To many, all this sounds like a very attractive proposition.  Efficiency always sounds like a great idea.  We’ve all heard far too many stories of extravagance and waste and even outright fraud in the public sector.  No doubt most of us think we could do a better job of spending our money than our political masters.  And I’ve yet to meet anyone who enjoys paying tax.

To the libertarian, the welfare state is fundamentally immoral and inefficient.  Not only does it remove the incentive to work for some, but it also unfairly forces all workers to contribute to their support.  The libertarian capitalist argument says that everyone is responsible for their own wellbeing and, without the “something for nothing” approach of the welfare state, people will work harder to find and retain the best job they can.  Those who are unable to work will be recipients of the noblesse oblige of the rich, whose philanthropic instincts will be encouraged by the absence of a state-sponsored welfare system.

The approach starts to fall down when you consider some of the practicalities, though.  If a corporation wishes to start an industrial process with significant environmental impact then how wide does its negotiating circle have to go, especially if it expects to produce a high level of carbon emissions that may affect the whole world?  How strong are the relative bargaining positions of the wealthy business-owner and the unskilled worker she wishes to employ on very low wages, or the powerful corporation and the area of very high unemployment to which it relocates?  And what happens if the wealthy (and even the not-so-wealthy) don’t keep up their end of the implicit bargain with those who are unable to work?  After all, a safety net is never needed until someone actually falls down.

That’s not to say that we can’t learn some useful lessons from this kind of philosophy.  Above all, I think it helps us ask some serious questions about “corporate welfare” and corporate responsibility.  We often hear politicians arguing that people must take personal responsibility for their circumstances and do whatever is required to improve their lives.  Libertarians hold strongly to this view, but they also insist that corporations must stand on their own two feet as well.

In Britain recently, not only have we seen major companies receive massive government subsidies, but also the ongoing effects of a system that effectively allows them to abdicate their responsibility, in order to pay their own way. Our “corporate welfare state” distorts the market drastically and, as the libertarian model predicts, this leads to inefficiency, excessive state intervention and worse outcomes for low-paid workers.

For example, I pay taxes that go into a central pot, some of which goes back out to other workers as child or working tax credits – a complicated arrangement that sees workers on low pay, who pay tax, claiming credits from the government to top up their income.  While this has been a fairly effective way of lifting children out of poverty, it doesn’t seem like the simplest solution. Given that the tax credit system is one of the most notoriously unreliable bureaucracies we have, wouldn’t it also be easier – and much more efficient –to cut out the middle-man by increasing the basic tax allowance to the living wage, and, as a result, not have those people paying tax in the first place?  It just doesn’t seem fair to have low earners paying taxes before they’ve made enough to feed their families. The losses to the Exchequer could even be offset by a slight increase in the tax rate for those earning above the new threshold, if that was deemed necessary.

People working in poverty reduction often talk about the importance of increasing government-sponsored childcare so that people, especially women, with children can enter (or re-enter) the workforce more easily.  But why should this – a direct cost of employing someone with a family – come out of the taxes of other workers who are already financially stretched? Why not reduce everyone’s taxes by the amount the country spends on such initiatives, and instead demand that employers come up with decent childcare provision themselves?  Better yet, we could insist that companies just pay their workers at a level that lets those workers choose the childcare provider that bests suits their needs, whether that’s a nursery close to home or paying grandma appropriately for the caring work she takes on.

And why in the world should anyone who has a full-time job need to claim any kind of benefits just to survive? Shouldn’t we be asking why wages are so low in some jobs that people can’t afford a decent life without a state subsidy? Government ministers insist that welfare reform is vital if people are to escape a “culture of dependency” and if they are to “make work pay”. But if a company is only profitable because other people’s taxes are enabling it to keep wages low, who is really “dependent” and who is really responsible for work not paying?

