Figures reveal scale of child poverty in North Lanarkshire driven by UK Government's two child benefit cap
New figures have revealed the scale of child poverty driven by the UK Government's two child benefit cap, with 7,470 children in North Lanarkshire alone hit by the policy over the past year.
The figures, published by the UK Department for Work and Pensions, show more than 100,000 children across Scotland are now affected, including some of the most deprived communities in the country.
North Lanarkshire is the second-worst hit area in Scotland, behind only Glasgow.
Clare Adamson MSP for Motherwell and Wishaw said: 'These figures are heart-breaking. To think that nearly 7,500 children in North Lanarkshire have been caught in the grip of poverty because of this Westminster-imposed policy is nothing short of shameful.
'We know poverty isn't inevitable – it's a political choice. And Keir Starmer's choice to keep this Tory-era policy shows where his priorities lie.
'In contrast, the Scottish Government is working to lift children out of poverty, not push them further in. It's time for Labour to match that ambition, scrap this cruel cap, and invest in our children's futures.'
'My office regularly provides support at many of the food banks across Motherwell and Wishaw, and we are witnessing first-hand the devastating impact these cuts are having on people, both psychologically and physically.
'These aren't just numbers on a spreadsheet; they are real families, in our communities, struggling to survive.'
*Don't miss the latest headlines from around Lanarkshire. Sign up to our newsletters here.
And did you know Lanarkshire Live had its own app? Download yours for free here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
11 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Plan to strip citizenship from ‘extremists' during appeals clears Commons
The Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill was passed at third reading by MPs, and will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. Under the legislation, alleged extremists who lose their British citizenship but win an appeal against the decision will not have it reinstated before the Home Office has exhausted all avenues for appeal. During the Bill's committee stage, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy said black, Asian and ethnic minority communities will be 'alarmed' by the proposals. Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the legislation has 'nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour'. Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse said: 'My trouble with this legislation is that it puts a question mark over certain citizens. 'When it's used with increasing frequency, it does put a question mark over people's status as a citizen of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, is something that ought to be of concern.' Intervening, Mr Jarvis said: 'He's making his points in a very considered way, but he is levelling quite serious charges against the Government. 'Can I say to him, in absolute good faith, that our intentions here have nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour.' Mr Malthouse said: 'I'm not concerned about it necessarily falling into his hands as a power, but we just don't know who is going to be in his place in the future, and we're never quite sure how these powers might develop.' He continued: 'What I'm trying to do with my amendment is to explain to him that this is an area of law where I would urge him to tread carefully, where I would urge him to think about the compromises that he's creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain.' The MP for North West Hampshire had tabled an amendment which would allow a person to retain their citizenship during an appeals process if they face 'a real and substantial threat of serious harm' as a result of the order. It would also have required a judge to suspend the removal of citizenship if the person's ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal was impacted, or the duration of the appeal process was excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority. Ms Ribeiro-Addy spoke in support of the amendment, she said: 'Certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always – whether it is the stated intention or not – disproportionately impacts them. 'And to put this clearly to the minister, I'm talking about people of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, those who have parents who may have been born elsewhere, or grandparents, for that matter, they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation. 'Those of us who have entitlement to citizenship from other countries for no other reason than where our parents may have been born, or where our grandparents may have been born, or simply because of our ethnic origin, we know that we are at higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked. 'And when such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship. It creates second-class citizens.' The MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill added: 'I would like to ask why the minister has not seen it fit to conduct an equality impact assessment on this Bill? I know it's an incredibly narrow scope, but these potential implications are vastly potentially impact-limited to specific communities.' At the conclusion of the committee stage, Mr Jarvis said: 'The power to deprive a person of British citizenship does not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths, it is used sparingly where a naturalised person has acquired citizenship fraudulently, or where it is conducive to the public good. 'Deprivation on conducive grounds is used against those who pose a serious threat to the UK, or whose conduct involves high harm. It is solely a person's behaviour which determines if they should be deprived of British citizenship, not their ethnicity or faith.' 'The impact on equalities has been assessed at all stages of this legislation,' he added. The Bill was passed on the nod.
The Herald Scotland
21 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Bill on Royal Albert Hall seatholders' ticket reforms backed by MPs
Roughly a quarter of the Albert Hall's seats fall into a category of being owned by long-time members. The 316 owners pay an annual seat rate, which this year was £1,880 plus VAT. It brings in about £2.3 million for the venue every year, Sir John said. He said the current arrangements meant on about 100 designated events each year, known as 'executive lettings', the owners give up their 1,268 seats for the venue to sell. They can also forgo their seats on other, non-specified occasions, boosting the venue and its charitable arm's coffers. However, there has been concern that the seat owners can personally sell tickets for their seats for other lucrative events on the resale markets for thousands of pounds. The Bill will amend the Royal Albert Hall's constitution to codify the practice of members forgoing their right to attend events. It will protect the hall from legal challenge over the voting process from seatholders over which concerts will be selected. Sir John, a former trustee of the venue, said: 'A seat in the hall is a property asset, and in the same way that if one's grandfather purchases a property which their descendants then eventually decide to sell, it is highly likely they will retrieve an amount of money way greater than the original investment. 'These are property assets, essentially, without which the hall could not have been built. But it was on that understanding, it was on an 999-year lease, and those who own that lease are, of course, entitled to do what they wish with it.' Labour MP Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) cited tickets for an Ed Sheeran concert which had been sold online for nearly £6,000. Ms Hodgson said: 'I was therefore horrified when tickets for events at the Royal Albert Hall, one of our country's most recognisable and cherished institutions, started appearing on sites such as Viagogo.' She said a 10-seat box was advertised for sale online recently for £3 million. The change needs to be approved in Parliament, because it will amend the Royal Albert Hall Act 1966. The Harold Wilson-era reforms put into law rules around the repair and maintenance of the venue – as well as rights of seatholders. The proposed legislation, which started in the House of Lords, was passed unanimously in the Commons at second reading. It will now return to be debated by peers.
Leader Live
27 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Bill on Royal Albert Hall seatholders' ticket reforms backed by MPs
Conservative former culture secretary Sir John Whittingdale, who spoke in support of the Bill, said the hall's 'unique' funding model, which included the sale of debentured seats to fund its 19th century construction, was an asset to the institution. Roughly a quarter of the Albert Hall's seats fall into a category of being owned by long-time members. The 316 owners pay an annual seat rate, which this year was £1,880 plus VAT. It brings in about £2.3 million for the venue every year, Sir John said. He said the current arrangements meant on about 100 designated events each year, known as 'executive lettings', the owners give up their 1,268 seats for the venue to sell. They can also forgo their seats on other, non-specified occasions, boosting the venue and its charitable arm's coffers. However, there has been concern that the seat owners can personally sell tickets for their seats for other lucrative events on the resale markets for thousands of pounds. The Bill will amend the Royal Albert Hall's constitution to codify the practice of members forgoing their right to attend events. It will protect the hall from legal challenge over the voting process from seatholders over which concerts will be selected. Sir John, a former trustee of the venue, said: 'A seat in the hall is a property asset, and in the same way that if one's grandfather purchases a property which their descendants then eventually decide to sell, it is highly likely they will retrieve an amount of money way greater than the original investment. 'These are property assets, essentially, without which the hall could not have been built. But it was on that understanding, it was on an 999-year lease, and those who own that lease are, of course, entitled to do what they wish with it.' Labour MP Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) cited tickets for an Ed Sheeran concert which had been sold online for nearly £6,000. Ms Hodgson said: 'I was therefore horrified when tickets for events at the Royal Albert Hall, one of our country's most recognisable and cherished institutions, started appearing on sites such as Viagogo.' She said a 10-seat box was advertised for sale online recently for £3 million. The change needs to be approved in Parliament, because it will amend the Royal Albert Hall Act 1966. The Harold Wilson-era reforms put into law rules around the repair and maintenance of the venue – as well as rights of seatholders. The proposed legislation, which started in the House of Lords, was passed unanimously in the Commons at second reading. It will now return to be debated by peers.
