The Prime Minister is considering looking at wider ways of measuring child poverty that are not based on household income, but Downing Street says there are no plans to abandon child poverty targets.
What do you think of the plan?
As Sarah Teather said recently, those who suggest income plays no part in child poverty are wrong. And, actually, David Cameron himself has acknowledged that one of the mistakes the Thatcher government made was to ignore relative income poverty. So, yes, we’d be incredibly concerned if the Government’s response to rising poverty is to stop counting the numbers of children living in poverty. Income is significant as it is strongly associated with poorer life chances and health, education and child well-being. This long established evidence.
Why is it important to measure child poverty, and do you think the target to end it by 2020 is achievable?
We need to know how many children are in poverty in the UK for both social and economic reasons. We know that poverty can be detrimental to children in terms of quality of life in childhood and their life chances But as well as the personal impacts, we also know that high levels of child poverty are a major cost to the economy. Work by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that the cost to the UK economy from factors like low educational attainment, lost output and increased health costs is around £25 billion a year.
Poverty is the result of the failure of politics, not people’s failings. Other EU countries have succeeded in having the low levels of child poverty required by the targets and measures used in the Act, so we know it is possible.
What can the Government do to encourage employers to pay people a realistic living wage and end in-wage poverty?
Too often the blame for poverty is pinned on parents, but there are far more children in poverty because their parent is a care worker, a retail assistant, a cleaner, a factory worker or a hospitality worker than because their parent is a gambler, alcoholic or drug addict.
First the Government must accept that low wages is a major structural problem that has to be addressed and that the National Minimum Wage should be raised. In the last 30 years, the share of GDP accounted for by wages has fallen from 58.5% to 53%; and at the same time the distribution of wages has been increasingly slanted in favour of the wealthiest.
How will changes to Working Tax Credits due to come into effect in April affect families?
Changes to Working Tax Credit rules are putting 200,000 families, with almost half a million children, at risk of losing nearly £4,000 in support. With loss of qualification there will also be loss of access to the childcare element of tax credits. This follows last year's cut in the proportion of childcare payments that can be covered by tax credits from 80% to 70%. We are seeing an assault on support for working families that is completely at odds with government rhetoric, threatens the welfare of families and could cause economic damage too by making it no longer financially viable for parents to stay in work.
Even those families still getting tax credits, will be hit as the rates have been frozen. Let’s also remember that the Child Tax Credit increase promised by ministers to prevent child poverty rising, worth £110 this year, has also been snatched away.
Do you think the Universal Credit is a good idea? How should the tax credit system be reformed, given that so many low-income families rely on them to survive?
There are some principles with merit behind the Universal Credit, such as simplifying the system and making work pay. But the principles are not being very well implemented in practice. The taper rate will be too high, childcare support will not be sufficient and the withdrawal rate for second earners will mean that work incentives for them are far worse - a major problem given how effective a second earner is known to be at helping a family above the poverty line.
People working a small number of hours will benefit but for many already in work, as things stand, progression will be more difficult.
As Sarah Teather said recently, those who suggest income plays no part in child poverty are wrong. And, actually, David Cameron himself has acknowledged that one of the mistakes the Thatcher government made was to ignore relative income poverty. So, yes, we’d be incredibly concerned if the Government’s response to rising poverty is to stop counting the numbers of children living in poverty. Income is significant as it is strongly associated with poorer life chances and health, education and child well-being. This long established evidence.
Why is it important to measure child poverty, and do you think the target to end it by 2020 is achievable?
We need to know how many children are in poverty in the UK for both social and economic reasons. We know that poverty can be detrimental to children in terms of quality of life in childhood and their life chances But as well as the personal impacts, we also know that high levels of child poverty are a major cost to the economy. Work by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that the cost to the UK economy from factors like low educational attainment, lost output and increased health costs is around £25 billion a year.
Poverty is the result of the failure of politics, not people’s failings. Other EU countries have succeeded in having the low levels of child poverty required by the targets and measures used in the Act, so we know it is possible.
What can the Government do to encourage employers to pay people a realistic living wage and end in-wage poverty?
Too often the blame for poverty is pinned on parents, but there are far more children in poverty because their parent is a care worker, a retail assistant, a cleaner, a factory worker or a hospitality worker than because their parent is a gambler, alcoholic or drug addict.
First the Government must accept that low wages is a major structural problem that has to be addressed and that the National Minimum Wage should be raised. In the last 30 years, the share of GDP accounted for by wages has fallen from 58.5% to 53%; and at the same time the distribution of wages has been increasingly slanted in favour of the wealthiest.
How will changes to Working Tax Credits due to come into effect in April affect families?
Changes to Working Tax Credit rules are putting 200,000 families, with almost half a million children, at risk of losing nearly £4,000 in support. With loss of qualification there will also be loss of access to the childcare element of tax credits. This follows last year's cut in the proportion of childcare payments that can be covered by tax credits from 80% to 70%. We are seeing an assault on support for working families that is completely at odds with government rhetoric, threatens the welfare of families and could cause economic damage too by making it no longer financially viable for parents to stay in work.
Even those families still getting tax credits, will be hit as the rates have been frozen. Let’s also remember that the Child Tax Credit increase promised by ministers to prevent child poverty rising, worth £110 this year, has also been snatched away.
Do you think the Universal Credit is a good idea? How should the tax credit system be reformed, given that so many low-income families rely on them to survive?
There are some principles with merit behind the Universal Credit, such as simplifying the system and making work pay. But the principles are not being very well implemented in practice. The taper rate will be too high, childcare support will not be sufficient and the withdrawal rate for second earners will mean that work incentives for them are far worse - a major problem given how effective a second earner is known to be at helping a family above the poverty line.
People working a small number of hours will benefit but for many already in work, as things stand, progression will be more difficult.
