Child Poverty And Child Benefit

According to Children's Minister Sarah Teather, there are still 2.8 million children living in poverty in the UK.

Child poverty in the UK is defined as 'household income below 60% of median income'. The median is the average of British income. I find it shallow that child poverty is assessed only in financial terms as physical and emotional development is equally important to all.

In the 1950s a widely publicised report from Joseph Rowntree, based on surveys in York, claimed that less than 5% of working class households were in poverty (although that figure was later questioned). Being a child of 50s I saw far more poverty then that I see today. It wasn't unusual for children to have only one pair of shoes and hand-me-downs for play and school wear and I can't recall any child intimidating another purely because of their clothing. We were more or less all in the same boat.

Family values were somewhat different then. Few households had money to spend on 'luxuries' such as new furnishings and anyone who was wealthy enough to buy new furniture from a sale room was fleetingly envied. Anything new, from a saucepan to a pair of shoes, was treasured by the owner. Money worries occurred in many families and 'treats' were few and far between. My family treat was a bottle of American Soda and one scoop of ice cream which my father bought on the first Sunday evening of every month. We would make 'ice drinks' with the ingredients and go to bed feeling extremely lucky.

There was no Pill in those days and I was aware of women, including my own mother, rallying round when another baby arrived in the street. A pram, cot and clothing were often supplied by other mothers on a loan basis.

Fathers usually had jobs in those days. Mothers stayed at home to look after the house and children, although my own mother decided she wanted to work and did so in 1952. I was a latch-key child cared for after school by friends' mothers until I was old enough to reach the door lock and let myself in, or my brother appeared.

Along came the Family Allowance, a 5 shilling (25p) a week payment given to parents - usually in the mother's name - only for their second and subsequent children. Its introduction was intended to prevent families being financially penalised for having children at a time when there were concerns that the birth rate had to be restored.

Now second-hand clothing is fashionable to a degree although most sale rooms have closed. The UK enjoys - in straight cash terms - some of the most generous child benefits in the world, with payouts more than twice the rate of France. Of the major Europeans economies only Germany pays more and includes extra payouts for parents who are out of work.

From next year child benefit is to be stopped for higher taxpayers and there is little argument about it. Those who earn less than £44,000 a year consider it fair. What it does do is make the child benefit no longer universal.

However the question was - does child benefit help lift a child out of poverty? It may not do as much as we like to think. In 2010 Frank Field was asked to investigate the benefit and came up with the idea of cutting it off once a child hits 13 and/or taxing it.  His proposals were rejected by those, like Yvette Cooper, who said "All families need support as their children grow".  But do they require or should they expect the help via the state?

Child poverty can only be reduced by parents taking responsibility for their children. The introduction of Sure Start centres in England was one of the few Labour successes, but owing to 'budget cuts', councils have begun to reduce their numbers.

Not every family needs official help with bringing up their children, but as a social democracy, we need to ensure that those children in need do not slip through the many child support charities and quangos, which are in constant need of more funding. Scotland is still dragging its heels since the government's Early Years Framework was published in 2008, although the introduction of a Minister for Children and Young People has brought the issue to the fore.

There is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow nor a bottomless pit overflowing with fifty pound notes to pay for these services. Frank Field may have been on the right track suggesting child benefit should be stopped earlier. Would curtailing it at 16 and reinvesting the savings into early year care, affect those 16+ year olds from continuing in formal education?

Somehow the poverty-benefit trap has to be broken and the only way is to nurture the physical and emotional wellbeing of our children.

Tweet

Has George Osborne Gone Far Enough?

Now we know.  The coalition government is going to stop child benefit for any family in which one parent is a higher rate tax payer.  That means that a family with one parent earning £44,000 or more will be worse off by £1.055.60 a year for their first child and £696.80 for others, (£20.30 and £13.40 respectively a week).

Because of the anomalies involved there has been much talk about 'loss of income' and the effect this will have upon the Iain Duncan Smith agenda of helping families.

Can child benefit be considered a 'loss of income'?

The Family Allowance was introduced in 1945 and was fully replaced by Child Benefit in 1979. Initially there was no allowance for the first child and it was only given to the second and subsequent children.  As we know this has been amended over the years and of 15 countries studied, the UK is unique in paying a premium for the first child.  Four of the countries, including the USA, do not have universal Child Benefit although the USA provides comparatively high levels of assistance to low income families.  Norway, on the other hand, represents the reverse of this position with high levels of support and low levels of means-tested support.

Just over half (55%) of children eligible are first children for whom the higher benefit is paid and the government is paying benefit for 12.7 million children. (1996 figures).
The whole idea of George Osborne's new policy is to save money.  Wouldn't it have been fairer to abolish the higher payment for the first child and slightly raise the payment for all children?

To exclude those who earn over £44,000 creates many anomalies as other commentators have stated today.

Let us remember Beveridge's arguments in favour of family allowances.  They are just as relevant today in many ways as they were in 1945, although I'm sure Beveridge never dreamt that the UK would be paying for the children of other EU countries - most of whom have never set foot in Britain - if a parent decides to come here.

It is unreasonable to seek to guarantee a subsistence level income during periods of

unemployment or disability without also ensuring sufficient income during periods of

earning. In spite of wage increases, unemployment, disability and large families were

the main indicators of poverty, the last of these because wages do not reflect the size

of an earner’s family.

It is dangerous to allow benefit during unemployment or disability to exceed earnings

during work. The gap between income during earning and during interruption of

earning cannot be kept large for people with large families “except either by making

their benefit in unemployment and disability inadequate, or by giving allowances for

children in time of earning and non-earning alike.”

Children’s allowances can help to restore the birth rate and act as a signal of the

national interest in children. “Children’s allowances should be regarded both as a

help to parents in meeting their responsibilities, and as an acceptance of new

responsibilities by the community.” 

Tweet

Haiti's Children

Many of Haiti's children have had no childhood. They are given away to other families by parents too poor to clothe and feed them, they are supposed to receive food, shelter and a schooling in return. For many the reality is different.

Since the devastating earthquake early last month many agencies have concerned themselves with the care of children and spoken publicly about the help required. It will be a mammoth task to attempt to reunite many of Haiti's children with their families because the collapse of the government will restrict the speed at which international agencies can work.

Last Friday a coach containing 33 Haitian children and 10 American missionaries, who claimed the children were orphans, were arrested trying to cross the border from Haiti to the Dominican Republic. Evidence has emerged that many of the 33 children with the missionaries were not orphans and some had been given by families who could no longer afford to keep them.

The group who call themselves the New Life Children's Refuge, had no paperwork and have been accused of child trafficking.

The Baptists insisted the children were orphans but last night on Channel 4 News, a Haitian pastor who was acting as an intermediary, said the children had been handed over voluntarily by their parents and he had a contact name, address and telephone number for each of them.

Since I heard this story I was uncomfortable with the spokeswoman's words: "God is the one who called us to come here and we just believed that this was his purpose." Sadly not all Christians are good people.

After reflecting on the pastor's words about a name, address and phone number, I realise these children may have had a lucky escape, a very lucky escape. If a family can't afford to clothe and feed their children would they have a telephone?

The official religion of Haiti is Roman Catholicism. Isn't it time the Vatican gained some common sense and permitted the use of condoms rather than have so many children subjugated to a life of hell?

These children will possibly be returned to their families who may well attempt to give them away again. What hope is there for them? The chance that some who offer them a better life just may be telling the truth?

Global Research provides a set of videos which give an eye-witness account of the overall current situation. You may find them worthwhile along with this article.

source

Tweet

A Statistic Which Shames Labour

A boy plays in a run-down street in Govan, Glasgow

Two million children now live in homes where there is no working adult. The Office for National Statistics said the number of children in workless households rose by an annual 170,000 to 1.9 million in April-June of this year, as fathers were among the hardest hit by swingeing job cuts.

One in six children now live in homes where no adult works. The number of children in homes where at least one adult of working age does not have a job also rose up 50,000 to 3.6 million.

While lone-parent households continue to make up the largest proportion of workless households at 40.4%, the figures suggest the latest increase is largely driven by fathers losing their jobs.

Wasn't the eradication of child poverty one of Labour's manifesto pledges since 1999? Yes it was.

Mr Brown, when Chancellor, set targets in 1998 to halve the 3.4 million children at that time living in poverty to 1.7 million by 2010 and eradicate it by 2020. (Source The Times)

In the past 12 years we’ve heard much about how labour are lifting children out of poverty but these figures show there has been little movement. Why? Labour and previous governments over the past 30+ years have slowly eroded the quality of education we offer our children. The introduction of comprehensive schools, with the loss of the academies and secondary moderns, squeezed children of all abilities under one roof. This deprived all children the chance to develop fully because teachers were unable to cope (through no fault of their own) with the variety of abilities presented to them. The children who were interested in learning vocational skills suffered most as facilities were far more limited than those offered in the ‘old’ secondary moderns.

Then we had the Labour policy which insisted schools stop any form of competition. They said this destroyed confidence in our children. Another mad idea which has been detrimental to our children’s development over recent years.

The answer to child poverty is to give our children a first class education and ensure each and every one of them can read and write. We now have two generations who may not have done a day’s work in their lives and their children see the hopelessness within the home. Surely it’s not beyond our politicians to ensure these children receive a schooling worthy of one of the richest countries in the world.

Throwing money at the problem, is not enough, it has to be thrown in the right direction. Continually upping benefits is a short-term, short-sighted solution which does little to help children from poorer homes achieve their potential.

Tweet