Morning:
5°c
George Osborne’s child poverty pledge fails to consider cuts in benefits cuts
Joe Murphy, Political Editor23 Jul 2010
George Osborne's assurance that his Budget would not increase child poverty did not take into account cuts in housing benefit and disability living allowance, the Standard has learned.
Treasury officials admit that “data constraints” meant they could not calculate the full impact of some reforms. The housing benefit cuts will save £1.7 billion from weekly rent subsidies to poorer households by 2015.
Tory Mayor Boris Johnson said the changes were “draconian” and Liberal Democrat deputy leader Simon Hughes has urged the coalition to “slow down”.
Research by the Chartered Institute of Housing found that families in a two-bedroom home in a high-price area of inner London could lose £3,339 a year, and claimants in the suburbs could lose between £364 and £1,795 a year.
Shadow work and pensions secretary Yvette Cooper said: “There is no way they can introduce such changes without pushing more children into poverty. It is outrageous to claim otherwise.”
MPs have also voiced concern over stricter medical tests for 2.9 million claimants of disability living allowance which will save £1.4 billion by 2015.
In his Budget statement in the Commons on June 22, Mr Osborne said: “I can tell the House that the policies in this Budget, taken together, will not increase measured child poverty over the next two years.”
But on Page 65 of the Red Book, which gives budget details, was a footnote stating: “Not all policy announcements can be modelled due to data constraints.” A document on data sources listed the measures that had been tested, but not the ones that were left out.
A Treasury computer model of 8,000 mixed families contained too little data about property types and which had children to predict what the housing benefit changes would mean.
A government source said: “We were clear that child poverty impacts cannot take into account changes to housing benefit because you can't establish which houses have children and which do not. No government has ever been able to include housing benefit.”
The main housing benefit reforms are to cut payments by 10 per cent after someone is unemployed for a year; to cap claims at the 30th percentile of local rents, or £400 for a large home; and to limit annual increases to the lower CPI measure of inflation.
Reader views (5)
Tim, London,
Quote, -'You are just recycling poverty myths taken from the trash media'.
Let me assure you that I speak from personal experience and observations, and wouldn't dream of propounding an opinion on this forum that was based on anything else !
- Huggy, Cumbernauld Scotland, 23/07/2010 18:08
Report abuse
I grow up on a large council estate in the late 50's and we were all relatively poor our parents had to buy expensive school uniforms and the first thing we had to do was change out of it when we got home so that we didn't damage it we also had to change into our plimsolls to save our shoes. I now live in a town where I'm seeing more signs of poverty returning with children wearing clean but slightly tatty clothes it is noticeable that the Lidl and Aldi stores becoming busier.
- Mike Melbourne, Bedford, 23/07/2010 16:32
Report abuse
Huggy
You are just recycling poverty myths taken from the trash media. If you are so gullible as to believe them then more fool you.
Interestingly families in poverty do sometimes buy clothing brands to help their children fit in, even while they are living in substandard cramped housing and cannot afford things like school trips or to pay utility bills. They don't want their children labelled as 'smelly' 'pikey' etc. bullied and ostracised. Research shows poorer families are more vulnerable to consumerist pressures too - perhaps because you don't get billboard advertsising blighting wealthy streets like you do poor inner city areas because rich people would not put up with it.
You are right to highlight low pay. But why pitch the working poor against those without work? It annoys me so much when people let unscrupulous employers off the hook who don't pay a fair living wage.
Thank God our standards of poverty have evolved from the days of Charles Dicken's Oliver Twist. This is something we should be proud of. We need a socially inclusive society for the 21st century. There is something weird and wrong with your morals if you believe economic segregation is not a bad thing and that it is okay to roll back standards to Victorian days.
I for one strongly praise the Evening Standard for the campaigning they are doing on behalf of London's poorest children. The good society that I want to live in is one that they are campaigning for.
- Tim, London, 23/07/2010 15:28
Report abuse
Personally, I am very happy to pay up for children of my family.
I am much more doubtful at paying extra taxes to support the children of other people's families.
I have formed the impression that generous benefits are a deterrent to working.
- Anglo, Sussex England, 23/07/2010 15:15
Report abuse
I'd like to know what this 'child poverty' rubbish is all about, -conjuring up pictures of shoeless Oliver Twist types.
I've yet to see this, -more likely to see them wearing expensive 'designer' sport shoes.
Very many of those who qualify for 'benefits' end up with a higher income than normal hard working people in low paid jobs.
And everyone in receipt of any form of 'disability allowance' should be regularly and thoroughly medically examined.
Of the half dozen or so people of my acquaintance who receive this, -ALL of them are capable of some form of work, even manual labour, as they seem perfectly capable of doing all their own home improvements.
- Huggy, Cumbernauld Scotland, 23/07/2010 13:32
Report abuse
