The coalition government has made a concerted effort to garner public support for a national cap on benefits and it has been allowed to lead the argument.

No-one wants to see people out of work earning or claiming more than someone working hard for their living.

Therefore the argument put forward by the government appeals to the public.

Taken at face value it is about fairness and for this reason there has been a complete lack of serious debate on the issues. In short, policy has pandered to people’s base instincts without any consideration for the facts.

Unless we are willing to take on the arguments of this government, which is without doubt the most right-wing and predatory government in living memory, the Conservatives will continue to make political ground.

The truth is, a national cap as proposed by the coalition would make a great deal of families in the south destitute.

It is not the families themselves that are benefiting, but instead it is landlords. The cap would force the poor out of any prosperous areas in the south and London into outer London ghettos.

Attempting a political balancing act of standing only one step behind the government on key policy issues, in a bid to seem tough on welfare, simply allows the government to get away with an onslaught against the poor and vulnerable.

Instead, our own leadership must understand that history’s great generals were, among other things, very good judges of the ground they should be fighting on.

While reforming and making benefits fairer is right and proper, we should not allow the public to believe that the reason for doing so is because the poorest had any role to play in the global economic crisis.

By not challenging the Prime Minister’s rhetoric, he can continue to insinuate that it is the poorest people in Britain, and the cost of welfare, that should remain at the top of the political agenda.

Unfairness is at the heart of government policy-making across the board. Forcing the poorest areas and the poorest people to be the victims as well as the scapegoats of a crisis caused by the richest must be opposed with vigour and passion and with solid, well-grounded argument.

While Fred Goodwin might have been “dishonoured” and lost his knighthood, he kept his lifelong pension intact and instead the government has chosen to vent its anger against the growing number of people who now find themselves out of work.

Compare that with the estimated £1,300-a-year income cut now faced by the poorest households thanks to the so-called “reforms” currently being steamrollered through Parliament.

A Cabinet composed of millionaires is still letting greedy bankers walk away with their seven-figure bonuses and salt away their millions behind tax evasion barriers, while expecting struggling families to further tighten their belts.

When President Nicolas Sarkozy proposes implementing a Robin Hood tax for banking transactions and our Prime Minister responds by offering up Britain as a so-called “tax haven,” it is clear this government has learnt no lessons from the past.

Let’s be clear. This is not about fairness – it is about cuts, plain and simple.

It is about expecting the needy to pay for the greedy.

My own north-east constituency has some of the most deprived areas in the country. And the poorest families are those with multiple needs covering joblessness, sickness, education and childcare.

Yet the “one-cap-fits-all” strategy takes no account of that.

Easington will be treated the same as Esher. That makes no sense.

To be fair, that point has been made by Ed Miliband and Liam Byrne, but in tactical terms we have let the government back-foot us at every crucial turn.

When the public were looking for someone to challenge and oppose the right-wing consensus they were left to rely on a few honourable bishops in the upper chamber.

And now even they have been stymied by the government’s sordid step to deploy a rarely used parliamentary device to block future meaningful amendments.

On welfare the opposition has to up its act.

As we approach this coalition government’s two-year anniversary, the Labour leadership must now look at how it can win back the agenda of fairness and discredit David Cameron’s rhetoric.

The Cabinet of millionaires which currently occupies Downing Street is adept at persuading the working poor to level the blame for our economic problems at the door of the unemployed poor.

Yet without a clear policy for job creation or full employment this is an opportunist and cynical line. We must have a credible opposition that can stand up and oppose this.

William Beveridge knew that the state had a pivotal role to play in creating full employment. Labour must make that argument.

Judging our political prowess along the lines of how much the left kicks up a fuss and the right-wing press applauds us, as we did in office, is not a credible route to back government.

      Easington’s Grahame Morris said: “It is shocking that they do not receive the same benefits as other workers on the system, despite the vital work they do.”

      And Blyth Valley’s Ronnie Campbell said: “It is an absolute disgrace that workers on the minimum wage are treated so unfairly.”

      They co-sponsored a Commons motion tabled by Gateshead MP Ian Mearns urging the regional transport authority to “respond positively” to the request by the rail union for equal treatment of Metro cleaners.

      “Their efforts should be rewarded in line with other staff,” said Mr Mearns.

      The cleaners are employed by Churchill Contract Services but have separate contracts to other Metro staff.

ends

Across every government department, Coalition policies will also exacerbate socioeconomic inequalities, and ultimately health inequalities as indicated by Marmot.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is linked to smoking, occupational dust and pollution, and is particularly prevalent in the North East of England. 

COPD disease costs the NHS an estimated £491 million every year and mortality rates in the North East are higher than in England (accounting for 6% of all deaths), and the inequality gap appears to be increasing.

Smoking kills over 1,700 people every year in the North East before they reach the age of 70, accounting for 29% of premature deaths in the region compared with 26% of all premature deaths in England. 

The latest Regional Health Profile (November 2010) from the Public Health Observatories shows Female life expectancy in the North East is distinctly under the European median and is one of the lowest in UK.

The obesity and overweight rates are one of the highest in Europe. The percentage of regular daily smokers is very close to the European median and one of the highest of UK.

MP Grahame Morris (right) receives a petition about privatisation of the NHS from Stephen Barry and Ellin Hare at the Glebe Centre offices in Murton.

There are two significant issues in their debate: inequalities in access to health services and the broader problem of health inequalities produced by deep-seated differences of social class.

In the late 1970s the chief scientific adviser to the Department of Health, Sir Douglas Black, produced a report on the extent of health inequalities in the UK and acknowledged that the NHS could do much more, alongside other improvements across government through child benefit; maternity allowances; pre-school education; an expansion in child care and better housing.

The Conservative Government which came to power in 1979 published the report on a bank holiday to avoid public scrutiny. However, these findings have been refined and supported by subsequent research by Professor Townsend and Sir Derek Wanless, and recently by Professor Marmot.

There is a stark danger of a downturn in the progress made in addressing health inequalities due to decisions being taken elsewhere in government and severe cuts to services for the most vulnerable.

This makes the focus of the NHS on health inequalities all the more important.

In June 2008 the then Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, made a speech on health inequalities in which he said: “It is inconceivable today that any Secretary of State could be so dismissive of an issue so critical to the life chances of so many.”

Remarkably, health reforms look set to weaken accountability and the national infrastructure necessary to tackle health inequalities in the NHS.

The has been good progress under a Labour government on health inequalities.

By the measure of Infant Mortality Ratio the absolute gap has reduced by 0.9 to 0.5 by we can see by the tripling of investment in our NHS how access to healthcare improved dramatically.

And the affect of this on long-term health inequalities is probably yet to be determined.

The Health and Social Care Bill changes the fundamentals of the National Health Service. The fragmentation of the NHS; with privately-led commissioning groups; the reintroduction of the postcode lottery; an uncoordinated health system and greater competition… risks making inequality, in terms of access to health services and outcomes, entrenched.

I sat on the Health and Social Care Bill Committee, and expert witnesses raised concern after concern.

Stephen Thornton, Chief Executive of the Health Foundation, talking about health inequalities, said that a duty: “needs to be placed on the national commissioning board and [commissioning groups] to embed shared decision making in all care and treatment”.

Only by reinforcing the duty on the commissioners themselves to reduce inequalities is there any chance of achieving it.

And when Dr. Hamish Meldrum of the British Medical Association was asked about equitable access to health services, he said it would be:

“the articulate, the new-media savvy, who will do well. Those who are less like that will not. It is not so much what is in the Bill or not in the Bill, but what is happening elsewhere and how much the Bill will help to address that—and I do not think it will be very much.”

Finally, I want to return to the issue of socio-economic factors on health inequalities. Labour commissioned the 2008 Marmot report, which reinforced that we cannot simply focus on lifestyle issues (telling people to lose weight or give up smoking) but instead we must tackle the root causes which are economic and social.