All these questions would be answered if the welfare state was, indeed, only providing ordinary people with a measure of protection from the vagaries of a sometimes cruel economic system. But some benefits given to ordinary people ultimately “subsidise” the low wages of many jobs.  In the end, that’s welfare for companies at the expense of everyone else.  I don’t think many of us believe that’s a healthy way for our economy to operate.

My taxes (and yours) should go towards insuring the nation against an economic downturn that forces many of us out of work, or against the existence of people who are simply unable to work.  My taxes (and yours) shouldn’t go to fund systems that, whether by accident or design, keep other people at or near the poverty line.  I’m happy enough to contribute to the welfare of people who are struggling to make ends meet on their own. I’m not at all comfortable paying for profitable corporations to keep them that way.

Kenny McBride works for Oxfam’s UK Poverty Programme in Scotland.  He wouldn’t know who to vote for in an American election.

Chill winds are sweeping Britain’s economy with a general expectation that poverty will increase in the coming years, and that poverty reduction targets will be missed. Alarm bells rang loudly after hints that the Government is considering changing the way it measures poverty. They wouldn’t just do this because unmet targets are embarrassing. Difficult times mean that politics in Britain has primarily become an exercise in allocating pain, not spreading butter. It may be tempting to just try to protect those with access to power, a voice, or those likely to vote because they still believe the status quo can work for them.

But this would be like applying sticking plasters to a breaking dam. Ignoring the 13.5 million people suffering below the poverty line wouldn’t just be immoral, it would be nonsensical. For two reasons, economic weakness has made tackling poverty more important, not less. Firstly, the solutions to Britain’s economic malaise require the inclusion of people on low incomes. Secondly, poverty in Britain is caused by a dysfunctional economy, and in this financial crisis, this underlying dysfunction is dragging down the living standards for growing numbers of people.

Why is solving poverty more important than ever?

If Britain is going to rebalance its economy to take advantage of new global opportunities in the way that the Government and business organisations like the CBI want, then our people and their skills will become more important determinants of growth. Some economists argue that because middle classes have become more educated, they are likely to provide fewer productivity gains in future. This means that improving poor peoples’ economic inclusion is even more important – a stable, decent standard of living is a precondition for realising potential.

Instead, increasing numbers of people are being subjected to the kinds of pressures and vulnerabilities that have existed at the bottom for years. The share of national income that goes to workers has not only declined inexorably during recent decades, but has kept falling during recession. This problem is affecting the majority of people in Britain as well as those below the poverty line. People are increasingly realising that while they’re working for the economy, the economy isn’t working for them.

This isn’t really new, it’s just worse than ever. UK economy has become supremely ineffective at including people. The proceeds of growth are not allocated where they are due. So as the numbers of those struggling with unemployment, underemployment and in-work poverty all rise, the gap between an “underclass” of the workless and millions more people in work will become more blurred. Now is the time to make common cause, to commit to tackling the underlying drivers of poverty, because it is more obvious than ever that doing so will benefit the majority. This is why a plan to come together to deal with the fallout of the economic crisis is an essential part of a bright, attainable vision of the future.

What needs to happen?

Firstly elites need to change the way they talk and think about poverty, being clear that it’s a problem for everyone. For most people, although extreme deprivation persists, poverty is decreasingly a question of ‘them’ and ‘us’.

Secondly, Britain needs big changes that work for the majority. Policymakers must make sure new forms of growth include society from the bottom up, and commit to reversing the rise of economic inequality that is making the financial crisis more painful for millions. And economic policy must focus on increasing the quality as well as the quantity of work. Work is now a debasing experience for millions of people: it offers low pay, few chances of progression, and little security. This is why, if you are a British child in poverty, the chances are, at least one of your parents is working. A work ethic can’t thrive when work is becoming an increasingly ineffective way to support a family.

Thirdly, policymakers need to inject urgency into making policy across the board pro-poor. There are plenty of low-cost and no-cost ideas out there that need a hearing. For example improving the Welfare Reform Bill should be an urgent priority, a Robin Hood Tax to protect services and safety-nets for the poorest should be another. Strong signals from the top that reducing poverty is a priority will give bureaucrats and junior ministers the courage to innovate.

