Children in England living in 'Dickensian' poverty, major report warns
Her report, which was commissioned by the UK Government, drew on the experiences of 128 children across England between January and March this year.
Speaking to BBC Breakfast, de Souza (below) said she had been Children's Commissioner for England for four years but was shocked 'by how much worse things have got'.
(Image: Aaron Chown/PA Wire)
She added: 'It really is Dickensian and there are a huge number of children now who have dropped below what anyone of us would think is reasonable.
'The children who have got no food to eat, the children who can't wash their clothes so they are going to school dirty and if they're lucky the school are washing their clothes for them.
'I had one child tell me about his shame because he couldn't have his friends round because in the night rats came and bit his face.'
The report was commissioned by the Government as it works on developing a strategy to tackle child poverty. A child poverty taskforce had been due to report back in the spring but this has been delayed to the autumn.
READ MORE: What we learned about Labour from new poll of 7000 voters
Alongside the Children's Commissioners of the other three UK nations, de Souza has called for the UK Government to scrap the two-child cap, which prevents most families from claiming benefits for children above their first two.
This would cost the UK Government about £3.4 billion per year and lift 500,000 children out of poverty, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank.
Around 1.6 million children live in families affected by the cap, according to the Department for Work and Pensions.
(Image: PA)
Kirsty Blackman (above), the SNP's work and pensions spokesperson, said: 'This report shows just how far broken, Brexit Britain has fallen and stands as a damning indictment of Westminster – England's Children's Commissioner has described Dickensian levels of poverty and she is absolutely categorical that the two-child cap must go.
'The SNP Scottish Government has taken decisive action to end the two-child cap yet despite commissioning this report, it seems the UK Labour Government will ignore the warnings and leave thousands of children in poverty.
'If the Labour Government copied SNP Scottish Government action on child poverty, 2.3m families would be lifted out of poverty – that means ending the two-child cap, abolishing the bedroom tax and matching the Scottish Child Payment, something which you'd expect from any government serious about ending child poverty.'
A UK Government spokesperson told the BBC ministers were "determined to bring down child poverty" and pointed to a £1bn package of support, including funding to feed the poorest children outside of term time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
9 minutes ago
- Spectator
Why couldn't Britain have dealt with the EU like Trump?
The more you look at the trade deal negotiated between the US and the EU, the more you want to ask: why couldn't Britain have dealt with the EU like that? Why has every UK Prime Minister since Theresa May acted so feebly in the face of the EU's tactics and ended up getting such a poor deal out of the EU? Trump has get pretty much everything he wanted. Goods imported into the US from the EU will in future be subject to tariffs of 15 per cent – half the rate that Trump had threatened but far higher than existed prior to 'Liberation Day' on 2 April. What has Ursula von der Leyen got in return? Nothing at all, other than the punitive tariffs being dropped. She has agreed to lowering tariffs on imports from the EU, in some cases to zero. She has also agreed to the EU buying more products from the US, including liquified natural gas (LNG), making a mockery of the EU's net-zero policy. Like Britain, the EU has wound down its fossil fuel industry on the pretext that it is yesterday's energy and we won't need it for much longer as we transition to clean renewables – but then it commits itself to buying increased quantities of LNG from the US. Say what you like about Trump, but it is easy to argue that he has proven a far stronger defender of his country's interests than Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak or Keir Starmer. Britain is nearly as important a destination for EU exports as the US: in 2024, 21 per cent of its exports went to the US and 14 per cent to Britain. Yet no Prime Minister has properly used this leverage to give Britain any advantage. May got nowhere in the end but would have committed Britain to becoming a rule-taker from the EU. Johnson agreed to place an internal UK border down the Irish Sea. Sunak did a little better in trying to resolve this, but then Starmer has put us back closer to where May wanted to take us: agreeing to EU rules on plant and animal products while having no say in the making of those rules. Why did UK Brexit negotiators never threaten punitive tariffs on German cars and French wine? Instead – and in spite of Theresa May's mantra of 'no deal is better than a bad deal' – we acted as if no deal was never an option. Simultaneously, we treated Trump – whose first presidential term lasted throughout the Brexit negotiations – as a kind of oaf who was destroying America's reputation. Had our leaders emulated him rather than scorned him we would be in a lot better position now. It all starts to look a bit different, however, if you look at Trump's trade negotiations from the point of view of consumers rather than producers and ask instead: has Trump really scored such a victory? If you are an American motorist who fancies a new car, your choice has just narrowed, and many of the options available have just increased in price. It is not just consumers, either, who may feel this is not quite the victory for the US it might look like on the surface. Most manufacturers rely on international supply chains. While tariffs may help snuff out some of their competition, they will in future face higher prices of raw materials and components. This does not appear to feature all that much in Trump's mercantilist mind. To him – and not just him, because many world leaders seem to think the same – exporting stuff is a strength and importing stuff a weakness. When you think of things that way, the US has been cheated by the lopsided tariffs which have long existed between the US and the rest of the world. Yet the fact remains that the US has done extremely well out of its low import tariffs. Its economy has grown far faster than those of its more protectionist rivals. So yes, it is easy to admire Trump's negotiating tactics. The whirlwind of the past few months, with threats followed by negotiations and flattery, has been a wonder to watch. It is sad that UK leaders have lacked the courage to act in such a brazen fashion towards the EU. Yet that doesn't mean that the US will end up being the big winner from higher import tariffs. On the contrary, overall the US economy is likely to grow less strongly as a result.
