Latest news with #childpoverty
The Independent
10 hours ago
- Business
- The Independent
Mapped: Find your nearest baby bank as demand surges
The UK is facing a child poverty crisis, with The Independent revealing the number of parents struggling to feed and clothe their children is rocketing. Baby bank use surged 35 per cent last year, according to data shared with this publication, as more and more families seek support amid the cost of living crisis and record-high child poverty levels. Celebrities, including actor Giovanna Fletcher, MPs and campaigners have demanded to know how this can be happening in the UK, as they call for more support for families. But in the meantime, parents are struggling to afford key items for their children, which is where the help of baby banks comes in. Often run by volunteers from community halls, warehouses and even front rooms, baby banks are a lifeline for families, providing a safe, supportive service for those in need. This is primarily in the form of giving out essential items like clothing, nappies, toys, prams and more – but also in offering a safe space. However, many don't know that baby banks exist, or if they do, don't know where their nearest one is. Therefore, The Independent has mapped out locations of baby banks across the UK: The families this publication spoke with said they had not heard of baby banks before they started using them. But the need is only increasing as stark government figures show that the number of impoverished youngsters in Britain soared by 200,000 from 4.3 million to 4.5 million between 2023 and 2024. More than 3.5 million essential items were handed out by baby banks in 2024, including nappies, clothes and cots, according to the data from the BBA and Save the Children (STC) UK – an increase of 143 per cent on the previous year. The new figures come after Labour delayed its flagship plan to cut child poverty until the autumn, although it insists the strategy will be 'ambitious'. Meanwhile, ministers debate whether or not to scrap the two-child benefit cap as the cost of living crisis continues to bite, and statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) remains equivalent to less than half the 2025 national living wage. Parents said they wanted to draw awareness to baby banks so other families can benefit and to encourage people to donate. Single father Adam Coggins, 34, was living in temporary accomodation with his daughters, aged two and three, and worrying about being able to feed them when a health visitor suggested he go to a baby bank. 'It was difficult to start with, I've always paid my way,' he said. '[But] it's surprising when you go there how many people are there needing the help... surprising how many people have stories like mine. You see how much the community comes together – it's becoming a popular, useful place for lots of struggling people.'
The Independent
10 hours ago
- Business
- The Independent
With families facing impossible choices, Labour's should be easy
Few causes seize the emotions of the Labour Party as does the alleviation of child poverty, and rightly so. More than a quarter of a century since prime minister Tony Blair pledged that his generation would be 'the first to end child poverty', far too many families struggle, through no fault of their own, to provide for their children. One index of that national failure is highlighted by The Independent today: the surge in demand for help from baby banks. The cost of living crisis, with sharply higher energy bills and food prices hitting the poorest households hardest, has left hard-pressed parents seeking help to provide for their offspring. More than 3.5 million essential items were handed out by these charitable units in 2024, including nappies, clothes and cots – an increase of 143 per cent on the previous year. This trend is entirely consistent with the official statistics. Some 4.5 million children, representing 30 per cent of all children in the UK, were estimated to be living in households with a relative low income after housing costs (that is, with an income below 60 per cent of the median) in 2022-23. According to Save the Children UK and the Baby Bank Alliance, 219,637 families were supported by UK baby banks in 2024 alone – an increase of 35 per cent on the previous year. As valuable, indeed essential, as the work of charities is in supporting children in need, it is no substitute for action by government, and this Labour government in particular. While the Blair and Brown administrations made some progress in achieving their stated aim, including the passage of the Child Poverty Act in 2010, the subsequent coalition and Conservative years saw an effective abandonment of it. The two-child limit was imposed in 2017, and has been a source of misery and resentment ever since. The pressure on ministers to make an immediate impact on child poverty is growing, and it is coming from both inside and outside the party. Almost as soon as the Starmer administration was formed last year, a rebellion on the two-child cap on child benefits was organised by backbenchers on the left of the party. Derided as 'the usual suspects', the rebel MPs were brushed aside and dealt with by having the Labour whip removed. But they laid down a marker of what should be expected from a Labour government, even if the manifesto was vague. Now, disquiet around wider cuts to the social security budget is growing, and spreading to the rest of the party, including the usually loyal 2024 intake. Those in more marginal constituencies will also have found their instinct for social justice being given fresh impetus by Nigel Farage, who recently pledged to abolish the two-child cap (albeit for natalist rather than socialist reasons). Removing the hated cap is once more – in the words of Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary – 'on the table'. So it should be. It would not end child poverty – this social evil is far too entrenched to be susceptible to such an easy fix – but it would result in an immediate and significant improvement for a great number of children. Child poverty is especially acute in larger households: 44 per cent of children living in families with three or more children are in poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group says that 350,000 children would be lifted straight out of poverty, and a further 300,000 would find their conditions improved. To place that in context, about half a million children were rescued from poverty across the entire span of the 1997 to 2010 Labour government. The problem is money, but it is not an extravagant amount when viewed in the context of the social security budget. Lifting the cap would cost the Exchequer some £3.4bn, or 3 per cent of the bill for working-age benefits. Indeed, even if one were to factor in a reversal of the cut to the winter fuel payment, and of the scheduled cuts to disability benefits, the total cost would be £10bn a year. That is a more substantial sum, but one that could still be accommodated inside an envelope of public spending amounting to £1,200bn. The process of running the UK's public finances has become one of absurdly tight margins, dictated by the chancellor's habit of allowing herself far too little room for manoeuvre in her self-imposed fiscal rules. Hence the constant crises and the wearying, never-ending search for cuts, which are too often made at the expense of those who can least afford them. As the chancellor approaches the comprehensive public spending review, she deserves some sympathy for the scale of the task ahead of her. She is right to say that no programme to support social justice can be launched on the basis of unsustainable public finances. The establishment of free breakfast clubs and stronger protections for renters and workers will also push child poverty rates lower. But some of the choices she has made have not been wise ones, and they now need to be revisited. Politically, it seems increasingly apparent that Ms Reeves and her colleagues on the Child Poverty Taskforce, led by Ms Phillipson and Liz Kendall, have no alternative, when they report in the autumn, but to renew Labour's mission to make sure no child goes without food, shelter or clothing. It now falls to their generation to eradicate this scourge for good.
The Independent
10 hours ago
- Business
- The Independent
Surge in parents turning to baby banks as UK's child poverty crisis laid bare
Demand for baby banks from parents struggling to feed their children has surged by more than a third in a year, The Independent can reveal amid record -high child poverty levels. As the cost of living continues to rise, a growing number of families are having to turn to baby banks with new data showing over 3.5 million essential items were handed out in 2024, including nappies, clothes and cots – an increase of 143 per cent on the previous year. Describing the rising need as 'absolutely shocking', actor and podcast host Giovanna Fletcher questioned how this is happening in the UK as she joins forces with MPs and children's charities to urge the government to take action. The new figures come after Labour delayed its flagship plan to cut child poverty until the autumn, although it insists the strategy will be 'ambitious'. Meanwhile, ministers debate whether or not to scrap the two-child benefit cap as the cost of living crisis continues to bite, and statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) remains equivalent to less than half the 2025 national living wage. Single father Adam Coggins, 34, said the pressures of parenthood took a toll on his mental health and forced him to reach out to a baby bank for the first time, fearing that without help his daughters, aged two and three, would not eat. The 34-year-old told The Independent: 'I was so uncomfortable going there because I've never had to ask for help before, I felt like a failure, that was hard… [But] without these people, we would be in trouble – they've saved a lot of people, especially when you've got two young kids, you need that help. That could be the difference between getting a couple of meals for them – getting two packs of nappies saves you money to get food for them.' Mr Coggins is among the 219,637 families supported by UK baby banks in 2024 alone – an increase of 35 per cent on the previous year, according to the data from Save the Children (STC) UK and the Baby Bank Alliance (BBA), which supports and advocates for the more than 400 baby banks nationwide. Stark government figures show that the number of children in poverty in Britain soared by 200,000 from 4.3 million to 4.5 million between 2023 and 2024. The BBA's analysis of its latest annual survey of members found that baby banks are stretched to the limit. Almost two-thirds (65 per cent) reported receiving more requests for help than they could meet, with referrals rising by 30 per cent last year, while over two-thirds (69 per cent) said they have waiting lists for key items. This marks a crisis when baby banks are a lifeline for families, providing essential items like clothing, nappies, toys, prams and food, as well as a safe space – often run by volunteers from community halls, warehouses and even front rooms. Bestselling author and podcast host Ms Fletcher recently visited baby banks in Leeds, Bedford and Bicester. Criticising the government's current approach and urging it to implement long-term solutions, she told The Independent: 'They have to take stock and look at the data... so many families are now having to make impossible choices about how to feed their family, how to clothe their family – and they're always coming up short, and that's such a massive pressure.' Kirsty-Louise Fulford, 31, met Ms Fletcher at Bicester Baby Bank. The 31-year-old and her partner sometimes rely on the baby bank for formula for their 16-month-old daughter and food for their son, aged three, as well as for nappies and baby wipes. 'Without the baby bank, I don't think I'd be able to cope,' she said. Jennie Bayliss, the baby bank lead at Faces Bedford, which runs Bicester Baby Bank, said they are completely reliant on donations but 'only getting busier', with at least 30 requests coming in every week. Labour MP for Norwich South Clive Lewis said: 'That baby banks even exist in one of the richest countries on earth is an indictment of our political choices. The fact they've now seen a 35 per cent surge in demand speaks to a crisis not of resources, but of priorities. If we can afford tax breaks for the wealthy, we can afford dignity for children. Ending child poverty is a political decision. This government is choosing not to make it.' Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside Kim Johnson described the reality that baby banks have become a lifeline for so many as a 'national disgrace', with families now 'pushed to the brink'. She said: 'Nappies, formula, and clothing are not luxuries – they are essentials for a child's wellbeing. No child should be growing up in poverty in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Yet baby banks are being left to do the job of government.' Also calling on the government to end child poverty, Labour MP for York Central Rachael Maskell said: 'The greatest impact of poverty can be found in the first years of life. No parent should have to depend on food, baby and multi-banks, but should have enough support to care for their baby.' A woman, who wished to remain anonymous, said that the homeless charity she works for is currently referring three or four survivors of domestic violence to baby banks per week. Without that support, she said the women and children 'would have nothing', even questioning how they would survive. Executive Lead at the BBA Dani Adams said: 'Families shouldn't have to worry about having a safe space for their children to sleep, or whether they have enough clothes to keep them warm, but the sad reality is that they are.' Director of UK Impact at STC Dan Paskins added: 'Scrapping the two-child limit to benefits and the benefit cap would be a start in alleviating the pressure not only on families but also the baby bank community. The UK government's long-awaited child poverty strategy is a pivotal moment to begin making positive changes for children.' A government spokesperson said: 'The government is determined to bring down child poverty. 'We've already expanded free breakfast clubs, increased the national minimum wage for those on the lowest incomes, uprated benefits 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.'
The Sun
a day ago
- Business
- The Sun
I grew up in poverty – but lifting the 2 child benefit cap for all families is not fair on taxpayers
AS KING Canute found over a thousand years ago, it is quite difficult to stand on a beach and order the tide to recede. Today, it is equally difficult to make the argument that giving families cash is not always the best way of lifting them out of poverty. 2 This is especially true when one particular measure becomes the symbol of whether or not you're on the right side of the debate about child poverty. But as someone who now can afford the comforts of life, I constantly remind myself of my childhood. The grinding poverty that I experienced when my father was killed in a work accident when I was 12 – leaving my mother, who had serious health problems, to fight a long battle for minimal compensation. Having only bread and dripping in the house was, by anyone's standards, a hallmark of absolute poverty. Why on earth would I question, therefore, the morality of reversing a Tory policy introduced eight years ago? This restricts the additional supplement to universal credit – worth over £3,000 a child per year – to just two children. I should know, my friends tell me, that the easiest and quickest way of overcoming the growth in child poverty is to restore the £3.5 billion pounds it would cost to give this additional money for all the children in every family entitled to the credit. It is true that the policy, introduced in 2017, failed its first test. Women did not stop having more than two children even when they were strapped for cash. It is still unclear why. After all, many people have to make a calculation as to how many children they can afford. 2 But one thing must be certain: namely, that if you give parents a relatively substantial additional amount of money for every child they have whilst entitled to benefits, they are likely to have more children. Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, said as much last week. His argument for restoring the benefit to the third and subsequent children was precisely that we needed to persuade low- income families to have more children. Surely having children that you cannot afford to feed is the legacy of a bygone era? All those earning below £60,000 are entitled to the basic c hild benefit, so the argument is about just over £60 a week extra per child. One difficulty in having a sensible debate about what really works in overcoming intergenerational poverty is the lack of reliable statistics. Some people have claimed, over recent days, that over 50 per cent of children in Manchester and Birmingham live in poverty. I fear that such claims should be treated with scepticism. Those struggling to make ends meet – sometimes having not just one but two jobs – who pay their taxes and national insurance and plan their lives around what can be afforded, have the right to question where their hard-earned wages go. The simple and obvious truth is that child poverty springs from the lack of income of the adults who care for them. Transforming their lives impacts directly on the children in their family. There is a limit to how much money taxpayers are willing to hand over to pay for another family's children. Helping them to help themselves is a different matter. So, what would I do? Firstly, I would ensure that families with a disabled youngster automatically have the entitlement restored. This would self-evidently apply also to multiple births. In both cases, life is not only more difficult, it is also harder to get and keep a job. I would come down like a ton of bricks on absent parents. My mum was a single parent because she was widowed; many others are single in the sense that the other partner has walked away. The Child Maintenance Service should step up efforts to identify and pursue absent parents who do not pay their fair share towards their child. We, the community, have a clear duty to support and assist those in need. To help those where a helping hand will restore them to independence and self-reliance. But there is an obligation on individuals as well as the State, and mutual help starts with individuals taking some responsibility for themselves. Finally, if (and this is where I am in full agreement with colleagues campaigning to dramatically reduce child poverty) we make substantial sums of money available to overcome hardship, then a comprehensive approach to supporting the families must surely be the best way to achieve this. As ever in politics there is a trade off. What you spend on handing over cash is not available to invest in public services: that is the reality. Help from the moment a child is born, not just with childcare but with nurturing and child development. Dedicated backing to gain skills and employment and to taper the withdrawal of help so that it genuinely becomes worthwhile having and keeping a job. A contract between the taxpayer and the individual or household. Government is about difficult choices, that is why Keir Starmer and his colleagues are agonising over what to do next.
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Thousands of Britain's biggest jobless families in line for taxpayer-funded windfalls if Labour or Reform go through with plans to lift two-child benefit cap
Thousands of Britain's biggest jobless families could receive huge windfalls from the taxpayer under plans to scrap the two-child benefit cap. Labour and Reform are both pushing to ditch the policy brought in by the Tories in 2017 despite the £3.5billion cost it would incur. Critics of the cap claim it has worsened child poverty. But analysis of official figures shows that ditching it would hand thousands of pounds a year in extra benefits to 180,000 large families in which no one goes out to work. Former work and pensions secretary Esther McVey last night said the figures underlined the case for keeping the cap in place. 'Encouraging people to have children that they cannot afford themselves, and expecting others to pick up the tab for them, is financially and morally indefensible,' she said. 'I expect nothing better from Labour, but it is a mistake for Nigel Farage to chase Labour to the Left.' Ms McVey said it was 'bizarre' for Reform to want to 'expand the welfare state in this way' after voting against lifting the cap in a ballot on the King's Speech last summer. She said the Tories were now the only party 'standing up for taxpayers and for common sense in this matter', echoing comments made by party leader Kemi Badenoch in this newspaper yesterday. The benefit cap limits means-tested benefits like universal credit and child tax credit payments to the first two children, costing families a typical £3,455 in lost benefits for each additional child. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated the two-child cap costs affected families an average of £4,300 each. Figures, produced by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), show that more than 450,000 families were affected by the cap last year. Around three-fifths (280,000) had three children, while a quarter (120,000) had four children and 56,000 had five or more. The DWP does not provide a breakdown of payments to the biggest families. But separate figures held by HM Revenue and Customs show that child benefit, which is not subject to the cap, was paid to more than 16,000 families with six children, more than 5,000 with seven children and even to 15 families with 13 children or more. Of the 450,000 families affected in total, around three-fifths include at least one adult who is in some form of work. This leaves around 180,000 where no one in the household is in any kind of paid work. The figures will fuel the growing political debate over whether to soften the impact of the cap or ditch it altogether. They come a day after Mrs Badenoch accused Labour and Reform of engaging in a 'race to the bottom' over welfare. The Tory leader said it was wrong to ask taxpayers, 'many of whom are struggling to raise their own children or choosing not to have them in the first place, to fund unlimited child support for others'. She added: 'Welfare traps people, builds dependency and it drives up costs for everyone.' Opinion polls show consistent public support for the cap. But the Conservatives are now the only major party defending the policy. Dozens of Labour MPs are pushing for the cap to be scrapped as part of a review into tackling child poverty, which has now been delayed until the autumn. One minister told the Mail there was a 'widespread feeling at all levels of the party that it is wrong to be penalising children in this way'. Sir Keir Starmer, who is facing a wider Labour revolt on welfare, confirmed this week that the Government is looking at 'all options' to tackle child poverty, including ending the cap. Other, cheaper options being considered by ministers include raising the cap to the first three children or removing it for all children until the age of five. Gordon Brown is urging Chancellor Rachel Reeves to consider new taxes on gambling and the banks to fund the removal of the 'cruel' cap. Mr Farage raised eyebrows this week when he announced that a Reform-led government would ditch the cap completely. The Reform leader – who is targeting disaffected Labour voters – said his party backed the move 'not because we support a benefits culture' but in order to help families struggling to make ends meet. The cap applies to third and additional children born after April 2017 when the policy was introduced. As a result, the number of affected families is increasing every year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said it was eventually likely to affect 800,000 families.
