So, now the European Commission has decided that the Robin Hood Tax would be pro-growth after all (provided even a small proportion of revenues are invested in creating jobs). Given where the UK economy is these days, that’s kind of case closed. And given the ‘growth at all costs’ neo-liberal mantra of the last 30-odd years in this country, that is (or should be) the whole political and economic establishment on board too.

More important still, from Oxfam’s perspective, the current non-growth (to put it politely) is hitting the poorest the hardest. Incomes are falling; public service cuts are hitting people on low-incomes worst; benefit cuts are biting; and unemployment is high but stabilising, albeit at the cost of people being forced into part time work. Get the economy going again, and those undeniably bad things start to get better. Once again, this time for people who care about poverty in the UK – case closed.

And yet. If we value things like overcoming poverty and environmental sustainability, it is the type of growth that matters, not growth itself. Oxfam’s work developing a well-being index for Scotland demonstrates that, for the people of that country, there’s a lot more to life than GDP. How to get the right kind of growth is an urgent but difficult question.

If the above is one for the pro-poor contingent, the political and economic establishment might want to pay heed to the growing realisation, among the likes of the (scarcely anti-establishment) World Bank and IMF [PDF], that economic growth circa 2007 is something of a busted flush. The rewards went to the richest, while incomes at the bottom stagnated. Since 1981, personal debt as a proportion of GDP has more than trebled [PDF].

We developed a society in which those at the bottom need to borrow to survive, and those at the top have enormous amounts of money to lend. The financial sector expanded until it reached crisis point. Even if we manage to repay or write off enough private debt to get the system up and running again, those same contradictions come back into play. As two IMF economists put it, ‘any success in reducing income inequality could therefore be very useful in reducing the likelihood of future crises’.

What does this all have to do with Robin Hood? Well, in the immediate term, a tax on some of the richest people in the world can help to shift some of the burden of economic failure away from people in poverty – helping to fund essential services in the UK and abroad. That investment will do far more for our short- and medium-term economic prospects than taking money from the pockets of the poorest. It will also edge us towards long-term sustainability, by reducing inequality, and discouraging harmful speculation.

When it comes to a Robin Hood Tax, the UK stands to gain more than most.

Oxfam GB’s paper on the impacts of the economic crisis and its political response on people in poverty, and how we can start to build ourselves sustainably out of the situation we’re in, The Perfect Storm, is published next month.

Most of us can see in our daily lives how our world is beset with social problems: we’re stressed, mistrustful, our communities have eroded, crime is a constant problem, and the lives of growing numbers are dominated by despair and depression.

Some commentators have bemoaned our moral decline, blaming the laziness and criminality of those at the harsher end of the social scale. The perception is that all it would take to solve these problems is for the poor to pull themselves together, that anyone can be rich as long as they work hard. But is this really true?

“The Spirit Level”, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, makes an arresting case to the contrary. It presents 25 years of meticulous research to show how nearly all social ills – stress, poor educational performance, child wellbeing, violence, unwanted teenage pregnancies – are more common in those societies with a big gap between rich and poor. What’s more, there are good reasons to believe these inequalities are at the root of our problems. At its simplest, bigger income differences reduce social cohesion, and make all the problems of class and social hierarchy worse – not just for the poor, but for all of us.

The idea swept the globe in 2009, 2010 and 2011, gaining support from leaders of all political persuasions. Ed Milliband talks about “Spirit Level Britain”, Obama claims inequality is the number one problem facing the US, and Cameron states that “deep poverty living side by side with great riches damages us all”. Even the world’s billionaires at the annual Davos Conference spoke of the problems of inequality – although perhaps this is more down to a fear of reprisals than a pre-occupation with fairness. After all, last year saw a wave of protests against the super-rich, from Occupy to UK Uncut.

Yet still the incomes of the top earners have risen faster than everyone else, especially in the US, UK, Denmark, Finland, Australia and Mexico. In the US, the richest fifth of the population controls about 85% of the country’s wealth. In the UK, the richest 1% have seen their share of income rocket from 7.1% in 1970 to 14.3% in 2005, whilst incomes of the poorest have stood still. And, in December 2011, the OECD reported the gap between rich and poor was at its highest level for 30 years. The ignorance about how unequal our societies have become – and the effects of this – is shocking. There is no better time than now to address it.