Finally, leaner years require a more equitable distribution of the crop. A majority of people seem to think two things about the deficit: it is real and needs to be dealt with (56 per cent in a November YouGov poll), and that it’s not being closed fairly enough (57 per cent). In Westminster, closing the deficit can seem like the crucible of the political contest. But people outside the bubble know it’s not a game. For some communities it’s a question of life or death. To policy elites deficit reduction looks like a myriad of ‘difficult decisions’, each one subject to intense lobbying by those who can afford a voice. But the important question is do we get through this together or split apart? Does society share the burden, ensuring a decent standard of living for everyone – or do various interests fight over the scraps in a contest that can only condemn the vast majority to a poorer future? It’s the decision over the kind of society we want our children to grow up in.

Ben Morgan is Oxfam Advocacy and Policy Officer on poverty in the UK.

The Welfare Reform Bill starts ‘Report Stage’ in the house of Lords today – a five-day debate, where the House decides whether to change the legislation by voting on amendments proposed by individual Peers.  The Welfare Reform Bill contains a radical set of reforms that will affect the lives of millions in the UK. The implications of even the most minor errors in design are practically unimaginable. So today Peers are trying to fine-tune the government’s reforms, to ensure mistakes are nipped in the bud.

Today’s debate, from about 3pm, will cover a number of vital issues. However, one particularly critical decision will be over whether the new Universal Credit will be paid monthly, or fortnightly as Baroness Lister of Burtersett and a group of other Peers from across the aisle has proposed.

Not such a big deal? Well, for millions of people on low incomes, particularly women, it will be.

The government is rolling a range of benefits into a single ‘Universal Credit’ (UC), which they plan to pay once a month. Lots of these old benefits are currently paid weekly or fortnightly, often on a fairly flexible basis. For example, tax credits may be paid every week, or every four weeks, according to what is most convenient for a claimant (although they don’t get the final say). Housing Benefit can be paid at intervals of a week, two weeks, four weeks, or monthly, depending on the frequency with which rental payments are due. Child benefit, which is especially important to causes like increasing gender equality, reducing domestic violence, and ending child poverty, is paid weekly. Even Jobseekers’ Allowance is paid fortnightly. A shift to monthly payments for all these benefits is a big change, so it is worth weighing carefully.

The problem with paying Universal Credit on a monthly basis

The government’s argument for paying UC monthly is pretty straightforward: it reflects the frequency at which wages are paid, and therefore prepares people for that experience, making it less of an upheaval.

That sounds pretty sensible; after all we’re all paid monthly to work, why can’t benefits be paid the same way? But we aren’t all paid on a monthly basis. Three quarters of people employed in Britain are paid monthly, something Department of Work and Pensions recently acknowledged. Predictably, lower paid, lower skilled jobs are less likely to be paid monthly. Actually, only around half of jobs paid under £10,000 a year are paid monthly. Sadly, more vulnerable benefit claimants are more likely to graduate into these jobs first.

The government does recognise the change will come at a cost. In its white paper ‘Universal Credit: welfare that works’ (Cm 7957 November 2010), it conceded that:

We understand that many people on low incomes will be used to managing fortnightly payments of benefits and will ensure that, whatever the period of payment, there will be appropriate budgeting support to ensure recipients are supported effectively.

More vulnerable claimants are certainly less well equipped to budget on a monthly basis. DfES research shows that numeracy skills are painfully low amongst some groups. Five million people have ‘poor’ numeracy skills, while 1.7 million people have ‘very poor’ numeracy skills. Providing support to deal with monthly payments will cost more money. Those with lower skills are more likely to enter unskilled work that pays more frequently, so the upheaval will have been unnecessary.

Particular groups are clearly more vulnerable. Organisations such as Mind, the National Autistic Society and the Disabilities Benefits Consortium have all expressed real concern about a plan to pay UC on a monthly basis is a recipe for debt. Put together with the current plan (also in the Bill) to abolish crisis support through the Social Fund, a strict system of monthly payments is more likely to drive vulnerable claimants towards lenders and loan sharks.

Oxfam would add women to this lengthy list. Our experience and research in the UK shows that women tend to take responsibility for budgeting for essential living expenses and the needs of children, which all tend to be spent on a weekly basis. In couples, and particularly in abusive relationships, women sometimes rely on the weekly payments like child benefit as their sole source of independent income. One worry is that if benefits are paid monthly to a couple rather than individuals within the couple, less money will reach women and children, or be spent on essential expenses. In any case, when the money for essentials is already tight and tough to manage, monthly payments would seem to just make things harder.

A compromise: simplicity without debt

In short, for many claimants, monthly payments will probably work fine. But for those who with little experience of work, vulnerable claimants, claimants with very low numeracy skills, or claimants who face severe financial pressures because of inequality within the household, weekly or fortnightly payments are essential for effective budgeting. The only alternative for many will be yet more crushing private debt. As Baroness Lister argued last week in the Independent, a strict imposition monthly payment threatens ‘pay-day loan peril’.

Ideally, claimants should simply be able to choose how often they receive Universal Credit. This would certainly contribute to the government’s admirable aim of making the system more tailored to the needs of individuals. However, if Ministers are set on fixing a universal frequency for payments, given that many of the most essential benefits are paid weekly, paying UC on a fortnightly basis would seem like a reasonable compromise.

UPDATE

The result is in, we lost this one I’m afraid. It was extremely close: 224 for to 227 against – less than a handful of votes short. It was heartening to see such a strong support for this amendment. Yet the fact it was so close is just mortifying – one wonders whether one could have swung it with just four more emails! On a positive note the 224 who voted ‘aye’ on amendment one deserve huge congratulations and thanks, and the speeches in favour were really strong. Click here to read the short debate, and check of who voted.

Clearly this is really disappointing, there’s no other way to put it. On a positive note though, the government does acknowledge that a system which precludes choice and presumes in favour of monthly payments will require special protections and tailored help for at least some individuals. Though such a system seems unlikley to reach the millions who are likely to struggle with monthly payments, there is clearly now a job to be done to help ensure proposals are as effective as possible. Additionlly, because a big part of our concerns around this issue stem from the attending context of current proposals mentioned in my post to retract crisis support offered through the Social Fund, securing a better solution on that could really help.

Average earnings are rising at less than the rate of inflation, and this is being presented as an argument for a smaller rise. Yet the Conservative government broke the earnings-benefits link in 1980 precisely to run down benefit levels compared to the incomes of working people, and it has never been put back. In 1980, unemployment benefits were a fifth of average earnings; today they are a tenth. Together with eroding the connection between National Insurance and benefits (most benefits that were once contributory are now means-tested for all), this has helped make social security the residual system it is now, rather than the social insurance system it was originally designed to be.

Governments can’t have it both ways. Either benefit levels keep up with the rest of society, making them a social safety net, or they keep up with prices, leaving them frozen in time. You can’t exclude the poorest from rising prosperity in the good times, and then expect them to pay the price when times are hard. Raising benefits with average earnings for the long-term would be a positive step, stopping the gap between benefits and earnings growing further. But doing it as a one-off to save money will have the opposite effect.

In the short term, calling the September inflation rate a ‘blip’ – as one Conservative MP did – is misplaced. Inflation is high because food and energy prices are rising fastest – and people on benefits spend more of their incomes on both of these than most. Indeed, no lesser authority than the Institute for Fiscal Studies has proved that inflation has been hitting the poorest hardest. There is a far stronger case for increasing benefits by more than the average inflation figure – not less – just to keep people living in poverty standing still.

In fact, the whole argument is disingenuous at best, penny-pinching at worst. Each month’s  inflation figures are annualised: they compare the world now with the picture a year ago, regardless of when in the year price hikes were highest. Benefit increases are retrospective, so when levels finally go up in April, they will be taking account of price increases that have already happened. So long as there is consistency, whenever in the year you set the benchmark, you’ll ultimately end up with the same results. Critics should be honest: moving the goalposts at this stage would mean a real-terms cut in benefits.

What has been mooted would be taking money from the pockets of the poorest, in order to pay for a crisis that was caused by the excesses of the richest. This government has past form on that. Indeed, it has already saved billions by switching which measure of inflation it uses to raise benefits. People living in poverty are already being hardest hit by job losses, price rises, tax increases, and spending cuts.

That is ‘unfair’.

Raising benefits with the cost of living is just basic decency.

It followed from the ensuing debates over the inextricable causal links between deep rooted poverty and inequality that there was a need to propose solutions that work to address these damaging characteristics of the political economy of the UK and Scotland. The consensus across academics, the Church, trade unions, and community and voluntary sector members of civic Scotland – informed by UK and European commentaries – was that a better future was and has to be possible.

That many of the levels of inequalities and drivers of poverty have been persistent over generations was confirmed over and again, suggesting that what has been evolving over time represents failure, but also design. The strategies and policies of successive UK Governments of recent, present and, we are promised, future times have not only been reproducing these but exacerbating life chances for many while enhancing the riches of the few. The failure to reverse relative and absolute declines in economic and social performances whilst pursuing illegal wars and rearmament through a new generation of Trident missiles – not a strategy adopted by our competitors – was highlighted.

Security and safety seemed to be flexible concepts in this country, missing for those seeking relief from insecure jobs and housing, but paid for by us all to ensure others with high incomes and pensions never suffer hardship or the consequences of their own actions. Bringing the economy to ruin through bankers’ speculative games and massive bonuses has allowed the Westminster Coalition to claim a need to launch massive attacks on collective provision of health, education and welfare in England, with Scotland now facing the choice of where to make deep and damaging cuts to the lives of the vast majority.

It was stressed throughout the seminars that the economic system and the pursuit of growth meant that those who had not gained from the speculative bubble of growth in the 1990s and 2000s were paying the price for the recession now and in years to come; yet those who had created the crisis were hardly affected. This led to repeated discussions and demands for a new approach, a paradigm shift with society prioritising sustainable development and not growth for its own sake. Participants made clear the links to the debates and development of the Oxfam Humankind Index for a better Scotland, a fitting legacy to the seminar series.

The seminars confirmed the need to learn from history is essential, and that small countries in northern Europe hold much better ways forward to a more prosperous, fairer and sustainable Scotland than the usual look across the Atlantic to neoliberal ideas and madness. International comparisons of standards of living, of quality of lives, of levels of health, happiness and satisfaction consistently show how our closest neighbours offer much better prospects than we are subject to here.

This seminar series was not an end in itself but rather both a contribution to setting the agenda for this better future and to establishing the framework and structures for exploring how to get there. We look forward to welcoming colleagues from across the nation in that conversation and journey.

Mike Danson is Professor of Scottish and Regional Economics in the University of the West of Scotland and co-organised the ‘Whose Economy?’ seminar series with Katherine Trebeck, Research and Policy Advisor for UK Poverty in Scotland.

We’re used to hearing – depressingly often these days – about people living in poverty as being variously feckless, undeserving, or suffering from dependency: in short, as passive, unthinking victims. What if, instead, we started from the premise that people living in poverty are, like everyone else, rational actors in their own lives – doing the best they can, in the circumstances in which they find themselves?

That is the logic of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach to poverty analysis and community development (SLA), used in Oxfam’s international work, and which Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty (CAP) have been pioneering in the UK.

Rather than starting from a negative view of what people in poverty lack (such as work, money, or skills), the SLA starts by considering people’s assets. While they may often lack financial assets, people in poverty have strengths and capabilities, which they draw upon to construct strategies to get by. These may include social capital, physical assets (eg a car, or the tools of a trade), human capital, and the resources that people can draw on because of where they live, such as public services. Recognising these assets, how they are distributed within the household, and thinking about how to unlock their potential, adds depth to our understanding of poverty.

