Analysis of Child Poverty and Inequality in the UK: A Sustainable Development Goals Perspective

Executive Summary: Legislative Gaps and SDG 10

An examination of the UK Equality Act 2010 reveals a significant omission in its framework of nine protected characteristics. While the Act provides crucial protection against discrimination based on age, disability, gender, race, and other personal attributes, it does not extend this protection to socio-economic status. This legislative gap presents a substantial barrier to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Financial inequality functions as a highly oppressive ‘situation’, particularly for the large number of children born into poverty through no fault of their own. This circumstance curtails their opportunities and exposes them to discrimination in accessing basic provisions, directly challenging the principle of reducing inequality within and among countries.

The Scale of Child Poverty: A Challenge to SDG 1

The prevalence of child poverty in the United Kingdom represents a direct failure to advance Sustainable Development Goal 1 (No Poverty). Recent data indicates a worsening trend, placing the UK in contrast with other high- and middle-income nations that have made progress in poverty reduction since the 2010 financial crisis.

• According to the House of Lords Library, 4.3 million children were living in poverty in the UK in 2023.
• This figure marks a significant increase from 3.6 million children in 2011/12.

This sustained rise in child poverty demonstrates a systemic failure to protect the most vulnerable members of society and meet the fundamental targets of SDG 1.

Impact on Health and Nutrition: Contradicting SDG 2 and SDG 3

Financial deprivation has severe consequences for the health and well-being of children, undermining progress towards key Sustainable Development Goals.

1. SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Children in poverty are more likely to consume cheap, highly processed foods with low nutritional value. Compounding this issue, the Child Poverty Action Group reports that 900,000 children living in poverty do not qualify for free school meals. This lack of access to adequate nutrition directly contravenes the goal of ending hunger and ensuring access to safe, nutritious food.
2. SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Inadequate nutrition sabotages the healthy development of children’s brains and bodies, with lasting impacts on their physical and mental health. This situation prevents the UK from ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all children as mandated by SDG 3.

Disparities in Education and Development: Undermining SDG 4 and SDG 10

Poverty creates profound disadvantages in education and personal development, further entrenching inequality and obstructing the achievement of SDG 4 (Quality Education). Children from low-income households often lack the resources for essential school equipment, sports participation, or artistic exploration, limiting their ability to discover and develop their talents.

Statistical evidence highlights the stark disparities:

• Educational Attainment: The Institute for Fiscal Studies found in 2022 that UK pupils not eligible for free school meals are approximately three times more likely than their disadvantaged peers to achieve above the expected level at age 11 and at GCSE, and three times more likely to attend a highly selective university.
• Access to Nature: A 2018 government report noted that 18% of children in the most deprived areas of the UK never visit the natural environment, a figure significantly higher than for children in wealthier areas. This limits experiences crucial for well-being and development.

These figures confirm a systemic inequality that limits the opportunities of the poorest children, directly opposing the call for inclusive and equitable quality education and reduced inequalities (SDG 4 and SDG 10).

Conclusion: Legislative Reform for Institutional Accountability and SDG 16

To address these deep-seated inequalities, a structural solution is required. Amending the Equality Act 2010 to include socio-economic status as a protected characteristic would establish a legal imperative to safeguard the health and opportunities of all children. Such a reform would align with Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by holding public bodies accountable for ensuring a fair and equal childhood for all.

While politically challenging, precedent exists for such forward-looking legislation. The Scottish government’s 2021 hate speech law demonstrates that it is possible to introduce legislation that strengthens social protections. A similar, legally binding commitment is necessary to eradicate the financial inequalities imposed on children, ensuring a concerted effort to uphold their right to develop to their full potential.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on financial inequality and child poverty in the UK touches upon several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis reveals connections to the following goals:

• SDG 1: No Poverty – The central theme of the article is child poverty in the UK, directly aligning with this goal’s aim to end poverty in all its forms everywhere.
• SDG 2: Zero Hunger – The article discusses how children in poverty have poor nutritional foundations and lack access to free school meals, which relates to the goal of ending hunger and ensuring access to nutritious food.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being – By highlighting that poor nutrition sabotages the “development of children’s brains along with their mental and physical health,” the article connects financial inequality to health outcomes.
• SDG 4: Quality Education – The text explicitly points out the educational disadvantages faced by children in poverty, such as the inability to afford essential school equipment and a significant gap in educational attainment, which are central concerns of this SDG.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – This is a core SDG for the article, which argues that “financial inequality” is a primary “oppressive factor” and questions why financial status is not a protected characteristic under the UK Equality Act, directly addressing the goal of reducing inequality within and among countries.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – The article’s critique of the UK Equality Act of 2010 and the proposal to amend it to protect against discrimination based on financial status relates to the goal of promoting just, peaceful, and inclusive societies with effective, accountable institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

SDG 1: No Poverty

• Target 1.2: “By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.” The article directly addresses this by citing statistics on the rising number of children living in poverty in the UK, from 3.6 million in 2011 to 4.3 million in 2023.
• Target 1.3: “Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all… and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.” The article implies a failure in this area by stating that 900,000 children in poverty do not qualify for free school meals, indicating a gap in the social protection system.

SDG 2: Zero Hunger

• Target 2.1: “By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.” The article highlights that children in poverty are more likely to eat “cheap, unhealthy processed foods” and that many do not get free school meals, showing a lack of access to nutritious food.

SDG 4: Quality Education

• Target 4.5: “By 2030, eliminate… disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education… for the vulnerable, including… children in vulnerable situations.” The article provides direct evidence for this target by citing the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which found that disadvantaged pupils are significantly less likely to achieve high grades or attend selective universities. It also mentions the inability to afford “essential equipment for school.”

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… economic or other status.” The article’s main argument is that financial status should be a protected characteristic to prevent discrimination and promote inclusion.
• Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices…” The author advocates for amending the Equality Act to make it unlawful to fail in providing children with a “fair and equal childhood,” which directly aligns with this target.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.b: “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.” The entire piece is a critique of the Equality Act for its failure to include financial status, arguing for a change in legislation to create a more non-discriminatory policy framework.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article provides several explicit and implicit indicators that can be used to measure progress:

Indicators for SDG 1 & 10

• Proportion of children living in poverty: The article explicitly states, “there were 4.3 million children in poverty in 2023, a number that has increased from 3.6 million in 2011.” This figure serves as a direct national indicator for Target 1.2.

Indicators for SDG 2

• Number of children in poverty ineligible for free school meals: The article mentions that “900,000 children in the UK live in poverty and do not qualify for free school meals.” This is a specific indicator of food insecurity and gaps in social protection systems (Target 2.1).

Indicators for SDG 4 & 10

• Educational attainment gap based on socioeconomic status: The article cites a study finding that “pupils who were not eligible for free school meals are around three times as likely as their more disadvantaged peers to achieve above the expected level at age 11 and at GCSE.” This disparity is a clear indicator for Target 4.5.
• Disparity in access to higher education: The same study found that non-disadvantaged pupils “were also three times more likely to attend one of the most selective higher education institutions,” serving as another indicator of inequality of opportunity.

Indicators for SDG 10

• Disparity in access to recreational/environmental activities: The article notes that “eighteen percent of children in the most deprived areas of the UK never visit the natural environment,” which can be used as an indicator of social exclusion and inequality of opportunity (Target 10.2).

Indicators for SDG 16

• Existence of legal protections against economic discrimination: The article’s central premise is the “striking absence” of financial status from the nine protected characteristics in the UK Equality Act of 2010. The existence or absence of such legal protection is an indicator for Target 16.b.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: meer.com