Social Capital Index (SCI) compared with the Retail Prices Index (RPI)

"The Retail Prices Index (RPI) is the most familiar general purpose domestic measure of inflation in the United Kingdom. It is available continuously from June 1947. The Government uses it for uprating of pensions, benefits and index-linked gilts. It is commonly used in private contracts for uprating of maintenance payments and housing rents. It is also used for wage bargaining."

"The [Consumer Price Index] CPI is the main UK measure of inflation for macroeconomic purposes and forms the basis for the Government's inflation target. It is also used for international comparisons. The RPI is the most familiar domestic measure of inflation in the UK; its uses include indexation of pensions, state benefits and index-linked gilts. CPI and RPI both measure the average changes month-to-month in prices of consumer goods and services purchased in the UK, although there are differences in coverage and methodology.

The CPI contains price indices, percentage changes and weights for the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), Retail Prices Index (RPI) and the components that make up these indices. Internationally, the CPI is known as the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP), although the two indices remain one and the same."

There is no index of 'social capital' in the UK, but worldwide the literature on the subject is growing fast as people are becoming more aware of its significance.

The ONS provides 'Measurement of social capital in the UK 2005'. This paper presents the context for social capital measurement in the UK, the approach taken and international measurement issues. Author: Penny Babb.

"The rise in popularity of ‘social capital’ as a social concept in the late 1990s coincided with a new interest in evidence-based policy in the UK – drawing on social research to inform the nature, implementation and evaluation of policies. There was also a desire in Government to address social inequalities and social exclusion – looking for ways to reduce the gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged, and meet the needs of the excluded members of UK society. This focus resulted in the development of community policies, to regenerate neighbourhoods and promote cohesive communities. The principal aim of the community policy is to:

'develop strong and active communities in which people of all races and backgrounds are valued and participate on equal terms…'

The OECD definition of social capital presented in The Well-Being of Nations describes it as:

'networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate cooperation within or among groups'

This embodies both networks and norms and so was adopted in the UK to form the basis of our data collection and analysis.

To measure social capital, we first needed to identify the key dimensions that underpin it. Five main aspects form the basis of the UK work:

• civic participation – the propensity to vote, to take action on local or national issues
• social networks and support – such as contact with friends and relatives
• social participation – involvement in groups and voluntary activities
• reciprocity and trust – which include giving and receiving favours, as well as trusting other people and institutions such as the government and the police
• views about the area – although not strictly a measure of social capital, it is required for the analysis and interpretation of the social capital measures, and includes satisfaction with living in the area, problems in the area."

The ONS seems to be going down a route that requires the completion of questionnaires even though 'proxy' measures could be used. For example from the list above:

1. 'problems in the area' could be represented by social statistics that are already available, such as truancy, ASBOs, etc..
2. 'Social networks and support' and 'reciprocity and trust' could be represented by marital status, domestic violence figures, household size etc., data that is already available.

The RPI and SCI have in common a basket of components that are weighted. The added dimension of the SCI is that it applies to each neighbourhood, like the ONS Neighbourhood Statistics and indices. As a tool for decision makers the SCI could prove very useful to local people - community and faith leaders, parish councillors, school governors, GPs, health visitors etc.. The question is, "When will politicians recognise that these local leaders are much more likely to be able to address the problems in their area than occupants of the Westminster village?"

Child poverty - swings and roundabouts

"Budget 2007: Benefit and tax changes will lift 200,000 children out of poverty" says Tristan Donovan, 28 March 2007 at "Children Now".

In the nick of time, so it seems, as according to the BBC, Tuesday, 27 March 2007, 15:51 GMT 16:51 UK:

"More UK children live in poverty" - "Figures showing a 200,000 rise in UK children living in relative poverty last year have been described as a "moral disgrace" by Barnardo's."

It's difficult to know what and who to believe.