Why I am making a film

I’ve long been passionate about the role that film can play in creating social change, and this book immediately struck me as one of the most important social messages facing the developed world. I felt it was something that transcended political rhetoric, that everybody should be aware of this research into the woes of our modern developed societies.

Over the last few years, films like the Age of Stupid and An Inconvenient Truth tackled climate change, influencing both public opinion and policy change. More recently, The End of the Line lifted the lid on the threat from over-fishing, and successfully changed both government and business policy. The same team are now behind The Spirit Level film – and our aim is no less ambitious. We want to make a film that is talked and written about, that gets into cinemas, and on our televisions, so millions can see it.  And, most importantly, we want to achieve real, tangible change in policies and attitudes.

This May, starting on the 21^st, we are launching our campaign both to raise awareness and funds for the film. For six weeks only people will be able to visit our campaign page and support the film.

Support our campaign

We want as many people as possible to help us to build a campaign for greater equality. We want people to know we are making this film – to show just how much public support there is for the issue, to help us attract the money we need to make it, and to put pressure on politicians to move beyond lip-service to real policy change. Together we can do for the public understanding of the ways inequality damages all of us what An Inconvenient Truth did for the public understanding of climate change.  A better life is possible for all of us.

Financially, we are asking supporters to pre-buy the down load of the film. If just 2,500 people worldwide paid £12, we will achieve our target. And of course, it is possible to donate more. But it really isn’t all about money. This is a movement and a campaign and, regardless of how much cash you have, we want you to participate and spread the word about our message.

So today, regardless of whether you can donate, please share the campaign page – on your Facebook page, Twitter account, and blogs!

Here’s how you can help:

SHARE our campaign page

TELL your friends, family, colleagues, neighbours, students about this campaign

SHARE our Facebook page

SHARE through Twitter @SpiritLevelDoc

Sign up to our newsletter at www.thespiritleveldocumentary.com to find out more about the campaign as it progresses.

BLOG, TWEET, RETWEET.

And please do email any thoughts you have for the film or campaign to us at hello@thespiritleveldocumentary.com.

For the past 14 years, government after government has put single parents at the vanguard of welfare-to-work initiatives. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 is no exception, and from today (21 May), it will see single parents whose youngest child is five no longer entitled to receive income support (IS). Instead, they will need to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) or another benefit.

But is it as simple as off to work we go? A new report – “It’s off to work we go?” – by Gingerbread throws a harsh light on the realities facing single parents with younger children who must now find work amid a backdrop of high unemployment and economic decline.

This is not to say that single parents will not, or cannot, find a job. Indeed, 57 per cent of all single parents work and 54 per cent of single parents with five and six year-olds are already in paid employment. But the fact is that they need jobs that enable them to be both a worker and a parent. Becky has two children and tried working full-time but felt she didn’t have enough time and energy for her children. “I was becoming very tired; their school work was suffering, so I wanted to go part-time. I don’t want to do more than 30 hours a week. I would be very happy to do any job that is in the hours they go to school.” Suitable job opportunities, and in particular short-hours jobs (those of less than 16 hours a week), remain sparse, and over two-thirds of single parents enter low-waged occupations and will continue struggle to make ends meet despite working.

Finding a job is not the only obstacle facing single parents. Securing sustainable employment is also a significant challenge.  For those who succeed in finding work that fits with their caring responsibilities, a substantial minority (20 per cent) will move out of employment again within 12 months.  When Amanda’s son was in the hospital, her employer wouldn’t allow her to juggle her hours to care for him. She ended up not getting paid, and decided to look for other work because she found it difficult to balance her employer’s expectations and her caring responsibilities.  “I asked to go in different days to work my hours, and they said ‘no, you can’t do that’. I’m not saying I wouldn’t do the hours, I was just saying that I wanted to do them on different days. It was really bad. I was very happy to leave that job. I couldn’t do the days, and they wouldn’t pay me.”

