Response to OFMDFM’s Consultation Towards an Anti-Poverty Strategy, New TSN – the way forward Phase Two

Children’s Law Centre
August 2005


Introduction
The Children’s Law Centre is an independent charitable organisation established in September 1997 which works towards a society where all children can participate, are valued, their rights respected and guaranteed without discrimination and every child can achieve their full potential.
We offer training and research on children’s rights, we make submissions on law, policy and practice affecting children and young people and we run an advice/information/representation service. We have a dedicated free phone advice line for children and young people called CHALKY and a youth advisory group called Youth@clc.
Our organisation is founded on the principles enshrined in The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), in particular:
• Children shall not be discriminated against and shall have equal access to protection.
• All decisions taken which affect children’s lives should be taken in the child’s best interests.
• Children have the right to have their voices heard in all matters concerning them.
In responding to the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister’s (OFMDFM’s) Consultation Towards an Anti-Poverty Strategy, New TSN – The Way Forward Phase Two (Anti-Poverty Strategy), we consulted with Youth@clc, the Children’s Law Centre’s youth advisory group which is made up of young people aged between 15 - 21 years, from various backgrounds who aim to ensure that the voices of children and young people are heard at local and national levels of decision-making. The primary aim of Youth@clc is to promote awareness of children’s rights, with an ultimate goal of every child and young person in Northern Ireland being fully aware of their rights and the laws that affect them. The views expressed by Youth@clc feed into this response and notes of the consultation event are attached at Appendix 1.
From its perspective as an organisation, which works with and on behalf of children, both directly and indirectly, the Children's Law Centre is grateful for the opportunity to make this submission to OFMDFM.
Child Poverty

We welcome the fact that OFMDFM is consulting on the latest phase of the Anti-Poverty Strategy. However, we must state our disappointment from the outset at the glaring lack of focus in the document on children and child poverty in Northern Ireland. Child poverty is a serious issue for the population of Northern Ireland and the Strategy document itself acknowledges that,

“Northern Ireland has relatively higher levels of child poverty than in Great Britain.” (Page 13)

It is concerning to note that the Anti-Poverty Strategy appears to delegate responsibility for tackling child poverty to the Children and Young People’s Unit’s Children’s Strategy and states that,

“Child poverty is one of the five priority areas focused upon within the (children’s) strategy” (Page 96) and further indicates the lack of intention to address child poverty within the Anti-Poverty Strategy, stating that, while there have been criticisms levied at OFMDFM earlier in the consultation process regarding the lack of focus on child poverty,

“Northern Ireland Departments are committed to making a contribution towards the achievement of the UK Child Poverty target of halving the number of children in relative low income households between 1998 – 99 and 2010 –11, on the way to eradicating child poverty by 2020.” (Pages 95 and 96)

However, what is both interesting and extremely worrying to note is that the most comprehensive action on poverty in The Children’s Strategy consultation document’s states that,

“Issues impacting on and associated with child poverty will be considered within the context of the Anti-Poverty Forum as proposed in the consultation document “New TSN – the way forward – towards an anti-poverty strategy.”” (Page 71)

It appears from this that both the Anti-Poverty Unit and the Children and Young People’s Unit within OFMDFM believe that the responsibility for addressing child poverty is that of its neighbouring Unit, in spite of the fact that in our submission to the Children’s Strategy we called for tackling child poverty to be a central issue within the both the Government’s Anti-Poverty Strategy and the Children and Young People’s Strategy to ensure that the rights and needs of those 32,000 (8%) of children in Northern Ireland living in severe poverty and the 38% of our children identified as deprived of one or more child necessities are adequately addressed. (“The Bottom Line”, Save the Children 2005) We believe that there is a need for both Strategies to comprehensively address child poverty as a central issue, particularly in light of OFMDFM’s own recognition of the unacceptable level of child poverty in Northern Ireland as compared to Great Britain (above).

The lack of focus on children and child poverty in the Anti-Poverty Strategy is even more surprising given that the Department for Work and Pensions’ National Action Plan on Social Inclusion’s Implementation Report, which clearly states that it will be the vehicle for addressing and eradicating child poverty in Northern Ireland,

“In Northern Ireland an Anti-Poverty Strategy is currently being developed and will include a focus on child poverty issues.” (DWP, 2005)

There is a failure to highlight and draw upon the available research in relation to the causes and effects of child poverty in Northern Ireland and a failure to give due weight to child poverty measures, which include a mixed measure of deprivation and low income, that have been endorsed by both the EU and UK Governments. In order to formulate and develop a robust and effective Anti-Poverty Strategy, these child poverty measures should be used to provide a sound baseline analysis of the extent of child poverty in Northern Ireland. We also recommend that the Government’s commitment to eradicating child poverty, with its targets to halve child poverty across the UK by 2010 and eradicate child poverty by 2020, be explicitly applied in Northern Ireland.

We note the reference made in the consultation document to the Sure Start initiative. It is the only anti-poverty initiative directed at children mentioned in the draft Strategy. While it would appear that Sure Start in England has made a valuable contribution to the development of children living in disadvantaged areas, it has not been implemented or resourced in Northern Ireland in a similar manner. Also as Sure Start is intended for children up to the age of 4, it can hardly be seen as a comprehensive programme to address child poverty for all children under the age of 18 years. A range of initiatives must be developed to address deprivation at all stages of childhood perhaps along the same lines as the Department for Work and Pensions’ life cycle approach adopted in developing its Anti-Poverty Strategy.

We stress the need to rectify the very grave omission of children from the Anti-Poverty Strategy and we would welcome a firm commitment by Government in the Strategy to addressing child poverty in Northern Ireland, something which we feel is lacking in the current draft of the Strategy.

We would further submit that the final strategy must be subject to a section 75 screening exercise. Given its failure to address children the policy will have to be screened in and a full EQIA carried out. The results of the EQIA will unquestionable show an adverse differential impact on children, which we submit is unsustainable.
International Standards
The UNCRC is a set of non-negotiable and legally binding minimum standards and obligations in respect of all aspects of children’s lives which the Government has ratified. A great many of the articles of the UNCRC apply to child poverty and any Government which continues to allow its children to live in poverty is in breach of these articles and its obligations under the UNCRC. The principles of the UNCRC are all relevant in a discussion of the obligations of Government and child poverty. The Government needs to eradicate child poverty to ensure the rights of all children not to be discriminated against (Article 2), their best interests are upheld (Article 3), they survive and develop to the maximum extent possible (Article 6) and they are able to meaningfully participate in all aspects of their lives (Article 12). More specifically, Article 27 of the UNCRC states that,
“1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.
2. The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child's development.
3. States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means, shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.”
In terms of socio-economic rights, the inter-dependence and indivisibility of all rights is hugely apparent. Without basic rights, such as the right to accommodation and an adequate standard of living and flowing from this, the rights to healthcare, social services and a healthy, sustainable environment, children’s rights to participate and have their best interests protected become meaningless. In terms of the UNCRC, there are further obligations which Government will be in breach of as a result of its failure to adequately address child poverty in Northern Ireland. At a minimum, living in poverty will have a detrimental impact on the child’s right to the best possible healthcare (Article24), education (Article 28) and play and leisure (Article 31). The importance of tackling child poverty and the far-reaching implications which poverty has on the entire life of a child has been emphasised by the UNCRC Committee which urged the Government to take all necessary measures to the maximum extent of available resources to accelerate the elimination of child poverty. (Para 46a, CRC/C/15/Add.188)

The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) commissioned research, “Children’s Rights in Northern Ireland” (2004) found that poverty is a major obstacle in preventing children and young people from asserting their rights. The research highlighted the findings of a number of studies which present rather stark findings in relation to the inter-dependence of all rights and the impact that living in poverty has on the lives of children in Northern Ireland. These include, children born to poorer families in Northern Ireland are more likely to be smaller and to die at a higher rate than those born to better off families (O’Reilly and Gaffney); children living in poverty are 15 times more likely to die as the result of a house fire, five times more likely to die in accidents and four times more likely to die before the age of 20 (DHSSPS, 2000); suicide rates among 15-24 year olds are almost three times higher in the lowest income groups than in the other groups combined (GCCNI, 2002); in Northern Ireland, the fifth of the population who are most well off have a life expectancy among the best in Europe. For the poorest fifth it is closer to that in Eastern European countries (GCCNI, 2002); It has been estimated that about 2,000 lives could be saved each year in Northern Ireland if those living in the Council areas with the highest death rates (the poorest areas) enjoyed the same level of health as those living in the Council areas with the lowest death rates (the best-off areas) (DHSSPS, 2000)

A further issue which arose in youth@clc’s “Shout Out Soon” (SOS) report (2004) was that almost 12% (124) of young people surveyed had issues regarding discrimination in employment. The majority of these issues related to the age of legal employment and unequal payment due to age. One 16 year old complained that,

“I am not treated fairly in employment as there are people older than me earning more for doing the same job”

The same issue arose in the NICCY schools research where young people rejected lower wages as discriminatory on the basis of their age. The discriminatory nature of the minimum wage whereby children under the age of sixteen are not entitled to a minimum wage and those under 18 and 21 are entitled to lower rates is economic exploitation and directly contributes to child poverty. We believe that until the minimum wage is the same for everyone, regardless of age, the Government is in clear breach of Article 2 of the UNCRC – the non-discrimination principle. The UNCRC Committee, in its report, recommends that the Government reconsider its policies regarding the national minimum wage for young workers in light of the principle of non-discrimination (para 55 CRC/C/15/Add.188).

Related to this is another area which has been omitted from the Anti-Poverty Strategy, social security provision for young people in their own right. The Strategy should address the fact that young people aged 16 and 17 have no automatic right to social security benefits and also receive a lower level of income support and jobseekers allowance than adults over 25, regardless of the fact that they may be living independently. This is clearly a contributing factor to child poverty and we recommend that the Government take account of the UNCRC Committee recommendation in aiming to address the issue of child poverty which states that the Government should review its legislation and policies concerning benefits and social security allowances for 16 to 18 year olds. (para 46c CRC/C/15/Add.188)
It is important to note that Government will again be reporting to the UNCRC Committee in 2007 and will have to address the issues raised and detail any progress made in relation to the UNCRC Committee’s concluding observations (2002). We believe that while the issues relating to the minimum wage and social security provision are reserved matters, the Anti-Poverty Strategy should make a commitment to lobbying Government to address the concerns of the UNCRC Committee which contribute to child poverty in Northern Ireland.
New TSN
It is concerning to note that while New TSN has been in existence since 1991, the document states that important first steps include having a focal point within each Department to facilitate action on tackling poverty and social inclusion, informing staff of the issues, identifying appropriate actions and cascading knowledge of the Strategy to NDPB’s and other service providers. (Page 72) This would appear to be an acknowledgement of the fact that New TSN is not as embedded and successfully mainstreamed as it should be within Government and service provision. This preparatory work should long since have been carried out to ensure that real and lasting progress could begin to be made at this stage in the process. It is also concerning to note that there is no evidence that New TSN actually works, even after 14 years of the policy’s operation. The OFMDFM commissioned Deloitte and Touche evaluation of New TSN (2003) found evidence of attempts by Departments to implement New TSN, but little evidence to suggest that New TSN was actually reducing the level of poverty in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the statistics from Save the Children’s, “The Bottom Line” (2004) report and the NICCY research findings (above) seems to suggest that there has been an increase in the level of poverty, which is particularly stark when compared to children living in Great Britain, and further polarisation between those in poverty and those who are better off, resulting in a wide variety of socio-economic problems as well as an increase in the level of social exclusion.
The Strategic Framework and Priorities
There appears to be a lack of strategic focus in the Strategy and it is concerning to note the lack of a plan of action. The Strategy does not set targets, aims or objectives and is not proactive, imaginative or ambitious. There is nothing in the Strategy that is new and innovative. The document provides no insight into how future measures will be developed or resourced. It is vital that the final Strategy does not result merely in a repackaging of current actions, but that a range of new initiatives are developed and sustained.

The proposals for the strategy are not sufficiently systematic and comprehensive. In order to eradicate poverty an understanding of the causes of poverty must first be developed. Only then can effective anti-poverty policies and programmes be generated that will tackle the roots, rather than merely addressing the impact of poverty. The document includes no analysis of the causes of poverty at all and makes no attempt to tackle the root causes of poverty in Northern Ireland.

We believe that the draft strategic aim and objectives place a too narrow emphasis on employment and employability and are not broad enough to tackle the wide spectrum of poverty and deprivation. We recommend that the Strategy adopts over-arching aims that are more fully reflective of the common EU objectives for combating poverty and social exclusion and that these are reflected in strategic outcome statements.

We are also concerned that the Strategy’s strategic framework is too vague and sets no targets to be measured and no actual timescales. We believe that it is vital that the Strategy is SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable Realistic Time Bound), i.e. that it is structured in such a way as to enable its staged delivery over a given time period against measurable outcomes which allow for monitoring, accountability and regular evaluation. We note that the Strategy commits to setting targets in the future but we are concerned about how these will be set. We feel that this is the responsibility of Ministers to set ambitious targets for each Department, rather than the responsibilities on individual Departments. Youth@clc expressed similar concerns, stating that there are no targets set in the document. Youth@clc felt it would be useful also for a time frame to be allocated any action developed in the final Strategy, with measurable targets. They also felt the Strategy should be much more specific, detailing ways to effectively tackle child poverty in Northern Ireland.

Youth@clc also had a number of concerns around the Strategy’s failure to address the impact of the conflict on poverty and the fact that the Strategy will not result in any policy change, which is clearly what is required to have an effective impact on tackling poverty in Northern Ireland.

Monitoring and Evaluation

There is a wider relevant concern in the Strategy given that the actions of all Government departments’ impact on the lives of children living in poverty and all departments are involved in the development and implementation of the Regional Action Plan and the Strategy itself. Co-ordination, communication and consistency across departments will be crucial. This is an area which the UNCRC Committee, in its own words has,

“Almost invariably found it necessary to encourage further co-ordination among central Government departments, among different regions and provinces, between central and other levels of Government and between Government and civil society”. (CRC/GC/2003/5 para. 37)

The UNCRC Committee recognises the complexity and multiplicity of arrangements that exist across countries and for that reason refrains from prescribing detailed arrangements for co-ordination. However it does note that a specific department or unit, if given high level sanction, can play a pivotal role in co-ordinating work across Government departments on the implementation of children's rights. In the context of the Anti-Poverty Strategy the Anti-Poverty Unit would appear to represent such a central co-ordinating unit. As a direct result of the nature of poverty and the broader implications of living in poverty on the denial of additional rights to children and young people, the Anti-Poverty Unit will have a large role to play in the monitoring of the implementation of the UNCRC and working with the Children and Young People’s Unit to report to the UNCRC Committee in 2007.

There is clearly a need to develop a system of child rights indicators and child rights impact assessment. The development of a system of coherent, rights based indicators must be a priority for the implementation of the Strategy to ensure that accurate monitoring of progress and an evaluation of impact in terms of advancing children’s rights can take place. The UK Government in its report to the UNCRC Committee in 2007 will be obliged to provide a comprehensive picture of,

“...steps taken to develop mechanisms for the identification and gathering of appropriate indicators, statistics, relevant research and other relevant information as a basis for policy-making in the field of children’s rights” (Guidelines for Periodic Reports para 18).

