In legislating to pay benefits in a single, household-level payment, the government risks harming children’s well-being, reducing gender equality, and increasing vulnerability to financial abuse.

Universal Credit aims to consolidate a range of benefits and tax credits into a single payment in order to create a simpler system. As Welfare Reform minister Lord Freud recently confirmed to Oxfam, the whole amount would be claimed by one individual, or go into a joint account.

Of particular importance are the child and childcare elements of tax credits. These are currently paid to the main carer – usually the mother – and will be rolled into the single Universal Credit payment. This is problematic for a number of reasons.

Mothers usually take the main responsibility for meeting children’s day-to-day needs in low/moderate-income families. Labelling matters too: government research shows that child tax credit is commonly identified as money for children[pdf], and spent accordingly. And a study of Winter Fuel Allowance earlier this week from the IFS found “robust evidence of a behavioural effect of the labelling”.

The choice of benefit recipient within couples takes place in a context of gender inequalities. Where there is evidence, it points to men tending to make benefit claims on behalf of couples; 81 per cent of guarantee pension credit (the other type of pension credit being savings credit) claims in couples are made by men, as are the majority of joint JSA claims. Overall, however, there is a lack of evidence to support the assumption of free choice within households.

Moreover, once money reaches a household, it is often unequally distributed, as ministers acknowledge, and Oxfam research demonstrates. Nor does the government’s preferred outcome – a joint bank account – guarantee equal access to money or equality in financial matters. Women are more likely to have individual accounts, and value them for reasons of independence – a trend that is increasing.

The combination of these factors means that women often lack access to money within the household. Indeed, one in four mothers have absolutely nothing to spend on themselves [pdf], rising to a rate of one in two mothers in households below the poverty line. Benefits labelled for children are sometimes the sole source of independent income for women, helping to reduce their vulnerability to financial abuse.

By ensuring that the child and childcare elements of Universal Credit are paid to the main carer – as proposed in an amendment to the Welfare Reform Bill supported by Oxfam that went down today – parliament can help to ensure that money intended for children is paid to the person most likely to spend it on them. It would also help to give carers (usually women) in low-income households access to income in their own right.

We asked all participants at the event to pledge to take action on issues raised in the report. One of the key note speakers was Ruth Lister, a senior social policy academic at Loughborough and a newly appointed peer of the House of Lords.  She pledged to mention the study when she first addressed the House. On the 3rd March 2011, she stood in front of the House, giving what has been described by Baroness Scott as a ‘thoughtful and forceful maiden speech,’ to promote the report and its findings:

‘A number of research studies show that low-income women are more likely to go without basics than men living in the same households. Just the other week, I helped to launch the publication of a study of black and minority ethnic maternal poverty for Oxfam and the Angelou Centre in Newcastle. The study reveals considerable deprivation and, in a few cases, what the researcher calls “economic violence”, in which the woman has so little access to money that her freedom is severely curtailed. Other research illuminates how the stress created by poverty can undermine mothers’ ability to provide the kind of parenting that they want to. This can get overlooked in policy debates, which sometimes give the impression of blaming poor parents.’

If you are interested, you can read the full transcription of her speech, in which she also mentions her long running work pushing a similar agenda with the Child Poverty Action Group, here.

At the launch itself, speeches were made by both Ruth and by Chi Onwurah MP, Newcastle upon Lyne Central. You can read the transcriptions of their speeches here:

Ruth Lister
Chi Onwurah

The ‘Exploring BME Maternal Poverty’ report can be accessed, either in full or as a four page summary, here.

What do they have in common? Well, apart from the fact that they all feature in today’s news headlines the answer would appear to be – very little.

Below, we take some of the key points from today’s top stories – can you work out which quotes refer to which group of people?

