1-20 of 25 results for subject:Poverty
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.264 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.008 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Poverty
- We searched for
- subject_t:Poverty OR subject_ses:92526
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
Ten minute rule motion for leave to bring in a Bill. Agreed to on question. Presentation and first reading (Bill 336). To be read a second time on 24 November.
Ten minute rule motion for leave to bring in a Bill. Agreed to on question. Presentation and first reading (Bill 336). To be read a second time on 24 November.
The global crisis of malnutrition threatens the lives of 200 million people. Will the Development Minister look to support my early-day motion 951, which seeks to welcome the Bridgetown agenda, which will transform the mission, the model and the money in the global finance development architecture? Now is not the time for half measures.
The global crisis of malnutrition threatens the lives of 200 million people. Will the Development Minister look to support my early-day motion 951, which seeks to welcome the Bridgetown agenda, which will transform the mission, the model and the money in the global finance development architecture? Now is not the time for half measures.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Government Ministers do not normally sign early-day motions, but in respect of his point about Bridgetown, there is no more important agenda around internationally.
We need to ensure that we turn billions into trillions, as the rich world has promised repeatedly at recent conferences of the parties, and the Bridgetown agenda is in very large part the way we do that.
That this House notes that extreme poverty has risen for the first time this century; highlights on current trends 3 billion people will still be living on less than $6.85 by 2030; further notes that 200 million children’s lives are threatened by malnourishment; fragility and violence is spreading; learning losses amongst children during Covid could reduce future worldwide earnings by $21 trillion; acknowledges that developing countries need $5.8-5.9 trillion before 2030 to meet their emission reduction targets; notes that the cost of climate finance for developing countries is substantially higher than in richer countries and total gross debt in developing countries has reached the highest level for 50 years; welcomes the recent surge in World Bank lending, the first wave of IMF Resilience and Growth Trust agreements and proposals tabled by the Prime Minister of Barbados to transform the scale of global development finance; and calls on the Government to substantially increase the on-lending of UK Special Drawing Rights via the IMF, to mobilise an alliance of nations to on-lend SDRs to multi-lateral development banks, to advocate for the G20 review of MDB Capital Adequacy Frameworks recommendations by allowing loans against shareholders callable capital, to mobilise support for an increase in subscribed capital for World Bank; to advocate for reform of the World Bank’s mission to include reference to sustainability and resilience, to explore proposals for a Global Resilience Trust seeded by Special Drawing Rights, to present to Parliament proposals to restructure unsustainable debt burdens of vulnerable countries and to take steps to return UK aid to 0.7% of GDP.
That this House notes that extreme poverty has risen for the first time this century; highlights on current trends 3 billion people will still be living on less than $6.85 by 2030; further notes that 200 million children’s lives are threatened by malnourishment; fragility and violence is spreading; learning losses...
Covid has triggered the first global rise in extreme poverty this century, but at the G7 the Prime Minister could act. He can ask leaders to reallocate the International Monetary Fund’s £1 trillion-worth of special drawing rights and restock the World Bank’s £83 billion-worth of International Development Association funds. This is a multi-billion pound package of support for the world’s poorest. Will the Prime Minister today commit to leading that argument at the G7, so that a pandemic of disease does not now become a pandemic of poverty?
Covid has triggered the first global rise in extreme poverty this century, but at the G7 the Prime Minister could act. He can ask leaders to reallocate the International Monetary Fund’s £1 trillion-worth of special drawing rights and restock the World Bank’s £83 billion-worth of International Development Association funds. This is a multi-billion pound package of support for the world’s poorest. Will the Prime Minister today commit to leading that argument at the G7, so that a pandemic of disease does not now become a pandemic of poverty?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. It is great to see him in his place—it is always great to see him in this place. Actually, I have had conversations on that very matter already with Kristalina Georgiera.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many children are living in poverty in Birmingham to the smallest area for which figures are available.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many children are living in poverty in Birmingham to the smallest area for which figures are available.
The information requested is not available.