Let's try Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab) speaking in the House of Commons on 26th March 2007:

"I want to focus on the measures to reduce child poverty. I welcome the decisions that will lift 200,000 children out of poverty, and the recommitment to halving child poverty by 2010 and to abolishing it by 2020 ............. It is clear from the criticisms that we have heard that Her Majesty’s Opposition basically do not understand the phenomenon of child poverty, which is presumably why they allowed it to treble under the last Tory Government. It has also become clear to us that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has completely misled his colleagues by suggesting that family breakdown is the prime cause of child poverty in this country. In January, there was a lot of talk about the UNICEF comparisons of child well-being among members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, but I have looked at the more up-to-date comparisons between European countries by Jonathan Bradshaw of York university. They were published in a journal called Social Indicators Research in January this year, and they show that family breakdown is not the prime cause of child poverty in any of the European countries. Indeed, if we strip out the experience of the United Kingdom, we see that there is a positive correlation between child well-being and the number of single-parent families, with Finland and Sweden at the top of the table............... The key factors influencing child poverty were found to be income inequality, child poverty itself, obviously, gross domestic product per capita - at is, the overall wealth of a country - social spending and spending on children and families. That is why the strategy announced in the Budget for tackling child poverty is the right course of action."

So there we have it! Or do we? Is Professor Jonathan Bradshaw the last word we need to hear on the subject?

If the Labour "strategy" is so virtuously and manifestly the correct one, how is it that Barnado's are complaining about the "moral disgrace" that 200,000 more children have just slipped into poverty?

Let's hear it from another professor:

The Extraordinary Effects of Marriage [January 2002 in Accountancy] By Andrew Oswald, Professor of Economics, Warwick University. Visit his website at www.oswald.co.uk

"A new branch of research is finding that marriage has powerful and beneficial effects on human beings. Currently this work is done by applied statisticians, and appears only in arcane journals. But its findings deserve to be read by everyone in western society. The work proceeds in a way common in modern social science. Large random samples of families are followed through time. They are interviewed every year about their lives, and their incomes and psychological wellbeing levels are measured.

The first finding is that marriage makes you richer. In virtually every country ever studied, workers who are married earn between 10% and 20% more than those who are single. This figure holds after many other influences are factored out (in other words, it bears in mind there are lots of other forces that affect pay, including someone’s age and education and gender and so on). Economists argue about what this finding means. Some say that it is because ‘better’ people -- healthier, more tenacious, more conscientious, better looking, more productive, stronger -- are the ones who get married. Marriage itself, on this line of argument, is not doing anything to a man or woman's earning power. Those with large pay packets simply choose to get hitched more than do those on low earnings. That sounds plausible, but actually it does not fit the facts. For one thing, if you study people in their early 20s, then those who are married barely earn more than singles. It appears that the ‘marriage wage premium’, as it is sometimes called by researchers, actually gets stronger through time as the years pass and the marriage gets longer. This suggests that marriage is more a cause than an effect of higher pay....

The second main finding from modern statistical research is even stranger. Marriage makes you live longer. Although most members of the general public are probably not aware of it, there is now some consensus among epidemiologists that you can prolong your life by marrying. Marriage keeps you alive about 3 extra years, on average. Numerous studies have shown this. One of the most intriguing followed male graduates of Amherst College in the United States in the late nineteenth century. At age 18, all these men had their health, height and weight measured. Their later occupation was also recorded, and much else about them. Then they were followed through their lives. All are now dead, of course. Strikingly, those who married lived much longer, even bearing in mind other influences.

There is plenty of British evidence too. In the late 1960s, 20,000 middle – aged male civil servants had a medical examination and were then tracked for the next two decades. At the end of that time, 14 out of every 1000 married men had died, compared to 21 for widowers, 17 for those single, and 21 for those separated. This study is interesting because it appears to pin some of the blame, if that is the right word, on cardiovascular disease. Unmarried men had much higher blood pressure. The current conventional view in the epidemiological journals is that marriage works through some kind of protective effect on mental wellbeing. It lowers stress and worry – presumably because sharing worries halves them, just as tradition says. Partly, too, married people smoke less and eat in a healthier way."

So you can take your choice, if you want to reduce deprivation and end child poverty:

(1) Trust Helen Goodman and Gordon Brown to continue to tinker creatively with taxes and benefits, or

(2) Ask Iain Duncan Smith whether he is going to try to persuade his Conservative colleagues to support the amendments I am proposing to the Statistics and Registration Service Bill and the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill.

Tony Blair disputes "general social breakdown"

"Marriage policies 'not the cure' " screams the BBC, affronted that anyone could possibly dare to challenge its attempts to bury any discussion of 'marriage'.