The cuts that are falling across every government department are hitting the poorest hardest.

The Association of North East Councils has shown that the North East will be worst affected by local government cuts between now and 2013.

Child poverty is rising in my constituency of Easington, and stands at 29% – eight points higher than the national average.

And TUC figures from November 2011 shows the North East has the highest ratio of jobseekers per vacancy in the UK. An average of 7.5 jobseekers per vacancy – however it is as high as 23.7 jobseekers per vacancy in some areas (Hartlepool).

In one year from September 2010 to 2011, Youth unemployment rose 20% in County Durham.

This Coalition government has no intention of reducing health inequalities. It knows its policies can only worsen the situation.

The Labour Government introduced the first ever targets to reduce health inequalities in the population, and the poorest were healthier when we left Government than the population average in 1997.

The Marmot review called for these targets to be continued so why does the Health and Social Care Bill only aim to reduce inequalities in healthcare?

This government has given up on cross-departmental action to reduce inequalities in life expectancy and health.

And whilst the Secretary of State for Health says he backs the Marmot report, he will not accept its recommendations in full and he has chosen to ignore another warning by Prof Sir Michael Marmot….

His open letter co-signed by hundreds of public health professionals rejects the Health and Social Care Bill because it will “do irreparable harm to the NHS, to individual patients and to society as a whole” and will “widen health inequalities”.

In a Commons question time the Minister denied the government was operating a workfare scheme but instead referred to ‘mandatory activity’ for the unemployed.

The Minister said: “I can confirm that we have schemes in place as part of people’s job search. They include mandatory work activity”.

Mr. Morris said “Profits at Poundland soared by 34% in 2011, with people on workfare forced to work for free in Poundland stores”. He went on to ask: “Who is the real beneficiary of workfare: the taxpayer or the shareholder?”

The Minister claimed that more than 50% of young people who go through the scheme moved quickly into employment and in some cases with Poundland.

However a report commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions in 2008 ‘A comparative review of workfare programmes in the United States, Canada and Australia’ found little evidence for the effectiveness of Workfare.

The report stated that “Workfare has a deterrent effect which stops people claiming, or encourages them to leave welfare.

It went on to say “There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work.

In fact, subsidised or ‘transitional’ job schemes that pay a wage were found to be more effective in raising employment levels than ‘work for benefit’ programmes.

In June 2010 the government abolished the £1 billion Future Jobs Fund which gave businesses in unemployment hotspots up to £6,500 for creating jobs that would last at least six months in favour of mandatory workfare.

The rapidly rising unemployment rate is testimony to the failing economic policies of this Tory-led Coalition that chooses to stand aside at a time when intervention is desperately needed. However, the impact of these job losses is not simply being felt evening across the UK. Instead, a decade of progress made in reducing the North-South divide is being reversed. In the North East unemployment has increased 19% and stands at 11.7% compared to a national average of 8.4%.

Coalition Ministers has sought to propagate the myth that the North East fared no better during the boom years of the Labour government. However, this is not supported by the facts. Based on Gross Value Added per head indexes, the rate of growth in the North East went from being the lowest of the regions during the 1990s to being the second highest during the last decade. Employment growth between the mid-1990s up to the 2008 economic downturn increased by 11.2% compared to 9.2% nationally.

Another myth, this time put forwarded by the Prime Minister prior to the 2010 General Election, is that the North East had become over reliant on the public sector at the expense of the private sector. Rather, between 2003 and 2008, private sector employment rose by 9.2% whilst at the same time public sector employment grew by only 4.1%. Between 1999 and 2007 the number of North East businesses rose by 18.7% which compares favourably to London’s business growth of 19.6% for the same period.

The North East economy began its long overdue recovery under the last Labour government, following decades of neglect by Tory governments. This record is being quickly undone by coalition policies across all government departments. Whilst the North East was hit hard by the global downturn of 2008, it is the policies of this government which are entrenching a North-South divide and disproportionately damaging the North East’s economy. Even after the global downturn, employment rose under the Labour government between August-October 2009 and August-October 2010 by 24,000 before falling sharply under new the Coalition government.

