Tag: Poverty

After the Landslide: What now for the fight against poverty?

It may have been a surprise election, and only been a six-week campaign, but for many people the ‘festival of democracy’ inspired little genuine enthusiasm (writes PTER KELLY, Chief Executive of The Poverty Alliance).

Perhaps this was because the outcome was so widely predicted and, in the end, seemed almost inevitable. More likely was that after years where many politicians were increasingly distrusted and political debates appeared disconnected from the realities of day-to-day life, the election held little interest for many.  

Of course, the result was by no means guaranteed, no matter what the polls said.  And if the result was not guaranteed, what comes next is still very much a subject for debate. What was clear from the result, though, is that the decline in trust in politics was very much in evidence at this election: turnout fell to 60%, the second lowest in more than 100 years.   

But now that the votes have been cast, historic landside secured, MPs sworn in, and Ministers appointed, many of us who want to see progressive social and economic change are asking: now what?

Almost two weeks after the result, we are moving from the territory of ‘hot takes’ and instant analysis to a place where we can begin to see the emerging opportunities where progress could be made. The question for anti-poverty campaigners is how these opportunities can be turned into real change.  

At a basic level, we need only look at the manifesto that the new Labour Government was elected upon to see what comes next and where the opportunities lie. In it we will find commitments that are to be welcomed.

For example, the package of change intended to improve the lives of working people, especially for those at the tough end of the labour market who get by on low pay and insecure contracts.

These are changes that reflect some of the priorities that we called for in our own election manifesto, especially around commitments to increasing the minimum wage and providing minimum working hours.    

The Labour manifesto also contained a pledge to create a new child poverty strategy. One of the undoubted disappointments of the election campaign was the lack of discussion about poverty and inequality, particularly by both main UK political parties. At best the cost of living crisis was a proxy for discussions about poverty, but at no point was there any serious attempt to say how an incoming government would act to address the systemic failings at the heart of poverty.  

Although commitments to labour market change and anti-poverty strategies are all very welcome, much of the detail on delivery remains unclear.

How, for example, will a child poverty strategy accommodate the current retention of the two-child limit? The reality is, of course, that any child poverty strategy must start with the scrapping of this policy, and then look to strengthen our social security system. The pressure building around the two-child limit in recent days is emblematic of the tensions that exist in the new Government’s current approach.   

The new Prime Minister and Chancellor have been clear in this approach – economic growth is the central objective, the overriding mission, and at the same time public spending to be contained within the previous Conservative Government’s plans.

Neither of these commitments leave much immediate space for addressing poverty, despite the promise of a new strategic approach. As the IFS have said: ‘delivering genuine change will almost certainly also require putting actual resources on the table.’

It is this tension that the Government’s approach – a desire to address poverty but within current spending limits – that opens up a new space for anti-poverty campaigners. We must use the high-level commitments that have been made to deliver the substantive changes we know are needed.

This includes not only scrapping the two-child limit, but ending the benefit cap, stopping the five week wait for UC, introducing an Essentials Guarantee, and more. It also means seeking to shape debates about economic growth, highlighting that growth on its own will not solve poverty and that distribution and pre-distribution of resources needs to be part of the who our economy works for.  

There are genuine opportunities to engage with the new UK Government, opportunities that have not existed for more than a decade. I’ve highlighted just a couple above, more will emerge in the months to come. For civil society organisations in Scotland and across the UK these opportunities to engage will be very welcome.  

But it will be important for all of us seeking progressive change to remember what has been learned from engaging with Scottish Government’s over the last 25 years – access does not always equal influence. Simply having a meeting with a Minister, being invited onto an advisory group, responding to a consultation does not mean that demands will be translated into action. Of course, we need to engage in these discussions and activities, but we need to consider what else should be done to create change.  

There is hope for change at the moment, but to turn that hope into action, to transform our demands into tangible, practical improvements in people’s lives, we need to be better organised across civil society. 

We must do more to engage and raise the voices of the thousands of grassroots organisations and campaigners across Scotland and the UK that hold communities together. By raising these voices, by activating those who are in the frontline of the fight against poverty, we will create the necessary sense of urgency that is needed.  

Our sector in Scotland involves more than 45,000 organisations, employing 135,000 people, with more than 1.1 million volunteers involved. We need to turn those numbers into an organised social movement, one that is broad based, inclusive and can make the demands the system change to both the Scottish and UK Governments.

At the Poverty Alliance we believe that there are real opportunities ahead of us to make change, but they will only be realised if we work together across civil society. Please join us to make these changes happen. 

First Minister to meet new Prime Minister in Scotland today

First Minister John Swinney will welcome new Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to Scotland today.

Speaking ahead of the meeting, the First Minister said: “I was really pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the Prime Minister on his first day in office and to congratulate him and wish him, and his family well.

“I look forward to welcoming the Prime Minister to Scotland where I hope to have constructive discussions with him on our shared priorities for the people of Scotland. This includes eradicating child poverty, growing the economy, prioritising net zero, and ensuring effective public services. 

“I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to forge a positive relationship between our governments and for our part, the Scottish Government is committed to working constructively with the UK Government to build a better Scotland.”

WHATEVER your political allegiances. the relationship between the two governments is crucial to the people of Scotland. I’d like to think it will be more constructive than it has been in the recent past – Ed.

Child Poverty Action Group: Youth Panel members wanted

We are looking for new members to join our amazing Youth Panel!

Applications are now open!

Who is the opportunity for? Young people aged 14-18, living in London. Please click and share this paid opportunity!

Apply through the easy online form: https://bit.ly/3XRfz1L

Without reform, the two-child limit will affect an additional 670,000 children by the end of next parliament

What impact has the ‘two-child limit’ in universal credit had, and what policy choices does the next government face? – a report by Institute for Fiscal Studies

Low-income families typically receive an additional £3,455 a year of universal credit (or child tax credit) for each child they have1 . But the ‘two-child limit’ means that claimants do not receive an additional amount for third or subsequent children born after 5 April 2017.

This policy has been the subject of controversy, and the Liberal Democrats and Green Party have both committed to abolishing the limit in their manifestos, while the Labour Party have said they will abolish it ‘when fiscal conditions allow’.

In this comment, we (IFS) outline the impact of the two-child limit on household incomes and work incentives, and the public finances.

To illustrate the impact of the policy, take a lone parent with three children who lives in social rented accommodation costing £500 per month2 , and not working.

Their universal credit entitlement will be made up of the basic £4,721 per year in universal credit for single adults; £6,000 to cover the cost of their housing; and – in the absence of the two-child limit – £10,365 for their children3 .

On top of this, they receive £3,102 a year in child benefit, which is unaffected by the two-child limit, giving them a total income of £24,188 (without the two-child limit); they would also generally have support to cover most or all of their council tax bill. The two-child limit means they receive £3,455 less each year in universal credit, representing a 14% cut to their income and putting them into relative poverty.

Turning to the impact across the population, we find that, when fully rolled out, on average affected households will lose £4,300 per year, representing 10% of their average income and 22% of average benefit income4 .

These losses are concentrated among 790,000 households (10% of working-age households with children) and would affect nearly one in five children (2.8 million).

As things stand, the policy affects only 550,000 households. The difference is because there are families with three children all of whom were born before 6 April 2017; as time passes, more and more large families will have children born after that date.

We estimate that 250,000 extra children will be affected by the policy next year and 670,000 extra children will be affected by the end of the next parliament. HMRC statistics show that in 2023, 50% of families affected by the two-child limit were single parents and 57% had at least one adult in paid work.  

Figure 1 shows where in the household income distribution households that are affected by the two-child limit sit. For comparison, we also show the equivalent for all households with children and all households with children receiving universal credit.

Unsurprisingly, the two-child limit disproportionately affects poorer households, but the figure shows that affected households are also more likely to have low income than are all universal-credit-receiving families with children.

76% of households affected by the two-child limit are in the poorest 30% of working-age households. In comparison, 63% of households eligible for universal credit with children are in the poorest 30% of working-age households.

Figure 1. Distribution of households affected by two-child limit; universal credit claimants with children; and all households with children, by equivalised income decile

Figure 1. Distribution of households affected by two-child limit; universal credit claimants with children; and all households with children, by equivalised income decile

Note: Assumes full take-up of benefits and full roll-out of universal credit and the two-child limit. Only includes households where all adults are under 66.

Source: Authors’ calculations using the Family Resources Survey 2022–23 and TAXBEN, the IFS tax and benefit microsimulation model.

The two-child limit has an (even more) outsized impact on children living in low-income households, as, by definition, a household affected by the two-child limit has at least three children. It affects 23% of households with children in the poorest fifth of the income distribution, but 38% of children in the poorest fifth of the income distribution.

The two-child limit also has varied impacts across families of different ethnicities. We estimate that 43% of children in households with one adult of Bangladeshi or Pakistani origin (400,000 children) would be affected by the policy when fully rolled out, compared with 17% of children in other households (2.4 million children). This reflects both these families having more children and them being more likely to be on low income.

The two-child limit would be even more targeted at the poorest households if it was not for a separate policy: the benefit cap. The benefit cap limits the total amount that a family with no adults in work can claim to £22,020 a year outside London and £25,323 a year inside London (lower amounts are applied for single adults without children). 110,000 households are not directly affected by the two-child limit as the benefit cap already limits their entitlements. Almost all these households are in the poorest fifth of households.

Figure 2 shows relative child poverty rates, defined as being in a household with an income (after housing costs) below 60% of median income, split by the number of children in the household.

Since 2014–15, relative poverty rates have declined for families with one or two children, but they have increased for families with three or more children5 .

Absolute poverty rates have also diverged: they have fallen for small families but remained unchanged for large families. So, in absolute terms, low-income large families are about as well off as they were in 2015, but their incomes have fallen further behind relative to other households, including small families.

Figure 2. Relative child poverty rates after housing costs, 2008–09 to 2022–23

Figure 2. Relative child poverty rates after housing costs, 2008–09 to 2022–23

Note: The fall in poverty rates in 2020–21 is at least partly due to benefit expansions in that year, including raising maximum housing support and a temporary £20 per week uplift to universal credit.

Source: Authors’ calculations using Family Resources Survey, 2008–09 to 2022–23.

The two-child limit is likely one driver of this recent increase in relative child poverty rates for larger families. However, it is not the only explanation. Other benefit cuts are likely to affect larger families more as they on average receive more of their income from benefits (the benefit cap also disproportionately affects larger families); and broader economic trends may also play a role.

Nevertheless, removing the two-child limit would certainly go some way to reversing the recent increase in poverty rates for large families. We estimate that removing the two-child limit would reduce relative child poverty by approximately 500,000 (4% of all children)6 .

The two-child limit has a relatively small effect on work incentives. One statistic that helps explain work incentives is replacement rates: the household’s income if an individual was out of work as a percentage of their in-work household income. The lower someone’s replacement rate, the more incentive they have to remain in work.

With the two-child limit, an average working parent with three or more children has a replacement rate of 62.1%; without it, they would have a slightly higher replacement rate of 63.0%.

This average difference is small for two reasons. First, 28% of these workers are unaffected entirely, as they would not be able to claim universal credit even if they lost work, due to having more than £16,000 in assets or their partner having a sufficiently high income.

Second, for 22% of these workers, the two-child limit actually increases their replacement rate, as it decreases their income when in work but does not affect them when they are out of work, as they would be benefit capped if out of work.

For those who when out of work are eligible for universal credit but not benefit capped – 50% of working parents with three or more children – their replacement rate falls by 4 percentage points.

Naturally, removing the two-child limit would come at a cost. We estimate that removing the two-child limit would cost the government about £3.4 billion a year. For a sense of scale, this is equal to roughly 3% of the total working-age benefit budget; it is also approximately the same cost as freezing fuel duties for the next parliament, or cutting the basic rate of income tax by half a penny.

The indirect fiscal impacts of the two-child limit are more uncertain. Previous research has found that investments in young children can sometimes partly or even entirely pay for themselves by causing better outcomes for those children in later life.

If the same is true of benefit spending in the UK, removing the two-child limit may be less costly in the long run than its up-front cost suggests. However, there is very little evidence on this issue in the UK, though ongoing IFS research is looking to study it.

Fund to help eradicate child poverty open for applications

A fund to trial new ways of combating child poverty has opened for a second round of applications.

The Child Poverty Practice Accelerator Fund (CPAF) will provide up to £80,000 per grant towards local projects that test and evaluate new approaches which target at least one of the three drivers of child poverty reduction: improving income from employment, supporting people with the cost of living, and increasing awareness and uptake of social security benefits.