The Child Poverty Act 2010 sets four income-based UK-wide targets to be met by 2020. The targets are based on the proportion of children living in households with relative low income, combined low income and material deprivation, absolute low income and persistent poverty (all before housing costs have been taken into account).
Estimates of these are published in the National Statistics Households Below Average Income (HBAI) series. HBAI uses household income adjusted (or ‘equivalised’) for household size and composition, to provide a proxy for standard of living. This information is captured using the Family Resources Survey.
Information at authority level is not available as the sample size of this survey is not sufficient to provide robust estimates. The lowest geography at which poverty estimates are reported is regional level.
Three-year averages are used to report statistics by region, as single-year estimates are subject to volatility. The latest figures for relative and absolute low income at regional level covering the period of 2009-10 to 2011-12 can be found in the latest HBAI publication, available at the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/households-below-average-income-hbai-199495-to-201112
(ISBN 978-1-78153-531-8)
Relevant regional figures can be found in Table 4.17ts (on page 136) for relative low income and Table 4.23ts (on page 142) for absolute low income.
We have consulted on developing better measures of child poverty, which include, but go beyond income to provide a more accurate picture of the reality of child poverty and drive the right action. The complexity of the issue means that we need to take time to ensure we have the best option for measuring child poverty. We will publish our response as soon as we can.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of pensioners in absolute poverty own their own homes.
[160974]
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of pensioners in absolute poverty own their own homes.
[160974]
This information is available in table 6.14 ts on page 241 of 'Households Below Average Income', published on 13 June 2013 by the Department for Work and Pensions.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the results of the consultation on measuring child poverty.
[160257]
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the results of the consultation on measuring child poverty.
[160257]
The consultation on better measures of child poverty produced a large number of interesting contributions which the Government is continuing to analyse. It remains clear that the current income-based measures of child poverty do not capture the reality of poverty in the UK today.
The complexity of the issue means that we need to take time to ensure we have the best option for measuring child poverty, so that we can ensure we properly tackle the causes. We will publish our response as soon as we can.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effects of the proposed single-tier pension on pensioner poverty.
[159741]
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effects of the proposed single-tier pension on pensioner poverty.
[159741]
DWP does not project future pensioner poverty levels and we have not made a specific assessment of the effect that single-tier would have on poverty, but it will deliver a simple flat-rate state pension set above the basic level of means-tested support. Single-tier could help to alleviate poverty for those poor pensioners who would otherwise not have claimed a means-tested top-up.
Chart 4.1 of the single-tier impact assessment also shows that eligibility for guarantee credit among the single-tier population is projected to fall due to the introduction of single-tier.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of personal independence payment on the number of disabled people living in relative poverty.
[158816]
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of personal independence payment on the number of disabled people living in relative poverty.
[158816]
It is very difficult to estimate the impacts of the introduction of personal independence payment (PIP) on all disabled people. Analysis of the impact of personal independence payment (PIP) is based on a study comprising a sample of 900 volunteers, who were currently or had previously received disability living allowance, who were assessed against the new entitlement criteria. The study did not collect information about claimants' income levels, therefore we are unable to assess what effect the introduction of PIP will have on the number of disabled people living in relative poverty.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the provisions of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill on the number of employment and support allowance claimants in (a) the support group and (b) the work-related activity group living...
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the provisions of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill on the number of employment and support allowance claimants in (a) the support group and (b) the work-related activity group living...
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my answer to his earlier question on 11 February 2013, Official Report, column 508W (PQ 141901) for an estimate of the impact of the Up-rating Bill on disabled individuals in poverty.
It is not possible to disaggregate this population into recipients of employment and support allowance (ESA) and its individual components due to insufficient sample size. It should be noted that the population referred to in the above PQ identify self-reported disability as defined by the 2010 Equality Act, and the ESA recipient population constitutes a smaller and different group of individuals than this wider population.
(2) what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the provisions of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill on the number of employment and support allowance claimants living in relative poverty.
[149126]
Mr Byrne:
(2) what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the provisions of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill on the number of employment and support allowance claimants living in relative poverty.
