Ministers urged to implement 'triple lock' for child benefits
All four UK Children's Commissioners - from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - have backed Dame Rachel's call for a 'triple-lock' on child benefits that would introduce annual uplifts. The children's watchdogs have also repeated their demand for the Government to end the two-child benefits limit, in a move likely to pile further pressure on Sir Keir Starmer following growing calls for a review of the policy from Labour backbenchers.
A new report from the Children's Commissioner's, based on the experiences of 128 children between January and March this year, noted a range of concerns including lack of access to healthy food and living in cramped and poor conditions.
A 7-year-old girl told Dame Rachel (pictured) that rats come into her family's kitchen at night while a 15-year-old boy told of food packages arriving 'out of date and mouldy', leaving his family hungry. While some children said they felt a sense of shame over their situation, Dame Rachel said it is 'society at large and decision-makers that should be ashamed of the fact that children don't have enough money'.
Other proposals from the Children's Commissioner to tackle child poverty include free bus travel for all school-age children, auto-enrolment for free school meals for all eligible children and priority for housing to be given to children in low-income households. Dame Rachel - whose office was commissioned to carry out its report to feed into the Government's child poverty review - said while there is 'no quick fix to ending child poverty', she feels it is 'very clear that any child poverty strategy must be built on the foundation of scrapping the two-child limit'.
The latest official estimates, for the year to March 2024, suggest there were a record 4.45 million children living in poverty in the UK. The Government is due to publish a child poverty strategy in the autumn and campaigners have said it must include a commitment to remove the two-child benefit limit. The limit, which came into effect under the Conservatives in April 2017, restricts child tax credit and universal credit to the first two children in most households. Estimates suggest that scrapping the policy would cost the Government up to £3.5billion by the end of this Parliament.
Dame Rachel said the findings of her report reveal the 'real hardship' and 'an almost-Dickensian level of poverty' facing some children in England today. The commissioner said in recent years she has seen a change in children's comments, noting that issues traditionally seen as 'adult' concerns 'are now keenly felt by children'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.png%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘We failed those who protected us': Independent readers react to UK's ‘shameful' MoD data breach
A catastrophic Ministry of Defence data breach that exposed the details of thousands of Afghans seeking refuge in the UK was kept secret for nearly two years under an unprecedented superinjunction, The Independent has revealed. The leak, which occurred in February 2022, compromised sensitive information about applicants to the MoD's Arap resettlement scheme – a programme for Afghans who had supported British forces and now feared Taliban reprisals. Officials launched a top-secret response, codenamed Operation Rubific, resulting in the covert evacuation of more than 16,000 people to the UK. The government was prepared to relocate up to 42,000 in total at a projected cost of £7bn. The extraordinary cover-up meant MPs, the public and even many within Whitehall were kept in the dark. A court battle led by The Independent and other media finally overturned the superinjunction this week, raising serious questions about transparency, accountability, and the treatment of those who risked their lives for Britain. Reactions from readers have been swift and damning, touching on moral responsibility, government secrecy, institutional incompetence, and the human cost of this breach. Many drew parallels with past scandals, while others demanded consequences and urgent reform. Here's what you had to say: Britain has a moral responsibility It is an expensive programme, that is true, but the problem is a very big one. The whole thing was bungled from the start – remember Dominic Raab staying on his holiday in Crete while Kabul was being evacuated? And the nature of the leak is just incredible. The billions this costs, spread out over several years, are desperately needed elsewhere, but as with the Gurkhas, Britain has a moral responsibility. RegCostello Strain (i) 'Prioritisation of Ukrainian nationals' and (ii) 'drastically increased work-from-home arrangements for civil servants' were the main reasons given for the months-long consular waits for visas and passport processing in 2022 and 2023. I wonder whether this massive evacuation from Afghanistan contributed to that strain, or whether it was all managed by a separate–and–covert department. Either way, covert or not, every resource has its limit, doesn't it? Ever more