Poodle-like it presents the debate which has at long last started - thanks to David Cameron - from the perspective of the Prime Minister. But let's give credit to Andrew Selous MP who first demanded there should be a debate in November 2003.

At his monthly press conference Tony Blair said, when it came to the most dysfunctional families who were "shut out" of mainstream society, specific intervention was needed at an early stage.

"In my view, the debate is not about marriage versus lone parents. The debate is about how you target measures specifically on those families some of whom will be lone parents - but some of whom will be couples."

As usual Tony Blair talks about how to 'target measures specifically on .... [dysfunctional] families some of whom will be lone parents - but some of whom will be couples', rather than promoting universal marriage and relationship education. The former is not only patently what is not required, and the latter is also what the wiser members of Parliament - across the political parties - have been saying for twelve years or so. Which policy is more likely to stigmatise lone parents?

If Tony Blair is right - and there is no 'general social breakdown' - how is it that West Yorkshire police are having to deal with 35,000 reported incidents of domestic violence each year? Why is it that one in five pregnancies are aborted? Who says that the 42% of children born to parents who are unmarried would not prefer their relationship to be an enduring one? Why is the UK in bottom place in just about every league table that might be used to measure 'social capital' in western democracies? And - possibly most telling of all - why have the Downing Street website gurus erased all references to its social capital project?

The Conservatives control the Local Government Association. So why aren't Conservative LA's promoting marriage education programmes through Register Offices in which they have paid staff? And why isn't David Cameron and the LGA demanding that a full range of indices and neighbourhood statistics are published so that local changes in social capital can be properly measured?

I'm sorry there is still such a long way to go. But at least and at last the debate has begun.

Social exclusion - "force" lone parents into work [strong words at the Guardian] - or encourage them to get married first and stay married?

"......... ministers are fully entitled to now begin examining ways of increasing the pressure on lone parents to rejoin the workforce"

"Mr Hutton [John Hutton - Work and Pensions Secretary] is now in Australia looking at ways in which their church groups and other parts of the voluntary and private sectors have contributed to an apparent success story there. Some will bridle at the government's interest in such options. But if they prove to have been a better way of helping some long-term unemployed lone parents back into work, then it is hard to see what the argument either of principle or of practice against the approach can be" - runs the Guardian leader [Tuesday February 13, 2007].

Perish the thought that "church groups" and "other parts of the voluntary and private sectors may have contributed to an apparent success story" that can be translated to the UK! The prospect seems to stick in the gullets of some Guardian readers, for example:

"No! Forget Thatcherism, the Blairites have now turned to Duncan-Smithism for their inspiration! Churches and charity is not the route to take. What next, the workhouse?"

But what if churches and other community groups can contribute to actually reducing the number of single mothers by providing marriage and relationship education?

Lord Lester's Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill which is an amendment to The Family Law Act 1996 is intended "to make provision for protecting individuals against being forced to enter into marriage without their free and full consent, and for connected purposes." [please see previous item in this blog]

Let us hope John Hutton will be considering the "connected purposes".

Towards the end of last Conservative government, Paul Boateng, then Shadow LCD spokesman in the House of Commons [Hansard Column 484 and 485 24 Apr 1996] said:

“........ there is no preparation at all for civil marriage.......... the Government also have to come forward with proposals in relation to preparation for marriage and with proposals that recognise the need for concerted and focused action to support the institution of marriage and the family......... ".

This was a sentiment expressed in opposition which has not found any active reflection when in government by New Labour - nor very much, until recently, by the Conservatives - but, 'heigh ho', which of us is always entirely consistent?

Nor does the Church always follow through on its best ideas. The Review of the Year by Dr David Edwards, Provost Emeritus of Southwark, for The 1997 Church of England Year Book, contained a reference to pre-marital couples and to a certificate or agreement between them before marriage:

"It would be no panacea, but it might be useful, if it was made compulsory for the couple to sign and keep a certificate that the main obligations of a marriage between Christians, put in plain language, had been discussed and accepted."

In the recent debate on Lord Lester's Bill [Second Reading Friday 26th January 2007], Lord Desai said:

"When they grant visas to decide entry to this country, Her Majesty's Government should try to have a separate interview with the bride to see whether she is being used as an excuse for coming here. The interview should include people who can facilitate conversation, not only interpreters but socially-skilled people who could reassure the woman that if she tells the truth she will not be victimised."