…are seeing the biggest decline in living standards since the 1920s, as food and petrol prices soar
…can expect to take home an extra £46,000* in pay this year, compared to last year
…are facing unprecedented funding shortages, which may result in homelessness, violence, and prostitution for their users
…are struggling to find jobs in the depressed labour market**
…may take home a £8,000,000*** bonus this year. Or more.
…spend more than half of their income on food – and therefore face chronic hunger due to rising food prices
…reported group profits of £6.1bn*** for 2010

———

* (that makes their average pay £236,000. Which could buy plenty of food, and petrol. It’s ten times more than the average UK salary)
** (that makes them unemployed, which makes their average pay £0)
*** (that’s the same as 344 people on the average annual UK salary make – combined – in a year)
*** (yes, that’s £6,100,000,000 in profit – which could provide 20 million victims of violence and their children with a week of accommodation and subsistence)

In fact, women’s experience of asylum may be different to that of men from the outset. Arriving with their children to ‘testify’ why they’re seeking refuge, a lack of childcare at immigration offices means that many women have to tell their stories in front of their children, and may consequently hold back on more horrific details, of sexual violence for example. (For more info  see Asylum Aid’s Every Single Woman campaign, including the Refugee Women’s Charter)

For those who are subsequently refused asylum, life as a woman continues to present additional difficulties and dangers. Finding themselves alone with no place to sleep is a huge risk for a homeless woman.  The report tells the story of Mary, who was unable to sleep at her friend’s house as she had another visitor. She found herself in a nightmare all women imagine: “it was night and I was walking in the park. There was a man and he started to follow me. I was very scared and started to scream and run, full of tears.” Many people in this situation have a home to escape to; Mary didn’t.

Coping with Destitution also shows that women are more likely to have to stay home looking after children, and so are less able to earn any money – even a couple of pounds. They find it harder to cope with the lack of privacy which asylum seekers moving around, sleeping on sofas and floors of friends or contacts for example, have to face. For many, their culture forbids this lack of privacy, so they suffer agonies of remorse in addition to not being able to support themselves financially.  Men are often more able to find work and make friends.

Women may find it easier than men to find partners of the opposite sex to support them. ‘Support’ can be a dangerous thing however, and while both women and men are forced into transactional relationships to survive, and some end up selling sex out of pure desperation for cash, women are at much greater risk of coercion, entrapment, and violence as a result.

But it’s not just new relationships that can victimise women; many destitute asylum seeking women suffer at the hands of existing partners. Women in this position face a double whammy: violence if they stay with their partner, but further suffering if they leave, as this may cut any ties with their community – a particularly vital lifeline to women who have no access to public funds, such as basic benefits, and housing.  (See Forgotten Women report).

Coping with Destitution makes a number of recommendations, including reform of the asylum system and an end to policy of destitution. But as we have seen, women’s experience of the asylum system, and of destitution, differs from that of men in many ways. So it is important that policy makers and voluntary organisations who work with asylum seekers are both aware of this and take the particular needs and experiences of women asylum seekers into account in designing and delivering services and support for them.

Findings include:

-       many mothers going without essentials in order to protect their household from poverty,

-       unequal access to the household purse, undermining mothers’ ability to decide how Child Benefit and Child Tax credit is spent and placing all financial control in the hands of the father

-       barriers to paid work such as attitudes of husbands, poor language skills, and lack of suitable childcare; all preventing women from improving their situation through paid work

The study draws on in-depth interviews with 30 women from the Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Arab and Black African communities in the UK. Read the full report at www.oxfam.org.uk/publications, from Friday the 27^th January. For further information about the research email Sophie Fosker, Gender Programme Coordinator, sfosker@oxfam.org.uk

I am particularly interested in the effect the changes will have on women, as women are more likely to claim benefits. This is due to women having lower incomes, and greater caring responsibilities. They are caught in the net of conditionality and struggle to balance the greater pressure to get jobs at any price, with the fact that paying for care so they can go out to work, is frankly unaffordable.

What are the facts here?  The gender pay gap is pervasive, as women are shockingly paid an average of 16% less per hour than men, and that rises to 21% less for apprentices.  Women are also more likely to carry out unpaid (and under valued) caring work. Because of women’s lower incomes and greater contribution to caring responsibilities, a larger share of their income is made up of benefits and tax credits – one fifth for women, one-tenth for men. So women are going to be much more affected by the welfare changes, and by conditionality, than men. Oxfam have called for the government to make sure benefit reform is sensitive to the differing needs of women and men.

Introducing conditionality to benefits is a controversial move, which is likely to have a negative impact on women. Douglas Alexander, Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary has highlighted that the sanctions will hit parents, as “women in particular are often trying to balance work that pays, with caring responsibilities”. It will be difficult for women with caring responsibilities to meet conditions such as increasing their hours or doing unpaid community work. They simply won’t have the spare time. As illustrated by Joseph Rowntree’s report on low pay, mothers found it difficult to find work to accommodate their childcare demands. Women often had to chose between family caring duties and wider employment. The white paper fails to outline how conditionality and childcare will intersect and whether any childcare support will be provided to people carrying out unpaid work. It is imperative this is addressed – or women will be stigmatized, when really they simply cannot, rather than will not.

In America work requirements (or workfare) have been used to encourage people off benefits. The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) wrote a report in 2008 comparing workfare programmes in the US, Canada and Australia. Universal credit is by no means identical to US workfare, but the principle of making people do unpaid work in order to receive benefits is the same. Interestingly, the report  states that workfare is less likely to work for people facing barriers to work, such as the cost of childcare or emotional and physical problems. People facing these barriers were least likely to meet obligations to take part in paid work and in the most extreme cases they were left with no income.

The proposals also create an unnecessary climate of fear. Women usually manage the household budget.  They are going to be sanctioned when they have no power to avoid it. The threat of having benefits removed will cause a mother with a carefully managed family budget a great deal of stress and anxiety. What’s more, sanctions such as the removal of benefits will affect the whole family. As Sally Copley from Save the Children has said ‘it is children who will suffer when a single mum is told to take a job, but there is not suitable childcare available’. Is that what the Government wants by stigmatising women in their failure to acknowledge and address particular gender needs?

Welfare sanctions will put some of the most vulnerable women and children in society under great stress and at risk of destitution. This is unacceptable.  

In the first, Oxfam GB addresses the major issues raised by the coalition government’s consultation paper: 21st Century Welfare. This consists of three main aspects: an assessment of the principles underpinning the proposals; an analysis of the proposals that are made; and an analysis of crucial elements of welfare reform that are absent in these proposals.

Supporting research (A Gender Perspective on 21st Century Welfare Reform; commissioned by Oxfam) provides a gender analysis of the potential impact of the welfare reform proposals, particularly on women living in poverty and in receipt of benefits / tax credits, and highlights the potential negative impact on women which has not been adequately addressed by the government.

Oxfam calls on the Government to carry out a detailed gender and equality impact assessment of the costs and benefits of the developed welfare reform proposals once they are published, using the principles set out in this report.

Although the government assures it will provide a helping hand to encourage the growth of communities, a huge amount of money will be withdrawn from the sectors at its very heart. As Paul Segal highlighted in the Guardian, the cuts will have a negative impact on inequality and people living in poverty. Many in the community and voluntary sector, which is the focus of the plans, have serious concerns about the impact it will have on their work. Women, child asylum seekers, and the lowest earners have been shown to be among the people who will be hit hardest.

The UK Poverty Programme’s Routes to Solidarity project works with Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) women. This is a group who face racial and gender discrimination, including barriers built into the way our society is structured that put them at a disadvantage. This discrimination leads to economic inequality, increased risk of poverty, greater deprivation and reduced life chances. The BME sector will also be at risk from the cuts.

Oxfam have spoken to the women involved with Routes to Solidarity about how the cuts will impact on their work. Many of the women highlighted that there is little commitment to providing guidelines or central equality monitoring. The cuts are therefore likely to hit under-resourced organisations, such as domestic violence services, which are not considered ‘frontline’ but are often a lifeline for BME women. Women-only spaces provided by community groups are typically the only places that issues like domestic abuse, honour based violence and forced marriage can be properly addressed. The impact of the cuts on the public sector is likely to have a knock-on effect on such invaluable specialist services; services which will be at breaking point already due to the squeezing of the voluntary sector.

Moreover, the systemic inequality that currently prevails will be maintained or intensified. Many of the women commented that, although the government wants to give people the chance to have a say on issues that affect them, this wont be possible when the system does not allow people to participate equally. Instead, the power relations that are created by this inequality of opportunity will be played out in a local context, and those groups whose voices are currently the loudest will continue to dominate.

