Calls to scrap two-child benefit cap over child poverty link
At least one in four children is in poverty in two-thirds of the UK's constituencies, the annual analysis from Loughborough University for the End Child Poverty Coalition found.
'Bold action' is needed, the campaign said ahead of Chancellor Rachel Reeves's spending review this month, as they called for the cap to be scrapped as soon as possible.
The policy means parents only receive support for up to two children through the universal credit system.
Analysis of the child poverty rate and the proportion of children affected by the two-child limit found that the two are 'extremely highly correlated', adding to evidence that the cap is a 'major driver of child poverty across the UK'.
In the North East, West Midlands and Wales, around nine out of 10 constituencies were found to have a child poverty rate higher than one in four.
Birmingham Ladywood, Dewsbury and Batley and Bradford West were among those with the highest rates.
Sir Keir Starmer and the Chancellor are under pressure to respond to mounting calls for the two-child benefit cap to be axed at a cost of around £3.5 billion.
Ministers have reportedly been considering scrapping it as part of their child poverty strategy, which was due to be published in the spring but is now set to come out in the autumn so it can be aligned with the Chancellor's budget.
Dan Paskins, vice-chairman of the End Child Poverty Coalition, said the data presents a 'bleak picture of life' for the UK's children.
'A record number are now in poverty and this is under the noses of our MPs, particularly Cabinet members. 80% of Keir Starmer's Cabinet represent constituencies with higher-than-average child poverty rates.
'The time for action is now, and the Comprehensive Spending Review and forthcoming child poverty strategy should involve bold action.
'Due to the analysis's finding (of) a strong correlation between child poverty rates in local areas and the number of children impacted by the two-child limit to universal credit, it is essential this policy is scrapped as soon as possible.'
A Government spokesperson said: 'This Government is determined to bring down child poverty.
'We've already expanded free breakfast clubs, introduced a cap on the cost of school uniforms, increased the national minimum wage for those on the lowest incomes, uprated benefits in April and supported 700,000 of the poorest families by introducing a fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions.
'We will publish an ambitious child poverty strategy later this year to ensure we deliver fully-funded measures that tackle the structural and root causes of child poverty across the country.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Jeremy Corbyn criticises Starmer's ‘island of strangers' speech at festival
Jeremy Corbyn has criticised Sir Keir Starmer for using the phrase 'island of strangers' in a major immigration announcement. The former Labour leader, now an independent MP after he lost the party whip, publicly challenged the Prime Minister's language on Friday. Speaking at the Wide Awake Festival in Brockwell Park, south London, Mr Corbyn said: 'Let's hear no more of this nonsense spoken by some about this being a country of strangers. 'Let's hear no more of the repetition of what the wretched Enoch Powell said when I was a young person in the 1960s. 'Our community, our strength, our joy, our lives, our hope is our diversity, is our different backgrounds.' He added: 'That's what makes London a very special place.' Sir Keir, Mr Corbyn's successor as Labour leader, suggested the UK risked becoming an 'island of strangers' if efforts to tackle migration and integration were not stepped up. Critics compared the language with that of the Conservative politician Enoch Powell, who in an inflammatory address in 1968 known as the 'rivers of blood' speech, claimed that white British people would become 'strangers in their own country' in the future. Elsewhere in his speech on the stage, Mr Corbyn called for an end to all British arms sales to Israel, and urged those attending the festival to join anti-war rallies. He said: 'This country, Britain, has supplied weapons and parts for the F-35 jets that are used to bomb Gaza. 'So when we have the demonstrations in support of the Palestine people – please be there, raise your voice. It matters by giving inspiration to those people going through the most ghastly times of their lives.' In what appeared to be a further broadside at his former colleagues in the Labour Government, Mr Corbyn suggested ministers should hike taxes on the very rich. 'You can't achieve equality and justice if you extol the virtues of billionaires and do nothing about taking money off them to pay for the decent services for the many,' he said. Elsewhere at the festival, Irish rap trio Kneecap performed just days after one of their members was charged with a terror offence. Liam O hAnnaidh, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, was charged over the alleged display of a Hezbollah flag at a gig at the O2 Forum in Kentish Town, north London, in November last year, the Metropolitan Police said on Wednesday. The Wide Awake Festival is one of several taking place in Brockwell Park over the next few weeks. Some local residents are unhappy with the damage the events cause to the park, and the large area of the green open space they take up over the course of a month. They successfully brought legal action against Lambeth Council over the use of parts of the park for the festivals, in a challenge which claimed the authority had bypassed the full planning process. The High Court ruled the council had acted 'irrationally', but the events have continued despite this, after Lambeth received fresh a planning application.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Pensions report cuts Reeves' planned growth funds from £160bn to £11bn
Plans to invest £160bn of surplus funds from final salary pension schemes to boost the UK economy over the next 10 years have been dealt a blow by a Whitehall assessment that found there was likely to be little more than £11bn available to spend. In a knock to Rachel Reeves's growth agenda, a report by civil servants at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) found that the expected surpluses in occupational schemes would be used by businesses to offload their pension liabilities to insurance companies. It could mean that as little as £8.4bn would be available for companies to invest in new equipment or technology, but the figure was likely to be nearer £11bn, the DWP said on Friday. 'It is estimated that an additional £11.2bn surplus will be extracted as a result of the preferred option to legislate over a 10-year period,' the report said. Pension surpluses were a significant pillar of the chancellor's plans to use private sector funds to grow the economy during a period when state funds are likely to be severely restricted. Reeves is expected to lay out her growth plans on Wednesday in the spending review, which will set out the government priorities for the next year. Earlier this year she said about 75% of final salary schemes, also known as defined benefit schemes, were in surplus, worth £160bn, but restrictions have meant businesses have struggled to invest them. In her Mansion House speech in November, Reeves also outlined proposals for pension megafunds to be created from individual defined contribution schemes and a merger of local authority pension schemes to make the pensions industry more cost-effective. A pensions bill going through parliament will allow pension fund trustees to unlock trapped surplus funds that Reeves said would increase investment in British businesses and lift economic growth. Hundreds of final salary schemes, which spent decades in deficit, meaning the value of their obligations to members outweighed their assets, have moved into surplus in recent years after an increase in interest rates. 'Although fewer than 700,000 people are actively saving into a private sector defined benefit scheme, the sector remains a significant market within the UK economic landscape,' the report said. 'Across around 5,000 schemes, around nine million members are being supported with assets of around £1.2tn.' An impact assessment by DWP officials said legislation was needed to overhaul the pension system and give trustees the power to access surplus funds. It said a failure to act would also mean 'an opportunity to benefit members, businesses and to drive economic growth would be missed. Therefore 'do nothing' is not considered a desirable option.' However, a combination of factors means the expected surplus for investment is reduced to no more than £12bn over 10 years, in part because the legislation does not force trustees of defined benefit funds to use surpluses for investment, and that most occupational final salary schemes have reached a level where a buyout is possible. In a note for the Pension Insurance Corporation, an independent expert, John Ralfe, said: 'Forget about £160bn of pension surpluses just waiting, as Rachel Reeves said, to be paid out to 'drive growth and boost working people's pension pots'. 'The DWP figures estimate just a fraction of this – under £12bn – will be paid out over the next 10 years, mainly because most companies want a full buyout with an insurance company. 'And the bill contains no details of how pensions will be protected if cash is withdrawn. Member security must be a priority with strict rules on repaying amounts if funding deteriorates,' he added. Many pension fund trustees are known to be concerned that allowing company boards access to surplus funds could leave their schemes vulnerable after a panic in financial markets. Without strong safeguards, giving businesses access to surplus pension funds could also make them more attractive targets for foreign takeovers. It is understood the new regime will allow trustees to block moves to access surplus funds if they believe it will undermine the safety of the fund. The pensions minister Torsten Bell said: 'I have read the impact assessment, and I am satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the leading options.' The Treasury and the DWP were contacted for comment.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The closing of a local hair salon tells you why Britain is going bust
On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will stand up in the House and announce her latest plans for saving the country from bankruptcy. Somehow, she will have to produce plausible remedies for a crisis that seems insoluble: how to deal with catastrophic levels of government debt when there are endless demands for more public spending including a brand new commitment to provide more funding for defence. Having ruled out tax rises that clearly impinge directly on what they call 'working people' – income tax, VAT and employee National Insurance contributions – Labour has made this situation more complicated. But, perversely, they have chosen to make it even worse by pushing many of the most productive contributors to the economy out of business. The Labour Government, by putting supposed ideological solidarity over economic reality, has created the perfect formula for the failure of precisely the business sector which contributes most to national vitality and growth. Let me offer an illustration in the hope that it might prove instructive to the present and any future Chancellor. A hairdressing salon that I know in a prosperous North London neighbourhood closed for good several weeks ago. It had been at its current location for over thirty years and was so popular that it often took days to get an appointment. After lockdown it recovered well with its loyal customers delighted to return. The emergence of the four day working week meant that Fridays became as busy as Saturdays and the salon was humming. So what went wrong? The owner was hit simultaneously by the increases in the minimum wage and employer NICS. Added to ever-increasing energy costs (exacerbated by green levies), this burden finally broke them. Even though they were a well-run thriving business, they could not survive. Sadly all of the junior staff and trainees were laid off. Given the economic climate now, they will struggle to find similar jobs anywhere else so they will not be paying any tax for the indefinite future and will almost certainly have to claim unemployment benefit: a double loss for the Treasury. The salon as a company has gone so it will no longer be paying corporation tax. The senior stylists who have carried on working privately are now self-employed which means they can, perfectly legitimately, claim all their work expenses against tax – so they will pay less income tax than they did under PAYE when they were employees. You get the picture. The net effect of the Government's measures has been to reduce the tax take for their own coffers and increase unemployment among people starting out in their working lives whose chances are further damaged by the ridiculous stipulation that they must have full rights to secure employment from the day they are hired. What happened to one hair salon might not seem all that significant to the nation's future. But this pattern is being repeated in small businesses – particularly the ones that provide employment to young people starting out in working life – in countless numbers. Retail shops, building services and hospitality outlets are cutting staff and failing to hire new recruits because the cost of employing them is back breaking. As a result, they are not expanding and developing their businesses as they might have – and so not contributing to the growth of the economy in the significant way that small businesses, with their inherent dynamism and industriousness, once did. Labour, in its supposed determination to support 'working people' has created a doom loop in which fewer people will be joining the workforce and the consequent reduction in tax revenue will make the government even less able to meet the limitless demands of the welfare system as well as pay off its debts. Needless to say, there have been some obvious winners in the Labour dynamic: public sector employees have had their mouths stuffed with gold not only because Labour is historically inclined to favour the unions which represent them but because they can threaten disruption on a scale that reduces any complaining chorus from the small business sector to an inconsequential squeak. But there is more to it than that, in ideological terms: business generally, and small business in particular, are seen as inherently self-interested enterprises. Because they have been created, developed and run by private individuals in the hope of making a profit, they must be morally suspect and less worthy of support than the services that the state funds and operates for the general good of society. Carry this to its logical conclusion and it becomes admirable to penalise people who want to profit from other people's need for their services in order to pay for the provision of services dispensed 'fairly' (and without profit) by the government. You know where this ends, don't you? The most innovative, resourceful, determined individuals who might have developed new ways of creating real wealth and employing more people in experimental ways have impossible demands put on them which threaten their survival or, at the very least, make their continued existence as difficult as possible. They are encumbered with inflexible employment conditions which might possibly be appropriate for huge public sector organisations but are death to experimental emerging enterprises. Their tax arrangements are made so horrendously complicated and difficult to master that expensive accountancy advice becomes essential. I know self-employed sole traders in the creative industries who would like to enlarge their practice but are terrified of crossing the income threshold that would require VAT registration which now involves coping with Making Tax Digital – a peculiarly sadistic form of monitoring which, as HMRC has just discovered in its attempt to introduce it in self-employed income tax, can be susceptible to cyber hacking. Yes indeed, create a business on your own and try to make it a success – just try. The Government, and its agents in HMRC who can't even be bothered to answer the phone, will make your life as difficult as possible. And the more obstacles they put in the way to prevent you from flourishing and expanding, the more virtuous they will feel even though you and the real wealth that you create are the only things that might have saved them.
