Select Committee on Work and Pensions Written Evidence

Memorandum submitted by the Association of London Government (CP 02)


  1.  The Association of London Government (ALG) welcomes the opportunity to submit written evidence to the Committee. Although London is one of the wealthiest areas in Europe, it also has the highest rate of child poverty in the UK.[39] The ALG notes that the Committee might also invite witnesses to give oral evidence and would be happy to respond to any such invitation.

  2.  The Association of London Government represents all 32 London boroughs, the Corporation of London, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. It is in an ideal position to advise on a range of issues relating to London government and other matters of concern to Londoners.

  3.  The Association of London Government is recognised by the Government as a local authority association for the purposes of statutory consultation. However, most London authorities are also members of the Local Government Association. In practice, this means the ALG deals only with those issues which are about London or to which there is a special London dimension. The high levels of child poverty and worklessness in London, existing both in swathes across much of inner London in particular and in pockets of deprivation within wealthier areas, makes child poverty an issue with a special London dimension.

  4.  The remainder of this memorandum of evidence sets out the ALG's views on child poverty in the capital.


  5.  Despite being the most prosperous region in Europe, London also has very high levels of child poverty. Thirty-five per cent of children in Greater London live in poverty, compared with 30% nationally and 31% in the north-east.[40] The levels of child poverty are particularly high in inner London[41] with 48% of children living in income poverty. However there are pockets of intense child poverty across much of London, though in some boroughs these are hidden within wider areas of affluence. The proportion of London's children eligible for free school meals (27%) is the highest of any UK region.[42]


  6.  The high levels of child poverty in London are closely linked to high levels of worklessness:

    —  of the 20 parliamentary constituencies with the highest levels of unemployment, 10 are in London;[43]

    —  London has the highest unemployment rate of any English region, at 7.1% compared to a national rate of 5.1%;[44]

    —  there are more unemployed people in London than in Scotland and Wales put together;[45]

    —  only 70% of London's workforce is economically active, compared to 74.9% in England and 74.6% in the UK.[46]

  7.  More than one in four of London's children live in a household where no one works, compared with 18% in the UK as a whole.[47] Although having at least one parent in employment does not guarantee that children will not live in poverty, the high rate of worklessness is a major cause of London's high child poverty rates.

  8.  For many London parents, worklessness is a long-term situation. Of those people claiming job seekers allowance in London, 19.3% have been out of work for more than 12 months compared with 15% for the UK as a whole[48]. Nine of the 20 authorities with the highest levels of long-term unemployment are in London.[49]

  9.  London's high levels of worklessness and long-term unemployment exist at a time when many sectors of the London economy, including the public sector, are facing skills shortages and recruitment and retention problems.

  10.  When considering child poverty in London it is important to look not only at the problem of low household incomes but also at high costs. London's high costs exacerbate child poverty in the capital. Many London children continue to live in poverty in workless families as the high costs of housing and childcare in the capital make it difficult for their parents to move into employment.

  11.  London has the lowest take-up rate for Working Families Tax Credit (replaced by the Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit in April 2003) in Britain.[50] These tax credits are important tools in the Government's plans to reduce child poverty and their relative failure in the capital is important in this context. Both of these tax credit schemes are failing poor families living in high cost areas where the financial benefit is much reduced by high housing and childcare costs.

  12.  The level of payment of the Working Tax Credit depends on the household income of the recipient. The thresholds are set nationally, with no account being taken of the high cost of living in particular areas of the country. The importance of taking into account regional variations in the cost of living is demonstrated by looking at child poverty statistics before and after housing costs.

  13.  Latest data published by the Department of Work and Pensions[51] reveals that, before housing costs 21% of children in London are living in households with an income of less than 60% of median earnings. After housing costs this figure increases to 35% for London and 48% for inner London. This compares with the national average after housing costs of 30%.

  14.  The Working Tax Credit is intended to encourage the adults in poor households to return to work. However, the interaction of this benefit with other benefits, including housing benefit and council tax benefit, can often result in little or no increase in net income. For some families, the receipt of Working Tax Credits can result in a reduction, or even elimination, of other benefits.

