Westminster Hall
Tuesday 9 February 2010
[Mr. Eric Martlew in the Chair]
Child Poverty (London)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.-(Mary Creagh.)
9.30 am
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab): I am grateful for the opportunity this morning to talk about something that is not sufficiently discussed in the House-poverty in London, and specifically child poverty in London. It is particularly an issue for Hackney, in my constituency in east London, which still has some of the highest indices of deprivation in the country.
Statistics show that 4 million children are living in poverty in the UK, and 650,000 of them live in London: that is one in six of all the children in our capital city. Half of them-300,000, which is a massive number-live in severe poverty, which means that they go without the basic daily essentials that we take for granted. When I was a new MP in the 1980s, a Scottish Labour MP turned to me and said, as though it were an incontrovertible fact, "The trouble with London is all the jobs are here." I was surprised, because I had spent my life as a young activist dealing with the issues that arise from worklessness and poverty in London. One of the reasons why I am so glad to be able to speak on this subject this morning is that too many Members of Parliament who come from outside London see only Westminster, Whitehall and the west end, and are not aware of the pockets of poverty that are outside that magic circle.
It is worth reminding hon. Members that London has the largest group of children in poverty of any region in the country. The response to that might be, "Well, that's very sad for them, but MPs have broader and more important issues to debate," but I would say not only that the number of children in poverty in London is a tragedy for those children and their families, but that wider society must live with the consequences of their growing up in poverty. I do not argue, and have never argued, that the mere fact of growing up in poverty means being doomed to a life of crime. My parents both left school at 14, and I am glad to say that both my brother and I were able to go to university and make something of our lives. However, poverty, hopelessness, deprivation and low aspirations have a relationship to the crime problems in our great city. If the media spent as much time on the underlying issues of child poverty as they do on crime, we would have a better-informed public.
John Howell (Henley) (Con): Has the hon. Lady a feeling for what is driving child poverty in London? There are two aspects. How much of it does she think is due to London factors, which affect all groups? How much is connected to the two groups that suffer child poverty above all-lone parents and black and minority ethnic communities?
Ms Abbott: That is an important question, and I shall come to those issues later. There are some general London issues about poverty, but there are also issues for the groups that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
My immediate reason for obtaining the debate was an excellent report released two weeks ago by Save the Children, commissioned by the New Policy Institute and called, "Measuring Severe Child Poverty in the UK", which found that 13 per cent. of children living in the UK-or 1.7 million-live in severe poverty and that, although poverty is spread across all four countries of the United Kingdom, London is the region with the highest proportion of children living in severe poverty. About 20 per cent. of the children in London live in severe poverty, despite the fact that it is the richest city in the United Kingdom. Perhaps we should pause there; this is London and it is the age of the internet and television. Not only do all those children live in poverty, but they can see clearly, when they walk the streets and see the media, the people who live alongside them in this great city: as Disraeli described, they all live in this great city, but they live in two worlds. That is corrosive to social cohesion, not to mention to the personal esteem of the young people trapped in one world, some of whom see no hope of moving on.
Severe poverty has increased every year in England and Wales since 2004-05 and, sadly, there has been no change in the number of children living in severe poverty in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Single parents and workless households are most likely to live in severe poverty. Half the children in severe poverty come from single parent families and families claiming jobseeker's allowance, and ethnic minority children are three times more likely than white children to be in severe poverty.
Many of the things that underlie severe poverty, including worklessness, low educational attainment, single parent households, social rented accommodation and being in an ethnic minority are very much issues in my constituency of Hackney. I am well aware not just of the figures but the human reality. For that reason, I tabled an early-day motion last week on child poverty in ethnic minority communities, and I urge hon. Members to sign it.
I have set out the figures and tried to touch on the personal reality of poverty in London; but the tragedy is that we are in a recession. Although the macro-economic figures look a little better, my view is that the recession has a long tail and the practical consequences for jobs for ordinary people in London have yet to play out. In a recession, it will be even harder to lift children out of poverty. It is estimated that the recession is likely to have increased the number of children in severe poverty, although what are called the economic stabilisers-the automatic rise in some benefits and so on-are expected to bring the numbers back down to pre-recession figures. However, there is no doubt that what progress the Government have made in tackling child poverty has been endangered by the recession. As unemployment continues to rise, there is a danger that the number of children living in severe poverty will not drop, and might rise even higher.