freely and transparently may truths emerge! IndySpannerPhones Many are still in danger Hopefully the Labour government will quickly step up the process of getting all to safety. It's been over a year, but many are still in danger. The government needs to ensure that 10 per cent of evacuees do not end up homeless, as they suggested could be the case in October 2024. PropagandaoftheDeed A national shame The way we treated these people who helped us at great risk is a national shame. Albert Ginwallah Corruption or shambles? Hmmm... so Britain's security is more at risk from the government and MoD! Well, I for one am not surprised at all. And that goes for the cover-up and lies from successive governments! Look at the Post Office and Horizon, the blood contamination saga. Is it corruption or a shambles? Red Dragon Has the person been sacked? My first question is: has the person who sent the email been sacked and prosecuted for breaching confidentiality as well as costing the country some £400m? If not, why not? TomHawk Spare a thought for Afghan women This was a chaotic Tory mess-up, as is traditional. Against the scale of the issue, this ethical UK response is tiny. Spare a thought for the 450k Afghan refugee women forcibly repatriated from Iran and Pakistan since Jan 2025, who are instantly criminalised for travelling alone back to a medieval regime where women and girls have a value less than livestock. Herbacious Scandal after scandal Is there anything the UK government can run? Scandal after scandal after scandal. Billions upon billions p***** up the wall. A little bridge in a London park, £36 million? Chichee Let's have an expensive public inquiry Wow – a government cover-up. That's a surprise. Let's have an expensive public inquiry at the cost to us taxpayers that will last the next five years, with the familiar outcome stating lessons will be learnt… Once that's out of the way, we can then promote the 'guilty' individuals to the House of Lords. theSpycatcher A get-out clause A "superinjunction" is basically the get-out clause for despotic governments (or in the case of Britain, the rancid ruling class). stonia Keeping the public in the dark How ironic that the British establishment invests huge efforts in keeping the public in the dark about so many things of public interest – and yet is incapable of protecting sensitive data when lives actually depend on it. Danilov How? Data like this should never leave a secure government server. What on earth is it doing being emailed to random people and posted on Facebook? And how do you 'inadvertently share' a file? sj99 Incompetence should have consequences Incompetence on such a massive scale should have consequences; otherwise, it sends the wrong message. It says: don't worry about being diligent, do what you like, it doesn't matter. Sean Shameful As if the data breach itself wasn't appalling enough, the fact that this individual is still employed in another department at the MoD is absolutely shameful. Cyclone8 Only in the UK public sector... Where else but the UK public sector can someone do something that puts people's lives at risk and costs £400m to sort out, yet keep your job and your pension? If there is any better illustration of how we are let down by our public sector, I can't think of it. These days, our public sector is the refuge of those who should not be let loose with a broom, let alone handle sensitive matters. TomHawk We are failing to protect those we put at risk Bloody shambles. We should have offered sanctuary to those who were at risk just because of who their former employer was – the MoD. While the news and politics are all about 'illegal immigrants, ' we are failing to protect those we put at risk. Shameful. Snaughter
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Steve Parish says Crystal Palace will appeal against Europa League exclusion
Crystal Palace will mount a legal challenge to UEFA's decision to exclude them from next season's Europa League, with chairman Steve Parish announcing the club will appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The FA Cup winners have been demoted to the Conference League owing to what Europe's governing body says is a conflict of interest regarding former director and co-owner John Textor, who also owns part of Ligue 1 side Lyon. The American stepped away from Palace at the start of July, but the ownership issue relates to the end of last season when the club secured a first European appearance by beating Manchester City at Wembley. UEFA's ruling would mean Nottingham Forest, who finished seventh in the Premier League, taking Palace's place in the Europa League. 'We are still fighting,' Parish told the The Rest is Football podcast. 'There's an appeal process, so we go to CAS which is the court for arbitration and, you know, we're very hopeful. We think we've got great legal arguments. 'We don't think this is the right decision by any means. We know unequivocally that John didn't have decisive influence over the club. 'We know we proved that beyond all reasonable doubt because it's a fact.'