  15.  The Working Tax Credit is not sufficient to meet the costs of childcare in many areas of London. For example a typical private sector nursery in Camden charges £245 a week for a full time place for a child under three years compared to a limit of £135 for one child on the childcare element of Working Tax Credit.

  16.  The HBAI report shows that London tends to experience higher housing costs than anywhere else in England, resulting in a higher proportion of people in London more likely to experience poverty when these are taken into account.

  17.  It would appear that the high costs of both housing and childcare in London create a poverty trap that is more difficult for benefit-dependent households to escape than elsewhere in the country. The ALG, in partnership with the Greater London Authority and London Development Agency, have commissioned research on the operation of the benefits system in the capital in the context of London's higher costs. The research will be published early in October 2003 and the ALG would be happy to make this research available to the Committee.

  18.  Most of London's workless population are low skilled. It is estimated that 704,000 people in London have no qualifications and 23% have low numeracy and literacy levels[52]. The demand for workers with low skills is forecast to fall, which will make it difficult to make significant reductions in worklessness.[53]


  19.  The ALG believes that addressing income poverty and tackling worklessness must remain at the heart of the Government's strategy. However child poverty is multi-faceted and impacts on many aspects of children's lives including their education, health, housing, experience of crime, risk of serious injury or death on the roads.[54] The impact of child poverty can be felt not only in childhood but often into adulthood affecting further and higher education prospects, (un)employment patterns, health and likelihood of homelessness. These wider aspects of child poverty need to be addressed in tandem with action on income and employment.

  20.  Children living in poverty in London suffer these effects in common with children in other parts of the country. However aspects of poverty can be exacerbated by living in a high-cost area such as London. London has higher basic living costs, higher childcare costs and higher housing costs[55] so the same amount of money tends to purchase less material resource in the capital than in lower cost areas. It could be argued that poor London children are even worse off than poor children in other areas by virtue of living in a high cost area where money does not go as far.

  21.  London has two thirds of the national total of homeless people many of whom live in poverty and face additional barriers in entering the labour market.

  22.  Child poverty is particularly prevalent within certain groups including:

    —  lone parents;

    —  black and minority ethnic communities; and

    —  refugees.

  23.  All of these groups make up a higher proportion of London's population than in other regions of the UK and also have high levels of worklessness and under-employment.

Lone parents

  24.  Lone parents are the group at greatest risk of poverty in the UK.[56] London has the highest proportion of lone parents of any English region[57] and they are particularly affected by worklessness and unemployment:

    —  the unemployment rate amongst lone parents in London, at 17.7%, is over twice as high as the London average of 7.5%;[58]

    —  economic activity rates for lone parents (aged 16+) in London, at 56.7%, are lower than the national average for lone parents of 64.9%.[59]

  25.  Lone parents face significant and particular barriers to employment, which are exacerbated in London. The cost and availability of childcare is a particular problem—the cost of a full-time nursery place for a child under two is an average of £40 per week higher in Inner London and £26 per week higher in Outer London than the national average cost (£128 per week).[60] The GLA estimates that only one third of the formal childcare provision needed by women already in employment in London is currently available, let alone that needed by unemployed parents wanting to pursue training or education.[61]

  26.  Despite lone parents in London accounting for a higher proportion of families with children than elsewhere in Great Britain, take up of family credit benefits (paid to low earning families with dependent children) in London is lower than the rest of the country.[62] This suggests that lone parents in London are experiencing particular difficulties moving into the labour market as a result of the high costs of housing, childcare and travel which are not covered by wages at the lower end of the labour market.

  27.  London also has a high concentration of teenage lone parents, and unlike other regions, conception rates for under 18s are rising (under-18 conception rates for inner London have risen from 66.3 per 1,000 in 1998, to 67.4 in 2000).[63]

  28.  London's teenage parents face significant barriers to employment:

    —  they are more likely to have had their education interrupted and have low levels of qualifications;

    —  they are more likely to be on benefits for longer than other lone parents, and are more likely to rely on benefits alone.[64]

  29.  The prospects of lone parent children are affected by the employment status of their parent. Daughters of working lone parents are more likely to do well at school, less likely to be economically disadvantaged and less likely to become lone parents themselves.[65] Conversely if lone parents do not work their children are more likely to perpetuate the cycle of poverty.

