The number of children whose parents cannot find full-time work and are forced to work one or more part-time jobs has soared by 46% since the coalition government came to office, latest figures show.
Figures obtained by Newcastle Labour MP Catherine McKinnell show that between 2010 to 2013 the number of children whose parents were working part-time hours rose from 443,000 to 646,000, which Labour claim is a significant blow to the government’s child poverty strategy.
“While Ministers have been squabbling about how poverty is defined, these figures show how much tougher life is for families under David Cameron’s government.
“Getting parents into work should be the key step towards increasing their standard of living and reducing the number of children living in poverty. But for far too many families at the moment being in work just isn’t enough to meet the basic cost of living.
“Labour will back families and help to make work pay. We will expand free childcare for working parents, strengthen the minimum wage and crack down on exploitative use of zero-hours contracts. And we also want to introduce a lower 10p starting rate of tax, to help 24 million people on middle and low incomes.
“But while ordinary families are struggling with a cost-of-living crisis, David Cameron has given a £3 billion tax cut to the top one per cent of earners. We’d reverse that after the election as part of our plan to get the deficit down in a fairer way.”
The government has been forced to shelve plans to redefine the definition of child poverty which is currently defined by a households income. Children are said to be living in poverty if their parents total income is less than 60% of the national average.
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith MP, wanted to change the way child poverty is measured, by taking a child’s family life into account as well as a family’s income, such as a child’s education and whether or not they come from a workless household.
Iain Duncan Smith was close to securing a deal with the Liberal Democrats, but it is understood that the plans were vetoed by George Osborne at the Treasury Department.
Liberal Democrat Education Minister David Laws, told the BBC:
“I can’t get into the entrails of why the Conservatives have been unable to agree and come forward with a serious set of measures. They will have to explain that.
“What I’m not willing to do is to allow this key debate over measures which are so important in driving the right policies in future to simply be vetoed by one party.”
> “I can’t get into the entrails…” That’s a weird and rather unpleasent scenario. Bet that’ll be appearing in a future edition of Private Eye.
He added: “The Liberal Democrats have a very clear idea of what the new measures should be, and we’re not going to allow the Conservative Party simply to end discussion of this.”
Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Rachel Reeves MP said:
“Child poverty is set to rise by 400,000 under David Cameron’s government, while ministers squabble over the way poverty is defined.
“The row between George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith does nothing to help working people who are £1,600 worse off a year because of the cost-of-living crisis.
“If David Cameron was serious about cutting child poverty he would scrap the bedroom tax, introduce a compulsory jobs guarantee, strengthen the minimum wage, incentivise the living wage and extend free childcare for working parents.”
The former Labour MP who chairs the current government’s Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, Alan Milburn, said: “A strategy which cannot be measured is meaningless.
“Despite taking more than a year to think about it, the government has drawn a blank, apparently unable to reach agreement on what a new set of measures should look like.
“The government has ended up in a no-man’s land where it has effectively declared its lack of faith in the current measures but has failed to produce an alternative set. This is beyond Whitehall farce.”
> The last few years have been a Whitehall farce… it’s just a pity Labour didn’t feel the need to start kicking up before. I’m sure the proximity to the next General Election is purely coincidental…
Source – Welfare News Service, 04 March 2014