The inherent unfairness of Coalition policies for the North East is not confined to unemployment. The Association of North East Councils has highlighted the huge variation in changes to council grant funding per person across the UK as another area where the North East will be worst affected. The reduction in councils’ revenue support grant and changes to the allocation rules for additional funding from central government means that the most deprived and poorest areas will lose most between now and 2012-13.

Heat Map: Changes to Council Funding

The unfairness is highlighted by the fact that councils in more prosperous areas in the south will receive a per person increase whilst North East councils face some of the largest cash cuts. There are further proposals for other changes to how councils raise their funds such as the localisation of Business Rates. Early analysis by Durham County Council has shown that such a move would increase the budget of Westminster Council by £950 million each year whilst Durham County Council would lose a further £86 million.   

Coalition Ministers have also announced their intention to allow regional pay differences for low paid workers across the public and private sector. Whilst no firm policy has been announced by the government, the issue was raised in the autumn statement which asked for expert advice on how public sector pay might better reflect local markets. Rebalancing our economy for the future and redressing the north-south divide should be a priority for government. However, proposals to entrench regional pay differentials in the public and private sector would simply entrench this divide.

A final assault on the North East’s economic future has been the destruction of our well-established structures for regional development. One of the first actions of David Cameron’s government was to abolish our Regional Development Agency, One North East, and do away with Regional Ministers who had been able to play an important role working with the private sector on large scale investment programmes. The net affect has been a two-thirds cut to regional development funding and the establishment of a much smaller national fund to which every region must compete for investment. Pricewaterhouse Coopers evaluated the work of RDAs between 2002-03 and 2006-7 demonstrating their role in improving economic output from investment. The report showed that for every £1 spent by RDAs an average of at least £4.50 of economic output was achieved. This rose to an output of at least £6.40 when future benefits were assessed. Local Enterprise Partnerships have been set up to replace RDAs, however these bodies are unfunded and are dispersed across the region.

The Labour government was able to mitigate against the worst impact of the global downturn through investment and support for private sector growth. The reckless actions of this Coalition have set in reverse the progress that was being made between 2009 and the last General Election. The North East requires an alternative vision for confidence, growth and jobs. Labour’s Five Point Plan provides a foundation for this and proposals for a guaranteed job paid for people out of work for over 12 months, as suggested by IPPR North, would start the process of regeneration so badly needed in the North East.

The North East economy has already been plunged into a regional recession according to economists at IPPR North due to Coalition spending cuts and rising unemployment. Over 32,000 public sector jobs have been axed and unemployment stands at over 11%. The private sector-led recovery that was promised by David Cameron has also not materialised with the Northern TUC showing declining employment in the private sector since the Coalition took power in May 2010. It is now clear the extent to which Ministers have failed to act with any sense of urgency in response to the growing decline of the North East economy.

Not only has there been a complete vacuum in regional policy under the Coalition, Ministers seem to be overseeing a ‘managed decline’ in a region where the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have next to no elected representatives. European Commissioners have raised real concerns that up to £125 million of ERDF funding could be jeopardised as a result of the dither and delay of government Ministers. As the rules stand, if this money is not allocated in time, two thirds would automatically be lost to central Treasury funds. This is not just a problem being faced by the North East, with 41% of ERDF funding for England still unallocated.

Labour made significant progress supporting weaker regional economies such as the North East and developed flagship policies and investment structures. One North East, set up by Labour, ensured that infrastructure was built to attract and support new businesses, high-tech industries and other emerging markets. In an area which was dominated by coal mining and fell into economic decline under the last Tory administration, investment in infrastructure was well overdue in order boost economic activity.

However, One North East was one of the first causalities of the Coalition cuts. Its replacement by much weaker and unfunded Local Enterprise Partnerships has made achieving jobs and growth in the region much harder. The failure of the new regime to even ensure the efficient allocation of EDRF funding is beggar’s belief. Business Minister Mark Prisk all but accepted the failure of government’s new regional policies when he was forced to write to local decision makers to urge them to make use of national matched funding opportunities given the slow progress on allocating the funds in the past year.  In addition to this, overall funding for regional development has been cut by upwards of two-thirds.

