Reeves to launch £500m fund to help vulnerable children
It will be used to help struggling and vulnerable children and their families with a variety of problems they face.
This could include early support to tackle challenges such as school absence, mental health issues, addiction and falling into a life of crime.
The fund will run for 10 years, and ministers plan to raise a further £500 million from councils, investors and philanthropists to top up the Government's cash.
The Chancellor will launch the initiative on Monday, as she visits a school in Wigan.
Ahead of the visit, Ms Reeves said: 'I got into politics to help children facing the toughest challenges.
'This fund will give hundreds of thousands of children, young people and their families a better chance.
'For too long, these children have been overlooked.'
The fund will be overseen by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and more details about how it will work will be released in the near future, according to the Government.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said: 'This groundbreaking Better Futures Fund represents a major step in partnering with the impact economy, which has long played an important role in strengthening communities and driving inclusive growth.
'As part of the plan for change, we're bringing together Government, local authorities, charities, social enterprises and philanthropists to create a powerful alliance that will transform the lives of vulnerable children and young people.
'We owe them the best start in life.
'Together we will break down barriers to opportunity, ensuring those who need support most aren't left behind and have the chance to reach their potential.'
The launch is backed by groups including Save the Children UK, The King's Trust, and Oxford University's Blavatnik School of Government.
Elsewhere, ministers will host the first civil society summit this week, which aims to hammer out a plan for how Government will better work alongside charities and other organisations outside of the world of Westminster to the benefit of the public.
Sir Mel Stride, the Conservatives' shadow chancellor, said the Government's plans would 'build on the Life Chances Fund – a Conservative policy that supports families and vulnerable children'.
He added: 'But Labour's jobs tax has pushed up unemployment and prices, trapping more children in workless, struggling homes.
'Labour are taxing work, choking growth, and driving families into hardship.
'Under Kemi Badenoch, the Conservatives back the makers – protecting public finances, supporting working parents, and making sure hard work pays.
'Britain deserves a government that rewards effort, not one that penalises success.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Want to import toxic chemicals into Britain with scant scrutiny? Labour says: go right ahead
It's what the extreme right of the Tory party wanted from Brexit: to tear down crucial public protections, including those that defend us from the most brutal and dangerous forms of capital. The Conservatives lost office before they were able to do their worst. But never mind, because Labour has now picked up the baton. A month ago, so quietly that most of us missed it, the government published a consultation on deregulating chemicals. While most consultations last for 12 weeks, this one runs for eight, half of which cover the holiday period – it closes on 18 August. The intention is set out at the beginning: to reduce 'costs to business'. This, as repeated statements by Keir Starmer make clear, means tearing up the rules. If, the consultation proposes, a chemical has been approved by a 'trusted foreign jurisdiction', it should be approved for use in the UK. No list is given of what these trusted jurisdictions are. It will be up to ministers to decide: they can add such countries through statutory instruments, which means without full parliamentary scrutiny. In one paragraph the document provides what sounds like an assurance: these jurisdictions should have standards 'similar to and at least as high as those in Great Britain'. Three paragraphs later, the assurance is whisked away: the government would be able 'to use any evaluation available to it, which it considers reliable, from any foreign jurisdiction'. In this and other respects, the consultation document is opaque, contradictory, lacking clear safeguards and frankly chilling. Lobbyists will point out that a chemical product has been approved for sale in the US, or Thailand or Honduras, then ask the government to add that country as a trusted jurisdiction. If the government agrees, 'domestic evaluation' would be 'removed', meaning that no UK investigation of the product's health and environmental impacts will be required. In the US, to give one example, a wide range of dangerous chemical products are approved for uses that are banned here and in many other countries. The government has fired the gun on a race to the bottom. To make matters worse, once a country has been added to the list of trusted jurisdictions, all the biocidal products it authorises for use could, the consultation says, be 'automatically approved' for use here. The proposed new rules, in other words, look like a realisation of the fantasy entertained by the ultra-rightwing Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg in 2016: 'We could say, if it's good enough in India, it's good enough for here … We could take it a very long way.' There is in fact a means of reducing costs while maintaining high standards: simply mirror EU rules. Though far from perfect, they set the world's highest standards for chemical regulation. Mirroring them as they evolve would avoid the pointless institutional replication and total regulatory meltdown our chemicals system has suffered since we left the EU. But we can't have that, as it would mean backtracking on Brexit, which would be BETRAYAL. Adopting the weaker standards of other states at the behest of foreign corporations, by contrast, is the height of patriotism. The divergence from European standards is likely to mean breaking the terms of the EU-UK trade and cooperation agreement, as well as landing Northern Ireland in an even greater quandary, as it remains in both the EU single market and the UK internal market. In many cases, deregulation delivers bureaucratic chaos. The consultation also suggests the removal of all expiry dates for the approval of active chemical substances. The default position would be that, as long as a foreign jurisdiction has approved a product, allowing it to be used in the UK, it stays on the books indefinitely. Those arguing that new evidence should lead to its deletion from the approved list would have a mountain to climb. Worse still, the consultation proposes removing any obligation on the Health and Safety Executive to maintain a publicly available database of the harmful properties of chemical substances on the UK market. No wonder they kept it quiet. Yes, these proposals might reduce costs for business. But the inevitable result is to transfer them to society. Already, we face a massive contamination crisis as a result of regulatory failure in this country, as compounds such as Pfas ('forever chemicals'), microplastics and biocides spread into our lives. If the decontamination of land and water is possible, it will cost hundreds of times more than any profits made by industry as a result of lax rules. In reality, we will carry these costs in our bodies and our ecosystems, indefinitely. The true price is incalculable. Many have paid with their lives, health, education or livelihoods for previous 'bonfires of red tape': through the Grenfell Tower disaster, filthy rivers, collapsing classrooms, consumer rip-offs and the 2008 financial crisis. But as long as these costs can be shifted off corporate and current government balance sheets, that is deemed a win for business and win for the Treasury. Earlier this month, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told financiers in her Mansion House speech that regulation 'acts as a boot on the neck of businesses'. In reality, business acts as a boot on the neck of democracy, a boot the government slathers with kisses. Before the general election last year, Reeves told an assembly of corporate CEOs: 'I hope when you read our manifesto, or see our priorities, that you see your fingerprints all over them.' The catastrophic planning reforms the government is now forcing through parliament were hatched, she told them, at a 'smoked salmon and scrambled eggs breakfast' with corporate lobbyists. This was just one instance of a massive pre-election grovelling offensive, involving hundreds of meetings behind closed doors with corporations, which shaped Labour's plans and explains so much of what has gone wrong since. The point and purpose of the Labour party was to resist economic warfare by the rich against the rest. Starmer and Reeves have turned their party into the opposite of what it once was. Capital demands three things at once: that the government strip away the rules defending the public interest from ruthless profit-making; that the government regulate itself with insanely restrictive pledges, such as Reeves's fiscal rules; and that the public is regulated with ever more draconian laws, such as those restricting protest. It gets what it asks for. Everything must give way to capital, but capital must give way to nothing. George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist
Daily Mirror
32 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Keir Starmer accused of ignoring veterans for a year as Nuked Blood Scandal grows
Keir Starmer has been warned the Nuked Blood Scandal is growing out of control as veterans say he has ignored requests to meet them for a year The Prime Minister has been accused of ignoring the growing Nuked Blood Scandal since coming to office, with more than 50 veterans dying without justice on his watch. More than 2,000 survivors want the truth about a government programme of blood and urine testing of troops while they were being ordered to take part in nuclear weapons trials during the Cold War. The medical data that was gathered is now missing from their personnel files, denying them war pensions, compensation, and the truth about whether radiation left their families with a poisonous genetic legacy of cancers, blood disorders, miscarriages and birth defects. Keir Starmer was invited to meet campaigners and discuss their calls for a public inquiry within days of winning the general election last year, but his correspondence team did not even acknowledge the request. Since then his government has refused to tell Parliament about evidence it has now found of orders for the long-denied blood tests, serving government lawyers have been identified as having misled courts and judges, and his own officials have admitted scientists may have been conducting the experiments without medical supervision. Alan Owen, founder of nuclear veteran campaign group LABRATS, said: "This is the longest and worst scandal in British history. Long-denied allegations of using our own troops in radiation experiments are being proven with a growing pile of evidence, an expensive lawsuit, and a police complaint. But it seems we're not even on his to-do list." He added: "Either the PM is ignoring a problem that really needs his attention before it gets any worse, or someone is keeping this off his desk on purpose. Either way, we hear about another veteran dying every single week. These men have an average age of 87, a host of chronic health conditions, and they deserve better than this." The PM was tackled on the scandal by backbench Labour MP Emma Lewell in his first appearance at the Despatch Box after the election in July last year, and urged to hold an inquiry. Instead he promised her a meeting with Veterans Minister Al Carns. He has twice met with campaigners, but while he has ordered officials to review 1m pages of archive documents, he has refused all requests to say what he has found. The minister has ordered the release of a further 10,000 classified documents, thought to include at least 200,000 pages, but there is no date for their publication. Veteran Brian Unthank, 87, who has had 96 skin cancers, two bouts of bladder cancer and is now dealing with an "unusual" prostate cancer, said: "All I want is for Starmer to stand up, admit they got it wrong, apologise and find a way to sort it. But every promise we've ever had has been broken." Starmer was in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet in 2019 when he signed off on a manifesto pledge to pay survivors £50,000 compensation, but all mention of nuclear veterans was removed from Labour's latest version. Meanwhile nearly 4.8m people have seen a viral video about Labour's broken promises, with footage of deputy leader Angela Rayner, Defence Secretary John Healey and Armed Forces minister Luke Pollard all demanding, while in Opposition, that the Tories order payouts. The government has expanded the criteria for the nuclear test medal after the Mirror highlighted the story of Operation Bagpipes hero Pete Peters, but so far he is the only veteran to have benefited. The minister has been asked to expand it for hundreds more crews who were ordered to take part in sampling missions through the nuclear tests of other nations, but this week he refused to say when they would receive it. Colin Duncan, who was a RAF sergeant in 543 Squadron when planes were sent through the clouds of French hyrdogen bombs in 1974, is fighting for the medal to be granted to comrades who suffer the same horrific pattern of illnesses. "We thought the minister was considering new criteria, but I'm not surprised to hear he's doing nothing of the sort," said Colin, 86, of Chipping Sodbury. "There must be a couple of thousand veterans the MoD is ignoring." If more veterans qualify for the medal, they may also need to be included in long-term health studies which the government relies on to refuse war pensions, which could alter their findings. No10 was contacted for comment.
BBC News
32 minutes ago
- BBC News
Teenage Warwickshire council leader George Finch 'wanted to teach'
George Finch had planned to be at university studying to become a history at the of 19, he has become the youngest council leader in the UK, running Warwickshire County Council with a budget of £ Reform UK councillor still lives at his family home and cannot yet drive. Facts which have led to jibes in public and private from some opposition became the largest party on the previously Conservative-led authority with 23 seats in May's local elections. Speaking exclusively to the BBC, he hit back at criticism about his lack of life and professional experience – labelling those turning their noses up at his appointment as "ageist" and "not relevant".Sitting down in the leader's office, shortly after scraping through a leadership vote at the council's Shire Hall headquarters, Finch called out his said: "All I see is age… I don't care about my age. Would people be questioning if there was a 70-year-old at the helm? Probably not."Joe Biden, Donald Trump, presidents that are older – no-one questions it. But they're questioning someone who is 19." But leading a £2bn organisation is not a typical job for a 19-year-old, and Finch admitted he had had other plans."I wanted to be a history teacher. I loved history and I loved teaching but the problem was the curriculum, especially history. Universities and colleges are a conveyor belt for socialist wokeism."Finch said he had been inspired by Reform and former Conservative MP Lee Anderson, who has previously criticised educational establishments for what he perceives as teachers pushing "dog whistle divisive politics" on April, National Education Union members called for funds to be used to help campaign against Reform UK candidates. The organisation, Britain's biggest teaching union, branded Reform UK "a racist and far right" party. In his time as interim leader, Finch said he had used his new "influence" over education by calling Anjit Samra, CEO of Stowe Valley Multi-Academy Trust, to his office after a row over a union jack dress at Bilton School, in Rugby."I don't have the power to tell him what to do as he's an academy, but I do have that influence. "I asked him simple, I said 'I would like to see, and I think it's in your best interests, if you have a school assembly on the importance of British culture'."Asked what his friends made of his new job, he said: "They love it, when I have to go to the pub I don't have to buy a pint." But why did Reform appeal to him and why is it gaining momentum with some young people?"People can't afford homes, they can't have a car, postgraduate jobs are decreasing. It's getting harder for us to see a good future, a better future. And with Reform UK, that's what gives people that hope."He said he thought his appointment would probably help attract people to the party."It shows that anyone can do anything in this party, if you're up to the task. If you've got that merit-based system - and that's where we've gone wrong for far too long in the private and public sector."He added: "It's 'oh, here's a job because of your skin colour or your creed or your religion'. No, you get the job because you're good at it." A keen rugby player, Finch is used to battling on the pitch. But it was in the corridors of power where he faced his first public fight, in a row with the council's chief executive Monica Fogarty, after he asked for a Progress Pride Flag to be removed from outside Shire Hall in UK leader Nigel Farage even waded into the row calling out what he perceived as "obstructionism" by council officials saying "Warwickshire is a very, very good example".Asked if he could work with the council chief executive and other officers, Finch said: "We have done. We have to have that professional working relationship."Pushed on whether it was professional to publicly call out the council's chief executive, he said: "We're working together, the council is running. I think you're looking too deep into this." Talking about his priorities for Warwickshire over the coming months and years, Finch said having a sister with special educational needs and disabilities meant he had a keen interest in the area which has been labelled a financial threat to the future of the has pledged to cut wasteful spending and improve the efficiency of the councils it runs. But some of its spending decisions have faced criticism, while opponents say there has been little concrete action to reduce Warwickshire, opposition parties have criticised Finch and his party for planning to hire political assistants at a cost of up to £190,000 a year, saying the money should be spent on front-line services contentious area is the potential scrapping of lower-level councils as part of the Labour government's devolution said he wanted to look at these ideas in his county and he would like to see areas such as Nuneaton and Bedworth given their own town councils.