We can see here the beginning of a convergence of ideas around the value of marriage being voluntarily entered into with "free and full consent" between the parties, and then maintained, and how properly facilitated conversations beforehand about the issues commonly faced in marriage can be used to assist engaged individuals in making a valid commitment to each other.

As John Hutton may discover, they do a lot more of this sort of marriage preparation in Australia - using research-based premarital inventories - than is done here. How else can you demonstrate "free and full consent"?

Furthermore, the research evidence is mounting that preventative programmes are working, though doubtless it will stick in the gullets of some Guardian readers, and - as Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams might say - in those of "the commentating classes of North London".

"Parliament cannot tiptoe around this matter for much longer" - Alistair Burt MP [Shadow Minister for Communities & Local Government]

Dan Boucher, CARE’s Director of Parliamentary Affairs said, “Given its undisputed positive impact, with all kinds of public policy benefits, we believe that government should work to support and strengthen the institution of marriage in Britain today both through fiscal policy and through greater investment ‘proactively’ in marriage preparation as well as ‘reactively’ through marriage guidance counselling. At the beginning of National Marriage week [5th February 2007] we would urge the government to back its rhetorical commitment to the value of marriage with robust marriage friendly policies.”

On the same day as the launch of National Marriage Week, James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative) [Shadow Minister - Homeland Security] asked the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, "how she measures the extent of family breakdown in the context of her policies on community cohesion; whether figures on family breakdown are collected by (a) region and (b) local authority area; and if she will make a statement?"

Phil Woolas [Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government] responded lamely, "The Government do not collect statistics on numbers of family breakdowns outside of divorce, given that relationship breakdowns outside of divorce are difficult to define and record. Community cohesion measurements primarily focus on how well people from different backgrounds get on together in the local area......."

So never mind the fact that there were 35,000 reported incidents of domestic violence in West Yorkshire last year and the year before, let's talk about 'how well people from different backgrounds get on together in the local area'; so much easier to 'define and record'!

The ONS don't even publish divorce figures by neighbourhood or local authority, so the fact of the matter is that HMG is seriously not interested in trying to "measure the extent of family breakdown in the context of .... policies on community cohesion", indeed, nor in any other context.

And this is despite what Phil Woolas said on Thursday 20 October 2005 in a debate about the Social Exclusion Unit, "The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire [Alistair Burt] concluded his thoughtful speech by making some suggestions for the future. I shall certainly respond to his requests. I am particularly interested in his third point, because he said something important. It is clear to us all, and from the evidence and analysis provided by the social exclusion unit, that stability in a child's life is a key driver.......... Government policy is, of course, not intended to discriminate against marriage or family. Sometimes, I have to acknowledge that, unintentionally, it may seem to do so and, on occasion, probably does. The policy is for a stable and normal environment for children and young people with difficult lives."

"Government policy is, of course, not intended to discriminate against marriage or family." He must be joking!

[The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt Revd Dr Rowan Williams, was bitterly ironic at the launch of Mational Marriage Week: "the fluidity and changeability of relationships and the transience of marriage may look perfectly fine if you belong to the commentating classes of north London, but you don’t have to go very many miles to see what the cost is for people who can’t take that sort of thing for granted."]

Alistair Burt had said, "....... let me deal with the toughest nut of all. The Minister talked about digging deeper and thinking more radically, so let me ask him this question. What role does the unit believe family and relationship breakdown in the UK play in long-term deprivation and social exclusion? The Minister and the unit must now realise, after so many of its projects and researches, that such breakdown has had a catastrophic effect, that it is getting worse, and that there are no substantial policy initiatives to address it. There are initiatives to ameliorate the symptoms and to compensate for the losses incurred, but that is not enough. Years of study have now made it clear just how damaging relationship and family breakdown is. The Government, the Opposition and Parliament cannot tiptoe around this matter for much longer."

But they are all still on tiptoe. There are no policies from any political quarter.

"Race after failure" - "Government have not been tough on the causes of crime"

Hard on the heals of the resignation of Professor Rod Morgan, chairman of the Youth Justice Board, comes a debate in the House of Lords [1st February 2007] on 'Reoffending'. A common theme is 'family breakdown', expressed particularly by Conservative Peers.

But when will they get the message that no one is going to believe in 'compassionate Conservatism' until the Party commits to having 'social and domestic cohesion' measured in an index by neighbourhood like the other 7 indicators of social exclusion? People take the trouble to measure and maintain what they really value.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone [Liberal Democrat] who initiated the debate asked: What is the cost? The Social Exclusion Unit has estimated that the cost to the country of current reoffending is at least £11 billion. The Government have promised 8,000 more prison places to meet this crisis, which will take several years to bring on stream, by which time that, too, will be inadequate. Building the promised new prisons will cost the country £1.5 billion, and each place around £100,000. This is a huge price to pay when building more and more prisons does not and cannot solve the problem. It is merely a race after failure......... Broken families and relationships, and lost jobs and housing are so often the outcome of imprisonment, yet they are the very things on which going straight depends. We further disable people with this form of punishment which in turn creates the very conditions for the ever-increasing reoffending rates.

Lord Ramsbotham said: For years, the received wisdom has been that being near home, a job and a stable relationship are the three factors most likely to prevent reoffending, all of which are put at risk by imprisonment.

Viscount Bridgeman summed up for the Conservatives: This could not be a more timely debate. The prisons are full; potential prisoners are walking free following the Home Secretary’s instructions to the judiciary; Professor Rod Morgan, chairman of the Youth Justice Board has resigned, stating that children’s prisons are being swamped; Anne Owers, the chief inspector of prisons, has stated that the Home Office has failed to carry out proper planning; and the police have recorded violent crime increasing year on year......... the Government often fail to take account of the research evidence that they have themselves sponsored...... Perhaps that explains why, at present, 60 per cent of adult offenders are reconvicted within two years of being released from prison or commencing a community sentence. As we have heard today, for those released from prison, the reoffending rate is higher at 66 per cent and, embarrassingly for the Government, the reoffending rate for those on drug treatment and testing orders stands at an astonishing 89 per cent....... I am sure that we all agree that custodial sentencing is not necessarily ideal. Prison can break up families, impede resettlement and place children at risk of an intergenerational cycle of crime...... The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has previously said—I hope that I cite him correctly—that the three things that are most likely to prevent reoffending are a home, a job and a stable relationship. Programmes that help prisoners to develop skills and maintain contact—that enable all three while providing justice and a deterrent—seem to be the ideal to be aimed at. This House also often comments on young offenders, more than 70 per cent of whom come from broken homes. This is one area in which the Government have not been tough on the causes of crime. The report of the Social Justice Policy Group, under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith, entitled Breakdown Britain, concludes that government thinking here, as on prisons, has been short-term. It says:

“The narrow focus on a wholly inadequate poverty target, followed by complacent trumpeting of supposedly major reductions in poverty, has obscured the scale of the problems that have yet to be tackled”.

Poverty, family breakdown, mental health and drug or substance abuse are all undeniable factors in the lives of those who offend and reoffend.

Lord Bassam of Brighton closing the debate for the Government said: We have done much to ensure that family ties are kept up when people are imprisoned. We are developing a cross-government approach to improve support for children and families of offenders to reduce the risk of reoffending, because we understand the important part that family life plays for many of those who have to be incarcerated. That work is being overseen by a joint DfES/Home Office steering group, which will report, as I said earlier, to the inter-ministerial group chaired by my noble friend Lady Scotland and Phil Hope. We have committed a considerable sum of money to ensure that that important work with children and families is undertaken.

So why do members of the Government keep repeating the mantra "We shall not promote one type of family structure as opposed to another" when the evidence shows - as they know it does with teenage motherhood - that the outcomes for children are generally better when the parents are married?

Social exclusion debate - more "lies", statistics and "earache" for MPs

The Guardian 'Yesterday in Parliament' report included a reference to the debate in the House of Commons on social exclusion on 11th January:

"Inequality - The government and the opposition clashed over levels of inequality with Tories claiming Labour's policy was having "little impact" on the problem. Both parties cited figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies with Tory spokesman Oliver Heald arguing that Labour had not halted the rise in inequality of income. Social exclusion minister Hilary Armstrong said the IFS called Labour's record a "remarkable achievement" although she later conceded it also said inequality had been "largely unchanged" under Labour."