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Prevent programme should continue referrals for no ideology
Prevent, the Government's counter-terror programme, could work better as part of a violence prevention strategy in the long term and should apply to those fascinated by extreme violence, a watchdog has said. Independent Prevent Commissioner David Anderson KC has recommended the deradicalisation initiative should remain open to those with no fixed ideology in his report published on Wednesday. The review, looking at lessons learned from the cases of MP Sir David Amess's murderer Ali Harbi Ali and Southport murderer Axel Rudakubana, said 'intensive' efforts have been made to improve processes, but the 'jury is out' on some of the changes. Lord Anderson said: 'A huge amount of effort has already gone into making Prevent a stronger programme than the one which failed to deal in 2014 with the future killer of Sir David Amess. 'A blizzard of further initiatives has followed the Southport murders of last summer. Though it is too early for all of these to be fully evaluated, taken together they will reduce the chances of such failings being repeated. 'But more needs to be done. It has to be clear that people with a fascination with extreme violence can be suitable subjects for Prevent, even when they have no discernible ideology.' He added: 'In the longer term, I believe that Prevent could work better as part of a comprehensive violence prevention and safeguarding strategy.' The report recommended for a Cabinet Office task force to be set up to explore the possibility of formally connecting Prevent to a broader violence prevention and safeguarding system. It comes as the commissioner for the Commission for Countering Extremism, Robin Simcox, told the Commons' Home Affairs Committee that if Prevent shifted its focus towards taking on more cases of those with interests in extreme violence, it would mean the system 'isn't really a counter-terrorism programme any more'. He told MPs on Tuesday it would be a 'pretty fundamental shift in what Prevent is', adding: 'Prevent better brace itself for an awful lot of referrals.' Meanwhile, the interim Prevent commissioner's report also called for the body to 'up its game in the online world, where most radicalisation takes place'. Lord Anderson's report said that approaches to understanding organised terrorist activity from the last two decades are 'insufficient' for understanding digital movements of self-radicalised extremists, whose online behaviours are 'increasingly difficult to detect and interpret'. Speaking at the Home Affairs select committee on Tuesday, Lord Anderson said the average age of a person referred to Prevent is now 16 years old, and 40% are aged 11-15 so they are 'dealing here with digital natives'. The report concluded: 'Wider decisions loom on how Prevent can be better tailored to the online world inhabited by so many of its subjects; how best to deal with those whose ideology amounts to little more than a fascination with extreme violence; and whether Prevent should ultimately be embedded in a more general violence reduction strategy.' Lord Anderson detailed that he heard evidence from across the country of a large increase in Prevent referrals in the first quarter of this year following the publicity of Rudakubana's case. He added that reactions to popular Netflix series Adolescence on the theme of 'incels' may have also encouraged more referrals. Latest figures on Prevent referrals for 2023-2024 included in the report show 36% of 6,921 cases were made up of concerns of vulnerability but no ideology or counter-terror risk, followed by 19% extreme right wing and 18% for conflicted ideology. The report follows Prevent Learning Reviews published into the two cases. A review assessing Rudakubana's closed referrals to the programme years before he went on to murder three girls, and attempted to kill eight others and two adults, found too much focus was placed on the absence of a distinct ideology. Harbi Ali's case was also deemed to be closed too early after 'problematic' assessments, before he went on to kill veteran MP Sir David seven years later. Reacting to the Prevent commissioner's report on Wednesday, Radd Seiger, the adviser and spokesperson for the family of Sir David, said the family are 'deeply upset' and 'frankly offended' by the way Lord Anderson's report has been handled by the Home Office. He said the family were given 'next to no notice' of the timing or advance sight of the report, adding media leaks were a further insult to the family. Mr Seiger said they also received a 'dismissive' letter from the Home Secretary, which he said was designed to 'protect the Government following its failings' and not support them. The review on Prevent also comes after the terror watchdog recommended for a new offence to address the gap for lone individuals planning mass killings. In March, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, said the terrorism definition should not be changed in the wake of the Southport murders, but instead the law could be changed to create an offence to prevent mass casualty attacks before they happen, similar to terrorism offences applying to an offender preparing for an attack.