For single parents with young children, who have been away from the labour market for some time, accessing further education provides an important stepping stone back into work. Gaining a level 3 qualification (such as A levels, BTEC National Diploma or a Higher National Certificate) makes a significant difference to the amount of money a single parent can earn. Single parents on JSA can receive a fee remission from Jobcentre Plus for their first level 3 course. However, they have to be prepared to give up their course if offered employment or face a payment sanction if they refuse – a complete waste of public money, not only in respect to loss of fees but also in light of future potential for earnings.

A better paid job can reduce reliance on in-work benefit payments and, for single parents, it’s a step towards moving off benefits altogether in the long. Adherence to the rigid conditions of Jobseeker’s Allowance, rather than the flexibility of Income Support, inhibits, rather than enables, a single parent’s ability to find better paid employment.

Single parents have to meet tough job-seeking requirements on JSA to receive their fortnightly payments. This will make it more difficult for them to start a further education course to increase their chances to get a better paid and sustainable job. Yes, ensuring that single parents can complete a further education course does requires a modicum of patience on the part of the government, and a little bit of well-placed faith in the determination of single parents to work themselves and their children out of poverty, but it will pay off. As the saying goes, a stitch in time saves nine.

Philippa Newis works as Policy Officer for Gingerbread, a UK charity focused on single parents. Gingerbread provides advice, training, and support to single parents, as well as campaign to improve single parents’ lives in the UK.

At first, I thought a zero-hours contract would be a great solution to my “need income whilst seeking full-time employment” conundrum. The contract would offer me working hours when needed, as well as fast cash, and time for job applications. Well, I thought wrong. What appeared to be a simple solution turned into an on-call lifestyle with very little flexibility. And if it didn’t suit me as a single young person, I can’t imagine it would suit anyone with a family…

By definition, a zero-hours contract is an agreement under which an employer does not guarantee the employee a fixed number of hours per week. Rather, the employee is expected to be ‘on-call’ and, at the same time, receive payment only for hours worked. The zero-hours contract is particularly popular with small, independent business owners that require working staff, but seek to guard themselves against a potential drop in business activity. In the past, this type of contract has led to grave misuse of employees. In the late 1990’s, cases were reported of workers being asked to remain physically present and available to work until their services were required. Although the employees remained on the premise of the business, they did not receive payment for their time spent not working. This specific form of labour abuse was later eliminated in the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.

A convenient part-time job that became inconveniently full-time

For me, it played out somewhat differently, as I was on-call, but at home. I agreed with my employer that I would only be able to work between 20 to 25 hours per week, given my additional volunteering duties. In the beginning, this did not present any obstacles to my employer, until an increased number of hours became available. I started receiving text messages at midnight informing me of extended working hours for my shift the next day. What was intended to be a four-hour shift had now become a six-hour one and I had to disregard any other responsibilities during that time frame. This continued until I found myself working 38 hours every week, often opening the restaurant in the morning and closing it at the end of the day. Needless to say, this had not been my intention when entering my contract and to my employer’s surprise, I did not welcome the additional ten or more hours per week.  Due to the unexpected increase in working hours, I fell behind with searching for jobs and completing applications and, more importantly, I missed out on several opportunities to attend meetings and conferences relevant to my post-graduate job search.

Income is a gamble

Although the zero-hours contract was not a suitable work arrangement for myself, I understand its appeal to employers. The ability to cut hours when business is slow, as well as, have an extra set of hands on deck in case things pick up, is an advantage for any business owner. Furthermore, the type of on-call lifestyle might be the perfect fit for certain individuals who have unlimited availability and are content with a varying degree of income. In the worst-case scenario, one could end up spending weeks without earning money. On the other hand, one could find themselves with increased working hours and a surplus of money. Either way, income is a gamble.

I find that this type of contact generally provides a lack of stability and control over one’s income and life. Even now – where many people are facing economic hardship, and any job could potentially be considered better than no job at all – the zero-hours contract is quite simply an unrealistic option for any individual who has competing commitments, which, let’s face it, is a great number of us.