Maybe the IFS thinks it is a "remarkable achievement" that under Labour income inequality has not got worse.

The debate lasted from 12.30 to 6pm. 17 Labour members, 8 Conservatives, 1 Liberal Democrat and 1 Plaid Cymru member spoke or intervened. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) (Lab) spoke movingly when he described his constituency:

"Fifty-eight per cent. of youngsters are born out of wedlock. I make no moral judgment about that, but it is a structural phenomenon that needs to be addressed. One in seven young people who go to secondary school cannot read the first lesson that is put in front of them. My constituency sends the lowest number of youngsters to university. These and many other statistics underline why it is vital that social exclusion—as someone said, why don’t we call it social inclusion?—is paramount on the Government’s agenda.

For me, the key thing is that we start to tackle causes rather than merely chase the consequences. That is where the debate has moved on to. We have seen today from the Front Benches—all parties have been responsible—that we chase after the difficulties and try to mitigate them, because that is what gets into the newspapers and what we get earache about. But we should take our political responsibilities even more seriously and work back to find out how we can prevent things from happening in the first place. It is evident now that the Government are addressing the problems in that way."

Natascha Engel (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab) was in no mood to humour the House when she said:

"I am going to break the sort of consensus we have seen in the House today—I would like to vent my spleen about the report on social justice produced by the Tory party........"

The Member responsible, Iain Duncan Smith, was not present. Maybe he had been warned of Mrs Engel's spleen. Not for her was it a matter of concern that 58% of Mr Allen's youngsters in Nottingham are born out of wedlock.

"..... to suggest that the breakdown of marriages is the reason why we have social exclusion in our society is not only wrong but deeply offensive ........ " she railed, even though Graham Allen was saying:

"........ it is a structural phenomenon that needs to be addressed........ For me, the key thing is that we start to tackle causes rather than merely chase the consequences."

Oliver Heald (Conservative Member of Parliament for Hertfordshire North East, Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) provided some clues as to how MPs might "start to tackle causes rather than merely chase the consequences", ending his speech with:

"We also need to trust local government, and to accept that civil servants and Ministers in Whitehall might not have all the answers. We need to move away from thinking that everything is the responsibility of the state, and towards a new spirit of social responsibility in which we work together to empower local people and local communities. We should not be so arrogant as to believe that politicians have all the answers. Our approach should not be solely about what the Government can do. It should be about what people can do, and what society can do, because we are all in this together."

Did he mention how "to empower local people and local communities", possibly by persuading the ONS to publish local figures and an index about social and domestic cohesion? I am afraid not. It seems the Conservative leadership can't or won't make this connection.

In response to such a suggestion from Andrew Selous MP in the debate on the Statistics and Registration Bill [8th January], John Healey said:

"I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to elaborate on that point in the debate on social exclusion that will take place on Thursday........ I am sure that the point that the hon. Gentleman has made—and which he might develop in Thursday's debate—will be taken into account by the statistics board when it comes to discharge its functions."

Sadly, no Conservative MP - let alone a member of the shadow cabinet - was willing to do this. But as T.S. Eliot wrote in both the Four Quartets and in Murder in the Cathedral, "Humankind cannot bear very much reality".

Statistics and Registration Service Bill

The debate about the Statistics and Registration Service Bill [8th January 2007] is interesting.

Much of the data about 'social and domestic cohesion' is already 'collected', but it is not published in a coherent form by neighbourhood with an index, whereas the other 7 indicators of deprivation do have statistics published, and an index for each. This means there is a league table for each topic for all neighbourhoods. Over time it would be possible to see which neighbourhoods are climbing out of deprivation and which are sinking into it.

There does not seem to be any good reason for suppressing the information about family breakdown. No one in the Government or on the Labour benches seems to be at all anxious to explain why 'family breakdown' is omitted, and only a very few Conservatives seem to be at all concerned. David Cameron has spoken a lot about family breakdown, but he has not - as far as I am aware - said anything about the need to publish relevant neighbourhood statistics.

Kali Mountford MP said in the debate that Andrew Selous MP "talked about understanding deprivation, and ... seemed to have already made a judgment about what [he] thought might be an underlying cause—the breakdown of family life".