The Herald Scotland
19 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
UN probes Scots judge-led body's 'breach' of international law
Now the Scottish Government will be expected to give answers to a UN committee about the complaint as part of a UK response over compliance. Scotland has since 2011, been found to be in breach of Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention, a binding piece of international legislation that guarantees the right to a healthy environment and enshrines people's rights to defend it in a court of law. The United Nations council which adopted the convention in 1998 gave the Scottish Government a deadline of October 1, 2024 for a plan of action to remove or cut the cost of access to justice as legal cases can often run into tens of thousands of pounds. The ERCS says that makes access to justice to protect the environment unaffordable and while there is a 'loser pays' rule, litigants are liable to pay their opponents fees if they lose their case. The Scottish Government asked the Scottish Civil Justice Council (SCJC) - a public body comprising predominantly senior judges and other members of the judiciary and legal profession which is responsible for keeping the civil justice system under scrutiny - to review the rules on the costs of court actions. Lord Pentland is at the centre of access to justice row (Image: NQ) But despite the review, a UK progress report at the end of last year confirmed the nation has not removed the cost barriers to justice despite the SCJC intervention. They say it continues to breach the convention as they "only made minor changes and no concrete commitments for future reform". In its formal complaint to the UN's Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, ERCS argued that the SCJC's review has breached Article 8 of the Convention, which requires public bodies to consult the public when making certain laws that can significantly affect the environment. READ MORE: What is the senior judge-led group accused of international law breach? 50 Scots councils seek ministers summit on green energy 'wild west' 'Scots nature in crisis' as one in nine species at risk of extinction It argues that that means there was no say in ensuring that international law was met and that the legal system was affordable. They say the consultation would have required the SCJC to consider and respond to representations from the public. Now the Herald has learnt that the compliance committee has decided that the complaint has been found admissible on a preliminary basis for further investigation despite official opposition. Dr Ben Christman, ERCS's legal director said: 'The way we make decisions matters. Public participation is a critical part of creating fair and functional environmental laws. The Scottish Civil Justice Council failed to consult the public and, predictably, went on to produce legal expenses rules that do not comply with the Aarhus Convention's requirements. Former co-convener of the Scottish Greens, Maggie Chapman has criticised ministers over law breaches over access to justice (Image: NQ) 'We were glad to see that the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee saw through bad faith attempts to knock out our complaint. We hope that the Scottish Government will now respond to our concerns seriously.' The SCJC has denied that there has been a breach. And Scots community safety minister Siobhian Brown has said in a response to a question about the case: "The Scottish Government has every confidence in the work of the Scottish Civil Justice Council." The council is responsible for overseeing civil justice fairness and effectiveness and provides advice on rule changes and recommends improvements while keeping the system under constant review. It is typically made up of between 14 and 20 members and are appointed by its chairman, the most senior judge in Scotland and Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General, Lord Pentland or Scottish ministers. They are predominantly entrenched in Scottish law either as judges, sheriffs, advocates, solicitors or heading up administration. At least four are members of the judiciary including at least one judge from the Court of Session and a sheriff, as well as at least two practising advocates. Other senior judges include on the council are Lady Carmichael, who was appointed as a Senator of the College of Justice in 2016 and Lord Ericht, who became a judge of the Supreme Courts in 2016. The group further includes Malcolm Graham, chief executive of the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Services, Colin Lancaster, the chief executive of the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) It comes amidst growing concern about local democracy being overridden as some of Scotland's most scenic areas face up to hundreds of live renewable projects. A "once in a generation" convention of 53 community councils have been demanding a summit with energy ministers in a fight to pause infrastructure projects. There were over 700 live applications in the Highland Council area alone, ranging from wind and hydro projects to energy storage and transmission grid plans. Councils convention chairman Helen Crawford at Balblair substation near Beauly (Image: Helen Crawford) Calls have been made for the Scottish Government to undertake an inquiry to address the cumulative impact of all major renewable energy infrastructure developments on the communities and landscape fearing projects "may hasten depopulation in some areas". Conservation charity John Muir Trust has previously spoken out of its concerns about the rights to justice after its attempt to challenge a windfarm development eight years ago led to it facing a near £700,000 bill, although this was eventually negotiated down to £275,000. The Trust settled out of court with the Perth-based energy company SSE and the Scottish government after its attempt to block a wind farm through a judicial review near Loch Ness failed. The dispute was over a wind farm at Stronelairg, which is in wild land in the Monadhliath mountains near Loch Ness. Consisting of 67 wind turbines, it was proposed by SSE in 2012 and granted by the Scottish government in June 2014. Glasgow had to exploit a loophole to bring the action in the name of a member who would qualify for legal aid. ERCS said it has had to resorting to questions under the Freedom of Information act on the SCJC process and any proposed new court costs rules. In response to an FOI request, the SCJC indicated in January 2023 that they intended to hold a public consultation on the new costs rules to inform decision-making "later in 2023". But in response to a chaser FOI request in October 2023, the SCJC decided against a consultation "to avoid undue resource impacts for potential respondents". And the ERCS say when the revised rules on Protective Expenses Orders - which limit a liability for costs in certain types of legal cases - came into force at the end of last year it was without public consultation and they say that they remain non-compliant with the Aarhus Convention. The Scottish Environment LINK (SEL) coalition of more than 30 leading charities said the SCJC failure was a "disappointing development which further damages accountability and the quality of environmental decision-making in Scotland". The SCJC has said that the latest amendments to the PEO rules was the first step in a process and that the review on costs as it relates to the sheriff court remains ongoing with a public consultation due to take place this year. Dr Shivali Fifield, ERCS's chief officer, said: "We submitted this complaint to uphold our right to participate in environmental decision-making. Scotland has been in breach of the Aarhus Convention's access to justice requirements since 2014. This is the third time the Scottish Civil Justice Council has reviewed rules on legal expenses and yet it remains prohibitively expensive to defend the environment in court. "Access to justice is not a favour, it is integral to our environmental human rights. We know that there is support for environmental justice across the political parties - and we will continue to hold the Scottish Government accountable until we see the barriers to justice removed." An analysis backed by Scotland's nature agency found wildlife is "in crisis" in 2023 with one in nine animals and plants being at risk of becoming extinct north of the border. A State of Nature Scotland analysis, backed by the [[Scottish Government]]'s [[Nature]]Scot agency and published by a partnership of over 50 nature and conservation organisations, warned the risk of extinction among some groups, such as vertebrates, is much higher at more than a third (36.5%). The most notable declines were with familiar birds such as swifts, curlews and lapwings which have declined by more than 60%. Kestrels have declined by more than 70%. A spokesperson for the Scottish Civil Justice Council said: 'The Scottish Civil Justice Council has approved its work programme for 2025/26, which has now been published. "As part of this , a priority for the coming year is to hold a public consultation on the extension of Protective Expenses Orders to the Sheriff Court. These orders allow litigants to limit the legal costs they might incur in the event they lose the case. The consultation is currently being finalised and we expect it to begin in the near future.' A Scottish Government spokesman said: 'The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee is looking into a complaint, which says that the Scottish Civil Justice Council failed to ask the public for their views before changing rules about legal costs in environmental cas'The committee has decided the complaint is worth investigating further, but this is just a preliminary decision. They still need to follow more steps before making a final decision on whether to fully investigate. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.'
Scotsman
40 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Investors need certainty to build the homes Scotland needs
We must unlock the investment that would deliver new housing, says Colin Brown Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox 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... In May 2024, the Scottish Parliament declared a national 'housing emergency' with some councils also declaring a housing emergency in their areas. The announcement of the emergency came two months after the Scottish Government laid the Housing (Scotland) Bill before the Scottish Parliament. The Bill continues to work its way through Holyrood and is expected to come into force later this year. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Observers in the world of institutional investment and those working in the sector have been watching the progress of the Bill with interest. Of particular concern to investors are proposals around rent controls. Colin Brown is a Partner at TLT To give one example that has occurred recently – a London-based investment firm, was about to commit many millions of pounds to its first Scottish investment before discovering that a committee considering the Bill had voted to include purpose-built student accommodation as subject to statutory rent controls. All of the financial appraisals the firm had undertaken in making the decision to invest in Scotland were potentially being ripped up by MSPs and they had no power to do anything about this. In this situation, the Scottish Government moved quickly to make clear it would not support rent control for purpose-built student accommodation. Whilst the project is now starting to come out of the ground it remains to be seen whether they consider Scotland a safe haven for future investment. The rental income which institutional investors derive from their investments in bricks and mortar helps to fund many individuals' pensions. The investors need to understand that in exchange for making their money available they will get a return on their investment and this return has generally been left to market forces – the law of supply and demand. The housing emergency should make investment in new build housing in Scotland a win-win. The country gets much-needed new housing to alleviate the emergency, and the investment funds get to deploy their capital to deliver housing and make a return on their investment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the UK in the first quarter of this year £1.2 billion was invested in private rental accommodation with the potential for £6bn to be invested by the end of the year. 76 per cent of this investment is being directed outside London, with Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds leading the way. Every penny of this investment creates new housing and sustains and creates job opportunities. The fact that Scotland has not been able to open the investment tap when cities in England are seeing private rental accommodation expand, could be seen as a missed opportunity. In launching the latest consultation, the Social Justice Secretary acknowledges that rental properties are a crucial element of the efforts to tackle the housing emergency. Government policy has slowed investment into the sector in recent years and resulted in lower investor confidence in providing much-needed housing. Rent caps and controls are of course not universally despised and a balance must be struck between protecting tenants and unlocking the investment that delivers the new housing. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The latest consultation on exemptions for certain types of properties from rent control closed earlier this month. There will be investors with capital looking for a home waiting to see if the legislative and political environment in Scotland means they should be deploying more of this in Scotland or continuing to explore opportunities which guarantee a better return elsewhere.
