We are the Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, or ACAMH for short. And this is ACAMH Learn. [MUSIC PLAYING] Welcome to Mind the Kids. I'm Dr. Jane Gilmour, honorary consultant, clinical psychologist, and Child Development Programme Director at UCL. And I'm Umar Toseeb, Professor of Psychology at the University of York, focusing on children, young people's mental health, and special educational needs. In each episode, we select a topic from the research literature. And in conversation, we sift through the data, dilemmas, and debates to leave you with our takeaways. Today, we are discussing social policy and socioeconomic deprivation. This episode is called "Poverty, Policy, and Politics." Umar, can you tell me a little bit about why you're interested in this particular topic? About a year ago, I moved departments within my University. And when I moved to the new department, they said to me, oh, can you help co-lead the impact part of research, so making sure that the research that we do in the Department has impact outside of the University and in the rest of the world? And I was like, I don't know if I know anything about how to achieve impact. I'm not sure quite sure why I'm taking on this role. And then as I got into the role, I got speaking to various people who try to achieve impact outside of academia and, as part of that, speaking to civil servants, et cetera, in the DFE, for example. And what I learned was it's incredibly difficult to achieve policy change at the national level and, I imagine, also, the local and regional level. So now I'm like, oh, so if me as an academic, who's been doing this for about 10, 15 years, trying to achieve impact and now is really focused on it, is struggling, then I imagine lots of people are also struggling within this child and adolescent space to achieve impact. So my interest here is trying to unpack how we achieve impact within this child and adolescence space. Yeah, and, also, I always enjoy, Umar, when you're so generous. You say, I know nothing about this. But, actually, that position is always a useful one because you're coming at it with curiosity. I'm really interested in this topic too because, certainly, in many of the episodes of our series, we talk about policy and how an academic's dream might be using the data to be applied and make an impact in real-world settings. And this episode lifts the lid, if you like, on the processes. How do we translate data into policy? And I think the other thing that I thought about when we were considering this episode is I look back at that episode that we recorded in the previous series called "Incoming Poverty and Resilience." and that looked at cognitive resilience in children, in low-income families, particularly in the early years. And since that episode, others too have really inspired me to think about the idea that intervention doesn't necessarily focus on risk factors. So we talked a little bit about negative bias and how much that can imbue the literature, that position, and how that might necessarily or possibly keep us from making significant change. And let's think about poverty, for example, which is one of the key aspects of this discussion. How could we address that? We can't erase poverty, but what could we do to think about mitigating it using some positive aspects, so interpersonal relationships, for example, or community interventions? So I'm really thinking about, again, the power of the positive, and how that might impact, and how it could be embedded in policy, so, yeah I like that. And so, yeah, I think a lot of my thinking on child poverty has been focused on eradicating child poverty. And I think you are agreeing with that. That's important. But I think what I'm hearing is you're saying, and, actually, whilst we do that, you could also do stuff that's mitigating the impacts of child poverty. So then you're helping people whilst this wider thing happens. Yeah, I often think, it's sort of, the interpersonal relationship is often used in-- or, often, it is an impactful variable. Put it that way. It may predict a better outcome. It may act as a buffer, but it really is an important aspect. It's very difficult to pin down. It's very difficult to socially prescribe that, a meaningful one. You can have contact, but can you connect with another person? But it does seem to be consistently a very powerful intervention, if you like. So an interpersonal relationship, a good quality relationship, is one of the key ways of mediating or improving outcome, yeah. Shall we bring our guest in? I think we should. Let's do it. So, today, we're joined by Baroness Ruth Lister. Ruth is Emeritus Professor of Social Policy at Loughborough University, fellow of the British Academy, and a peer in the House of Lords. Welcome, Ruth. Hello. Thank you. Before we get into the main discussion, I just want you to give us a bit of context about what your role is within the House of Lords. So I suppose, firstly, what is the House of Lords? And then what is your role within the House of Lords? Well, the House of Lords is the second chamber of the Houses of Parliament. It's an unelected house. I was appointed back in-- I find it really difficult-- 2012-- well, I went there in 2011. I still find it difficult to believe I've been there that long. And our role is very much as, what we call, a scrutinising chamber. In the House of Commons, legislation sometimes goes through quite quickly. They have guillotines, and they don't necessarily look at everything. Whereas, in the House of Lords there is no guillotine, which sometimes means we're there really late at night. But we look much more closely at the legislation. So that's our primary role. But we're also there to hold the government to account by asking questions, producing reports, and so forth. So my role is as a backbencher, a labour. I sit on the labour benches, but I'm a backbencher, which means I don't speak for the Labour Party or the government. I think I'm seen as something of a critical friend because I can be quite critical in what I-- my responses to policy if I don't feel they're up to the mark, so to speak. And at periods, I've sat on committees. I'm not on a committee at present, but that's another part of the role of the House of Lords, is producing-- looking at particular issues. I was on the Joint Committee for Human Rights for a while, and producing reports, and, yeah, just holding the government to account in different ways. And there is a school of thought that, because the House of Lords is not elected, there is an opportunity to have a longer view, if you like. You know the expression, we're in the long now? So we're not necessarily thinking about how our editorial view, as you say, that critical friend view, might be considered by the next electoral vote. Do you think that's fair to say, that the House of Lords can have a more considered perspective, if you like, because it's not an elected body? I think it can. And what I'm trying to say-- should have said-- is what makes the House of Lords so different from the House of Commons is that one group of us are what are called crossbenchers. So they have no political allegiance. They're there for their experience, their expertise, have a kind of wide range of people there, from John Bird, who was of the big issue to a former ballerina, heads of universities, medical people. So all sorts of people. So that does allow for that. But that said, the main-- when it comes down to looking at legislation, then it is-- the government, the opposition parties, the crossbenchers might go different ways. They don't have a so-called whip. Whip is what tells you how you're supposed to vote. And there are quite a few members of the House of Lords who are former MPs. So they tend to-- and I think that's probably more than in the past. And they tend to bring some of their political baggage with them. And I should say, personally, I think it is quite difficult to justify an unelected house. But given that, I think we do a good job. How do politicians use evidence? So in that process of-- you've just described that there's a way to encourage you to vote a certain way or make you vote a certain way. How does evidence come into that? Because I imagine some of it will be evidence based and some of it won't. So I suppose I just want our listeners to understand, where does the evidence come into this policy decision-making, where you are? Well, evidence comes in lots of different ways. I think it's fair to say-- and I quote here David Blunkett, from when he was a minister some years ago, when he admitted that ministers cherry-pick evidence. So it's not that unusual. You go for the evidence that kind of supports the case you want to make. But, sometimes, I think that there will be-- how evidence is used depends, I suppose, on whether the evidence is supportive of a direction a government wants to go in. It may then help shape exactly where that direction will go. If the evidence is absolutely counter to where a government wants to go, then I'm afraid it may well be that the evidence just doesn't get taken on board because, ultimately, although, government, I think, would want to say that they go with the evidence, ideology can come in, preconceptions about what they want to do, manifesto says or whatever. So it very much depends on how the evidence chimes with the direction the government is-- a government, not a particular government-- a government wants to take anyway. And, sometimes, evidence can be slightly misused. It's a familiar process. So, in theory, when we're writing an academic paper, we should look at all of the evidence and consider all sides of the debate. But the reality is we're making a point. We're making an argument. So we may use the evidence in order to support that. So I can see why that might happen. Although, in policy-making, perhaps, there's a greater requirement to use both sides of the evidence if there are two sides. You're talking about phone bans. Those academics involved in the phone ban, involved in social media and phone use, will say very clearly that the evidence is very complex and absolutely can't support yet a phone ban. Now, that evidence may appear. But that challenge, where the public appetite is very much ready for a phone ban, perhaps because it's a quick fix, perhaps because it's raising anxiety, but the evidence isn't there yet. This is the eternal question and the challenge, isn't it? Yeah, it is. And it's a very good example, really, of perhaps where public perceptions are ahead of the actual evidence. Although, some of my colleagues in the Lords would say the evidence does support it. It seems to me, this is somewhere where you've got different evidence pointing in different directions. And then, yes, the government have got to take a decision about where they think the evidence points. Or if there's enough evidence, given the weight of public expectation, then perhaps that's the way you go. Probably, a lot of things aren't that, where you've got evidence pointing in such different directions. I think it is very difficult. But, sometimes, the government will-- when I say the, I'm talking about any government-- could well present when they look at their impact assessments and so forth. The evidence may not be very supportive of what they're doing. But they will say, well, nevertheless, this is what we think should happen, where there's a kind of broad consensus behind. So, for example, the Child Poverty Strategy, they produced an enormous amount of evidence in support of the Child Poverty Strategy. And they've drawn on a really wide range of evidence, which is very good, academic evidence, think tanks, charities, and what are sometimes called experts by experience, a voice of experience. And they've talked directly with children and parents experiencing poverty. And I think that has really informed what they're doing. And, similarly, I just this week have been reading the Stephen Timms PIP Review, Personal Independence Payment Review, the interim report. This came out of, in fact, kind of opposition to what the government was doing on disability benefits last summer. And it led to the setting up of this review and the agreement that it should be co-produced with disabled people. And it's a really good report. It really shows not just that the co-production with disabled people, but the extent to which they've engaged with disabled people in the country to get their views. And so there, a lot of the evidence is-- they're also drawing on-- there's a kind of fat pack as well, where they're drawing on academic evidence, charities, again, think tanks, and so forth. But the sort of overwhelming message they're getting from disabled people themselves with experience of applying to PIP has been that, while they value the benefit, it is a dehumanising experience to have to apply for it. And it's very powerful, I think. Can I bring in the different levels of people involved in government or the different strands? So we've talked about the House of Lords, which is where you're at. And then we've talked about the House of Commons, which is the elected body. But then there's also the Civil Service. And in my recent and limited experience, the advice that I was given is, actually, if you want to maximise your chances of achieving policy impact, senior civil servants is who you need to be talking to, not necessarily government ministers and MPs because they change. Whereas, civil servants also change, but they seem to be more continuous than ministers. So I suppose, can you just tell us a bit about the role of the Civil Service within policymaking and, yeah, how they shape policymaking? No, you're right. Civil servants are very important. They will be drafting things for ministers to look at. Sometimes, you do hear of things being on the shelf, and a new minister comes in, a kind of rather green minister, and they say, oh, here you are, Minister. And they try their little pet project. And sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But it's not that easy. You can't just walk in and talk to, particularly, senior civil servants. And I think there are also intermediaries, I think, between-- in terms of, if you're an academic thinking about, how can your research, your evidence, get to have an influence on policy? And so, sometimes, sending evidence to-- there can be-- and this goes back to Parliament now, but all party parliamentary groups, we've just-- I'm a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on poverty and inequality. And we've just produced a report on NEET, not in education, employment, or training young people and poverty, which complements the report by Alan Milburn, who, again, got a report on this group of young people and got evidence from all sorts of different quarters. And that's the kind of intermediary. And his report is being taken very seriously by civil service and government ministers. Or, sometimes, parliamentary committees-- there's the Work and Pensions Select Committee, for example, together with the Education Select Committee-- are taking evidence on the child poverty strategy. They will produce a report, which will make reference to evidence they've been given by academics, among others. And the government then has to respond to that report. So it's different ways of getting your evidence in. But going back to your question, it's certainly true that civil servants are very important and can influence how ministers look at things. But if something was in the manifesto, then, in a sense, the minister will say to the civil servant, well, look, we are committed to doing this. Then the civil-- and ask the civil servants' advice about how to go about doing it kind of thing. Just to clarify, I think when we're talking about civil servants, it's people who work in, for example, the Department for Education, Department for Health and Social Care, Ministry of Justice, those departments within government. That's what we're talking about when we say civil servants. So my next question is-- and you've touched upon this already-- around the combination of policy change happening when there's political will, when there's an evidence base, and when there's public appetite. And in an example that we had recently, which was the two-child benefit cap, the evidence base has been there for a while. And it seemed that the public appetite has changed recently, I think. So as a couple of years ago, I read something on YouGov, which said 59% of people wanted to retain the cap. But by February 2026, 78% of the public supported the overall aim of cutting child poverty. So I suppose what I'm asking you is, how does that trio of public appetite, political will, and evidence, how does it break up? And how does it come into play? Well, it's a very good example. And I think-- it's quite a difficult one because I'm not absolutely sure about-- what the polling of public opinion showed was that, if you make clear that doing away with the two-child limit is the best way of tackling child poverty, then people will support it. But if you just ask people about the two-child limit, they won't support doing away with it because they'll say, well, I'd like to have more than two children or whatever. So much depends on how you ask the question and how you present it. I think here, you're absolutely right in that the evidence of the harmful effects of the two-child limit has just been growing, and growing, and growing. And when this government came to power, some of us were very upset that they wouldn't give a commitment to doing away with it, not even a kind of, well, we think it's wrong, but we haven't got the money at present kind of commitment. There wasn't even that. And I think what happened-- it was partly political pressure, and that included pressure from their own backbenchers. But I think the Child Poverty Task Force, which really did a very good job of bringing in evidence from all sorts of quarters, I think it became so obvious to them that unless, say, do away with the two-child limit is going to be extremely difficult to reduce child poverty by even a small amount. And I think the combination of that and the political pressure became overwhelming. They realised that if they were going to have a child poverty strategy, which they were committed to, they had to have something concrete in it. And the two-child limit was as they have now. The ministers have said over and over again, the biggest leading to doing away with the limit is bringing the biggest reduction in child poverty that any government has achieved at a single stroke. And what is interesting, though, is that there's also plenty of evidence to say the benefit cap, which is different, the benefit cap is the cap on the overall amount you can receive in benefit. And some people who are-- the way I put it is that some people are out of the frying pan of the two-child limit, only to fall into the fire of the benefit cap. And the evidence there is, again, overwhelming of the harmful impact it's having, pushing some families well below the poverty line, but not achieving its goals in getting families into work, or getting them to move house, or whatever. But there, because there is this belief that it will be seen as a disincentive to people to take paid work, the government are absolutely adamant that they won't do away with the benefit cap. So that is an example of where there is similar evidence, sometimes from the same quarters, as not having an impact. And I'm absolutely fascinated by the way that the language changes the public perception of that. So you talked about, could nesting the cap in child poverty change the support for that particular policy change? It's also notable, we're talking about child poverty, not family poverty or adult poverty. So I imagine the same kind of semantic applies there. So the idea that there will be much more support behind a child poverty action point rather than general poverty, there may be less empathy and sympathy there. I think that-- sorry, I was going to say, I think that's right. And I think that's-- I started my working life in the Child Poverty Action Group. And the Child Poverty Action Group was formed in the 1960s. And my understanding is that there was a discussion about, then, whether it should be called the family policy. And I can't remember the exact title, but something like the family policy action group or the family poverty action group. And they came down in favour of child poverty because it was more likely to get public support. We know that 25% of children are living in poverty, and the numbers are increasing. And I wonder, is it due to societal economic trends? Or is it a change in definition? Or is it due with redistribution of capital, if you like? [INAUDIBLE] just I hate to correct you, but it's slightly more than 25%. It's currently 27%. It was actually more like 30%, but there has been a change in the method of measurement, which had brought it down to 27%. So it hasn't been a reduction in the numbers. But it's just, they're probably more accurate now. 25% is actually what they're projecting for the end of this Parliament as a result of the Child Poverty Strategy. Only two percentage points less, but still it's something. The increase, yeah, it's a whole range of factors. But, partly, it's been a result of public policy and the cuts in benefits. You wouldn't think it because, every day now, I read about the ballooning so-called welfare budget. But, actually, the Social Security budget was cut significantly in the decade 2010 to '24-- up to 2014 by things like the two-child limit, but also by some benefits being frozen. Some of them have been cut in real value and so forth. And that has had a real impact on child poverty. And that comes out in the Child Poverty Strategy document because, in a sense, the minimum wage has gone up during that period. We've gone up quite a lot under both governments. Unemployment is down. Most child poverty is now among working families. I think it's 70-- about seven in 10 children in poverty have at least one parent in paid work. The fact is that the financial support for children is just not enough. And it's not the only reason, but it's a key reason. Oh, and I think the other factor is housing costs. A growing number of families of children are living in private rented accommodation. Rents have gone up significantly, and now housing costs are an important driver of child poverty. I just want to pick a point that you've said there, and which is finances. And I suppose in my earlier question around political will, public appetite, and evidence, finances should have been the fourth thing there because, if it's costing too much, if it's costing the government too much, whatever it is, then they tend to do something about it, or there's more of an inclination to do something about it. But based on what you've just said-- and I think this chimes with something that I've thought about in the past, which is if you squeeze one aspect of public finances, those people just seem to go somewhere else, and show up somewhere else, and cost a different part of the public purse. So in the example that you've used, where there might be a benefit cap or a cap on Social Security income, actually, if that's driving child poverty and then child poverty is associated with mental health difficulties and is likely leading to mental health difficulties, then it's just putting an increased strain on mental health services. So the money that you may have saved in welfare, you might then just have to spend in child adolescent mental health services because they're now seeing an increase in demand. Is that fair? It is. Yeah, it's very fair. And it's a point that's been made to the government and, indeed, to be fair, the government is making in its Child Poverty Strategy document. So, yes, increased poverty, it could show up in more pressure on the health service, mental health or physical health. It shows up in education. Teachers are having to pick up the pieces. Many teachers now are saying a lot of their time is spent kind of not so much on education necessarily, but on helping children who are hungry, or haven't got the right clothes, or whatever. Schools are putting in washing machines, things like that, and children being taken into care, not because poor-- a parent who's in poverty is a bad parent. But, actually, the strain can just get too much. And there is a link between poverty and receipt of children into care. But, of course, there are different people who are paying. So for central government, that doesn't necessarily show up in terms of what they're spending, the Department of Work and Pensions is spending, on benefits. It's often local authorities who are having to meet the costs. But central government can just put that to one side and not think about it. But it's a very important point. And groups like the Child Poverty Action Group, but also think tanks, academics, have kind of tried to assess what the cost of child poverty itself is. And as you're speaking, it really does highlight where social policy and mental health intersect. And Umar and I often mull over, imagine if we had the budget to change x or y in society because, if we use an ecological systems theory, the idea that laws, and social norms, and health policy impacts a young person day-to-day in the way that they are considered, and their outcome, is really writ large by the way you're describing this. So I wondered, certainly, we've known since the late '90s that poverty predicts numerous mental health and physical health outcomes, societal engagement, and so on and so on. So, Ruth, if you had the capacity to change one aspect of law to address child poverty, what would you-- where would you focus? Well, it's such a difficult question. I'm sorry. I would improve the Social Security. That would be my priority. It's not saying it solves all the problems. But that would be, I think, the best way. And, certainly, there's academic analysis done by-- particularly at the LSE, which suggests that it is a more effective way of tackling child poverty through the Social Security system than through wages. It's not to say it's not good to get people into paid work, encourage people and so forth. But also-- and this perhaps links back to the conversation that you and Umar were having about interpersonal relationships and how we can ameliorate child poverty. One thing I think I would do would be to try and ensure that people with experience of poverty were involved in the training of professionals, be it social workers, teachers, whatever, so they can understand better. And one of the things that has come across in work that I've done, and from my experience working with people in poverty, is that the way they are treated can feel almost as bad as the poverty itself. And the feeling that they are not respected. And even talk of-- they feel they are dehumanised. And that is totally unnecessary. And it doesn't cost anything to treat people decently. So as well as eliminating child poverty, which is going to take a long time, there is quite a bit I think we can do to make the experience of poverty not so devastating for people. That's a really powerful point. This is an intervention that costs nothing and is life-changing for children, for families, for their future capacity to engage with society. So I'm really struck by that as a powerful intervention. Avoiding dehumanising another individual is something that perhaps should be embedded in every policy. Absolutely. I have a final question from me, if that's OK? So one of the things that I naively-- well, rather naively-- when I went into trying to achieve impact in the policy space learned was that I went in thinking academic research should be the only evidence. Well, I assumed it was the only evidence that was used in policy making. And you've talked about evidence from policy institutes, think tanks, charities, and also lived experiences. I suppose, can you give our listeners an indication of why those other sources of evidence are also important, and also how, maybe as academics, we might want to work with those different stakeholders to then generate evidence? Yeah, absolutely. And, in fact, I was going to say, it's not a sort of either or. And, often, they are working. I remember when I worked at the Child Poverty Action Group, quite a lot of what we published was produced by academics. And academics have links with think tanks because I think it is quite difficult for academics to directly make sure that their research gets into the policy ecosystem in a way. And it can be easier to do it through intermediaries, like think tanks, like charities. But, also, one of the things that I think has been happening, certainly in the poverty research area-- and I don't know about other areas-- is the involvement of people with experience of poverty in the research. So, for example, there's a group called Changing Realities, which started during COVID as COVID Realities, a group of academics who combined with parents and carers with experience of poverty, is now called Changing Realities. I think CPAG is involved in it as well. And they've had an enormous-- their evidence has had quite an impact, I think, on the development of child poverty strategy. So a civil servant said to me, who was involved in the Child Poverty Taskforce, that it really affected them going to a meeting and listening to what people with experience of poverty had to say. I think it's a different sort of evidence. Obviously, it's qualitative. It's not quantitative, but it kind of-- it can get aspects of it that perhaps research hasn't picked up, plus the importance. Going back to the question about mental health, I think it's really important that it makes people feel that they're actually playing a role, that they're doing something. It's a recognition that what they've got to say matters, what counts. And if you look at the Child Poverty Strategy document, there's actually a foreword by some of the parents about the role that they played. And they obviously, understandably, feel very proud of that and are really committed to maintaining that role. So I think it's partly about breaking down those kind of barriers between one form of evidence and another. Thank you. And shall we wrap up? Let's do it. So that's been a really, really insightful conversation. And as someone who's tried to engage in the policy space, I've definitely learned a lot today. So I imagine people who are not engaged in the policy space would have learnt a lot more. So I just want to say, thank you, Ruth. That was fantastic. Well, it was a pleasure. And I've really enjoyed the conversation. So I'm glad it's been of use. So how did you understand the conversation, Umar? What was your takeaway? I think it was that bit about how academics, policy institutes, and think tanks, people with lived experiences and charities can work together to co-generate evidence. And I have had experience of that recently. So, yeah, I won't name them, but there's a policy institute in the child adolescent education space who I've been working with for a couple of years now. And they had an event recently, where it was just, I think, a celebration of 10 years, or 15 years, or some milestone that they were celebrating. And they brought together the different people that they worked with and they have worked with. And their government minister was there. And it seemed that everyone seemed to know everyone. And I was like, oh, this is the reach that this kind of policy institute has that, as academics, we just don't have. So it was an encouragement on my part to continue working with the Policy Institute because, A, I like working with them and they just do very good research. But also, B, the reach in terms of policy is easier for them because they do it every week, every month. They have these exchanges with people in government. Whereas, that's not my day job. I don't do that all the time. So it's much more difficult for me to achieve that. So I think it's the working collaboratively in a meaningful way with other people who also do research, whether it's different-- like you said, it's a different form of research. And it might not be the exact way you do it, but it's nonetheless useful for policy change. Yeah, I thought it was a fascinating conversation that really made me think about the strategic delivery of information or data. So, sometimes, it's about the timing, the right mix, or the right phraseology. And it really struck me, that is so important, the same data delivered with a vector of child or whatever that might be, so that the public focus and the public perception is that it is an important piece of data and one that's worth considering. It also made me think about the power of lived experience. Now, Ruth mentioned that a couple of times. We're using that in mental health policy grants and service delivery. And more and more, that's shaped by users or people who have lived experience. And so I think it's really positive to see that shift is happening in social policy too. And that's very encouraging. So I guess my bottom line takeaway is really holding in mind the process required of policy-makers because, when we're designing our studies or writing grants, we need to be able to connect to the political landscape better. So that just might mean framing our research questions in a context or using a phraseology that connects with the political agenda. And that might mean that our data shapes child outcome more effectively. And I think mine is complimentary to that because I think what you're saying is adapt and maybe be a bit more flexible. And if that isn't for you, then it might just be that your area of research is just not having its time in the political will space, or there isn't a public appetite for change in the research that you're doing. But if you want to continue doing good research in that field, you just carry on doing your research because, at some point in the future, the time might come where there's a swing in public opinion, there's a political will, and then your research can be drawn upon, as long as it's good quality evidence, which if you're doing good research, it will be. Yeah, take the long game. Absolutely, I think that's great advice. Next week, it's just family, as we talk to our very own Mind the Kids podcaster, Clara Faria, about her paper on eating disorders. [MUSIC PLAYING]