Family breakdown is already one of the causes of deprivation listed at HMG's social exclusion website, so it is understandable people draw the same conclusion. Since HMG has already concluded family breakdown is one of the causes of social exclusion, it is perverse in the extreme not to try to measure it.

It would improve the services of UpMyStreet if they publish relevant statistics, indices and league tables [based on ONS figures] about deprivation by neighbourhood.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" - are we getting any closer to the truth about family breakdown?

Lord Skelmersdale spoke for the Conservatives in the House of Lords [21st November 2006] in the debate on the Queen's Speech. He said:

"....... That brings me on to statistics. No one who heard Her Majesty on Wednesday could have missed the laughter when she said:

“Legislation will be introduced to create an independent board to enhance confidence in Government statistics”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/11/06; col. 4.]

Statistics are at the very heart of social security. Even if a Minister thinks that it would be a good idea to change something, such as creating a new benefit, they will get nowhere without discovering what is going on now and with how many people, and how many gainers and losers there will be as a result of the proposal. My honourable friends and I have recently been trying to get to the bottom of social exclusion—a very big subject. We recognise that we cannot do so until we know exactly how many adults and children are involved. The Social Exclusion Unit, which this Government set up, lists the main causes and consequences. Statistics exist for all of them, except family breakdown. Yet, recently, in a Written Answer, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, told me:

“It is estimated that each year between 150,000 and 200,000 couples with children separate”. He will remember that, no doubt. He continued:

“This is made up of 100,000 divorces, and between 50,000 and 100,000 cohabiting relationships breaking down”.—[Official Report, 18/10/06; col. WA 191.]

That is not very helpful. Both he and I would need much better figures than those to convince a Treasury colleague to spend money on even a part of the problem. I can only hope that the new board will sort this out and, most importantly, that members of the board, not Ministers, decide what is to be subject to the proposed code of conduct and Ministers do not have a veto on their publication. Is that a pipe dream? Maybe it is, but no more than many of the aspirations underlying the legislation proposed in the gracious Speech."

In an earlier speech in the House of Commons, [25th July 2006] Andrew Selous said:

"........... My third point is the need for an index of social and domestic cohesion. That sounds like a bit of a mouthful, but the House will have an opportunity to do something about it when the Bill on the Office for National Statistics is introduced in the autumn. It is a curious fact that the social exclusion unit lists eight indicators of social deprivation, one of which is family breakdown. All the other seven indicators are reflected in the indices of deprivation published in the ONS neighbourhood statistics, but family breakdown is not. There is no reason for that omission and we could rectify it in the House in the autumn. I urge my Front-Bench colleagues and the Government to consider the matter when the Bill comes before the House."

Both Lord Skelmersdale and Andrew Selous are Shadow DWP Ministers, concerned with the issues of work and benefits. It is encouraging that they are talking about the provision of relevant statistics for family breakdown, or social and domestic cohesion, which places the issue in a broader context.

How long will it take for either the Labour Government or the Conservatives to announce a policy for improving social and domestic cohesion and reducing family breakdown?

This policy should include publishing an index and neighbourhood statistics which can be understood and used by local leaders - GP's and health visitors, school governors, parish councillors, faith and other community leaders - in order to measure local changes in social and domestic cohesion.

".......aspects of social exclusion are deeply intractable" [or are we just failing to measure them properly?]

The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said in a speech entitled, "Our sovereign value: fairness" :

"...... some aspects of social exclusion are deeply intractable. The most socially excluded are very hard to reach. Their problems are multiple, entrenched and often passed down the generations."

There is a hint - with "generations" - that the most intractable problems are connected with parenting, though nothing to suggest that the difficulties in parenting could be connected with the relationship of the parents.

In contrast, the Conservatives seem to be suggesting that both the relationship of the parents and the family structure are important, and they point out that the break up rate of couples with children is much greater for cohabiting as compared with married couples.

Tony Blair identified 4 groups with special problems:

"1. ...... 61,000 children in care at any one time. They run very high risks of being unemployed, having mental health problems and becoming teenage parents. We need to be frank - we are not yet succeeding. 1 in 10 children in care get 5 good GCSEs compared to 6 out of 10 of other children. Only 6 per cent make it to higher education compared to 30 per cent of all children.

2. Second, families with complex problems - the Respect Task Force identified 7,500 such families. A child born into the most disadvantaged 5 per cent of families is 100 times more likely to have multiple problems at age 15 than a child from the 50 per cent best-off families. One of the biggest problems we face is parents who misuse alcohol. One in eleven children in the UK live with at least one such parent. These children have to take on more responsibility for running their family, they worry that the secret might be revealed, they often struggle at school and many start to use alcohol and drugs themselves.

3. Third, teenage pregnancies, of which there are 40,000 in the UK at any one time. Like looked-after children, teenage parents are more likely to end up unemployed, have mental health problems and themselves have children who have babies as teenagers. We have made some progress here - conception rates are at their lowest for 20 years.

4. And fourth, mental health patients. Between 125,000 and 600,000 people in Britain have a severe and enduring mental health problem. About 70,000 are on Incapacity Benefit and employment rates among the mentally ill have been falling, despite the fact that the majority are keen to work. The links with other problems are notable: half of those mis-using drug and alcohol have mental health problems.

The fact that we have yet to succeed with these groups is not for want of spending. The state spends £1.9bn acting in loco parentis for children in care. It costs about £110,000 a year to keep a child in residential care. And there is very little relationship between spending and outcomes. Families with complex problems cost between £50,000 and £250,000 each. Every teenage pregnancy costs an average of £57,900 in the first five years. A mental health bed costs £1,365 a week.

The problem is not that we are not trying, nor that the money is not being committed. It is that we need a radical revision of our methods. The Social Exclusion Plan will be guided by five principles: early intervention, systematically identifying what works, better co-ordination of the many separate agencies, personal rights and responsibilities and intolerance of poor performance.

......... The protective factors are not surprising - affectionate families, adequate attention from parents......

......... It might mean that a more intense health-visitor programme is arranged. Or it might mean parenting classes are offered.........

......... Of course prediction will never be perfect. But the combination of risk and protection means that we can now be reasonably confident that we can identify likely problems at a very early stage.

At any one time, children in care make up about 0.5 per cent of all children. But one quarter of the adult prison population has been in the children's care system at some point.

Around a third of looked-after children end up as NEETs (not in employment, education or training).

The daughter of a teenage mother is twice as likely to become a teenage mother compared with a daughter of an older mother.

Children from the 5 per cent of the most disadvantaged households are more than 100 times more likely to have multiple problems at age 15 than those from the 50 per cent of most advantaged households.

Boys with a convicted father are over three times more at risk of being convicted of a crime than those with a non-convicted father.

125,000 children have a parent in custody - and 65 per cent of children with parents in prison go on to offend.

We then need to be clear about schemes that work and encourage the spread of good practice. We will provide a government hallmark for programmes that have proved to be effective........ We will incentivise good practice.............."

[Like marriage? Preparation for marriage?]

It is not for the State to tell people that they cannot choose a different lifestyle, for example in issues to do with sexuality. All that has changed and rightly. But where children are involved and are in danger of harm or where people are a risk to themselves or others, it is our duty not to stand aside. Their fate is our business."

There is a stark anomoly - amounting to hypocrisy - in what Tony Blair is saying:

a) "It is not for the State to tell people that they cannot choose a different lifestyle, for example in issues to do with sexuality.............." [i.e. 'cohabit if you wish'] and, in the same breath

b) "We will incentivise good practice" [but in practice do the opposite by incentivising cohabitation and single parenthood].

In fact, far from "systematically identifying what works", Tony Blair and his colleagues take a myopic view of the research that points to the benefits of marriage and of research informed marriage preparation programmes.

Is it adhering to the "sovereign value: fairness" when you only look at research which supports your point of view?

Like Labour the Conservatives tend to quote national figures.

The most powerful motivator would be to publish all the relevant neighbourhood statistics for social and domestic cohesion - combined with an index - so local leaders, GPs and health visitors, parish councillors, school governors, faith and other community leaders can easily measure whether their area is becoming more or less cohesive, and to what extent local policies and programmes are working.

Labour have created a precedent for this with their local authority league table of performance in reducing teenage pregnancy.

But teenage pregnancy is only one aspect of social and domestic cohesion; figures for the other elements and an index should be published, and by neighbourhood, as well as by local authority.