Friday, 19 July 2013

The financial cost of child poverty

No surprise that the topic of child poverty keeps cropping up. The Child Poverty Action Group has today published figures on the financial costs of this accelerating social crisis, noting a total cost to the UK of £29 billion per year. This figure includes:
  • £15 billion spent on services to deal with consequences of child poverty
  • £3.5 billion lost in tax receipts from people earning less as a result of having grown up in poverty
  • £2 billion spent on benefits for people spending more time out of work as a result of having grown up in poverty
  • £8.5 billion lost to individuals in net earnings (after paying tax). 

It’s a serious challenge that requires an urgent response. So what do we get? Instead of confronting the problem, the government, in possibly its most reckless move yet, is today reported to be

‘planning to allow outsourcing firms to bid for contracts to manage social services for vulnerable children in England – while dropping laws allowing the removal of companies that fail to do the job properly.’

This is truly scary and desperately irresponsible. No matter that the evidence is overwhelming in showing that privatisation costs more and leads to a decline in quality and values (think Serco, G4S, A4E, the railway so-called-service-providers, the utility companies…). There are reasons why we have public services, but the rationale is probably a bit too complex for people educated in public schools.

 

19 Jul 2013 15:40:42 | Social exclusion, Social policy

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
What’s in it for you? I remember a television news item some years ago which demonstrated how vulnerable some people are through leaving information about themselves in their rubbish bins. And if you’re not given to thinking much about what you dispose of and how, then I daresay you’re more likely to be vulnerable. But even if you do take care to detach linkable traces of your identity from your garbage, it must be slightly discomforting if you find someone rifling through your bin. Rhodri Morgan, writing in the Indy the other day, describes the experience in terms of privacy: ‘On their third or fourth visit, I realised my discomfort was a privacy thing; I wondered what the contents of my bin might reveal about me.’ The point being that although in theory you have renounced ownership of the material, by placing it in a publicly funded collection service - and the council owns the bin - it still represents a concentration of sources of possible information about you. And perhaps the age of the golden dustman, portrayed so wonderfully by Dickens in Our mutual friend, is coming round again. But I’d rather live in a society where people didn’t feel the need to rummage through rubbish.
PREVIOUS POST
I scream The other day I readily paid a fiver for a couple of ice creams from a van outside a park. Summer came so late that it must have been a hard year for the vendors, and I don’t begrudge them trying to make a living while they can, and I don’t get the sense that huge profits are being creamed-off by some exploitative monopolising entrepreneur. Plus they have to put up with playing those jingles as they drive round. Last year, after several years of the Teddy Bears’ Picnic (no thanks) we got a new and more tolerable jingle from our local vans. I read recently – thanks to this entertaining article by Laura Barton - that the vendors are now allowed to play the jingle for longer. Defra have 'relaxed' (that should read 'changed') the regulations so that ‘chimes can play for up to 12 seconds rather than four; and once every two minutes, instead of three. Vans may also now chime while stationary.’ Whether or not the original conditions were ever policed reliably, for people who work nights in built up areas, and for others for other reasons, trying to sleep with windows necessarily open on hot afternoons or evenings, this could drive them screaming bonkers. I'm not too bothered with the argument about contributing to childhood obesity - there are other fish to fry as far as that debate is concerned - but this new regulation doesn’t sound like good news to me. Of course we all have to remember that people who have their curtains drawn in the day-time are assumed to be "sleeping off a life on benefits" and not deemed worthy of sympathy. Must be joined-up government then.

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments