By Guest
Ruth Lister is Professor of Social Policy at Loughborough University
I’m always rather reluctant to name a ‘single’ policy change that is the key to reducing poverty. But, I will champion the somewhat politically unfashionable cause of improving benefit rates for working age people, which are currently well below the official poverty line. Under New Labour there have been real improvements in a number of benefit rates, particularly those for children. But the adult rate of the safety-net benefit provided by income support and income-based jobseeker’s allowance has been neglected. The current weekly rates are £64.30 for a single person aged 25 or over (18 or over if a lone parent) and £50.95 for younger adults. The couple rates range between £100.95 and £50.95 depending on age.
During a period of rising real incomes, when benefit rates are up-rated in line with inflation alone, it means that the living standards of their recipients fall further and further behind those of the rest of the community. This is what has happened to adults of working age. According to a Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) report by Peter Kenway, the single adult rate of benefit is now worth only half what it was 30 years ago relative to the average level of consumption. Another JRF report by Holly Sutherland and colleagues underlines the impact up-rating policy has on poverty levels.
It is therefore not surprising that poverty has increased among childless adults of working age. But it’s worth noting too that the failure to improve benefit rates for adults also undermines the government’s child poverty strategy and puts mothers-to-be (especially young women) at particular risk.
What is now needed is a review of the adequacy of the benefits paid to people of working age. According to Kenway, the single person’s rate is only 57% of the official poverty line. It is a mere 42% of the current minimum income standard estimated by colleagues at the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University. This standard is based on what ‘ordinary’ people believe is needed for a basic but acceptable standard of living sufficient to ensure human dignity. An income sufficient for human dignity is required by a human rights approach to poverty. Support also comes from the recently published Marmot Review of Health Inequalities. This calls for an adequate ‘minimum income for healthy living’, such as to enable people ‘to lead a physically and mentally healthy life’. Better benefits could also help to revive the economy as they are likely to be spent quickly – and in local communities.
It’s easy to predict what one of the objections to this policy change would be and it reflects the public myth about poverty that I believe must be challenged: that over-generous benefits encourage a culture of ‘welfare dependency’. Research does not support this myth. For instance, a number of studies suggest that if benefits are too low they can hinder active job-seeking because of their negative impact on morale. Another study of young people in a deprived area found they had very conventional attitudes towards seeking work even though it was primarily casual, low paid jobs that were available. And cross-national analysis, published as part of the British Social Attitudes Survey, found that employment commitment is stronger in welfare states that pay more – not less – generous unemployment benefits.
Underpinning this myth is also an assumption that receipt of benefit means passivity and inactivity – reflected in politicians’ talk of people ‘languishing on benefit’. Again this needs to be challenged. Living on benefit can be hard work – simply maintaining the struggle to get by. And many are making valiant efforts to overcome numerous barriers to get off benefit as well as contributing in various ways to their local community.
Of course, adequate benefits for working age people not in paid work have to be matched with decent wages and financial support for those in work. And I’m sure other contributors will be making the case for this. But let us not continue to accept a policy, which deliberately keeps working age people not in paid work well below the poverty line.
This post is part of Community Links and Church Action on Poverty‘s project looking at working age poverty, contributing to the European Year Against Poverty
wow at last some one with abit of sense here yes im unemployed after having to look after a sick partner long term now im trying to get back into work because the pittance you get is terrible and before you pc mob get shirty you try living on 64 quid a week and no im not selling my self for a few quid more to make some rich twat richer why the hell should i raise the benefits and while your at it time the big issue sellars were off the street i know one who goes holidays abroad every year