This is not another top-down measure of the country’s economic growth, like GDP.  Rather, it measures Scotland’s overall prosperity based on the things that people told us really matter to them, and we hope to use it to help policymakers drive Scotland’s recovery in the right direction.

The consultation process revealed that it’s the quality of growth that is most important to people. For example, satisfaction derived from work is one of the top priorities, not work per se. Security and sufficiency of income are important to people, not having loads and loads of dosh. The quality of our environment, strength of friendships, and the safety of those we care about are also key factors. And above all are health and housing. You can find out more about the consultation process here.

Scotland’s prosperity has gone up…

With the help of the New Economics Foundation and the Fraser of Allander Institute, we assessed how Scotland is performing against those areas of life that are key to people’s prosperity. What we saw was that since 2007-2008 our prosperity has increased 1.2% (to 2009-2010). Scotland appears to have become more, if only slightly more, prosperous. This is good news, but mainly due to non-economic factors such as health, community spirit and better local environments.   The areas connected to the economic aspects of life seem to be actually deteriorating. The lack of secure jobs, and the dire need for a stable and sufficient source of money are dragging Scotland’s prosperity down.  But even though prosperity is rising, it doesn’t fool anyone.  It’s a sign of growing inequality.

…but it’s not being equally shared

Crucially, our deprived communities are failing to get a share the improvements to the country’s overall prosperity. They lag behind not just in terms of having enough money, but also in the fields of health, housing, the local environment, feeling safe, and community spirit. These gaps reflect the extent of inequality in Scotland – its impact stretches beyond money to all aspects of life. It will take action in areas beyond the economy to ensure Scotland’s most deprived communities are no longer being deprived of the greater prosperity enjoyed in the rest of our country.

But closing this gap will not happen by simply pursuing economic growth without regard to its quality or distribution. What is concerning about current moves to return to business as usual is that the business itself wasn’t that healthy, nor was ‘usual’ that useful to our poorest and most vulnerable communities. Instead, we need to pursue an economy that works for the people, not the other way around, and an economy that works for all of us, and not just the few of us. This is the shift we hope the Oxfam Humankind Index will help catalyse.

For Oxfam, the financial crisis provides an opportunity to re-prioritise our goals, focusing on what is really most important to people and what is most influential on our prosperity and sustainability. The Oxfam Humankind Index is helping us to reset our national compass to point us in a new direction – one that guides us towards greater real prosperity for all the people of Scotland.

Usain Bolt is probably the greatest sprinter of his generation and perhaps the greatest of all time. Over 100 metres, he can run faster than anyone else in the world. But does that make him the greatest athlete in the world? Could he perform to the same high standard if asked to run longer distances or compete in field events? Probably not. He is a specialist, and if that’s what suits him then I wish him good luck. For me, though, the greatest athletes on display this summer will be the heptathletes and decathletes – the people who compete at a high level across a broad range of disciplines. The training is just as intense as for any individual element, but the athlete involved must learn to split his or her time and energy the right way to ensure peak performance in as many areas as possible, if they hope to achieve a medal.

So it should be for countries.

Creating a strong, healthy, vibrant nation is a decathlon, not a sprint. A strong economy is important, but so are strong communities, safe streets, green spaces and happy families.  And in the same way as Usain Bolt would likely sweep the board over the short distances, but slip out of contention on the field events in the multi-discipline event, so a society that focuses on nothing but GDP will ultimately lose the race to become a great nation because it will have ignored the other things that really matter.

Next Tuesday, April 24th, Oxfam will launch the Oxfam Humankind Index, and reveal Scotland’s performance. This is a new way to measure Scotland’s prosperity and, unlike other measures of national progress, particularly GDP, it is not a top-down measure of something quite abstract. The Oxfam Humankind Index was constructed by actually asking people what was important in their lives, and then calculating Scotland’s performance in each of these fields according to the best statistics available.

Many of the results will be unsurprising to people who have asked themselves what they value most. Decent housing, security, a decent local environment, and good relationships with family and friends are all much more important to people than relentless economic growth. Indeed, out of the 18 different factors that make up the Oxfam Humankind Index, money is not even mentioned until about halfway down the list. Even then, people care more about just having enough money to pay for the essentials, and knowing that their income is secure, than about having ever-greater wealth.

From there, the statistical experts of the Fraser of Allander Institute looked for data that would help us understand how Scotland was performing in each of these areas. However, we found that the government simply has no information about some of the things that matter most in people’s lives… Even measures of something as important as the country’s mental and physical health are not as authoritative as they could be, and there are no real measures of how well we relate to family and friends or how strong our communities are.

If a good sprinter wants to become a top decathlete, he talks to his coach, and together they set new training priorities to achieve these new goals. If a society with a decent economy wants to become a better nation all-round, it has to look at what the real priorities of its people are, and find new ways to address those.

The Oxfam Humankind Index provides us with a first glimpse of how our performance in this great social decathlon is shaping up. The next step is to talk to the people who set our national priorities and decide how best to pursue our new goals. Perhaps that could be our 2012 legacy.

Sometimes, it’s helpful to take a step back from the chatter of the moment, all the better – hopefully – to observe a fuller picture.

Clearly, a Budget that allocates billions of pounds and affects, in one way or another, every single person in the UK is more than just chatter. Nonetheless, for all the dramatic headlines of the moment – change is news; stability goes unremarked – the story today is one of continuity, not of radical new directions.

So what is it that’s being continued? Continuing more or less unabated is a fiscal retrenchment (spending cuts and tax rises combined) of unprecedented speed and severity. Nor is there any let up in the – again, unprecedented – attempt to achieve this predominantly through spending cuts, rather than tax increases (a 3-to-1 ratio is the target). In the jargon, it’s about as regressive as you can get. You or I might think of a stronger word or two for government deficit reduction policy that seeks to cut public services and benefit spending as quickly as possible, while taxing as little as possible. (In the UK today, the poorest fifth of the population pay more of their income in tax than the richest fifth. There is plenty of room for the rich to pay their share.)

Taken together, this amounts to the most brutally focused attack on public services in modern British history, combined with enormous cuts to both in- and out-of-work benefits. That was the big story yesterday, and it remains the big story today.

That all said, the major measures announced today warrant their own analysis. There are numerous ways in which the distributional impact of a Budget (how it affects people of different incomes) can be assessed, and this question will undoubtedly be debated vociferously over the next day or two. Treasury analysis suggests the very richest will feel the biggest impact, but otherwise, the poorer you are, the harder you’re hit. Though the figures for the rich don’t include the cut in the top rate of tax (from 50% to 45%), so the extent to which they have lost out is likely a significant overestimate.

It’s always a good rule of thumb to ask what isn’t included, rather than (or in addition to) poring endlessly over what is. In this case, public service cuts are not counted, because the science behind measuring their impact is very underdeveloped. Yet, given the likely enormity of that impact, in this case, an equivocal answer might well be better than no answer at all. Oxfam’s programme experience tells us that people living in poverty, particularly women, rely more than anyone on public services. If you prefer your evidence quantitative, the TUC published research in 2010 which suggests that spending cuts hit the poorest tenth of the UK population thirteen times hard than the richest tenth. That puts in perspective arguments about a percentage point here or there in the distributional impact of tax and benefit changes.

Rather than purporting to give a complete overview, I’m going to focus on a pair of issues that are fairly indicative of the debates that matter around taxation – and then a warning from the future of where the ‘fuller picture’ described above is liable to take us. (Lest we forget, focusing too hard on tax is to miss most – three quarters, in fact – of the broader whole.)

First, the rise in the income tax threshold will help many on moderate incomes, but the worst off – the ’squashed bottom’ – won’t feel any benefit at all. Around 1.5 million workers were already paying no income tax in 2010/11 because they did not earn enough, and this measure will do nothing to help them. More importantly, this measure takes more money out of the Treasury. And in the overall context of huge cuts to services and benefits, and where tax credits for the lowest earners are already being reduced substantially, this ends up as a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul – where Paul had far more than Peter to begin with. If the measure was revenue neutral – if the money came from within the income tax system – then raising the threshold and, say, adding a penny to the basic rate of tax could make things fairer. As it is, this measure does little for the poorest in isolation; and, in the wider context, contributes to their hardship.

Second, and a more encouraging hint of what could be done if the political will were there, is the announcement of a consultation on a General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) to tackle aggressive tax avoidance. While a decision to consult on legislation a year from now is a bit ‘jam tomorrow’ compared with a specific and dated tax cut for the very richest, the political commitment to tackle the substantial UK tax gap is welcome.

The effectiveness of this one particular measure will be analysed over the days and weeks ahead, and the devil will certainly be in the detail if and when legislation ultimately arrives (and there are already signs that strong legislation will be strenuously resisted), but the bigger picture is this: there is money in British society, and in the British economy. Brazil may be hot on our heels, but the UK is still the sixth richest country in the world. The decision to make the poorest pay, through service and benefit cuts, as well as through regressive taxes like the VAT increase, is a political one. The wealthiest tenth of the UK population own more than 100 times more than the least wealthy tenth. There are numerous powerful levers in the hands of governments to tackle wealth inequality, while closing the deficit (and raising the revenues for the public services and benefits that are the bedrock of a civilised society); the GAAR is just one small step in the right direction.

Instead, one comment in the Chancellor’s speech – less an announcement, more an ominous warning of what is to come – sets out quite clearly, to anyone who chooses to listen, where the path we are on leads.

‘So I am today publishing analysis that shows that if in the next Spending Review we maintain the same rate of reductions in departmental spending as we have done in this review, we would need to make savings in welfare of £10 billion by 2016.’

Already, the welfare budget has taken as big a hit as any, and, much hardship as is being caused now, the worst is yet to come. The change in how benefits are uprated (or increased year by year) from the higher RPI to the lower CPI measure of inflation is particularly pernicious, as it will lock in cuts to benefits, year after year. You can think of it as inequality in one clause. With benefits already at historically low levels, it is hard to overstate the damage that cutting away still further will do. And with twenty or more job seekers chasing each vacancy in some parts of the country (not to mention the millions more who are either ‘underemployed’ or shut out of the labour market altogether), responding with ‘get on your bike’-ism is both cruel and unrealistic. Most worrying of all, this is not a shot in the dark: it is the direct and inevitable consequence of a fiscal policy that seeks to cut back on state spending as its first priority, irrespective of the self-defeating economic logic.

So, at first glance, this Budget is a mixed bag, with tax changes broadly, but not exclusively, favouring the better off, and with a real positive in the continued movement towards tackling tax avoidance. Far more important, though, is the direction of travel that it largely continues. Even though the wheels have been in motion since the Emergency Budget of 2010, many of the worst impacts have yet to be felt, and much of the hardship – and, one hopes, resistance – is yet to come. It is vitally important, as its effects are increasingly felt, to recognise that this continuity is as much a political choice as would be taking a different course. There are more progressive – fairer - alternatives. This Budget does not provide them.

Laura Dewar, Senior Policy and Parliamentary Officer at the Single Parents Action Network (SPAN) explains why single parents’ and their children’s needs should be taken into account by the Work Programme.

Single parents speak out

It all started back in May last year, with a desperate post on the online forum at One Space.  It was from a single mother who was being moved over to the Work Programme. She was anxious about what it would involve and what account would be taken of her young daugther’s needs: what would happen to her daughter over the long school holiday, if she was asked to do a work placement during that time?

Jobcentre Plus did not offer her any reassurance. An avalanche of posts followed on One Space, from single parents across the country worried about their transfer over to the Work Programme.

At the same time, Oxfam invited us to attend some training around on the Equality Act 2010, which exists to ensure every citizen doesn’t suffer discrimination – for example when applying for jobs. The training showed  how the Act could be used as a vehicle for positive change as it includes a ‘duty’ to help make sure that public bodies such as Jobcentre Plus, and contracted services such as the Work Programme, take account of the different needs of their customers, and do not hinder any particular groups. We wondered: could the equality duty be used to improve the treatment of single parents moving over to the Work Programme?

Finding out more from single parents

Oxfam supported our charity to look in more detail at the experiences of single parents, and how the equality duty could be used to bring about change. So we spoke to single parents in Bristol, and looked at the contributions to our online forum from single parents from all over the UK.