In considering what impacts on people’s decisions to pursue new livelihoods strategies – to take up training, to start a new job, or to move in pursuit of one – it is important to take account of risk and vulnerability. Livelihood decisions can put existing assets at risk. For example, someone on benefits who takes up insecure or temporary employment may be risking their financial stability for a job that could end up leaving them worse off. For families on low incomes, vulnerability to shocks may be a key factor in decisions. So, for example, in the absence of robust social insurance, it may not make sense for someone to move away from extended family to take a job, when they can provide emergency child care, offer a spare room, or make a loan in a time of crisis.

Men (and women) make their own histories, but they do not make them in circumstances of their own choosing. While the SLA recognises that people in poverty are active and rational drivers of their own lives, it does not deny the importance of the context in which they make their decisions and build their livelihoods. How institutions, regulations, the economy – and the political and policy context more broadly – shape the conditions in which people live, at the neighbourhood, local, or national level, is of crucial importance to how successful their livelihoods will be. But what the SLA in its totality tells us is that it is important that those policies and that context are redesigned in a way that goes with the grain of people’s livelihoods – which requires understanding the reality of the lives of people in poverty.

Together, these insights combine to tell us that people experiencing poverty are active in their careful assessment of risk and make rational decisions and choices about their lives, in light of the external and internal constraints they face. Any approach to poverty reduction which rests upon a demonisation or ‘othering’ of people living in poverty, which treats their decisions as somehow irrational, has failed to understand their reality, and will thus fail in its aims.

Oxfam and CAP have used the SLA at community level across the UK since 2005. This work has helped us to identify and act upon individual, household and local issues, and to help improve the lives of people and communities. But it has also demonstrated to us that there are limitations to what can be achieved locally, and pinpointed areas of national policy that need to change. Informed by these findings, we have sought to explore the potential of the SLA at a national level to help poverty-proof policy work.

One area of public policy illuminates what this means in practice. In some aspects, the Coalition government’s approach to welfare reform has embodied SLA principles. At present, the benefits system leaves people who leave unemployment at risk of debt and ultimately being worse off if their job doesn’t work out, or even when awaiting their first paycheque. The Centre for Social Justice’s work, on which the universal credit is largely based, began by studying the landscape of financial incentives faced by benefit claimants, and sought to reconstruct the system to improve that. By smoothing the transition between unemployment and work – and, crucially, by providing support based on income changes in real time – universal credit will reduce much of the risk attendant in moving between unemployment and work, or between different jobs or number of hours in a job.

Other aspects of welfare reform could be improved by using an SLA analysis. This government continues to extend conditionality and sanctions on the one hand and to run down benefit levels on the other. This modern version of the ‘principle of less eligibility’, practised by successive governments, has conspicuously failed to end mass unemployment (often described as ‘welfare dependency’). Far more positive would be to focus on supporting people at an individual level to address these barriers by building on their strengths. The Work Programme, which is the government’s vehicle to achieve this, is compromised by taking an outcome-focused approach in which the only outcome assigned any value is employment. In reality, there may be many interim steps – such as therapeutic activities, or training – on the road to a sustainable livelihood which will enrich people’s lives in themselves, and act as a stepping stone to employment.

Finally, the government must pay far more attention to what happens beneath the household level. At present, Universal Credit is based upon a single, household-level analysis, leading to a single, household-level payment. This is fraught with danger, since resources are not distributed equally within households, and how money goes into a household – for example, whether payments to children are labelled and paid to the main carer – enormously impacts upon the well-being of members of that household.

