Monthly Archives: February 2011

A Flawed Concept of Society. The Church Times, 25th Feb, 2011.

Posted on by

Sir, There are serious weakness in the flawed concept of society which is pouring out of 10 Downing Street. It is very Judgemental. And it contains no mention or practice of economic justice.

Contempt for British society has covered pages of newsprint. Britain is broken; we don’t volunteer enough; there is a dependency culture among the unemployed, and a sick-note culture In the civil service. But the unemployed need encouragement rather than demonisation. Of course, the absolutely poor unemployed depend on the taxpayer to prevent their starving and to pay the rent: with means-tested welfare, such a policy illustrates the meaning of the common good.

Research has shown that people would far rather work than draw the dole; and of course they should be willing to look for work. But unemployment benefits become increasingly valueless as they are cut and the prices of food and other essentials escalate, rendering some people unfit to work, owing to debt and stress.

Low pay and bad management are known to result in labour turnover and increased sickness absence. It was the accountancy company KPMG that wrote the business reasons for the Living Wage for London and then paid it to the company’s cleaners; it is refused by the Government for the civil service.

The treatment of poor tenants recieving housing benefit takes us back to the poll tax. Both parties of government since 1979 are responsible for the catastrophic consequences of the 1980s, deregulation of lending and the abolition of rent controls, which were exploited by irresponsible bankers, who nearly destroyed the economy in 2008. Money flooded into a housing market in short supply, forcing up prices and rent. Housing benefit exploded to more than £21 billion a year.

It was not the fault of the improverished tenants; but they are carrying the pain of enforced eviction from thier homes and rent arrears that they cannot pay from poverty-level Jobseeker’s Allowance, owing to the cuts in the housing benefit; the poll tax also reduced Jobseeker’s Allowance.

The Prime Minister claims that it is wrong for the state to fund unemployed people to live to a higher standard than those who go out to work. This is nonsense when the state has persistently failed to devise any policy for affordable housing since Harold Macmillan was at No.10 in 1957. Local authorities placed homeless people in available accomodation because they, quite rightly, had a legal duty to do so. A secure home is a basic necessity.

It will take a major campaign about Clause 68 of the Welfare Reform Bill, in which htis draconian policy is legislated for, to put this injustice right.

Rev Paul Nicolson.

Welfare Reform Bill: Briefing for MPs and Peers

Posted on by
Reply

The impact on the “standard allowance”  of rent and council tax not paid by AMBH and CTB

I am assuming that the “standard allowance” for adults of the Universal Credit in Clause 1 will be the same as JSA which from April will by £67.50 a week, and £53.45 for the under 25s, with additions for families and for particular needs and circumstances;  their already inadequate values are diminishing due to the move from RPI to CPI and the steep rise in the price of food, domestic fuel and other necessities.  Before 2020 the weekly cost of a healthy diet, currently £45.65 a week, will have overtaken the adult weekly standard amount if current policies are continued. (Donald Hirsch – University of Loughborough).

But current policy will leave some of the rent unpaid by the Appropriate Maximum Housing Benefit (AMHB) in Clause 68. The local authorities will be deciding who gets council tax benefit.

It should be a matter of rigorous national and local policy that the standard allowance in Clause 1, plus additions for children and for other particular needs or circumstance, will never be reduced by any rent not covered by national AMHB or any council tax not covered by local CTB.

Unless that rule is applied in all cases the unemployed will be expected to pay those amounts out of the already inadequate standard allowance plus additions, inevitably creating debts, with consequent damage to mental and physical health, to education, to fitness for work, and there will be pressure for fraud, homelessness or disappearance into the informal economy. The very low unemployment incomes are already expected to repay inevitable debts with consequences for mental health.

Mothers before conception, and their fetus during pregnancy, are particularly damaged by poverty and debt; they have already lost £1734 due to the cuts (Sam Royston – Family Action) during pregnancy and during the first year of the baby’s life; poverty before conception also adds to the risks of low birthweight.