The current structure of having multiple Local Enterprise Partnerships and a single National Regional Growth Fund effectively means that there is no regional policy at all. If the North East region is to stand any chance of meeting the current economic challenges through creating jobs and growth this has to change. Labour understood the difficulties facing the northern regions and made good progress during 13 years in government. This is now being unravelled by the reckless reforms and spending cuts of this Coalition. Labour’s five point plan would also help boost regional growth now with a one year National Insurance tax break for small firms taking on extra workers and bringing forward long-term investment projects.

First of all I would like to express my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of those who have lost their lives. The thoughts and feelings of the whole community are with those affected by this terrible tragedy. Horden is a stable, tightly knit former mining community with its own distinct identity. The events of 1^st January have shocked and devastated local residents. I went to school only a mile or so away and I know many people from Horden on a personal and long standing basis.

I want to give credit to Durham Constabulary who acted quickly to reassure local people that there is no continued threat to the safety of the community and I would like to thank all the emergency services, the Police, Paramedics and the Armed Response Team for their rapid and professional response to the shootings in Horden. The investigation is being handled in a professional and sensitive manner and I hope the Police are given the time to establish exactly what happened.

I welcome the Chief Constable Jon Stoddart’s referral of the case to the Independent Police Complaints Commission in light of their previous contact with Mr Atherton when he threatened to self-harm. I understand that the police reviewed Mr Atherton’s firearms licence at that time in 2008 however decided not to revoke it.

Without seeking to pre-empt the outcome of the police investigation or the IPCC review into the events that took place in Horden there is an opportunity to consider the effectiveness of current rules concerning fire-arms control in the UK. I welcome the intervention by Keith Vaz MP, Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, who this week sought an update from government on its progress since his committee called for the codification of the 34 separate pieces of legislation covering UK gun law last year. He has also raised the issue of strengthening the link between police and the medical profession when the holder of a gun licence is known to have developed mental health issues.

Other important issues in this debate must be the consideration of whether firearms should be kept in domestic premises in any situation and which is the appropriate authority to evaluate a person’s mental health when issuing gun licences in the first place.  Once issued gun licences are valid for five years and determining a person’s continued suitability to possess firearms over this period raises further difficulties.

As we go forward in the wake of this terrible tragedy it is appropriate that there should be a public debate over whether gun laws should be reviewed. This does not mean the law should or will be changed; ultimately that is a matter for Parliament and Government following a sober review of the current protections in legislation. Britain already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world.  The broader issues raised by the Horden case must be looked at in a calm and measured manner once the Police and IPCC investigations are complete and I would welcome a public debate in which the requirements of the shooting fraternity are balanced against the need to protect public safety.

I continue to offer my support and assistance to the residents of Horden and to the wider community who have been affected by this tragedy. I would also welcome your views on this issue.

Other cases such as that of Christopher Foster who murdered his wife and teenage daughter in 2008 show similar hallmarks to that of the tragedy in Horden. Depression is a real and serious illness with recognisable symptoms affecting a person’s physical, psychological and social wellbeing. There are many ways mental health issues can arise such as relationship breakdown, family or work pressures, debt or bullying and it can affect anyone at anytime in their lives. It is essential that the symptoms are recognised and that people receive the right treatment and support. There is a strong argument that removing gun licences in these situations should become a matter of course.

Anyone who is suffering from depression and mental health issues should consult their doctor, who can rule out any physical illness which might cause the symptoms of depression. According to NICE some people with milder forms of depression may benefit from a psychological therapy alone but you may also be offered anti-depressants. People with moderate to severe depression should be offered anti-depressants as well as talking therapy. If symptoms persist you may be referred to the local community health team for specialist support.

