Moving the goal posts won't hide the coalition's failure on child poverty

Iain Duncan Smith's plan to change the way child poverty is measured is a distraction.

The consultation on child poverty measurement announced by Iain Duncan Smith today is generating exasperated groans from those who have been engaged with the subject for decades.

It is not as if we haven’t been here before. The last extensive consultation ended in 2003 but the indicators have continued to be refined since then. The portfolio of measures that eventually became the targets in the Child Poverty Act 2010 were developed through a discussion between government and social scientists over many decades after the publication of Abel Smith and Townsend’s "rediscovery of poverty" book The Poor and the Poorest in 1965.

And the measures we now have are very good, arguably the best of any country in the world.  They encompass understandings of poverty as relative, absolute (actually constant), deprivation, overlaps of income and deprivation, and persistence. They have been adopted by international organisations such as the EU, OECD and UNICEF, and copied by other governments. Of course they are not perfect. It would be good to add an indicator of how deep poverty is (poverty gap). But do we really need a consultation to add new measures?

Without any fuss the government have already added a new severe measure of poverty – less than 50 per cent of the median and materially deprived – following the Frank Field review. The Child Poverty Strategy published in 2011 proposed a sensible list of ten indicators (additional to the five Child Poverty Act indicators) that they would use to monitor progress. Or the government could go further and revert to the list of 24 child indicators that DWP published in the Opportunity for All series between 1999 and 2007 covering poverty, health, education, housing and child protection.

There is no dearth of indicators; what we lack are policies that will continue to drive the figures downwards after a decade when 1.1 million children were lifted out of poverty. Instead, we have a consultation that is seeking to develop a "multidimensional indicator" of child poverty, relegating income – and especially the relative income measure – in the process.

Some people have never liked the relative poverty measure because it is a measure of inequality. Before Iain Duncan Smith, Conservative social security secretary John Moore, attempted to do away with it in the 1980s. Ministers now try to ridicule the relative measure because it showed a fall in child poverty in 2010-11, partly driven by a fall in median income. But that is why we have a portfolio of measures.

It is a national tragedy that after a decade of progress that has seen child poverty and child well-being improving, from a pretty low base, the coalition’s policies have sent it into reverse. Moving, adding or blending the goal posts will not hide this fact.

Jonathan Bradshaw is a Professor of Social Policy at the University of York and a trustee of the Child Poverty Action Group

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith speaks at last month's Conservative conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Getty Images.
Getty
Show Hide image

The House of Lords must give EU citizens the right to remain

The government has used more than 3m UK residents as pawns. But the Lords could put a stop to it. 

Theresa May, David Davies and Boris Johnson like playing games. They are well versed in moving around a board, measuring their opponents and using pawns to lure them in.

It is a great relief, then, that the House of Lords are expected to put an end to the game the government is so desperate to play, and stop it from using people as pieces in a negotiation. 

It is my hope the Lords will do this by tabling an amendment to unilaterally secure the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, forcing the House of Commons to think once again.

It will be a welcome move by the Lords, with the country once again relying on an extra level of scrutiny to make sure the government's reckless actions do not risk ruining the lives of people who have lived here for decades.

And if the Lords do so, it will be to support the will of the people: an ICM poll after the referendum found some 84 per cent of British people support letting EU migrants stay, including 77 per cent of Leave voters. And a more recent Opinium poll found that only five per cent of Britons think EU nationals currently living in the UK should be asked to leave.

But those who lead us into the biggest negotiations of our time have said they simply cannot guarantee the rights of more than 3m EU citizens living in the UK until the rights of the 1.2m British citizens in the EU are reciprocated.

Constituents tell me they fear a situation where the government sits contemplating the different ways it can implement its policy of mass deportations.

Indeed, millions of people who are active in our communities and play a vital role in the economy are now worried about exactly that. My own constituents - and those of my colleagues in Westminster - are scared their lives will be torn apart if the government is not given a reciprocal gesture of goodwill.

Migrants make up 10.9 per cent of the workforce. These are people who have added to the sciences, to innovation, to the NHS and social care. These are people, not collateral.

Not only immoral, this approach seems fundamentally flawed. Would it not, as our Prime Minister said, be a good thing to approach the negotiations as friends with our European neighbours? Would it, therefore, not be the greatest gesture of friendship to afford EU citizens their right to reside in the UK at the soonest possible opportunity?

Already a leaked document has indicated the government’s approach making it difficult for EU nationals in the UK to acquire permanent residence is likely to mean British nationals living on the continent can expect a backlash of their own.

So, as the government prepares to quash any amendments proposed by the Lords to its bill, the onus will shift onto MPs on all sides of the house to accept this crucial amendment. 

Before the next vote Democratic Unionist Party and Conservative politicians must all ask themselves, are they happy to use people as “negotiating capital”?

Catherine West is the Labour MP for Hornsey and Wood Green.