Work must begin immediately on developing an integrated system of child rights indicators while the Strategy is still being drafted. These child rights indicators, which should include as a minimum information on compliance with the general principles of the UNCRC, should be adopted consistently across all departments and applied to both the Regional Action Plan as well as to the Strategy itself.
Resources
The content of the Strategy highlights a great deal of currently ongoing work and there is very little in the document which is new and innovative. It is very clear from the Ministerial Foreword that the Strategy does not intend to create a new set of actions and initiatives; rather it intends to set the context for work which is ongoing and for the continuation of existing measures. While there is a promise of new future measures, no indication of how these new measures will be developed or what they are likely to involve has been given. We believe that this stops well short of what is required to effectively address poverty in Northern Ireland. It is very clear from the statistics above that measures currently in existence are failing to address the needs of those in poverty, hence the need for a robust and challenging Anti-Poverty Strategy in Northern Ireland.
One of the reasons for this ‘repackaging of measures’ may well be due to the lack of clarity around whether or not the Strategy will have priority status. The Anti-Poverty Strategy follows along the same vein as many of the Government’s new strategies in that there is no allocation of budget for its implementation. This is very disappointing as we believe that there should be dedicated resource provision in order to effectively eradicate poverty, rather than skewing of mainstream public expenditure from budgets which are already extremely constrained. We are particularly surprised that skewing of resources has again been proposed at this stage in the consultation process in light of the high level of opposition to this method of funding the Strategy through out the process to date. The consultation document itself highlights this opposition and states that one of the common concerns which arose though the external evaluation was with regard to the level of resource allocation to anti-poverty measures. A number of groups suggested that,

“The policy should be financed by ‘top-slicing’ of budgets i.e. creating a central budget with contributions from all departments, and greater efficiencies within Government” (Page 36)

This particular concern relating to the funding of anti-poverty initiatives is reiterated in the findings of the Independent Panel. The consultation document states that,

“…there was a case for an ‘innovative action fund’ to encourage Departments to develop anti-poverty initiatives” (Page 38)
Without adequate funding for the Strategy it is difficult to see how Government intends to place the correct degree of importance on the priorities detailed within it and how the fundamental level of political will can be demonstrated. Youth@clc expressed similar concerns in relation to the lack of dedicated resources.
The UNCRC Committee has made its views unequivocal on the responsibilities of Government in the provision of the rights of the child, including the child’s right to live free from poverty as detailed above, and the issue of resources. The Committee has paid considerable attention to the identification and analysis of resources for children in budgets and observes that without clarity regarding the amount of money being spent on children both directly and indirectly,

“...no state can tell whether it is fulfilling children’s economic, social and cultural rights” (General Comment 5 para 51)

The Committee has repeatedly raised the issue of insufficient allocation of resources towards the implementation of children’s rights with a number of member states. In 2002 the Committee recommended that the UK Government,

“...undertake an analysis of all sectoral and total budgets across the State party and in the devolved administrations in order to show the proportion spent on children, identify priorities and allocate resources to the “maximum extent of…available resources”. (CRC/C/15/Add.188 para 11)

To comply with the UNCRC Committee’s Guidelines on Periodic Reports the UK Government, in its report due to be submitted in 2007 will be obliged to provide information regarding:

• The proportion of the budget devoted to social expenditures for children, including health, welfare and education, at the central, regional and local levels;

• Arrangements for budgetary analysis enabling the amount and proportion spent on children to be clearly identified. The steps taken to ensure that all competent national, regional and local authorities are guided by the best interests of the child in their budgetary decisions and evaluate the priority given to children in their policy making; and,

• The measures taken to ensure that children, particularly those belonging to the most disadvantaged groups, are protected against the adverse effects of economic policies, including the reduction of budgetary allocation in the social sector. (CRC/C/58 para 20)

It is abundantly clear that the draft proposals regarding resourcing the Strategy are totally inadequate when compared with the UNCRC Committee’s requirements, not least due to the lack of a child rights focus. The Strategy’s requirement that Departments skew resources in the eradication of poverty is raises serious concerns about the Government’s commitment to delivering on its aims, objectives and priorities. It is difficult to see how, in such a scenario, the best interests of the child and the principle of ensuring the right to protection against discrimination can be guiding considerations in any decisions regarding financial allocation.

The failure to ring-fence new funding for the implementation of the Strategy runs completely counter to the Government’s obligation, which is a particularly onerous one given the UK’s status as a G8 nation, to allocate resources to children to the maximum extent of available resources. Neither can the particular administrative arrangements with regard to devolution, whereby the NI Executive receives a block grant from the UK Exchequer, be accepted as some form of externally imposed limitation on the amount of money available for implementation of the Strategy, as made clear by the UNCRC Committee,

“In any process of devolution, State Parties have to make sure that the devolved authorities do have the necessary financial, human and other resources effectively to discharge responsibilities for the implementation of the Convention”. (General Comment 5 para.41).

