Legislating to abolish child poverty

In his speech at the Labour conference yesterday, Gordon Brown proposed new legislation to enshrine his government’s commitment to abolish child poverty by 2020 (or as the article puts it, he vowed to bring in ground-breaking legislation). Mm. Don’t get me wrong: I strongly support his political commitment to achieving this – and just wish he were nearer to achieving it. But I think it’s a silly thing to legislate about. I’m not the kind of legal purist (a few of whom are still found at 36 Whitehall) who thinks all legal duties must be enforceable, purpose clauses are impossible and all the rest of it, but I do think legislation should serve some real purpose. So I’m sceptical about this idea.

How would you frame a law requiring child poverty to be abolished? And what would it mean? If it merely said that child poverty “shall be abolished”, then whose duty would it be to achieve it? Ministers may well be tempted to do something like this – or else to slough off the duty onto local government. If it’s framed as either local or central government’s duty, then what happens if the government doesn’t achieve it? Should there be some sanction? I think the legislation would have to make provision for an unambiguous definition and measurement of child poverty and probably give a formal role to some body like the Office for National Statistics to report on the figures, plus a detailed date – say, 31 December 2020 – for the target to be achieved.

The real sanction for failure to achieve political aims like this is itself political – which is a clue about why it’s a bit daft to translate it into legal terms. I suspect the truth is that this is just a wheeze to embarrass the opposition, so that Gordon Brown can accuse David Cameron of wanting to repeal the duty. It wouldn’t be the first time Labour ministers have thought up a trick like that. If that’s what this is about, then to go forward would be an abuse of Parliament and the legislative process.