This week, the government committed to making a fresh decision on how Local Welfare Assistance Schemes (LWAS) (also called Local Welfare Provision) will be funded in 2015/16. Their decision will be informed by a thorough examination of how schemes are functioning, and the needs of those that benefit from them - great news for the vulnerable people that rely on them in times of need.
With just a few days to go before the Scottish independence referendum John Dickie, Director of CPAG in Scotland, highlights how CPAG has informed the terms of debate and argues that the challenge now for anti-poverty campaigners is to ensure that heightened public engagement and concern with child poverty in campaign debates is harnessed for real change, wherever powers end up lying after September 18th.
In this, one of two guest blogs outlining why a Yes or No vote is in the best interest of ending child poverty in Scotland, Jim Gallagher, a contributing author to Poverty in Scotland 2014: the independence referendum and beyond, makes the case for the No campaign.
In this, one of two guest blogs outlining why a Yes or No vote is in the best interest of ending child poverty in Scotland, Cailean Gallagher, a contributing author to Poverty in Scotland 2014: the independence referendum and beyond, makes the case for the Yes campaign.
Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that he wants to see all domestic government policies subjected to a ‘family test’ in future, apparently to ensure that families aren’t undermined or made worse off financially. But does the ‘family test’ itself pass the test?
Initially at least, it may be difficult to understand why anyone would be against such an approach. Indeed, we have been arguing that government should pay attention to a wide range of policy areas, such as employment, benefits, and family support services, to reduce child poverty and help improve the lot of poor families for many years.
One concern, however, is that it’s unclear whether the proposed ‘family test’ applies to lone parent families, too.
New research has revealed that families on minimum wage are 18% short of the amount needed for a basic standard of living. Here, MN blogger Catherine Mann argues that parenting must not become the preserve of the rich.
Everyone knows that August is an expensive time to be a parent. Whether it's paying for a holiday away, funding all-day childcare while school is shut, or just buying a round of ice creams on a day out - the break from routine can't help but put additional pressure on the family budget. And that's before you start to restock the uniform drawers.
In the 1949 Ealing comedy Passport to Pimlico, residents of the London borough set themselves up as a separate state with predictably comic results. When Pimlico’s governing committee lifts post-war rationing, shoppers flood to the new dominion only to find themselves trapped when its borders are later closed. As the local policeman puts it to one hapless refugee, “You should never have travelled abroad without your passport, madam”.
New research by Child Poverty Action Group shows that the cost of raising a child threatens to tip an increasing number of families into poverty.
Children cost. A lot. New research published today shows that raising a child from birth to 18 requires a minimum of £83,155 for a couple, and £96,905 for a lone parent family. (In case you are wondering, it costs a lone parent more than a couple to bring up a child because there is only one adult to make offsetting savings from their own living expenses).
There’s a lot going on behind this eye-watering figure. Part of the story is the well-known fact that costs are rising, and rising fast. The price of food – a quarter of the basic budget required for a child – has risen at 25 per cent in the last six years; housing continues to consume a growing share of a family’s budget; and the price of childcare – which can amount up to 45 per cent of the total cost of a child if both parents work full-time - continues to increase apace.
At Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), we’ve had longstanding concerns about the use of sanctions, which are basically cuts to benefit payments of up to 100% for up to 3 years, and the obvious knock-on impacts on child poverty. And as the letter in today's Times that we and others have signed shows, we’re not alone in having profound concerns with how sanctions are working.
Until now, there’s been little authoritative evidence of how sanctions are being applied, rightly or wrongly, beyond data suggesting a huge increase in their application in recent years.
"I'm not going to flannel you, I'm going to give it to you straight. I like the child benefit, I wouldn't change child benefit, I wouldn't means-test it, I don't think that is a good idea."
So said David Cameron in March 2010. But the Prime Minister is being urged to drop this read-my-lips pledge when his party draws up its manifesto in the coming months.