Taking a Sustainable Livelihoods Approach to welfare reform and many other aspects of public policy can enrich the analysis undertaken and the solutions offered. A recent joint report of Oxfam, IPPR North, CAP and Urban Forum, Community Assets First, explores the potential application of SLA to the policy areas of welfare reform, homes and neighbourhoods, financial inclusion, and community and society. Following on this work, we would urge policymakers, researchers, and community practitioners to use the SLA to help them develop a more holistic approach to anti-poverty work, an approach which works with the grain of people’s livelihoods, and takes them as active participants in their own lives – and in changing them for the better.

So far, so typical. A new government scores cheap and easy points with sections of the media and the public by talking tough on benefit claimants, selectively quoting statistics to further that aim. Public attitudes having been softened up over time by successive governments so that this kind of talk ceases to shock. The Need Not Greed campaign, of which Oxfam is a member, is clear that it is the outmoded benefits system, which has failed to develop with the modern labour market, that forces people into working informally (“cash in hand” and “off the books”), just to get by. We’re not talking about massive defrauding of the system, but people who want to work, but are held back by the system.

But perhaps it’s better to let the government – in the form of the recent consultation paper on welfare reform, championed by Iain Duncan Smith – speak for itself: ‘fraud is always wrong, but we must recognise that the benefits system is making matters worse by pushing valuable work, and the aspiration that this can engender, underground’. If Cameron is serious about tackling fraud – and not just chasing headlines – then it is this systemic failure that he needs to devote his energies to.

Oxfam argues that, by raising the amount of money people can earn before their benefits are affected, and lowering the rate at which they are withdrawn thereafter, work that is now informal will be brought into the light. People who can only do small amounts of work – because that’s all that’s available, because that’s all that they can manage right now, or because that’s what fits with their caring or other responsibilities – will be empowered to do so.

Policymakers also need to engage seriously with the vulnerability of people living on benefits and seeking to get back into work – putting security back into social security. Forced to subsist on tiny incomes, and with few assets to draw upon, such people are understandably risk averse. Benefits should help them manage that risk, stepping into the breach whenever work dries up, or if a new job doesn’t work out. At the moment, it can take weeks to process claims for various benefits, and taking those difficult first steps into work can become a debt crisis from which it can take years to recover.

Happily, the government’s consultation paper on welfare reform engages with this, and some of the solutions it proposes would genuinely make a difference. I’d suggest the Prime Minister joins his Work and Pensions Secretary in engaging with the substantive, structural problems in the welfare system – of which benefit fraud is but a symptom – and leave the sensationalism to the tabloids.

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.

Encouragingly, the campaign is gaining strength and important international support. Earlier this month, a thousand economists wrote to G20 finance ministers meeting in Washington to show their support for the tax. Gathered from 53 countries, experts such as Professor Jeffrey Sachs (advisor to Ban Ki-Moon) commended the tax as ‘technically feasible’ and ‘morally right’, and urged politicians take action that could raise billions of dollars to help the world’s poor.

Several fantastic events have helped raise awareness of and support for the tax among the public. Half a million people descended on London to ‘March for the Alternative’ on the 26^th of March, with the Robin Hood Tax cited as a strong part of the argument against cuts.  Indignation at the banks’ ability to ‘get away with it’ was the key note at the NEF/ Fink Club event ‘Where did all our money go?’, while a debate at St Paul’s Cathedral ‘Should we bank on the Robin Hood Tax?’, chaired by Evan Davis,  focused on to what extent banks have a responsibility to contribute to the common good and whether, if so, the Robin Hood Tax might be the solution.

It’s easy to get lost in abstractions and debates, but ultimately the Robin Hood Tax is about raising vital funds for real people, both abroad and here in the UK. To understand more about where such revenue might be spent Robin Hood (or at least four of his merry band) took to the road to find out more about the vital services people across the country rely on – services which now face crippling cuts. Bill Nighy joined the visit to a food bank in Wales, Sam West visited a Sure Start centre in Corby, and many other people and services were able to share their stories and fears for the future.

What can you do? Watch, read, find out more and please please spread the word. For more info, and all the latest visit the RHT site – http://robinhoodtax.org/