New definition will have moral, judgmental dimension, as campaigners say further stigmatising single parent families will do nothing to tackle the issue

Is poverty caused by not having any money, or is it the result of lifestyle choices like “unstable relationships” and “debt and addiction”? This has been the ideological line dividing the debate on child poverty for the last decade; the Conservative government has finally succeeded in redefining poverty as no longer simply about finances, but about something fuzzier and less easy to measure.

Iain Duncan Smith has indicated he would move to repeal the 2010 Child Poverty Act, which committed the government to a target of eradicating child poverty by in the UK by 2020. In so doing, the work and pensions secretary dispensed with the current relative definition of poverty (anyone in a household beneath 60% of median income), abandoned all targets and introduced a new (although still rather unclear) definition, embracing work and education levels in the family.



Although the minister did not spell it out, there will be a moral, judgmental dimension to the new definition. The government says it plans to develop a “range of other measures and indicators of root causes of poverty, including family breakdown, debt and addiction”, which it will put together in a “children’s life chances strategy”. Further details of precisely how the new measures will work are expected in the next few weeks.



The direction of government policy comes as no surprise to anyone who has been following the work of the thinktank set up by Duncan Smith in 2004, the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ). It has often put more emphasis on lifestyle factors – shifting responsibility from external, structural factors (like low wages) to individual choices.



Is a child more likely to be poor because their parent has a low-wage job as a carer or a security guard, or are they more likely to be poor because a parent has a problem with drug or alcohol addiction? Statistically – it’s far more likely that low income is the cause of the problem, rather than addiction, but it is the addictions and “dysfunctionality” of parents that get the attention of the CSJ.

The CSJ’s 2012 report Rethinking Child Poverty, which has inspired much of Duncan Smith’s thinking, paints a picture of UK poverty that is tied up with bad parenting, highlighting cases of alcoholic, crack-addicted parents and parents who abandoned their children to play bingo. There is less focus on parents who are poor because they are unemployed or in low-paid work.



Child poverty campaigners say that problem debt is not a cause of poverty but often a symptom, and point out that family breakdown, drug and alcohol addiction are not the exclusive preserve of poor families – these could just as well apply to well-off families.

Most agree with Duncan Smith that work is a key route out of poverty, but question what the government proposes to do about 66% of children living in poverty who live in a family where at least one person works. There is concern that if cuts are made to child tax credits in next week’s budget, as widely predicted, then the problem of in-work poverty will become more extreme.



“Producing a way forward for tackling poverty that doesn’t recognise that poverty is about money is pretty astonishing,” Imran Hussain, the director of policy for the Child Poverty Action Group, said.

“The government should be keeping an eye on issues like kids living with drug-addicted parents, but this is not the same as poverty. The government seems to be suggesting that income doesn’t matter.”



Fiona Weir, the chief executive of Gingerbread, the charity that supports single parents, warned that “further stigmatising single parent families will do nothing to tackle child poverty”.

“Family breakdown doesn’t cause child poverty. It is unaffordable childcare, low levels of maternal employment and poor wages that push families below the poverty line,” she said.



Alan Milburn, the chair of the child poverty and social mobility commission (which Duncan Smith announced would now be known simply as the social mobility commission, indicating the significant shift in emphasis), warned that it was not credible “to try to improve the life chances of the poor without acknowledging the most obvious symptom of poverty, lack of money.

“Unless the government sets out a clear target for improving the life chances of the poorest families, its agenda for healing social division in our country will lack both ambition and credibility,” he said.