[149126]
Mr Byrne:
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my answer to his earlier question on 11 February 2013, Official Report, column 508W (PQ 141901) for an estimate of the impact of the Up-rating Bill on disabled individuals in poverty.
It is not possible to disaggregate this population into recipients of employment and support allowance (ESA) and its individual components due to insufficient sample size. It should be noted that the population referred to in the above PQ identify self-reported disability as defined by the 2010 Equality Act, and the ESA recipient population constitutes a smaller and different group of individuals than this wider population.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what estimate he has made of the effect of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 on the number of disabled people living in (a) relative and (b) absolute poverty in each year to 2020;
[145152]
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what estimate he has made of the effect of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 on the number of disabled people living in (a) relative and (b) absolute poverty in each year to 2020;
[145152]
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my answer to his earlier question (PQ 141901) on 11 February 2013, Official Report, column 508W.
A breakdown of the relative impacts of the uprating of social security benefits and tax credits by one per cent on the number of disabled people living in relative poverty for individual years is available only at disproportionate cost.
(2) what estimate he has made of the effect of the uprating of social security benefits and tax credits by one per cent on the number of disabled people living in relative poverty in (a) 2013, (b) 2014 and (c) 2015.
[145153]
Mr Byrne:
(2) what estimate he has made of the effect of the uprating of social security benefits and tax credits by one per cent on the number of disabled people living in relative poverty in (a) 2013, (b) 2014 and (c) 2015.
[145153]
Mr Byrne:
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my answer to his earlier question (PQ 141901) on 11 February 2013, Official Report, column 508W.
A breakdown of the relative impacts of the uprating of social security benefits and tax credits by one per cent on the number of disabled people living in relative poverty for individual years is available only at disproportionate cost.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect of (a) the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and (b) the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill on the number of disabled people living in relative poverty.
[141901]
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect of (a) the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and (b) the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill on the number of disabled people living in relative poverty.
[141901]
[holding answer 6 February132013]: Impact assessments have been published for Welfare Reform Act policies where impacts have been identified and have been updated where impacts have changed.
The Government strongly believes that looking at relative income in isolation is not a helpful measure for tracking progress on poverty, which is why the Government is currently consulting on a measure of child poverty that will better reflect the reality of living in poverty in the UK today. More information is provided in the answer given to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on 15 January 2013, Official Report, columns 715-7W (PQ 137238). In relation to the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, we have protected disability and carer benefits wherever possible by ensuring that the
main rates of disability living allowance, attendance allowance and carer's allowance will be up-rated in line with inflation. In addition, the premiums paid to disabled people receiving working-age income-related benefits, the disability elements in tax credits, and the support component of employment and support allowance will all similarly be up-rated in line with inflation.
We estimate that around an extra 50,000 disabled individuals will be considered to be in poverty under the relative income measure as a result of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. We also estimate that the average change for households containing a disabled person will be around -£3 a week.
As earnings growth and inflation projections change these estimates will change. For example, the recession led to a fall in the relative poverty line, which had the effect of lifting 300,000 children out of relative poverty. These impacts are not forecasts of the level of poverty and do not indicate what will happen to trends over time. It is misleading to look at the impacts of up-rating in isolation.
Note:
Poverty figures are rounded to the nearest 50,000
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of how many people will be lifted out of poverty by universal credit.
[135546]
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of how many people will be lifted out of poverty by universal credit.
[135546]
I refer the right hon. Member to the written answer the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), gave my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), on 15 January 2013, Official Report, columns 715-17W.
I am afraid the Opposition simply cannot accept a think-tank set up by the Treasury putting the figure at £3.1 billion and the Treasury, in the March Budget, revising it down to £2.5 billion. The Secretary of State must accept, as I am sure many in the House do, that an extra £600 million will have a huge impact on whether people will be better off in work or on benefits. The Treasury clearly believes there is a state of chaos around universal credit, as do the Cabinet Office and No. 10. Surely it is time he tells the House exactly what is going on, and sets before us the business case that he is trying to keep secret from us. Is there something he is trying to hide?
