News

National child poverty survey does not reveal true picture of situation in Wokingham, say CAB

By Julie Spencer
March 12, 2013

A national survey of child poverty does not give a true picture of struggling families in Wokingham, claims the town’s Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) manager.

John Ferguson said The End Child Poverty data released last month did not reveal pockets of real need in what was regarded as a wealthy area.

Across the borough, nine per cent of children are classed as living in poverty, according to the survey, compared with a national average of 20.2 per cent.

In Sonning, the rate drops to five per cent, but rises to 13 per cent in Norreys and 17 per cent in Shinfield North.

The rate in Reading is 24 per cent and 14 per cent across Bracknell Forest.

The End Child Poverty report points to a link between child poverty and decreased life expectancy, low academic achievement and risk of dying from accidents or fires.

Wokingham’s CAB, in Market Place, helped 4,110 people last year with benefit, debt, employment, housing and social problems.

Of those people helped, an estimated 694 have dependent children.

Mr Ferguson said he believed that in the Norreys area of Wokingham the number of families living in poverty after housing costs could be as high as 45 per cent.

He added: “There are some pockets that are very high and Norreys is the highest spot we have got. Things are getting much more complicated and the complication is that it is multiple debts that people have.

“We are seeing lots of payday loans, which is very worrying for us, and people are running out of money for food so we are referring more and more people to the Foodbank.”

CAB volunteers also helped people who could not afford to travel to sign on at JobCentres in Bracknell or Reading.

Mr Ferguson said: “People have to keep going through the hoops once a fortnight and it can be problematic if they have to find the fares.

“We have some funding to cover bus or train fares so people can sign on.”

Mr Ferguson said he is anticipating even more hardship for families in April when changes to housing benefit and disability benefit come into force.

| Submit Comments | View Comments (39)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 15 of 39

1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

When are these staple food cards going to turn up? The supermarkets would probably provide the banking part for free.

There is simply not that much work that needs doing. That is progress. Technology that has greatly reduced the workload in everything we do probably by 50% in the last 30 years

The problem is that our economy is based on lasting family success through ownership of assets and debt payments from the rest. So all must work as hard as the average person is willing to tolerate for the average salary.

Then there is luck. And it does count for a lot. Don't you think David Cameron would be the worst example of an estate agent if he were born into a modest family. Nothing more.

Then we have this poverty statistic based on half national wage. As the top 10% gets richer (and they are writing the rules to keep it that way) the bottom 25% get poorer. This is just maths.

No Reading bus trip is going to talk to someone who was out of work until they became a work adviser is going to fix that.

There was an interesting study in Mexico about getting people to work. The biggest factor they had was giving people something they could loose.

The benefits family have nothing to loose so why work. How hard will they have to work to have something they can call their own and pass onto their kids. They may not be as accademic or inventive as you or I.

40 hours / week. 80 hours / week. How many hours of £6.70 will they have to work? Is there a job there?

I'd like to blame the lazy benefits families. But our generational wealth hoarding economy has left them a life not worth living as the alternative.

And it is getting worse.

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
18/03/2013 at 22:29

If as suggested 45% of the families living in Norreys are living in poverty then there is a need to provide solutions locally to the estate. As I suggested earlier rather than subsidising transport to Reading to sign on, the CAB should be helping to provide appropriate services locally. Providing a signing on centre one day a week at the Evangelical Church for example could provide a concentrated point where other activities that they need could be provided.

Rather than all the discussion about world poverty politics we need some positive action to improve the situation of our local poverty pockets.

PoneRana, Wokingham
17/03/2013 at 12:31

Tonk: We need to all realise we are all one family. We share bloodlines as all our ancestors are the same. This then means we need to all have an equal share in means of production, all work hard and then there will, without doubt, be an abundance of resources.

wokinghamworker, Wokingham
12/03/2013 at 19:55

WR:

I feel there is a natural need for people to blame or scapegoat someone or some group: Hitler did it with the Jews, many of whom were bankers and he attacked the gypsies and disabled....mmmmm is history repeating itself?

People can work their way out of poverty but they need to have that work ethic and the sense of self-reliance ingrained in them when they're still young.

My fears for the children in poverty, which this story is about, is that they perceive the lifestyle and the choices their parents make are the norm and are therefore more likely to repeat those decisions and choices in their future lives. It is very difficult to break such a cycle in my opinion.

Tonk, Wokingham
12/03/2013 at 19:20

Good points Tonk Work, education & diligence beats poverty

Why is it that those many on Benefits balme the Bankers bailout for their predicament/

William Richards
12/03/2013 at 19:11

WW:

As to whether greed is or isn't natural depends on the definition you use for greed.

I was talking about man's natural desire to put himself and his family first. I was not talking about a multi billionaire's desire to make more and more money, when they already have more than they'll ever be able to spend in their lifetime.

To illustrate my point: if a killer had you and another person hostage and was hell bent on killing one of you, would you want it to be you or the other person? Would your answer be different if the other person was your child?

I do have a social conscience even though I am a lifelong Conservative. I do not want to see my fellow countrymen suffer but, I will always take care of my own family before I take care of others: does that make me greedy? I think not; it makes me a normal human, albeit an honest one.