We strongly recommend that in order to meet its obligations, OFMDFM commits to the provision of adequate, ringfenced funding for the implementation of the Strategy. All departments must be obliged to undertake a child rights impact assessment of any proposed financial allocation thus ensuring that the best interests of the child becomes a guiding factor in budgetary decision making.

Ministerial Forum

We are pleased to note the proposal for a Ministerial Forum in the draft Strategy and are supportive of both the Forum and its proposed aims. While we welcome the proposal that the Forum be chaired at Ministerial level, we are concerned that it does not appear to have any authority. It is vital that the Ministerial Forum has the power to hold both Departments and NDPBs to account in terms of delivering on the Strategy. Participation on this Forum by children experiencing poverty is vital as per the Government’s obligations both under Article 12 of the UNCRC and section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. We stress the need for effective and meaningful participation and highlight the obvious need for development of new and innovative models of participation to ensure that representative groups of children and young people not only have their voices heard, but have these views taken into account in decisions which affect their lives. The NICCY research highlights the importance of this area for children and young people and states that participation as,

“…enshrined in Article 12 of the CRC, is fundamental to the realisation of all children’ s rights and it is appropriate, therefore, that not being heard, not being allowed to participate in decisions made about them and not being consulted about changes to their lives, big and small, is the single most important issue to children in Northern Ireland.” (NICCY research 2004 page xxi) (Our emphasis)

Youth@clc also stressed the need for local accountability and responsibility and felt that this should be addressed through the Ministerial Forum with power to hold Departments accountable and there should be a central body who co-ordinates the Strategy, provides resources and has powers to impose sanctions

PSI Working Group

We note the proposal in the Draft Strategy to set up a PSI Working Group on Lone Parents. We believe that no new PSI groups should be initiated until the previous ones have been evaluated in terms of their impact on the designated groups. It is fundamental that an action to address the needs of any particular group is effective and we remain unconvinced that this will be achieved through a PSI Working Group as the PSI Working Group on Travellers has delivered very little positive change for Travellers in Northern Ireland.
Consultation
We note with concern that the Anti-Poverty Strategy states in relation to carrying out an Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) that,

“Experience throughout the Northern Ireland Civil Service indicates that we cannot assess high level strategies, but that equality impact assessments will be conducted on the specific programmes coming out of these, where screening indicates that this is necessary.” (Page 160)
We strongly disagree with this statement and believe that the equality statutory duty imposed on OFMDFM by section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 must underpin all levels of policy making to ensure that there is no adverse impact on any of the nine groups detailed in the legislation. We would submit OFMDFM have misdirected themselves in their interpretation of Section 75. We believe that the letter and spirit of section 75 intends for equality concerns to be central to the policy decision-making process. This involves consideration of section 75 at the very beginning stages of the Strategy’s development and implementation. The Equality Commission’s Guidance for Implementing Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states that,
“1.4 The new statutory duties make equality central to the whole range of public policy decision-making. This approach is often referred to as “mainstreaming”. The Council of Europe has defined mainstreaming as:

“the (re)organisation, improvement, development and evaluation of policy processes, so that a[n] … equality perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels and at all stages, by the actors normally involved in policy-making”.” (Gender mainstreaming conceptual framework, methodology and presentation of good practices. Council of Europe, Strasbourg May 1998)

It is clear from this that the intention of section 75 is to mainstream equality, making it central to policy decision making. In order for an equality perspective to be central to policy making it needs to be incorporated in all policies at all levels and stages. This would unequivocally involve incorporation of the principles of equality of opportunity from the beginning of this process and throughout the development and implementation of the Strategy. It is vital that a full and thorough EQIA is carried out on the Anti-Poverty Strategy in advance of the consultative process. While we recognise the challenges that this presents we wish to highlight the ongoing work between the Government and the Equality Commission on Priorities and Budget 2006-08, to subject the process to an EQIA. There is definite scope for replication of this work to ensure compliance with the section 75 statutory duty in all high level strategy development. As a result we recommend that OFMFDM carries out an EQIA on this policy as a matter of urgency, particularly in light of the absence of consideration of children’s issues in the document, either in the context of child poverty or in relation to the multiple identities of children. This is of particular concern given the fact that the UK Government in its report to the UNCRC Committee in 2007 will be obliged to provide a comprehensive picture of,

“...steps taken to develop mechanisms for the identification and gathering of appropriate indicators, statistics, relevant research and other relevant information as a basis for policy-making in the field of children’s rights” (Guidelines for Periodic Reports para 18).

We would be grateful if you would provide us with details of how you have or intend to consult directly with children and young people as one of the groups who will be impacted upon most by the implementation of the Anti-Poverty Strategy. Such consultation is essential not only in ensuring compliance with section 75, but also in ensuring the Government’s compliance with Article 12 of the UNCRC, one of the principles of the Convention - Respect for the views of the Child. In examining the government’s compliance with Article 12, the UNCRC Committee recommended that the government, “...take further steps to promote, facilitate and monitor systematic, meaningful and effective participation of all groups of children in society”. (Para 30 CRC/C/15/Add.188)

We would also be grateful if OFMDFM would respond with details of the system which they intend to use to analyse responses to this consultation process including the degree of weight which will be attributed to both individual and organisational responses. This is a vital element to drawing conclusions from responses and progressing with identified areas for immediate action or otherwise. For this reason, we would appreciate information both on the system itself and on its operation for the purposes of analysis.
Conclusion
The Children’s Law Centre is grateful to have the opportunity to comment the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister’s Consultation Towards an Anti-Poverty Strategy, New TSN – the way forward Phase Two. We hope that our comments have been constructive and useful and are more than happy to meet with OFMDFM staff to discuss anything raised in this response. We wish to be kept informed of progress in the development of the Anti-Poverty Strategy in Northern Ireland and look forward to the issues raised in this response being addressed, taken forward by OFMDFM and hearing from OFMDFM in the near future.
Appendix 1 - Anti-Poverty consultation with youth@clc

What is Poverty?

o Not meeting needs
- food (quantity and quality)
- heat and utilities
- bedding
- school uniforms and clothes

o Education especially in relation to higher education. Knock on effect of poor food etc. – lack of concentration will effect education

o Poor health due to poor diet and poor lifestyle

o Social problems e.g. gangs

o Emotional problems – depression, low self-esteem, bullying

o Separation of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’

o Poorer life chances

o Crime, jealousy and vandalism

What would you do to address poverty?

o Lower tax for low income households

o Provision of and incentives to undertake courses of adult education. Skills for employment

o Free/heavily subsidised adult learning – means testing/incentives/targeting

o Accessible, free childcare

o Raise minimum wage

o Choice

o Confidence building/Jobskills

o Aspirational Change

o Higher rates of benefits and improved accessibility to benefits

o Address the fact that education and better paid employment favours middle classes

o Creation of a job pool – inward investment

o Improved housing

o Tackling problems such as poor diet/drug or alcohol dependency/smoking

o Consultation with those in poverty

o Assessments of need and meeting that need

o Rights awareness raising

o Lowering of trade barriers

Who does poverty effect?

o People in inner cities

o Rural/farming/fishing communities

o Homeless

o People with physical/mental illness

o Asylum seekers

o Ethnic minorities

o Lone parents

o Those living in interface areas

o Teenage parents

o Elderly

o Those with no qualifications

o Low income families

o Travellers

o Those with dependents

What are your views on the Anti-Poverty Strategy?

o No targets – need local targets

o Wishy washy – doesn’t make any firm commitments and needs to

o Need policy change

o Need dedicated resources

o Need for devolved Government

o Need for local responsibility/accountability

o Doesn’t address the impact of the conflict in Northern Ireland

Who do you think has responsibility for addressing Poverty and its consequences in Northern Ireland?

o Departments – need an inter-agency approach

o Should link through a central body who co-ordinates the Strategy, provides resources and has powers to impose sanctions

o DEL

o DE/ELB’s

o DETI

o NIHE

o DHSSPS

o Invest NI

o DARD

o DFP

o DSD

o CSA

o Voluntary Sector – needs resourced