I am afraid the Opposition simply cannot accept a think-tank set up by the Treasury putting the figure at £3.1 billion and the Treasury, in the March Budget, revising it down to £2.5 billion. The Secretary of State must accept, as I am sure many in the House do, that an extra £600 million will have a huge impact on whether people will be better off in work or on benefits. The Treasury clearly believes there is a state of chaos around universal credit, as do the Cabinet Office and No. 10. Surely it is time he tells the House exactly what is going on, and sets before us the business case that he is trying to keep secret from us. Is there something he is trying to hide?
There is absolutely nothing to hide—[Interruption.] No, no. We are committed to the £2.5 billion all the way through and we will deliver universal credit on time, as it is and on budget. Any time
he would like, he is welcome to come into the office and look through some of our business matters, as is his colleague, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). I will show him how we are on time, on target and on budget.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) did rather jump the gun. He referred over the weekend to universal credit as a car crash in the making. I need no advice from the man who produced the biggest car crash in British economic history.
May I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the Secretary of State’s words of congratulations to our extraordinary Paralympians, who have simply dazzled us over the past couple of weeks? I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State has survived the enthusiastic support of his friends in the Treasury, but may I press him on the price of his survival? When universal credit is fully rolled out in 2017, the Office for Budget Responsibility says that the extra costs will be £3.1 billion. The Treasury in its budget says that the price must be no more than £2.5 billion. With whose estimate does the Secretary of State agree?
May I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the Secretary of State’s words of congratulations to our extraordinary Paralympians, who have simply dazzled us over the past couple of weeks? I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State has survived the enthusiastic support of his friends in the Treasury, but may I press him on the price of his survival? When universal credit is fully rolled out in 2017, the Office for Budget Responsibility says that the extra costs will be £3.1 billion. The Treasury in its budget says that the price must be no more than £2.5 billion. With whose estimate does the Secretary of State agree?
The OBR agrees with me and I—strangely enough—agree with the Treasury. Our view is that we will roll this programme out at a cost of £2.5 billion per year. as originally estimated. I think the right hon. Gentleman is referring to a partial statement in a document produced before March by the OBR, and for the sake of the House I will read what it actually says. Although the OBR originally looked at this and wondered whether £3.1 billion would be reasonable, it has
“adjusted this down to £2.5 billion as the Government has stated in the Budget that final decisions on policy design”
are essentially now made.
Unallotted opposition day debate. Closure motion. Agreed to on question. Main question negatived on division (226 to 293).
Unallotted opposition day debate. Closure motion. Agreed to on question. Main question negatived on division (226 to 293).
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what benefits are claimed by (a) working households in poverty without children, (b) workless households in poverty without children, (c) lone parents in poverty who work, (d) lone parents in poverty who do not work, (e) couple parents in poverty...
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what benefits are claimed by (a) working households in poverty without children, (b) workless households in poverty without children, (c) lone parents in poverty who work, (d) lone parents in poverty who do not work, (e) couple parents in poverty...
| Table 1a: Percentage of each family or household type who are in receipt of each type of state support, before housing costs (part 1) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage | ||||
| Family or household type | ||||
| State support type | Working households in poverty without children | Workless households in poverty without children | Lone parent families in poverty who work | Lone parent families in poverty who do not work |
| Working tax credit | 8 | — | 52 | — |
| Child tax credit | — | 1 | 75 | 73 |
| Income support | 2 | 15 | 7 | 57 |
| Pension credit | 2 | 8 | — | — |
| Housing benefit | 11 | 43 | 25 | 72 |
| Council tax benefit (support for rates in Northern Ireland) | 13 | 58 | 26 | 77 |
