Britain is one of the richest countries in the world. So why do we have so many children living in poverty - well over 3 million? And why are we failing to do anything about it?
Children from poor families tend to have low aspirations, to be less successful at school, to fall more easily into crime, and to suffer from chronic long-term illnesses. To put those things right later on is expensive for the taxpayer.
We know that child poverty can be avoided. Other very similar countries do not have nearly as many poor children. But doing something about it is complicated. This Government has made all kinds of stabs at it, including Sure Start, but nothing seems to be working. Targets for reducing child poverty will not be met. The latest plan is to increase child benefit by 48p a week and create an administrative unit across Whitehall - a working party - to deal with it! Campaigners like Child Poverty Action Group are rightly scathing about it.
One of the reasons child poverty is not falling appears to be that mothers are not going back to work in the numbers anticipated. The poorest families are usually those where women don't work. But why should mothers go out to work, if the alternatives are high-cost and (according to Ofsted) often not very good childcare provision, and inflexible working hours in low-paid jobs? The Government is also giving another £25 a week in childcare tax credits, but that money will help providers rather than families directly. For a mother living on the breadline, to pay over £200 a week for a nursery place of middling to poor quality seems an outrage.
Tax credits and a reliance on the private market no longer seem to be a credible solution. Universal services - doubling the hours of nursery education or providing a straightforward kindergarten system like most European countries - may be expensive in the short term, but in the long term may be much more effective in reducing child poverty.
- Helen Penn is professor of early childhood studies at the University of East London.
