Tonight, across the UK, people are sleeping out as a protest against the Bedroom Tax, cuts to Social Security benefits and the other cruelties of the Government's austerity programme. I joined the group outside the Civic Centre in Stoke for an hour or so, but after that, I made my excuses and left. I mean, it's fair enough for these keen student activist types to kip outdoors all night, but you can't really expect a middle-aged woman to 'sleep rough' under a bit of cardboard, can you?
Except that for many middle-aged women, that's exactly the future awaiting them, thanks to the Bedroom Tax. It struck me, as I was driving in to the protest site, that possibly the most likely victims are women, single, divorced or widowed, living in their home of perhaps thirty or more years, where they raised the children who have now left home, leaving Mum with an eerily quiet house and some happy memories...
And a couple of empty bedrooms.
Which is fine, if Mum's got a half-decent job and can afford to pay her rent. But if she's been made redundant, it can be tough finding a new job when you're into your fifties and Jobseekers Allowance for a single person is only £71.70 a week. If she's not in the best of health, she might be on Employment and Support Allowance, which is £30 or so more, unless she's having to appeal a decision refusing it, in which case she's still on £71.70. Or she might be a carer, getting Carer's Allowance and Income Support of about £105 per week.
It's would be a struggle to manage, even before she had to pay 25% of her rent. Right now, a canny budgeter might do it, for the odd week at the height of summer with fuel bills at their lowest. But as the evenings draw in and temperatures fall, those bills will climb to eat up perhaps half of her weekly income.
So, does she eat or pay the rent?
Well, she moves house, obviously! The place she's in is far too big and ought to be freed up for a family, didn't it? Isn't that the whole point of ending the 'Spare Room Subsidy' that used to exist for Social Housing tenants?
But where does she go? Social landlords don't have the smaller properties to offer; the most recent figures suggest less than one tenant in ten affected by the Bedroom Tax can be moved by their existing housing provider. She could look for an exchange, but few families of working age would want to risk moving to somewhere 'too big' in case a change of fortune left them scrabbling about to pay the Bedroom Tax too. The Government imagine single people and childless couples moving back to the private sector, but if you can't find the funds to pay twenty quid or so a week in rent, how are you supposed to save a deposit and rent in advance for a private tenancy, and find the cost of removals? And who wants to be forced into the insecurity of private sector shorthold lettings, especially fairly close to their retirement.
It's not something I can see the MPs who voted for this measure wishing on their own mothers.
Moving may not be an option, especially if Mum's a carer. How far from Grandpa could she move, if she's the keyholder and emergency contact, the one who gets the old chap up, washed and dressed in the morning, sees to his breakfast, pops back to do his lunch and housework and calls again in the evening to get him ready for bed. Or maybe she looks after grandchildren while one of her children works, and needs to be close enough to their school to drop them and pick them up in term time. If Mum has to move, can her daughter still hold down her job?
Not many people will be able to sustain weekly payments of £25 from an income of £71.70, so the rent arrears will build up. Even social landlords chase arrears; locally, we've seen Notice of Seeking Possession served for as little as £40 and cases put into Court for under £100. Facing a suspended possession order, Mum might manage to borrow some money from friends or family, or she might borrow less wisely, but the weekly budget still doesn't balance and missed payments mean eviction.
A fifty-something single woman without serious health problems or a significant disability isn't 'priority need' for rehousing, so the Council has no duty to find her a home if she loses this one. She might find a one-bedroom private property, but it'll have to be no more expensive than one in the bottom third of the local market if she's to receive full Housing Benefit, and she'll still need to find a deposit, rent in advance, the cost of moving...
Remind me - what was I saying about how you can't expect a middle-aged woman to sleep rough under a bit of cardboard..?
A brief postscript to yesterday's observations on the moral panic over a police force providing foodbank vouchers to people caught shop-lifting due to hunger. That story made the main evening news programmes; this one, as far as I've seen so far, hasn't done.
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Mums-selling-sex-feed-children-benefit-cuts-hit/story-19650230-detail/story.html#ixzz2bqKqYByr
In summary, it's a damning account from a voluntary organisation in Hull, concerned for the welfare of street sex workers, that women are turning to prostitution to feed themselves and their children specifically due to benefit sanctions and cuts to their income arising from 'welfare reform'.
There should be anger and outrage at this. It should be headline news and a resigning matter for those ministers responsible for the regime that leaves anyone so desperate.
Instead, the silence is deafening.
On my way to work one day last week, I heard on our local radio station that a foodbank in Sussex had reported seeing children suffering from scurvy. The discussion moved on from mild surprise to some practical tips from a nutritionist for foodbank donors regarding their contributions, in order to ensure users received their optimum vitamin C intake.
I'm not sure what I found most disturbing: the fact that in a relatively properous part of a First World country in the 21st century children were being diagnosed with a disease from the days of press gangs and broadsides, or the matter-of-fact way in which this was discussed. The problem, it seemed, was that kind-hearted but misguided donors weren't making healthy enough contributions. If only they would give more tinned fruit in juice rather than syrup, all would be well! The atrocious scandal that today families are relying on Foodbanks, even as our Social Security system is dismembered - supposedly with 'tax-payers' and 'hard-working families' cheering the process on - was not up for debate.
Another day, another Foodbank story - this time, a local newspaper splashing a headline that the police 'Give Criminals Free Food' all over its front page and billboards, with the result that the scheme under scrutiny is suspended by the local Police Commissioner, the story makes the 'nationals' and TV and the trolls come out to play. The background to this story - that since March, seven vouchers for the local foodbank, each worth three days' food, had been given out by the police, apparently to people caught shop-lifting due to hunger. That's barely one a month, so hardly an incentive to adopt a life of crime, but it's a sad sign of the times that anyone should be forced to steal simply to feed themselves, and a pretty clear indication that these people aren't hardened criminals if the police are moved to find them a square meal rather than the inside of a prison cell.
The worry has to be that the negative headlines will put people off donating - one commenter on the paper's website claimed that s/he had been about to set up a monthly donation to the foodbank, but changed their mind on reading the story. I suspect that comment was simply hot air from a regular grumbler, but it will give some people pause for thought when they see a collection being made and someone with no food will spend another day hungry as a consequence, or may feel driven to theft or other crime.
Bad journalism suggesting that a compassionate scheme encouraged shop-lifting won't stop desperate, hungry people from stealing food for themselves and their families; the threat of hanging or transportation didn't do that, and sadly it's unlikely that even the most well-provisioned foodbank will achieve that either, when benefit cuts are leaving single people and families without the bare minimum they need to live on. And demand has soared during the summer holidays according to this disturbing article from the Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/summer-of-hunger-huge-rise-in-food-bank-use-as-demand-linked-to-welfare-reform-8755101.html?origin=internalSearch
The comment late in the item from the DWP stating that they do not believe the rising demand for foodbank provisions is linked to the 'welfare reform' process is demonstrably untrue, if only because a specific piece of that reform - the dismantling of the discretionary element of the Social Fund and the devolving of its remit to help people in crisis situations to Local Authorities - has led very directly and deliberately to a rise in referrals to foodbanks.
Much as I admire the dedication and compassion of foodbank volunteers and the humanity of people who donate, the sad fact is that foodbanks are masking the true impact of benefit cuts and allowing charity to be substituted for proper state support. But if the alternative is hungry kids during the school holidays and people stealing food through hunger, I'd better look out for the special offers on tinned fruit in juice, and lob a few cans into the collection trolley.