Depression can be an intense and debilitating illness and if you or someone you know is experiencing any symptom you should seek help. In addition to your doctor there are a number of other organisations who may be able to help with advice and support. A selection of these is listed below.

MIND

www.mind.org.uk

0300 123 3393

Samaritans

www.samaritans.org

08457 90 90 90

Alcoholics Anonymous

0845 769 7555

www.alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk/newcomers

Stonewall

Info line 08000 50 20 20

www.stonewall.org.uk

SANELine

0845 767 8000

www.sane.org.uk

Preventing young suicide

0800 068 41 41

www.papyrus-uk.org

Childline

www.childline.org.uk

0800 1111

Depression alliance

www.depressionalliance.org

Refuge

www.refuge.org.uk

0808 2000 247

Eating Disorders Association

www.b-eat.co.uk

0845 634 1414

Shelter

www.shelter.org.uk

0808 800 4444

NHS Direct

www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk

0845 4647

As Opposition Members are aware, the north-east has suffered more than perhaps any other region. Unemployment currently stands at 11.7%. In both the public and private sectors, unemployment is rising unabated as a direct consequence of the Government’s policies.

As we already know, the public sector is losing jobs more than 13 times faster than the private sector can create them. We were promised a private sector-led recovery. We were told that the public sector jobs that have been lost in the north-east—we have lost more than 32,000 so far—would be replaced by a growing private sector. That clearly has not happened over the past 12 months.

The latest job figures show that the north-east has lost a larger proportion of jobs than anywhere else in the country. We have 6,000 fewer jobs in the construction sector compared with the same period last year. Clearly, Government policy has had a direct impact on the private sector. Cutting infrastructure projects and the Building Schools for the Future programme has hit construction jobs. The figures produced by the northern TUC show that the public sector is losing 2,000 jobs a month.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) mentioned, the Conservative Government of the 1980s and early 1990s bear a heavy responsibility for the worklessness that exists in areas such as mine. When the traditional industries were still operating—in my case it was coal mining—the numbers of people who were employed were high and the numbers on benefit were relatively low. It was not until the pits closed that we saw significant increases in unemployment and incapacity claims. As hon. Members have already said, there is a human cost to unemployment. After closing the pits in Easington and in the north-east, the Conservatives left villages, towns and entire communities without work.

Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that the unemployment statistics in Easington are very similar to those in Wansbeck? In my constituency, there is in excess of 30 people applying for each job vacancy and that is intolerable. The Prime Minister has kept one of his promises: before the election, he said that the north-east would be hit the first and hit the hardest.

Grahame M. Morris: Indeed. I share my hon. Friend’s concerns, and that has certainly been the case. We are facing a worsening of the north-south divide. It is also the case that the north-east has faced some of the worst increases in unemployment across the UK. The hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said that there were 1,000 people out of work in his constituency. There is more than three times that number in my constituency. The number of 18 to 24-year-olds out of work in Easington has increased by 65%. For the over-50s, the figure is up 58%, which is just as concerning. The situation for those out of work in the north-east is much bleaker than in many other regions.

Unemployment and worklessness are not evenly spread across the country. Indeed, they are concentrated in particular pockets, largely the older industrial areas of the north-east, Merseyside, Scotland and Wales, and that makes unemployment far harder to deal with. I should like to commend the excellent work carried out by Professor Steve Fothergill and his colleagues at Sheffield Hallam university in identifying some possible solutions. I know that time is short, so I will bring my speech to a close.

There are real concerns about the Government’s intentions in relation to workfare. If jobs exist, why are they not being offered as real jobs with real wages? We need a plan from the Government for jobs and growth. Our Front-Bench team has a five-point plan to kick-start the economy, but the Government could go further. There are some helpful suggestions from the Institute for Public Policy Research for supporting employment, and I raised them with the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), in a recent Adjournment debate. I would point out, however, that the Government’s promises on jobs and growth are as hollow as a chocolate Father Christmas.

Figures from the North East Child Poverty Commission show that the Coalition Government is struggling to meet the 2020 Child Poverty eradication target, especially in areas of high deprivation such as the North East and Easington.