Today the Comprehensive Spending Review will be published, and we will discover the true extent of the cuts we are facing. It remains to be seen whether the community groups and volunteers championed by the government will be able to pick up the pieces and recover. What is clear is that these changes will make already vulnerable women more vulnerable and leave the sector struggling to provide vital services for disadvantaged people.

In today’s Times, it’s been announced that Iain Duncan Smith has won backing from the Treasury to invest upfront in reform of the benefits system. Under the new proposal individual payments such as Housing Benefit, Jobseeker’s Allowance, and Employment and Support Allowance will be rejected in favour of a universal credit system. Claimants will be allowed to keep more of their benefits when they take a job or increase their hours. This is great news as it means that people will have the security to try out new jobs without risking losing their benefits. It is also great news that Iain Duncan Smith has been allowed to make that upfront investment, particularly in the current climate of cuts in government spending.

The National Minimum Wage has risen from £5.80 to £5.93 an hour. People under the age of 21 will also benefit from the new rate. The government plans to penalise companies who break the minimum wage law by naming and shaming offenders. The increase in the minimum wage is positive news for helping to lift people out of poverty, as paid work does not necessarily lift people out of poverty. In fact, due to poor wages and working conditions, the number of people in work and living in poverty now outnumber the amount of people out of work and living in poverty. The minimum wage still needs to be higher, but today’s increase is a definite a step in the right direction.

Finally, the Equality Act 2010 came into force today to a mixed reception. The Equality Act targets discrimination in the work place and is an important step towards closing the gender pay gap. Although the gap is narrowing, on average, for every pound a man makes, women earn 87 pence. Under the Equality Act, pay secrecy clauses will be unenforceable, meaning that women will be able to see if they are being paid less than their male colleagues. Theresa May writes for the BBC that the Act is a milestone towards achieving equal pay, although she acknowledges that changes in the law alone will not be enough to close the gap. There is also need for flexible working hours, allowing parents to share child care. The Fawcett Society have voiced criticism of the implementation of the Act, as, due to reviews of the Act, only 90% will be enforced.

Therese at an international GenderWorks conference with Oxfam in Brussels earlier this year

As David Cameron’s idea for the Big Society meets more discussion we look to see the public sector gaps already filled by community groups.  I went to visit one such group, an Oxfam Scotland partner organisation, Karibu. 

Karibu, meaning ‘welcome’ in Swahili, started as a refugee women’s centre for African women and other migrants, run by African women in 2004 in Glasgow.  Starting off as simply a community group, it is now registered as an official charity with centrally located offices which welcomes women as far out as Largs and Motherwell.  Charlotte, the Development Officer and Therese, a volunteer, are just two of the very motivated women involved with Karibu.

With ‘women together facilitating integration’ as their slogan, they want to help women be independent, to help them to integrate and adjust to the changes in language, culture, and even cooking they have experienced in their migration to Scotland. They run Basic English classes teaching daily use language to ensure women are able to do simple things such as their shopping themselves, and provide assistance with official phone calls and form-filling.  In collaboration with ‘The Hidden Gardens’ they run a gardening and cooking class where they cook the vegetables they have grown in recipes they’ve developed, with a vision of one day serving this in their very own African café run by their members.  This also would be an outlet to sell products from their sewing group, including bags and aprons. 

They are able to reach those who need support most by tackling the issues that often make access to these kinds of services more difficult.  For example, Karibu pays the expenses for the women who come to any of their sessions, and are in the process of organising a crèche in their offices so women are not deterred by a lack of childcare, a dilemma affecting families all over the UK not just Karibu members.  Of the women they have contact with, Charlotte and Therese tell us about three quarters do not have a husband with them, but that most have children, exacerbating the difficulties associated with Scotland’s lack of affordable childcare.

The most serious and debilitating issue said to face women contacting Karibu is sorting out their immigration status. This complicated process can take years and can make an individual feel like a criminal, and many of Karibu’s members live every day in fear of deportation. Karibu helps to provide support during this time, signposting to volunteering opportunities allowing an opportunity to show commitment and a desire and ability to work that may help their application and just genuinely being there for these individuals, providing a welcome distraction for even a few hours a week.

What would the outlook be like for the thousands of refugees in Glasgow without the support and signposting services Karibu offers, filling the void left by the public sector in assistance to migrants to the UK?  Luckily, we are left to wonder.