Elementary maths. When is 500,000 1.2 million?

The answer is when a government department says it is.

1.2 million is the number of people the government claims to have taken out of poverty. 500,000 is the actual number, according to the Office of National Statistics. The two, are apparently, the same.

Jeremy Paxman spoke to the man tasked with delivering the government's ambitious aim of eliminating child poverty, Work and Pensions Secretary Alistair Darling.

He asked him first why the government had claimed to have cut the number of children living in relative poverty by over a million when the figures showed they hadn't even achieved half that. Was it a mistake, or was it a lie?

ALISTAIR DARLING:
(Work and Pensions Secretary)
What we said was, that as a result of the changes in policy we made when we got elected in 1997, 1.2 children would be lifted out of poverty. That was examined by independent academics some two years ago, and they've confirmed that that is what happened. What we're saying very clearly is that 1.2 children were taken out of poverty as a result of the changes that we made following the election in 1997.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
That's not what you said. The Red Book last year, "As a result of the changes we've made, in this Parliament we will lift over 1.2 million children out of relative poverty." You have not done so.

ALISTAIR DARLING:
As a result of the changes that we introduced from 1997, and you're referring, I think, to what was said in the Red Book in the last Parliament.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
March 2001?

ALISTAIR DARLING:
Yes, in the last Parliament. We have taken 1.2 children out of poverty. Bear in mind, that if the Conservatives had continued in office, had they pursued the same policies, there would be nearly 5 million children in poverty today.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
I'm not concerned with the Conservatives. I'm concerned with what your promises were.

ALISTAIR DARLING:
And I'm referring to our promises. That particular reference was made in relation to the changes in policy we made following the 1997 election. We didn't start from a green field site. We started from a situation where there were high levels of poverty. We changed policies, as a result of which 1.2 million children less were in poverty.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Right. Can you tell us then why it was in your manifesto at the election last year, you said, "Over one million children have been taken out of poverty"?

ALISTAIR DARLING:
Precisely for the same reason. Because of the changes of policy we made, these are children that would otherwise have been in poverty that were not in poverty.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Oh, so they weren't real children, they were hypothetical?

ALISTAIR DARLING:
No, they are real people, and it's important to remember that when we debateż

JEREMY PAXMAN:
But your own figures today show it was half a million.

ALISTAIR DARLING:
That is a measure of the difference in relative poverty. If you look at today's figures, they show the numbers of children lifted out of absolute poverty is just over a million, 1.4 million. With relative poverty, the figure is 500,000. You can look at the measurements of poverty in many different ways. They are all important to give you an overall picture...

JEREMY PAXMAN:
I'm using your own measure here.

ALISTAIR DARLING:
Yes. Well, take any measure you want, poverty is coming down. It is only...

JEREMY PAXMAN:
By your own measure of relative poverty, 500,000 children have been lifted out. In your manifesto, you said one million had been lifted out.

ALISTAIR DARLING:
What we said was, as a result of the changes in policy we made following the '97 election, there were over 1.2 million less children in poverty. The figures we published today...

JEREMY PAXMAN:
That's not true.

ALISTAIR DARLING:
It is true.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
It's half a million. You just said so today.

ALISTAIR DARLING:
What you're doing here is looking at different measurements of poverty, and fair enough, you can do that. What I'm saying to you, on any measurement you want, look at the figures today, look at what's happened in the past, and you will see that the number of children living in poverty is coming down.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
The difficulty I think many people might find is why you can't say, "We have brought it down. We haven't brought it down by as much as we'd hoped. It is proving more difficult than we thought."

ALISTAIR DARLING:
What I say to you, Jeremy, is that you asked me specifically about the reference to the 1.2 children less being in poverty. I've explained how...

JEREMY PAXMAN:
But your own figures show it's not 1.2 million.

ALISTAIR DARLING:
The key thing is, and I've also said this many times today, we have made a good start. We clearly have a lot more to do, particularly to get more people into work, and to increase the amount of money that goes to families with children, because those are the only ways in which you will continue to reduce the amount of children living in poverty.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Are you seriously considering redefining poverty?

ALISTAIR DARLING:
I don't think you can redefine poverty. Let me explain what we're doing. Every year we publish figures showing absolute levels of poverty, persistent levels of poverty, that's the length of time you live in poverty, which is important, and also relative poverty. The three measures are important. Academics have said to us over the last year or so, perhaps we ought to look at some of the ways they measure poverty in Ireland, for example, or in different parts of Continental Europe. We'll be publishing a consultation paper fairly shortly. We have a neutral view about it. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned...

JEREMY PAXMAN:
So you are considering it?

ALISTAIR DARLING:
No, what...

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Why are you publishing a consultation paper? You're considering it, then.

ALISTAIR DARLING:
We have been asked to. If your charge against me is, "Oh, he doesn't want to measure relative poverty..."

JEREMY PAXMAN:
I'm not making any charge.

ALISTAIR DARLING:
That would be the first time, Jeremy.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Are you considering redefining poverty? You say you're not, but you are inviting consultation.

ALISTAIR DARLING:
No, we're not considering redefining it. What we're doing is publishing a document that looks at different ways of measuring poverty. By the way, one of the other things the figures today show is that the gap between the richest and the poorest, for the first time in a generation, is beginning to close.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
That's a good thing, is it?

ALISTAIR DARLING:
It's one of the many factors you have to consider. If you look, for example...

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Is it a desirable thing? The Prime Minister doesn't think it's desirable.

ALISTAIR DARLING:
All of us believe that it's important to look at different measures of poverty. But it's important in any country. I've said this countless times. If you look at pensioners, for example, we have said that one of our policy objectives is to narrow the gap between the better-off pensioner incomes and the poorer pensioners' incomes. Of course relativities are relevant.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
The Prime Minister said so in so many words during the election that it is not important to reduce the divide between rich and poor. You apparently think differently.

ALISTAIR DARLING:
No, I think the context, and what I think the Prime Minister was being invited to do was say, "Shouldn't we introduce high levels of taxation?" or something like that.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
No, I asked the question, and it was specifically that.

ALISTAIR DARLING:
Relativities, the gap between rich and poor, are one of many factors the Government ought to take into account. It's about fairness.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Do you accept that the IFS, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, is correct when it says the only way you will eradicate poverty in this country is for benefits to rise faster than earnings?

ALISTAIR DARLING:
There's a number of ways in which you can eradicate poverty. One, and the principal way, which we as a Government strongly believe, is to get all those people who can work into work. Because of the increase in working families tax credit and other measures, people are noticeably better off when they're in work. Where I disagree with the IFS is that the only solution is to increase benefit levels. I strongly believe that the best route out of poverty for people who can work is to get people into work, because it opens all sorts of doors that would otherwise be closed.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
And for those who can't?

ALISTAIR DARLING:
For those who can't, you've got to increase the amount of money they get, and we have been doing that.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
By higher than the rate of earnings?

ALISTAIR DARLING:
We have increased the benefits that go to mothers with children by 80%, which is a damn sight more than earnings. We have increased the amount of money that goes to pensioners, through the minimum income guarantee, by many times more than earnings. You need a combination of the two. You need security for the people who can't work, but for people who can work in this country, there is no doubt they are much, much better off if they are in work.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Alistair Darling, thank you.

This transcript was produced from the teletext subtitles that are generated live for Newsnight. It has been checked against the programme as broadcast, however Newsnight can accept no responsibility for any factual inaccuracies. We will be happy to correct serious errors.