Nationally 2.8 million children are living in poverty, around 21 percent of all children in the UK. In the North East the figures show that 132,000 children are in poverty, nearly one in four of all children in our region. While places such as Hexham (9%) and Berwick (14%) are below the regional and national average, inner city and de-industrialised parts of the North East struggle to reduce child poverty and it is accepted that without significant Government intervention the 2020 child poverty target will be missed.

Easington constituency headline child poverty rate is 28 per cent, however, there are great variations within the constituency with the Eden Hill ward (49%) and Deneside (38%) suffering high levels of deprivation compared to Hutton Henry (9%) and Seaham North (12%) which have considerably lower levels of child poverty[1].

The measure of poverty that is used by most governments around the world, including the UK is “those households whose income falls below 60% of the median income”. The Government’s figures show that a couple with two children aged 5 and 14 would need a weekly household income of below £379 before housing cost (BHC), or £346 after housing cost (AHC), to be defined as living in poverty. A single person with two children aged 5 and 14 would be classified as living in poverty if their income was below £297 BHC and £256 AHC[2]. In 2009/10, 16 per cent of working-age adults (5.7 million) were in households in the UK with incomes below 60 per cent of median household income BHC and 22 per cent (7.9 million) AHC[3]. Most worryingly, around 55% of children living in poverty are in households where at least one parent works. The Government have been promising to “make work pay” but all their efforts have been directed at cutting and withdrawing benefits. They have done nothing to address working poverty and poverty pay. Labour’s national minimum wage was an important first step to addressing poverty pay; however, it is time to move beyond a minimum wage to a living wage. If the Government are to “make work pay” they need to support a living wage to end poverty for working families. In London employers who commit to paying a Living Wage have lifted more than 10,000 families out of working poverty. Employers also repeat the benefits of enhanced quality of work from staff, a fall in absenteeism, and improved recruitment and staff retention.

The new OECD report Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising finds that inequality has risen faster in the UK than in any other rich country since 1975.

Inequality exploded under the Thatcher Government, and while progress was made in the early years of the Blair Government, inequality has started to rise again. The gap between the richest and the poorest in society does matter, especially when it comes to the life chances of children.

The inequality gap is back on the political agenda, especially in a time of austerity. There is growing public concern according to OCED report author Michael Förster, “In almost all countries apart from the US and Japan, more than 50% of people say that inequality is too high. In the UK, it is 65% so I think everyone agrees it is a problem”

The Labour Party acknowledged the significant problem of child poverty after 18 years of a Tory Government. Labour lifted 600,000 children out of poverty, and introduced the commitment to end child poverty by 2020. A target supported by both Coalition partners when in opposition. David Cameron insists that the government’s cuts will not increase child poverty; however, evidence is mounting of yet another broken promise. The Institute of Fiscal Studies report Child and Working-Age Poverty from 2010 to 2020, has found that child poverty will continue to rise and the 2020 target will be missed.

Alan Milburn, the Coalition Governments adviser on social mobility has stated that:

“Progress on child poverty is stalling”

“Worse than that, it has almost certainly started to reverse”.

“Child poverty is set to rise and, if things go on as they are, it is likely to go on rising for many years to come”.

The previous Conservative Government took child poverty in the UK from 13 per cent in 1979, to 29 per cent when they left office in 1997. As child poverty begins to rise again the Government’s only answer is to question the internationally recognised method for calculating poverty, actions condemned by the Family Action Group described as “another nail in the coffin of the life chances of a generation of children” adding “moving the goalpost on income poverty might help the Government balance the books but it will send the life chances of children into the red”

Child poverty can have a devastating effect on a child’s health, wellbeing and life chances.