What is being done? The Government have made a laudable commitment to fighting child poverty. It was a Labour Government who first announced, in 1999, the aim of halving child poverty by 2010 and eradicating it
completely by 2020. Last June, the Child Poverty Bill was introduced in the House of Commons to put that pledge into legislation. The Bill is being considered in Committee in the House of Lords. It is sponsored by the Department for Children, School and Families, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury. One must admire the extent to which the Government have put the issue at the top of their agenda. The Bill deals with establishing an accountability framework to drive progress towards the 2020 goal nationally and locally, and it would set up a child poverty commission, to provide advice and to report. I welcome the Bill and the Government's long-standing commitment on child poverty; however, sadly, despite the best of intentions, it will be just words unless the existing high levels of child poverty in London are tackled. The capital will have a significant impact on the Government's ability to meet the national targets, and we cannot wait for legislation before we take action.
To return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), there are specific issues in London. Child poverty in London is the biggest numerical obstacle to our goal of eradicating child poverty by 2020. What are the specific problems in London? All London MPs will say that one problem is the deep poverty trap caused by higher housing costs and the way in which the housing benefit system works. Housing benefit is a problem in London because of the particularly high housing costs there. Too many estates in my constituency that a generation ago were diverse-some people worked, some did not-are now entirely composed of workless families.
As a result, young people are growing up who have never seen the head of the household going out to work. That may sound like a simple thing, but I was brought up in a working-class West Indian family and, every day that God sent, my father went out to work. On Friday, he brought home his wage packet and gave us our pocket money and a bar of chocolate. That was the norm for me and my brother. More than school lessons or anything that we were told formally, the vision of my father going out to work every morning shaped our attitudes to work and society and our responsibilities to the rest of the family. Tragically, the children living on many estates in Hackney do not see that. That has the effect of shaping their attitude to society and their responsibility in a malign way.
One thing that makes it hard for my constituents to work and sustain a job is the poverty trap caused by housing in London. Another problem is the cost of transport. Without wishing to sound party political, I note that the Conservative Mayor of London recently raised fares. Child care, too, is costly. I am among the top 5 per cent. of earners, but I was never more poor than when my son was at nursery. The cost of nursery provision for earners in London is prohibitive. That goes back to the cost of setting up nurseries, the cost of employing people and so on.
Wages in London are worth less to low-income families because of the higher costs of living. I frequently meet low-income women who are trying to calculate the gain of going from benefit into work. Many part-time service sector jobs in London pay lower wages than in the rest of the United Kingdom. If we are really serious about
fighting poverty in London and elsewhere, we will have to look at the interaction of the benefits system and work. A lot has been done, but more is needed.
Many people are put off going to work altogether, because they are frightened of losing their benefits; others have started work, but when the job comes to an end-jobs are often temporary or short-term-they have such a struggle to get back the benefits that they need, which makes them even more reluctant to try for another job. There are fewer part-time opportunities in London. People in temporary accommodation awaiting permanent social housing in London often face high rents. Indeed, we read in the media of the extortionate rents that can be charged.
I shall touch on the question that the hon. Member for Henley asked about ethnic minority families. Some migrant families have particular difficulties in the labour market. Parents with English as a second language have lower employment rates and are more likely to have low-paid jobs. It is estimated that 86 per cent. of London's children are from refugee families, and they face even more disadvantage.
Those are some of the problems for Londoners, but, to be honest, one in particular is that of benefits. One of the first things my party did when elected to power in 1997 was to cut benefits for single parent mothers. The Minister will know that the Government are pushing forward with a policy to encourage-I use the word advisedly-single parent mothers to go to work when their children are still quite young.
I take a view on forcing women to go to work when their children are of school age. It is not the official new Labour view. I returned to work when my son was eight days old. I worked until the Thursday before I gave birth, had the baby on the following Monday and was back at work, here, eight days later. It was a job that I adored. The role of Member of Parliament gave me flexibility. I could take my son with me to work.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): And to the Division Lobby.
I deprecate attempts to force young women to work as though it is the answer to their poverty. The consequence can be an impoverishment of family life. I believe that many young women on estates in Hackney would be better placed getting a proper education, learning to be proper mothers and being at home when their children finish school, rather than being forced to work in a series of low-paid, low-skill jobs, with no clear idea what their children are doing. Ministers are well aware of my views. Most women with skills want to re-enter the labour market, but unskilled women should be given help and support. I deprecate coercion.
I have spoken to a number of groups, including the Child Poverty Action Group, Save the Children, London Councils, Gingerbread and the Family Holiday Association, seeking practical advice to help deal with poverty in London. I press Ministers on the fact that all groups agreed on the need to focus more on London. Given the scale and unique characteristics of child poverty in London, we need a particular focus on London. Without tackling child poverty there, it will be numerically impossible to reduce and eventually eliminate child poverty in the country as a whole.
