fuel poverty, which can mean the difference between paying 5 per cent. and 20 per cent.—sometimes even 30 per cent.—of one's income towards fuel.

I am conscious that other Members want to contribute to the debate, so I shall end on this point. We in Plymouth have some serious concerns. Given that, unfortunately, Tories control it, our city council will no longer take quite as seriously the issues that underpin the partnerships and the good work that I have described. That attitude is reflected by the absence of a Tory spokesperson in this Chamber. The Tories in Plymouth have made cutting parking charges a priority, yet at the same time homes are threatened with closure.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will continue to work with other Departments to ensure that, in terms of taxpayers' money, priority is given to tackling poverty, so that we can achieve the very best opportunities for all, and the social justice and economic efficiency that that will bring.

5.21 pm

Mr. Hilary Benn (Leeds, Central)

This has been an excellent and necessary debate. In terms of poverty, we in this country have one of the worst records in the western world—certainly among the countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, bar the United States of America.

As a relatively new Member representing the constituency of Leeds, Central, I have reflected on this issue a great deal. Leeds is a city of contrasts. The first city of Leeds is thriving, diversifying and attracting new businesses, and there has been strong civic leadership. Although my hon. Friend the Minister is entirely correct to say that getting right the economy of the city of Leeds will provide the foundation, on its own that is not enough.

In the past 15 years, Leeds has created about 30,000 new jobs. Earlier this year, a report by Leeds training and enterprise council stated that, with luck, Leeds will do the same in the next 15 years. However, unemployment will remain unchanged. That report pulled me up short, because it defines in a nutshell the problem in Leeds and the country as a whole.

Of course, there is the second city of Leeds. It so happens that four of the five wards that I represent—City and Holbeck, Hunslet, University and Richmond Hill—are among the most deprived in the country. Although those communities are about only a mile and a half away from Leeds city centre, where one finds the symbols of economic success, in terms of opportunity, aspiration and hope they could be on a different planet. One of the best ways in which our society measures the quality of life in a given area is through the value attached to houses and homes. Last year in Leeds, the first penthouse was sold for £1 million, but a house in one of those outlying communities cannot be sold for £2,500. Like me, many hon. Members who have contributed to this debate represent two cities, two areas and two communities. There is no doubt that the first city cannot in truth prosper if the second city cannot have a greater share of that prosperity.

I have been struck by the extent of disadvantage. I hate to use the term "multi-faceted", but it is true that disadvantage comes in many different forms. According to the relevant league table, a particular secondary school in my constituency is not doing very well. However, 50 per cent. of its kids receive free school meals, and 50 per cent. have special educational needs. That constitutes true disadvantage.

Many people who visit our surgeries on a Saturday say, "We've got a problem with housing." Frequently, they then let slip that a member of their family suffers from ill health. We know from experience that it is the people who live in the poorest areas who suffer the highest levels of crime. In Holbeck, the area covered by the largest police division in my constituency, 60 per cent. of crime is drug related.

We have all heard what it is like to live in a poor neighbourhood: the vandalism, the rubbish and the low-level nuisance on the streets. I met a woman last year who was too frightened to walk three streets to go to the one remaining shop in her community. When I spoke to the shopkeeper, I learned that he spends most of his life, when his shop is closed, behind the boarded-up shutters, because he feels isolated within his community. That type of atmosphere corrodes people's confidence in their community.

Poor people pay more for their food because, in some cases, they cannot get to the supermarket, and the local shops charge more. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) said that poor people pay more for their fuel, particularly those who are on pre-payment meters. Our society has, in a sense, moved forward: we have invented a new form of purchasing goods—internet shopping—that is denied to people without a bank account because they cannot enter the crucial account number. There is a debate about the universal bank—perhaps it will be set up by the Post Office. I say to the banks, which have a social responsibility in that area, that they should spend less time whingeing about having to contribute to allowing people to access financial services, and spend more time making it work in practice. In our society, it is astonishing that we load so many extra costs on people who already have so little.

The final point that strikes me about this debate, and this is a common view that has been expressed by everybody who has contributed so far, is that to tackle social exclusion we need a combination of help and self-help—to use a slightly old-fashioned expression. We need both, not least because disadvantage manifests itself—certainly in my constituency—as a profound alienation from the political process. I speak with great authority on this subject, as my hon. Friends will realise, because 80 per cent. of the people in my constituency did not vote in the by-election that returned me to the House. In the previous general election, 45 per cent. did not vote, because they cannot see the difference that we, as politicians, could make to their lives.