  30.  The New Deal for Lone Parents was set up to combat some of the barriers which lone parents face, but has been less successful in London than in other parts of the country. Nearly a third of New Deal participants are in London and the South East but London has the lowest proportion (46%) of lone parents entering employment.[66]

Black and Minority Ethnic Communities

  31.  Children from a number of ethnic minority communities experience high levels of poverty. In London 73% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi children and 55% of black children are living in income poverty after housing costs.[67]

  32.  Higher child poverty levels among certain ethnic minority communities are linked to higher unemployment rates. The unemployment rates of various communities in London is shown below:[68]

Bangladeshis 24.1%
Black Africans 18.9%
Black (other groups) 16.8%
Black Caribbeans 15.7%

  33.  The London Skills Survey, conducted in 1999, found that in spite of relatively high qualification levels amongst some ethnic minorities, disproportionately high levels of unemployment were experienced. While just 3.8% of white people with a qualification of NVQ 4 Level 4 or above were unemployed, this increased to over 7% for those from Indian or Black African groups.


  34.  A number of studies have revealed patterns of both unemployment and under-employment amongst refugees resulting in higher levels of poverty within refugee families. A report by the Department of Work and Pensions compared refugees' employment status to Labour Force Survey data for ethnic minorities generally. It found that 29% were working, compared to 60% of ethnic minorities and most were in limited fields, poorer conditions, worse paid and in less secure employment.[69]

  35.  A similar pattern emerged from a study in west London which found that many refugees were working in jobs well below their skills levels, for example pharmacists driving cabs, doctors operating tills at garages, economists working as security guards.[70] A skills audit of refugee women undertaken for the GLA in 2002 found that one fifth were in employment, compared to two thirds in their country of origin.

  36.  These studies suggest that more needs to be done to tackle prejudice against refugees within the labour market and to increase the recognition of qualifications obtained in other countries.


  37.  The ALG welcomes the Government's commitment to eliminating child poverty and to measuring progress towards that goal. However it considers a full regional analysis of all indicators to be essential in assessing progress as the current focus on national figures within Opportunity for All means that it is not always possible to determine how well Government policies are working across different parts of the country. Progress in some regions can mask problems in others and, as a result, policies and resources may not be properly targeted.

  38.  A regional analysis of the first Opportunity for All report was produced in July 2000.[71] It revealed that although there were reductions in child poverty in the north-east and north-west, the rate in London was not falling. As far as the ALG is aware, this regional analysis has not been repeated.

  39.  The data needed to conduct a regional analysis is only publicly available for some of the 20 child poverty indicators used in Opportunity for All. For some of these indicators data is available for inner and outer London as well as London as a whole. This level of detail is often helpful given the exceedingly high levels of deprivation across much of inner London. However, different government departments often use different definitions for inner London making comparison of the various indicators produced more difficult. Steps should be taken to ensure a consistent approach when determining which authorities should be classified as inner London.

  40.  The ID 2000 included a Child Poverty Index as a subset of the overall Income Domain. Whilst this was a relatively narrow measure of child poverty, measuring the percentage of children under 16 living in families reliant on means tested benefits, it provided this information at a small area (ward) level. Data at this level is important at identifying concentrations of child poverty at a local level. This can enable work to alleviate child poverty to be targeted at these communities, if this is appropriate. The ALG welcomes the Government's proposal for retaining the Child Poverty Index in its blueprint for updating the ID 2000.


  41.  The extent of child poverty in London and its link to worklessness in particular has already been highlighted above.

  42.  London is different to many parts of the country in having some of the poorest families living side by side with much more affluent ones. In parts of London relative affluence can mask pockets of intense child poverty and it is important that resources are targeted on a neighbourhood/ward level not just at a borough level.

  43.  As already discussed, material deprivation in London may be exacerbated by the higher cost of living and the lack of affordable childcare and housing.

  44.  London has 58,409 homeless households, 64% of the national total, with an average stay in temporary accommodation of more than two years.[72] Most homeless households have low incomes and indeed affordability problems are very often an underlying cause of homelessness.

