Income is key determinant of poverty

The Secretary Work and Pensions is right when he says poverty isn't just about income, there are other related characteristics that contribute to an impoverished quality of life. Refreshing the debate about poverty is timely and welcome, given that current government policy is driving the incomes of families in the region down with little chance of much improvement in the near future.

In the north east just under one in four children live in poverty, over 130,000 children - a completely appalling, abhorrent and totally unacceptable state. Childhood poverty has a dramatically damaging impact on the lives of children and their families, not just in childhood years but throughout a lifetime and, in the majority of cases, onto the next generation too. Negative consequences of childhood poverty include low educational attainment, poor housing, mental illness, teenage pregnancy, substance misuse, suicide and more - the social cost of poverty is huge.

Attitudes to poverty shows the public associate being poor with worklessness; with many people having very negative views of people on benefits as being unwilling rather than unable to work, fostering a view that impoverished families are entirely responsible for the situation they are in. Not only is this uncharitable and bigoted, nor does it reflect the reality. The majority of children in poverty in the north east are in households where people work.

The technical benchmark for poverty is defined as household income at less than 60 per cent of median earnings. As wage levels continue to fall in real terms (in the north east average wage levels remain lower than they were three years ago) so the poverty benchmark falls too. The level of household income which defines poverty in 2010/11 is now £251 per week, down from £259 the year before. So while there are 300,000 people technically no longer 'in poverty', they, along with thousands of other families are, in fact, worse off, so in that regard Iain Duncan-Smith is right to say income should not be the only consideration.

Wages do matter, though. The fact that children in impoverished families endure such negative consequences around health, education, housing and job prospects is entirely related to income. There is an argument, again presented by Duncan-Smith; that we need to increase the gap between benefits and work, to incentivise unemployed workers to value employment; that will do nothing to address in-work poverty. An alternative is to ensure that employment offers wages at a level that take people out of poverty. It is modern double-speak to suggest that work ought to pay much more than benefits, but have a minimum wage and a minimum income standard that facilitates in-work benefit top-ups to subsidise low paying employers.

Perhaps the best definition of not being 'in poverty' is an income that allows families to meet their basic needs and enjoy a reasonable quality of life - in that regard the issue of child poverty is not 'marginally better', but significantly worse.

Kevin Rowan

Regional Secretary

Northern TUC