Three groups are receiving only the totally inadequate adult JSA;

1.      Young people from aged 18.

2.      Childless adults

3.      Unemployed parents when their children exceed the age that child benefits are paid and their unemployment incomes are reduced to the adult’s rate.

Among the amendments we will be preparing are;

1.      When setting the level of the standard allowance, the amounts for children and young persons and the amounts for other needs or circumstances the Secretary of State shall have regard to research into the minimum incomes needed for healthy living.

2.      That when setting the level of the national minimum wage and in work benefits the Secretary of State shall have regard to the minimum incomes needed for healthy living.

3.      the standard allowance, plus the amounts for children and young children, and for other particular needs or circumstances will not reduced by any amount of rent or council tax not paid by Appropriate Maximum Housing Benefit or Council Tax benefit.

4.      When setting the level of statutory minimum incomes the government shall have regard to the cost to the tax payer in the health and educations services of poverty and debt related physical and mental illness.

5.      That sanctions will only be applied after examination of the facts and circumstances each case; exceptions will be made for vulnerable adults.

The “moral hazard” of unemployment benefits being to so high that people will avoid work as a life style choice has been carried too far in cries of “dependency” before the Welfare Reform Bill was published by the change from RPI to CPI, by cuts  and by the HB caps; on top of which sanctions are to be applied.

The moral hazard case is increasingly far from reality as the value of welfare also decreases due to the increase in prices of food, domestic fuel and other necessities. Unemployed and impoverished people in a wealthy society have options other than applying for unemployment benefits or seeking legitimate low paid work.

NB.  We are asking the government to have regard to the minimum incomes needed for healthy living but not to abandon its regard for the state of the economy. The decision remains a political and economic one not one governed by research.

However we believe that consideration should also be given not only to research into the weekly cost of the basic needs required for healthy living but also to the cost to the tax payer in the health and educations services of poverty and debt related physical and mental illness; the amount of which should be estimated and published by The Treasury.

Letter, Independent on Sunday 21/02/11 (full text)

Posted on by
Reply

The current policy of housing benefit caps will be a running sore in the lives of the poorest citizens for years to come unless it is corrected in Clause 68 of the Welfare Reform Bill, where they are called the Appropriate Maximum Housing Benefit.

The injustice is rooted in the history of the housing market since the 1980s, when lending was deregulated and rent controls abolished. That resulted in a flood of money pouring into a housing market in short supply; inevitably prices and rents rose.

Housing benefit payments rose to over £21bn a year. At the same time there was no coherent housing policy to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing to buy or to rent. None of this was the fault of the tenants receiving housing benefit, but they are now paying a very severe price. If housing benefit is cut then the rent has to be found out of the remaining income. The single adult unemployment benefit for people of 25 and over is £65.45.

The Joseph Rowntree minimum income food standard for a week is £45.65; that has been put together by nutritionists, tested with the public for reasonableness and priced in supermarkets. Simple arithmetic shows that if housing benefit is cut then rent arrears are inevitable because the tenant cannot afford to pay the rent, food and other necessities.

There is absolutely nothing wrong, as the Government asserts, in the state funding unemployed people to live to a higher standard than those who do go out to work, because the state has persistently failed to implement a coherent policy for affordable housing.

The Rev Paul Nicolson, Chairman, Zacchaeus 2000 Trust

Peter Ambrose, Visiting Professor in Housing and Health, University of Brighton

Lynn Collingbourne, Housing Consultant, London SW1

“A Flawed Concept of Society”

Posted on by
Reply

There are major weaknesses in the flawed concept of society which is pouring out of No 10 Downing Street. It is very judgemental and it contains no mention or practice of economic justice.

Contempt for British society has covered pages of news print. Britain is broken, we don’t volunteer enough, there is a dependency culture among the unemployed and sick note culture in the civil service. But the unemployed need encouragement rather than demonization. Of course the absolutely poor unemployed depend on the tax payer to prevent them from starving and pay the rent with means tested welfare, such a policy is illustrate the meaning of  the common good. Research has shown that people would far rather work than draw the dole; and of course they should be willing to look for work. However unemployment benefits become increasingly valueless as they are cut and the prices of food and other essentials escalate, rendering some people unfit for work due to debt and stress.

Low pay and bad management are known to result in labour turnover and increased sickness absence. It was the major accountancy company KPMG who wrote the business reasons for the Living Wage for London and then paid it to their cleaners; it is refused by government for the Civil Service.

The treatment of poor tenants receiving housing benefit takes us back to the poll tax. Both parties of government since 1979 are responsible for the catastrophic consequences of the 1980s deregulation of lending and the abolition of rent controls,  which were exploited by irresponsible bankers who nearly  destroyed the economy in 2008. Money flooded into a housing market in short supply forcing up prices and rent. Housing benefit exploded to over 21 billion a year. It was not the fault of the impoverished tenants, but they are carrying the pain of enforced eviction from their homes  and rent arrears they cannot pay from poverty level jobseekers allowance, due to the cuts in the housing benefit; the poll tax also reduced poverty level jobseekers allowance .

The Prime Minister claims it is  wrong for the State to fund unemployed people to live to a higher standard than those who do go out to work. This is nonsense when the State has persistently failed to devise any policy for affordable housing since Harold Macmillan was at No 10 in 1957.  Local authorities placed homeless people in the available accommodation because they, quite rightly, had a legal duty to do so. A secure home is a basic necessity.  It will take a major campaign about Clause 68 of the Welfare Reform Bill, in which this draconian policy is legislated,  to put this injustice right.

 

Rev Paul Nicolson, Chairman

Welfare Reform – Newsnight gave a one-sided acount

Posted on by
Reply

American academic Lawrence Mead was given a fair whack of air time last night to describe the welfare reforms he introduced in America in the 1990s, the thinking behind them and how he sees them applying to the UK

We at Z2K were incensed that such a one-sided critique of the Britain’s broken welfare system was given so much airtime. Particularly questionable was his assertion that there are enough jobs without giving any figures, he merely looked into one Jobcentre.

The National Housing Federation released research yesterday that jobseekers outstrip vacancies in every London borough (in Haringey by 24 to 1) but will have their housing benefit cut by 10% after a year on JSA. In Randeep Ramesh’s piece on Mead last year it is also pointed out that his ideas were initially introduced during an economic boom – it is no wonder that jobs to be filled were plentiful.

The BBC’s set up last night saw the surreal scene of Grayling defending himself against being too liberal. In light of  tomorrow’s Welfare Reform Bill it is especially important that balance is given to the public debate. Poverty in the UK cannot be understood without the details:

1.       Prices of Food and Fuel are rising fast, according to the Centre for Research in Social Policy sometime before 2020 years JSA will not be enough to cover the food bills of single adults. There will be no rise in the value of welfare.

2.       Benefits are already well below the Minimum Income Standard or Minimum Income for Healthy Living, both of which were recommended by the Marmot Review, meaning that job seekers already are unable to afford a healthy diet. Adult unemployment benefit is currently £65.45 a week and the Joseph Rowntree Mininum Income food standard is £45 a week and rising.

3.       Cuts to housing benefits mean that rents must increasingly be paid out of these totally inadequate unemployment benefits.

4.       This inevitably leads to debt, which this government’s own Mental Health Strategy accepts negatively effects mental health, and repayment of which inevitably reduces the income available for food.

5.       Family Action has shown that the cuts have taken away the four benefits available to women during pregnancy and in the first year their babies’ lives totalling £1735.

6.       This all leads to both physical and mental illness the cost of which to the NHS must be picked up by the tax payer.

