Ending child poverty: making it happen – a response from Gingerbread
About Gingerbread
Gingerbread is the national charity working with single parent families. Formed following a merger of the National Council for One
Parent Families and Gingerbread, we now provide increased support and a stronger campaigning voice for single parents and their
families
Executive summary
-
-
The vision of eradicating child poverty in our lifetime is a bold and inspiring one. Gingerbread warmly welcomes the
introduction of legislation to ensure that the target to end child poverty by 2020 is achieved. Children living in single parent
families face twice the risk of poverty of those brought up with two parents. Ending child poverty will make a massive
different to their life chances.
It is essential that the target to halve child poverty by 2010 is met to provide the foundations for action to meet the 2020
goal.
It is vital that the legislation does not subject the duty to meet the target to “ overall affordability and the fiscal position”.
This would remove much of the value of the legislation in providing an effective accountability framework – one of the stated
aims of the legislation - by giving legal force to the target.
The vision of a society free of child poverty must be one in which not only does poverty not impact on children’s outcomes as
adults, but in which it does not damage their experience of childhood.
We believe the building blocks chosen are the right ones. The role of public services should not be only to mitigate the impact
of child poverty, but to directly reduce it.
The three indicators, low income, low income and material deprivation combined, and persistent poverty are the right ones.
We do not believe that an indicator for absolute low income would add value.
A low income target which allows one in ten children to live below 60 per cent of median income is not ambitious enough. The
target should be for a rate below five percent, although this could be measured as an average over a three-year period.
The child poverty strategy to be published every three years should include a duty on government departments and agencies
to set out their contribution to tackling child poverty. It should also have to report on how it has responded to the
recommendations of the expert commission.
The expert commission should have powers to monitor and scrutinise progress against the target and to produce reports at
such intervals as it deems appropriate. It should have a specific remit to consider the views of families living in poverty.
We welcome recognition of the importance of driving progress at the local level and the role of duties on local authorities.
Progress at a local level should be driven by a statutory specific local level child poverty target.
1. Introduction
1.1 Gingerbread warmly welcomes the introduction of legislation to ensure that the target to end child poverty by 2020 is achieved.
Children living in single parent families face twice the risk of poverty of those brought up with two parents, and this legislation has the
potential to dramatically change the lives of children now and in the future.
1.2 More detailed comments on the legislation are below. However, there are two key points that underpin the success of this measure.
1.3 Firstly, the target to halve child poverty by 2010 must be met. This is essential to provide a strong foundation for the 2020 vision.
Eradicating child poverty by 2020 will be challenging, and making progress now will be essential if this is to be achieved. Progress
against this target is also vital for demonstrating politically and publically that reducing child poverty, as has been demonstrated over
the last ten years, is an achievable goal. Children growing up in poverty today may be parents in 2020. Improving their lives will also
improve the lives of their children.
1.4 Investing additional resources in tackling child poverty at a time of severe fiscal constraints may seem challenging. But falling
further behind on the child poverty target today will only increase the costs of catching up in the long term. Moreover there is
evidence that spending on poor families may be in itself an effective measure for stimulating economic recovery. 1
1.5 Secondly, legislating to eradicate child poverty must mean that the Government is committing itself to make this investment. It is
vital that the legislation does not subject the duty to meet the target to “ overall affordability and the fiscal position”. This has
potential to act as an escape clause for any future government , removing the primary value of the legislation in providing an effective
accountability framework – one of the stated aims of the legislation – by giving legal force to the commitment to meet the target.
Tackling child poverty must be seen as a necessity rather than an option.
2. The vision and building blocks
2.1 We welcome the work that has gone into developing the vision and building blocks for 2020. We agree with the Government’s vision
of “a fairer society where every child has the opportunity to achieve their potential. Experiencing poverty as a child, particularly for
prolonged periods, can damage physical, social and emotional development, all of which affect outcomes in later life.”
2.2 However, we think that the vision must go further to encompass the eradication of the damaging impact that poverty has on
children’s experiences of childhood. Eradicating child poverty is not just about improving children’s life chances, but about improving
their lives today. We would suggest that the vision should be of a fairer society where every child has the opportunity to achieve their
potential, and no childhood is damaged by poverty.
2.3 At present, too many children miss out on experiences that others take for granted. In December 2008 we asked single parents
how they were coping financially – one third told us they had had to go without something for their children, and described the impact
of this:
‘I have had to go without meals so my child can eat. My son has had to stop after-school activities.’
‘I have not put any heating on this year. I do not eat during the day to cut down my food bill. My daughter understands that I
have no money so she does not want any Christmas presents.’
‘I stopped my daughter’s swimming lessons, which is a real shame because she loved them.’
1
As the US Center on Budget and Policy Priorities puts it, “each dollar in tax cuts for low and moderate income families – and each dollar in increased benefits …
will generate more of an increase in demand during a recession, and hence more jobs, than each dollar in business tax cuts or tax cuts for affluent households”
(CBPP January 2009). This is the approach taken by the Obama administration, who have increased tax credits for 13 million American children (see
http://www.cbpp.org/2-12-09tax.htm).
‘I’ve noticed the kids are lying to friends about money and presents to keep face – I know I do because I feel guilty that I
cannot give my kids what most other kids are getting, and I am afraid of being branded a bad mother.’ 2
2.4 The vision of eradicating child poverty must include improving these children’s lives now, as well as in the future.
2.5 We agree that the building blocks chosen represent the right areas for action. We have included very brief comments on each of
these below, but do not discuss the necessary policies in each areas here in detail.
Employment and adult skills
2.6 We recognise that paid employment can be a sustainable route out of poverty, and that improving an individual’s skills can help
them to access work that is better paid and more likely to do so. We believe that to meet the 2020 goal it is essential not just that
every working parent sees a ‘route out’ of poverty, but that their children are not experiencing poverty while this route is navigated.
2.7 Finally we would like to see a greater recognition of the role of employers in making this shift happen. Indeed we hope the 2020
strategy will place stronger emphasis on their responsibilities. We welcome the reference to flexible work, but believe that
eradicating child poverty will require dramatic shifts in employer practices, as much as it will improvements in individual’s
qualifications and skills.
Financial support
2.8 We welcome the recognition that financial support is fundamental to tackling poverty. We would add that child support must be
seen as an essential part of this vision. If all non-resident parents required to pay child support each week did so, this would lift
around 100,000 extra children out of poverty.3
Education, health and family
2.9 We are particularly pleased to see an emphasis on supporting families experiencing separation in this section, which we know can
be a route into poverty for too many.
2.10 Breaking the link between poverty and poor outcomes for children is important. But analysis of the role of public services in
tackling poverty needs to focus not only on their contribution to ensuring that poor children can thrive, but on how they can ensure
that fewer children are living in poverty in the first place. Public services should be committed to reducing poverty, and not just
mitigating its impact.
Housing and neighbourhoods
2.11 Again we think that the focus on this area is useful, but would add that any consideration of housing’s role in tackling child poverty
must include consideration of the role of Housing Benefit and its relationship with work incentives.
3. Measuring success
3.1 We think that the indicators chosen for measuring child poverty 


The proportion of children living below 60 per cent of relative income;
The proportion of children in material deprivation combined with low income; and
The proportion of children in persistent poverty
- are the right ones.
2
3
See Gingerbread (2009) Standing up for single parents against poverty and prejudice, available at www.gingerbread.org.uk
Commons Hansard, 19/11/08, col 546W
3.2 We do not think that a measure of absolute poverty would add value, and think that rises in living standards across the board
should be captured by the material deprivation indicator.
3.3 However, we believe that a target of between 5 and 10 per cent of children living below 60 per cent of median income does not
represent the eradication of child poverty. Whilst we recognise the measurement difficulties of reaching a number below 5 per cent,
we do not think that a situation in which one in ten children are still poor should be seen as acceptable.
3.4 The consultation states that ‘the best child poverty rate that has ever been achieved in Europe is 5 per cent but these figures have
not been sustained.’ It is precisely the aim of this legislation and the target itself to ensure that a child poverty rate of 5 per cent is
both achieved and sustained, and it is essential that the target reflects this ambition.
3.5 We understand that incomes are dynamic, as is the economy. Beyond 2020 we therefore suggest that the 5 per cent target could
be measured as the average of child poverty figures over three years in any given year. We think that this would allow some scope to
take account of short-term income drops, whilst maintaining a clear focus on the importance of eradicating, not just reducing child
poverty.
4. Driving progress and action
Strategy and annual reporting to parliament
4.1 We think that the mechanisms for reporting progress and formulating strategy are the right ones. We are pleased that the
Government will report annually to parliament, and will prepare a strategy every three years.
4.2 We think that the legislation should specify what must be set out in the strategy, and that this should include:
-
-
How the Government will work with the devolved administrations.
The response the Government has made to the recommendations of the expert commission.
The contribution of departments across Government to eradicating child poverty. The legislation should include within it a
duty on Government departments to set out their own strategy for contributing to the eradication of child poverty, including
that of the public bodies under its aegis. It is important that this does not become an exercise whereby individual
departments present lists of actions which may impact on poor children. Rather, their contribution to progress against the
target itself should be set out (in the first strategy, and also assessed in subsequent strategies), including any actions which
may have contribute to greater rather than fewer children living in poverty.
The Public Service Agreements that will drive progress against the strategy for each government department.
Details of Government funding for the strategy.
The expert commission
4.3 It is important that the commission has a formal timetable for making reports, rather than simply playing an advisory role when
Government requests. We suggest that the Commission should have powers to monitor and scrutinise progress by Government
against the target and the powers to produce reports at such intervals as it deems appropriate.
4.4 As set out above, we believe that the Government should have a duty to show how it has considered these recommendations when
it publishes its own strategy.
4.5 In order to inform the publication of the Government’s first strategy, we believe that there would be value in the establishment of a
‘shadow commission’ – which could make recommendations prior to the passage of this legislation. This has a precedent in the
establishment of the Committee on Climate Change prior to the Climate Change Act 2008.
4.6 In order to exercise its functions the commission should have its own budget in order to commission or conduct research.
4.7 We also think that the commission provides a good mechanism for ensuring that the views of children and families living in poverty
are taken into account. The commission should be given a particular remit to show how it has considered these when it reports to
Government on progress against the strategy.
5. Driving progress at a local level
5.1 Gingerbread welcomes the recognition of the vital importance of action being taken on a local level to tackle child poverty and
recognition of the role that duties at the local level can play in driving this agenda.
5.2 The most straightforward approach to driving this progress appears to us to be to set a statutory specific local level child poverty
target. As progress at the national level is to be measured (rightly in our view) on an income basis, we believe that progress at a local
level should also be measured in this way. The current national target has been extremely effective in driving progress, and we believe
that local targets could play the same role.
5.3 However, the current indicator for this, the number of children in households dependent on out of work benefits is unsatisfactory,
and may provide a perverse incentive to minimise take up of such benefits, rather than reduce the number of families who need to
claim them. Alongside the establishment of a statutory target on local child poverty, investment should be made in developing better
survey instruments for measuring family incomes on a local level.
5.4 On balance, we think that this is likely to be more effective and less burdensome on local authorities than the establishment of a
duty to tackle or have regard to child poverty. We also note that any such duty would overlap considerably with the proposed duty to
narrow socio-economic outcomes.
5.5 We know that action at a local level requires co-operation with local bodies who are not under the control of local authorities, such
as Jobcentre Plus and the Learning and Skills Council (at present). Any effective strategy to tackle child poverty will require close
working between these bodies. We hope that the duty we suggest (above, within the section on the strategy) for each Government
department to set out how it and its agencies will tackle child poverty will ensure that this is a priority for local delivery agencies, and
will drive them to work more closely with local authorities to achieve this shared aim.
6. Conclusion
6.1 This legislation has the potential to dramatically change the lives of children and families. Eradicating child poverty is an ambitious
challenge, and requires ambitious legislation to ensure that it is achieved.