Applications can be submitted by local authorities and health boards, who may choose to work with other groups and organisations in the community.

Ahead of a Scottish Parliament debate on eradicating child poverty, Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said: “Eradicating child poverty is a central mission for the Scottish Government and we must find new and innovative ways to achieve this.

“Measures such as the Scottish Child Payment are estimated to keep 100,000 children in Scotland out of relative poverty this year, but we are determined to go further. The Child Poverty Practice Accelerator Fund will support projects that target the root causes of child poverty and create lasting change in our communities.

“Local authorities and health boards are already undertaking transformative work to tackle child poverty and this fund will support them to go further and share best practice, to help make child poverty a thing of the past.”

Applications are open until 5pm on Friday 12 July 2024.

Politicians must urgently address “relentless reality” of hardship as 7 million households continue to go without essentials

📢 All political parties must explain how they will urgently tackle hardship this #GeneralElection, says the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. .

The latest findings from our cost-of-living survey, out today, found the number of households going without essentials hasn’t dropped below 7 million since May 2022. This is unacceptable.

Millions of low-income households are having to take drastic measures to cope with a crisis that is far from over:

-1.6 million households turned off their fridge or freezer

– 4.9 million households couldn’t replace worn out clothing

– 5 million households reduced showers

Meanwhile, party leaders remain silent on what they would do to address this in power. This should bring shame to a country as wealthy as ours.

🗳 Politicians must set out how they will bring an end to this relentless hardship. They need to tell us their immediate plan to help families who can’t afford life’s essentials – as well as their long-term strategy to tackle poverty.

Find out more about the relentless reality of years-long hardship for low-income families, here:

New research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) shows the relentless reality of years-long hardship for low-income families, with almost 5 million households finding themselves having to cut back on showers.

Those on the lowest incomes, over 5 million households, have continued to go hungry, skip meals and cut back on food. 

Carried out immediately before the general election was called, the latest data shows the number of low-income households who are going without essentials like food, adequate clothing and a warm home hasn’t fallen below 7 million since May 2022.

JRF is calling on the politicians to set out their plans to tackle ongoing hardship. It found the bottom 20% of low-income households are facing levels of hardship that refuse to budge and whose situation is no better compared to last year, despite some improvements to the economic situation for families higher up the income scale.  

Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) finds that: 

  • 7 million low-income households (60%) were going without essentials in May this year. [3] [4] 
  • 5 million low-income households (42%) took fewer showers or baths due to cost during the cost-of-living crisis so far. 
  • 7 in 10 (71%) low-income households in the bottom 20% were going without essentials in May this year, the same as May last year.  

Families on low incomes say they are still taking the same drastic measures to try and save money that were widely reported at the height of the cost-of-living crisis.  

In May 2024, low-income households reported that they had taken the following measures through the cost-of-living crisis to cope, due to cost:  

  • 4.9 million couldn’t replace worn out or outgrown clothing (42%) 
  • 3.7 million sold their belongings (32%) 
  • 1.6 million turned off their fridge or freezer (13%) 
  • 6.8 million reduced their use of appliances (58%) 
  • 7.2 million heated their homes less than they needed to or less often (62%) 

Those with the least are struggling the most, with levels of hardship staying at stubbornly high levels. In the last 12 months, the proportion of households going hungry, cutting down on food or skipping meals in the previous 30 days has not budged for those in the bottom 20% of incomes. But there is a slight improvement for those in the bottom 20-40% of incomes. [5] 

Our social security system should act as a safety net for families who’ve fallen on hard times. However, 86% of low-income households who received Universal Credit were going without the essentials in May this year.

Rachelle Earwaker, Senior Economist at JRF, says: “The number of low-income families in our country who’ve been forced to choose which essentials to go without because they can’t afford them hasn’t fallen below seven million since May 2022. Despite inflation falling there has been no let up for the poorest families, who are just as likely to be going without food as last year.” 

“We need our politicians to set out how they will bring an end to this relentless reality of hardship in the general election campaign.

“Political leaders need to tell us what they will do straight away to help families who can’t afford life’s essentials, as well as their long-term plans to tackle poverty.”  

Trussell Trust sets out general election manifesto

Our manifesto sets out the actions we want the next UK government to take to build a future without the need for food banks.

