Survey finds larger lower-income families most likely to borrow for essentials
The findings suggest larger families are more at risk of acute financial pressures overall, amid widespread calls for the Government to scrap the two-child benefit limit in universal credit.
Nearly nine in 10 surveyed families (88%) reported going without daily essentials, compared with 82% of households with fewer children.
The research found 82% of larger families were found to be in arrears on bills, compared with 66% of households with fewer children and 27% of those without children.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), which conducted the survey, said the results demonstrated the importance of scrapping the two-child limit to deliver improvement in children's lives.
The JRF also argued that Government efforts to improve family services, early education and access to childcare 'must be complemented by measures to boost incomes'.
Maudie Johnson Hunter, economist at the JRF, called for the Government to put families' financial security 'at the heart of everything they do' as the cost of living 'is still grinding them down'.
She added: 'The Government can rewrite this story of enduring hardship.
'It has already begun with its plans to give children the best start in life by expanding family services and making high-quality childcare and early years education more accessible.
'But record numbers of large families are in arrears or have no choice but to take out loans to pay for essentials.
'Scrapping the two-child limit in universal credit would make an immediate difference to these children's lives.
'The Government must put families' financial security at the heart of everything they do.
'They must get on with giving low-income families some breathing room from the latest bill rise or overdue rent payment.
'Only then can we swap out the present story of precariousness with one of stability for every family.'
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.
Children's Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza recently said some young people in England are living in an 'almost-Dickensian level of poverty' and insisted the two-child limit must be scrapped.
The Government is expected to publish a child poverty strategy in the autumn.
When MPs debated welfare reforms last week, Government frontbenchers rolled back on their plan to reform the separate personal independence payment benefit, vowing to revisit any proposed changes only after a review by social security minister Sir Stephen Timms.
The research showed that families with the 40% lowest incomes which include someone with a disability face higher rates of hardship.
Of these families, 69% have gone without everyday essentials compared with 54% of families with no disabled people.
These rates increase for working-age families in receipt of disability benefits, with 78% of these households going without essentials.
This rises to 88% for families with children.
The two-child benefit limit came into effect under the Conservatives in April 2017.
The Government has been approached for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the Afghan leak superinjunction: a dangerous precedent is set
One of many extraordinary features of the data breach that put tens of thousands of Afghan lives in jeopardy is the length of time between the original leak and the government taking action. The email containing a highly sensitive dataset was sent from a Ministry of Defence computer in February 2022. Ministers were not aware of the problem until August 2023. The fact that the MoD's systems were lax enough for the error to have been made is worrying enough. The delayed response is more alarming still. And then there is the disturbing mechanism by which the whole scandal was kept from the public eye. There was an argument on safety grounds for keeping the existence of the leaked list secret. Applicants to the Afghan relocations and assistance policy (Arap), a scheme to expedite asylum for people who had worked with British forces in the country, would be natural targets for vengeful Taliban hit squads. A judge deemed the risk severe enough to grant the MoD's request for an injunction on reporting the breach and upgraded it to a 'superinjunction' – a prohibition on reporting the existence of reporting restrictions. This powerful suppressive tool is usually associated with cases of celebrities guarding their privacy, and even then it is controversial. There is no known precedent for its deployment to protect the government from scrutiny in a case of manifest public interest. Mr Justice Robin Knowles took the view that the Arap applicants' right to safety should take precedence over the freedom of the press to report the leak. That may have been a worthy argument in 2023 – but not in perpetuity. However, ministers regularly sought to renew the superinjunction, citing increasingly spurious premises. It was almost removed in May 2024, but restored on appeal. It was only lifted this week after an internal government review, commissioned by the defence secretary, John Healey, found that being identified in the data breach should no longer be considered a matter of life and death. It would 'simply be another factor in exacerbating a person's existing vulnerability'. How, why and when the balance of risk shifted is unclear. It happened over many years under multiple defence secretaries, straddling a change of government. Over the same period, hundreds of millions of pounds were spent on an emergency resettlement scheme for people affected by the data breach – an expensive policy on a matter of great political sensitivity run entirely below the radar of parliamentary scrutiny or any other mechanism of accountability. Meanwhile, many of the legal arguments that led to renewal of the superinjunction were held in closed court. The grounds for keeping the blanket of secrecy in place were themselves wrapped in an extra layer of secrecy. Such a process goes against fundamental principles of open justice. In an era of depleted trust in politics, its deployment to keep a serious scandal from public view is also corrosive of democracy. A dangerous precedent has been set. Lifting the superinjunction doesn't in itself bring transparency. But it does at least permit overdue questions about how the data breach happened, the timeliness and effectiveness of the MoD's response, and why no one has been held to account. The current Labour government was not responsible for keeping the public in the dark for so long, but it will be judged on its willingness to let the light in now. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
How McAllan can tackle our housing emergency