We found that single parents:

• Were unaware of the existence of the equality duty;
• Felt there was a lack of information about what the Work Programme would involve, and felt anxious about it;
• Were confused about what childcare would be provided, and whether this would be paid for; some even expected they would need to bring their children to attend long inductions;
• Were requested to attend appointments at school drop off times or they would lose their benefits;
• Could only access very few training opportunities through this programme (a particular concern for single parents who have been out of the labour market for many years);
• Could not access many part-time placements to fit with their childcare obligations, and were, at the same time, expected to apply for a high volume of unsuitable vacancies.

Using evidence to influence change

We also discovered that Jobcentre Plus had already been criticised in an earlier investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission for not taking enough account of the gender needs of their customers. For example, assuming that equal treatment of men and women satisfied equality of opportunity requirements, rather than recognising that there might be different needs for different customers.

Single parents – of which nine out of ten in Britain are women – are a diverse group, but all are responsible for their children, regardless of whether they are a jobseeker or are employed. However, we found that job-seeking services were not routinely designed to cater for the needs of single parents. We concluded that both Jobcentre Plus and the Work Programme needed to do more to show that they were providing equality of opportunity for single parents, so we made practical recommendations for change.

Empowering single parents

You can find our recommendations and more information about our research in our new report, “Is the Work Programme Working for Single Parents?”. It’s being widely distributed to policy makers, including those that manage Jobcentre Plus, the Department of Work and Pensions, and those who oversee the equality legislation.

We hope that the findings will help to change practice on the ground, so that services can be better designed for single parents and their children. Most single parents want to work, and want to access job seeking services that help them move into sustainable employment. That is why it is so important that these services aren’t “one size fits all”.

We have kept single parents we work with informed about how we are pushing for policy improvements, and shared our findings with them. One of the heartening consequences of the work has been that single parents have felt valued. As one parent put it: “You are actually taking the time to listen to us”. “Thank you for giving us a voice”, said another one.

The Single Parent Action Network (SPAN) is an Oxfam partner, and works with single parents living in poverty to improve their lives. SPAN reaches over two thousand single parents in England, offering training (including courses for parents wanting to return to work), and a learning centre. SPAN also runs an online community for single parents, One Space – a lifeline to many who unexpectedly find themselves to be single parents. The community offers several services, with support from experience parenting specialists, and gets around 20,000 unique visitors each month.

If you want to know more, or if you would like a hard copy of the report, Laura by email on l.dewar@spanuk.org.uk

It must surely be about more than the welfare cutting, money saving agenda, now so closely tied to the UK Government’s programme of deficit reduction. It must be because the powers-that-be simply do not understand the impact of their choices – or, at least, that’s the benign explanation. Otherwise, if they do understand, they apparently don’t care.

Either way, they need to read the report from our partner, the Clydebank Independent Resource Centre (CIRC), which sets out the damage being done by the health assessments being carried out by ATOS, the French company that is earning millions through its contract with the Department for Work and Pensions. It is in charge of conducting assessments of people that claim Incapacity Benefit – now Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) – with a view to moving many of them off ESA and onto Job Seeker’s Allowance, with its lower rate and higher conditionality.
CIRC know what they are talking about when it comes to the Employment and Support Allowance assessments: in the last year they have handled almost 500 enquiries relating to ESA, completed 160 ESA application forms on behalf of their clients, and represented 75 clients at ESA appeal tribunal hearings.

The partial nature of the assessments is evident in their report. At no stage does the ATOS examiner have access to the claimant’s medical records; the assessment is based solely on a single face-to-face interview, and the contents of an application form completed by the applicant.

I’m no medical guru, but even I know that medical conditions fluctuate, and that doctors are the best people to understand how poorly people are. Surely taking into account the knowledge of a GP is the ultimate ‘evidence-based policy’?