  45.  Children in temporary accommodation in London have often had a number of moves and their high levels of mobility have been linked with lower levels of educational attainment[73]. In schools with high pupil turnover, mobility also impacts negatively on non-mobile children. Mobility also impacts on the provision of other services to children in poverty, for example highly mobile children can be excluded from early years initiatives such as Sure Start.

  46.  Households in social housing in London are more likely to live in overcrowded accommodation than in other parts of the country,[74] with limited space to do homework or play. This can negatively impact on their development and educational attainment.

  47.  Child poverty is also exacerbated in the capital by council tax benefit restriction, which affects around 9,000 London households (half the national total).[75] In many cases claimants on very low incomes such as income support need to contribute over £300 per year towards their annual council tax costs.

  48.  The council tax benefit restriction policy was proposed in 1996 and introduced in April 1998. The legislation restricts the council tax benefit of claimants who live in properties in council tax bands above Band E. From that date new claimants and claimants who moved to new accommodation would no longer receive any benefit on council tax above Band E.

  49.  The policy was based on the assumption that those affected would primarily be claimants who owned their homes and would be in a position "to release capital value" from their properties. However this assumption has been proved wrong—the majority of those affected are renting accommodation.

  50.  The ALG commissioned the New Policy Institute (NPI) to analyse available data on the incidence of council tax benefit restriction[76]. In particular, NPI were asked to consider whether claimants in any particular region were disproportionately affected by this policy. NPI concluded that households may be penalised because of the region in which they live, rather than having a choice about whether or not to occupy higher value accommodation.

  51.  The original policy assumed that claimants in properties above band E live in luxurious accommodation. However council tax bands vary from region to region and in high cost areas like London and the South East many modest properties are in bands above E. As a consequence of the limited supply of lower value accommodation in London, and inner London in particular, local authorities may be unable to offer households any choice other than accommodation listed in bands F or above. When their time on the waiting list of the housing register ends, households may therefore face the decision either to reject the offer of permanent accommodation and face a high risk of being deemed intentionally homeless under the homelessness legislation, or accept the accommodation and face an additional council tax liability which would almost certainly not be incurred elsewhere in the country.

  52.  NPI found that approximately 70% of those facing restrictions in London live in either social or private rented property and are therefore unable to release equity to cover the additional liability. For those who do own their homes, it is unrealistic to expect people in high cost areas to move or to take out potentially costly equity release products simply to meet additional council tax liability.

  53.  Large or extended families needing larger accommodation are also affected by this policy. The ALG is concerned that some minority ethnic groups who are more likely to live as extended families may be penalised.

  54.  NPI were also asked to consider the impact of council tax revaluation. They found that after revaluation (if the current eight band model is simply rolled forward), while there would be comparatively little impact in other regions, in London the number of potentially restricted claimants could increase by a factor of 5, from 9,000 to 50,000.

  55.  While the council tax benefit restriction policy places further pressure on low income families the ALG estimates that it saves the DWP only £4.5 million per year. The ALG urges the Government to abandon this policy that exacerbates child poverty.


Child poverty targets

  56.  The Government has set itself a target to eradicate child poverty by 2020, with two interim goals: to reduce child poverty by a quarter by 2004 and to halve it by 2010. For these targets, the measure of child poverty is based on 60% of contemporary median income after housing costs, with the child poverty levels for 1998-99 acting as the baseline. There were 4.2 million children living in poverty in 1998-99. Therefore the target for 2004-05 is to reduce the number of children in households below the threshold to 3.2 million.

  57.  Chart 1 shows the national number of children living in households with earnings less than 60% of median. Figures for 1998-99 to 2001-02 are taken from the DWP statistics. The figure for 2001-02 showed a 100,000 fall in the level of children living in poverty compared with 2000-01. We have used this figure to roll forward the potential number of children below the threshold for 2002-03 to 2004-05.

  58.  The Government's most recent initiatives to tackle child poverty will not yet have had an impact on these figures. However, unless policies such as the Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit have a substantial impact on the levels of child poverty, it appears as if the Government will not be able to meet its 2004 target.

Chart 1

  59.  The regional distribution of child poverty, shown in Chart 2, shows that while further progress is required in most regions, the scale of improvement needed in inner London is significantly higher than in other parts of the country.

Chart 2

Benefits policy

  60.  As highlighted earlier in this submission the key policies of Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit do not appear to be working in London. The ALG, in partnership with the GLA and LDA, has commissioned research on the operation of the benefits system which should be published in October 2003. The ALG would be happy to make this research available to the Committee.

  61.  The ALG urges the Committee to consider the NPI research on the operation of council tax benefit restriction, which is exacerbating child poverty for many households in London. A full copy of the report is available from the ALG and we would welcome the Committee's support in trying to reverse this policy.


  62.  London's high levels of child poverty are linked to the high numbers of children living in workless households. A number of government policies aimed at reducing worklessness appear to be having less success in London than in other parts of the country. The Cabinet Office acknowledges that both the New Deal for Lone Parents and Jobcentre Plus are less effective in London than elsewhere.[77]

  63.  As highlighted above, the take up of Working Tax Credit (and previously Working Families Tax Credit) is low given the high levels of households in poverty. London's higher costs are not adequately recognised by the benefits system and there can be little financial incentive for benefit-dependent households to move into work. The London Analytical Report quotes the following research by the GLA:

    An average lone parent social housing tenant in London who goes to work to earn £150 per week is £16 worse off than his or her counterpart in Great Britain after housing costs. When not working both have the same net income.[78]

  64.  The lack of affordable childcare is a key barrier to employment, especially for lone parents. There is a severe shortage of places in London, both in terms of full-time nursery provision and "wrap-around" pre- and after-school care.[79] There remain problems associated with the sustainability of funding for nurseries, particularly for providers who wish to keep costs low to enable low-income households to access provision. Further government support for the development of childcare is crucial in helping London parents to move from benefits into work.

  65.  Likewise, London needs more affordable housing to help reduce the high housing costs that also act to create the "benefit trap" experienced by many of London's poorest households.

  66.  London's economy remains the powerhouse for the rest of the UK supporting jobs not only in the capital but also throughout the UK. The Government should continue to support the development of business in the capital as part of its strategy to create more employment opportunities. Increasing support for business start ups, supporting the retention of existing businesses (particularly through the provision of affordable workspace for small and medium sized businesses) and encouraging investment in the training and development of staff are all areas of need in London. The ALG is a member of the London Business Support Network—a network of over 200 business support organisations working together to try and improve the quality and effective of business support services in London.

The role of local authorities

  67.  In his speech to the Local Government Association (4 July 2003) the Chancellor said that "our goals of full employment and prosperity for all will not be realised without co-operating together and backing local initiative, local solutions, local needs met by local people in local communities."

  68.  London local authorities are already working in many ways to address child poverty in London:

  Supporting employment opportunities by:

    —  fostering business growth and job creation. Bexley has gained beacon status for its work in this area;

    —  facilitating access and return to the labour market;[80]

    —  promoting local authority employment opportunities to excluded groups;[81]

    —  providing affordable nursery and after-school care to support parents; and

    —  providing opportunities for skills development;[82]

  Supporting children and their families by:

    —  supporting the implementation of Sure Start, with some boroughs, such as Camden, rolling Sure Start out across the whole borough;

    —  funding voluntary organisations working with low income households;[83]

    —   encouraging the take up of free school meals;

    —  promoting the take up of Education Maintenance Allowances;

    —  encouraging extended schools enabling more childcare, health and family support to be set up on school premises;

    —  providing family support to vulnerable families; and

    —  supporting partnerships in the community to deliver better services for children in poverty;

  Maximising incomes:

    —  through promoting benefit/tax credit take up;[84]

    —  supporting households affected by late Inland Revenue tax credit assessments for example by delaying housing benefit reassessments; and

    —  improving pay levels for London's lowest paid local authority workers;[85]

  Reducing social exclusion by:

    —  developing strategies to reduce teenage pregnancy rates;

    —  targeting initiatives in neighbourhoods/wards with the highest levels of child poverty, although this is sometimes hampered by the time lag in obtaining up to date Income Support and other benefits data from DWP; and

    —  promoting literacy. For example through Bookstart programmes which expose children to books and reading at an early age.

