Tackling child poverty isn’t Starmer’s priority
To govern is to choose; and last week we saw some very different choices being made by political leaders within the UK. At Westminster, Keir Starmer unveiled his ‘plan for change’: announcing a series of measurable milestones by which he wants his Labour Government judged. These include targets on housebuilding and NHS waiting lists; as well as a pledge to drive up living standards. Notable here by its absence is any tangible target on child poverty; this was not mentioned once in Starmer’s speech; only featuring within opportunity; one of Labour’s five missions. Significantly, too, while Labour has committed to driving up living standards across the UK, they have not made an explicit commitment on the distributional effects of any economic growth they deliver. This may come, or it may speak to a wider unwillingness to pay sustained attention to those at the sharp end of the continued squeeze on living standards. Whatever the reasons, the omissions in Starmer’s speech in in his approach to economic growth feels especially risk against the context of an increasingly disunited UK in which the children of England risk being left behind.
Meanwhile, away from Westminster, political leaders elsewhere in the UK were making very different choices. At Holroyd, the Scottish National Party used their annual budget to commit to scrapping the two-child limit for Scottish families; while in Northern Ireland the negotiation of an extension of the Welfare Mitigations was announced. These include mitigations such that no Northern Irish household is hit by either the Benefit Cap or the Bedroom Tax; while households can also apply for Discretionary Payments – non-repayable grants that offset the five week wait for a first Universal Credit payment.
These latest announcements add to a picture of growing diversity in the design, delivery and generosity of social security support depending on where in the UK a household lives. In Scotland, for example, from 2026, when the commitment to scrap the two-child limit should come into force, a family with four children aged 15, 12, 7 and 4 could receive almost £10,000 more in social security support per annum than a family south of the border; with this gap made up of a combination of the two-child limit decision and the targeted Scottish Child Payment, which provides a flat-rate payment of £26 per child per week for children under 16 in low-income families.
Too often, though, we still talk as if there is a single UK social security system when, in fact, devolution and different political choices, means this has not been the case for some time. Devolution creates opportunities for politicians – and their electorate – to variously prioritise redistributive action, or – as in the case of Scotland – to make a concerted effort to tackle child poverty.
The increased devolution of social security has occurred over a number of years; with Scotland having the most legislative freedom and Wales the least. Northern Ireland is an interesting case; with a principle of parity meaning that up to the mid-2010s social security policy always mirrored Westminster. This principle was overturned during the Coalition years; as a result of a strong political opposition to the welfare reform agenda pursued by Cameron and Osbourne. This disagreement led to the collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which persisted until the introduction of the first mitigations package on welfare; which also includes differences in how Universal Credit was rolled out.
At the same time, and alongside devolution of social security; we have also seen increased decentralisation of social security support to the local authority level; with a growing reliance by Westminster on discretionary, localised programmes of crisis support – one off payments, whose generosity, eligibility requirements and form (i.e. cash, vouchers or services) can vary massively depending on which local authority an individual lives under.
What is marked, and not surprising, is that as well as marked differences in policy, we can also see differences in narrative and rhetoric within the UK on social security. Contrast John Swinney, Scotland’s First Minister’s ardent pledge to eradicate child poverty with UK Labour’s much more timid approach; which, thus far, has included as much attention on driving down welfare fraud as it has on action to address the inadequacy of social security system.
The rhetoric and policy differences combine to create very different policy landscapes; and will increasingly lead to place-based gaps – not only in provision – but potentially also in rates of child poverty and, longer term in outcomes for children.
Back at Westminster, Labour has a task on its hand to deliver next year’s UK Child Strategy, which needs to be ambitious enough to make a real and lasting difference. For this strategy to be effective, it needs to both learn from the place-based difference that already exist, but also needs to factor these differences into the overarching approach. This will require a recognition of the different policy levers available to policymakers at different tiers of government within the UK; and will require sustained engagement and collaboration across these different tiers.
Beyond this, we do urgently needs a UK-wide recognition that child poverty is one of the key challenges facing this country; and one which is sensitive to policy change. We can drive levels down with a concerted combination of political will and effectively targeted investment. And that is true wherever in the UK you look.
About the authors
Safety nets is a multi-institutional and inter-disciplinary research and policy team, comprised of academics from seven universities across all four UK nations (University of York, University of Edinburgh, Heriot-Watt University, University of Salford, University of Cardiff, Ulster University, Oxford University), and with policy partners, Resolution Foundation and Child Poverty Action Group.
This project has been funded by the Nuffield Foundation, but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the Foundation.
