The UK is ‘not a country for children’, warns England’s oldest children’s charity
4.3 MILLION CHILDREN LIVE IN POVERTY
PA ARCHIVE
Evening Standard
The head of England’s oldest children’s charity has warned that the UK is “not a country for children” and blasted political parties for ignoring young people in their general election campaigning.
Carol Homden, chief executive of Coram, said children have been “conspicuous by their absence” in the campaigns, despite life getting worse for them after decades of progress.
She said there has not been enough focus on children in the run up to the election, despite 4.3 million children living in poverty, record numbers of children in care, soaring mental health problems and huge pressure on childcare.
She warned: “The UK in 2024 is not a country for children and young people. This must change.”
She added: “With just one day to go until the general election, children and young people have been conspicuous by their absence in the campaign to date as the parties have traded blows over their respective programmes.
“For most of my time as CEO of Coram the big decisions made by government have rarely put the impact on the lives of the younger generation at the forefront of the decision-making process.
The head of England’s oldest children’s charity has warned that the UK is “not a country for children” and blasted political parties for ignoring young people in their general election campaigning.
Carol Homden, chief executive of Coram, said children have been “conspicuous by their absence” in the campaigns, despite life getting worse for them after decades of progress.
She said there has not been enough focus on children in the run up to the election, despite 4.3 million children living in poverty, record numbers of children in care, soaring mental health problems and huge pressure on childcare.
She warned: “The UK in 2024 is not a country for children and young people. This must change.”
She added: “With just one day to go until the general election, children and young people have been conspicuous by their absence in the campaign to date as the parties have traded blows over their respective programmes.
“For most of my time as CEO of Coram the big decisions made by government have rarely put the impact on the lives of the younger generation at the forefront of the decision-making process.
“Both our own direct experience of delivering services to meet growing demand as well as a wide range of data suggest that, for many, life for children and young people today is getting worse after decades of progress.”
Dr Homden’s intervention comes after Coram, which was established in 1739 as the Foundling Hospital, called on the new government for financial and policy commitments to benefit children, at a cost of up to £17.7billion.
This “triple key” of investments for children would give them the economic security the “triple lock” on pensions gave to older people, she said.
Speaking on Tuesday, Dr Homden said: “Is the goal that we educate, feed and nurture our children and young people and ensure their rights are upheld too much to ask? Or is it the minimum that a civilised society should be offering its next generation to safeguard our future?”
Coram has also released data showing that the vast majority of councils across England are not confident they can deliver all of the promised free childcare places pledged by the government in its huge expansion of childcare.
Research published by Coram Family and Childcare found that just 11 per cent of councils in England are confident they will have enough places to meet demand by September 2025, which is when working parents have been told they can get 30 hours free childcare for children aged nine months and above.
Three quarter of councils said their biggest concern is recruiting enough staff.
Dr Homden has also warned that London will become a ghost city if more is not done to make life more affordable for families.
She told the Evening Standard that London is not a child-friendly city and said more must be done to stem the exodus of families, who are under more pressure from the cost-of-living crisis than those elsewhere.
In a blog post published today Dr Homden said: “Coram’s own YouGov polling shows that the majority of the public understand the need for a greater focus on our youngest citizens and that this crosses lines of party and age.
“Substantial majorities are in favour of more support for children in care, free school meals and the reforms necessary to deliver a first-class early education and childcare system.”
Abolishing the two-child limit is just the start for tackling child poverty
Kitty Stewart
Ruth Patrick
July 2nd, 2024
Kitty Stewart
Ruth Patrick
July 2nd, 2024
LSE
While Labour has avoided pledging to end the “two-child limit” on means-tested benefits, which has been shown to worsen child poverty, it has committed to a broader child poverty strategy. Kitty Stewart and Ruth Patrick consider the significance of this manifesto commitment and explain why abolishing the two-child limit is crucial, but only the start of what is required.
Much noise has rightly surrounded Labour’s decision not to commit to abolishing the “two-child limit” (sometimes known as the two-child benefit cap) – a policy that since 2017 has limited means-tested financial support from the state to the first two children in the family only. The cap has received considerable attention over the past year, with evidence showing its growing reach and its negative impact on child poverty. There is no question of the urgent need to scrap it. But to really tackle child poverty, Labour’s policies need to go much further than that.
Our own project has underlined the devastating implications of the two-child limit for children. Our research highlights the multiple ways that children are missing out as a result of the policy, from adequate food, heating and clothing, to school trips, extra-curricular activities, family outings and social life.
The policy is failing to meet its apparent aims of reducing births and increasing parental employment.
We also find that the policy is failing to meet its apparent aims of reducing births and increasing parental employment. There has been negligible impact on fertility in potentially affected families, and no evidence that parents with more than two children have increased their employment as a result of not receiving the extra benefit. Our qualitative interviews have helped to make sense of the absence of any effects, illustrating the complexity of people’s lives (many families in receipt of benefits had their children when times were better), as well as the barriers to paid work parents in many affected families face due to their caring responsibilities. In fact, we find that the cut in financial support can even make paid work feel more out of reach, because of the difficulty of meeting upfront childcare costs and because of the impact of financial worries on mental health and mental bandwidth.
Any Government committed to tackling child poverty head-on must be able to stand up and condemn a policy that is explicitly designed to create hardship.
Given the weight and urgency of this evidence base, it is surprising and disappointing that Labour has not come out clearly against the policy, although their position has appeared to soften in recent weeks. Any Government committed to tackling child poverty head-on must be able to stand up and condemn a policy that is explicitly designed to create hardship. This has been a failure from Labour in opposition, one which they will hopefully rectify very soon after taking office.
One indication that they will do so is their manifesto pledge to “an ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty”. This in fact has the potential to be a much more significant and wide-reaching commitment than a promise to eradicate the two-child limit alone – depending on how it is translated into practice.
A serious child poverty strategy will have to abolish the two-child limit
There is clearly no way to tackle child poverty effectively in the UK without getting rid of the two child limit (or introducing an entirely new benefit which mitigates it – as the Scottish Child Payment goes some way towards doing north of the border). Children in larger families, those with three or more children, are at much higher risk of poverty, in part because of higher family needs and in part because of greater barriers to employment. Reducing the support they receive makes no sense at all. This is why the two-child limit has been described as the worst social security policy ever. And it is why a serious anti-poverty strategy will have to abolish it.
However, what is needed to reverse recent rises in child poverty and ultimately go further goes well beyond lifting the two-child limit. While the debate has crystallized around this policy, a child poverty strategy will need at least three other central planks.
Removing the two-child benefit limit is only the beginning
First, there are a series of other holes that have been cut into our social security safety net over the last decade. A key one is the ‘benefit cap’ – distinct from the two-child limit (though families can be affected by both), this cap limits the total amount a family can receive in state support (including for housing) if no-one in the family is earning a given minimum amount. Among our study participants was Lucy, whose family of five lives on £65 per week after housing costs because of the benefit cap. At our last interview with Lucy, her family were about to be evicted as she could no longer find a way to cover the private rent for their damp and rat-infested home, and the landlord was threatening a further rise.
Action on housing costs and quality is the second essential component of a child poverty strategy. The last Labour Government had more success in reducing child poverty ‘before housing costs’ than ‘after housing costs’. Since then, a series of cuts to housing support (e.g. reforms to Local Housing Allowance) have exacerbated the situation. While landlords can set rents as they please, and families like Lucy’s have almost no chance of finding a home in the social rented sector, millions of families will be left struggling to make ends meet. Further, damp, overcrowded and insecure housing itself damages children’s health and development.
Third, we need a wider joined up approach that pulls in other key services. The 2010 Child Poverty Act required local and national government and key services like schools and the police to work together to reduce child poverty and its impact, and there is evidence that this was making a difference before the Act was dismantled. One example of what is possible is the work the Child Poverty Action Group does to reduce the cost of the school day, aiming to ensure that even where home finances are strained, this doesn’t impact on children’s experience in education.
There will always be families for whom full-time paid work, or indeed any paid work, is difficult at a given time.
Finally, there is a role for policy that makes it easier for parents to find flexible and well-paid work with good chances of progression. This includes policy on childcare, but also on pay and employment quality. But there is a big caveat to watch out for here: while facilitating parental employment is important, and can make a real difference to any individual family, our work has shown clearly that it is not the central answer to child poverty. There will always be families for whom full-time paid work, or indeed any paid work, is difficult at a given time. As more parents move into work or extend their hours, this in fact creates more rather than less need for redistribution to those who are not able to contribute in this way at present. Until this is understood, child poverty will continue to be with us.
One to watch
Relying on employment alone to deliver child poverty reductions will not deliver the results needed. And – as the 4.3 million children living in poverty and their families would tell any politician willing to listen – results are needed, and fast.
Those concerned about Labour’s refusal to eradicate the two-child limit can take some comfort in their manifesto commitment to a child poverty strategy. It is after all a far-reaching child poverty strategy that we need, not just the abolition of one particularly damaging policy (although we certainly need that too). But the commitment to a strategy is admittedly loose and non-specific. If Labour forms the next administration, we should soon have a better idea of how seriously it can be taken. A key test will be whether the strategy includes significant action on social security, housing, and the role of wider services. Relying on employment alone to deliver child poverty reductions will not deliver the results needed. And – as the 4.3 million children living in poverty and their families would tell any politician willing to listen – results are needed, and fast.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: Ralf Geithe on Shutterstock.
About the author
Kitty Stewart
Kitty Stewart is Associate Professor of Social Policy at LSE and Co-Investigator on the Benefit Changes and Larger Families research programme, funded by the Nuffield Foundation. Her co-authored guide to ending child poverty in the UK was published by the Child Poverty Action Group.
Ruth Patrick
Ruth Patrick is Professor of Social Policy at the University of York and the Principal Investigator of the Benefit Changes and Larger Families research programme.
While Labour has avoided pledging to end the “two-child limit” on means-tested benefits, which has been shown to worsen child poverty, it has committed to a broader child poverty strategy. Kitty Stewart and Ruth Patrick consider the significance of this manifesto commitment and explain why abolishing the two-child limit is crucial, but only the start of what is required.
Much noise has rightly surrounded Labour’s decision not to commit to abolishing the “two-child limit” (sometimes known as the two-child benefit cap) – a policy that since 2017 has limited means-tested financial support from the state to the first two children in the family only. The cap has received considerable attention over the past year, with evidence showing its growing reach and its negative impact on child poverty. There is no question of the urgent need to scrap it. But to really tackle child poverty, Labour’s policies need to go much further than that.
Our own project has underlined the devastating implications of the two-child limit for children. Our research highlights the multiple ways that children are missing out as a result of the policy, from adequate food, heating and clothing, to school trips, extra-curricular activities, family outings and social life.
The policy is failing to meet its apparent aims of reducing births and increasing parental employment.
We also find that the policy is failing to meet its apparent aims of reducing births and increasing parental employment. There has been negligible impact on fertility in potentially affected families, and no evidence that parents with more than two children have increased their employment as a result of not receiving the extra benefit. Our qualitative interviews have helped to make sense of the absence of any effects, illustrating the complexity of people’s lives (many families in receipt of benefits had their children when times were better), as well as the barriers to paid work parents in many affected families face due to their caring responsibilities. In fact, we find that the cut in financial support can even make paid work feel more out of reach, because of the difficulty of meeting upfront childcare costs and because of the impact of financial worries on mental health and mental bandwidth.
Any Government committed to tackling child poverty head-on must be able to stand up and condemn a policy that is explicitly designed to create hardship.
Given the weight and urgency of this evidence base, it is surprising and disappointing that Labour has not come out clearly against the policy, although their position has appeared to soften in recent weeks. Any Government committed to tackling child poverty head-on must be able to stand up and condemn a policy that is explicitly designed to create hardship. This has been a failure from Labour in opposition, one which they will hopefully rectify very soon after taking office.
One indication that they will do so is their manifesto pledge to “an ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty”. This in fact has the potential to be a much more significant and wide-reaching commitment than a promise to eradicate the two-child limit alone – depending on how it is translated into practice.
A serious child poverty strategy will have to abolish the two-child limit
There is clearly no way to tackle child poverty effectively in the UK without getting rid of the two child limit (or introducing an entirely new benefit which mitigates it – as the Scottish Child Payment goes some way towards doing north of the border). Children in larger families, those with three or more children, are at much higher risk of poverty, in part because of higher family needs and in part because of greater barriers to employment. Reducing the support they receive makes no sense at all. This is why the two-child limit has been described as the worst social security policy ever. And it is why a serious anti-poverty strategy will have to abolish it.
However, what is needed to reverse recent rises in child poverty and ultimately go further goes well beyond lifting the two-child limit. While the debate has crystallized around this policy, a child poverty strategy will need at least three other central planks.
Removing the two-child benefit limit is only the beginning
First, there are a series of other holes that have been cut into our social security safety net over the last decade. A key one is the ‘benefit cap’ – distinct from the two-child limit (though families can be affected by both), this cap limits the total amount a family can receive in state support (including for housing) if no-one in the family is earning a given minimum amount. Among our study participants was Lucy, whose family of five lives on £65 per week after housing costs because of the benefit cap. At our last interview with Lucy, her family were about to be evicted as she could no longer find a way to cover the private rent for their damp and rat-infested home, and the landlord was threatening a further rise.
Action on housing costs and quality is the second essential component of a child poverty strategy. The last Labour Government had more success in reducing child poverty ‘before housing costs’ than ‘after housing costs’. Since then, a series of cuts to housing support (e.g. reforms to Local Housing Allowance) have exacerbated the situation. While landlords can set rents as they please, and families like Lucy’s have almost no chance of finding a home in the social rented sector, millions of families will be left struggling to make ends meet. Further, damp, overcrowded and insecure housing itself damages children’s health and development.
Third, we need a wider joined up approach that pulls in other key services. The 2010 Child Poverty Act required local and national government and key services like schools and the police to work together to reduce child poverty and its impact, and there is evidence that this was making a difference before the Act was dismantled. One example of what is possible is the work the Child Poverty Action Group does to reduce the cost of the school day, aiming to ensure that even where home finances are strained, this doesn’t impact on children’s experience in education.
There will always be families for whom full-time paid work, or indeed any paid work, is difficult at a given time.
Finally, there is a role for policy that makes it easier for parents to find flexible and well-paid work with good chances of progression. This includes policy on childcare, but also on pay and employment quality. But there is a big caveat to watch out for here: while facilitating parental employment is important, and can make a real difference to any individual family, our work has shown clearly that it is not the central answer to child poverty. There will always be families for whom full-time paid work, or indeed any paid work, is difficult at a given time. As more parents move into work or extend their hours, this in fact creates more rather than less need for redistribution to those who are not able to contribute in this way at present. Until this is understood, child poverty will continue to be with us.
One to watch
Relying on employment alone to deliver child poverty reductions will not deliver the results needed. And – as the 4.3 million children living in poverty and their families would tell any politician willing to listen – results are needed, and fast.
Those concerned about Labour’s refusal to eradicate the two-child limit can take some comfort in their manifesto commitment to a child poverty strategy. It is after all a far-reaching child poverty strategy that we need, not just the abolition of one particularly damaging policy (although we certainly need that too). But the commitment to a strategy is admittedly loose and non-specific. If Labour forms the next administration, we should soon have a better idea of how seriously it can be taken. A key test will be whether the strategy includes significant action on social security, housing, and the role of wider services. Relying on employment alone to deliver child poverty reductions will not deliver the results needed. And – as the 4.3 million children living in poverty and their families would tell any politician willing to listen – results are needed, and fast.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: Ralf Geithe on Shutterstock.
About the author
Kitty Stewart
Kitty Stewart is Associate Professor of Social Policy at LSE and Co-Investigator on the Benefit Changes and Larger Families research programme, funded by the Nuffield Foundation. Her co-authored guide to ending child poverty in the UK was published by the Child Poverty Action Group.
Ruth Patrick
Ruth Patrick is Professor of Social Policy at the University of York and the Principal Investigator of the Benefit Changes and Larger Families research programme.
No comments:
Post a Comment