Infants in the poorest families have an almost 10 times higher chance of dying suddenly in infancy than those in the highest income group.[4]

The impact on children’s lives of chronic illnesses, such as asthma and diabetes, seems to be greater among poor children. Acute illnesses are more likely to affect poor children and they are more likely to experience hospital admission.[5]

 There is an ‘attainment gap’ between pupils who receive Free School Meals and those pupils that don’t receive FSM. 15% of boys receiving FSM did not get 5 GCSEs in 2010, whereas only 5% of boys that didn’t get FSM failed to get 5 GCSEs.[6]

Children who live in poverty are twice as likely to live in bad housing and this means that they are a third more likely to suffer respiratory problems such as chest problems, breathing difficulties, asthma and bronchitis than other children. Overcrowding and spells living in temporary accommodation are also factors that affect children growing up in poverty.[7]

There is a strong stigma attached to living in poverty and poor children are often bullied at school. Not wanting to appear poor means that a lot of children who are entitled to Free School Meals don’t actually take them and poor families will often go without other items to protect their children from this stigma[8]. This issue was covered in a BBC animated film called ‘The Wrong Trainers’[9]

Only one in nine children from low income backgrounds will reach the top 25% of earners as adults[10]. The UK has very low ‘social mobility’ which is sometimes expressed as ‘poor children grow up to be poor adults’.

It is estimated that child poverty costs the UK approximately £25 billion per year, including around £17 billion that would go back to the government (through increased taxes and reduced benefit payments) if child poverty were eradicated[11].

The Government are failing to meet their child poverty obligation judging by the standards outlined by David Cameron – “the right test for our policies is how they help the most disadvantaged in society”. A test he will fail if he continues to ignore child poverty.

End.

[1] End Child Poverty, Poverty In Your Area: Available at http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/why-end-child-poverty/poverty-in-your-area#northEast

[2] Households Below Average Income: An analysis of the income distribution 1994/95 – 2009/10, DWP 2011. Available  at: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2010/pdf_files/full_hbai11.pdf

[3] Households Below Average Income, DWP 2011. Available at: http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbai

[4] Health Consequences of Poverty for Children, End Child Poverty, 2008

[5] Ibid

[6] National Pupil Database. 2009/10

[7] Health Consequences of Poverty for Children, End Child Poverty, 2008

[8] Poor pupils prefer hunger to stigma of free meals, Times Educational Supplement, 2011. Accessed at: http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6070031

[9] http://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork/films/p005d74f

[10] Opening Doors, Breaking Barriers: A Strategy for Social Mobility, Cabinet Office, 2011

[11] Estimating the costs of child poverty, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2008

Working closely with student art teachers Mike Finlay and Nick White, and class teacher Terry Cullen, the children at Glendene School have created some spectacular scenes depicting Easington’s coal mining heritage to brighten up site cabins and hoardings erected as part of a major ‘Building Schools for the Future’ construction project.

Grahame Morris MP with Eric Baker, Headteacher and pupils of Glendene School

Lead contractor Carillion teamed up with its supplier PPG to provide the children with free paint. Hire firm Speedy Elliot was also more than happy with the free makeover for their cabins.

Carillion’s site manager Peter Blacklock explained: “When the site cabins and hoardings arrived the school children thought they looked dull, so we came up with the idea of asking if could liven them up with some artwork. The children have done a really great job to give this construction site a fresh and exciting new look – not just for them but for our guys on site as well. Communities are always at the heart of what we do at Carillion and we are delighted to have been able to help out with this project.”

MP Grahame Morris added: “This is a perfect example of businesses engaging with the local community and working in partnership with them to make a positive and lasting difference. It’s also great to see the creativity on show here by the special and talented children at Glendene. The fact they have chosen to celebrate the region’s mining heritage shows just how strong the community spirit is here in Easington.”

Glendene Head Teacher, Eric Baker, commented: “This is an excellent example of how communities can work together. The Children thoroughly enjoyed the experience and we are grateful to our building partners for funding this initiative.”

Ends

Notes to editors:

Glendene School and Community Arts College is a Special School for children and young people aged 2-19 years, with a range of Special Educational Needs. The school is also a Visual Arts College, working to bring arts projects into the wider community. The school is located on Crawlaw Road in Easington Colliery, County Durham.