It’s 2024, and we’re facing historic food bank need.

More than 3.1 million emergency food parcels were provided by food banks in the Trussell Trust network to people facing hardship across the UK in the past 12 months – the most parcels the network has ever distributed in a single year.

Urgent reform of our social security system, which isn’t even providing enough support for people to afford the essentials, is critical.

That’s why, as we approach the next UK general election, we’re setting out our manifesto to end the need for food banks.

These are the actions we urge all political parties to support, and our priorities for the next UK Government, so they can lead us into a more hopeful future.

We know what needs to change to help people who can’t afford the essentials.

Download manifesto

manifesto_2024_exec_summaryDownload

What we’re asking for

We want all political parties to commit to building a future where no one needs a food bank to survive.

This requires a social security system that is fit for purpose, with cross-government action to ensure everyone has enough for the essentials.

Graphic of a green megaphone.

Our manifesto asks:

  1. Introduce an Essentials Guarantee into Universal Credit.
  2. Make debt deductions from social security payments more affordable.
  3. A long-term strategy and funding for local crisis support.
  4. Ensure people on low incomes can access affordable credit and advice on money matters.
  5. Swift and accurate decisions about disability social security support.
  6. An overhauled employment support offer.
  7. Scrap the two-child limit.
  8. New workers’ rights legislation.
  9. Invest in building 90,000 new social homes every year in England.
  10. Empower communities with places, spaces, and public transport which build connection.

How can this be achieved?

We know what’s pushing people to food banks, so we know the building blocks needed to end hunger for good.

Explore all the policy areas and recommendations covered in the manifesto and find out how to end the need for food banks.

As part of our manifesto, we’re calling for an essentials guarantee to ensure everyone has enough income to afford the essentials. 

Find out more

manifesto_2024Download

Help for families during holidays

‘Extra Time’ partnership providing vital support

A joint initiative between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Football Association is supporting low-income families.

Launched by the First Minister with a £2million Scottish Government investment last year, the programme provides before-school, after-school and holiday activities for around 2,700 children each week.

The Extra Time programme aims to tackle poverty by delivering accessible and affordable activity clubs for children from low-income families.

During a visit to Dundee United Sports Club, which received £95,000 from the fund and provides support during term time and school holidays, Deputy First Minister Shona Robison said: “School holidays should be a time for fun and enjoyment for children, but for many families it is a time of added financial pressure.

“Scotland currently has one of the most generous childcare offers in the UK, and our investment in early learning and childcare, and school age childcare, is a key part of our goal to tackle child poverty.

“We are committed to building a system of school age childcare that helps to support parents and carers into employment, training or study. Our investment is helping to reduce inequalities that exist for children from lower income families who might otherwise struggle to participate in activities before or after school or during the holidays.

“Our Extra Time partnership with the Scottish Football Association is in the early stages of delivery, but we are already seeing the positive impacts that access to term time and holiday clubs are having on both children and parents.

“For example, we have early evidence from families that they feel better supported to work, with children seeing the benefits of increased physical activity as well as other benefits such as improved attendance, and improved behaviour at school’.

Chief Executive of the Scottish Football Association, Ian Maxwell, said: “It is fantastic to see the impact this vital programme is already having across the country since its launch last year, building on the initial success of the pilot in Ayr.

“Every child should have the opportunity to experience our national game and play with their friends within their local communities. There is no doubt that initiatives such as the Extra Time programme help remove barriers for children and their families around accessing after school and holiday activity clubs.

“We are appreciative of the continued support of the Scottish Government on this project, as we continue to pursue avenues in which the power of football can make a tangible difference in the lives of people in Scotland.”

Failure to tackle poverty will be ‘a betrayal of Britain’s children’

CHILD POVERTY REACHES RECORD HIGH

  • controversial two-child limit on benefits a key driver, says CPAG 

YESTERDAY’S official poverty statistics show child poverty has reached a record high with an estimated 100,000 more children pulled into poverty last year.  