I do not think that the media is as influential as you believe it is: most people can use logic and reasoning to see through false or misleading stories. We have twenty four hour news now and a variety of sources since the advent of this elecronic medium.

I think a general equality of opportunity is important, we are not all equal nor the same. Being equal and being the same are two different concepts. I was born just after the war in a very run down part of East London, I escaped the poverty that my parents endured by passing my eleven plus and getting to grammar school. My parents pushed me because they didn't want me to have a lifetime of nothing just as they experienced. Is this greed or is it a natural desire for your children's well being?

Tonk, Wokingham
12/03/2013 at 18:48

Alex F Sensible comments indeed.

Wokingham worker Tell me how bailing out the people is going to lead to full employment The bankers were bailed out by the previous government who unfortunately did not have the foresight to impose conditions on the bailout.

The government have been bailing out too many people for too long, may of whoom no longer look for work because life is too easy on the state. I know because I have 3 great nephews aged between 17 and 23 who have never done more than a few weeks work between them.

William Richards
12/03/2013 at 18:47

William - it's an interesting point which is often overlooked - many long term claimants appear to be able to live from the system, whilst those requiring short term aid (i.e. made redundant, fall ill or similar) are penalised. My own father was made redundant close to retirement age and he was given no help (even though he really wanted to still get back into work, being a proud man) due to the fact that he had bothered to save a bob or two (honestly not much). Now in retirement, all of that hard saved cash is no more, the modest retirement he should have had for working all of his life and doing the 'right thing' no longer exists, and he would have been better off not saving in the first place.

The rules in place do not promote the correct behaviour. Yes it should be a safety net, but not to the detriment of promoting the incorrect behaviour. You pay your taxes, live by the rules and promote what you think should be good behaviour to your own offspring to hope that the system will return the favour and be there for you when you most need it (after all - my father would have actually only claimed a minute fraction of what he has contributed to society).

Yes - he saved for a rainy day and it was a rainy day. But we need to look at the bigger picture - what kind of message is this sending out to our future generations? It's exactly the same message which convinces the small number of families who decide to remain on benefits as they will be no better off in a job offered to them.

Kudos to those families who do work for low wages when being on benefits would bring in similar amounts, I have only the greatest of respect for them. They may be no better off financially, but they are fantastic role models to their children.

alex_f, Wokingham
12/03/2013 at 18:15

William Richards: Well if the government stopped bailing out the banks and started to bail out the people for once then we can have full employment and there wouldn't be a benefits crisis.

wokinghamworker, Wokingham
12/03/2013 at 18:10

The British benefit system is one of the best in the world, why else would so many people be trying to live in the UK? However it is time to get back to basics and remember that social security is a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. How many long term claiments are milking the system meaning that the short term claiment who depends on the system to tide themover is penalised?

William Richards
12/03/2013 at 17:51

wokinghamworker, I think greed might be natural you know... evolutionary instinct... being the biggest, strongest, richest, most-well-stocked-up gives an individual an advantage, and nature loves those.

That said, us being animals it is also natural to want to do many things which we suppress in the name of civilisation. The duality of man...

It's not impossible to conceive of a world that works in a better way than this, better than capitalism, better than Marxism. What might be impossible is wrestling enough power away from the rich and powerful to make any sort of change, because it's not in their interests.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
12/03/2013 at 17:50

Thanks wokinghamworker. That article is 4 years old, but still, if there were 3 million malnourished at that point I'm sure there must be 'hundreds of thousands' (at least) today. We would have to separate malnourishment from poverty though; I'm lucky enough to be able to buy enough food for myself, yet eat fairly poorly (lots of pizzas...) so I may actually be undernourished/malnourished.

Absolutely, Tonk. The issue is bigger than one small change in legislation and benefits; it's a matter of culture that's been allowed to develop over decades. It needs a wider campaign of advertising and education to remind people that the world isn't gratis, and that we all pay-in for social housing/NHS etc. for people that need it, and not for people to do nothing, have kids, have their kids grow up to do nothing, have kids, and so on.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
12/03/2013 at 17:46

Tonk: Greed is NOT natural. The fact is that people get brainwashed by the media manipulators because, really, greed is not natural, people don't like to see others suffering and this is because we are one human family who all share the same ancestors.

The fact is that we live in a society which is dominated by poverty, and what many people think they have to do everyday of their lives is to play the game of poverty avoidance. Hence this means people think that they need to grab as much material wealth as they can to ensure their survival.

Though life doesn't have to be like this as, if we all realised that we are one big family, and if there was a democratized socioeconomic human race by where we, the people, controlled the means of production, we would be more than capable of creating an abundance of all the resources which we, as humans, need.

The thing is if nobody works, nobody lives. Though, on the other hand, if we all work well then everybody lives well. So this shows that its either freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody.

wokinghamworker, Wokingham
12/03/2013 at 17:37

The question must again be asked: how can we "cut benefits for people that make silly decisions" without hurting their children?

It's a tough one isn't it?

Tonk, Wokingham
12/03/2013 at 17:24

Damiano Tomnassi: Fair enough we should cut benefit for these people who choose to make silly decisions, though why is it the government are cutting benefit for everyone even though the majority of people on benefits are sensible and need benefits.

Also, below is a news article explaining malnutrition in the UK. Yes, it is not a quote, but it provides the information you are looking for.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7879201.stm