  69.  These are just some examples of the child poverty work being undertaken by London authorities. Reducing child poverty is at the heart of much local authority work and the Government should channel more initiatives through local authorities who are best placed to meet the needs of children in poverty.

Resourcing London

  70.  London has some of the highest levels of child poverty and worklessness in the country and it needs more resources to tackle these problems.

  71.  London has lost out in funding in recent years. The introduction of the Index of Deprivation 2000 underestimated the levels of deprivation in the capital by failing to measure key aspects of deprivation including crime levels and quality of the environment and putting undue emphasis on geographical access to services whilst ignoring access problems associated with other non-geographical barriers, such as language.

  72.  The Index is currently under review and the ALG welcomes the Government's proposals to address some of these issues in the review.

  73.  The introduction of Formula Spending Shares (FSS) in 2003-04 resulted in a very poor settlement for many London authorities. A third of London boroughs received only the minimum increase in grant. This is despite London's recognised level of need. The Cabinet Office Strategy Unit's report on London[86] states individual funding formulae may not entirely reflect London's particular needs.

  74.  The low take up of working tax credits in the capital results not only in a higher level of poverty, but also understates London's need in grant formulae that use WFTC data. Other measures of child poverty, such as households below average income (HBAI), result in a much higher level of child poverty in London than benefits data are capable of identifying. The use of WFTC as an indicator and distributional tool does not therefore reflect levels of poverty and deprivation across the country and the ALG believes that it should not be used.

  75.  London boroughs are also losing out through lack of government funding to meet the costs of their high homeless population. London's higher numbers of statutory homeless and a shortage of affordable housing mean that the net cost of homelessness to London in 2000-02 was £100 million after subsidy. The high rents for temporary accommodation also make it difficult for homeless households to move off benefits into employment.

  76.  The ALG has urged the Government to pay part of the cost of temporary housing directly to the housing association or local authority leasing the home, enabling them to reduce the rent charged to the homeless household to a level comparable to the rent for permanent affordable housing. This proposal, which would be revenue neutral for the Government overall, would ensure the supply of good quality temporary homes at more affordable rents for homeless families making it more feasible for them to take up employment opportunities.


  77.  Child poverty is a complex and multi-faceted problem and it will require action over the long term if the Government's goal of eliminating it is to be achieved. There are particular challenges in London, which has the highest rate of child poverty in the country, existing both in large swathes, particularly in inner London, and in pockets within wealthier areas. London's child poverty levels are linked to high levels of worklessness, which affects lone parents, black and minority ethnic communities and refugees in particular.

  78.  There has been some progress in London, with a welcome fall in child poverty over the last year, particularly in outer London. Nevertheless, key aspects of government policy on child poverty and worklessness, such as New Deal, Jobcentre plus and Working Families Tax Credit, have been less successful in London and some policies, such as council tax benefit restriction, have exacerbated poverty.

  79.  Child poverty and worklessness in the capital are exacerbated by London's high costs. There should be a greater recognition within government policies of the impact of high costs on both child poverty and worklessness. There is an urgent need for greater investment in affordable childcare and affordable housing and for additional resources to address the high levels of child poverty in the capital.

  80.  London's local authorities are already working in a wide variety of ways to reduce the impact and incidence of child poverty. The Government should channel more initiatives through local authorities in London who are committed to reducing child poverty and are often best placed to meet the needs of London's children.

Hilary McCollum
Director of Social Policy & Grants
Association of London Government

21 August 2003

39   Department for Work and Pensions, Households below average income (HBAI), March 2003. Back

40   Department for Work and Pensions, Households below average income (HBAI), March 2003. Back

41   Different Government departments include different boroughs in their definition of inner London. The following boroughs are included in this case: City of London, Camden, Hackney, Hammersmith, Haringey, Islington, Kensington, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth, Westminster. Back

42   GLA, State of London's Children, 2001. Back

43   ONS Research paper, Unemployment by constituency November 2002, published in December 2002. Back

44   Labour Force Survey, figures for Feb-April 2003. Back

45   ONS, Jobcentre Plus administrative system, seasonally adjusted claimant count figures for May 2003. Back

46   Labour Force Survey, figures for Feb-April 2003. Back

47   ONS Labour Force Survey, Spring 1999 in House of Commons Library (July 2000) Regional Social Exclusion Indicators. Back