The DWP’s annual Households Below Average Income shows 4.3 million children (30%) were in poverty in the year to April 2023. It shows:

  • 100,000 more children were pulled into relative poverty (after housing costs). That means 4.3 million children (30% of all UK children) were in poverty – up from 3.6 million in 2010-11.
  • 69% of poor children live in working families
  • 46% of children in families with 3 or more children are in poverty, up from 36% in 2011/12.
  • Poor families have fallen deeper into poverty: 2.9 million children were in deep poverty (i.e. with a household income below 50% of after-housing-costs equivalised median income) 600,000 more than in 2010/11
  • 36% of all children in poverty were in families with a youngest child aged under five
  • 47% of children in Asian and British Asian families are in poverty, 51% of children in Black/ African/ Caribbean and Black British families, and 24% of children in white families
  • 44% of children in lone parent families were in poverty
  • 34% of children living in families where someone has a disability were in poverty 

Alison Garnham, Chief Executive of Child Poverty Action Group and Vice-Chair of the End Child Poverty Coalition, said: “In a general election year, nothing should be more important to our political leaders than making things better for the country’s poorest kids.  

“But child poverty has reached a record high, with 4.3million kids now facing cold homes and empty tummies. 

“We know that change is possible but we need to see a commitment from all parties to scrap the two child limit and increase child benefits. Anything less would be a betrayal of Britain’s children.”

Liv Eren 20, who grew up in poverty, says: “As an 8-year-old I couldn’t go on the school trip, as a 12-year- old I was wearing last year’s school blazer and that feeling – that knock to your self-esteem –  never really leaves you.  

“People say growing up in hardship can motivate you, but what could I do aged 8 or 12?. It’s awful.”

Schools are seeing the effects of rising child poverty every day.

Tom Prestwich, Headteacher at Jubilee Primary School in Lambeth said: The levels of poverty we are seeing in school now and the numbers of children affected by it, are the worst I have seen.

“This can have a significant impact on our pupils’ ability to learn and on their overall wellbeing. Pupils who are coming to school hungry, pupils who are overtired because they are struggling to sleep in difficult home conditions, pupils who are cold or uncomfortable because of the clothes they have to wear are all at a disadvantage right from the start of their day.

“We do as much as we can to counteract this. We have breakfast clubs, give out fruit and bagels every day, give out old uniforms and support as much as we can with parents battling for improved housing but it does feel like the gap between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged families is widening.

“This is happening at a time when school budgets are ever more stretched and our capacity to help and support families is reduced as a result.”

Simon Kidwell, head teacher at Hartford Manor Primary School in Cheshire, and president of school leaders’ union NAHT, said: “At my school even working families are accessing local food banks and seeking support with uniform and school trip expenses.

“We hear from our members how schools are increasingly finding themselves having to step in and support pupils and families, with local authority budgets stretched to breaking point.”

In addition to the rise in relative child poverty (measured as living on less than 60% of today’s median income) the DWP’s figures show an increase in the number of children in absolute poverty (measured as living on less than 60% of what the median income was in 2010). 

Since absolute poverty should always reduce over time as living standards generally rise, the increase is a clear warning that not only are more children being dragged below the relative poverty line, but living standards for children are falling over time, their hardship deepening.  

Commenting on the publication of the latest official figures on UK poverty, which show that the number of people living below the poverty line in working households is 1.6 million higher than in 2010, TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: “Hard work should pay for everyone.  But millions of working families in this country are struggling to cover even the basics.

“In-work poverty has rocketed over the last 14 years.

“The Tories have presided over epidemic levels of insecure work, brutal cuts to social security and years of feeble wage growth.  

“Working people deserve far better.”

Households Below Average Income statistics can be found here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/households-below-average-income-for-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2023

Scotland’s poverty levels remain broadly stable

Latest Accredited Official Statistics and Official Statistics published

Covering the period until March 2023, the latest statistics show little recent change in poverty levels for children and pensioners. Poverty for working-age adults is slightly higher than in recent years, which could be driven by people becoming economically inactive as a result of the pandemic.

The four child poverty measures in the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act (relative and absolute poverty, combined low income and material deprivation, and persistent poverty) are broadly stable over the recent period. These measures are based on single-year figures which tend to fluctuate year on year, and the three-year averages provide a robust indication of trends.

While the poverty risk is much lower for children where someone in the household is in paid work compared to those in workless households, not all work pays enough to lift the household above the poverty line. Over two thirds of children in poverty live in a household with someone in paid work. This proportion has increased markedly over the past decade or so as more people move into employment.        