The challenge for us is to show that we can make a difference. We cannot do it all for people, but we can target help. The most welcome feature of the Government—for all the criticism, the things we have yet to do and the failures and challenges that lie ahead—is that they are absolutely serious about trying to target help. For example, the excellence in cities initiative is pumping £19 million into the most disadvantaged schools in my constituency, including the one where 50 per cent. of children receive free school meals and 50 per cent. have special educational needs.

The second part of the equation, self-help, is especially important. For all the problems in my constituency that I have discovered in 17 months as a Member of Parliament, what always gives me hope is the astonishing range of community organisations that are working their guts out to make a difference. They include organisations such as Caring Together in Woodhouse and Little London, which ran a pensioners party two weeks ago, and South Leeds Health for All, which is trying to tackle health problems by getting people to talk about them. It is running a men's health group—let us be honest, men are not terribly good at looking after their health.

As other hon. Members have said, we must ensure that targeted support is available to organisations on the ground in a form that they can access. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) asked how we can judge whether we have made a difference, and that is a relevant question. The answer is that, in life, that which we are most proud of is that which we have worked hardest to achieve. If people feel that they can do it for themselves and the Government have helped them to achieve it, perhaps we shall have begun to tackle this serious problem.

5.28 pm

Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)

Following the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), I have two points to make. In broad terms, I agree with everything that my hon. Friends have said. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) has run away. I was surprised that he dared to show his face, given that it was 18 years of Conservative Government that created the greatest explosion of unemployment, poverty, homelessness and bankruptcy that this country has ever seen.

I welcome everything that the Government are doing to tackle the issues of poverty and social exclusion. Building on the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central, I would like to concentrate on people who have for more than two and a half decades been told day in and day out, directly and indirectly: that they have no value, no contribution to make, and are not part of their society but merely spongers.

The Government's targeting of resources is of immense benefit, but I strongly urge them to examine how to support people who are prepared to tackle issues in their own communities and who obtain results when action by local authorities, central Government and official organisations does not because people discount and mistrust them. For example, in my constituency we have won a private finance initiative grant to transform a large estate in Hampstead which, because of the depredations of the previous Government, was allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. The scheme is being run by a dedicated team of tenants with help from the local authority and the wider community. However, the tenants committee is unable to engage a larger group of people to support the exercise. To repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), if only there was some way of disseminating information to groups that are engaged in best practice, we would see immense improvements in a very short time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) described in graphic detail the almost intolerable burden caused by lack of affordable housing and outright homelessness in London. That is as prevalent in my constituency as in the rest of London. She made some points that I would have made and I can replicate her story from my constituency surgeries. It has been estimated that there are 160,000 hidden homeless people in London. They may be living in extremely overcrowded conditions or moving from night to night to sleep on friends' sofas or floors. There is particular concern about women who are deliberately placing themselves in physical and sexual danger because they do not want to be on the streets.

Those who work to get people off the streets are seeing a resurgence of tuberculosis. A group that organises an ambulance run around central London on Saturday nights is seeing trench foot on the streets of this city for the first time since the first world war. We must work hard for those people—and those in my constituency to whom I referred—who have been made to feel alienated. We must recreate in them what my hon. Friend referred to as citizenship.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central highlighted the need to recreate the democratic links that will bring people back not just to the ballot box but to their own communities.

The other dreadful waste is that of human ability. We are wasting enormous resources. When people are engaged in their own communities, they have immense and varied talents. They learn quickly and can approach problems innovatively and in a way that is often not possible for those of us who are looking at them every day, such as local authorities, which, with the best will in the world, may become bureaucratised in their approach to problems.

I warmly welcome the Government's approach and I must tell the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that I have seen improvements in my constituency, particularly for single parent families who are eligible for family credit. I can give a precise example of a mother who had felt ashamed that she could not afford to allow her child to invite a schoolfriend back to tea. Now she can, and that is a step forward in building the confidence of not only the mother but the family and the wider community. It will be a long, hard road, but the building of that confidence, and giving back to people the sense that they are human beings and have a valuable contribution to make is important. That it is their community and their country is a vital part of the Government's programme.

5.35 pm

Mr. Bayley

The debate has been excellent. I have learned a lot from it, because hon. Members have been talking from their experience in their constituencies about what does and does not work. I hope that the Government can provide a better co-ordinated framework for its anti-poverty strategy. I hope that hon. Members present and others who will read the report of our dete will pick up on the many examples given of good practice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) starkly described a parent who could not afford to provide tea for her child's schoolfriend. Such a simple case shows how awful it is that anyone should grow up in such circumstances. We must ensure that such changes concern all children in Britain, which is why we have made the historic commitment to halve child poverty within a decade and to eliminate it within 20 years.

It is a shame that only one contribution was made from the Conservative Benches. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) explained that something had occurred in his constituency and that he could not stay throughout our proceedings. Although he made some partisan points, he also made some interesting ones to which I shall respond, as did the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb).

Excellent contributions were made to the debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), for Salford (Ms Blears), for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis), for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) and for Hampstead and Highgate. Interesting interventions were also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas).

The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar talked of loan agreements with interest-free periods. I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs recently hosted a conference to examine that problem. He secured a commitment from lenders to participate in a task force led by the Department of Trade and Industry to investigate improving the transparency of information provided to consumers before and when concluding credit agreements, including the small print. He will report back to the Government in the spring.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems of crime in poor neighbourhoods, as did many others hon. Members. However, he did not acknowledge that crime is falling under this Government. Since 1997, it has fallen by 6 per cent. Domestic burglary is down by 24 per cent. and vehicle crime by 17 per cent. Such drops have not happened by accident, but as a result of the Government's initiatives, such as their spending £60 million on the reducing burglary initiative. An extra £150 million is being spent on closed circuit television. In all, £400 million is being spent on a crime reduction strategy. I must say, even in his absence, that his slightly curmudgeonly remarks were biased. He was wrong about the evaluation of the new deal that we rightly celebrated today. It enabled 250,000 young people to get off benefits and into work.

The official evaluators, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said that the new deal has paid substantially for itself within two years, and that unemployment would have been twice as high had we not had it. The Industrial Society said that the new deal benefits the labour market

because people leave it better equipped, motivated and skilled to face the rest of their working lives.

The hon. Member for Northavon asked for a more independent analysis of the performance of the Government's poverty strategy. In July, we called in a wide range of academics to review what we were doing and advise us on the way in which we evaluated and measured our performance and on the indicators used. Those academics included John Hills from the London School of Economics; Brian Nolan from the Economic and Social Research Institute, Ireland; Johnathan Bradshaw from the University of York; and Sheldon Danzinger from the University of Michigan—all people of whom the hon. Gentleman will have heard.

Those academics reviewed our methodology and means of reporting and advised us to use a range of indicators, because focusing on a single indicator would not take account of the entire range of dimensions of people's lives that are affected by poverty. It would be a mistake to concentrate simply on housing, income or health rather than using a range of indicators. Even within a single field, such as income, it is important—for reasons that hon. Members have explained well—to use a range of indicators.

It is important to consider relative poverty, because people can feel impoverished if they are relatively poorer than others in their community, but it is also important to consider absolute poverty, as it means that people cannot heat their homes and may freeze to death in winter. We should consider, too, persistent poverty. If one is poor for six months, one may have a rough time but one will probably survive. If one is poor for six years, oneself and one's children are probably going to be trapped in poverty for ever.

A range of indicators must be used, although that does create the difficulty mentioned by the hon. Member for Northavon. It would be easier if there were a single measure against which the Government's performance could be judged. However, in a move towards transparency, a range of measures should be used. To make our performance easier to assess, we have chosen five headline measures for our work on—for example—child poverty. The five key measures are the increased opportunities for parents to work, improved family incomes, higher educational standards, better quality housing and reduced health inequalities. They are only five measures, but they may make it easier to assess the overall trend and judge whether the Government's policies are working than would the 32 or—in this year's report—34 measures used in total.

My hon. Friend the Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North made an excellent speech about housing and council tax benefits and the terrible problems created by the housing shortage in London—points echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate. The Government will soon respond to the consultation responses we received to our housing Green Paper. The Government are paying attention to the issues raised by both those hon. Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley talked about the devastating effect of mine closures on her constituency, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough. The former referred, too, to the importance of involving not only the community leaders but all the community. I agree that that is extremely important. The Government cannot slay the dragon of poverty on our own—neither can local people or community groups—but together we can do it.

There is a need for experimentation. Mistakes will be made, but we must be honest enough to report them. For example, in the new deal for disabled people, we have made some mistakes in rehabilitation programmes. However, we have learned from that. When we establish larger scale rehabilitation programmes next year, we shall intervene at an earlier stage so that the likelihood of success will be greater.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East talked about the additional funding the Government have provided for carers of the most severely people. That underlines the second part of the equation: we want to provide not only work for those who can work—that is what the new deal means—but security for those who cannot work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford said that people will not welcome what we are doing and pat us on our backs until they can see a difference on the ground. People are beginning to see that difference. The unemployment rates are falling in her constituency and in those of all hon. Members in this Chamber.

It being quarter to Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.