On 18 September, a full Council meeting was held to debate Merton’s progress in:

“Nurturing civic pride, with a focus on those priorities which affect young people in particular that fantastic educational provision and support gives children the best start and equips residents of all ages with the skills and qualifications to succeed and that residents across Merton will be supported through the cost-of-living emergency.”

This was the Liberal Democrats councillors’ choice for the theme of the meeting.

The Council issued a report responding to this – which you can download here.

Wimbledon Town and Dundonald Cllr Anthony Fairclough responded on the parts of the report discussing child poverty.

You can watch it online here (from 1:15:20)

“Mr Mayor thank you, and thank you to officers and the Cabinet members for their efforts.

Part of this strategic theme is this administration’s work to address child poverty and to mitigate the effects on children and families – and that’s section 6 of the report.

It is shocking that nationally 55 children, many under 1, have died in temporary accommodation since 2019.

And yet this report does not discuss those in temporary accommodation.

It also does not reference the two child benefit cap.

Many councillors will recall the administration recently rejected our proposal that the Council could look at whether the Council Tax Support scheme could be used to support those families affected by the cap, but not otherwise eligible.

And so that’s what the report doesn’t talk about.

So let’s talk about what it does discuss.

Unusually it does attempt to provide some analysis of Merton’s relative performance.

As something we have consistently requested, this is welcome and we are grateful where it exists.

But I want to touch on three aspects of this report that I believe will give us cause for concern.

Mr Mayor, firstly I want to touch on the Young Saver Accounts initiative.

£50,000 was set aside for this, to support saving.

And by the looks of it about £5000 orr £6000 of that money has been given out. That’s at paragraph 6.32 of the Report.

So as a scheme, has it worked? Is that a good thing? Why hasn’t there been higher take up?

None of these questions are even mentioned let alone answered.

And yet the Cabinet member has already extended the scheme.

Now hiding at the very end of the report there’s the mention of the ‘development of a Family Hub model approach to services’.

We’re told there’s been significant work on this over the last 18 months.

The highlights apparently include a co-produced logo and branding, and some webpages.

Mr Mayor, surely it’s more important to set the purpose of this change and its impact – as without this, how can we judge its value and if it’s working?

Now finally – and most importantly – relative child poverty.

We’re told that this report is a ‘blueprint’ for other boroughs.

So I am pleased to see that we do at least appear to have been able to maximise on those London-wide trends – that the number of children living in relative poverty is going down.

You can see this in paragraphs 6.7-6.9 of the Report and it’s great news.

I do wish there was detail on why that was and lessons learned. But there isn’t, and instead just an inference.

Unfortunately, this is also where the report gets a bit sidetracked by efforts to score political points in its choice of direct comparator boroughs.

We all know why this administration is doing this, but what value is that to the children of our borough?

The overall drop in relative poverty is impressive.

Cllr Kaweesa spoke about the need to break the cycle – and he’s right.

But I want to invite councillors to turn to paragraph 6.11. If you have a copy with you, do turn and look.

As they say, the devil is in the detail.

This is a table of the ten London constituencies with the highest rates of children living in relative poverty – and the rate of change of that figure over 10 years.

Mitcham & Morden currently has the 10^th highest amount of child poverty in London at 41%. It only shows a 2% drop in child poverty. In a decade.

It previously had the 16^th highest relative poverty rate, so actually it’s got worse in the last 10 years.

Mr Mayor, this rather suggests Merton’s borough-wide improvement is found within Merton’s other parliamentary constituency.

The potential reasons for this, any lessons learned and the remedial action necessary are not discussed.

Instead the Report falls into the usual comfort zone of listing things that sound like good initiatives.

Mr Mayor, this isn’t Bridging the Gap.

It’s papering over the cracks.

Mr Mayor, in all, I’m afraid this report leaves us with more questions than it answers.

   Leave a comment