|
Memorandum submitted by Equality
and Human Rights Commission (CP 10)
The Equality and Human Rights
Commission (the Commission) is working to promote fairness, eliminate
discrimination, reduce inequality, protect human rights and to build good
relations, ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to participate in society.
The Commission is a non-departmental public body (NDPB) established under the
Equality Act 2006 - accountable for its public funds, but independent of
Government.
The Commission brings together the
work of the three previous equality commissions, the Equal Opportunities
Commission (EOC), the Commission
for Racial Equality (CRE) and the
Disability Rights Commission (DRC)
and also takes on responsibility for the other aspects of equality: age,
gender identity, sexual orientation and religion or belief, as well as human
rights. A separate Scottish Commission for Human Rights, with whom we work
closely, covers aspects of the human rights remit in Scotland.
The Commission strongly supports the
Child Poverty Bill which will enshrine in law the Government's commitment to
eradicating child poverty at a national and local level by 2020. We share the
ambition of having a nation where socio-economic background has no influence on
children's wellbeing and future economic and social participation. We see the
Bill as a human rights enhancing measure, as it provides a mechanism for the
progressive realisation of children's economic, social and cultural rights.
It is imperative that this
focus and support should not stop at the age of 16, and any measures to tackle
child poverty should ensure that the individual will be equipped to stay out of
poverty throughout their lifetime, and also look at the financial well-being of
the wider family.
We recognise the efforts
the Government has made towards achieving the goal of ending child poverty, and
the significant progress that has been made between 1998/99 and 2006/07 to this
end:
· 600,000 children have been lifted out of relative poverty
· the number of children living in absolute poverty has
halved from 3.4 million to 1.7 million children
· between 2004/05 and 2006/07, the number of children living
in combined low income and material deprivation has fallen by 200,000
The Commission welcomes the fact that the Secretary of State
will have to report on the following four different targets, which provide a
broad definition of poverty and recognises that poverty is not just an issue
related purely to income:
· Relative low income: by 2020 less than 10% of children will live
in a household with an income below 60% of the average income
· Low income and material deprivation: less
than 5% of children will live in a household with income below 70% of the
average income; and experience material deprivation
· Absolute low income: less than 5% of children will live in a
household with income below 60% of median income in financial year
beginning 1 April 2010, up-rated annually in line with inflation
· Persistent poverty: households whose
income has been less that 60% of the median income for at least three of the
past four years. (This specific target will be set in regulations before 2015).
We welcome particularly the inclusion of 'material
deprivation' and 'persistent poverty' which means that the needs of the most
vulnerable children and families should be taken into account. We are keen to
ensure that robust definitions of adequate housing are included in the material
deprivation measure, given the importance of housing to a number of outcomes,
such as health and education.
Looking at material deprivation will also help consideration
of the families with a disabled child or parent, who are likely to have extra
costs, as will larger families (who are more likely to be from ethnic
minorities). It is important that these extra costs are taken into account in
any assessment of poverty. The inclusion of 'persistent poverty' is also
extremely welcome given the aim of breaking the cycle of intergenerational
poverty.
We are concerned however, that the elimination of poverty
will have been achieved when there are potentially 10% of children still in the
relative low income bracket. The Commission is keen to ensure that having a protected
characteristic does not make an individual more at risk of remaining in poverty. It is
therefore necessary, in assessing whether the targets have been met that the data
is disaggregated by equality strand. This will allow the Secretary of State to
identify which groups remain in poverty, the specific barriers they face, and
to propose measures as part of the strategy, which are targeted and effective.
As well as disaggregating
the data, we would like the strategy to be developed looking at the different
protected grounds and setting sub targets for each of them. We believe that in
this way those that are at greatest risk of poverty would be reached by the
measures taken.
The Commission is concerned that certain groups will be
under-represented or missed under the measures above. For example, Gypsies and
Travellers, looked-after children, children in the Criminal Justice System, and
asylum seekers may not be covered by the targets.
We recognise that the strategy produced by the Secretary of
State must include measures to meet the four targets above, and more broadly,
to ensure as far as possible that children in the UK do not experience socio-economic
disadvantage. However, given the particularly vulnerable position of children
in these situations, and the difficulties in applying standard measures of
household income, we believe that in assessing whether the targets have been
met, the Government should make data available so groups that are excluded or
under-represented are taken into consideration in order for their outcomes to
be improved.
As well as these groups, it is important to consider
non-resident parents who may not be included in the definition of 'qualifying
household'. Given that the child may be spending significant amounts of time
with each parent, it is imperative that both households are considered in order
to ensure the best outcomes for the child.
As mentioned above the
Commission is concerned about the increased risk of poverty for disabled
people, which is exacerbated by the extra costs of disability which are not
always taken into account in measures of poverty. This means that the actual
levels of poverty are likely to be underestimated.