The second point made by those groups is that everyone agrees that local authorities have a key role to play in tackling child poverty. The Government acknowledge in the Child Poverty Bill that local authorities are best placed to develop and deliver local solutions to local challenges. However, to deliver those local solutions, it is essential that local authorities are given the freedom and flexibility to tackle child poverty locally. Poverty is a complex problem, and London is a complex area. From borough to borough, the demographics vary wildly. What may work in one area may not work elsewhere. Statutory guidance on child poverty should not be too prescriptive.
The third point agreed by those voluntary bodies is that we need to remove the barriers for those who want to get back to work and tackle unemployment. In the long term, it would reduce child poverty by getting households off benefit and into sustained employment, but many of the organisations to which I have spoken believe that, although a lot is going on, more joined-up working is needed between the Department for Work and Pensions and jobcentres. The Department's consultation on housing benefit reform proposes that a transition-into-work payment should be made for the first three months of employment. That is an important first step.
As I said earlier, many people are put off working because they are worried about the immediate effect-that they would be worse off as a result of losing benefit-but evidence suggests that if employment can be sustained for six months the likelihood of returning to benefit is significantly reduced. The organisations that I have spoken to say that the transition-into-work payment should not be for three months but for six months.
With unemployment at 1.7 million at the end of last year and with the ongoing risk of an increase in the number of jobless, we need to do all that we can to prevent job cuts. The poverty rate for children in households where no one works is obviously worse than for children where somebody does work. Those on both sides of the House who are calling for cuts in public expenditure should remember that one man's public expenditure cut is another woman's job loss.
People are concerned about proposed public expenditure cuts in inner London not simply because of the possible loss of services; in my borough of Hackney, the largest single employer is the public sector. If there were to be swingeing cuts in the public sector, many women struggling to keep their heads above water in a job-we are often talking about female-headed households-may find that their jobs have been taken away.
Another factor that we need to consider further is the tax and benefits system; we need a simplification of the benefits system. At present, there are 51 welfare benefits in England and Wales, with different claims processes and forms to be completed. Some of those forms can be 50 pages long, often with the same questions asked for each claim. I have seen the forms; people come into my surgery and show them to me. I would have difficulty filling them in-let alone the people who come to me for help and support. With the best will in the world, it is difficult for people who genuinely want to go back to work to manage filling in the forms.
Mr. John Baron (Billericay) (Con):
The hon. Lady is right to say that the complexity of the benefit system is a key factor. As the Work and Pensions Committee
pointed out, there is a shortage of part-time jobs and a high cost of child care. Does she accept that they are key drivers of child poverty in London?
Ms Abbott: I touched on that matter earlier, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right. There is a shortage of part-time jobs and transport, and child care costs are another big disincentive. As I have said, we need to consider simplifying the benefit system. There needs to be a simplified system of support for child care costs that is clear and transparent to parents, providers and advisers. The present system is complex and has varying eligibility criteria.
Free school meals make it easier for families on tight incomes to budget. Studies have found that good-quality school meals lead to improved educational attainment and classroom behaviour. I welcome the Government's announcement of an extension of that entitlement to primary school children, but significant numbers of children who are entitled to free school meals do not receive them, and we need to look at why that is and remove the stigma about applying for them and receiving them. Many organisations have said that we can achieve that by removing means-testing, and introducing universal free school meals is a cost-effective way of helping all children in the education system, as well as having a substantial effect on tackling child poverty.
As I have said this morning, I am glad to have had the opportunity to raise this subject. Members who do not live in London, or who live in the more prosperous parts of London, do not understand the poverty and deprivation that exists in London. The poverty that exists among children plays itself out in all sorts of negative social phenomena. I call on Ministers to focus on London, give local authorities flexibility, remove the barriers and complexity about the way in which the tax and benefits system interact and-this is a radical thought at this time in the election cycle-introduce universal free school meals.
Everyone admires the Government's proposal and push on ending child poverty, but what everyone wants, even in a recession, is more progress on dealing with the specific areas that have made the issue so intractable. I say to Ministers that, without a particular focus on London, they cannot achieve all that they want. I know that it is old-fashioned to call in aid morality when we are discussing Government policy, but how can it be right that, at one and the same time, we can live in a city where people think nothing of paying £1 million or £2 million for a home and where at the very top end of the scale people live lives that are unimaginable to the rest of the world, and yet we have one of the highest incidents of child poverty anywhere in the United Kingdom? Once again, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Chamber on this subject.
9.54 am
John Howell (Henley) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on securing this debate. This is a very important subject and one in which I am particularly interested. As she may recall, I was one of the Members who served on the Committee that considered the Child Poverty Bill.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |