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.