Memorandum submitted by the Association
of London Government (CP 02)
INTRODUCTION
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.
THE EXTENT
OF CHILD
POVERTY IN
LONDON
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]
THE CAUSES
OF CHILD
POVERTY IN
LONDON
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]
THE IMPACT
OF CHILD
POVERTY ON
CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES IN
LONDON—ARE
SPECIFIC GROUPS
PARTICULARLY AFFECTED?
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:
— black and minority ethnic communities;
and
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% |
| — | Pakistanis | 14.2%
|
| — | White | 5.1%
|
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.
Refugees
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.
THE MEASUREMENT
OF CHILD
POVERTY AND
THE GOVERNMENT'S
ANNUAL POVERTY
REPORT, OPPORTUNITY
FOR ALL
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.
THE EXTENT
AND CAUSES
OF REGIONAL
VARIATIONS IN
CHILD POVERTY
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.
THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S
STRATEGIES TO
REDUCE CHILD
POVERTY IN
LONDON
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.
Worklessness
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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
| 