7.       Poor health and debts also inhibit job seekers from finding work, therefore burdening the welfare state for longer. We also know that mental ill health is the most common cause for claiming incapacity benefit in the UK.

A Unified Approach to Foster a Big Society

Posted on by

The Times, 15th Feb 2011.

Sir, The political weakness in the Prime Minister’s concept of a society is it is very judgmental. What does he think we have all been doing without him telling us to get on with it? The public interest in the map on a government website showing the local incidence of the number of crimes committed in local areas throughout the UK is cited as a great example of the Big Society; but we would all feel a lot happier if there were a balancing map of the milions of acts of kindness in every street, every year. Kindness and volunteering are spontaneous and a normal part of human behaviour.

Rev Paul Nicolson

Response to public health white paper and mental health strategy

Posted on by

Z2K recently responded to the Department of Health’s Public Health White Paper and Mental Health Strategy. We were strongly critical of the Department’s continued failure to fully recognise the proven negative impact of low incomes and debt on the physical and mental health of those both in and out of work.

Incomes are currently well below evidenced recommended Minimum Income Standards for many living on low wages or through government benefits. The government has not yet estimated the consequent cost to the health service, education, policing, labour markets, etc… As a result we simply do not know the full impact this policy of imposing poverty incomes in the UK has on its economy. Continue reading →

Marmot: new data on the link between wealth and health inequalities

Posted on by
Reply

This morning Sir Michael Marmot published data showing how unequal health outcomes are between the richest and poorest parts of the country. Life expectancy and time spent in good health are shown to be heavily linked to social standing.

Some key point picked out by Randeep Ramesh in today’s Guardian are:

  1. 60% of five-year-olds in some of Britain’s poorest areas do not reach a “good level” of behaviour and understanding – double that found in wealthier suburban parts of England.
  2. Marmot, a public health specialist and author of Fair Society, Healthy Lives, said: “Education and child development are key for health. It is the educated who stop smoking … we know the key driver of teenage pregnancy is not getting early child development. You are not going to get pregnant as a teenager if you develop as a child.”
  3. There was also an alarming health gap opening up within areas. Marmot pointed out that in [Z2K's home borough of] Westminster the average life expectancy of male residents was 83, five years longer than the English norm, but this masked wide disparities. The poorest in the London borough could expect to live 17 years less than the richest.

This evidence futher supports the need to support a minimum income standard across the UK so that people can afford to feed them selves and thier children a healthy diet, heat thier homes and while staying out of debt. The to the UK of failing to do this are currently  unpriced but likely to be large. The government already predicts that mental health (which is strongly linked to debt) costs the economy £105 Billion a year.

We must hope that the Welfare Reform Bill, due for publication next week, recognises the negative implications for everyone of imposing poverty incomes on the poorest.

Reform Criticises Welfare Reform

Posted on by
Reply

Writing on a blog last week for the website Public Finance Dr Patrick Nolan, chief economist at leading think tank Reform, has strongly criticised the coalition government’s Welfare Reform Bill.

He calls for what he describes as “expensive and poorly thought-out” reforms to be immediately abandoned. Not enough attention has been paid to how the Universal Credit will be delivered and, it is argued, this lack of detail is likely to lead to expensive mistakes down the line.

He rightly acknowledges that as the scheme is proposed it is likely that many will be trapped in a cycle of dead-end, low paid, unskilled jobs as there is no incentive to find secure, skilled work. However he fails though to point out the inadequacy of Job Seeker’s Allowance and the Minimum Wage to provide a healthy lifestyle, inhibiting both job seeker’s ability to find gainful employment and many workers from lifting themselves out of poverty.

This very real problem faced by many of Britain’s poorest and their dependents, who make regular decisions about whether to eat or heat their homes, will not be solved until the Department of Work of Pensions considers the health of those on poverty incomes and the Department of Health considers income.

For more evidence on the shortfall between these poverty incomes and a minimum income standard, see Z2K’s response to the DWP.