| Retirement pension | 7 | 13 | — | — |
| Widow's benefits | — | 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Jobseeker's allowance | 11 | 27 | 1 | 9 |
| Employment and support allowance | 2 | 5 | 1 | 3 |
| Incapacity benefit | 3 | 17 | — | 6 |
| Severe disablement allowance | — | 1 | — | — |
| Attendance allowance | 1 | — | — | — |
| Carer's allowance | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Disability living allowance (care component) | 3 | 8 | 1 | 4 |
| Disability living allowance (mobility component) | 4 | 8 | — | 3 |
| Industrial injuries disablement benefit | — | — | 1 | — |
| Armed Forces Compensation scheme | — | — | — | — |
| Child benefit | — | — | 95 | 92 |
| On any income related benefit | 21 | 65 | 31 | 87 |
| On any non-income related benefit | 29 | 48 | 95 | 95 |
| All in receipt of benefit | 43 | 81 | 96 | 97 |
| All in receipt of tax credits | 6 | — | 75 | 73 |
| All not in receipt of state support | 38 | 75 | 97 | 97 |
| Population (millions) | 0.9 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 0.4 |
| Table 1b: Percentage of each family or household type who are in receipt of each type of state support, before housing costs (part 2) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage | ||||
| Family or household type | ||||
| State support received | Couple parent families in poverty who work | Couple parent families in poverty who do not work | Workless households in poverty with children, who have one or more adult who is disabled | Workless households in poverty without children, who have one or more adult who is disabled |
| Working tax credit | 36 | 1 | 1 | — |
| Child tax credit | 61 | 70 | 75 | 1 |
| Income support | 1 | 21 | 40 | 25 |
| Pension credit | — | 1 | 2 | 11 |
| Housing benefit | 8 | 58 | 67 | 53 |
| Council tax benefit (support for rates in Northern Ireland) | 11 | 72 | 81 | 73 |
| Retirement pension | — | 1 | 5 | 16 |
| Widow's benefits | — | — | 1 | 1 |
| Jobseeker's allowance | 5 | 39 | 18 | 16 |
| Employment and support allowance | 1 | 6 | 9 | 8 |
| Incapacity benefit | 2 | 13 | 22 | 33 |
| Severe disablement allowance | — | — | 1 | 1 |
| Attendance allowance | — | — | — | 1 |
| Carer's allowance | 1 | 6 | 7 | 3 |
| Disability living allowance (care component) | 3 | 12 | 21 | 16 |
| Disability living allowance (mobility component) | 2 | 8 | 14 | 16 |
| Industrial injuries disablement benefit | — | — | 2 | — |
| Armed Forces Compensation scheme | — | 1 | — | — |
| Child benefit | 93 | 92 | 94 | 1 |
| On any income related benefit | 16 | 79 | 85 | 80 |
| On any non-income related benefit | 93 | 93 | 97 | 67 |
| All in receipt of benefit | 94 | 97 | 99 | 95 |
| All in receipt of tax credits | 61 | 70 | 62 | — |
| All not in receipt of state support | 94 | 97 | 85 | 89 |
| Population (millions) | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.6 |
| Source: | ||||
| Households Below Average Income 1994/95-2009/10, DWP |
| Table 2a: Percentage of each family or household type who are in receipt of each type of state support, before housing costs (part 1) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage | ||||
| Family or household type | ||||
| State support received | Working households in poverty without children | Workless households in poverty without children | Lone parent families in poverty who work | Lone parent families in poverty who do not work |
| Working tax credit | 8 | — | 55 | — |
| Child tax credit | — | 1 | 78 | 79 |
| Income support | 2 | 19 | 9 | 68 |
| Pension credit | 2 | 7 | — | — |
| Housing benefit | 13 | 53 | 35 | 82 |
| Council tax benefit (support for rates in Northern Ireland) | 14 | 64 | 31 | 84 |
| Retirement pension | 6 | 12 | — | — |
| Widow's benefits | — | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Jobseeker's allowance | 10 | 26 | 1 | 8 |
| Employment and support allowance | 2 | 5 | — | 3 |
| Incapacity benefit | 3 | 19 | — | 5 |
| Severe disablement allowance | — | 1 | — | — |
| Attendance allowance | — | — | — | — |
| Carer's allowance | — | 2 | — | 2 |
| Disability living allowance (care component) | 3 | 11 | 1 | 3 |
| Disability living allowance (mobility component) | 3 | 9 | — | 3 |
| Industrial injuries disablement benefit | — | — | — | — |
| Armed Forces Compensation scheme | — | — | — | — |
| Child benefit | — | 1 | 94 | 95 |
| On any income related benefit | 21 | 70 | 39 | 92 |
| On any non-income related benefit | 25 | 49 | 95 | 97 |
| All in receipt of benefit | 38 | 82 | 95 | 98 |
| All in receipt of tax credits | 5 | — | 78 | 79 |
| All not in receipt of state support | 33 | 77 | 97 | 98 |
| Population (millions) | 1.3 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 0.6 |
| Table 2b: Percentage of each family or household type who are in receipt of each type of state support, before housing costs (part 2) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage | ||||
| Family or household type | ||||
| State support received | Couple parent families in poverty who work | Couple parent families in poverty who do not work | Workless households in poverty with children, who have one or more adult who is disabled | Workless households in poverty without children, who have one or more adult who is disabled |
| Working tax credit | 36 | 1 | — | — |
| Child tax credit | 63 | 72 | 78 | 1 |
| Income support | 1 | 25 | 49 | 31 |
| Pension credit | — | 2 | 2 | 9 |
| Housing benefit | 12 | 65 | 78 | 67 |
| Council tax benefit (support for rates in Northern Ireland) | 13 | 77 | 86 | 79 |
| Retirement pension | — | 1 | 3 | 14 |
| Widow's benefits | — | — | 1 | 1 |
| Jobseeker's allowance | 5 | 39 | 16 | 16 |
| Employment and support allowance | 1 | 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Incapacity benefit | 1 | 14 | 21 | 33 |
| Severe disablement allowance | — | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Attendance allowance | — | — | — | 1 |
| Carer's allowance | 1 | 7 | 8 | 2 |
| Disability living allowance(care component) | 2 | 16 | 21 | 20 |
| Disability living allowance (mobility component) | 2 | 13 | 17 | 17 |
| Industrial injuries disablement benefit | — | — | 1 | — |
| Armed Forces Compensation scheme | — | — | — | — |
| Child benefit | 93 | 93 | 95 | 1 |
| On any income related benefit | 19 | 82 | 91 | 85 |
| On any non-income related benefit | 93 | 94 | 98 | 68 |
| All in receipt of benefit | 94 | 98 | 100 | 96 |
| All in receipt of tax credits | 63 | 72 | 66 | — |
| All not in receipt of state support | 94 | 98 | 89 | 91 |
| Population (millions) | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.7 |
| Notes: | ||||
| 1. These statistics are based on households below average income (HBAI) data available at: | ||||
| http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbai_arc | ||||
| 2. These statistics are based on households below average income (HBAI) data sourced from the 2009/10 Family Resources survey (FRS). This uses disposable household income, adjusted using modified OECD equivalisation factors for household size and composition, as an income measure as a proxy for standard of living. | ||||
| 3. Net disposable incomes have been used to answer the question. This includes earnings from employment and self-employment, state support, income from occupational and private pensions, investment income and other sources. Income tax, payments, national insurance contributions, council tax/domestic rates and some other payments are deducted from incomes. | ||||
| 4. Figures have been presented on a before housing cost and an after housing cost basis. For before housing costs, housing costs are not deducted from income, while for after housing costs they are. | ||||
| 5. All estimates are based on survey data and are therefore subject to a degree of uncertainty. Small differences should be treated with caution as these will be affected by sampling error and variability in non-response. The sample size for lone parent families in poverty who work is particularly small, so results for this family type should be treated with particular caution. | ||||
| 6. Benefit receipt is based on self-assessment and therefore may be subject to misreporting. The Family Resources Survey is known to undercount receipt of certain benefits. | ||||
| 7. The population groups include subgroups of families and households. Families are defined as a single adult or a married or cohabiting couple and any dependent children; from January 2006 same-sex partners (civil partners and cohabitees) are included in the same benefit unit. A household is made up of one of more families. | ||||
| 8. The reference period for HBAI figures is the financial year. | ||||
| 9. Proportions of families and households have been rounded to the nearest percentage point. | ||||
| 10. Numbers of families and households have been rounded to the nearest hundred thousand. | ||||
| 11. ““—““ indicates less than 0.5%. | ||||
| 12. Poverty has been defined as: Relative low income: households with equivalised households incomes below 60% of contemporary median household income, before or after housing costs. | ||||
| 13. For this analysis, disability is defined as having any long-standing illness, disability or impairment that leads to a substantial difficulty with one or more areas of the individual's life. Everyone classified as disabled under this definition would also be classified as disabled under the Equality Act 2010 (and the Disability Discrimination Act which was in force at the time of the survey). However, some individuals classified as disabled under the Equality Act 2010 would not be captured by this definition, as the Family Resources survey, the source of the households below average income series, does not fully collect this information. | ||||
| 14. No adjustment is made to disposable household income to take into account any additional costs that may be incurred due to an illness or disability, because research shows these vary significantly in level and nature, and there is no general agreement on how to measure these costs. | ||||
| 15. A household or family is defined as workless if no-one within the household or family is classified as working; otherwise the household or family is defined as working, so is wider than just those individuals classified as unemployed. | ||||
| 16. We have excluded households or families that do not contain any working-age adults. The categories specified are not mutually exclusive and the same individuals can be counted in more than one group. | ||||
| Source: | ||||
| Households Below Average Income 1994/95-2009/10, DWP |
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of workless households living in poverty include (a) one or more and (b) two or more disabled adults.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of workless households living in poverty include (a) one or more and (b) two or more disabled adults.
| Proportion and number of workless households that are in poverty with at least one working-age adult that also include (a) one or more and (b) two or more disabled adults, United Kingdom, 2009-10 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before housing costs | After housing costs | |||
| Workless households with at least one working-age adult in poverty with | Number (Million) | Proportion (Percentage) | Number (Million) | Proportion (Percentage) |
| One or more disabled adults | 0.8 | 44 | 1.1 | 45 |
| Two or more disabled adults | 0.1 | 6 | 0.1 | 6 |
| Notes: | ||||
| 1. These statistics are based on Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data available at: | ||||
| http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbai_arc | ||||
| 2. These statistics are based on Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data sourced from the 2009-10 Family Resources Survey (FRS). This uses disposable household income, adjusted using modified OECD equivalisation factors for household size and composition, as an income measure as a proxy for standard of living. | ||||
| 3. Net disposable incomes have been used to answer the question. This includes earnings from employment and self-employment, state support, income from occupational and private pensions, investment income and other sources. Income tax, payments, national insurance contributions, council tax/domestic rates and some other payments are deducted from incomes. | ||||
| 4. Figures have been presented on a before housing cost and an after housing cost basis. For before housing costs, housing costs are not deducted from income, while for after housing costs they are. | ||||
| 5. All estimates are based on survey data and are therefore subject to a degree of uncertainty. Small differences should be treated with caution as these will be affected by sampling error and variability in non-response. | ||||
| 6. The reference period for HBAI figures is the financial year. | ||||
| 7. Number of households have been rounded to the nearest 100,000. | ||||
| 8. Proportion of households have been rounded to the nearest percentage point. | ||||
| 9. Poverty has been defined as: | ||||
| relative low income: households with equivalised households incomes below 60% of contemporary median household income, before or after housing costs. | ||||
| 10. For this analysis, disability is defined as having any long-standing illness, disability or impairment that leads to a substantial difficulty with one or more areas of the individual's life. Everyone classified as disabled under this definition would also be classified as disabled under the Equality Act 2010 (and the Disability Discrimination Act which was in force at the time of the survey). However, some individuals classified as disabled under the Equality Act 2010 would not be captured by this definition, as the Family Resources Survey, the source of the Households Below Average Income series, does not fully collect this information. | ||||
| 11. No adjustment is made to disposable household income to take into account any additional costs that may be incurred due to an illness or disability, because research shows these vary significantly in level and nature, and there is no general agreement on how to measure these costs. | ||||
| 12. A household is defined as workless if no one within the household is classified as working; otherwise the household is defined as working, so is wider than just those individuals classified as unemployed. We have excluded households that do not contain working-age adults. | ||||
| Source: | ||||
| Households Below Average Income 1994-95 to 2009-10, DWP. |