But, late last year, CIRC showed me a letter from a client’s GP. It had been submitted as ‘further evidence’ during an assessment process. The GP wrote:

The above named lady underwent [serious surgery at the end of 2010]. Unfortunately, since then she has had significant ongoing discomfort and is unable to mobilise out without a moonboot and two crutches. She has also had a failed hip replacement. She is in constant pain and requires regular analgesia in the form of [multiple painkillers]. In my opinion, this lady is currently, and for the foreseeable future, incapable of work for clinical reasons.

ATOS ignored this letter and the CIRC client involved was declared “fit for work”. If it wasn’t so heartbreaking, it would be laughable.

And it is not just CIRC clients experiencing these inappropriate judgements. Health blogger Margaret McCartney writes that:

Many clients with serious health conditions have been found fit for work, including those with Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, terminal cancer, bipolar disorder, heart failure, strokes, severe depression, and agoraphobia.

Not surprisingly, many clients appeal the initial ATOS decision (costing the state masses of money). But the appeal process is complex, drawn out and stressful. As a result many appellants simply give up their rights to ESA. Or, as CIRC has found, they die whilst they wait.

Many people have said it, but I can only hope the phrase “the mark of a civilised society is the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens” is wrong. The UK is surely better than these brutal policies that punish the most vulnerable. These people deserve more than a slap in the face by anonymous suits, who either don’t know, or worse, don’t care.

It’s Budget time again and while the Robin Hood Tax’s popularity is growing around the world, here in the UK we still need to keep up the pressure on our Government. That’s why we’re asking all of our Merry Men and Women to contact their MPs to push for a Robin Hood Tax.

Robin Hood’s merry band continues to grow! Their big idea, the Robin Hood Tax could generate billions of pounds, even in the current economic climate to fight poverty in the UK and globally.

Wales’ First Minister, Carwyn Jones AM, is the latest to announce his support, the first government leader in the UK to come out in support of the tax. Meanwhile, President Sarkozy has just announced a  French financial transaction tax, and this has now been adopted by the French National Assembly.

It has also wider EU support. Algirdas Šemeta, European Commissioner responsible for taxation, recently said “we can lead by example with the Financial Transaction Tax”, noting that 65% of the population in the EU is in favour of an FTT.  She has also just visited the House of Lords telling them that the impact of a Robin Hood tax would be ‘negligible’. All this adds to the massive momentum generated in 2011 when 1,000 economists urged G20 countries to accept a similar ‘Tobin tax’ and numerous big names like Bill Gates showed their support. To date 14,574 people in the UK have contacted their MP to press for action.

It a cause worthy of all this support. A Financial Transactions Tax (FTT) or a ‘Robin Hood Tax‘ is a tiny tax of (on average) 0.05%. applied to all financial transactions which could raise up to $400bn globally to fight poverty and climate change and £20 billion annually in the UK alone. The impact would be incredible: applying the tax for just one minute could raise enough to vaccinate 1.5 million African children against meningitis.

Despite all this expert opinion and public pressure the UK Coalition Government has so far opposed this tax. Liberal Democrats have been favourable in the past and Labour support it if applied globally. This position ‘yes- if global’ now seems to be a consensus between the three main parties. Global it might become as countries such as Argentina and South Africa have expressed their support and recently nine EU countries have asked the Danish presidency to put the financial transaction tax on the 27-country bloc’s agenda without delay.

The Budget is due on the 2Ist March and the Treasury is aware that there is a lot of public support for a Robin Hood Tax. Three years after the economic crash, ordinary people around the world are still paying the price of a crisis they did nothing to cause. The issues of tax and bank bonuses are still major concerns.

Despite the official party position, there a number of MPs who are supportive of the tax. It can be achieved if we keep up the pressure as the Chancellor prepares for his next budget statement. We need him to know how much support there is for a Robin Hood Tax.

The run up to the Budget is a vital moment when campaigners can take action to contact their MP, whether they have contacted them before or not. The online message that you send has been customised to allow for this. A letter now will be an important signal to them that people are still concerned about the Robin Hood Tax.

Ask your MP to support a Robin Hood Tax today – they could still join the merry band.

Tags: FTT, Oxfam Campaigns, Oxfam Midlands, Oxfam Wales, RHT, Robin Hood Tax, UK campaigns