The new Housing Secretary needs to put in place a ten-year plan to sort problems Sign up to our Scotsman Money newsletter, covering all you need to know to help manage your money. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... New Housing Secretary Mairi McAllan has had a busy first month and has announced she is working on a plan to address Scotland's housing emergency which she will announce when Holyrood returns in the autumn. Given that housing charity Shelter Scotland recently named John Swinney's legislative agenda a 'Programme for Homelessness' it is clear that the Scottish Government must produce some positive and effective policies. More housebuilding is required, easier and quicker planning regulations, a long-term focus on addressing social housing shortages, and a much closer working relationship with the private rented sector (PRS) to both maintain existing stock and encourage greater investment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ms McAllan said she would act on stalled developments, which she calls an 'untapped area,' and said the Scottish Government is 'brokering' those issues with developers to 'unlock tens of thousands of houses'. David J Alexander is an expert in Scotland's rental sector These developments are stalled due to continued uncertainty over the Scottish Government's direction on the private rented sector. Proposals in the Scottish Housing Bill to introduce rent controls don't help despite proof from the Governments' own data showing this policy results in greater costs for tenants. The most recent statistics reveal that the Scottish Government's intervention in the PRS – through its Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) Scotland Act 2022 which introduced temporary rent controls – resulted in rents rising at a faster rate in two years than they had in the preceding 12. Between 2010 and 2022 average rent rises across Scotland for one, two, three and four-bedroom properties were up £138; £182; £232; and £523 respectively. In the following two years between 2022 and 2024 average rents increased by £130; £157; £230; and £333 for one, two, three and four-bedroom properties. In cash terms rents rose in two years at almost the same level that they did over the previous 12 years. These figures highlight just how destructive the Scottish Government's intervention into the PRS was between 2022 and 2024. A major outcome of this policy has been the freezing of property investment, falling housebuilding levels, with money intended to be invested in Scotland to build more properties being transferred to other parts of the UK. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If Ms McAllan is to make an impact on the staggering levels of housing need in Scotland, then she must embrace the private rented sector. She should not interfere in the market with rent controls and should be encouraging greater investment through policies which encourage growth over the long-term through support of the PRS. Mairi McAllan 'must embrace the private rented sector' (Picture: Jeff) The new Housing Secretary needs to put in place a ten-year plan which addresses Scotland's enormous housing problems. More housebuilding, more involvement and encouragement of the PRS, more social housing and a plan that ensures there are substantially more homes available in all markets in the future. With 250,000 people on the social housing waiting list, 10,000 children in temporary housing and a private rented sector which has been experiencing unprecedented demand there is an immediate need for clarity and action. Housing policy needs the involvement of all interested parties, and a strategy that looks beyond a single electoral cycle if the housing emergency is to be tackled.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
The Afghan fiasco shows how badly the last Tory government let you down
The lifting of the superinjunction this week has exposed gross failings committed by those trusted to keep us safe. The truth about how and why this happened must come out. It must never happen again. There are some basic facts which the public needs to know and should have known from the start. Firstly, if a court issues an injunction relating to government business, Ministers are prohibited from speaking publicly about it for fear of being held in contempt of court. Anyone who is claiming that those who have left Government, could or should have 'blown the whistle' before the injunction was lifted does not understand our legal or political system. Like the media, many of us have been unable to speak on this for a long time. Secondly, and for context, the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR) was launched in April 2024 for those Afghan nationals affected by the leak. This was after I had left the Government and I was not involved in its set up or functioning. The ARR should not be confused with the Afghanistan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) which was set up in 2021 to rescue soldiers and translators who had served alongside our brave British soldiers that fought and died in Afghanistan. Thirdly, the mistaken data leak came from inside the Ministry of Defence. There is much more that needs to be said about the conduct of and competence within the Ministry of Defence and the House of Commons is the right place to do so. I hope we have the opportunity soon. Lastly, any plans to bring in 24,000 Afghan nationals are wholly wrong for our country. Many of these people will not be genuine in their claims to have helped British troops, many of them will pose a public safety and national security risk to the British people and we simply do not have the resources to accommodate them. What's worse is that all who have now arrived here will be able to bring their families under Article 2 of the ECHR. As Home Secretary, I tried my best to fix the crisis but ultimately failed. 40,000 migrants had crossed the Channel by the end of 2023, over 100,000 asylum seekers were being processed through our slow-moving system and tens of thousands were being housed in hotels all over the country – all this costing the taxpayer £6 million per day. It was out of control and still is. Whilst I managed to reduce the number of hotels used by asylum seekers, much more was required. What we needed to do – as I argued at the time – was to leave the ECHR so we had greater powers to detain and deport. If we had taken those steps in 2023 when we were in power, the Rwanda scheme would have been up and running and the small boats problem would have eased, if not been fixed entirely. We would have had much less pressure on the system and the costs would have fallen. We would have been able to refuse admission to 24,000 Afghans affected by the leak as they would not have been able to rely on Article 2 (right to life) rights or we could have worked with other nations like Pakistan or Rwanda to take them. In all this disgraceful betrayal of the people by their own government, I feel only shame. I, and a handful of others, fought this: but we failed to stop it. This is why on election night last year I apologised for what we had got wrong. This is why I warned about the direction we were heading in back in 2023. The last Conservative government let you down. The cover-up was wrong, the super injunction was wrong, and the failure to stop unwanted mass immigration has been unforgivable. So I am sorry: the Conservative government failed you and its leaders let you down. It wasn't good enough then. It's not good enough now. This episode exposes everything wrong with the Westminster establishment. The State apparatus thinks it can hide its failures behind legal technicalities while ordinary people pay the price. I understand your anger, and I share it. The people who have run this country so badly need to take a long, hard look at themselves. Those responsible must be held accountable, and the system that enabled this cover-up has to be dismantled.