48   Labour Force Survey, February-April 2003. Back

49   Census 2001. Back

50   Inland Revenue WFTC Statistics, Quarterly Enquiry, February 2002. Back

51   Department for Work and Pensions, Households below average income (HBAI), March 2003. Back

52   London Skills Commission, London's Framework for Regional Employment and Skills Action, Oct 2002. Back

53   Cabinet Office Strategy Unit. London Analytical Report, 2003, p 27. Back

54   See, for example briefing papers from the End Child Poverty Coalition on education and health and from IPPR, Streets ahead-Safe and liveable streets for children, 2002. Back

55   ONS, Price levels in 2000 for London and the regions compared with the national average, January 2002. Back

56   One Parent Families, Family Resources Survey. Back

57   Census 2001. Back

58   ESF and GOL, Regional Development Plan ESF Objective 3 Programme for London 2000-06, 2000. Back

59   ESF and GOL, 2000, op cit. Back

60   Daycare Trust, 2003 survey. Back

61   GLA, Draft London Childcare Strategy, 2003. Back

62   ESF and GOL 2000, op cit. Back

63   ONS, Health Statistics Quarterly 13, February 2002. Back

64   Social Exclusion Unit, Teenage Pregnancy, 1999. Back

65   Social Exclusion Unit, Teenage Pregnancy, 1999. Back

66   Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, London Analytical Report, 2003, p 44. Back

67   GLA, London Divided: Income Inequality and poverty in the capital, November 2002. Back

68   ONS, Labour Force Survey 2000-01. Back

69   Department of Work and Pensions, Refugees' Opportunities and Barriers in Employment and Training, 2002. Back

70   Bell, Michael and Lukes, Susan Renewing West London Refugee Communities: their hopes and needs, for RENEWAL, 2002. Back

71   House of Commons Library, Regional Social Exclusion Indicators, July 2000. Back

72   BABIE data, GLA bulletin, March 2003. Back

73   Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, London Analytical Report, 2003, p 112. Back

74   Census 2001. Back

75   NPI, The Council Tax Poverty Trap: measuring the impact of council tax benefit restriction, July 2003. Back

76   NPI, The Council Tax Poverty Trap: measuring the impact of council tax benefit restriction, July 2003. Back

77   Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, London Analytical Report, 2003 p 37. Back

78   Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, London Analytical Report, p 45. Back

79   Greater London Authority, Draft London Childcare Strategy, 2003. Back

80   For example "Jobs at Stansted" is a multi-agency initiative that seeks to link unemployed people from the surrounding boroughs to job opportunities at Stansted Airport, with a particular focus on Tottenham. In Camden the Equal BetterCUP programme enables parents to access childcare services so that they can take up training opportunties and employment. Back

81   For example Tower Hamlets has established a Positive Action Training and Employment Scheme which is helping Bangladeshi and Somali people to qualify as social workers. Brent and Harrow have set up a training and employment agency, "Refugees into jobs", which aims to place 200 refugees into jobs, provide 1,000 training places for refugees as well as childcare, counselling and advice services. Back

82   For example in Haringey, a youth magazine Exposure run for young people by young people provides work experience and training for around 40 young people a year. It provides a diverse range of training options such as editing, interviewing, research, design, internet skills, finance and advertising. Initially funded by the Council, the magazine is now self-financing. Back

83   For example through the ALG's grants programme, London boroughs fund pan-London and sub-regional legal and advice services and family support programmes. Back

84   For example the Quids for Kids campaign in Newham and the Castlehaven Ward: Income Maximisation Project for Children and Families in Camden. The latter provided full benefits checks to families in receipt of Housing or Council Tax Benefit, and those listed on the Disabled Children's Register and Children in Need Register. 78% of people seen were not receiving full entitlement or were able to claim extra. Back

85   For example Hammersmith & Fulham have developed a minimum incomes guarantee for council workers. Back

86   Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, London Analytical Report, 2003. Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 22 January 2004