Other key points are:

  • Working-age adults (21%) and pensioners (15%) are less likely to be in relative poverty after housing costs compared to children (24%).
  • Relative poverty has been broadly stable for all age groups. Adults under 25 are more likely to be in poverty than older adults.
  • Minority ethnic households are more likely to be in poverty compared to white British households. Muslim adults have higher rates of poverty compared to adults of Christian and those with no religion. Some of this difference may be explained by these households being younger.

The two full statistical publications are available here:

Poverty and Income Inequality in Scotland contains statistics on poverty, child poverty, poverty risks for various equality characteristics, household income and income inequality for Scotland. This report also includes statistics on household food security.

The data comes from the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) Family Resources Survey, Households Below Average Income dataset. Comparable UK income and poverty figures are published on the same day by DWP.

Figures are presented as three-year averages of each estimate. Three-year estimates best identify trends over time. Data collected during the year between April 2020 and March 2021 are excluded from the most recent estimates as response rates were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.  As a result, estimates covering this period are for two years rather than three.

The four child poverty measures in the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act are based on single-year figures.  These are available in the reference tables and in the child poverty summary.  

Persistent Poverty in Scotland presents estimates of the proportion of people in Scotland who live in persistent poverty. The data comes from the Understanding Society Survey, and the latest statistics cover the period from 2018 to 2022.

These poverty statistics are used by the Scottish Government and other organisations to monitor progress in tackling poverty and child poverty, and to analyse what drives poverty and what works for tackling poverty and income inequality.

Official statistics are produced in accordance with the Code of Practice for Statistics.

Key poverty measures:

Relative poverty: A person is in relative poverty if their current household income is less than 60% of the current UK median. Increases in the proportion of people living in relative poverty indicate that the gap between the poorest and middle income households is widening.

Absolute poverty: A person is in absolute poverty if their current household income is less than 60% of the UK median in 2010/11, adjusted for inflation. Increases in the proportion of people living in absolute poverty indicate that prices are rising faster than the incomes of the poorest households.

Combined low income and material deprivation identifies the number of children in families that cannot afford basic essential goods and services because of a low income (below 70 percent of the middle household income).

Persistent poverty identifies the number of people in relative poverty for three or more out of four years. People who live in poverty for several years may be affected by it through their lifetime.

Household income is adjusted for household size.

The poverty publications present poverty figures before and after housing costs. Before housing costs figures are a basic measure of household income from earnings and benefits. After housing costs figures subtract spending on rents, mortgage interest payments and other unavoidable housing costs from this basic income.

In Scotland, poverty statistics focus mainly on poverty after housing costs. The poverty estimates in the child poverty summary refer to relative poverty after housing costs.

Further information on income and poverty statistics within Scotland is available.

Charity calls for action as new figures show unacceptable levels of pensioner poverty in Scotland


Reacting to figures published today, Independent Age Chief Executive, Joanna Elson, CBE said: “Statistics released today are damning. Over 150,000 pensioners in Scotland are living in poverty with an extremely alarming increase in the number of pensioners living in severe poverty, up more than 30% compared to previous statistics.

“In a compassionate society, no one should have to experience the injustice of poverty and the impact this has on their daily life, health and wellbeing, including people in later life.

“With too many older people continuing to live in poverty and the number in severe poverty growing, it’s evident we need a step change in action from both the UK and Scottish Governments to reverse this alarming trend.

“The UK Government has key levers it can pull to change this. It’s vital there is action to make sure the amount people receive through the State Pension and Pension Credit is enough to live on.

“For this to happen, the UK Government must instigate a cross-party review to establish the adequate minimum level of income needed to avoid poverty in later life, alongside robust plans to get the existing financial support available to every older person.

“The Scottish Government also has a responsibility to recognise the scale of this issue and should respond to these alarming figures by urgently introducing a pensioner poverty strategy. While we have a child poverty strategy, we are unaware of any plans to produce a strategy to reduce poverty in later life.

“As today’s figures show, without a concerted effort from Government, too many older people are being left to suffer in poverty.The time for action is now.“

For more information, visit our website www.independentage.org.

Arrange to speak to one of our advisers for free and confidential advice and information. Freephone 0800 319 6789 or email advice@independentage.org.

To make a donation or find out more about how you can support the work of Independent Age and help older people stay independent, please visit:

 independentage.org/support-us.