Frankie W

Keir Starmer had a good line in opposition about wanting to make Britain "the best place in the world to grow up and grow old". I think a key narrative around child poverty should be that the last government invested billions in above inflation increases in the state pension (which are welcome) and now it's time to do the same for tackling child poverty.

Linking in with government's own narratives is key to success. One of Labour's 5 missions is: 'Break down barriers to opportunity' - what better way to do this than slashing the poverty that wrecks the life chances of millions.

Likewise the new 'milestones' announced this week include: 'Giving children the best start in life, with a record 75% of five-year-olds in England ready to learn when they start school' and 'Raising living standards in every part of the United Kingdom, so working people have more money in their pocket as we aim to deliver the highest sustained growth in the G7, with higher Real Household Disposable Income per person and GDP per capita by the end of the Parliament'.

With these milestones now set to define the government's focus from now on we should be pushing at an open door.

On the former point about five-year-olds ready to learn, there's a strong case for adopting the recent CMA recommendation on formula milk for example (for government to launch an NHS brand of formula milk sold at cost), there's equally a very strong case for increasing Universal Credit childcare reimbursement from 85% to 100% to reduce all barriers to low-income families accessing childcare and increasing their flexibility to work and indeed universalising childcare so the 30 hours free is for people out of work as well as in work making it easier for people to transition back into work and giving security of places in nurseries - no-one should have to worry that their son or daughter can no longer go to the same nursery if they lose their job. We should also remind ministers that the 2005 Labour manifesto promised to extend maternity pay from 9 months to 12 and that 20 years on might be a nice time to finally deliver on that pledge, likewise the 2015 Labour manifesto pledged to double (in weeks and pay rate) paternity leave but this has dropped off the party's agenda again. Both would help lower-earning new parents substantially.

The wider living standards milestone is obviously even more key. Whilst we should resist adopting the 'working people' dividing line used here by government, we could argue for higher Universal Credit overall, a specific increase (for example LHA being in line with 50th percentile of market rents, or an increase in the Child Element) or for a further reduction in the taper rate or increase in the Work Allowance.

In terms of story/narrative one of the areas that needs a lot of work is pointing out the high marginal deduction rates faced by those on Universal Credit. If you take on extra hours you'll lose 28% in National Insurance and income tax, then you'll lose 55p of your UC for every extra pound you earn. I think it's really impactful to point out that one extra hour on the new Minimum Wage of £12.21 will be £3.96 in reality once you've taken out NICs, income tax and UC deductions (a marginal rate in excess of 67%) and of course if you're a graduate and it takes your earnings over the student loan repayment threshold it's even less (£2.86)! So much for their beloved 'work incentives'. Contrasting these deduction rates with the attitudes towards higher taxes for the very rich would be powerful. In America campaigners have made some headway by pointing out people in high earning jobs (bankers, CEOs - even things like headteachers) pay less tax than their lowest paid employees. Arguing that the top rate of tax is 45% plus 2% NICs and therefore the taper rate should be lowered to (at the very least) 47% or (ideally) as low as 35% so that even when you start paying tax your marginal rate never exceeds 47%. Obviously this would come at a significant cost to government but pressing home the fairness argument to the wider public and amongst backbench MPs might win the day and would transform lives. As the focus seems to be Child Poverty rather than poverty more broadly perhaps it should be hinted to ministers that a new lower taper rate could apply only to those in receipt of Child Element or even just apply to the Child Element (though obviously this isn't my preference).

On Child Poverty a lot of good solutions like expanding the Healthy Start programme to all children up to age 16, giving free school meals to all on Universal Credit (or universally), giving free fruit to Key Stage 2 not just Key Stage 1 etc. all fit with the narrative of healthy child development - there's widespread public backing for this where we can harness celebrity support (Jamie Oliver, Marcus Rashford et al.) but also within government it would a case of securing the support of Health officials and ministers to be 'on our side' and in the spirit of joined up government not just back the policy in words but share resources on the basis of long-term savings to the NHS. Likewise, a key story we need to tell is about the evidence and we know there is evidence that free school meals and healthy eating in general improves pupil attainment. Sometimes we'll need to move away from the emotional heart-string tugs to the more practical realities of 'this will save you money down the line if you invest in this way' (dare I suggest the phrase: 'smarter allocation of government spending') rather than it being seen as asking for ever more 'free stuff'.

This sort of cross-departmental lobbying can be quite effective. It's a shame Lou Haigh has gone from Transport as I think she would have been even more receptive but essentially trying to persuade the DfT and the environmental/climate ministries that public transport should be free for all under 18s because it not only ticks climate and clean air goals but it also acts as their contribution to the Child Poverty Strategy.

Again, in terms of stories we tell I think it's vital that we get across that the line of child poverty and the line at which Free School Meals (and thus the Pupil Premium) kick in are very different. In fact there's about a £9,000 gap. If government were to extend the Pupil Premium to everyone on Universal Credit or to the poverty line or even adopt a tiered approach (PP1: current level; PP2: children in poverty but above the current threshold; PP3: children in UC households but above the poverty line) they would not only be providing more support for the neediest students but crucially they'd be providing schools with a far more robust set of data on the students in poverty in their school community and who might need additional support. Funnily enough, universities use much more robust data for contextual admissions than schools have about their own students.

I think on free breakfast clubs its worth praising ministers for this policy and encouraging them to set out an ambitious pathway to free wrap-around care 8am-6pm in all primary schools starting by extending Universal Credit childcare reimbursement rates from 85% to 100% (essentially making after school clubs free for UC families) with a longer term aspiration to make these universal.

Finally, I think we need to try and 'crowd-in' support for the Child Poverty Strategy. We've seen in recent years a swathe of support for 'kids eat free' during the holiday schemes from the private sector, there are such easy things government could do, for example ensuring every nursery is signed up to Dolly Parton's Imagination Library programme so that virtually every child 0-5 years gets a free book every month. I was fortunate enough that my daughter's nursery school was signed up and we received wonderful books and receiving one in the post was an exciting moment that inspired a love of reading for my daughter yet my son's nursery (he went to the nursery at my daughter's primary school) wasn't signed up so he missed out (although obviously I read him all the books his sister had previously received). This links back with my point (made in response to the last big question and alluded to above) about expanding the Healthy Start scheme. I'm certain that the programme could be modernised in partnership with the major supermarket chains so that it works more like a discount card where qualifying products are digitally marked in the checkout system so that when you scan your 'card' via the app at the till it automatically deducts the Healthy Start amount from your bill. Simplifying the scheme so that it actually works at self-checkouts (the current scheme forces recipients to go a manned checkout perhaps causing awkward conversations about why they can't use the much quicker queue line) and also making it universal would reduce the stigma attached to using such vouchers. It would just become the norm that parents get money off for fruit, veg and milk etc.

Whilst fundamentally it must be the duty of government to provide a minimum quality of life via social security and free at the point of use public services, there must be a myriad of other ways in which the private and third sectors could become involved in providing additional support for the Child Poverty Strategy and in doing so I suspect it would create resilient, long-term momentum for eradicating child poverty.