Helen Goodman

The government’s commitments to halve child poverty by 2010 and end it by 2020, is one of the most important aspirations of the Labour government. Before I say something about the progress so far and the action to date, I want to say something about why this matters.

Frequently, what is written about children is a way of thinking about how to construct a new and better society. The child is a vantage point from which to offer critiques of society. It is the child’s position as a future adult which is of interest to politicians. And this has been always true – in ancient Sparta, under the Jesuits and Bismark and now in New Labour’s approach. Because we all know, or think we know, that what happens to us as children influences what we become as adults. It is overwhelmingly tempting to believe that by controlling the condition of childhood, we can reach into the future and control or build the sort of society we want. The myth of the mother’s power – the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world – endures.

But I believe there is a more important reason why we should be concerned about child poverty. And this is that children are not human becommings, they are human beings. Childhood is part of life. It accounts for about 20% of life, it matters in itself as well as providing the good basis and preparation for adulthood. It needs to be enjoyable and fulfilling.

Shelter and End Child Poverty have come together to publish a collection of poems on poverty and bad housing written by children across the country including from a school in my constituency.

I Can’t Live There

Damp with rats carrying germs,
I wish I wasn’t there.
Leaking roofs, unstable floors, I hate,
To be there.
Teenagers telling me things I shouldn’t know,
I wish I was somewhere else, somewhere,
Where I can live.
Please help me Mr Government,
I beg you, I plea.

Lucas, age 8

If anyone was in any doubt about the urgency of this work to end child poverty, reading this collection of poems would convince them.

Of course, childhood and adulthood are interconnected. But we always seem to look one way through the telescope. For example, Sure Start will have a payback fifteen years in the future. It is an excellent preparation for children in adulthood. But it is also the case that the ten year old whose educational chances the Labour government policies improve, who is now more likely to get more GCSE’s than ten years ago, who is now more likely to stay on into higher education, is improving the opportunities for her child in 2020. The policies we promote to improve the economic wellbeing of adults also impact on children.

Our record on poverty reduction is good. In 1979, one child in seven lived in poverty. By 1997, this proportion had risen to 1 third. Now it is back down by 700,000 to about a ¼ of children.

A range of policies have been adopted to achieve this. Benefits have been improved and families have been supported to get into work that pays. The Labour Government has introduced the Minimum Wage, Tax Credits, the New Deal for lone parents alongside improvements in child benefits and the child elements in income support. Sure Start has improved the quality of children’s life experience. I know from my own experience, running the National Association of Toy Libraries, what a huge impact this can have on children. In my constituency, we have new Sure Starts in the poorest communities, which really are giving every child a good start before they arrive at primary school aged 5, and the primary school teachers attest to this. The Child Care Bill currently going through parliament is a major reforming statute, currently every 3 and 4 year old is entitled to childcare. Once this legislation is passed, every child from the age of 3 to the age of 14 will have such an entitlement and for the first time the commitment to reduce inequality will be written onto the statute book.

But unless we intensify actions, we will not meet our 2020 target. We have not reduced inequality. The wealthiest 20% of the population are 5 times better off than the poorest. Income inequality has risen continuously since 1977 and house price inflation has increased the division between the have and the have nots.

So what is to be done? We need to address the characteristics of children living in poverty. Four problems are associated with child poverty.

First, disability. 57% of disabled children are in the bottom 40% of the income distribution although a disabled child costs 3 times as much to look after as a normally able child. We need to reform the benefit system, both for children and adults with disabilities to address these needs.

Second, ethnicity. Less than 25% of white children live in poverty compared with 51% of minority ethnic children who live in poverty. We need to address economic barriers which minority communities face in this country. We also need to end the systematic disadvantages of asylum seeker children.

Thirdly, lone parenting. 42% of children from lone parent families live in poverty. Child care and the New Deal have already begun to make a difference to these families. But I strongly believe that further reform of the Child Support Agency is needed and we need to look again at the formula used which is keeping to a minimum payments from the absent parent. It is disgraceful that a million children in this country have not had the payments to which they are entitled for three months.

Fourthly, children in large families are more likely to live in poverty. Save the Children believe that 61% of those facing severe or long term poverty come from large families. At the moment, the benefit system advantages the first child. We need to end and reverse this bias.

To do these things, we need to increase resources available to poor families and build political support for our objectives. The interim report which the Fabian Society has produced from its Life Chances and Child Poverty Commission makes interesting reading. The frequent denial of the problem by members of the public and subsequent engagement with it, once they are aware of it tells us that we need to talk more about building a fairer society and tackling injustices.

Currently, the Daily Express is running a campaign to abolish inheritance tax. Not many members of the Fabian Society will be aware of this. This would move us in exactly the opposite direction from that in which we should be going. The cost of a long old age and elder care needs to be financed. The costs fall unpredictably and unfairly, some suffer compared with others and this is an accident of health and wealth. Meanwhile, there is a new phenomenon, people in middle age are inheriting £100, £200 or £300,000. This windfall which comes at a time when they are not most in need, is coming to be seen as an entitlement, hence the Express campaign. But using this money for collective provision to pay for the cost of a long old age and elder care could be something around which we could build a large coalition of support. Interestingly though David Cameron has not signed the Daily Express campaign and Oliver Letwin has now said that inequality is a problem: we do not want to be outflanked by the Tories. I support the Fabian proposal to change the structure of inheritance tax so that it falls on the individual who receives the money and is paid at their marginal rate. We must maintain our radicalism and our innovation.

Speech made at a Fabian Society event at Labour Spring Conference, Blackpool on 11th February