§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Mr. Jim Murphy.]
7.44 pm§ Mrs. Patsy Calton (Cheadle) (LD)I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important topic in the House, especially given the nature of the statements that are likely to be made tomorrow.
Although I acknowledge the many initiatives undertaken by the Government to alleviate the effects of poverty and to remove a number of children from the poverty statistics, I am sure that the Government themselves recognise that there is still much to do in this, the fourth richest country in the world. At first sight, it may seem odd that someone who represents what is on the face of it one of the wealthiest constituencies in terms of income should request this debate, but my early experiences as a community politician, subsequently backed up by a research study "Profiling Stockport" carried out in Stockport in 1995, led me to realise that more than half the poverty in our borough was hidden away in small pockets, well below ward level at district enumeration level. I have a persistent concern, therefore, that only a small part of the problem is being addressed. Children are suffering, and ultimately society suffers, too.
Before I go into the statistics, which are a disgrace in a country that aspires to call itself civilised, I want to thank some of the organisations that do such good work in the field and have been generous with their time in assisting me.
Barnardo's, which shocked us with its advertising campaign—I confess that I was disgusted by it—has nevertheless ensured that few people could miss the point. The pictures jangled a raw nerve. Indeed, I am little annoyed with myself, because I thought for a while that my sensibilities were more important than the suffering of children—they are not, and Barnardo's has done us all a service.
Save the Children provided me with information that makes it clear that the transition between work and benefits causes many children to fall into severe poverty. One does not have to look far to see that, to deal with part of the problem, we need not to throw extra money at it but to ensure that there is a more timely application of the money that is due in benefits. The failure to implement the new system at the Child Support Agency, alongside the failings of the previous system, has thrown many lone parents into debt and poverty.
The change from the working families tax credit to the child tax credit left families on low earnings without their entitlement, for months in some cases. Some months ago, I was concerned when I heard a Minister say on the "Today" programme that the only outstanding cases were those in which applications had not been adequately completed. The truth is that some families who had already completed the forms were asked to fill in another set, even though those forms asked for no more information than had been correctly supplied in the first place. I do not doubt for a minute that the Minister believed that she was telling the truth, but I hope that Ministers look behind some of the information supplied by officials from the organisations that are supposedly administering the system for the very real hardship that is being caused.
1033 In a response to the Gracious Speech, the Equal Opportunities Commission made the case for a public sector duty to promote equality between men and women. That would have a direct impact on child care provision in the public sector. Good-quality child care, available for the working day, would do more than anything to lift women and their children out of poverty.
I have been sent the submissions made by the Child Poverty Action Group and Save the Children to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions inquiry into child poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group submitted a powerful document. which, while applauding the Government's intention to examine measures to make faster progress on eradicating child poverty, draws together several studies that show how much remains to be done.
The statistics for 2001–02 on households below average income showed that 3.8 million children, or one in three, were living in income poverty, compared with 1.9 million in 1979. Of those 3.8 million children, 55 per cent. were living with a couple and 45 per cent. with a lone parent; 52 per cent. with a family in which one or more members of the household worked full-time—work does not always protect families; 48 per cent. in a workless household; 45 per cent. in a family with three or more children; 25 per cent. in a household in which one or more adults had a disability; 47 per cent. in a family whose youngest child was under five; and 16 per cent. in London.
The risk is not shared equally across all household types: 54 per cent. of children in lone parent households live in income poverty, compared with 22 per cent. in couple families. Children in households with no adult working are at significantly greater risk of income poverty, at 79 per cent. However, one in five children in poverty live in households with at least one adult working. Half of children in families with four or more children live in poverty. Children from black and minority ethnic households are more at risk of income poverty, as are travellers' and asylum seekers' children.
As the CPAG says, growing up in poverty has adverse consequences for children. The effects are manifested in different ways on physical health and development, learning, behaviour and emotional well-being. The result is that children are prevented from realising their full potential. It is not far from there to the proposition, which I argue, that those individual consequences for children and the older people they grow into have a profound and negative effect on our whole society.
What, then, does poverty mean for the children? Children have been defined as deprived if their parents cannot afford one or more of the necessities listed in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation survey "Poverty arid Social Exclusion" published in 2000. It found that 34 per cent. of children lacked one or more items and that 18 per cent. lacked two or more. About 1 million children—8 per cent. —have been identified as severely poor on three measures: income poverty, child deprivation and parental deprivation, the latter two of which involve parents and children going without what most people would consider necessities. About 13 per cent. of that 8 per cent. lack a warm waterproof coat; 17 per cent. do not have new, properly fitted shoes; 18 per cent. do not have enough underpants; 31 per cent. do 1034 not get meat, fish or a vegetarian equivalent twice each day; 21 per cent. do not get fresh fruit and vegetables daily.
In 1998, the Acheson inquiry—an independent inquiry into inequalities in health—highlighted the fact that low-income mothers were not able to afford an adequate and healthy diet. There is a link between low birth weight and social class, and low birth weight may influence later cognitive function and educational performance. Breast feeding is better for babies, but those in lower income groups are less likely to breast feed. Pilot studies where mothers are supported through breast feeding have proved beneficial, but what is being done elsewhere? The CPAG study "Poverty Bites: food health and poor families" challenges the notion that families in poverty have only themselves to blame for poor diet. Parents go without so that their children can eat, but those diets are still likely to be of poor quality.
I am pleased that the appalling suggestion that poor expectant and nursing mothers should have to go through hoops to receive the welfare food benefits that the state believes they need was removed from the Health and Social Care (Community Health Standards) Act 2003, when it was debated in the other place. On a related theme, any suggestion that the benefits that affect families with children in poverty should be withdrawn because of family or personal behaviour must be rejected.
Sure Start, while undoubtedly beneficial to those who receive it, has not necessarily reached those in greatest poverty, and Save the Children is particularly concerned. Early years centres need to be extended to more areas. On the positive side, the Government's school fruit initiative is a good start in schools, but they need to do more to ensure that all food available at school, including that at breakfast clubs, and early years establishments is of good quality and supports a healthy, mixed diet. I will not go on yet again about junk food and drinks machines in schools, as the Government have got the message.
There is clear evidence that children living in poverty do less well at school. They go to school hungry and feel stigmatised by their clothing and shoes, as well as by their inability to take full part in activities paid for by more well-off parents. In my area, the children from one enumeration district do significantly less well in a local school that has very good results overall. The problem is that those children do not register on the radar that determines funding for their special needs.
I argued during the last local government spending review that it is wrong that children from similar backgrounds or with similar disabilities receive very different funding from the state for their education. In 2002, only 59 per cent. of children receiving free school meals reached the expected key stage 3 levels, while 70 per cent. of those not needing school meals or not receiving them did so. Schools in the poorest communities have between 10 per cent. and 25 per cent. of children achieving five GCSE passes at grades A to C, compared with a national average of almost 50 per cent. Nearly 90 per cent. of failing schools are in areas of deprivation and have a large proportion of children eligible for free school meals.
Lack of facilities for study at home and the extra pressures of school breaks cause additional problems. One fifth of children have no holiday because of 1035 financial constraints. Poverty that is in some way visible tends to result in children being treated differently from their peers. There are clear financial implications when stigmatising benefits are not taken up.
The Government targets—the Treasury public service agreement—aimed to reduce child poverty by a quarter by 2004–05. Before the 2001 general election, the Government said that they had lifted 1.2 million children out of poverty, measured as children in households below 60 per cent. of median income. The 2002 manifesto pledged to lift another 1 million children out of poverty. In a speech at the time, the Chancellor promised that that would be achieved by 2005. The reduction between 1996–97 and 2000–01 was in fact 500.000, according to the households below average income figures for 2000–01—a little short of the promised 1 million. Even if the Government meet their 10-year target, according to Save the Children that would still leave the UK with the highest child poverty rate in Europe.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has indicated that the Government are likely to miss their target of fewer than 3.1 million children in poverty in 2004–05 by 200,000—some estimates say 300,00—unless further measures are taken to improve financial support. Latest figures suggest that an additional £5 per week increase in benefit for every child living in a low-income family is needed to ensure that the poverty reduction targets are met.
In Budget 2003, the Chancellor made clear his intention to advance faster towards his child poverty reduction goals. It is not clear, however—and will not be until the review of child poverty measures is published by the Department for Work and Pensions—exactly what the goals are against which faster progress is to be made. I hope that we will not simply see a change in the counting methods with the statements likely to be made tomorrow. Although 60 per cent. below median income is not easy to understand, it provides a reliable measure that can be checked from one year to the next. Clearly, however, the whole range of other indicators have a part to play. I was interested to find that in my constituency, which, again, is regarded as wealthy, figures for child tooth decay, for example, are considerably higher than average, at 1.67 missing, filled and decayed teeth at age five. It seems to me that such statistics could be used reliably.
Good-quality public services such as health, education, housing and transport are required by people living in poverty. However, there is no evidence that local authorities and health services use resources to reflect the consequences of child poverty or to tackle the issue. Simply focusing on areas deemed to be deprived will miss over half the poverty. The Secondary Heads Association estimates that education funding for deprivation misses two thirds of children living in poverty. Families in poverty have a greater need for services but often less access to them. I believe that that is called the inverse care law.
The CPAG says:
There needs to be an explicit commitment by every spending department to the goal of eradicating child poverty with poverty related targets".1036 I agree. The Local Government Association says:`Local Government is a key player in the battle to reduce child poverty".I agree with that, too. Local government must recognise, however, that it cannot be a key player if it refuses to change its way of working. Children's social services, education, housing and health must work together, and children's trusts provide a way forward.It seems that the Government have rejected the notion of a minimum income standard, but the CPAG believes that one should be established and used as the basis of social security benefit rates. It says that the minimum income standard should be enhanced if a person has a disability—I agree with that, too.
Maximising take-up of benefits is absolutely crucial, because as many as 600,000 families did not take up the working families tax credit. Underpayments and overpayments need specific care in line with Save the Children's work on the increased rate of severe poverty and the interface between work and benefits. The CPAG recommends writing off administrative errors involving overpayment. That would be entirely consistent with the recognition that families in severe poverty find it almost impossible to pay back overpayments.
The social fund is not working. According to Save the Children, some 13 per cent. of children in persistent poverty have parents with social fund debts, while only 4 per cent. of such parents have loans. Both the CPAG and the Liberal Democrats believe that the funding to be used for the child trust fund would be better spent on alleviating poverty in the early years.
The Government have the opportunity to seize the issue, and seize it they must if they are to embrace their declared aims. The Department of Health today published the document "Building on the Best". I welcome the Secretary of State for Health's determination to make the NHS
a responsive service that provides the patient with the best possible experience".I hope that the same attitude will pervade the Department for Work and Pensions as it tackles child poverty. People who live on low incomes and benefits should be treated with respect and dignity. Too often the benefits system loses sight of the very people whom it is supposed to help. The level of child poverty in this country is shameful to us all and it will stay that way until every child is brought up in a household with sufficient to meet what most of us regard as the necessities of life.
§ 8.1 pm
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Mr. Chris Pond)I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) on securing a debate on childhood poverty in the United Kingdom. I know from the quality of her representations this evening and her active interest in the area that we agree that the subject is a matter for constant attention because of the blight on children's opportunities that poverty causes. That is the very reason why we have pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and halve it by 2010. As today's Joseph Rowntree Foundation report and the recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report show, we are making steady progress on that aim, although we fully recognise, as she suggests, that we have set ourselves ambitious targets and that there is more to do.
1037 I shall start by outlining why tackling child poverty is such a priority for us. Social justice and strong communities are absolutely central to this party and Government. Since 1997, we have worked hard—with real success—to tackle inequality and expand opportunities for all. Today's report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which was prepared by the new policy institute, reports that
some significant milestones have now been passedin tackling low incomes.We have done that in a new way by giving people the power to transform their own lives, their family and their community through a new and enabling welfare state. It is a modern welfare state that attempts not only to ameliorate poverty, but to tackle its root causes, thus giving people the opportunity to become active citizens, rather than the passive recipients of welfare. We need to break the cycle of disadvantage that too often in the past has led to poor children growing to be poor pensioners.
That is why we are rebuilding the benefit system and my Department around the support of work for those who can work, while ensuring that support is there for those who cannot. Today's Rowntree report confirms:
Out of work benefits to both working-age families with dependent children and to pensioners have risen by around 30 per cent. in real terms since 1998, faster than earnings".However, for people of working age, there is now overwhelming evidence that the best route out of poverty is a job. Since 1997, we have helped nearly 2 million more people into permanent jobs and virtually eliminated long-term youth unemployment. For the first time ever, more than half of all lone parents are in work. The minimum wage and the system of tax credits are also designed to ensure that work pays, so that when people have a job they are lifted out of poverty.The hon. Lady referred to the implementation of the new tax credits, of which she was somewhat critical. We admitted that because the change is massive—the biggest change in support for families since the establishment of Beveridge's welfare state—there were difficulties in the early stages, and we have apologised to those families affected. She should recognise, however, that nearly 6 million families, containing more than 10 million children, are benefiting from the new tax credits. Combined with child benefit increases, child support for the first child has risen to £54.10p a week, twice as much as it was in 1997.
Our crusade to tackle inequality starts where it should: with children. We should never forget that previous Conservative Governments witnessed a shameful increase in child poverty. By the time they opted out of the European social chapter, Britain accounted for a quarter of the poor children in the EU. The fact that not a single representative from the Conservative party is in the Chamber to hear this important debate shows how uninterested they are in the welfare of children and the problem of child poverty. The increase in child poverty that we experienced in those years cannot be tolerated by a civilised society. For that reason, we have set ourselves the most ambitious target to be set by any Government: we have pledged to eradicate child poverty in a generation, and we have wasted no time in starting on that task.
Real rises in child benefit and the new tax credits have meant that all families with children are on average £1,200 a year better off and the poorest fifth of families 1038 are on average £2,500 a year better off. We have cut the number of people sleeping rough and are beginning to make in-roads into reducing the high rates of teenage pregnancy.
I hope that the hon. Lady, as a former teacher, recognises the priority that we have attached to education in breaking cycles of deprivation. I know that she thinks we have not done enough, but more has been invested in education. There are smaller primary class sizes and a stronger emphasis on literacy and numeracy. We recognise, however, that many disadvantaged children are simply not ready to learn by the time they reach secondary school age. Research shows that the early years of a child's life are crucial to their welfare and future. Sure Start, to which the hon. Lady referred, is aimed precisely at addressing early childhood disadvantage by improving child care, health and family support in the most deprived areas. Local parents are directly involved in shaping provision to meet local needs.
We have also matched new resources with demanding targets to reduce worklessness, maternal smoking and the number of children at risk and with learning and behavioural difficulties. We have concentrated efforts to boost family incomes on those with young children through, for example, the enhanced child tax credit available for babies. Our wider child care strategy has created new child care places for 1.3 million children, about 8,000 out-of-school clubs and a new curriculum for the early years that places a premium on play and learning.
I think I heard the hon. Lady say that she opposed the child trust fund.
§ David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)She did.
§ Mr. PondMy hon. Friend confirms it. The hon. Lady described herself as a community politician, but that message will not go down well on the doorsteps. For the first time in this nation's history, we have an opportunity for young people to start their lives with a nest egg, which could give them a stake in this country's future wealth.
We are already seeing the results of the Government's commitment and investment. More than 500,000 children have been lifted out of low-income households since 1997. This means that we are making steady progress on our public service agreement target to reduce by a quarter the number of children in low-income households.
I think that the hon. Lady confused the statistics and the commitments in that she suggested that we had promised to lift 1 million children out of poverty. We have said that the commitment is that the number of children in "low income" is more than a million lower now than it would have been if we had taken no action at all since 1997. The numbers in poverty would have continued to grow. As a result of the actions that we have taken, 500,000 children have been lifted out of low-income households since 1996.
The hon. Lady will know from the interest that she has shown through parliamentary questions that we will 1039 announce the results of our consultation on long-term child poverty measurement before the end of the year.
Poverty, as we have always said, is not just about low income, so it is encouraging to see progress in other domains too. For instance, the proportion of children living in houses that do not meet basic standards has fallen from 43 per cent. to 30 per cent. Schools in the most deprived areas have seen their results rise fastest. Teenage conceptions have fallen by more than 10 per cent. since we launched our teenage pregnancy strategy. The number of children living a household where nobody works has fallen by 350,000.
Yet despite this success we cannot be complacent because we must not underestimate the scale of the challenges that we still face. Our strategy has to be an all-embracing one that addresses income, access to basic amenities and key services such as education and health. It must be one that balances support with personal responsibility. That is why employment is at the heart of our strategy to tackle poverty across all age groups.
Once again, I welcome this debate and congratulate the lion. Lady on securing it and on her determination to keep the issue at the top of the agenda. I hope that I have been able to show that we are making real progress in tackling child poverty in the UK. However, we are under no illusion that the Government can go it alone. We cannot. If we are to win the fight against poverty, we 1040 will need to use every lever at our disposal: jobs; help for people who cannot work; and public services that deliver for us all.
A partnership between the Government and all sectors—voluntary organisations to which the hon. Lady referred and to which I also pay tribute, and private, public, faith and community groups working together—is the best way to tackle poverty and support families. That is demonstrated by the fact that some of the best projects of recent years have partnership with community organisations at their heart, from Sure Start to the new deal for communities. We need to tap into that expertise continually to refine our strategy in line with what works on the ground.
Today's British Social Attitudes report shows that the British people oppose the idea, in an increasingly prosperous society, that large numbers of our fellow citizens should live in poverty. They reject the Tory philosophy of cuts in public services and the claim that economic prosperity can be achieved only at the expense of social justice. We reject that philosophy as well.
We are making progress in building the fairer society that people want, but there are no quick fixes to sort out problems that have developed over several decades. We have set ourselves an ambitious target and we are determined to deliver it. We are ready to be judged on whether we do.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Eight o 'clock