For example, we know
that:
· children living in households with one or more
disabled adults are significantly more likely to be living on a low income than
children in households with no disabled adult (38 per cent compared with 26 per
cent)
· children who are themselves disabled, or who
have a disabled sibling, are also at greater risk of poverty (31 per cent
compared with 27 per cent of those in households with no disabled children)[1]
Disabled people also face extra indirect costs (such as lower wages)
and direct costs (such as extra transport) which must be taken into account.
The Commission believes that the Bill is to do this, for example, through deducting
disability related benefits when calculating the income in the household. This
would mean that money received for meeting the extra costs would not be
considered as income.
As well as the extra
costs of disability, the Commission believes that certain other costs should
also be taken into account. For example, we would like to see an 'after
deducting housing costs' measure being used as it is a more effective measure
of household income.
Not taking housing costs
into account can mask the true extent of poverty. For example, housing costs
are particularly important in areas such as London, where adequate housing is
disproportionately expensive. We believe that excluding housing costs will
therefore not provide the full picture, or may hide the poverty faced by
certain groups.
We understand that the government
is concerned that if housing costs are taken into account, this will not allow
them to make comparisons with other countries. However it is possible to
calculate incomes both including and excluding housing costs. We would
therefore like the government to capture both figures and set the targets after
housing costs. This would allow international comparisons to be made, but would
also ensure that the impact of variable housings costs on poverty is not
hidden.
The Commission welcomes
the inclusion in the Bill of the duty to consult children or organisations
working with or representing children for the development of the UK, local
authority and devolved strategies but we would like to see a stronger
commitment from the Government on this matter. As the Bill currently stands, local authorities and the Secretary of
State must consult either children OR organisations working with children. Likewise
in Scotland,
the devolved administration must consult children, OR organisations working
with or representing children, as the devolved administration thinks fit.
The Commission would like to see a change to the Bill that would require
(i) the Secretary of State to consult with children in the preparation of the UK strategy,
and (ii) the local authority to consult with children in the preparation or
modification of the joint child poverty strategy. We would also support
such a requirement on the devolved administration to do the same when preparing
the Scottish strategy.
The Commission believes it is imperative that children are consulted as
noted by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural rights,
the notion of participation is at the centre of a human rights-based approach
to poverty reduction. Consulting people with
experience of poverty is necessary as they are 'experts in
their own experience'[2], and their contribution is therefore key for
the formulation of practical and effective policies.
For the same aims of partnership and inclusion, we believe
that the Child Poverty Commission must involve individuals who are experiencing
socio-economic disadvantage. It is also important that this Commission has
links to local authorities.
The
Commission recognises the concerns that have been raised in relation to this
clause, both at second reading and during the Work and Pensions committee's
oral evidence session on child poverty, that it may be used as a way of
reneging on the duty to eradicate child poverty. We therefore welcome the
assurance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that 'The targets are
not subject to affordability... there is no affordability exclusion or let-out
for the targets set out in this Bill'.
We
understand that
fiscal and economic circumstances, especially at this time are very difficult,
but we believe that children deserve a progressive realisation of their human
rights to have the best outcomes in life.
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has underlined the fact
that even in times of severe resources constraints whether caused by a process
of adjustment, of economic recession, or by other factors the vulnerable
members of society can and indeed must be protected by the adoption of
relatively low-cost targeted programmes.
National economic circumstances must also not be used to
focus the strategy on only helping those closest to the poverty threshold, in
order to get as close to the targets as possible. The focus on the long term
eradication of poverty, and in particular persistent poverty must remain.
As well as this, we wish to point out
the long term benefits of spending now as an investment for the future. For
example, the New Economics Foundation has found that 'For every additional
pound invested in higher-quality residential care (for children), between £4
and £6.10 worth of additional social value is generated.' By investing in
children now, we can hope to widen their aspirations and protect both them and
their own children from poverty in the future.
The Commission is supportive of the duty on local
authorities to produce a local child poverty needs assessment. We believe that
this presents a real opportunity for breaking the cycle of intergenerational
poverty. Also, given the importance of this provision, the regulations need to
be very clear in stating what local authorities need to consider in carrying
out this assessment. We would also like clarity on how this assessment and
strategy will be monitored, as well as who the local authorities will be
accountable to. Monitoring of the duty in the devolved context will also need
to be clarified. This will be
particularly important in Scotland
where much responsibility has been devolved to Local Authorities through the
National Concordat.
The Commission is pleased that the Bill includes provision to consider the
targets after 2020. The Secretary of State will have a duty to ensure
that the targets, once met, are met in later financial years. If child poverty
is not eliminated by 2020, the Bill confers powers on the Secretary of State to
make regulations about how the targets will apply after 2020.
October 2009
[1]
http://www.cpag.org.uk/info/Povertyarticles/Poverty123/disability.htm
[2] http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/0395.pdf
| 